September 02, 2014, 10:41:52 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 ... 136 137 [138] 139 140 ... 171
2056
whichever mid-range zoom i get, would become my walk around lens.  Since i was hoping to take pictures of people mostly, i figure the IS wouldn't be as useful as say the small aperture.  I do have a 600ex, but have had limited success in using it at bars as the ceilings are all kinds of colors.  But this is just lack of experience, and something i plan to practice more with.

I'd save the primes for portraits and low light.

Right.  I guess what I'm trying to say is that opening the aperture isn't always the way to go.  If you open it up too much in the bar, yes it's dark, but most of your photo will be out of focus.  If you shoot at f/2.8 at 70mm, I've seen shots where the nose is very sharp and ears are slightly blurred.  If it's a general walkaround lens I'd still argue for the 24-105L.  If you have the funds and know you only need up to 70mm, then yes of course, wait for the 24-70L II lens.  On my FF the 24-105L is my most used zoom, behind the 70-200L.  Even indoors I never shoot wider than f/4 because I'm a DOF guy, I like a good amount of DOF.  Only time I don't care is portrait shots, which, with the 600EX-RT, is more than sufficient if you get to know how to use it to shoot at f/4.  However, I use a prime anyways for portrait shots and wouldn't even use a zoom. 

I still just think that you'd use the 24-105L more than the 24-70L, which is sort of specialized.  You need to evaluate closely which shots you'll be taking, what DOF you want, what lighting, and where you'll be.  With a 5D Mark III though, you can shoot at higher ISO values than before, so that will allow you to shoot at narrower apertures.  Heck I shot a few at 12,800 this past week and was able to do NR and print them on photo paper and looked completely fine, and I was at f/6.3.

2057
EOS Bodies / Re: Why are you buying the 1D X?
« on: July 13, 2012, 09:44:43 AM »
I checked out Bryan Carnathan's review of the 1D X (or partial review).  I looked at the ISO charts and at ISO 6400 and 12800, the difference between the 1D X and 5D Mark III really isn't that signifcant and nothing that couldn't be quickly equalized with NR (which you'd have to use for the 1D X image anways).  I don't really see a HUGE ISO advantage from these charts at least. 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-1D-X-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx

Not sure I agree about the equalizing with NR - sure, you can NR the 5DIII image, but you can NR the 1D X image, too, and the relative difference will be maintained (or sharpness will go down if you NR the 5DIII image more). 

But I do agree that while the differences there and visible, they aren't huge.  However, IQ isn't intended to be a differentiator, any more than it was between the 5DII and 1DsIII.  For that matter, in terms of ISO noise, the relative difference between the 1D X and 5DIII is similar to the relative difference between the 5DIII and the 5DII - so if that's the main concern, the 5DII is a much less expensive way to get there...

I agree 100%.  The other aspects of the 1DX do make it a better camera, overall, than the 5D3 for sure.  I too want those advantages which is why I'm getting one.  I also agree that applying more NR, even if just a few percent, will overall make the 5D3 image with less quality than the 1DX image, at the end.  This was just a very narrow observation I had made.

2058
EOS Bodies / Re: Why are you buying the 1D X?
« on: July 13, 2012, 12:02:14 AM »
I checked out Bryan Carnathan's review of the 1D X (or partial review).  I looked at the ISO charts and at ISO 6400 and 12800, the difference between the 1D X and 5D Mark III really isn't that signifcant and nothing that couldn't be quickly equalized with NR (which you'd have to use for the 1D X image anways).  I don't really see a HUGE ISO advantage from these charts at least. 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-1D-X-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx

2059
Lenses / Re: Which L lens will be the first mark III?
« on: July 12, 2012, 08:45:31 PM »
Sorry, I meant the 35 f/1.4L II lens would be out before any other of the lenses had a Mark III, not 1.2.  It's hard to have a 1.2 Mark II when there isn't even a Mark I of those yet I suppose? 

And yes, I agree.  When I'm using my 24-105L lens, I find myself shooting at 65-70mm at least 80-90% of the time.  Get me a 65mm f/1.4L  8)

2060
Thanks for the advice. 

Looks like i'll need to take another look at the 16-35 and 17-40.

Hey, I would not choose the 8-15 for the landscape shots either.  I do shoot a lot of landscape and my personal recommendation, for the price, would be the 17-40L.  Some buy the 16-35L but why?  My landscape shots are at f/8 and narrower.  However, I do own the 16-35L because I use it for other things, such as very low-light, tight room indoor shots.  With landscape photography, I was shooting with a 24 and 35 prime, but the zoom lens offers me much more convenience and flexibility.  I think if you want to only use it for outdoor landscape, 17-40L is YOUR lens.

2061
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Discounts for the 1DX for Christmas?
« on: July 12, 2012, 08:38:25 PM »
Look, there's not going to be a discount on the 1DX.  There wasn't ever for the 1Ds Mark III nor the 1D Mark IV.  And likewise, certainly not for the 1DX.  Sorry.

2062
Lighting / Re: Fauxtographer Ruins Olympic photos.
« on: July 12, 2012, 07:52:05 PM »
If we knew the whole story, opinions would change.

