January 28, 2015, 07:39:38 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - tomscott

Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 44
316
Sports / Re: Cars cars cars (and some bikes)
« on: May 11, 2013, 10:25:15 AM »
Awesome Ferrari Challenge race meeting pics above! Although why you would put a camo wrap on one if beyond me!


VW Beetle by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

317
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe to Stop Making Packaged Software
« on: May 08, 2013, 05:02:55 AM »
I think most people on here are getting carried away and running with the sheep...

I think CC is a great idea the amount of applications from the suite you get the value per app is quite high. Like I said earlier the Full CS6 Suite is £2,500 and you can have that for £600py and 45% less if you are upgrading. Seen as tho the CS suites have had a 18month life span in theory its cheaper... and there are a lot of new aps you may not have heard of which are brilliant. Like Muse and Edge.

The suite has 38 different apps and add ons. for £48 a month to start that is 80p per application. In my business we use all of them.

If you are just a photographer and not in multimedia which I find hard to believe, then a version of photoshop is £17 a month which I also see as good value, compared to spending the full outlay on PS Extended which is £649, then a new version will be out in 18 months with an upgrade path of 50% off so thats £900 for one programme. or £204 a year for PS CC.

TBH I feel most of the people who are complaining are not current subscribers to CS anyway and get it some how under the rug... For a pro it is bread and butter and it pays for itself, its a small price to pay.

For the people who apparently bought every CS suite, what did you do with it after you upgraded? I bet you didn't sell it, I bet its still sitting on a shelf.

Its like getting a car on PP you pay for the usage then dont have to worry about residuals and depreciation because the package is better value for people who USE it.

The IF statement whether you quit and then you have nothing for your money, well as a pro why would you quit? If you are a current customer they are giving good upgrade paths... There is NOTHING on the market even close and it is an industry standard! All agencies, newspapers etc use it. The CS suite has been in development for 20 years. I don't see anything coming to market at the same scale and quality any time soon.

PS is a pro application with pro prices... people seem to forget that, its not the go to app for any old john doe, it never has been its just been made available by piracy.

318
Brilliant, but il stick with BMW ;)

319
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe to Stop Making Packaged Software
« on: May 07, 2013, 06:18:59 AM »
For business this is an attractive package. I work for a small newspaper and we run 20 or so machines with CS5.5, its nice you can get the whole suite and seen as tho every machine is used 5 days a week for 8 hours with these aps in constant use it is worth it.

Also for those thinking adobe will produce poor upgrades check out their youtube channel there are some awesome additions to CC only already like Camera Raw being a photoshop filter!

http://www.youtube.com/user/Photoshop

Terry White's Top 5 Favorite Features for Photographers in Photoshop CC

If anything the photoshop CC seems to be willing customers with the new features as they aren't available anywhere else. Here in the UK it is £48 a month for the whole suite. Seems pretty reasonable, I am a graphic designer/photographer and I use 80% of the applications in the suite daily. At home I use PS ID IL LR and Muse. But I dont see the updates being slow or non existent I think it will speed it up to get more people on board. Once you buy the software they have you where they want you and the need for upgrades is less. Whereas with the CC they are reaching a broader audience.

Also it depends what version you are looking at. The Full CS6 suite in the UK is £2550. Now if you sign up to the CC it will cost £600 a year, each version of CS has had a shelf life of 18-24 months. For that time scale it will be £900 or £1200 thats half the price. Although the problem is that if you decide to quit then you have nothing for your money.

But at the same time I haven't been one to stay on older software, CS4 was slow CS5 was slow (on the mac side) CS5.5 64bit faster. CS4 wont work on Lion either so... IMO having the latest software to keep up with my kit is essential. Camera raw has moved on so far you are loosing out by not having the newest software especially in a competitive market such as print production.

So imo is depends on your situation. Really if you are an amateur a version of PS CS6 and lightroom 4 is a good combo but it will cost you more. But again it will be out of date in no time what so ever as CC takes hold.

But for amateurs I see this sucking pretty bad, there will be another option on its way. Early days yet.

I have full faith they will not isolate amateurs.

321
1D X Sample Images / Re: Weddings
« on: May 02, 2013, 09:51:36 AM »
These are beautiful images. This is what I aspire to as a wedding photographer.

Thanks for sharing, inspirational.

