September 21, 2014, 08:31:48 AM

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 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 40
Lenses / Re: I can't stop thinking about A MONSTER!
« on: February 07, 2013, 07:14:04 AM »
Im of the opinion of if you want something get it.

But these lenses are very specific, and cost a lot. My questions would be how often do you plan on using it? At nearly 4kg it doesn't sound a lot but after 20 minutes of holding this lens your arms will be burning regardless of who you are. After a day shooting or even just having it strapped to your back you will be very fatigued. They are not portable at all and a tripod is pretty much a necessity not only for your arms but also to keep the lens steady. These are another 4-5kg for a really steady one that will take the weight.

Your situation of having no car makes it even harder if you are carrying it around all the time the likelihood of it being banged or accidents happening is much higher, especially on a bicycle!

Also if a 70-200mm attracts attention then you will be the centre of attention with this thing.

I think for overall usability the 100-400 is a better option, it wont create the same IQ but is a 1/6th the price and you can actually take it places...

Just my 2 pence.

Lenses / Re: Please explain the need for f2.8 zooms
« on: January 31, 2013, 06:14:06 AM »
I think this is where the amateur and pro argument reaches its peak.

If you are a pro, shooting and making money then gear is a tool, any advantage is a plus. The gear pays for itself whereas an amateur may struggle to justify the purchase. Which is fair. But these zooms are there to guarantee results. Similar to ISO 'better being noisy than missing or getting blurry shots' your better having a smaller DOF than missing the shot entirely.

F2.8 lenses are there for those occasions where you cant use flash, or your in a large room where flash just isnt enough. F2.8 has saved me many a time, also if you are shooting slightly wider you can still get sharp results at F2.8 across a frame, at closer distances the DOF seclusion is more apparent, granted softer but it can be used in those 5% scenarios. Also helps the cameras AF.

If you choose F4 then your advantage is F4 thats it. I know for a fact that when shooting say the first dance at a wedding, using F4-5.6 with flash is still hard even at ISO3200.

But on the other hand, using a 24-105mm with a prime can work really well, it depends on the situation and the light. F4 on the 24-105 gives nice results on a FF camera. The zoom just gives you more scope, instead of worrying about changing lenses. As a wedding photographer using two cameras is a good idea, one with a wider lens (zoom or prime) one with a tele.

TBH a 50mm will have you covered for most of the day at a wedding, so is it necessary? No, but it is nice to know you can IF you need too. Using a zoom can make you lazy with a prime you just have to move around more to find the shot. But you could argue you are more likely to loose the shot.

There are many arguments, it depends on how you like to work and your budget.

I found where it counts the 18mp on my 7D (same sensor) at ISO100-400 was really quite noisy, because of its high pixel density. Push the images a bit and it looks a lot noisier, I just wasn't satisfied even in the prints it was blatant. The 5DMKIII is a lot cleaner but you expect that also much better higher up. In perfect light it was great but how often do you get perfect light? 10-20% of the time. Just wasn't good enough for my commercial use.

Depends what you want, money clearly isnt an issue, with being able to buy these exotic cameras and this trip, so why not have the best?

The 5DMKIII has a better burst rate too which is helpful, apart from the 1DX it is the best camera canon makes.

You also have to remember the 650D is a crop camera so with all the EF lenses you have to multiply the focal length by 1.6. So getting wide angle is difficult. 24-70 is more like 38.4mm not exactly wide. With crop you would have to buy a 15-85, 17-55 or 10-22mm to get that wide. Non of these lenses offer weather sealing but offer high end IQ. Having owned the 10-22 and still own the 17-55mm they are fantastic lenses.

But it works to your advantage with longer lenses, the 70-200mm you have is essentially 112-320mm. So you can get closer without spending a fortune on long glass.

Now I have a 5DMKIII would I go back to crop? No chance, there is something in the FF format that is more inherently film like, you also get thinner DOF like you would be used to with film. Especially that 18mp sensor, it was noisier than older canon cameras like the 40D where it counts, but obvs better higher up.

Depends what you want you could have gone between with the 7D, im not really sure why you bought the 650D and the 5DMKIII to compare, the 650D is really quite basic and the 5DMKIII much more complex.

