September 02, 2014, 10:24:32 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 - Northstar

Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 96
Animal Kingdom / Re: Your best animal shots!
« on: February 27, 2014, 09:53:47 AM »
I just purchased a Canon 180mm f3.5 Macro L and have had great fun with it.  This is a Hoverfly, less than 1/4" long in real life.  Photograph made hand held in natural light, ISO 200, f7.1 @ 1/500.

great shot!

Marsu...I think you're right that many know about it, but I also think many don't and/or don't know it well enough.  It's an incredible learning tool/website for those that don't, or want to learn more....which is why I posted.

I didn't want to criticize, on the contrary, posting standard links now and again is a good idea since old threads obviously seldom get read :-p ... speaking of which and concerning 1dx/6d/60 & ff/crop, I didn't post this link for some weeks now :->

Pro DSLR + Cheapo Lens vs "Cheapo" DSLR + Pro Lens

No offense taken.

I've seen that video, I think Kai does some funny stuff from time to time...rather hit or miss though.   I just noticed he posted a new video on how to shoot nude portraits that I'm sure some would enjoy....for learning purposes of course.

EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 27, 2014, 06:20:41 AM »

If the light is constant and you compare an image from a crop sensor and FF. both shot in M mode, at the same aperture and SS you'll notice the FF image to be brighter. I think it's like 2/3 of a stop. Could be more. However, in Av mode both cameras should spit out the same as the camera adjusts the SS accordingly. I did this experiment with my 5D2 and 7D. The FF gathers more light. So in low light it does make a difference. In bright sunlight that wouldn't be an issue as your SS can be whatever.

Only if your camera is faulty, exposure has nothing to do with sensor size. Absolutely nothing.

I see. Could it be due to the larger pixels then? 5d3 and 1dx always seem to underexpose by 1/4 stop if I let the camera choose the exposure.   Different cameras expose differently even in manual with the same settings.  Maybe the reasons are technical design differences, manufacturing allowances, product manager goals/ objectives for marketing the camera...I don't have the answer, maybe someone else does.

When using the exact same:
1. Focal length
2. Aperture
3. Distance to target

Thanks, but I suspect most of us know about that, but just to recapitulate and not enter any mudslinging again :-p the issue at hand is:

* same focal lengths just for the sake of discussion, but the different working distance for live critters is an issue

* not the same distance to target to have the same framing (I'd like the butterfly to fill my frame, no matter the sensor size). Given the specifics of a macro lens, this might also mean the effective f-stop differs even more than at standard distances.

* not the same aperture to reach a comparable dof, resulting in an iso shift

Overall, the 1D X and 6D deliver the best quality, with the weak spot of the 6D being its viewfinder

Um, what's wrong with the 6d vf? I've never come near a 1dx, so I cannot tell the difference and what you might refer to.

Marsu...I think you're right that many know about it, but I also think many don't and/or don't know it well enough.  It's an incredible learning tool/website for those that don't, or want to learn more....which is why I posted.

It's much easier to learn about DOF when you manipulate the variables on a calculator and see actual results versus reading about the subject.   And for macro work, DOF knowledge is critical.

As to the OP's original question, I think with good light it doesn't matter so much, but if you have golden hour light and need to work with higher ISO values then I would much rather have the FF.   

Hopefully this is helpful for some folks following this discussion.

When using the exact same:

1. Focal length
2. Aperture
3. Distance to target

The following two images show what happens to the depth of field when using a crop vs a FF camera.  I've compared a 5d3 with a 7D.  Note that the crop camera has a shallower depth of field

For anyone following this post that wants to learn more about depth of field and how it changes with different apertures, distances, and focal lengths, then go play around with the following website.  (Neuro referenced it earlier)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Tips on shooting hockey?
« on: February 26, 2014, 07:47:52 PM »
I am trying to improve my sports photography and I am hoping that the expert opinions which abound on this sight can provide me some pointers. I am shooting with a canon 7D, Tamron 70-200 2.8vc, Settings SERVO and AF POINT EXPANSION, custom white balance.

The Arena lighting is.....terrible and my shots are not as sharp as I would hope as I frequently have to adjust to ISO 2000. I also posses a 6D which is able to handle those higher ISO levels but trades off the frame rate.

ISO 2000 is the max(imo) for the 7D so if you're shooting with a 70-200 at ISO 2000, f2.8, and 1/500 and it's still too dark, then you have no choice but to switch to the 6D and shoot at ISO 3200 or 4000. (with hockey you should ideally expose to the right anyway 1/4 to 1/2 stop to see under their helmets a little bit better)

"shooting to the right" is important in hockey, check your histogram.

for hockey, 1/500 is a bare minimum when lighting is terrible.   1/640 is ok/fine, 1/800 or above is ideal.

Lenses / Re: General purpose zoom for honeymoon
« on: February 26, 2014, 07:36:34 AM »
Thanks for all the comments. Some really great advice here.

I think I'll go with just maybe 2 primes. Think it might end up being 24mm and 100l (because I love macro).

And pack my compact for days when life is more important than ultimate iq

Yes, and also take plenty of vitamins. ;D

I'm also planning a trip and I am tired of lugging all the big gear (and worrying about it being stolen from the hotel room ) so I'm looking at something small and light with great IQ....the Fuji x100s.

