July 29, 2014, 12:09:39 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 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 36
Lenses / Re: Help with efs 17-85
« on: August 30, 2012, 10:15:08 AM »
The 17-85 is not a good lens at all. Get rid of it!!!!

Had exactly the same error on mine no chance its worth fixing. Upgraded to the 17-55mm and it is night and day the 17-55mm is so much sharper, less distortion and vignetting. You also get a constant 2.8 aperture throughout the zoom range which is very useful.

The 15-85mm is much better than the 17-85mm so I would go for that if you cant stretch to the 17-55mm. Gives you more range but is a slower lens but the IQ and distortion are much better.

I would not recommend going for an L lens like the 24-105 or the 24-70, not because of the quality, you cant beat it. But at 24mm on a crop body it must be multiplied by 1.6, so the widest you can shoot on those lenses is 38.4mm. The other option is to buy a 17-40mm but that is still 27.5mm so the only way to get wide on a crop is to stick with the 15-85, 17-55mm. Or buy using two lenses the 10-22 and the 17-40 combo.

Hope this helps

Lenses / Re: All street photographers share your gear here!
« on: August 30, 2012, 06:15:25 AM »
Nifty 50 1.8 and the smallest body possible. Unfortunately thats my 40D.

Street photography is the candid documentation of people.. what you see, not set up in anyway as soon as you ask someone permission it is no longer street photography it is portraiture.

My hero is Gary Winograd

"You have a lifetime to learn technique. But I can teach you what is more important than technique, how to see; learn that and all you have to do afterwards is press the shutter" - Garry Winogrand

Heres a few of mine.

Women, St. Pauls, Millennium bridge, London by tom_scott88, on Flickr

IMG_1930.jpg by tom_scott88, on Flickr

Apple Store, Covent Garden by tom_scott88, on Flickr

Couple, Covent Garden by tom_scott88, on Flickr

Man, Tate Modern, London by tom_scott88, on Flickr

IMG_1865.jpg by tom_scott88, on Flickr

London Underground by tom_scott88, on Flickr

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: DSLR and zoom lens for ~$1,000.00 USD?
« on: August 29, 2012, 11:10:28 AM »
Your really not wrong.
Thats not the argument but the thing is were not talking night and day in terms of IQ it is only slightly better. Night and day is a 600D VS a 5D MKIII. What we are comparing is a camera from 2005 to a 2011 camera.

The difference in IQ between the 5DC and the 600D is not huge maybe 10%. Also the full frame sensor will mean you need to buy L glass to get good results because the sensor is bigger. So your talking £1000 just for one lens being a 24-105mm. Whereas the 600D you still need good glass but you can get away with using 15-85mm or a 17-85 which are a lot cheaper.

There is a lot more to think about. The 5Dc is not a modern camera with non of the newer useful features, which kind of makes the camera. Its like the argument with the 5DMKIII, it has lower res than the D800 but its features are much better which makes the camera. If IQ is your only concern then yes go ahead. But finding a good nick camera that is 7 years old and still paying in excess of £550 is a bit mad really.

If you want full frame its worth doing it properly and buying a modern camera.

But think we are getting carried away here. The poster is after a camera, an amateur moving from a point and shoot! A 5Dc is a silly camera to advise someone to buy! No program modes... either auto or full or semi auto, no inbuilt flash! It was designed for the more professional scene! Not a beginner!

My two cents anyway.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: DSLR and zoom lens for ~$1,000.00 USD?
« on: August 29, 2012, 09:05:55 AM »
For someone not making regular prints or blowing up imagery, FF is not necessary. Nice but not necessary. APC is more than enough, if anything the IQ difference between the too will be pretty similar the 5Dc might only be 10% better.

The compromise is one totally worth it imo. We arent talking professional use. Just taking pics... without any need to pixel peep.

Holding a 5Dc compared to one of the newer cameras too... things have moved on substantially. For most people buying a newer camera with more options is always more desirable to buying an old one with minimal features. Which is why I said purists.   

