July 22, 2014, 05:55:45 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 ... 36
Lenses / Re: Quality lens system for lightweight travel
« on: June 27, 2014, 08:19:28 AM »
Your little EOS M doesn't perform too badly in comparison


Obviously you can correct distortion with the 24mm and the 22mm is more like 35mm. Remember you also get a 1.6x DOF increase with the M too. F8 is more like F13 on your 1DSIII

I like the idea of the Sony A7/R but the lens system is maturing and by the time it does it probably have been discontinued for yet another system.

Other than that the Fuji X looks brilliant also the Olympus system. But when I come round to the thinking most mirrorless bodies are around 350-450g and a lens to go with them is 250-400g depending on the lens (think F2.8 zooms even more and just as bulky) you are looking at 1000g now a 5DMKIII 860g with a 35mm F2 355g is 1215g your not really saving much weight.

Best way to go mirrorless is to go with primes, but remember the smaller sensors whether it would be 4/3s APC etc etc you loose the shallow depth of field and ISO advantage.

Currently the A7/R is the only ff mirrorless interchangeable lens camera and they have gone down the road of F4 zooms or F2.8 primes to save weight. You won't find any F1.2/1.4 primes as they need the glass = weight. They are also very expensive and not that fast. The 70-200mm F4 and the 24-70 F4 make the system pointless they are too big. The advantage of the A7/R is fairly minimal its not that much smaller and doesn't weigh that much less. It is also a difficult camera to handle as there isn't much to grip on to.

 But it is the best option IQ wise atm.

I like the Fuji 100S but unfortunately its a fixed lens camera.

I have the Nex5N and really like it, just the lens system is frustratingly small and quality isn't brilliant.

Lenses / Re: 16-35 F/2.8 vs F/4 for weddings
« on: June 27, 2014, 05:45:40 AM »
Before you jump down my throat.

If you read the post I was talking about how I use the lens not just for weddings but for landscape work and I was asking the question is it needed because when I'm out shooting landscape I shoot 24-35mm and for that the 24-70mm is sharper in the corners.

Giving some advice that may save money determining what range you shoot.

One of the main factors for me was F2.8 for night star landscape, as you can open the shutter longer and keep the stars sharp at 16mm, and its a zoom which I can also use for landscape and weddings. The 16-35mm doesn't do that… The F2.8 is very useful and if you haven't used it for that reason give it a go it will make you want to keep it, its very useful in a way the 16-35mm F4 isn't.

In the real world the very small sharpness boost of the 16-35mm F4 will not be noticeable compared to the 16-35mm F2.8 and it can't do F2.8. IS is also a bit of a gimmick at this focal range, might save a few ISO stops tho if your shooting handheld. Also if your shooting landscape you will be shooting F8-F16 there isn't really much difference, little more CA on the 2.8 but easily sorted in post.

So if your a F2.8 II owner I wouldn't be swapping.

Compared to the 17-40mm its a fairly big upgrade but then again currently retailing in the UK at £629 and the 16-35mm F4 IS at £1299 and the 16-35mm II F2.8 at £1214 (all jessops prices) the F4 is more expensive than both and and double the 17-40mm.

Especially when you can find good 17-40mm on the used market at £4-450 doesn't seem a worthwhile upgrade atm and the 16-35mm F2.8 II would be where I would go if I didn't have a WA.

Lenses / Re: 16-35 F/2.8 vs F/4 for weddings
« on: June 26, 2014, 09:23:01 AM »
What other glass do you use? Do you need it?

I use the 24-70mm F2.8 and this season I have only got the 16-35mm out once for a large group shot where 24mm wasnt enough.

I bought the 16-35mm primarily for weddings but also for landscape work specifically night time. A wide angle is the go to lens for landscapes but isn't always the best option. I find I use 24-35mm more than 16-24mm unless you really need to fit a great deal in or accentuate a subject. Generally fitting more in the frame isn't always the best as it decompresses perspective so stand out elements appear further away add that to the human eye is around 35-40mm. It takes a lot of practise to use a wide angle lens properly.

