December 19, 2014, 11:45:36 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 - AprilForever

Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 50
436
Many are writing about how they crop a great deal, and that it's important.

Where does this come from?

Do you intentionally frame loosely/quickly, or is it more like:

"I wish I had that 300mm lens now that I haven't bought, but I'll crop my 85mm instead"

Sure, ability to crop is good sometimes, but it's not like it's a substitute for equipment or proper photography. and fewer, larger photo sites allow for better image quality in most cases.

It's more like: I wish I had an 800 5.6, but since all I can afford is a 300 2.8 + 2x TC, I may have to crop sometimes.


437
No, not at all.

A FF is not going to give me the FPS I want unless it costs a WHOLE lot of money.

A FF will not give me the reach I need unless it has like 36 MP.

If this is all they can do, this is pathetic. The D800 has it WAY beat.

438
Lenses / Re: Plausibility of a 100-400mm f/4 L IS USM?
« on: February 20, 2012, 10:08:39 AM »
I'm a big fan of my 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM lens. Its served me quite well, and better than the 400mm f/5.6 lenses I've tried from friends or other fellow photographers met out in the field. The only real detractor, however, is the aperture range...f/4.5 to f/5.6 is a bit limiting, from an AF standpoint, and from the standpoint of using a teleconverter. I'd love to have a relatively affordable telephoto zoom lens that I could slap a 1.4x TC on to get 140-560mm f/5.6, something cheaper than the new 200-400mm f/4 L IS USM.

Is a 100-400m f/4 a plausibility, for a "reasonable" cost around $3500 or so? Would it be a lens anyone else even cared about, or is that just a focal range and price that doesn't serve anyone's needs? Personally, I'd find 560/5.6 to be far more useful for general bird photography, without having to lug around a heavy 500mm or 600m L.

Thoughts?

Even a bare 400 f4 prime would bite you for much more than 3500. The 200 f2 goes for around 5000. The 300 2.8 mkI went for around 5000. So... It would probably go for over 5000...

439
EOS Bodies / Re: Due for a letdown?
« on: February 18, 2012, 01:48:20 PM »
Many will finally have to face the real world.  The will not get a 1 series body for $2000 like they wish.  The only question for me, is will it be worth the $1k more or less difference in price between a MK II and whatever FF camera is announced.  The only reason I would replace my MK II is a big high ISO advantage at about the same number of pixels.  A few MP more or less doesn't matter, but a 40MP body with no high ISO improvement wouldn't help my low light photography, even though many would love to see one, and I can understand that.

We should hear more certain specs in the next week or two.

+1 to the lens sales.

Indeed true....

440
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Off Lighting/Color With 7D
« on: February 17, 2012, 01:09:07 PM »
With pictures 1, 2, 3, and the last one, the subjects are light poorly. try shooting with your subject not backlight. Try shooting at either earlier or later in the day. Get the sun shining on your object; point your shadow at the subject to know if it is light well.

What does subject not backlight mean?

Also I can't really control the time of day in those pictures, unfortunately.

Quote
7 is a dull picture because there is no clear purpose to the image; when everything is on focus, nothing is in focus. You need the background to provide the eye a visual cue that there is depth to the scene. Use the 50 1.4 @ 1.4 as much as possible. It will help you develop this vision.

The purpose of 7 is to show what is there, I did not want anything blurred out for depth of field. Good tip, though.

Quote
#8 isn't bad, but would be better if the foreground were either black or lighter.

#9 would be better with a better foreground.

#10 would be better if you had pointed the camera  toward the ground a little more...

Hope this helps! What makes a good picture is not high saturation as much as it is subtle details as listed above; keep working at it! You are getting there!!!

Very helpful!
 Thanks.

Backlighting is when the light is coming from the back of your subject. If you expose for the entire frame, the subject will be dark. This can work well, if you desire to make a silhouette. Or, if you expose for your subject, you can make the entire background fade into white. Either can work, but an underexposed subject which is not black doesn't usually work.

Hope that helps!

441
Lenses / Re: IS substitute for faster glass in low light? Not convinced.
« on: February 17, 2012, 01:04:16 PM »
Many people say that having IS gives you 3 stops of compensation. Which means that you can have a faster shutter speed of 3 stops.


It does not mean you can use a faster shutter speed.  IS lets you use a slower shutter speed and reviewers often test it, and it works.  BUT- only for static subjects.

You are always free to use faster shutter speeds as long as there is enough light.

Here is a image on my 100-400mmL handheld thru my back window at 1/25 sec 400mm.  I grabbed my camera and snapped the image with whatever settings were on it.  I was amazed that a 1/25 sec image came out at all.  Seconds later, he slowly started to roll the baby goat off, and motion blur took over.  He loves the goats, but it hurts when they play on his back.  A few months ago, we watched a new set of babies, and one was on the roof of his goat house and jumped on the horses back as he walked by.  As soon as the horse took one step, the goat left.  It can be a real circus.



