Messages

46

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Black AF points...NOTHING + Spot-meter?

« on: February 17, 2013, 10:34:37 PM »

I have no idea what market the D800 is targeting, since none of Nikon's lenses can even maximally use the 36 MP sensor.

The 5DII trounced the D700 in sales.  Nikon assumed it was due to 21 MP vs. 12 MP.  So, Nikon skated to where the puck used to be, and developed the 36 MP D800.  Canon listened to Wayne and skated to where the puck was going - they developed the 5DIII, which seems to be trouncing the D800 in sales.

So in other words, Canon actually does deliver on what most photographers want?  Wow!

Seems so. I remember about a years worth of "what do you want to see in the new 5D3?" posts right here and the vast majority stated "don't increase the pixel count just fix the *&^%* autofocus" and next was "less moire in the video". Mission accomplished...had the 5D2 and like the 5D3 much better largely for these two things, though there are plenty others as well.

I'm sure a D800 is a fine camera for full daylight shooting with the extra DR at ISO 100, but there is this thing call "indoors" and another thing called "dusk" and another called "night"...lol.

47

Lenses / Re: What's the best deal you've ever gotten on a lens?

« on: February 17, 2013, 08:50:05 PM »

Best new purchase was a 24-105 for $500. Collaborated to buy a 5D3 kit with someone who already had a 24-105 and got the lens for kit price minus body-only price difference.

Best used deal was a mint 200L f2.8 for $460 with a decent quality UV filter.

Funny that neither were really lenses I was planning on but were just deals that came along.

That said, I'm convinced at this point I could have been a pretty happy camper for not very much money at all with nothing more than the 24-105L, 50 Sigma and 200L f/2.8...and maybe also toss in the 1.4x TC3.

48

Lenses / Re: Promaster UV filter quality or lack of it.

« on: February 15, 2013, 05:23:57 PM »

Same story here...when I first started in DSLR I tried a Best-Buy house brand UV filter on a 28-135 and it was very noticable degredation. Bit the bullet for B+W mrc after researching and asking around and LOL, it turns out everybody was right.

I tried a Hoya Digital Pro that came with a used lens I bought and its pretty good. I thought it was garbage at first, but after inspecting it and thinking it didn't need to be cleaned, I cleaned it anyway and then it was fine. Apparently something about its coating can aggregate a not so visible residue over time that really softens the image.

49

Lenses / Re: Canon 24-105 f/4 L IS vs. Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 IS vs. Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II

« on: February 15, 2013, 04:24:38 PM »

Thank you all for the many helpful replies.

I'm going to upgrade from a 550D to a 5DIII (6D probably wouldn't do it) and need a standard zoom.

If you are about to buy a 5D3 body, why not do the kit and get the 24-105 for a measly $500 extra and see if you like it? You can eBay it all day long for $750 if you decide it isn't for you.

I bought a 5D3 body only and passed on the kit and was kicking myself in the head for passing. Fortunately I got a re-do when a family member wanted a new 5D3 body and already had a 24-105. So we "collaborated" on a kit and I got the 24-105 for the kit price. And I gotta say, it's a cool little zoom. Not going to replace primes, but funny how little compulsion I have to upgrade to a $2K zoom with less reach and no IS once this one is in hand for not much $.

Food for thought.

50

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D III Dynamic Range

« on: February 14, 2013, 03:00:01 PM »

Below is the link to show you the good way:
HDR Ep 115: Take & Make Great Photography with Gavin Hoey: Adorama Photography TV

+1 This is a great little tutorial and the most relevant contribution to this thread. I've bookmarked it. Thanks.

-PW

+1 here too

Thanks for posting that link ishdakuteb, very informative...4th post in the thread no less. Any popcorn left?

Too bad for me I actually only viewed this thread today and went thru it from most recent to oldest...

51

EOS Bodies / Re: on the verge of buying, just need some final moral support

« on: February 10, 2013, 09:14:34 PM »

I also strongly agree that you should get the 24-105 + 6D Kit.  It's a great deal.  You won't regret it, but you might regret later when you want the 24-105 for $200+ more price.  And you will, trust me.

Yup.

I bought my 5D3 body only and was kicking myself in the head for passing up the 24-105 for an additional $500...

But luckily got a "redo" when a family member wanted a 5D3 body and already had the 24-105. So we "collaborated" to buy the kit, and family member took body and I the lens.

52

EOS Bodies / Re: on the verge of buying, just need some final moral support

« on: February 10, 2013, 09:08:45 PM »

I had a 6D for a week and sent it back for a 5D3 because I wanted the AF (and my 6D was apparently a dud). That said, if you're hung up on the price of the 5D3 I'd say get the 6D with the 24-105L as a kit. It's a good deal since you end up paying about $500 for the lens and can eBay it all day long for $750. But it's a decent little zoom, so why not get it and keep it for that price?

53

Lenses / Re: Which pair of lenses to get?

« on: February 10, 2013, 08:56:41 PM »

Is it due to the Mk II being better in terms of moire problems?

The 5D2 is well known for it's moire issue, the 6D is somewhat worse. You can buy a filter to fix it for about $300. However, moire is dependent on what it is you are shooting, and if your content is such that it isn't going to provoke moire to an objectionable degree then 6D isn't so bad imo.

The plus side of 6D is its very good at high ISO and also does all I frame. So in those respects a definite step forward from 5D2 video imo.

Lens wise, I'd say it will depend alot on the kind of light you're planning for and if you're planning to use a steady-cam, tripod or do much handheld.