A 5Dc as an upgrade from a point and shoot is not wise IMO.

pros and cons 5Dc vs 600D


EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: DSLR and zoom lens for ~$1,000.00 USD?
« on: August 29, 2012, 07:54:07 AM »

28-135mm + 50mm 1.8.

Done. 8)

That would be my advice as well (would possibly swap in 40/2.8 for 50/1.8 ), except that the OP said it has to be new.

I like the advice of a refurbished (effectively new) T2i and 15-85.  That will be around $1000 and will be a very nice beginner setup.

Yep, there is alot of gently used 5Dc on eBay and Craig'slist. If I had to start all over again, I'd never buy a crop rebel for 799$ when I can get a FF body again.

Then again, I bought my first camera used in a pawn shop and knew nothing about photography then. I ran that rebel into the ground until its shutter died, but that's just me. :P

The 5DC might have good IQ but thats about it. No live view, no self cleaning system, slow 3fps, 2.5" low res screen, no movie mode, has no built in flash & max ISO of 3200. For an amateur FF is over the top and the XXXD/XXD offer more options. The 5DC is a very old camera. Not all the features are deal breakers but they are nice and feature packed for an amateur. Possibly for the purist the 5DC is better but all the tech is too old.

A 600D wipes the floor with it for everything but IQ and this is not going to be noticeable unless you print bigger than A4.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Upgrade from 40D or upgrading lenses
« on: August 28, 2012, 05:59:26 PM »
So I have had 2 40Ds so far and use them professionally for a newspaper.

Anyone giving advice on the 50D, forget it. By far the worst performer out of the 3. As they just crammed 33% more pixels onto the same sensor without any change in tech. Apart from the screen the 40D is better option and cheaper.

I have been waiting for the 5D MKIII and will pull the trigger but like to leave it a while and let the price simmer, make sure there arent any more problems, I like to get as much profit out of all my gear. Anyway the resolution is fine for newspaper work as you basically print on toilet paper. So my 40D became very temperamental last week and has hit 139,000 actuations and didnt want to spend any money on it. So on Saturday became the owner of a 7D.

So I was never that keen on buying any of the 18mp variations of this generation as all the reviews and opinions on here have pointed out how the noise isnt that great and slightly worse than the older generation low down in the ISO. So was waiting for the new gen to see what they offer, but I needed something to fill in for the next couple of months. I found a local guy selling his 7D, year old, less than 10k clicks used completely for amateur stuff. Had a couple of scratches but as my cameras are work horses not museum pieces that didnt bother me. Anyway was on ebay offered him £750 cash so he saves the fees. Camera bought.

First impressions... the build quality seems slightly worce than the 40D on the plastic areas. Card door creaks and the plastic has more give in that area where you grip. But the problem seems fairly common on the 5D MKII and 7D after a quick google, a bit of insulation tape solved that.

Feels lighter although its not. The speed is fantastic although only 1.5 frames more it is really noticeable. The screen is incredible! Really great, one of the worst parts of the 40D. The AF is out of this world in comparison to the old 9 point, although you can overcome the downfalls of the 40Ds 9 point the 7Ds helps for every situation you are thrown into with the different modes, especially when using F2.8 lenses. I can see much more keepers. Also has the movie mode which isnt a deal breaker for me but useful. Micro adjust a must have feature! Get the most from those lenses. Half a stop more of dynamic range, 80% more resolution. Slightly better at high ISO probably 1/2 a stop, 100% viewfinder coverage and larger maximum ISO from 3200 to 12800 so 2 stops and useful.

If you are after a dramatic increase in IQ your heading in the wrong direction. It is better but bread and butter it aint, the pro you can take from this is that you can print much larger at about the same quality. Also ISO 100-400 it seems it is very slightly noisy but negligible! Seriously negligible! Over 1600 it is good but not night and day but useable. Banding is better than the 40D.

Just this eve had a quick test against the 40D. The 7D isnt bad.. 80% more resolution and about the same noise level up to 1250 past 1600 its a tad better maybe one stop and goes to 12800, add that awesome AF, and screen res its not bad. But if the 40D wasnt on its last legs.. worthwhile upgrade.. debatable. But that AF is worth having it for, on its own and the screen. But I already have the glass so its just the body I have to worry about.

