April 23, 2014, 12:46:40 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 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 29
I think it makes more sense the other way round.

This is what I thought too. I really like distant.star' suggestion of taking a prime 35mm 2.0 or 50mm 1.4 and see if I like it that way.

One thing that gn100 said and makes a lot of sense too is that the new 5D3 would be my "go-to" camera and since I take more photos with the 17-55 than the 70-200mm, it would be sad to keep shooting 80% of my pics with my "old" 7d+17-55 and only 20% with the 5d3+70-200 combo

Well ye exactly and your crop would be a back up.

I shoot a lot of advertising photography, Motorsport, automotive, landscape, street and flora and fauna. The 5D MKIII is my perfect camera but the price puts me off, also the main reason for me to have a fast camera is to stick a telephoto on it, not really going to get close to anything that moves quick with a standard lens (birds etc). So in that respect getting more reach out of lenses is great with a crop with fast FPS is perfect. The 5D MKIII you have to spend much more to get the same focal length...

Using two cameras means you don't have to switch lenses as much and you get the best of both worlds. Which is why I think for the moment the 5D MKII and an Crop like a 7D is a great combo. Two MKIIIs would be great but at huge cost, and also again buying more reach... more money

I think it makes more sense the other way round.

Crop for extra reach, full frame for the added quality.

I have a 40D and desperate to upgrade it, I also have the 17-55mm but my 70-200mm 2.8 gets more reach so it makes sense to sell the 17-55mm and get the 24-105 kit lens on the 5D with the extra 3 stops over my 40D you can use the 24-105mm in the same way as a 24-70mm on the 5D (obviously you won't get the same DOF) but its a much better length. 70-200 works out at 112-320mm on a crop camera so your only loosing 7mm instead of 42mm on the 24-70.

Means you cover 24-320mm then chuck a 1.4 or 2x extender and your covering up to 640mm

I don't know about you but I much prefer to use two camera bodies a crop with the 70-200mm with an extender if needed and a grip and a full frame camera with a standard lens. Perfect wedding kit, also events! I shot last years British Touring Car Championship with this set up and it worked fantastic. A 5D taking pics in the pits and of cars being sorted pre race with drivers and spectators etc then crop with the 70-200 for the action.

With this respect you may not need to go the full hog and get a 5D MKIII and get a MKII instead. It would save around £1500. This also means you are ready to upgrade the camera when the 5D MKIII comes down in price and the 5D MKII price will stay strong in the second hand market place like the original 5D.

I know the 9 point system is not perfect but using a standard lens doesn't need a huge amount of AF points usually I just use the centre. I wouldn't be chasing subjects with it, more still objects whereas on a crop with a tele I would be shooting moving objects like cars etc and the AF on the 7D is more than adequate with its group AF selection and the IQ is also the best on a crop camera atm.

Just my two pence.  ;D

EOS Bodies / Re: “Revealing” Canon C300 Test Video
« on: November 29, 2011, 05:18:14 PM »
This looks incredible

Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 non is w/ 2x tele?
« on: September 15, 2011, 05:22:36 AM »

IMG_0474 by tom_scott88, on Flickr

I work for a newspaper. I shoot a huge amount of imagery and im also a graphic designer so most is for advertising purposes, so I dont have need for a 100-400. But i do have a 70-200mm F2.8 mark I non IS and a 2x extender mark II.

On this occasion I was went to stalk a construction site. Reason being that we want to get as much revenue as possible from advertising, there is a supermarket war going on in a local town and two are being built at the same time each lying to us (newspaper) about how far they are from finishing construction for the Christmas period. There are also another 8 supermarkets in the town of 20,000 inhabitants so its a lot. So who ever opens first will probably have the edge. We also want to get more advertising out of them to spur the other supermarket to also advertise, win win situ, and yes it did work. The images were actually used as documents for the council too as documentary photography. So well used all round.

