Messages

76

Lenses / Re: Lens 'resolving power' vs sensors.

« on: February 17, 2012, 12:27:04 AM »

In non technical terms, what exactly do you mean by "resolving". I have read how the 7D images can look a bit soft at 100% but "resolve" well because there are so many pixels. In this case I assumed "resolved" meant going to 300dpi when printing. You have mentioned lenses resolving to sensors. It all got a bit too technical for me so I'm unclear.  I've been wondering what you guys mean by resolve for a while.

77

Software & Accessories / Re: Mac Book Pro or Asus N55SF or something else for photo editing?

« on: February 12, 2012, 08:53:17 PM »

I have been doing grat with my MacBook Pro 2010.  If I were to buy another one today with $1500 it would be the MacBook Air 13".  The SSD makes more of a difference than the CPU probably when compared to the MacBook Pro with the 5400 rpm drive.

Agreed.  I have a 17" MBPro (2.53 GHz Core i5, 8 GB RAM) and a 13" MBAir (1.8 GHz Core i7, 4 GB RAM), and the Air is very fast thanks to the 256 GB SSD instead of an HDD. 

I can edit images on the 17" MBP, but the 13" display is too small, needs to be connected to my 24" display.

I got a MBP 13" last May, and opted for the SSD drive vs the standard drive.  It is very fast, booting up, etc. Well worth it.  Only problem is the SSD drives have a much smaller capacity vs standard drives.  So you pay in cost, and size of drive.  I push my photos on to an external storage unless I am working on them.

78

Canon General / Re: Is it worth *really* studying photography?

« on: February 08, 2012, 12:25:08 AM »

Photography is my hobby - I don't make any money from it, so I speak without a lot of knowledge on the business side of the industry.

Having said that, I imagine it is getting very, very hard to make any money in photography.  The barriers to entry in the photography business are very low.  Equipment is cheap, relatively speaking.  Not everyone is good at it, but it sure is easy to say you are a wedding photographer by putting up a web page, shooting a few friends weddings, etc.  Someone posted earlier that after 3 years he/she was making $1500 a wedding.  If you spend a total of 15 hours on the project - at the wedding, reception, pre-wedding interviews, post processing, maybe you have a helper you need to pay, etc.  You are not doing much better than minimum wage.  How is that good?

I guess the really, really good photographers make good money.  But it is kind of like saying - I want to be a pro athlete, or professional musician (everyone and their brother plays the guitar).  The really good ones make great money - but that is for the very few and very talented, and in some cases also very lucky.  The majority of the rest can barely scrape out a living.  I know several insanely talented musicians that just get by.

So, my advice to the OP - if you don't absolutely love photography, have it as a passion and obsession in your life, are driven and have a thirst for learning everything about it - then it isn't for you.  If you answer yes to all those things, then that drive and passion will likely lead you to become great - or at least make a decent living and love what you do - which is a major life win if you can pull that off.

79

Lenses / Re: Pricing of the New Lenses

« on: February 07, 2012, 06:03:23 PM »

As far as I can tell, Canon's policy has been to keep US $ pricing consistent regardless of fluctuations in the exchange rate - for the most part.  Instead, it seems that Canon has been "catching up" for the exchange rate with the pricing of new products.

The US dollar purchased ~ 130 yen in 1997.  Today, it purchases ~ 75 yen.
http://www.indexmundi.com/xrates/graph.aspx?c1=JPY&c2=USD&days=5475

So, if it cost Canon 13,000 yen to build the EF 28 f/2.8 in 1997, and that cost in yen has remained constant until today - That same cost in US dollars has increased steadily from $100 in 1997 to $173 in 2012.

In reality, we in the US have been enjoying a steady decrease in the price we pay for Canon cameras & lenses because our dollar is worth less and less over time.  The new product pricing has given us sticker shock because we are getting the exchange rate adjustment all at once.

80

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

« on: February 07, 2012, 12:15:31 PM »

So, why no IS?
- If you are interested in a fast lens - f/2.8, than you are most likely shooting in low light.  Otherwise, you would purchase the 24-105 f/4 IS.
- If you hand-hold, then you need to bump up the shutter speed to compensate, and thereby negate some of the "low light" advantage of the fast aperture.
- This is not a sports lens due to the focal length, (for the most par) - where IS isn't really needed.
- The focal range is in the general purpose/walk-around range.

