November 26, 2014, 10:30:24 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 - Scarpz13

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
31
Thank you both! I should have known you would have conducted a sophisticated test like that, Neuro. Appreciate you sharing your results...

If I may ask a follow up question; I noticed you tested two filters stacked together; why would you do that? Do you happen to stack your CP filters on top of your UV filters? I like to keep my UV filters on at all times, but also thought putting a CP over a UV had negative effects on picture quality as well.

Cheers!

32
First off, Merry Christmas & Happy Holidays to you and yours :)

I was fortunate to move up to full frame this holiday season; and I thought I had read somewhere that regular UV filters can cause vignetting on the wide end for the 17-40 & 24-105 on full frames.
I have always had B+W 77mm UV Haze MRC 010M Filter on these two lenses... I have been testing them out on my new 5Diii (hooray), but can't seem to notice any significant vignetting at all... just a few indoor test shots, but nothing that I can notice.

Should I be changing these for the "slim" versions? I'd rather not due to additional expense, and lens-cap attachment issues with slim filters...

thanks, as always for your help.

33
PowerShot Cameras / Re: G15 or G1X for my mom???
« on: December 10, 2012, 10:32:58 AM »
Can Anyone commment on how the video is for the G15? especially in low(er) light.. ie: indoors with standard light fixtures?

Tried slapping my 40mm on the 60D and letting my wife use it to take videos of the kids; still too big/too many controls for her, does NOT like the manual focus.

Just want something a little nicer than her old ELPH for pics and videos; I fear the G15 will be pushing it for size as it is, so I probably have to rule out the G1X even though I would probably find it hand for family trips when I dont want to lug around my dSLR. And the G15 seem like a decent compromise; I already tried to push her in mirrorless directions (whether canon or nikon J2) and she seems to want none of that!

thanks for you help...

34
EOS Bodies / Re: 6D hands-on reviews by many websites..
« on: December 10, 2012, 07:22:56 AM »
Enough of these "amateur" categories.  A lot of professionals were shooting and still are shooting with 5D2 which we can say is beaten/on par on almost all camera features by 6D.

+1 ... esp. since a pro starting off with a business is completely different from a seasoned pro with a big budget and lots of assistants - if you're starting off €1000 can buy a (better) lens that make more sense for the business.

But as all marketing divisions know, people have an inherent need to sort things in a linear fashion with as little overlap as possible, but I wouldn't let that cloud the fact that a 5d3+Tamon24/70 will have worse iq than 6d+Canon24/70ii if you're not shooting sports and the af cannot keep up or have to rely on the non-center points.

I have to agree here. I think what is getting overlooked by some is that "professional" simply means one gets paid to take pictures. There is a little shop near where I live that takes children & baby pics- the owner there uses a T1i and 28-135 lens (plus alot of fancy studio lighting). Imagine my horror when we showed up & my wife shelled out $500 for all sorts of prints and frames. BUT I have to admit; photos came out pretty good actually, an in the end I was impressed with the quality of product she provided despite having "non-professional" equipment.

The gentleman that shot my wedding 4 years ago had a 5d classic; I'm sure he would have been thrilled with a 6D and still done a wonderful job. But put a 1Dx in the hands of my father in law, and you'd probably get a lot of nice photos of the back of your lens cap...

I am just a hobbyist myself, and plan on picking up a 6D anyway- but if I WAS starting a business as Marsu42 said, I agree 100%... I'd save the $1000 and use it towards glass/marketing/etc. Then when my company got huge of course I'd let my assistant use it :)

Long story short, to classify a 6D as only for amateur potraits or landscape I personally think is unfair. While many amateurs/hobbyists (myself included) will be the purchasers of 6Ds, I don't see why event photographers needing to replace a 5Dc or 5Dii wouldn't think this camera would work for them.

35
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM "Pancake"
« on: December 09, 2012, 04:51:22 PM »
Has anyone here found the need for the hood? it seems kind of useless... is there a hood from another lens that might work/function here?

And how about a carrying/protective case? Do most of you just stick this in your bag, or is there a need for some kind of pearstone/case etc?

No point in the hood, at all.  I worked out the geometry some time back, and the dedicated hood for the 40/2.8 doesn't actually provide any optical benefit, from what I can tell.  It's too shallow to protect even a 14mm prime from flare.  Since it screws onto the extending front element, 'protection' is questionable, too.

The ES-62 hood (for the 50/1.8) with it's 52mm threaded adapter will fit on the 40/2.8.  It's much deeper, and reportedly doesn't vignette, but would likely provide some flare protection.

The 40/2.8 fits nicely in a Lowepro 8x6 case, but I just put it in my bag or more often, my pocket.

Thx for the advice, as always, Neuro.
I ordered my shorty 40 with ES-62 hood; skipped the case for now.