Starting to roll



Over he goes, and the goats leave quickly. IS does not let you freeze moving subjects!



Indeed. Although, a supertele lens without IS is extremely hard to use hand-held...

442
EOS Bodies / Re: Anyone else want a cropped sensor?
« on: February 16, 2012, 07:34:00 AM »
So what do folks think the next cropped bodies will be like? Is there anyone else out there who wants one?

I really don't care if my body has a crop sensor or not - I'm interested in the functionality of the body and the pictures resulting from the sensor-lens combination. However, one advantage of ff is the large viewfinder.

The only thing that is very stange that I am currently only using ef lenses that aren't made for my aps-c body - this is historically understandable, and with older lenses it's just fine that only the center is used. But shelling out a lot of €€€/$$$ for an ef tele lens and thinking "great, on a crop body the reach is even further" is just ridiculous - I'm buying high quality glass and it's weight and will never use part of it.

On a crop body, you're using the best part of the glass.

443
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Off Lighting/Color With 7D
« on: February 15, 2012, 10:51:57 PM »
With pictures 1, 2, 3, and the last one, the subjects are light poorly. try shooting with your subject not backlight. Try shooting at either earlier or later in the day. Get the sun shining on your object; point your shadow at the subject to know if it is light well.

7 is a dull picture because there is no clear purpose to the image; when everything is on focus, nothing is in focus. You need the background to provide the eye a visual cue that there is depth to the scene. Use the 50 1.4 @ 1.4 as much as possible. It will help you develop this vision.

#8 isn't bad, but would be better if the foreground were either black or lighter.

#9 would be better with a better foreground.

#10 would be better if you had pointed the camera  toward the ground a little more...

Hope this helps! What makes a good picture is not high saturation as much as it is subtle details as listed above; keep working at it! You are getting there!!!

444
EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II? [CR1]
« on: February 15, 2012, 03:15:54 PM »
My two cents on this. The 7D is really a little bit odd; if one digit (xD) canons are for the pros, then the 7D was a bit weak. On the other hand there are are 3 consumer bodies (xxxxD, xxxD, xxD). This lineup somehow makes sense, just that the 7D is not really pro-grade.

This is how I see the future lineup from Canon: The 1Dx is for sport and wildlife shooters (high speed with 12fps, high ISO up to 200k). Then there will be the 5DmkIII, it looks at the moment that it won't compete with the D800, but I can see where it could be placed. the 5D will be for photojournalists who also like to make movies. The 5D is smaller more mobile package then the 1D, emphasis will be on good high ISO (low light ability, and video)
But there is somethin missing in the pro sector, and this is the landscape shooters. And here could the often rumored 3D fit in, which will be aimed at the D800. A camera with high resolution (40+MP) but a slower speed.

With these 3 pro bodies, there is no room for a 7D, so the xxD will move up a little (to where the 50D was). The difference between a 600D and 60D is quite narrow at the moment, and I think it makes sense to widen this gap.

Conclusion: 3 consumer bodies (entry, standard, advanced) and 3 pro bodies (Action, Landscape, Photojournalist) from canon, this would be a nice and logic lineup.

Why do you think the 1Dx would work for wildlife shooters?

445
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Guinea Pig
« on: February 15, 2012, 03:12:30 PM »
I don't know about using the 7D as a guinea pig.  It seems to me that plenty of pro wildlife/sports fotogs were happy with the 7D being a crop sensor as it gave them more reach.  It could have been the case of canon marketing saying - we have the sensor, we have the AF system, why not.  They only had a pro AF system on the 1D cameras.  Putting it on a crop sensor camera is just a way to use what they already had without eroding too much the sales of the 1D system.  How many sports fotogs do you see walking around with a 1D and a 7d strapped to their photography vests.  I see lots.

APS-C works. Once upon a time, 4x5 film was the stuff. 35mm film killed it. Sure now, and 4x5 quality will always beat 35mm quality. However, there are qualities beyond sterile image quality. FF digital requires lenses which are more expensive. It requires a larger camera. It's lenses are shorter. APS-C has serious benefits.

Nikon knows this. see how much they have put into their DX lineup? If Canon boggles this, Nikon will gladly scoop up disgruntled photographers with a shiny new D400.

Push this argument further and you get little cameras with iPhone sensors

Push it the other way, and buy Phase 1 digital backs. You will have all the quality you could ever want, and everything you've been missing out on with your FF sensor.

APS-C has major benefits over FF for portable wildlife photography. For what I do, even a 1Ds MK III would not suffice. It would require a bigger more expensive lens, and a lot more lugging. FF and APS-C are two different solutions to two different problems. And they both do their job well in their realms. But to nix APS-C in the 7D for full frame has far more drawbacks than benefits.