322
EOS-M / Re: Eos M my first impressions!
« on: May 01, 2013, 08:00:33 AM »
Pics look great as always! Nice review. Still not sold on it the Sony Nex are better cameras but canon lenses... hard decision. But hopefully the M range will grow.

I bought a Nex 5N twin lens because I got it cheap and its a great to hand camera, amazing noise much better than my old 7D. Lenses leave a lot to be desired tho.

323
Lenses / Re: Anyone upgraded from their 24-70L to 24-70L MKII?
« on: April 30, 2013, 11:03:27 AM »
Thanks for the insight folks.

I tried 3 copies of mrk I (2 new + 1 used), none of them could gave me the results I'm looking for.

YES...mrk II has better contrast and much sharper at f2.8. This is my most use lens. Follow by 70-200 f2.8 IS II and of course 50L when there almost no light.

Many posters ended up buying this lens after they posted similar questions ;)

Dylan, after getting the 24-70 MKII do you feel you have been using the 16-35 less and less for landscapes and wide shots? Or, the 16-35 still gets used quite often? I am asking because I have the 16-35 II, and wondering if I will end up using the 24-70 MKII more for landscapes than the 16-35 II and may end up giving up the wider focal length for better resolution.

I still using 16-35 for lanscapes. I like the effects of 16mm. Most of my landscape shots I took are @ 16mm. I'm thinking 14mm prime though, since 16-35 is not quite sharp @ f2.8.

I mainly use 24-70 for indoor family & candid photos. This lens is pretty straight forward: sharp & fast AF.

How many Landscapes do you shoot at F2.8....

324
Lenses / Re: How about a new 28-135mm?
« on: April 30, 2013, 06:06:52 AM »
Optically the 24-105mm is better, especially at larger apertures. F4 throughout the Zoom range is much more useful than 3.5-5.6 especially at the long end. It quickly moves from 3.5-5.6 so you loose light and variable aperture lenses are just a pain. 24mm is much more of a big deal than 135mm on the longer end for me. Easier to have a 70-200mm which I always keep with me.

Also the 24-105mm is weather sealed and built like a brick in comparison. I never saw the value in the 28-135mm it was rubbish on crop because its like 38mm on the wide end and on FF the IQ isnt good enough. Value wise.. if your on a budget fair enough but its pointless adding a high quality body to a poor lens, better off buying a crop camera and a better lens.

As for upgrading it I would prefer Canon spent R&D time on an upgrade to the 24-105mm maybe to 24-135mm F4 L  that will sell like hot cakes. If they made a 2.8 version of that...  :o that would be the perfect walk around. But they would never do it.. as it will make 3-4 lenses irrelevant, so il keep dreaming.

In fact im surprised they are still making the 28-135mm.

325
Sports / Re: Cars cars cars (and some bikes)
« on: April 30, 2013, 04:33:06 AM »
Following a suggestion to check out this area of CR.  Very nice shots!

Thought I'd try my hand at photographing cars.  Just wondering what what be a good combination to photograph an outdoor classic car show coming up next weekend.  The widest lens I have for a crop-body is the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 and for FF: 24-105 f4.   There may be some open-house events where cars will be on display inside custom auto shops but this will be my first time attending this event, I'm not really sure.  If the event goes until say 8 pm in the evening, then the 17-55 might be the best way to go.

Suggestions and recommendations welcome   ;D

Well most of mine were taken with an old 40D and a 17-55mm, was so sharp on that body. Some taken with the 7D and 17-55mm and others taken with my 5DMKIII and a 24-105mm.

I think you have the bases covered. I would take a prime for low light large DOF, maybe a macro for details and if you get chance a 70-200mm F2.8 is nice to compress perspective with things around going on, then blur the background out to reduce distraction. But can be a pain if there are a lot of people around. I kept the 17-55mm when I shot crop and 24-105mm on FF. Ive been shooting cars for years commercially and neither have let me down. Now I keep the 24-105mm on my FF body and 70-200mm on the Crop body and carry two so I dont need to change lenses.

One last thing to take is a flash with a diffuser, just to fill. Can be very useful and if done correctly no-one would ever know.

You have to be careful. few tips - 17mm close up will distort the car, Better off using 35mm and above to keep distortion at bay. Although can look good, depends what your after.


BMW Z4M Coupe CSL Wheels by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr


BMW E46 M3, Alston, Hartside, Cumbria, CSL wheels by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

I would suggest get low, down to the cars hight don't shoot down. Otherwise the car wont look natural and its tell tale signs of amateurish photography. I am always lying on the floor or on one knee when I shoot cars.

