Messages

631

Lenses / Re: Excellent shorter lens with TC vs Average longer lens

« on: October 02, 2012, 12:35:21 PM »

Thanks, should have mentioned that my interest is mostly astronomy related.

In that case, forget entirely about SLR lenses. Instead, get yourself a decent (real!) astronomical telescope and whatever adapter you need to mount your camera to it.

Everything involves compromise. There are lots of compromises necessary for making photographic lenses that come at the expense of astronomical suitability, and vice-versa. An upside-down image is a non-starter for a photographic lens, but hardly even worth mentioning for a telescopic lens, for example. Pleasing (or, at least, not distracting) out-of-focus blur is necessary for a photographic lens, but not even remotely on the radar for astronomers.

You will get <i>far</i> more bang for your buck with an astronomical telescope than with a telephoto lens.

There are exceptions, of course...if you're looking for wide-angle shots, such as of the entire Milky Way, then you'll need a typical wide-angle photographic lens. And a Great White is going to do a pretty decent job at wide-field astrophotography...but a $12,000 telescope is going to do a much better job than a $12,000 400 f/2.8 II. Still, if you're wanting to do an automated search for extra-solar planets, you're probably going to go with an array of several 200 f/1.8s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperWASP

Cheers,

b&

632

Lenses / Re: Excellent shorter lens with TC vs Average longer lens

« on: October 02, 2012, 10:03:34 AM »

Unless you're an astronomer or in the espionage business, there's very little real-world utility to lenses longer than about 800 mm. The most common case would be birding...but a successful bird photographer knows how to get close enough to the subjects to use a "normal" supertelephoto.

The 300 f/4 is an excellent lens. It's a bit short and slow for birding; if you'd have a teleconverter permanently attached, strongly consider the 400 f/5.6 instead.

You're always going to get the best results with a larger sensor and a (quality) lens that's (natively) long enough to properly frame your subject. But, if you're distance-limited...well, at first, it's a tossup between a (quality) 1.4x teleconverter and an APS-C body with higher pixel density. Some combinations will be better than others. If you're still distance-limited in such a situation, your only choice left is both. And if you still need to significantly crop with a teleconverter on a crop body, then either you need to get closer to your subject or you need better equipment or you're in the worng line of work.

Of course, what you're doing with the final output is a question, as well. If all you're looking for is something to post on BookFace, then you can settle for a lot less than if you're on assignment for <i>National Geographic.</i>

Cheers,

b&

633

Canon General / Re: Dream Package for Soccer???

« on: October 01, 2012, 07:04:41 PM »

As I understand it, the standard single-shooter setup is two bodies: a Great White on a monopod (at least a 400 or 500 for big field sports -- rent one if need be) on the left, and a 70-200 on the right. Most of the time, you shoot with the Great White. When the action gets close, that goes over your left shoulder, lens pointing down, left arm wrapped around the monopod. In the same movement, you bring the 70-200 up to your eye with your right hand.

You'd have a normal and an ultra-wide on your belt, and swap with the 70-200 when warranted (mostly for crowd / sidelines shots when action is slow.

I know there's lots of excitement at this chance for you (congratulations!), but I'd keep it simple. If you've got extra gear, have it available (with a friend in the stands, for example) as a backup in case of disaster, but don't have it with you. (Extra memory and batteries, a Shorty McForty, that sort of thing excepted, of course.)

One last suggestion: see if you can get in touch with somebody local who already does this for a living. Offer to buy lunch in exchange for tips. Oh -- and see if you can do some practice runs at a high school or college game (or even practice session), too.

Cheers,

b&

P.S. I also understand that good knee pads are not optional. b&

P.P.S. Have fun! b&

634

Lenses / Re: 6D kit lens 24-105 F4L or 24-70Mark 1

« on: October 01, 2012, 04:49:34 PM »

Since money is a consideration, the 24-105 in kit form wins hands down. Especially considering the high ISO capabilities of the 6D.

If you later discover that you really need that extra stop, you can sell the 24-105 for at least as much as you paid for it, and maybe even a modest profit.

Another option to consider: the new Tamron 24-70 with image stabilization. Reports are that it's between the original and new Canon versions of the lens in terms of image quality, plus it's got stabilization. However, there're also reports that they had some production line process problems with the first batch, so you might want to hesitate before pulling the trigger.

The scales are pretty well balanced between all these lenses; you're not going to go worng, regardless. You're most likely going to wish you had more speed regardless, even if you go with an f/2.8 lens...and that's something you can only solve with the addition of a fast prime.

Cheers,

b&

635

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Compact Street Shooter with crazy fast auto focus

« on: October 01, 2012, 12:21:50 PM »

If you can give up on "shirt pocketable" and the articulated screen, the 5DIII with a Shorty McForty is far and away the best option for all your other requirements. Depending on what the autofocus on the 6D turns out to be like in the real world, that may be an option as well that saves a bit on size, weight, and money.

b&

636

Lenses / Re: what filter for my first "L" Lens

« on: September 29, 2012, 12:15:16 AM »

Hoya HD Clear works great on the 17-55...and, yes, it is easy to clean as advertised.

