January 30, 2015, 09:06:48 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 ... 115 116 [117] 118 119 ... 176
1741
Lenses / Re: Landscape Question
« on: August 13, 2012, 09:52:41 AM »
Great stuff.  This fall there is a week in September where I have no sporting events and am traveling to Pennsylvania and I'd like to do some landscape scenery so this thread will certianly come in handy.  Hate to start another thread, but I'm definitely, anyways at least, going to buy a TS lens.  I cannot decide between the 17 and 24 at this point.  I don't shoot a whole lot below 20mm, but I wanted to ask.  Thanks.

1742
Lenses / Re: Landscape Question
« on: August 12, 2012, 11:05:19 PM »
Thanks to everybody.  Wow, this has been really informative. 

1743
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 5dc, better than T1i?
« on: August 12, 2012, 08:40:43 PM »
I woned a Rebel XT then got a 5Dc. I loved the 5Dc and yes it can produce stunning images, however I have done ISO tests with it and the T2i and I found little or no difference in ISO capabilities.

If you want a step up in ISO performance, you need to go to a 5Dii. Thats what I'd recommend for you.

This may be just for my own use, but do you have any data for the 5Dc vs. 1Ds Mark II regarding ISO noise?  How do the two compare?  If you don't know that's okay, I was just curious.

1744
Lenses / Re: Landscape Question
« on: August 12, 2012, 08:38:17 PM »
The digital picture website has a page which lists the DLA aperture for most of the Canon (sensors) cameras.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Field-of-View-Crop-Factor.aspx

its shows with 5DIII you can probably go till f/10 and with 1DX till f/11. You might find the page useful for your later works (as I think "today afternoon" is already gone).

It looks like 5DC, 1DIIN and 1DII had the largest sized pixels of any canon DSLR till date and hence also allowed the smalled apertures till diffraction limits set in (all f/13)

[I rounded down all the DLAs to the nearest full stop]

Thanks!  I was using a 35L which I guess in this case would be much worse when you zoom or crop in for detail.  Even with a 22 mp camera/picture.  Even though I was totally within focus, the detail is blurred upon crop or examination.

1745
Lenses / Re: Landscape Question
« on: August 12, 2012, 08:36:37 PM »
Actually Richard,

Thank you!  Only shooting sports and indoor weddings, my gosh I never really had to think of these things.  Thanks, that actually helps me as I'm really looking to expand my photography on a personal level, and landscape is definitely always been one of my favorites, but just never had the time to do it. 

I ran across a football stadium photo I took, the field runs north-south and I was at the south end looking north, looking towards both stands on my left and right, colors were pretty saturated, right down the field.  There was also a flagpole in my center which was situated on the south end of the field.  I was shooting with the 35L lens, and in my worry to "get everything in focus" I shot at f/22.  Well when I went home, eh, even the light poles and overhead lights weren't really sharp at all.  In fact, nothing was really all that sharp at all.  The scoreboard lettering had "pixelated" and you really couldn't read it.  Now mind you I was using a tripod at 1/100 at ISO 100. 

My question is, if I return to this same scene today, which is possible, would shooting at f/8, f/9, f/10, f/11, f/16 trial shots be worth it, ie will a bit wider make a difference in your opinion or is 35mm just too dang far away (although it's hard to fit the whole scene in any longer).  Or, should I back up and shoot longer, and compress everything?  This is just for my own curiosity.

Thanks in advance.

1746
Lenses / Re: Landscape Question
« on: August 12, 2012, 07:56:51 PM »
Well, I think some photographers try to add that detail way back in the background when using a say, a 24mm lens vs. a 200mm lens, where the background is compressed into sort of one focal plane.  So they narrow the aperture with the 24 lens to f/22 (I've seen photography authors do it too), but on the 200mm lens they're fine shooting at f/8 to f/11.  I'd rather get more of my image sharper.  I've shot at f/22 with a 35mm lens and even the center background was not sharp. 

1747
Lenses / Re: Landscape Question
« on: August 12, 2012, 06:47:47 PM »
Thanks.  I do notice on landscape shots where I've been f/22, it just doesn't look as sharp as f/11.  Thanks.

1748
Lenses / Landscape Question
« on: August 12, 2012, 03:50:24 PM »
I'm going to be using my 24L lens this afternoon for some landscape shooting.  I won't have a whole lot of time to screw around and do any testing, so I had a question.  Suppose I'm doing a scene, and want maximum DOF.  I know setting the aperture too narrow can lead to diffraction.  However, since I don't do a whole lot of landscape, what are the consequences of narrowing from f/8, to f/11, to f/16, and to f/22?  Will there be any negative consequences at f/22?  Thanks.

1749
Lenses / Re: Owning the Canon 200-400 f/4L Vs 400 f/2.8L II
« on: August 12, 2012, 12:26:27 PM »
When the 200-400 lens becomes available I will be purchasing it or the 400 2.8 prime. The delima of which of these 2 lenses would be more effective is making me mad.

The versatility of the 200-400 with the built in ext will be excellent. To think, though, that with the 1.4X and 2X ext gives you 3 incredibly useful focal lengths is equally incredible.