The only reason I would keep the 650D is for weight saving, the 5D is a hefty camera in comparison. But its weather sealing is not advisable if you are in dusty situations. I took my 40D to north africa in 2006 and had it in a 4x4 and got it extremely dusty in the outback then it rained and it got wet before I had chance to clean the dust off and even with its weather sealing, dirt got into the shutter button and it stopped working. That was the end of it for that trip. Only way I got it working was when i got home was pouring alcohol down the battery compartment which was a last ditched attempt to fix it. Worked but taught me a lesson.

Lenses / Re: Have 5D3, will shoot... but which lens?
« on: January 29, 2013, 02:09:05 PM »
I was worried about going from the 17-55mm F2.8 to a 24-105mm F4 because as a kit lens I didn't believe it would be a good as it is and also wanted a faster aperture, but couldn't afford the 24-70 MKII.

Have to say it is not soft it's brilliant, F2.8 on a crop is similar to F4 on full frame so I have found it brilliant! Plus 1 for the 24-105mm. Get it with the kit use it for a while and if its not for you sell it later down the line it won't loose much and its cheaper with the kit. I also wanted my standard zoom to have IS but like the range so I was sceptical but now sold!

Doubt you'll be disappointed!

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D - How bad is it? Really?
« on: January 23, 2013, 11:20:34 AM »
Great pics. Shows how much of a fantastic camera it is in the right hands.

Thats correct as the 7D is in a price gap that is very affordable compared to the FF equivalent but is aimed toward more advanced/pro shooters and the attitude amateurs have toward glass. Therefore many marry the camera with poor glass. Just because it is EF-s putting the cheap inexpensive glass on it will be detrimental. But many think cameras are more important, especially some that aren't photo buffs but like having the best.

This was always my qualm with Canon and its 18mp sensor as all the recent XXXDs and 60D have it too. Unless quality glass is used to resolve that pixel density then yes the camera wont perform well in terms of IQ. Give it high end lenses and the camera sings, but then it does have its drawbacks. There is always a compromise, add more IQ and it creates a slower camera at a higher price point. The 7D hits the spot pretty well, as long as you are willing to hunt for the light and spend some time editing the RAW files in post.

I enjoyed the 7D but it wasn't quite what I wanted and needed for my work, although I wish I had kept it and used it with my 5DMKIII.

On my 5DMKIII I have my range set to 100-6400. 12800 is useable but im not overly keen on it.

6400 is more comfortable and cleans up nicely

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D - How bad is it? Really?
« on: January 23, 2013, 07:15:30 AM »
but I also realize that the standards on this forum is VERY high.

Wrong. Most of the people on this forum are pixel peepers who don't enjoy photography. The 7D will be a huge upgrade over that 30D in exactly the areas you need it to be. Buy one and enjoy for years to come...

Overall, the 7D was my first DSLR ever, that never left me wanting for more. In my opinion, it was and still is the only recommendable APS-C DSLR from Canon. I may eventually move to FF, but only once a really good successor to the 5D 3 [in terms of sensor performance, specifically DR] will ever be released.

Having owned both in a recent time frame, the 5D MKIII is head and shoulders above the 7D in all those areas and you would see it a very good upgrade. Was for me, find I get much more keepers and DR is much better. There is something about the images they just look better. Something about FF.

Worth having a good go anyway, but yes the 7D is a great camera the 5DMKIII is just much better.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D - How bad is it? Really?
« on: January 23, 2013, 06:56:12 AM »
I went to the Porsche museum in October and took the 7D with me as one of the first big shoots I did with it. All of these were shot at 1000ISO bar a few. Here are a couple of faves quality is great A1 prints would be no problem

IMG_8268 by tom_scott88, on Flickr

IMG_8275 by tom_scott88, on Flickr

IMG_8281 by tom_scott88, on Flickr

IMG_8290 by tom_scott88, on Flickr

IMG_8341 by tom_scott88, on Flickr

IMG_8418 by tom_scott88, on Flickr

IMG_8427 by tom_scott88, on Flickr

IMG_8541 by tom_scott88, on Flickr

Have a look at the set

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D - How bad is it? Really?
« on: January 23, 2013, 06:48:34 AM »
Similar to you went from a 40D ->7D to fill as I couldn't quite afford a 5D MKIII at the time.

