April 21, 2014, 11:05:15 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 - bdunbar79

Pages: 1 ... 99 100 [101] 102 103 ... 162
1501
Lenses / Re: 70-300L or 70-200 2.8 IS II?
« on: August 14, 2012, 11:19:26 PM »
70-200 II.  It excels at sports and portraits.  For games under the lights, the max aperture advantage over the 70-300L is significant when you're trying to freeze action in low light situations.  The 70-200 performs OK with the 1.4x III:  IQ degrades slightly and AF speed takes a hit but gets you to 280mm at f/4, which is still a stop faster than the 70-300L.  The 2x III makes it notably soft (viewing at 100%) and AF speed takes another hit as well, so I wouldn't recommend using it with the 2x unless you really have to.

The 70-300L is good when there is enough light.  It's more compact and weighs less (~1 lb less if although it still weighs about 2.5 lb), which makes it a better choice for places like zoos or day trips.  If you're ok with the weight and cost of the 70-200 II, then get the 70-200 II.  The 70-300L is a great choice if you're budget limited or travel a lot and like to travel light because one lens can cover most of your telephoto range.

Most importantly, you get access to more AF sensor points with the 70-200L II IS lens on the 1D4 and 1DX.  You can shoot sports very easily with the 70-200 whereas the 70-300 performs rather poorly due to lack of AF sensor type access.
Hey, I've been looking to get the 70-300 L, recommended by people on this forum a few weeks back. I have a 5dMkii. I'm not all that familiar with all the terms related to photography, could you please explain what you mean with 'lack of AF sensor type access'? Won't the lens work with all AF points in the Mkiii?

Sure!  Ok, let's just say the 5D Mark III has a potential of 61 AF points and AF sensor types that can be used.  The # you can actually use in certain situations is dependent on the lens being used as well.  More importantly, the PATTERN used depends on the lens.  The 70-200L II IS lens is in Group A, where all 61 AF points can be used in Autofocus mode.  This pattern, however, includes dual cross types and cross types.  This is superior in sports/action motion.  The 70-300L is in Group E, where again, all 61 AF points are available.  However, the pattern here is only certain or a few of the cross types.  So its pattern is far inferior to the 70-200L IS II lens for action/sports/tracking, etc.  I tried to type this off the top of my head, so maybe someone can cite sentences from a manual or do a better job than what I have explained.

1502
Were both sooc? I generally use low NR, even with high ISO which seems to work well. I'll have to try the HTP on the football field Friday night.
HTP is only good for bright daylight or lighting while keeping whites from being blown, shadows wont be as clean, i wonder how it will help you in that situation at night. I don't see a need for it in that situation...
I was thinking to help tone down the white jerseys and helmets that have about a stop more light than the faces. You don't think it would help there? I didn't think it affected shadows (ALO) affects shadows.

I shoot with auto ISO on and spot meter off the jerseys for night football.  If you have a 1D4 or 1DX, you can also shoot EC +1/3 or +2/3.  I'll often spot meter off a bright jersey and then shoot to the right 1/3 or 2/3. 

1503
EOS Bodies / Re: 1DX Worth the Money?
« on: August 14, 2012, 10:39:31 PM »
doesn't the 1dx also have better ISO performance?

Yes, but the issue here is that he already spent $3500 on a 5D Mark III.  The 1D X for him, I'm guessing, on top of that isn't worth it.  The 1D Mark IV is a really good camera, for much less money than a 1DX.  Having a 1D Mark IV/5D Mark III combo is pretty stellar.

1504
Odd, and unfortunate.  I haven't had any problems, AF works normally (except for the AFMA firmware bug) on 10 different lenses, including a 24-105L. 

For some reason, AF fails to work - and I mean completely, it doesn't even try - with my TS-E 24mm II and MP-E 65mm.  I suppose I'll sort that out one of these days...   :P

Well done :)

1505
Lenses / Re: 70-300L or 70-200 2.8 IS II?
« on: August 14, 2012, 09:34:05 PM »
I'm a hobbiest and own both.  I'd have to day that the 70-300 is sharper than the 70-200, though not by a substantial margin.  That, along with the weight, make it my first choice if I'm able to use it.  Its sharp enough to crop photos substantially for more zoom.  Phenomenal lens, hands down (read the review of it in Africa on this site).

