Messages

16

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma Announces 18-35 f/1.8 DC HSM Art for APS-C

« on: April 20, 2013, 12:55:31 PM »

But if you disagree with me and think that an f1.8 lens on 1.6x crop captures more light than a lens with an equal field of view at f2.8 on full frame, then fair enough. I've tried explaining this concept in many different ways, and you still don't get it. So I give up.

Why do you care how much light the lenses capture? That's irrelevant. What I care about is the final exposure.

With an f/1.8 lens, the final exposure will be brighter than with an f/2.8 lens no matter what (even if the f/2.8 lens is "capturing" more light, it doesn't "capture" enough to be brighter than the f/1.8 lens in-camera). This is true regardless of whether you use one lens on crop and one on FF, or both on FF, or both on crop.

My original argument which has been hotly debated was merely that as nice as this Sigma 18-35/1.8 is on a crop camera, it's not quite as nice* as a 24-70/2.8 II is on a full frame camera.

That is your subjective opinion. The fact of the matter is that the lenses will have their different uses and there will be situations where each lens is better than the other. Because the Sigma is an f/1.8 lens, it may be quite possible that the 24-70 does not create a bright enough exposure for a photographer in a low-light situation, so the Sigma will be much "nicer" to use in that situation.

17

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma Announces 18-35 f/1.8 DC HSM Art for APS-C

« on: April 18, 2013, 08:31:48 PM »

The difference, though, is that there will be more noise / grain in the crop version, and the math works out such that the APS-C camera with a 30mm lens at f/1.8 @ 1/30 @ ISO 100 and the 135 camera with a 50mm lens at f/2.8 @ 1/30 @ ISO 260 will give you not only the same exposure, but also the same depth of field but still with less noise and more resolution (assuming the same film stock or pixel pitch).

True, but the full frame camera in this scenario also probably costs 3x more than the crop camera did. 

That's why I think this lens is a big deal... Full frame will always be better for sure, but if crop lenses start getting so good that you can get low-light results that are pretty close to a full frame and spend a lot less money, you have a bigger reason to stay with crop.

18

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma Announces 18-35 f/1.8 DC HSM Art for APS-C

« on: April 18, 2013, 06:32:06 PM »

The reason why using an f1.8 lens wide open on crop gives a brighter image than f2.8 on FF (when both are at the same ISO and shutter speed) is the amplification of the crop cameras sensor is 2.56x greater, at the expense of noise at any given ISO rating.

What? That's wrong.

A crop f/1.8 lens and a full frame f/1.8 lens will provide exactly the same exposure when used at the same shutter speed and ISO. The full frame exposure WILL NOT be brighter.

You're right about an FF f/2.8 lens having more light gathering ability than a crop f/1.8 lens, but all that light it gathers is spread over a larger sensor, which makes the exposure more than a full stop darker than if you had used an f/1.8 lens.

So in terms of exposure, a f/1.8 lens is brighter than an f/2.8 lens, regardless of sensor size. Sensor size does affect depth of field, but that's a different story.

19

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma Announces 18-35 f/1.8 DC HSM Art for APS-C

« on: April 18, 2013, 04:14:57 PM »

Some people forget that F aperture is not (just) about bokeh, blur, etc. its about the amount of light which can reach the sensor. In that matter the F value is equivalent between FF and APS-C.

I don't think so. Aperture is about the diameter of the blade iris. The amount of light actually conveyed to the sensor is measured in T stops.

Regardless of the light transmission, an f/1.8 aperture will produce the same exposure at the same ISO and shutter speed whether full frame or crop. I think that's what he means.

20

Lighting / Re: T3i - 600EX-RT or Canon Speedlite 580EX II

« on: April 18, 2013, 02:40:08 PM »

If the OP wasn't concerned about cost, don't you think he would have gotten a camera body that's better than a 2-generations-old Rebel?

I can see a working professional or someone who's serious about photography spending $1000 on a lighting setup (RT flash plus master unit). But for a beginner whose goal is to simply learn photography? Overkill.

I agree that the RT system would be awesome, but it's simply not worth the enormous cost if you just want to learn how to take photographs. Hell, I occasionally get paid for my photography and I still can't afford to buy a pair of 600EXs.