+1

2063
Lighting / Re: Canon Speedlite 600EX-RT - I'm impressed!
« on: July 12, 2012, 07:50:14 PM »
I don't use it for the AF beam.  I literally need an on-cam flash and a fill flash.  Since this is full radio and optical transmission, having two of them for me is certainly not a waste.  I think you thought I meant something else, which is OK, it's hard for me to figure out what others mean too when it's just reading words vs. hearing them speak  8)

2064
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: One way to win customers
« on: July 12, 2012, 07:45:27 PM »
The IQ from the 300 ver I is outstanding from what I have seen, I'm not sure if ver II improves much in that department.

From what I've seen and Bryan Carnathan's website, no the Version II does not offer an enchanced IQ; the selling point was updated IS motor and less weight.  Here's what I did.  I saw the price of the new one, $7299 at B&H.  I then found a version I that was actually in great shape, including the lens mount and the glass was clean, and bought that for $4500.  I don't mind the weight since I'm at a fixed sporting event site when using it.  So I was able to save $2800 and am getting the exact same IQ. 

For the 400 I did the exact same thing.  Found a fantastic version I copy for $5999 vs. the newest price around $10,900 or some even for $11,400.  Again, same IQ, more weight, $5k cheaper. 

Since I saved $7800, that I'd say was a great deal.  Not that spending that kind of money is a great deal, I'd just say relatively speaking $9500 is cheaper than $20,000.

Will I ever spend that much at once on lenses again?  NO.

2065
EOS Bodies / Re: Should I get 7D now or wait for MKII?
« on: July 12, 2012, 04:34:30 PM »
Get the 7D now and enjoy shooting now. You will love the camera forever

If I still had my 7D I wouldn't get rid of it.  The extra reach is really great.  I could go to track meets with a 300 f/4L and be just fine (480mm).

2066
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: One way to win customers
« on: July 12, 2012, 04:31:29 PM »
There are a ton of versions, so I'll type the whole title to the version I have:

300mm f/2.8L IS I

The II is probably much lighter.

2067
Lenses / Re: Canon 28 1.8
« on: July 12, 2012, 04:14:19 PM »
Professional reviews to me, are rather useless.  They are looking at things that just aren't noticed or matter to most of us.  The 20, 24, and 28 non-L lenses are just fine for normal, everyday use, yes even on FF cameras.  If you have some money, get a few of 'em :)

2068
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: One way to win customers
« on: July 12, 2012, 04:12:43 PM »
What, the 70-200L II IS lens/5D Mark III or the 300 f/2.8L IS/5D Mark III?  8)

The 70-200 2.8II.  Unfortunately I can't comment on the 300 2.8L.  Maybe someday.  ;)
I'm sure the 300 f/2.8 and MkIII are an awesome combination too, just not travelling to Uganda with weight restrictions :P. I struck lucky, getting a mint one that had only been used twice. They now sell used (at least from retailers) for £1000 more than I paid. Even sold privately on eBay, they are at least £500 more than I paid.

I will ONLY travel to football games with the 300 f/2.8 already pre-mounted to a monopod and no farther from my car to the stands.  :)

2069
Lighting / Re: Canon Speedlite 600EX-RT - I'm impressed!
« on: July 12, 2012, 04:10:49 PM »
But, why did Canon leave out an AF assist beam on the transmitter??

Many people seem to be wondering about that - I would rather get another 600rt than the rather expensive transmitter due to the missing af beam (which works excellent btw, seems to be better than on my 430ex2). Maybe the transmitter is so small that the beam wouldn't fit? Or they have an updated transmitter in the pipeline, together with the rumored 660rt with ettl-iii (featuring remote 2nd curtain sync :-))?

That's what I did.  Went with 2 of the flashes (at a considerable cost :( ) but I'm really happy with the performance.  I love the master/slave and dual flash, as well as the Manual settings, semi-manual settings are amazing, and last but not least I love the exposure bracketing/compensation.

2070
What you do in this case is get the kit with the 24-105L lens.  This solves all of your problems.

That's what I said :-) ... @squarebox: Maybe have a look at your Lightroom stats again, how many shots did you do with open aperture - so is f2.8 really necessary considering you've already got the primes? And then look at the LR stats for zoom length (you can create a smart filter for this, zoom lenght > x and < y) - is dropping the 70-105 range on the zoom a good idea :-p ?

That's a great way to look at it.


Looking at my stats from the 24-100mm range, 80%+ of my shots were at max aperture, which might not help cause we are talking in the range of f3.5-5.6.

The other thing is that moving up to FF should get me a few stops increase in light performance, so when i see apertures i'm thinking how they work for me on the crop sensor and with weaker ISO capabilities.  So just by moving to the 5D, F4 might work for me.

Well, then the next question is, what are you shooting?  An aperture wider than f/4 is going to give you a pretty darn thin focal plane and your DOF is going to be tiny.  If you are outside in Hawaii, it's sunny.  If you shoot low-light indoors, don't open the aperture, get a good flash.  That way you maintain DOF with a narrower aperture.  I'm just thinking out loud here.

Pages: 1 ... 136 137 [138] 139 140 ... 171