Appreciate it!

36
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM "Pancake"
« on: December 07, 2012, 09:19:53 AM »
All this wonderful shots have convinced me to make this little economical guy my next lens purchase... for around $150 bucks it looks like a great value.

Has anyone here found the need for the hood? it seems kind of useless... is there a hood from another lens that might work/function here?

And how about a carrying/protective case? Do most of you just stick this in your bag, or is there a need for some kind of pearstone/case etc?

thanks!!

37
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Autofocus selection points...
« on: December 01, 2012, 07:36:47 PM »
DoF is affected by aperture (wider = shallower), focal length (longer = shallower), and subject distance (shorter = shallower).  So...50mm f/2.8 at 8' may be fine for two people, but a shot framing just their heads at 85mm f/2.8 at 6' may be too shallow.  There are online DoF calculators (google DoFmaster), iPhone apps, etc., to play around with. After a while, selecting the aperture that's just narrow enough for your subject(s) becomes intuitive.

Ah! there you go- I knew wider aperture affected depth of field, didn't realize subject distance changed it. Explains why I have the problem more with close up "head shots" on my 50 1.4, then on full body shots.

I will check out DoFmaster for sure... thanks for all your help!

38
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Autofocus selection points...
« on: December 01, 2012, 07:10:10 PM »
The only time to let the camera pick the AF point is during AI Servo tracking (and even then, you're picking the starting point).

Center point focus-recompose = backfocus with a fast prime shot wide open.

If your subject is off center (mine usually are), select the closest AF point to minimize (or eliminate) recompose.

If you have multiple people in a shot, you almost always need to stop down a bit for deeper DoF.

Thank you Neuro- yes I quickly discovered centre point focus- recompose resulted in backfocus. I will take the time to select the closest AF point from now on.

As a follow up- how much does one typically have to stop down for a group shot? I imagine F2.8 gives you a reasonable balance between DOF of low light performance... otherwise why would wedding photogs lug around those huge 2.8 lenses all day- most of the time there at least two people in their shots!

39
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Autofocus selection points...
« on: December 01, 2012, 05:42:11 PM »
Sorry if this is a re-hash of an old topic; I was wondering what people general use for auto-focus points.
I have a 60D, and love to use my 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8 for potraits and indoor photography. With most of my lenses I use the center point and recompose.
I know this isn't ideal with such a shallow depth of field. Especially when taking pictures of 3 or more people who are standing in a group, I find inevitable at least one person is out of focus.
Is there any value in selecting ALL autofocus points and letting the camera choose? is this better or worse when using one of the above lenses wide open, or stopped down to F2 or so?

thanks for your help!

40
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Inexpensive lens for Video
« on: November 30, 2012, 01:49:02 PM »
+1 for 50 1.8 using manual focus

Id use a cheaper prime with manual focus. For something wider but a lil more expensive, the samyang 14mm 2.8 is great for video.  There is also a slightly more expensive "cine" version of the samyang with a manual aperature adjustment ring.  You can de-click the aperture ring to smoothly adjust aperture without abrupt exposure change while filming

for zoom, the 24-105 is a great choice with IS... although I'm not sure Id trust that one in the hands of a clumsy holder LOL.  Lok from digitalrevTV on youtube uses a 24-105 on a 5DII hand-holding and it always looks very pro.

-1 for 50 1.8

Utterly horrible to manually focus with its tiny mf ring with minimal travel. Makes accurately focussing damn hard, especially with fast moving subjects (like kids unless they're asleep)

If you go down the prime route you would be way way better off using an old prime which was designed to be manually focussed with an adapter. Or if you can find a cheap copy the tokina 35mm f2.8 macro is a very nice lens to mf with which is reasonably cheap and gives you a standardish focal length (50mm on crop is great for close ups, but particularly indoors where distances tend to be limited it is nowhere near wide enough for gv's)

Cheap but good zoom for video look for the tamron 17-50 f2.8. Without VC is sharper, with VC will probably give you better results handheld though.

I kind of agree with you on this, Syder. I had the 50mm 1.8 briefly (before upgrading to 1.4) and that focus ring is so small I don't think she will like it. I am finding used 18-55 I.S. lenses online for like 80 or 90 bucks... I may start with that for her, and if it turns out she's making Scorcese-esque movies of our kids every day I'll drop a few hundred bucks on a 17-85.

It doesn't matter that the 18-55 isnt full time manual focus I take it? I should know this, but I imagine the camera automatically turns to "manual" focusing when in video mode...?

41
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Inexpensive lens for Video
« on: November 30, 2012, 08:55:05 AM »
Hi Everyone
Always used my 60D for stills; but now our old video camera has crapped out, which my wife normally uses. I figure if I leave the 60D on video/auto all day my wife can snap and on and shoot videos of the kids in case they do something cute.