446
EOS Bodies / Re: Perfect Camera features
« on: February 15, 2012, 02:04:56 AM »
how about one or two of crop factor options? selecting like we select various JPEG sizes?
Wouldn't that be helpful to make your 100 mm to 170 mm just by selecting 1.7 crop factor,

I know probably the view finder needs to be tweaked too or at least show a frame on the overlap display in the view finder to see how you are composing.

Just wondering if any one else likes this feature of its just me

APS-C is cheaper than a full frame which crops... and less bulky...

447
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Guinea Pig
« on: February 15, 2012, 02:03:03 AM »
I don't know about using the 7D as a guinea pig.  It seems to me that plenty of pro wildlife/sports fotogs were happy with the 7D being a crop sensor as it gave them more reach.  It could have been the case of canon marketing saying - we have the sensor, we have the AF system, why not.  They only had a pro AF system on the 1D cameras.  Putting it on a crop sensor camera is just a way to use what they already had without eroding too much the sales of the 1D system.  How many sports fotogs do you see walking around with a 1D and a 7d strapped to their photography vests.  I see lots.

APS-C works. Once upon a time, 4x5 film was the stuff. 35mm film killed it. Sure now, and 4x5 quality will always beat 35mm quality. However, there are qualities beyond sterile image quality. FF digital requires lenses which are more expensive. It requires a larger camera. It's lenses are shorter. APS-C has serious benefits.

Nikon knows this. see how much they have put into their DX lineup? If Canon boggles this, Nikon will gladly scoop up disgruntled photographers with a shiny new D400.

448
EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II? [CR1]
« on: February 15, 2012, 01:55:43 AM »
Cropping will never replace framing the image well in the first place.
Well, yes and no, right? The D800 has a DX Mode that turns it into a crop-sensor camera. The only reason it can do this is because it has a huge number to start out with and it pre-crops it for you down to a 16MP camera. I don't know how this looks in the viewfinder or how it works in practice. It will be interesting.

Think of all the arguments that would just vanish if they came out with an über 5D that had enough MPs to be able to put it into an 16MP crop mode. Also, if you put an EF-S lens on it, it automatically senses it and puts the camera into crop mode.

Yeah, this is pretty much what the D800 does. Cool, right?

Even if you could mount an ef-s lens, it would get caught by the mirror, which is much larger on a FF camera.

What I still can't get is why anyone wants a fullframe 7D. Get a 5d! You speak of autofocus. Get a 1Ds mk III. You speak of price. Get a D800. You say you still want it cheaper. Many have posted they want a 7D FF for not much more than a 7D. This totally makes no sense.

The 7D is a great camera because of it's APS-C sensor. Bloat the sensor, and destroy the camera.

449
EOS Bodies / Re: Anyone else want a cropped sensor?
« on: February 14, 2012, 02:17:50 PM »
Yes, i want a cropped sensor... a 7D mk2 that use a APS-H sensor ( cropped :) ) and the ability to use EF-s lenses.
well, I'm afraid that's not possible. EF-S lenses are only compatible with APS-C. You need FF lenses for APS-H... ::)

Indeed. Even if they did work, there would be serious vignetting. The short back focus might get in the mirror's way, anyway.

450
EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II? [CR1]
« on: February 14, 2012, 02:14:44 PM »
If this rumor is true I want to know who was the bird/sport/wildlife shooter that really pis anoyed the Canon execs? Kill the 1D4 and now kill the 7D?

If you merge the 7D into the 70D what will it cost for a xxxD shooter to move up to the 70D? Will they pay that much? Well, if they just move the present 7D into the smaller body they could save the development cost of a 7D2 but then what will 7D users do for an upgrade?

A question for the FF shooters that keep telling us to move up to FF. Do you shoot a supertelephoto + an extender? If I shot weddings and events there is no way I would have bought a second 7D rather than a 5D2 but I don't. At times I really need a 1120mm FOV (500mm x 1.4 x 1.6).

Perhaps I should buy a 1D4 before they are all gone, that way I would have f/8 AF with the lower crop.

Canon is crazy. It's almost like they want the wildlife people to jump ship. Arthur Morris has been pretty tight-lipped on his blog about his opinion on the 1DX, but a few complaints have slipped through from time to time, especially about the no F8 AF.

To get the same FOV as my 7D with a 300 2.8, I would need a 500 F4. Bigger, heavier, expensiver, less hand-held. To get the same FOV as my 300 2.8 + 2x TC, I would need either to slap on a 2x TC and get a 1000 f8 with no AF, or go for a 800 5.6 with a 1.4x TC and... ...wait a minute, still NO AF!!!

Plus, that little bit of extra depth of field HELPS. Ever shot herons? On my 7D, I usually need to stop down to F8. If I were using FF, I would be stopping my 500 F4 down to f11. More diffraction, more high ISO to get a shutterspeed >1000...

A crop body just plain makes sense.

Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 50