Anyway i took my 70-200mm and added the 2x extender I also used a crop body 40D on this occasion so i was getting about 640mm out of the lens. This was because i didnt really want to be too close and didnt really want them to see me or i would have probs been reported. Obviously stepping the lens down increases quality so this one was shot at 640mm at F8 and 1/640th to make sure it was sharp. It is very sharp in my opinion and for a document very useable. Maybe not for wildlife photography, but it is a much easier way for me to work. Its lighter means I only need three lenses with me, 10-22mm 17-55mm and the 70-200 + 2x extender to cover a broad range. Obviously when im shooting the advertising photography i dont use these but as a walk around combination its a good set up for the crop camera.

Canon General / Re: 16GB CF PANIC!
« on: September 07, 2011, 07:33:38 AM »
It is unfortunate, next time just make sure you dont open 1900 images at once! lol


Here is the official SanDisk recovery software I have used it before to good effect. Although its not that powerful you might want to look at something a liitle more powerful like R-studio


you might not get all the images back and some may be corrupt, also all your filenames will be wrong which is a pain in the bum, but at least youl get most of the images back.

The way i go about my image back up is:
I have a few drives in my mac pro so makes things easy.
• Import them all into iPhoto basically to browse and have a copy. Always have the raw images even the bad ones (redundant storage) iPhoto is a great image library, just not a great editor.
• Import another set into Lightroom (runs from a separate drive) now two copies
• Back up lightroom library to an external three copies

Four if you keep the images on your cards.

Hope this helps

Tom Scott

Software & Accessories / Re: Tablet Computers - yes or no??
« on: September 06, 2011, 05:14:50 PM »
Adobe already has aps on the ap store. It is a closed system but only in the respect that apple has to approve the application. Many major companies have aps on the ap store not just minor developers. Otherwise whats the point?

Tom scott

Software & Accessories / Re: Tablet Computers - yes or no??
« on: September 01, 2011, 02:46:09 PM »
Well working on the go for me would be... if im at a shoot away, say abroad or a different county. Meaning im staying in a hotel or im on a flight, the laptop is a nice thing to use to flag, tag and star rate the images maybe start editing etc.

I have to agree with everything you said sb. In my opinion its best attribute.

Tom scott

Software & Accessories / Re: Tablet Computers - yes or no??
« on: September 01, 2011, 10:33:18 AM »
Very good article! Sums up most of my faults with the iPad, but why go to these massive lengths if you already have a fully fledged laptop? the weight maybe but then its more to take with you and mess around pluging in, especialy if you have all your camera kit too. Then there is more software and then you cant make a fully edited version... so when you get back you have to do the editing again beyond me but.. everyone to there own.

Tom Scott

Software & Accessories / Re: Tablet Computers - yes or no??
« on: September 01, 2011, 09:50:00 AM »
Well from a professional point of view on the iPad it is not geared up for the kind of imagery I shoot. If i go to a wedding and shoot between 1000-2000 images there isnt a good program like the pro aps on the mac say. I use lightroom and its great because if you use multiple libraries you can work on the single library like an album and edit them on the fly with a laptop then import the changes back into a studio mac like a mac pro and continue working on them, then if you have someone else working with you you can export the album as a library again and send that to another employee to edit some more and after everything is finished it can be synced to a main library. This is the way i work, plus it is all non destructive.

Now the iPad isnt really geared up for this, hopefully IOS5 will bring something new to the table for developers. The potential is massive but atm it is easier to use a laptop because all the pro aps are readily available. Also atm there isnt much of an option through IOS4 to send your images anywhere, apart from the web or iphoto... and really it would just be easier to import them straight into a desktop or laptop to start with. Because it takes twice the amount of time and im not sure if this is the case with the new iPad but with the USB connector it takes literally forever from your camera! Instead of 5 mins for an 8gb card its more like 20-30 mins, well it is on the mk1 iPad. If im out on a shoot I probs only have 20 mins with a client so taking that long just for them to see isnt feasible.

Im not disagreeing with a previous post, but I find it hard to believe that a simple app would produce better images than a pro app like lightroom. If that is the case I would go back and have a play with lightroom as the file is the same regardless what app you use, it is the editing. Lightroom has endless possibilities I find this hard to believe.