Now I found the high ISO incredible compared to the 40D, not amazing but useful and most important useable. Up to 3200 is was ok whereas on the 40D banding and noise were awful. With a little noise reduction the images cleaned up really nicely.

What I found really frustrating was the quality where it counts. 100-400 was noisy and noticeably so, unless the conditions are spot on. 100-400 is where I most used my 40D as thats where it performed best but the 7D didn't.

You also need really good glass to resolve that sensor so you either need L glass or high end EF-s like the 17-55mm or 15-85mm.

But the 7D is an incredible camera overall, handling, performance, features and especially the AF I was blown away with it in comparison to the old 9 point system. The high res screen is so much better too, cant describe the difference it just makes your images look like they should whereas with the old ones you weren't that sure whether the image was completely sharp. FPS great, video good. Overall a brilliant camera and a real worthy upgrade. But it is showing its age.

The thing is were not sure if there will be a MKII when it will be in consumer hands and if current price trends go it will be a good 1/3 more expensive. At the moment you can buy a 7D from Digital Rev for a little over £750 which is a bargain really.

So for you I think it will be a great upgrade. Such a huge gap in the tech for you that it will be a huge noticeable upgrade. I was just after something of better quality as I do use it commercially, and wanted something that would last me a few years. Bought a 5DMKIII and haven't looked back the difference is amazing 6400 is like 1600 on a 7D. But I do miss the reach the 7D gives you, with a 70-200mm F2.8 and a 2x extender and the crop factor your at 640mm, to get the same with a 5DMKIII you need to spend a lot more or carry more lenses.

Kept the 40D which I still love and will keep forever although its a bit battered.

Lenses / Re: Going to get the 24-70 2.8 II. Want a 70-200 as well
« on: January 22, 2013, 07:43:52 AM »
Thanks  :)

Lenses / Re: Going to get the 24-70 2.8 II. Want a 70-200 as well
« on: January 22, 2013, 06:32:10 AM »
Also another couple of examples 70mm at F5.6 ISO100 shooting a BMW Z4M

BMW Z4M Coupe with CSL wheels by tom_scott88, on Flickr

with some extension tubes 1/50s F2.8 ISO500 on a tripod.

IMG_9407 by tom_scott88, on Flickr

BTCC Panning F5.6 1/200s ISO100

320si BTCC by tom_scott88, on Flickr

Antony Gormley another place, 145mm F4 1/400 ISO 400

Another Place, Antony Gormley, Crosby Beach, Liverpool by tom_scott88, on Flickr

Antony Gormley another place, 200mm F2.8 1/500 ISO 400

Another Place, Antony Gormley, Crosby Beach, Liverpool by tom_scott88, on Flickr

Lowther Castle, F4.5 1/250 ISO 320 130mm

Lowther Castle by tom_scott88, on Flickr

Penrith, F8 1/1000s 140mm with a 2x extender(280mm) ISO400

Penrith, Cumbria, South toward Ullswater by tom_scott88, on Flickr

Scarecrow, F11 200mm with 2x extender (400mm) ISO 200 1/320s

Scarecrow by tom_scott88, on Flickr

I do love this lens.

Lenses / Re: Going to get the 24-70 2.8 II. Want a 70-200 as well
« on: January 22, 2013, 05:31:01 AM »
I have the 70-200mm L 2.8 non IS and it is wonderful but you do need to be careful. I have a pretty steady hand and have learned to get used to it and alter the shutter speed to compensate. I also use it with a 2x converter and get great results to reduce weight in the bag.

IMG_0474 by tom_scott88, on Flickr

Thats a shot I took for my local newspaper covering a new development with an old 40D and the 70-200 with a 2x MKII extender F8 1/640 ISO 200 at 400mm (or 640mm as it would be on a crop camera with the 2x)

But the IS is brilliant and if I could afford it would I get it!? Without doubt.

But in terms of sharpness of the 2.8 it goes in this order.

70-200mm L F2.8 IS II
70-200mm L F2.8
70-200mm L F2.8 IS I

The non IS is a tad sharper than the VI IS. But I dont think you would notice. The 70-200mm L is about to be discontinued form the range and is a great price point as the IS II is nearly twice the price.   

Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 40