September 18, 2014, 06:01:47 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 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 39
46
Lenses / Re: Thoughts on 70-200 f/4 vs 70-300 vs 100-400?
« on: August 04, 2014, 09:43:07 AM »
You know exactly what I mean Neuro, stop being arsy in every post.

I may not have put changes field of view but I would expect most to know. Same with the DoF, your authoritative sarcastic posts are getting boring and doesn't make the forum a better place.

47
Lenses / Re: Tamron 150 600 woes
« on: August 04, 2014, 07:17:49 AM »
The likelihood of getting a perfect lens to match your body is slim at best.

Any gear in all industry needs to be calibrated correctly, just a fact of using high end gear thats designed to work for a large amount of bodies etc

Obviously its disappointing but not the end of the world, just sort it out.

48
Lenses / Re: Thoughts on 70-200 f/4 vs 70-300 vs 100-400?
« on: August 04, 2014, 07:07:09 AM »
As to the weight, when many of your lenses are large aperture you get used to it and the mid range aperture lenses feel very light.

Like having a 24-105mm on the 5DMKIII feels a lot lighter than the 24-70MKI but you get used to it, so for a zoom of that magnitude 1050g isn't a lot. Compare that to the 70-200mm MKII which is 1490g add a 2x converter 325g and a mid body 860g = 2675g compared to mid range body and 70-300mm = 1935g. That weight saving is the same as taking a 70-200mm F4 IS also. So you could take another high end piece of glass to fill another gap like a wide angle.

On a full frame body 200mm isn't enough on a crop it is as you get an ester 120mm for free. But the FF bodies perform better in low light. But if you want to get plenty of DOF crop cameras work to your advantage.

49
Lenses / Re: Thoughts on 70-200 f/4 vs 70-300 vs 100-400?
« on: August 04, 2014, 05:47:30 AM »
Depends how you use the lens. If its for professional use no question 70-200mm F2.8 MKII. Brilliant lens, but its size and weight are not very desirable for travel. For a job the weight isn't an issue, travel it certainly is, It would be a tough pick but I would leave it at home specifically because of the weight. With your crop camera you are effectively getting a 110-320mm lens with F4 DOF equivalent. If you go down the 2x tele converter side you need another £350 and the lens AF speed decreases by 75% (which is well over exaggerated if you ask me). I used this combo at Silverstone Classics last weekend and it worked very well barely a shot missed and for me was easier than taking two lenses with IQ being similar to the 100-400. Price wise your looking at £2300 with the tele converter which is also a downside.

70-200mm F4 I understand why people buy the lens, smaller and lighter but at F4, but only for a FF camera. On a crop camera DOF equivalent is more like F6.3 wide open so your not gaining any added bokeh as subject isolation isn't brilliant, if anything I would always choose the F2.8. But on crop you are effectively getting a 110-320mm F6.3 DOF equivalent.

70-300mm is what I would be leaning toward, its small, light, great IQ and although similar to the 70-200mm F4 your DOF equivalent in FF terms is more like F6.3-F9 (obviously not in terms of speed but DOF) and you get an extra 100mm. In real world terms at 200mm the 70-200mm and 70-300mm are pretty much indistinguishable. The only disadvantage I see with this lens is the colour, when traveling the more inconspicuous the better and its a shame its white and it makes you stand out like a sore thumb. Its ok while on a job as people expect it but going into a country which is maybe a little less fortunate than your own with big bold flashy lenses is a disadvantage in my mind. But you are getting a 110-480mm F6.3-9 FF DOF equivalent, which is less than £900 its a compromise but a good one.

The 100-400mm is also a great lens, but it would be my last choice for a travel lens. Stupid push pull design, its huge and heavy, so unless you need the extra 100mm I would drop this off the list.

The only other option that has been missed off is the 70-300mm DO. I owned this lens but sold it because I needed a faster lens so bought the 70-200mm F2.8. Although this lens isn't perfect, its not an L lens, its not as sharp and has onion ring bokeh. For its size and weight is a brilliant travel companion, it is smaller than a 24-105mm and about the same weight. People dislike the bokeh and the slight halo you get but I found this is exaggerated, if your in a really high contrast situation it is there. Again its all about compromise with these zooms, the 70-300mm DO can be had for around £400 (second hand) which is more than half the price of the 100-400mm, 70-300mm and more than 1/4 the price of the 70-200mm. It is also black which is much more discrete and stop it down a little and it performs pretty well in the centre, corners aren't brilliant. Talking about bokeh, at DOF equivalent of F7.2-9 the bokeh you get will be minimal anyway similar to the 70-300mm L. So for £400 its worth a punt IMO but not at £1200.

My views above about the DO are strictly for travel only, professionally I would give it a miss. The thing with travel is that it is a compromise, you only get the shot with the equipment you have with you and if your traveling a good way weight is a really big issue, add a med body 800g a standard zoom 600g a small prime 300g and a super zoom 1000g the weight soon adds up and thats just camera gear.