Anyway back on track, so if these aps eventually get ported over to IOS and are compatible with the studio counterparts I think the iPad may have a great place in the photographers kit. Just from other posts i can see people already being fond of using them, But im guessing these image are not for any export usage like newspapers, magazines etc. More of a preview tool, "here are a couple of images I have previously taken, we could do something along these lines.." or "here are a few pics I took of your wedding today" its great for that or even as self promotion using it as a tool to show clients images, and lets be fair they look great and clients like to play with intuitive gadgets.

As it sits the iPad doesn't have room in my kit because its just as easy to use a laptop and the laptop is better value money and has more space, power and all the programs work in the studio and on the go and are all compatible. And the iPad is an expensive indulgence if you got a 64gb you need to drop £600! You could buy the new Canon 100mm F2.8 IS for that! If you are a photographer you eat space! my 5D MkII on raw fill up disks quicker than I can buy them. my 4TB raid and 4TB in the mac pro are nearly full just from this years clients. most of my shoots are between 4-6gb x that by 3-4 a day and you get the scale. 6x4+24gbs so i would have to get the 64gb model simply for space and less recycling of images, where as my little 13" MBP has 2 1TB drives in it (removed the optical drive) so less back and forward which is nice. 

So maybe in two years but for now the old laptop does everything better for work purposes except the main point that it is waaayy less fun! haha No Work No Play ;P

Tom Scott

Software & Accessories / Re: Tablet Computers - yes or no??
« on: September 01, 2011, 06:54:00 AM »
Sorry my general basis was on the iPad. From the link it looks quite nice, very useable and the spec is very compelling too! especially for the price, you cant really complain about this one. Although if your a mac user which I would say 90% of pro photographers are it would be a no-no. Hopefully the iPad will evolve into more of a photographers tool in time, not just a consumer product.

Software & Accessories / Re: Tablet Computers - yes or no??
« on: September 01, 2011, 05:16:37 AM »
Tablets are nice for viewing images... thats about it. They haven't really become a photographers tool yet with very limited access to editing. I would say they are about fast enough but the software doesn't exist yet. I think there are tablet laptops now, (within a bezel, just a keyboard addition) that you can remove from a laptop form and use but not sure..

The only way i see a tablet as a photographers tool atm is as a storage device on the go... but an expensive one at that. Then getting the images off it.. might as well just keep them on the cards and load them on a machine at home...

I was interested for the same reason but they just are not a good overall option for the money. A 64gb ipad2 is as much as a decent laptop. I bought my mum one and yes its amazing but only for certain uses, like browsing, looking at images etc but you need a machine to put your images on it. Until IOS 5, unless you are importing straight from a camera.. but all images need a little editing just to make them sparkle.

The best compromise i found was buying a 13" macbook pro or a macbook air. The air is great because its tiny and very lightweight its also very fast for its specification. But the 13" MBP is cheaper faster and has alot more storage and expandability. So i went with one of those, although it is alot heavier than the air, for me its worthwhile for the benefits. In 2-3 years Tablets will replace laptops but for now no, and 2 years is a long time in terms of computer tech.

Sorry for the only suggestion being mac, but ive been using macs for 7 years professionally and even tho windows 7 is a good OS it just doesn't cut the mustard for me. A mac with OSX is the only way forward for the overall experience I am after.

Its quite an exciting concept, an ipad with a pen... like a wacom tablet on the go! I cant believe Adobe haven't capitalised on this yet, but im sure a full version of photoshop will be a hog on the current ipad and adobe cant get a decent version running perfectly on the current mac system and with their history of being extremely poor at upgrading code on the mac side i would suspect we will be waiting for this for some time.

My 2p ;)

Tom scott

Canon General / Re: Accent color shots
« on: August 31, 2011, 09:37:46 AM »

IMG_5504colour by tom_scott88, on Flickr

Canon General / Re: Accent color shots
« on: August 31, 2011, 06:31:38 AM »
I would say i agree with other comments that the images need a little more B+W contrast. Also there is more to editing than this, simply adding the colour image and painting back the colour isnt enough for me. Its too obvious been done a million times and is far too bold, the lack of contrast in the B+W then the stark contrast of the colour is too intense. 