21

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Just bought a 6D

« on: April 18, 2013, 02:03:13 PM »

The 6D has fantastic high-ISO noise performance. Even at 12800, the noise that is there actually looks good (almost film-like) once you apply a bit of color noise reduction in lightroom.

I don't hesitate to use 12800 when the lighting is poor.

22

Software & Accessories / Re: How do betas work?

« on: April 17, 2013, 05:29:27 PM »

Since LR5 now has a public beta release, it's probably in the very late stages of development. Adobe is just using this final beta to track down and fix any possible bugs or incompatibilities they couldn't find or reproduce in a smaller testing environment.

Although the purpose of the beta is to gather data about bugs, crashes, and compatibility issues, chances are most people will have no problem running it, and it will pretty much act the same as the final version. But yes, you will have to purchase the full version to continue using it once the beta period ends.

23

Lighting / Re: T3i - 600EX-RT or Canon Speedlite 580EX II

« on: April 17, 2013, 04:53:26 PM »

I think the 600EX-RT is a ridiculous flash choice for a beginner.

I do paid portrait/wedding work with a 430EX II and two Yongnuo YN560 manual flashes, all of which cost me a total of $300. I also have a set of Phottix Strato II radio triggers but I find in a lot of situations I don't even need them because the YN560s have a reliable and very sensitive optical slave.

If you need a first flash to go with your T3i, the Canon 430EX II is the way to go. It's great because the T3i has an on-board master that can control the 430EX II in TTL mode! That is all you need to get started.

Then head on over to strobist.com and learn how to REALLY use flash. Once you decide it's time for some more flashes, pick up a couple manual flashes and some 3rd party radio triggers (the Phottix Strato IIs are awesome for manual work!) All of this for much less than the cost of a 600EX-RT and the ST-E3. If you REALLY need TTL (you don't) then Yongnuo has great TTL-capable radio trigger set and flashes as well (YN622 trigger for under $100 and the YN568 flash for under $200).

24

EOS Bodies / Re: Sell 60D now or after 70D is shipping?

« on: April 17, 2013, 04:42:23 PM »

Don't wait for the 70D. Either sell your 60D now and buy a 6D or just use the 60D and be happy with it.

The 60D is a fantastic camera, so go use it for what it was meant for: taking photographs! If for some reason you really need less noise at high-ISOs and sharper images then the 6D is also an excellent camera -- but it's not going to make you a better photographer.

If your priority is to make as much money off of the 60D as  you can, then you should sell it immediately. Last year I sold a T3i for $480 and a 5D mark II for $1600. The used street price for both of those bodies dropped tremendously right after I sold them and I was lucky to sell them for the amounts that I did.

25

Lighting / Re: Mixing an Einstein 640/w Cyber commandeer with 600 EX RT's and ST E3 RT.

« on: April 15, 2013, 11:53:18 AM »

Yes you can do that.

Check out this guy's blog: http://www.nicknphoto.com/wedding-reception-lighting/

I am not using the Cyber Commander as a trigger. I use it to remotely adjust power on my strobes. The Commander isn’t too expensive and I think it’s worth it. I still use a 600EX-RT mounted on the hot-shoe and a CST trigger Velcroed on and connected to the camera via a PC Sync cable.

26

Lenses / Re: Which Lens Canon 85mm 1.8 or 135 L

« on: April 12, 2013, 05:38:48 PM »

I replaced my 70-200 f2.8 IS II with a standard zoom and decided to buy the 85 f1.8 to have something in the telephoto range. I wasn't impressed: there was CA, non-rounded bokeh when not wide open, and it wasn't even close to as sharp as the 70-200. Of course, that's comparing a $350 lens with a $2000 one, but still, I wasn't impressed. I returned the 85.

My vote goes to the superior 135L. Or, if money is no object, just get the 70-200 f2.8 IS II.

27

Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM

« on: April 12, 2013, 05:29:55 PM »

Justin, just curious about the photo labeled "Trevor Portrait". Was that lit with flash or natural light?

28

EOS-M / Re: EOS M and Flash X-Sync Question

« on: April 09, 2013, 04:15:20 PM »

I'd definitely consider buying one if high sync speeds are possible! 

