August 02, 2014, 01:18:08 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 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 36
46
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Pet Portraits with 5D Mark III
« on: June 30, 2014, 11:21:46 AM »
Haha yes that would have been alarming!

Thanks :)

47
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: June 30, 2014, 11:18:22 AM »
A few from this weekend in the Farne Islands

Both shot with 5DMKIII with 70-200mm F2.8 II with 2x extender MKII

Puffin, Farne Islands, Seahouses by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Puffin, Farne Islands, Seahouses by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

The Farne Islands are possibly the most exciting seabird colony in England with unrivalled views of 23 species, including around 37,000 pairs of puffin. Amazing spectacle.

48
This weekend, Puffin, Farne Islands Northumberland UK

5DMKIII 70-200mm F2.8 MKII L with 2x Extender MKII, the 70-200mm MKII handles the converters so well! Really impressed, its not even the MKIII converter, quick AF, pretty good IQ little CA tho.

Puffin, Farne Islands, Seahouses by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

49
Lenses / Re: Quality lens system for lightweight travel
« on: June 27, 2014, 10:58:09 AM »
If your interested in the A7/R here is a review on the difference between the 28-70 F3.5-5. vs zeiss 24-70 F4

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Sony-FE-28-70mm-F3.5-5.6-OSS-Serious-contender-to-the-Zeiss/Sony-FE-28-70mm-F3.5-5.6-OSS-versus-Sony-FE-Carl-Zeiss-Vario-Tessar-T-24-70mm-F4-ZA-OSS-both-mounted-on-Sony-A7R

Not much difference, the 35mm F2.8 looks stellar and is only 200g! but it is just a 2.8 for a prime thats not particularly quick. Expensive considering the 40mm pancake lens is not miles behind and is 1/5th the price and even smaller.

50
meson1

Thank you for starting this thread! I have been looking for exactly this bag for ages, have followed suit and bought one too!

 ;D

51
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

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=814&Camera=812&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=486&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

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.

52
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.

53
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.

54
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.

55
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.

57
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.

58
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.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2791104

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.

59
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!

60
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.

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