The 24-70mm is sharper in the corners too.

I always thought the wide angle was a necessary piece of kit and have always had one but its probably the least used lens in my bag. Obviously depends how you shoot, but I find the distortion unflattering but the 2.8 is useful but obviously its heavier than the F4 and IS at this focal length is useful but not necessary. If you go by the rule minimum shutter is your focal length, 1/16th to 1/35th and you can shoot at 1/60th or above unless its very dark it makes the IS redundant. Also it might give you 4 stops but your subject will most certainly carry motion blur under 1/30th.

Useful lens but if your talking F4 vs F2.8 I would take F2.8 every time. F4 is fine until your in a church and find 6400ISO and F4 are still giving you 1/25th second its just not enough and you miss the kiss because of quick moving nervous bride and grooms creating blurry motion but your background will most probably be sharp. The 5DMKIII IMO isn't good enough past 6400ISO. The new 16-35 F4 looks promising  but isn't night and day and being twice the price is the small increase in corner sharpness worth it?

Same situation with the 24-70mm F2.8 MI vs MII.

Software & Accessories / Re: Inconspicuous Messenger Bag
« on: June 20, 2014, 11:27:37 AM »
The retrospective-7 looks like a great bag but who sells Think Tank products in the UK?

The Lowepro would be great if you could carry an iPad or 11" MBA like the retrospective-7.

Lenses / Re: Tanzania with minimal gear
« on: June 19, 2014, 11:35:20 AM »
The 5DMKIII does have more MP but has less density the chip is 1.6X bigger therefore pixels are more spread out. APC crams 18MP on a sensor that is 1.6X smaller therefore the 18MP APC chip has the largest pixel density of any Canon sensor meaning more pixels on target and a sharper image. That image sharpness depends on the ISO, 1600ISO is about as high as you would want to go. The density makes the sensor pretty noisy, which is the benefit of full frame.

Also if you use a 1.4 with the 70-300mm you will get a slower focusing high aperture lens so you will have to compensate with ISO on the 5D anyway. the 70-300mm with a 1.4 will be a 98-420mm F5.6-8 lens, which is pretty slow and the AF will be even slower.

With a 7D you get 112-480mm F4-5.6 lens with full speed AF and you could still put a 1.4 on it if you wanted making a 157-672mm F5.6-8 you also get 8fps rather than 6fps, and more depth of field on the subject.

An image cropped from a 5DMKIII and upscaled to 7D size will perform similarly. But the 5DMKIII needs more sharpening.

The fact is if your shooting in good light crop is better for wildlife if you want smaller, lighter and more length for your $ if you don't have the funds/don't want to carry the big whites.


Why not take the 16-35mm and the 24-105mm, the main reason for the 24-70mm F2.8 is the F2.8 will you need it? also has no IS, much heavier and much bigger (if your talking MKI). The 24-105 fills the gap has a better range and IMO is the best walk around lens maybe not the sharpest but its a very good lens. I would have two bodies with the tele you choose and the 24-105mm attached to the other.

EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Tech in EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]
« on: June 19, 2014, 10:36:52 AM »
Really exciting at this point anything is a bonus! I will be glad to see Canon innovating again!

Lenses / Re: Tanzania with minimal gear
« on: June 19, 2014, 09:50:15 AM »
That is true, but you do get more pixels on the target. With cropping you loose pixels, but with FF you get reduced noise and better DOF with crop you get more DOF longer range but with more pixels more noise and less light gathering. The 7D is good to 1600ISO tho but sometimes thats not enough.

A 7D with a 70-200mm F2.8 IS with 2x is effectively 224-640mm F5.6 IS.