However, it falls short for low light.  If you are shooting stills on a tripod, it can be okay, but still has a harder time auto-focusing (compared both shooting colorado wildfires this summer at night).  Night sports outdoors (tried a rodeo), indoor kids programs, etc. - the 70-200 shines.  The auto-focus is definitely faster, even in good light.  So, you might find the 70-300L frustrating at a soccer game even at high noon.

One other option to consider... maybe pick up a used 70-200 2.8 non-IS and a 70-300L for about the same a a bit more money?

FWIW, I've been shooting these lenses with a 60D.  With a FF, you may really want the extra reach.  The clean high-ISO of the Mark III might make the 70-300L work for you.

Ummm no.  The 70-200L II IS is sharper than the 70-300L. 

1506
Lenses / Re: 85mm f/1.2 ii or 135mm f/2
« on: August 14, 2012, 09:30:52 PM »
Question for those suggesting the 135L - the OP has the 70-200/2.8L IS II...does that change your opinion?  Just curious...

Thanks Neuro. I have never shot anything below f2.8, so please elaborate on using the 3 stop ND, would I still over expose if I had the shutter at 1/8000th of a sec?

On bright days, 1/8000 s has sometimes been insufficient for me, even at ISO 50.

Nope. It's lighter, faster and more discreet that the 70-200.

Depends on the situation.  This statement is not true for sports.  You'll miss way too many shots.  It's good for sports only if you have a pre-determined area of the field or court that you will be photographing.  If you don't know the region, you go to the 70-200L, most of the time.

1507
EOS Bodies / Re: 1DX Worth the Money?
« on: August 14, 2012, 09:27:15 PM »
I'm currently shooting with a 60D and 5D Mark iii. I was originally going to get the 1dx but the 5d iii came out sooner. I wanted something with high fps, and am wondering is it worth spending the money. I know it's an amazing camera, however a 1d mark 4 is a lot cheaper lol

If you have a 5D Mark III and are satisfied with the IQ, AND all you want to add are higher fps, then no in your case I'd say it's not worth it.  Are you going to be a paid sports photographer?  If not, get the 1D Mark IV.  If you are, then I'd go with the 1DX over the 1D4 personally.  It's a lot of money either way.  I guess you could sell your 5D3 and buy a 1DX too.

1508
Lenses / Re: 70-300L or 70-200 2.8 IS II?
« on: August 14, 2012, 05:01:44 PM »
70-200 II.  It excels at sports and portraits.  For games under the lights, the max aperture advantage over the 70-300L is significant when you're trying to freeze action in low light situations.  The 70-200 performs OK with the 1.4x III:  IQ degrades slightly and AF speed takes a hit but gets you to 280mm at f/4, which is still a stop faster than the 70-300L.  The 2x III makes it notably soft (viewing at 100%) and AF speed takes another hit as well, so I wouldn't recommend using it with the 2x unless you really have to.

The 70-300L is good when there is enough light.  It's more compact and weighs less (~1 lb less if although it still weighs about 2.5 lb), which makes it a better choice for places like zoos or day trips.  If you're ok with the weight and cost of the 70-200 II, then get the 70-200 II.  The 70-300L is a great choice if you're budget limited or travel a lot and like to travel light because one lens can cover most of your telephoto range.

Most importantly, you get access to more AF sensor points with the 70-200L II IS lens on the 1D4 and 1DX.  You can shoot sports very easily with the 70-200 whereas the 70-300 performs rather poorly due to lack of AF sensor type access.

1509
Lenses / Re: 85mm f/1.2 ii or 135mm f/2
« on: August 14, 2012, 04:03:35 PM »
To actually answer the question, if I had to choose ONE, I'd get the 85L.  However, since I shoot sports, the 135L works great there.  85L is great for portrait work/wedding work.