For those who question whether a filter would actually protect the front element from a blow, consider at least an extension ring.  I've seen seemingly innocent bumps dent the threads of unprotected lenses.  A filter, a hood (threaded or bayonet), or an extension ring would help prevent damage to the lens' threads.

Actually...not.

In the real world, something that would dent unprotected threads, if you had a filter on, would jam the filter on. You'd then have an expensive repair to remove the filter, repair and / or replace the filter threads, and maybe even replace the front element if the filter can't be removed without damaging it..

Without the filter, just burnishing out the dented threads would probably be all you'd need.

And, with a lens hood, you'd either have no damage or would just have to get a new lens hood.

Seriously: use hoods for protection except for cases where you need eye protection or weather sealing for certain L lenses in really nasty weather conditions. And, even then, still use the hood. <i>Especially</i> then -- the filter is going to make flare worse, possibly much worse, and the hood is going to cut down on flare.

Cheers,

b&

637

Software & Accessories / Re: Any experience with Gura Gear bags?

« on: September 28, 2012, 08:12:22 PM »

There's a review on the home page of the Rumors main site:

http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/gura-gear-bataflae-backpack-review-et-ceteratembo-range/

Good enough for you...?

b&

638

Lenses / Re: what filter for my first "L" Lens

« on: September 28, 2012, 05:08:27 PM »

A good filter is generally going to cost as much as repairing the front element -- and even the best filters are still going to degrade image quality (even if imperceptibly in ideal lighting conditions).

A lens hood, on the other hand, is always going to improve image quality, plus it offers superior protection to all the most common dangers lenses face.

There are only two scenarios where a filter makes sense for protection. The first is for weather sealing for lenses that require it (and, obviously, only in adverse weather conditions). The second is where you yourself require eye protection: rodeos where the horses are kicking gravel at your face, seaside where the waves are crashing on your head, that sort of thing.

Of course, polarizing and neutral density filters are a completely different story.

Cheers,

b&

639

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Chasing exposure

« on: September 25, 2012, 11:31:50 AM »

The perfect exposure is the one that results in the perfect print.

So, first you have to decide what would constitute the perfect print. Then, you'll want to experiment with different ways of determining exposure until you find a workflow that lets you get that perfect print.

It might be that you normally only shoot well-lit low-contrast scenes in a controlled environment. In that case, your best bet is generally an exposure in which a gray card gets rendered as middle gray, or a traditional "correct" exposure.

It might be that you're shooting a high-contrast scene where you don't have any control over the light. In those cases, you've got some choices.

It might be a field with lots of dewdrops with colorful specular highlights that you want to draw attention to, in which case you want to expose for those highlights lest you blow them out and lose all the color. That might mean ETTL, or "expose to the left," which would be okay because you were planning on crushing the shadows anyway in order to provide more contrast with the sparkly bits. Nighttime cityscapes where it's the colored lights you're shooting are similar.

Or, it might be that your subject is dark and in shadow, that you really want to bring out its texture, and you're planning on blowing the highlights again to provide contrast. In this case, it's ETTR all the way.

You might be looking to do a bit of both, in which case you're either back at the "standard" gray card exposure as a least-worst compromise, or you need to use some other technique to tame the dynamic range (such as HDR or graduated filters, if not lighting / reflectors / whatever).

The one thing I'd recommend against is automatically getting on the ETTR bandwagon. The whole point of ETTR is to reduce shadow noise, and it does so by effectively reducing the ISO rating. As such, it only makes sense for low-contrast scenes shot at base ISO -- and modern DSLRs just don't have any appreciable noise in such settings. In high-contrast situations where you might wish for less noise in the shadows when you have to boost them in post, ETTR is going to blow out the highlights. That's great if you care more about the shadows than the highlights, but lousy if you care more about the highlights than the shadows. And, at anything other than base ISO, you're much better off lowering the ISO than using ETTR.

Also, most ETTR workflows apply the exposure compensation after the tone curve has been applied, which results in all sorts of weird tone and chroma shifts; if you're serious about ETTR, you really need to be working with the linear RAW file...something that's generally waaaaay more hassle than it's worth -- in no small measure because you're then giving up all the wonderful modern tools like Adobe Camera Raw and Lightroom and their shadow boost / highlight recovery / etc. stuff.

Cheers,

b&

640

EOS Bodies / Re: POLL: Would you pay for firmware feature upgrades?

« on: September 20, 2012, 09:03:57 PM »

afaik afma has nothing to do with hardware, but is a simple software hack that remembers the data per lens and adds/substracts this value from the values it's getting from the phase af.

I wouldn't assume that at all. My guess would be that autofocus is running on its own ASIC, and the code on said chip needs to know about the fact that it's supposed to accept offsets. If the chip wasn't designed with that type of input in mind, it may well be that it only has pins capable of starting and stopping the focus system.

At least, that'd be the cheapest way to build such a thing. Why add hooks for knobs that you know will never get twisted?

b&

641

EOS Bodies / Re: POLL: Would you pay for firmware feature upgrades?