Owning the 70-200 f/2.8 II and using both ext's on it often, I think that the 200 to 280mm range of the 200-400 would go unused much of the time.

I have owed the 600 f/4 300 f/2.8 and the 200 f/2. Of all of those lenses, the 300 f/2.8 was my favorite.

Has anyone else given this much thought?

The 200-400 f/4L zoom lens cannot REPLACE the 300 2.8 and 400 2.8 primes.  For most sports shooters, f/4 isn't going to cut it and I've experienced this myself, especially night football where all you have are stadium lights. You also need access to all of the AF sensors in the 1DX and/or 1D Mark IV.  All other purposes, yes, it's a great lens and would alleviate the need to buy a 300 and 400 prime perhaps.

1750
Lenses / Re: Owning the Canon 200-400 f/4L Vs 400 f/2.8L II
« on: August 12, 2012, 12:24:06 PM »
Is anyone here serious about buying the 200-400 if we see a release in the next few weeks?
I'm going to get either the 200-400 or the 400 2.8. I'm just a dad wanting to take photos so I don't think I can justify buying more than one big lens. If the IQ is as good as the 70-200 MK II then it will be enough for me to overlook the loss of speed from 2.8.

I'm worried about the QC a tad too as Canon has had many problems with new product launches lately so I might wait a year before buying.

Exactly.  I don't think I can realistically replace my 300 2.8 and 400 2.8 though.  In sports I need the AF sensor sensitivity as well as the wider than f/4 aperture.  It would be an interesting lens though, for well-lit, outdoor sports.  And, if you are a dad wanting to take photos, it would be an excellent alternative to the 100-400L zoom lens.  We'll see what the price is.

1751
Lenses / Re: What is the secret of this ancient 135
« on: August 12, 2012, 11:58:30 AM »
I won't part with my 135L.
I noted that the more recent the lens launch, the more likely it is better, and popular
New technology is better, obviously
Like 70-200 /2.8L IS II = 2010
100 /2.8L Macro IS =2009
and 85 /1.2L II = 2006
However, I am a bit puzzled by the EF135mm f/2L USM = 1996 !
So popular this one
It must be really good
However, it surely is due to be replaced
Or perhaps it is so good, they wouldn't replace
But, come on! 16 years?

Absolutely agree.  The ONLY reason I use it for basketball, is that you are far enough away that if you open it up to f/2, you don't really have any DOF problems on a particular player, ie the entire player stays in focus, while the background blurs.  This would certainly not be true of the 50L opened to f/2.  I'd buy a 135 f/2L II for sure, especially if it had IS!  To answer your question though, yes, it is a spectacular lens.  For covenience though, the 70-200L II IS does pretty well at 135mm. 

1752
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Possible problem with the 1D X ???
« on: August 12, 2012, 11:38:14 AM »
Yes, that happened to me with the 1DX after I had had about 12 beers.  This chick was so hot and boy did the 1DX really screw that shot up!

1753
Lenses / Re: Which 3 Primes to go for. Your advice will be appreciated
« on: August 12, 2012, 11:36:42 AM »
No matter what you decide you must get the 85 1.2 II, awesome lens.
So, with a 24-105 zoom, and after a while of use, I can check which focal length I was choosing most, then buy the relevant prime
I really wished that the 85mm, comes up as one of my frequent uses
Unfortunately, whenever I check, it seems to be around the 50mm, which I keep choosing again and again, unconsciously
:'(   :'(   :'(

Minus the f/1.2 to f/2.8 range, I'm thinking at all other apertures that the 24-70L II zoom lens will outperform all of the 50mm primes.  I definitely think it will outperform the 35L.  I am selling my 50 primes and 35 prime to get the 24-70L II after I see some field testing.  I no longer require wider than 2.8.

1754
1D X Sample Images / Re: San Francisco Zoo
« on: August 12, 2012, 11:33:56 AM »
Thanks, HeavenHell & DB.

DB, I did use AWB. The koala was sleeping under a very warm lamp. The color in the photo is actually correct. Like you, I played with the WB (though in LightRoom). While it definitely looks more "normal" with the koala grey, in the end, I decided to keep it overly warm as (right or wrong :)) that's the way it looked.

Shawn L.

To that end, the AWB on the 1DX is absolutely fantastic.  I tested it out last night again.  In tungsten lighting, there were no green bands in the shadows like on the 5D3's AWB.  The 5D3 is still leaving a bit of greenish tint shadowing.  And, I metered off a styrofoam cup and got a higher color temp that way vs. AWB in the entire scene.  I think for basketball and volleyball this year I'll probably just grab a styrofoam cup real quick, meter the color temp in the gym before the game, set the temp in custom WB and be done with it.  Pretty useful trick thanks to TrumpetPower.  That green banding can be very annoying.

1755
Lighting / Re: Smallest capable speedlight for 5D m3
« on: August 12, 2012, 11:26:09 AM »
I was reading about Canon flashes, and I remember there being some compatability issues in that regard with the 5D3 and 1DX.  I know some of them won't do that with the 5D3 at all, but I'm not sure about your model.  I will look it up again.

Pages: 1 ... 115 116 [117] 118 119 ... 176