A little advice, if you are shooting raw, process two versions of your images, one good colour, one good B+W, dont use the basic desaturate tools in PS, use the levels and the burn and dodge tool. Or go further and use layer masks. Depending on your ability, layer masks are alot more fluid painting the effect in with a softer brush at a lower opacity. But also once you have painted the effect in have you tried any blend modes? to try and make the effect a little less intense? overlay, screen etc and you can build up the effect by duplicating the layers. This will give you abit more of a fine art feel to the images and abit more velvety look rather than stark.

Tom Scott

Sports / Re: Cars cars cars (and some bikes)
« on: August 26, 2011, 09:51:08 AM »
tomscott:  that was very thorough and helpful--thanks!

No worries, I will post a few more images when I get round to uploading them.

Sports / Re: Cars cars cars (and some bikes)
« on: August 26, 2011, 04:48:01 AM »
justsomedude I have a question. How much does the 7D AF help you in capturing these shots(supposed you have a decent panning technique)?
I'm asking because with my 400d it is quite hard to get lots of in focus shots.. I usually put focus to manual and wait for the bike to come, else I may lose the shot..

Although the AF helps its more technique and knowing what shutter speed to use in comparison to the speed of the vehicle. Also alot is down to panning technique. My kit is fairly old-school in terms of technology, a 40D and a non IS 70-200mm F2.8 and a 2x extender. In my opinion, yes its nice to have the better kit but nailing the technique is more important, doesn't matter what kit you have your pics will still come out badly if the technique isnt great. The best way is trial and error there is no easy way of calculating because of available light. I generally use the AV mode, use a higher f stop to increase depth of field and decrease the shutter speed, anywhere between F5.6 and F11 works well for me, anything less than F5.6 and you will find that the vehicle will have a small plane of focus, which can be nice for some shots but more depth of field is better for the overall effect. But if the light is pretty consistent check your exposure and get it into manual and set the values to get a perfect exposure then you can worry about the technique.

In terms of your focus point, you can pre focus on a part of the road, then set the camera to burst, follow the vehicle from an apex or where ever you are, and when you get to your pre focused point shoot a few frames, generaly shoot the first one about a metre before the point. It is a tried and tested technique but gets a bit of getting used to. Especially shooting exactly where you pre focused, best thing to do is find a mark on the road like a tyre mark so you know exactly where to shoot the frames. It is paramount to follow the car and pan or you will find the pic is very flat without any movement or with your pre-defined settings the car will be blurred but not in an aesthetic panned way, more just a blurred image. The problem is any camera will struggle to continually focus but AI servo usually does a good job, if that doesn't work for you then try the pre focusing, the vehicles move so fast that manual focus while panning can be very difficult if not impossible.

The 400d isnt really geared up to this type of photography, but instead of fighting against it use its flaws to your advantage, work around them. With the burst mode shoot the 4fps at your pre defined point, the middle image will be pin sharp. Usually 3-5 frames is a good amount to work with, even pros use this technique to ensure they have a perfect image. Another piece of advice is buy a battery grip, it will make the camera a lot more balanced hand held with a big lens. Otherwise buy yourself a monopod, although I find that they are a bit cumbersome... and annoying because it is another factor to mess around with.

The more planted you are the more likely you are to keep a steady pan. Also how is your stance and how you hold the camera? a steady strong stance with a strong grip also helps, you want to use your left arm like a triangle pressed into your chest then by holding the lens barrel and pressing the camera up toward your face you create a steady posture, then use your upper body to pan rather than your hands, almost like using a monopod but more flexible. This dramatically aids your images. Otherwise you will find that your images look sharp on the camera then get them home and at 100% they are slightly out this technique helps to reduce this, although to give yourself a little bit of leeway bring your aperture up one step will still create a pleasing blur and a sharp shot, if not exactly what you want you can also add a little more in PS. Then once your technique starts to improve you can be more experimental with your panning technique and maybe think about upgrading your camera. Its a good tool to learn with because of the flaws then once you get hold of a quicker camera you will find the technique you have learned pay massive dividend. I did exactly the same started with a 350d and a crappy 24-300mm sigma lens and eventually decided it was the right time to get some better kit.

Hope this helps

Tom Scott

Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 29