I am in the middle of organising a 6 month trip across south america and the states, basically roughing it backpacking, so I will be carrying everything with me all the time.
My gear selection:

5DMKIII 860g
24-105mm F4 670g
35mm F2 IS 335g
70-300mm F4.5-5.6 DO 720g (or 70-300mm L 1050g not made up my mind)
Lots of cards & bats

2.6kg over 10 thousand miles is more than enough. Add a MBA clothes and supplies probably around 6-8kg.

Summary

1- 70-300mm L
2 - 70-300mm DO
3 - 70-200mm F2.8 + 2x
4 - 70-200mm F4
5 - 100-400mm

50
No experience with 6D

But soaked my old 40D many many times which I would say has the same WS as the 6D. Only problem I had was the shutter button stopped working as some bumf managed to get between the contacts. Put some Contact cleaner down the battery slot sorted it.

Soaked 5DMKIII a few times too, no issues so far.

51
Canon General / Re: What is your Least Used Piece of Gear?
« on: July 31, 2014, 10:46:57 AM »
50mm 1.8 followed by my 40D and 17-55mm.

52
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: A7cna? C)anon N)o A)dapter
« on: July 30, 2014, 07:44:29 AM »
Don't ask for much then...

53
HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Inspirational...
« on: July 23, 2014, 09:53:22 AM »
Great locations a little too much post but this is my dream too.

54
Landscape / Re: Waterscapes
« on: July 23, 2014, 04:51:17 AM »
Thanks jrista!

55
Landscape / Re: Moonlit Landscapes
« on: July 22, 2014, 03:11:37 PM »
Awesome campsite Tom, were you just a slight bit concerned of werewolves? I'm serious, that looks like some pretty rugged, remote landscape and a perfect spot to pitch your tent. I know I wouldn't have slept that night either, would have been afraid to miss something awesome, if not just enjoy the peace and nature. Cool stuff man.

Thanks, there isn't any risk of predators in England the worst I got was a sheep trying to get in the tent in the middle of the night lol

56
Landscape / Re: Waterscapes
« on: July 22, 2014, 11:29:20 AM »
That is interesting actually there isn't any extra post processing, single exposure from the original all of the sky is blown out but the blue reflection is certainly there. I was using a polariser to remove the reflection where the stump is so you could see it. and using recovery thats what came up. I would say its the effect of the polariser.

Other than that don't really know! lol Anyone got any ideas?

The second one the polariser was rotated toward the sky and mountains to emphasise the colour and depth as the clear water would be a distraction.

57
Landscape / Re: Moonlit Landscapes
« on: July 22, 2014, 11:20:59 AM »
Ye these were all taken between 1-2AM on the 11th July 2014 which was a full moon.

Obviously I have added some contrast but it wasn't flat, exposure was 15 sec at F2.8.

In fact that night the sun set at around 11.30pm but the sky was dusk, it was really bright I camped there and got no sleep because the moon was so bright.

Haweswater Resevoir, Corpse Road, Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Before the valley was flooded in 1929 there was a church in Mardale, it was only allowed its own cemetery in the 1700s. Until that time the bodies were carried all the way from Mardale, over the hill to Swindale Head, and then a further trek of several miles over slightly less difficult ground to the church at Shap. That is where the it gets its name "The old Corpse Road"



The path is accessible from the road, it takes around 20 minutes to walk up to the derelict barn and there is a car park enough for 3-4 cars at the bottom of the path. Nice little walk, the south side of Haweswater is most certainly the most photogenic.

58
Landscape / Re: Waterscapes
« on: July 21, 2014, 12:02:15 PM »
@candyman, thank you.

The Mosedale valley had a village in the middle before it was flooded and dammed to make a reservoir in 1929, creating a supply of water for Manchester. They removed and relocated the village, there was a church and made the water tower out of the old church. The water tower houses the Dam control.


That's an interesting story. Never thought the tower was part of a church.


Nice followup serie. I like the camping spot. Not afraid that with a storm you will get stones on the tent?

Sorry it wasn't made from the left over of the church it was made with its parts after being dismantled.

Well those derelict barn buildings have sat for 150+ years, so no not really. Dry stone walling is very strong and stands the test of time :) each stone is very heavy and would take quite a storm to remove them. Of corse I made sure there were no loose stones on the top before pitching!

60
Landscape / Moonlit Landscapes
« on: July 21, 2014, 06:48:10 AM »
Show your moonlit landscapes.

These were taken during the full moon July 2014. Haweswater Reservoir, Cumbria, UK.

5DMKIII 16-35mm F2.8

Haweswater moonscape, Haweswater Reservoir, Derelict Barn, Corpse Road, Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Moonlit Haweswater Resevoir, Corpse Road, Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Moonlit Haweswater Resevoir, Corpse Road, Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 39