« on: September 20, 2012, 08:01:00 PM »

This question seems to get posted every few months. I'm not sure why you are asking

... because I guess that the 1/180 x-sync and 1/4000 shutter limitations on the 6d are not hardware limitations, but put there by marketing to set every spec in the sheet below the 5d3.

Eh, no. Not at all.

The 6D also has a much shorter life expectancy for the shutter.

Put it all together, and it's clear that it's an entirely physically different shutter from the 5DIII -- one that's slower and less durable, and obviously cheaper.

We can surmise that the shutter doesn't move as fast because the maximum shutter speed is slower. That means that it takes longer for the first curtain to clear the sensor, which also accounts for the slower sync speed.

No firmware in the world will ever get those shutter curtains to move faster, unless there's something in the firmware that controls the voltage to the shutter actuators, which I rather doubt. Even if it exists, it'd probably blow up your shutter right quick.

And, as for missing AFMA? Considering the 6D has a brand-new bottom-of-the-line autofocus system, I wouldn't at all be surprised if AFMA relies on some of the circuitry in said autofocus system. Considering that it's the autofocus system that drives the lens and that that might not be controlled by firmware...well, if so, you won't be getting AFMA on the 6D.

Really, I don't think Canon is in the business of crippling products with firmware. I think most of the "crippling" has much more to do with manufacturing practices, design tolerances, and that sort of thing. That is, the camera is cheaper because it's more cheaply made with cheaper parts assembled to lower standards. It's still a great camera, but it's not as highly refined as the 5DIII.

And isn't that exactly what everybody has been asking for? A no-frills, cut-all-the-corners, consumer-oriented full-frame camera?

Cheers,

b&

642

EOS Bodies / Re: POLL: With what features would you consider the 6d?

« on: September 18, 2012, 10:36:13 PM »

As I wrote on the other thread: I've already got a 5DIII. Why would I need a 6D?

I actually think it's a fair price for a reasonable camera. Sure, it's "meh," but it's in the middle of the product lineup. Could Canon make a camera with everything everybody's bitching the 6D doesn't have? Of course -- and they did! It's called the 5DIII, and it's priced accordingly....

b&

643

EOS Bodies / Re: At what price point will you consider buying the Canon 6D?

« on: September 18, 2012, 04:24:07 PM »

I've got a 5DIII. What would I want with a 6D?

If it were throw-away cheap, a few hundred dollars, such that I could toss one in a bag as a backup and not care much what happened to it, sure, maybe. Otherwise...well, there's no more reason for me to buy a 6D than there would to buy a Rebel.

Doesn't mean I think it's a bad camera. It seems a reasonable camera for the price. Hardly exciting, but I'm sure lots of people will put it to excellent use and get great value from it.

Cheers,

b&

644

Lenses / Re: What should I go for now?

« on: September 16, 2012, 01:31:14 PM »

My advice?

The gear you already have is perfect for being an "Uncle Bob" -- that guy with the "serious" camera equipment who show up to all the weddings. And being an Uncle Bob can be a lot of fun, and you can even get some good shots out of it. Especially if you forget about the classic must-have shots and instead focus on the types of shots that the hired photographer isn't going to be bothering with or isn't in a position to get.

So, the next time a friend or relative invites you to a wedding, do exactly that, have some fun, and get an idea for what the hired photographer is doing.

If you really had a lot of fun and you got a handful of good shots and you still think that's something you want to do for a living, contact some well-established local wedding photographers and convince one of them to hire you as a second shooter.

At that point, you're off and running.

You might notice that my post is almost entirely devoid of gear advice. That's because, even though wedding photography demands some of the most expensive gear setups in all of photography (basically, low-light high-reliability photojournalism), the gear is actually pretty far down on the list of what you need to be a successful wedding photographer.

Cheers,

b&

645

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS-M Body Only?

« on: September 16, 2012, 12:05:32 PM »

Sorry >_< I'm pretty sure in the time that it's been announced somebody has asked this question.

But will Canon sell the M as a body only camera? I don't really need the lenses that it comes with and I'd rather just purchase the M with the EF connector so I can put a 24-70 I on it or my 24-105 to use it with.

Thanks!

Out of curiosity...why?

The whole point of mirrorless is that it's small. Both those lenses are huge in proportion to the M, and there's not that much difference in total size between a 24-70 with an M mounted to it and a 24-70 with a Rebel mounted to it. Plus, there's the ergonomics question...you're not going to be able to hold the camera with one hand. Indeed, I don't know that the M's mount would be able to support that kind of weight.

And then there's the question of focal lengths. On APS-C, both those lenses are at about 40mm-equivalent at their widest, which isn't very wide at all. I suppose the 24-105 on APS-C might not be too bad for portraiture...except that it's f/4 on APS-C, which doesn't give you a lot of room for shallow depth of field or low light work. It might not be bad for studio flash portraiture where you're looking for more than just the eyeball to be in focus...but I really can't see using an M in that situation, period. Especially if you're using a tripod...I wouldn't trust the M's tripod and lens mounts with a 24-70 on the front.

So...really. What do you have in mind that you want to do with that combination?

Cheers,

b&