1510
Lenses / Re: Which 3 Primes to go for. Your advice will be appreciated
« on: August 14, 2012, 11:30:31 AM »
The one point of having primes is for the extra stops of light and their reliable performance. Yes the 70-200 II is more than outstanding but even with IS sometimes it cannot have the picture just because the object may be moving too. Turning up ISO means losing IQ so having the extra stop of light is very helpful.

Yes but everytime you turn the aperture wider, you thin your focal plane.  Much rather have to remove noise than have a completely OOF shot because I didn't get the focal plane correct.  This is especially true on shorter focal length lenses when you're doing close ups. 

1511
Lenses / Re: Sigma 30mm f/1.4 or Canon 35mm f/2?
« on: August 14, 2012, 11:25:22 AM »
My only issue with the 35mm f/2 is that it's bokeh is not so good in the presence of linear objects in the background. There's an example in the photozone review of the lens.

Agree.  The 35 f/2 isn't a particularly good lens and is not at all on a FF.  I liked Paul's 28mm lens suggestion.

1512
Lenses / Re: If you can have ONLY 3 lenses, what would they...???
« on: August 14, 2012, 11:23:26 AM »
Wow a lot of people are shooting with lenses that don't even exist!

If you mean the 24-70L II lens, technically it does exist.  :)

But the 14-24 crap, yeah, that doesn't count.

1513
EOS Bodies / Re: 7d - max ISO issues
« on: August 14, 2012, 10:15:30 AM »
Forget Auto-ISO und the other auto-functions. Dial in the wanted ISO, the wanted aperture and the wanted shutter speed.

That gives the best results.

I disagree. When I take pictures of my son indoors, I set my camera to Av, limit my shutterspeed to never go below 1/1000s and set auto iso to 100-3200. If he gets some bright lights on him I get cleaner images, and I get properly exposed images when he is hit by a shadow, and always freezing his motion. Any other mode and I would either get too long speed, to much or little dof or blown images in bright light in manual mode if iso 100 on 1/1000s is too bright.

Exactly.  Try setting ISO manually in sporting events where clouds are racing by at high speeds with bright sun popping in and out.  This is where ISO safety shift ON, Av = f/6.3, Min shutter speed = 1/500, ISO = auto comes in very handy.  If you do it the other way, you lose your job because 1.  you miss too many shots fiddling with the ISO setting during fast action and 2. your photos aren't exposed correctly.

1514
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 for sports/action?
« on: August 14, 2012, 10:10:48 AM »
Totally agree with the previous post. I shoot motorcycles and wildlife.The 7D is amazing, it's autofocus is excellent and it's extra reach is invaluable. A full frame needs a much bigger lens or a massive crop to match it so blowing away the reason for buying it. If close up its a different story. Problem is noise over 1600 but in good light it's excellent. But...

The 1d4 totally blows it away in all but reach. I've tried sports with a 1DS3 similar to a 5D3 in many respects, and it's like shooting with a snails pace camera. I needed a hugh lens because of no crop, miss shots because the shots per sec was to slow. Got a 1D4, amazing! Image quality a 7d could only dream of, Hugh shutter rate, never misses a shot and I can take it out in a monsoon when the none pro cameras have gone to bed. Got mine for less than half the price of an x. It's definatly way more than half the camera. Funnily enough, I never use the 7d unless it's for a distance shot, the 1ds3 is kept for portraits and landscapes, for everything ease the 1d4 is my camera of choice. The crop comes in handy to.

I would argue that the 1D4 blows the 7D away in reach.  If you crop, you can crop much farther with the 1D4 vs. 7D due to IQ.

1515
The 1D Mark IV is actually the best choice here, but that may well be out of your budget.  The effective crop is much better on this than a 7D, despite being 1.3 vs. 1.6.  It focuses faster and has a much better AF system than either the 7D or 50D.  However, it's still running right around $4k, so probably wouldn't be practical.  In that case, you can win with a 7D.

Pages: 1 ... 99 100 [101] 102 103 ... 162