There are loads of adv and dis and the forum is full of material it depends how you feel. Personally I think filling the frame is better than cropping but filling the frame with FF is difficult and filling the frame with wildlife is the dream but it doesn't happen which is why any advantage in focal length is a bonus. The latitude you get with crop is poor compared to FF once you go full frame you get spoiled as 3200ISO is pretty much equivalent to 800-1000ISO.

Crop is also cheaper and lighter, gives you the 1.6x thats why many use crop with 400mm F5.6 as the go to amateur wildlife combo.

Lenses / Re: Tanzania with minimal gear
« on: June 19, 2014, 08:04:29 AM »
Well thats it you say 400mm wasn't necessary but you were shooting effectively at 480mm which is 180mm more than 300mm on FF so more than 50% more than the lens produces natively.

So I would say 400 is a minimum with full frame.

If you'd had the 100-400mm you would have 640mm so that would have probably got you the cheetah.

Worth considering taking a 7D and a 5DMKIII crop can be useful as long as its under ISO1600.

Lenses / Re: Tanzania with minimal gear
« on: June 19, 2014, 06:30:33 AM »
Have you read the CR review of the 70-300mm on safari?


Lenses / Re: Tanzania with minimal gear
« on: June 19, 2014, 06:07:43 AM »
The other option is because your on FF you can crop?

400mm is still a good length. The tammy is still the best all rounder when it comes to all in one, the 70-300mm is a decent choice but I still think 400 is a minimum.

Problem with the 70-200mm is that removing the conv anywhere in the field will most probably create dust and do you want to lug that around for low light a fast prime makes more sense. 35mm F2s a good choice and is a nice length for landscapes.

The 100-400mm with a filter is still a good option especially if you already own it. I would take that.

But if you don't Tammy.

if the 16-35mm your missing 35-100 or 150. Instead I would take the 24-105 and a fast prime for low light, 24 will be wide enough for landscapes.

Lenses / Re: Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L vs. Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS
« on: June 19, 2014, 04:16:51 AM »
Have you tried setting your camera on auto ISO and then a minimum shutter speed on one of the C modes on you camera? So the camera will never go below a certain shutter speed.

Problem almost solved.

What camera do you use? as auto ISO may degrade IQ so worth setting a maximum ISO range that you are comfortable with I have my 5DMKIII set to 100-6400ISO because I feel that range is perfectly usable. Also what sorts of images do you shoot? Is it action? or general?

If general then F2.8 isn't overly helpful unless you really like the look, but is a pain to lug around if your always shooting F5.6-11 for decent depth of field. At the same time I don't mind lugging the weight.

Also if your shooting crop remember F2.8 is more like F4.5 so if you buy the F4 the image will look like a F6.3 (full frame equivalent) so it may be harder to isolate your subject. If on full frame there won't be an issue, F4 gives plenty of subject isolation especially at 200mm.

Do you follow the focal length shutter speed rule? 200mm above 1/200s? or even double it to ensure? As a wedding photographer I was struggling with my 70-200mm but only in low light at 1/30-1/50th and at 200mm its impossible to get clean shots. So for me the upgrade is worth it.

I have just gone from the 70-200mm F2.8 L non IS to the MKII, tbh the IQ is nearly identical but the IS is amazing but it is heavier. The other option is to go to the 70-200mm MKI IS can buy these pre owned for £1000 great choice although not as sharp as the original 70-200mm F2.8.

Another thing to bare in mind is that the IS makes shooting a better experience as the IS stabilises the view finder so at 200mm can be a lot easier to nail focus.

Hope that helps!

Lenses / Re: 35L vs 35/2 IS
« on: June 18, 2014, 05:11:33 PM »
Also been thinking about this, from what I gather the 35 F2 is a brilliant lens.

The 35mm L is about equal in sharpness but it creates those special images, similar to the 85mm.

The 35 F2 will produce 100 great images and the L will create 80% of those great images but you will get 10% unique gorgeous images.

Thats what I have gathered.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 36