Use a tele to compress the perspective bring the background closer.


BMW Z4M Coupe rear by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Look for details


Ferrari Wheel by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Other than that enjoy! The meets and shows have an awesome atmosphere and great people. Talk to the owners, they are always willing to talk about the cars and give them a business card you might get some business.

Here are a few almost exclusively shot on the 17-55mm last year

Silverstone classics (40D)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomscottphotography/sets/72157630780702712/

BMW Z4 Uk national meet (40D 17-55mm few with 10-22mm)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomscottphotography/sets/72157630504600366/

Porsche museum Stuttgart (7D 17-55mm few with 10-22mm)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomscottphotography/sets/72157632460914809/

Just a few of my car shots
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomscottphotography/sets/72157629303945158/

Hope this helps.

326
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Lens for upcoming Auto show
« on: April 29, 2013, 12:53:05 PM »
The 17-55mm is perfect for car photography used it for years myself.

327
Lenses / Re: Do you still love 24-105L?
« on: April 25, 2013, 06:49:10 PM »
I really like the 24-105mm it's a great all rounder.

I find the 24-70mm isn't as versatile because of the focal length, but obviously blows it out of the water for IQ. But you need £1000 extra for it!

You can't get a more versatile standard zoom than the 24-105mm for a walk around lens.

328
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Replacement 400d - 650d vs. 6d
« on: April 24, 2013, 04:16:53 PM »
It depends on your needs and wants. It's an expensive want but is it nessasrily a need?

True a 400D is an entry level camera and it is designed to work well in most conditions. Most cameras will struggle in an aquarium environment. Last time I was at an aquarium I was shooting at 6400-12800 F1.4-4 on full frame.  But your depth of field struggles on FF. Thats whats nice about APC you get more DOF, low DOF is great in portraiture but not in all other shooting. You have to step FF cameras down further to get the same DOF. Great yes we can now do that but again 6400 and 12800 on FF have similar complaints as 3200 on the 400D so really you might be frustrated with the DOF with a FF camera and you will be spending double the amount for a fairly niche amount of shooting.

Here is an example at F4 (24-105mm) on FF


IMG_0651 by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

This is F2.8 (70-200mm) on APC shot at 1600 and cropped.


Snake by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

The DOF is not that different. As F2.8 is roughly F4.5 on APC.

I firmly believe FF is not for everyone and APC is great. The cost outlay for the camera and glass to go with FF is expensive and people seem to have this "if I don't have full frame I can't shoot in low light" and FF is a must! But it's not, it's just the next best thing.

The 5DMKIII is my first full frame camera, main reason I bought it was I make a living with it, print big and the agencies and clients want the best IQ. So the cost outlay isn't really an issue as it makes it's money pretty quickly in a few jobs.

Would I go back to APC now I have full frame? No not with current offerings. Why? Im very happy with every quality of the 5D it's fast, light, small, reliable, IQ kicks ass, print big, feels like it would survive an earthquake and it shoots very well under low light. So I answered most of your want with that answer. But upgrading to FF costs a lot add 50% to a 6D for the 5DMKIII and if I wasn't reliant and printing A3 or less APC kicks ass, you get deeper DOF lenses are longer, 70-200 is a 110-320mm add a 2x extender 220-640mm!!! It costs a lot to get 600mm on FF. Current EFS lenses are as good as the FF counterparts 17-55mm and 10-22mm were 2 of my favs. In fact the 10-22mm is hard to replace 17-40 is soft and the 16-35 not much different. The main thing I miss on FF is the reach of my 70-200mm it's doesn't feel as useful.

I loved my 40Ds and I kept one as a back up. Reason I sold the 7D was because I felt it wasn't a big enough upgrade, the difference IQ wise wasnt the leap I needed for my work. The two side by side IQ wise there wasn't a great difference apart from you could shoot to 12800 it's not great but you can if you needed to, but high ISO was much better than my 40D and gave way to a lot of opportunity I couldn't before. But at 100-400 it seemed noisier than it should, but the image output was twice the size so you can print big!

I found 3200 ok 6400 useable after a lot of PP, which meant more time at the computer.

But the camera a huge huge leap, screen res, features, AF incredible! In fact I have no idea how I used 9 points for so long. It's the king of APC and I would have kept it but wanted to put the money back into the 5D and I kept a 40D a very good backup and didn't need 3 cameras.