54

Lenses / Re: I want to replace my 18-135 IS STM

« on: February 09, 2013, 10:39:22 PM »

100mm F/2

He already said 135 was too short because he wants to shoot birds... Other than that I actually had the same thought.

55

Lenses / Re: I want to replace my 18-135 IS STM

« on: February 09, 2013, 10:34:14 PM »

If you can "sneaker zoom", the 200L f/2.8 is worth a close look if you want something faster than f/4 in your price range. It would shoot as a 320 full frame equivalent on your t4i. IQ wise, I like it a bit better than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II long end.

Regardless of whether you go for a prime or zoom, if the candidate lens doesn't have IS you might want to first shoot some with the IS off at 135 with your current lens in the conditions you'd want to use the new one. Basically the brighter the light the less important IS becomes since you can freeze the frame with higher shutter speeds. But if you have shake issues with the 135 @f/5.6 in the conditions you want to use it, before you pull the trigger on 200 (zoom or not), you might also want to try a monopod to see if that stabilizes it enough.

If you get a thumbs up testing at 135 with IS off, chances are you'll be fine with a non-IS 200 with more speed. Then its just deciding if you want a f/4 zoom or a f/2.8 prime since they both hit the price target and both have very good IQ and AF.

56

Lenses / Re: AFMA Telephoto/Wide Discrepancy

« on: February 09, 2013, 09:50:32 PM »

FWIW, the fastest and easiest way I've figured out to set AFMA is just set up on tripod, set aperture wide open then take a picture of a window screen at about a 45 degrees horizontal off perpendicular. Zoom the shot on the camera LCD all the way and verify where the vertical "focused strip" of screen is in relation to zooming the center of the shot. Adjust AFMA to get the "focused strip" in the center. I'll itterate between focusing from further out and focusing from closer in and then "average" the results to settle on the AFMA setting used. I have found this to be very accurate and quick...the texture and color of the screen really shows the focus zone prominently and the faster the lens the better it shows. LOL, maybe I'll get torched for offering such an unscientific and gadget free approach, but the shots afterwards pass the pixel peeping tests.

57

Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens

« on: February 03, 2013, 01:36:20 AM »

LOL, I did not expect this thread to still be going either, but since it is and since my 100L is on the fritz and I  need to replace it...

...What is the collective opinion of the Canon 100 f/2? What I really want is a 100L f/1.6, and that to me would be a very cool lens, but alas no such animal exists.

Any comments specific to this particular lens?

58

Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens

« on: February 02, 2013, 10:56:21 AM »

This discussion is becoming even more irrelevant. If you have 200 f/2 why would you use it at f/8 to match the framing of 50 @ 2?

You are late to the party, so based on your comment I'll assume you haven't bothered to read all eleven pages of this (and understandably so).

The point of the experiment was to illustrate that all of this talk of "proper perspective" as expressed as a single lens focal length, is a complete ruse.

If someone wants to argue they generally get pleasing and/or more commercial perspectives with lenses in the such and such length class and they prefer a particular one because of better bokeh, contrast, color renditions, whatever, then I'm all for that, and that seems a whole lot more practical and useful imo than digging in and promulgating myths.

59

Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens

« on: February 02, 2013, 12:35:08 AM »

Now the reason I said the top one was from further was because on my monitor the image right most battery is 1-2mm larger than the bottom one...

OK, I follow you now. And yes, I totally agree the differences in perspective/framing are pretty small between the 100 and 135. I suppose good thing since I'm ditching my 100 due to focus problems and very well may end up with a 135.

60

Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens

« on: February 01, 2013, 11:34:38 PM »

One shot below is with a 50 and cropped and the other with a 200 and cropped.

If I had to guess, the camera was on a tripod and the one with the 50 is much more cropped than the one with a 200. As such, if you also stopped the 200 down a lot more than the 50 (say, f/2 with the 50 and f/8 with the 200), the only difference between the two images would be resolution (and either motion blur if you compensated with shutter speed or noise if you compensated with ISO). And, scaled down for the Web, neither is going to be apparent.

If I'm right, then a coin toss is going to be as good as anything at determining which is which, so I won't even bother.

More interesting for this discussion would be full-frame, uncropped comparisons "zoomed with the feet" to simulate the actual reason one would choose the one lens over the other.

Cheers,

b&

You have the correct technical answer. They were shot at an identical distance (and the 200 was f/8 and the 50 f/2.2, FX added to mask resolution and other differences - you really know your stuff!).

The point was to illustrate the fact that even routine cropping and framing differences with a particular lens will in fact fairly drastically alter the so called "proper perspective". And if we define what "proper perspective" actually constitutes and then express it in terms of focal length - which has been going on for ten pages now - my point is that it is a complete ruse. Because if, just for example, the so called "proper perspective" is achieved with a 90mm for a tight head shoulder shot, then the facial proportions when increasing subject distance only enough so to shoot a full bust/waist up shot, become equivalent to being shot as a tight head/shoulders with roughly a 180mm.

All of that said, I think you have the right idea of what is useful in actually choosing. And I think the findings would be that a range of lens lengths work well. And some have a look to them that really is not so much about length as other factors. JMO of course.

[edit] forgot to add, those are D cells shot from about six feet. They are about the same height as a typical adult ear and nostrils to brow distance. The angle created roughly the same distance and depth from the left most to right most batteries as with adult nose to ear. All to say, a relevant model for the discussion.