High sync speed is different from high speed sync (commonly abbreviated HSS).

A high sync speed is a feature of the camera body, regardless of which flash is used . High speed sync (HSS) is a feature only available on certain flashes.

I don't care about high speed sync (HSS) because I want to use AlienBees, which do not have HSS as a feature. However, I do care about the EOS M's sync speed, because if it has a high sync speed then I can use it to cut more ambient light out of an exposure in which I use my AlienBees to light the subject.

29

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Autofocus not impressive

« on: April 06, 2013, 02:45:37 AM »

I disagree, don't discount the MK3 sales price when the 6D sales price is 1800$. The 6D also has he equally crappy AF as the 5D2. Fell free to read my previous posts.

I'm not going by a sale price, I'm going by the actual price at which you can easily acquire the camera. There is nowhere you can buy a brand new or refurbished 5D3 and only pay $2375. Nowhere. There is one place where they advertise $2375 as the price, but you are going to pay closer to $2500 after shipping and tax. On the other hand, the 6D is easily and readily available at many major online camera retailers, brand new for an ACTUAL price of $1800 (or less, see Amazon). That is how much you pay for the 6D in total, including shipping and tax.

The 6D AF is slightly improved over the 5D2. The extra two points are meaningless, but I've found that the center point focuses excellently in low light and all of the points in general are more accurate compared to the 5D2. Other than those 2 minor things, however, you're right: the 6D autofocus sucks and I wish I had a 5D3 because I rarely compose images with the subject directly in the center of the frame.

But that's not my point. My point is this that the 5D2 is a bad value and it has no place in the current Canon lineup. No matter what your priorities are, there is a camera out there that does what the 5D2 does but better. See here:
5D3: Great low-light performance. Excellent autofocus. $2500 (refurbished).
6D: Excellent low-light performance. Mediocre autofocus. $1800 (new).
7D: Bad low-light performance. Great autofocus. $900 (used).
5D2: Medicore low-light performance. Bad autofocus. $1200 (used).

Care about low-light performance AND autofocus? Get the 5D3, but pay a high price.
Care about low-light performance, but not autofocus? Get the 6D, lower price than 5D3 but low-light performance that is miles ahead of the 5D2.
Don't care about low-light performance, but do care about price? Get the 7D, for its superior autofocus over the 5D2, and yet an even lower price as well.

If you look this completely objectively, you can see that the 5D2 has the worst value of these four cameras. I'm not saying it's a bad camera. I'm not saying you should get rid of yours immediately if you still have one. I'm just saying if you're starting from scratch there's really no reason to get the 5D2. If your priority is low-light performance, the 5D3 and the 6D are better. If your priority is getting a good price, then the 7D is better. If your priority is getting a good autofocus, then the 5D3 and the 7D are better. There is no scenario in which the 5D2 is better.

I'm not saying you're wrong, RLPhoto. And I normally enjoy reading your posts as you usually make a great contribution to the threads here. But this time, I have a strong opinion that your logic is flawed. Why can't you just admit that there is NOTHING* the 5D2 can do better than the 6D but there are SOME THINGS that the 6D can do better than the 5D2?

*Except for price. But as I've stated, if price is your priority then the 7D with it's superior autofocus and high frame-rate is superior to the 5D2 and still available at a lower price. Better value than the 5D2, even with price as your priority.

30

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Autofocus not impressive

« on: April 05, 2013, 07:01:38 PM »

Yes, It's 1800$. I must have viewed an old page.

Not bad, but I can find mk2s locally for 1200$. Still A bad value.

The 6D is not a bad value. As a matter of fact, the 5D2 is the bad value... allow me to explain:

If you care about high-ISO noise performance, then the 6D is an incredible value at $1800 because it provides the same high-ISO performance as a $2500* 5D3 or $6000 1DX.

If you don't care about high-ISO noise performance, a used 5D2 is a bad value because it costs $1200 and has crappy autofocus whereas a used 7D can be had for $900 and has superior autofocus.

*Please do not say that the 5D3 is easily available for $2375 or whatever refurbished. That price is only when you buy direct from Canon, and Canon adds sales tax and shipping which drives the price closer to or over $2500.