Heres a couple with the 7D, 1000 is pretty clean. I dont have any high ISO 7D stuff at hand.


IMG_8341 by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr


IMG_8284 by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr


Porsche Museum, Porscheplatz, Stuttgart by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

With the 5D I find 6400 good, 12800 useable after a lot of PP. So it does give you leeway and you get shots you wouldn't believe. 6400 I find about the same as 1600 on the 7D.

I made this as a test at 12800 at 2.8 with the 100mm L macro, they are very clean


BMW F30 3 Series interior by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr


BMW F30 3 Series interior, light console by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr


BMW F30 3 Series interior, centre console climate control by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

You can make incredible shots with any DSLR if you know how to get the best out of it. My fav shot taken with my 40D 17-55mm and a rig.


BMW Z4M Coupe by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

What I would do is learn more about PP and shoot RAW exclusively and wait for the new announcements, if they arent to your liking a 650D, 60D or 7D is where I would be aiming. Awesome cameras, yes older but you should be able to get them for a good price. The 7D will solve your AF problems and the 650D has all cross type. But all can be used at 6400 ISO with good PP.

Hope this helps.

329
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Replacement 400d - 650d vs. 6d
« on: April 24, 2013, 12:39:06 PM »
Sorry I disagree. These were taken at 1600 on my 40D


Ferrari Wheel by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr


Aston Martin Badge by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

If you can edit properly noise can be made minimal even on old cameras.

These were taken on a 50mm 1.8 basic lens.

You shouldn't have problems with the camera not locking n unless it was pitch black and even you cant see.

330
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Replacement 400d - 650d vs. 6d
« on: April 24, 2013, 10:09:54 AM »
It depends, if you want to shoot. In low light you need fast glass and relatively good ISO, 3200 is usable on the 7D, 6400 is pushing it. But depends what you want, if you were printing at A3 fair enough but at A4 the 400D should be good enough to make ok prints at that size at 1600.

I used two 40D for magazine/newspapers for 5 years. Had no issues at all, you just have to know what you are doing post process in regards to noise reduction.

If you buy a F2.8 lens for a crop camera it has a relative F4.5 DOF because of the field of view compared to FF. For me moving from a 7d with 17-55mm F2.8 to a 5DMKIII and a 24-105mm F4 I see barely any difference in the DOF because of the above. But with my 70-200mm F2.8 the DOF at 2.8 is so fine, its a huge difference and you have to be very careful making sure you nail the focus or your pics will be disappointing.

Whereas if you continue using the 28-135mm on a FF camera you will find DOF is thiner and its sooo much wider. Although I wouldn't advice using that lens as the sensor of the 6D need better glass to resolve. Which is where you get problems, you need expensive glass to resolve the better FF sensors, costs start to spiral.

The 7D has better AF than all the cameras you have outlined. The only advantage the 6D has is that it has one cross type -3EV sensitive AF point. But as its the only cross point its difficult to compose with fast glass as you get focus shift if you focus and re-compose.

The 7D can output A3 and bigger prints natively and for amateur use it has more than enough low light performance. The tech has moved a long way from the Digic 3 era the 7D is an impressive camera. The images are nearly twice the size of your 400D so when you scale them down to A4 the prints will look good.

I had one but sold it because not because of its low light performance it was a huge upgrade from my 40Ds but it was the base ISO like 100-400 I found annoying. The expectation from publishers is high so I swapped it for a 5DMKIII as it is like a FF 40D and the AF system is incredible. But the 7D is pretty much a perfect camera. It may not have the best low light capabilities on the market but it is a great package. But quite a big camera.

Going FF is not necessary for everyone, it is expensive and can be a hard learning curve for many.

But the 650D has a lower score sensor wise than the 600D but they are pretty much identical in IQ/noise performance.

I would wait and see what the 70D offers.

Half of your problem is that you shoot JPEG. Shoot RAW on your 400D it will completely revitalise the camera. JPGs if not shot perfectly are very difficult to edit in comparison to RAW. Especially in Noise reduction, the JPGs are compressed and they dont hold as much info. Editing is much easier with a Raw workflow.

TBH im not sure the camera is really the area that needs improving. Do some reading on PP and Raw and this will improve your images. Throwing money at kit isnt always the answer.

Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 44