So if you're itching to buy something new for the trip, the Fuji x100s would be my recommendation....and leave all the pro gear at home.

Lenses / Re: 24-70 II slight clicking sound when zooming
« on: February 26, 2014, 06:01:40 AM »
Wants to buy a 03xxx lens - very sharp, same click click sound. Go to another shop, get a 08xxx lens - sharp also, same click click sound!

At the the noise indicating an issue or not? Did someone buy it such lens and kept for long time? How this evolves?

It's too soon to know.  I've had mine for 10 months and it has a faint clicking sound, but no other issues....images are wonderful.

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images
« on: February 26, 2014, 05:57:27 AM »

Tex....Interesting pictures, but no story to go with them?

OK, breify, 5PM, I get home from work dog tired, change into jogging clothing (shorts and t-shirt, it's 90 degrees here).  I then lay down on my bed, you know for a second.  30 min later I wake up to smoke.  I run around the apartment and no, it's not my place.  Out on the balcony, white smoke from down the street.  Out of my fully stocked camera bag (2 bodies 4 lenses, flash and iPad), I grab my 5DIII and 24-70.  Stick it in a small backpack and head out to see the small fire/go jogging. 

By the time I get there it's more intense, flames from the roof, but one small place.  Snap a pic, and then go into the adult learning center next door and start telling people to get out.  Most argue, there's no fire here...  The school shares a wall with the burning place and no windows look straight at it.  Then flames start licking around the windows.  Now people get moving.  Back on the ground floor, i depart wit the students but spot the first TV camera to arrive.  I fall in behind him and start shooting.  By now, 50 feet high flames, sparks, small explosions... For the next 2 hours, I am a press photographer....  Nobody asked for creds.

BTW, I don't recommend this for others.  I am a Law Enforcement officer and have fire training from my days in the military, and from my current employment.  I am no fire fighter, but I can take care of myself.  It was fun.  Nobody got hurt. 

I farmed photos out to the local papers, websites, nobody printed even one.  You know what they did print 100+ blurry cell phone pics....   I had HD video, the websites ran vertical video from the cell cams.  Ah well.

Glad nobody was hurt....interesting story.

They're great my experience, I've noticed that the newspaper people are concerned much more with words rather than pictures....unfortunately.

Lenses / Re: 24-70/2.8 Canon or Tamron: Which did you choose and why?
« on: February 26, 2014, 05:41:36 AM »

In my opinion the Tamron 24-70 VC is better then the Canon version 1 and about 90% as good as version II at half the price. But if I had the money at that time, I would have still bought the Canon II again.

I just shot a baby birthday at an indoor restaurant in evening with 5D III and Canon 24-70 II and found some of the photo's had blur.  I had kept iso at 800 to get clean photo's with flash firing on camera (bounce), but on some of the longer focals >50 mm and group shots requiring narrower aperture, my hand shake got in the way.  Would the Tamron's VC solve this problem in practicality?  The more I shoot dim events, the more I wish my 24-70 II had IS  :-\

What was your shutter speed?  You probably should've doubled your ISO and shutter speed.   ISO 1600 is no problem for the 5d3.

Canon General / Re: Off Brand: Nikon Announces the D4S
« on: February 25, 2014, 10:49:50 AM »
To those who say "Canon is not innovative," can now boast of Nikon innovation with ISO 409600. I do not know what use it but the marketing arrange one.
That's what caught my eye, too, and as someone who uses ISO 102400 on my 5DIII all the time, I might have to sell all of my Canon gear to get the D4S.  I think it will really help with my upcoming series - Coal Mines by Matchlight.  If I accidentally run into some methane, this might be my last post ;)


Will the screen still be green?   

This does nothing to the 1dx or would piss me off if I was a Nikon guy and I had bought a D4 anytime in the past year. 

1DXii doesn't become available until late 2015.'s a clear sign that the 1dX was the better camera...and Nikon had to do something to keep it's pros from switching, and to keep the first time buying a pro body "upgraders" from switching.

Lenses / Re: 24-70/2.8 Canon or Tamron: Which did you choose and why?
« on: February 25, 2014, 06:46:03 AM »
Sold the 24-105 to buy the canon 24-70 2.8ii...never considered the Tamron.

I live by one rule when it comes to buying most anything that I intend to own for the long better quality/brand..  (It took me a good decade or so to learn this).
A year or two from now you won't even know where the $ is that you saved by going the cheaper route, and you'll wish you had just bought the canon to begin with.

I agree with mrsfoto...the 24-105 is a great lens if you don't need the extra stop of light...but it's IQ is less compared to the 24-70 2.8ii.


I still have my 24-105, is it really that average? I keep reading reviews where people pay it out...?

I liked my 24-105 but I need the f2.8 for my use....and I find the 24-70ii a little sharper.  I do miss the 71-105 though..

Hello everyone !!  :)

I present you my new film !

You can see it there :

It was shot with a Canon 6D with Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L  + 70-200mm f/2.8 L.
I wanted to show you and to have your feedbacks.

Thank you.

And if you like it, please share it ;)


I like it!   What's it for?  HS football promo stuff?

you can put a 100mp sensor in a phone and a 10,000x zoom but you're still going to get shitty images with a shitty lens with shitty auto focus with shitty 1 second delay with shitty shitty shitty S___

hey lewis...tell us how you really feel.   8) ;)

Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 96