I love my wife to death but she has a tendency to "Drop" things. :) thus i dont want to leave my 17-40 or 24-105L on the camera; will video quality suffer greatly if I buy a cheaper 28-135 or maybe 17-85 lens for her?

Please keep in mind it's just for family memories; I don't need to hear about moire, etc lol. I just am looking for insight or recommendations on an inexpensive alternative lens for decent video. I am also not too sure about what focal length is best for video...

thanks for your help!
I use my DSLRs (600D/T3i and 5D Mark III) for video only.

As you might have already played around with and figured out, the AUTO mode can have mixed results for video. These DSLRs may not be great replacements for simple video cameras in many candid, capture-the-moment situations in the hands of people who are used to or prefer the simplicity of a video camera.

As to the lens, compared to the nice quality L's that you mention, image quality will suffer, but not "greatly" in my opinion. Yes, there is a difference in video with good vs. not-so-good lenses. The lenses you describe are reported to be nice lenses, so I'm not sure you would see much difference at all. I seriously doubt that using a cheaper lens (e.g., the 18-55mm) will make the video worse than your "old video camera." But, I don't know how good your old video camera was or a lot of other things.

The 17-85 would be the best bet. Anything longer is just not practical in my opinion for what you are describing (candid, probably handheld shots) and the wider end will sometimes come in handy on the crop sensor (as you know from having the 17-40). Image Stabilization is a must unless you are okay with shaky footage (don't know if your old video camera had it or not). Unfortunately, the 17-85 isn't very fast, so the ISO will end up being quite high... Again, I'm sure you know that already. I haven't used AUTO mode in so long, I can't even recall how low it will set the f-stop before preferring a higher ISO (my vague recollection is that it won't go very low).

Not disregarding the last sentence, you might also consider the 50mm 1.8. Fast and cheap with good image quality.  No IS and no zoom. Focal distance match is up to you. But, for what your describing, might preserve some great memories... and, you'd have added a prime to your mix of lenses for stills. But, zoom might take a priorty, I understand.

Bottom line: 17-85 would be my pick for what you describe.

Thank you very much for taking the time to word such an elaborate and educational response! To be honest, looks like i cheaped out pretty huge on the old video camera, as I find even with the 60D on auto with very little ambient light the picture is already much better (granted i havent viewed it on a large screen). I know her old video camera was basically useless after the sun went down using just indoor light. I'm sure the ISO is cranked on the 60D, but at least you can see what is going on!

I thought of the 50mm 1.8 or 40mm 2.8 as well, just think she will prefer a zoom lens so shes not backing into walls when chasing the kids around.  I think the 17-85 is probably my best bet, since it goes a little wider on my crop body. that being said, the 18-55 IS would probably still do a much better job than her old video camera... i could probably find a T2i with that lens for the same money as the 17-85 anyway... thus giving her a "decent" video camera, and me a back-up SLR :)

thanks again.

42
EOS Bodies - For Video / Inexpensive lens for Video
« on: November 30, 2012, 06:25:23 AM »
Hi Everyone
Always used my 60D for stills; but now our old video camera has crapped out, which my wife normally uses. I figure if I leave the 60D on video/auto all day my wife can snap and on and shoot videos of the kids in case they do something cute.

I love my wife to death but she has a tendency to "Drop" things. :) thus i dont want to leave my 17-40 or 24-105L on the camera; will video quality suffer greatly if I buy a cheaper 28-135 or maybe 17-85 lens for her?

Please keep in mind it's just for family memories; I don't need to hear about moire, etc lol. I just am looking for insight or recommendations on an inexpensive alternative lens for decent video. I am also not too sure about what focal length is best for video...

thanks for your help!

43
Im guessing there is still no way to have this shipped from B&H to Canada?
 :(

44
Canon General / Re: Canon's MAP Pricing Goes Into Full Effect Today
« on: November 01, 2012, 11:00:18 AM »
B&H are already offering a $200 "instant discount" on the MAP prices. Crisis averted. Well, almost.

I believe that $200 is just the current standard Canon Rebate program. I wanted to purchase the 70-200 F4 IS from B&H last week... it was $1049 after rebate. It said "Offer Ends Dec 1, 2012". I waited a week so I could have it on the next credit card cycle... now, *BOOM* price has gone up to $1149 after rebate. Guess I'm out a hundred bucks...

45
Wow- thank you all for your advice!
I may re-think the whole process now, and maybe use my 1k to get either the 85mm or 100m Macro, PLUS the basic 70-200 F4 lens. Hopefully that will round out my kit nicely until my next purchase.

thanks again for the input!  :)

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4