Think you can read too much, the noise issue really is negligible in real life, I have no issue using it professionally. DR could be better but acceptable. Compared to full frame alternatives it has its draw backs with IQ and DR but what it lacks there it makes up in other areas. Full frame is slightly overkill for me anyway but will get one to go with the 7D. I like the extra length you get from the longer lenses with crop APC.

Like others have said get some glass. A 17-55mm F2.8 would be great also a 10-22mm and a 70-200mm F2.8 makes the 40D awesome. The 24-105mm I cant recommend for APC simply because the widest you get is 38.4mm and as an everyday lens its not wide enough, great lens but not suitable. Need two lenses to cover a normal focal length, but obv a pain if going FF in the future. But from the current lenses I would suggest staying APC.

If you want a 7D go get one! Its a good camera, but again with 80% more resolution you need the glass to resolve it so it would be an expensive upgrade for glass and the camera. So I suggest getting some nice glass as its a good camera and still keeps up with todays offerings. The 40D was one of those cameras that was unique and a great camera, still holds its own now.

Hope this helps.

Lenses / Re: Why pick 16-35 f2.8 over 17-40 f4
« on: August 24, 2012, 09:10:02 AM »
Well you pay for the F2.8. If you are shooting in low light, interiors, gigs etc It is a good option but I dont think worth double on the 17-40mm. But if you need it specifically for those areas then its invaluable.

EOS Bodies / Re: I love Primes.
« on: August 24, 2012, 08:56:48 AM »
Why isnt there an option for liking both! There is room for both most certainly! I like using both.

Technical Support / Re: Need help with upgrade decission!!
« on: August 23, 2012, 07:55:26 AM »
Yes the DVD drive is fairly easy to replace with a HDD on the normal MBP, but you need to put it in a caddy. The new retina Macbook pro its not. It got the lowest score for repairability ever by iFitxit.

This nonsense about the screen too. If you are doing any photographic work and looking to output you should be profiling the screen and your paper so you can simulate the results depending on your paper type to get true colour prints. The retina is nothing but higher resolution showing you more pixels, therefore a sharp image. It does not affect the image at all.

Technical Support / Re: Need help with upgrade decission!!
« on: August 22, 2012, 07:29:45 AM »
I also bought a 13" MBP instead of the MBA with photography work loading then dumping information off an SSD is not great for them anyway. With a MBP you can remove the DVD drive add a 750gb HDD in there with a caddy and stick a 128gb SSD in the normal HDD bay so gives you the best between space and speed. The SSD for system and HDD for storage. You just move the home file directory from the SSD to the HDD. 

Im lucky as I also have a Mac Pro that has 12TB of space with a 12TB back up. But the MBP is great for portability it will also take more hammer on location work than a MBA would, although great they do seem slightly flimsy... depends on your weight preferences.

Also same as you I have a 40D doing similar things but a much broader range of subjects, and I am going for a 5D MKIII. At 1600ISO the 40D quality is pretty bad but 6400ISO on the 5D MKIII the quality will be equivalent and probably better so you have a lot more room for manoeuvre. Therefore 1.4 will be fine. But with FF comes the rest of the glass if you glass is EF-s. So more cost.

Hard choice but I would go camera, even tho it may take longer in post at the end of the day the camera is what makes the money not the computer. The camera will give you more keepers and you can make more money then you will be able to upgrade your machine. I would say buy some more ram and do a complete backup of your iMac and start a fresh it will speed everything up.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 40D or XS
« on: August 17, 2012, 04:25:43 AM »
Ive had 2 40Ds both going over 250,000 actuations (with service) and still work. They are fantastic cameras and still give better ISO performance up to 400 than the current 18mp line up. It also has better IQ than the 50D.

To add to that you get a semi pro body which is magnesium alloy, does 6.5fps and has the dual controls so is much faster. You also get more ISO stops. I would say the bad points are lower res screen which is still very useable, and the 9 point AF which you get in the 1000D but not sure whether the cross type ... and thats about it. The 1000D is cr*p.

I sold £600 worth of images with the 40D this week... they are still very very useable. I also use mine for newspapers because of the cop and obviously IQ is not as important. But you can still get crisp A3 prints or even A2 if you push it. Also the DR really isnt bad at all.

Its replacement is a 5D MKIII because it is a turbo charged FF 40D, the other upgrades haven't thrilled me enough to upgrade the old faithful the 7D would have been nice but I was holding out on the 5D MKIII and that is a perfect camera IMO.

HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Canon 5D mark 3 in-camera HDR shots
« on: August 16, 2012, 07:47:41 AM »
No sorry not for me, they would have been much nicer processed properly but I dislike HDR anyway.

What about a 100-400mm? Get a bit more flexibility.

What about a 300mm F4 with a 1.4x extender? on a 7D will be 672mm at 5.6 But the 400mm F5.6 will be faster focusing and at 640mm not gaining much and the 400mm will be cheaper than the 300mm combo.

I think the 100-400mm or 400mm F5.6 on you 5D MKIII will be most cost effective. You can always crop a little bit with the 5D MKIII anyway. But it is a nice option to have 2 bodies.

I would skip the 50D a good second hand one in the UK is about £500-550. A 7D is around £900 and is better in everyway. The 50D has worse IQ than the 40D because of the pixel density being a 3rd more but the same tech. Also noise is horrible too. The 9 point of the 40/50D is pretty old too for fast action. Im still using a 40D with a 5D MKIII coming soon. But if anything if you want a cheap alternative get a 40D they are about £350 now still produce great images. But 7D every time, but the 1D IV would be the ultimate.

You also have to remember that a 70-200mm with a 2x extender reduces the AF speed significantly so a 400mm F5.6 is always going to be better.

Lenses / Re: Travelling zoom
« on: August 14, 2012, 07:21:48 AM »
They are also a lot bigger.

The small drop in IQ for a lens that is so small and portable is acceptable IMO. Nothing on the market can touch it for size.

When your traveling space is important so is weight. With a 70-300mm DO and a 17-55mm you coud get away with taking a small camera bag whereas with any of the others you would have to take a much bigger back to fit the glass in.

Always a compromise.

Lenses / Re: Travelling zoom
« on: August 14, 2012, 05:54:40 AM »
Everyone always forgets the 70-300mm DO IS.

I had one of these and it was a really great lens. It is tiny, about the same size as a 17-55mm, great range and fairly quick for a zoom.

There will always be people that talk about the halo effect but it didn't bother me at all and is only really noticeable when pixel peeping. If its a travel lens for the size you will find it hard to beat. The white Ls are awesome and I swapped mine for a 70-200mm but its huge and heavy and over the top if you are traveling.

I would say have a look see what you think. I wish I never sold mine.

That is an important aspect! Did you swap to the new USM II? If so have you noticed IQ differences compared to the 70-300?

The 70-300mm DO IS is not an L lens. But it is about half the size of the 70-300mm L IS. The 70-300mm DO is USM but not II and has the first gen IS so 2 stops. Obviously the IQ of the L is better but it is heavier and a lot bigger. Also stands out like a sore thumb.

But it is a compromise, if you want something small lightweight and inconspicuous then it fits the bill. If you want ultimate lens the 28-300mm although it is very very heavy very expensive and a complete pain if you ask me. 70-300mm L is also a great lens but is big and also stands out. Would be a pain to carry around.

The DO gives good IQ although does have the halo effect, has IS is USM and is the same size as a standard zoom. Good compromise but obviously not for everyone.

The 70-300mm DO is the one on the right! next to the 75-300mm (non L) and the 100-400mm Its so small! Also comes with a hood.

If I was going traveling with the 7D I would take a 17-55mm IS, 70-300mm DO IS, possibly the 10-22mm or a 35mm.

Some more info.


Obviously highlights the problems but I have taken some great shots with mine when I had it. You can get them pre-owned for around £500 in perfect condition.

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 36