So, a general purpose, low light lens, not for sports, and used with a tripod?

Without IS, this becomes a very expensive, really sharp, general purpose lens - but not a low-light lens.

Am I missing something? 

81

Lens Gallery / Re: Sigma 30mm f1.4 EX DC HSM

« on: February 01, 2012, 10:46:32 PM »

Does anyone have any experience with this lens on a APS-H sensor lens? What about full frame?

I have used this on a 7D.  Very sharp lens.  I found the AF to be hit and miss, especially in lower light.  When it is on - wow, super sharp - or if you manually focus. 

It is easy to miss shots due to missed AF.

82

Canon General / Re: What should be my first dslr?

« on: February 01, 2012, 10:26:56 PM »

I would buy at B&H.  Most everything offers free shipping, they have a great return policy, ship fast, etc.  You won't get a better price at Best Buy.

For the 7D, I would get the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS.  This is the best general purpose lens for a crop body, and as good as an L lens.  A little pricey for a non-L lens, but worth every penny. 

The second lens I would get is the EF 50 f/1.8.  Around $100, and it will give you the learning experience of a fast lens to play with Depth of Field, something to shoot low-light, no flash, moving subjects. 

Those two lenses will cover you for a while as you move up the learning curve.

83

United Kingdom & Ireland / Re: Similar, but not copied, image found to breach copyright

« on: January 26, 2012, 11:32:54 AM »

That is crazy.  The subject matter is the same, and the color scheme is copied - but otherwise, completely different images.

If this reasoning was followed, every photograph of major landmarks, etc. could be considered in copyright violation of each other.

If there is still an appeal process to use, this one has got to get overturned.

84

Lenses / Re: What about a new 50/1.4 ??

« on: January 26, 2012, 11:04:40 AM »

I bought the Canon 35mm f/2, and am not too happy with it.

I would be interested in why you were not happy with the 35mm f/2 (or anyone else who has used this lens)

I have read universally positive reviews on the 35mm f/2.  Very good value for the price.  Very sharp lens.  Noisy AF is really the only consistent complaint?

I haven't used this lens, but was considering purchasing it.

85

Lenses / Re: Photojournalism/indoor sports lenses

« on: January 20, 2012, 10:20:56 AM »

I agree with the recommendations on the prime lenses.  Vastly less expensive, and faster.  For your $1,200 budget you could get 2 or 3 lenses to cover the focal lengths you need.  That 1 or 2 extra stops makes a big difference.
135 f/2L - excellent
85 f/1.8 - very fast AF, excellent value
50 f/1.4, or even 50 f/1.8 (it's $100)
35 f/2 - loud AF, but good lens

If you get a 70-200 zoom, get the f/2.8L, non-IS.  You don't need IS shooting sports, it adds cost, weight, and gets in the way.

86

Site Information / Re: Should karma remain on the forum?

« on: January 13, 2012, 10:29:00 PM »

The problem with Karma is that it is so undefined.  Good and bad karma is given for disagreeing with an opinion, bad spelling or grammar, personal grudges, just for the fun of it, etc.  Karma can be given for any reason, and therefore it has no meaning.

I personally would only give bad karma if someone is being rude or disrespectful - but that is so rare on this site.

The other problem for me is if I get good or bad karma, I can't see a way to tell what post the karma was for.

So, to me Karma is completely meaningless.

87

Lenses / Re: A tale of 3 Lenses 70-200 F4 IS vs 70-200 F2.8 vs 70-300 F4.5 IS

« on: November 28, 2011, 12:44:27 PM »

I primarily shoot portrait/fashion or sport (daylight - triathlons).  I am a newer photographer, still learning.

While I like the 70-200 F4 I have lost some shots because of non-IS with the sports. 

I shoot a lot of sports (my kids).  Outdoor - soccer, track, cross country.
The keys to getting a sharp photo are high enough shutter speed, and the AF capability of your camera & Lens.
I have a 70-200 f/2.8 IS (mI), and I have to turn off the IS for sports shooting.  Camera movement confuses the IS some times, and I get more keepers with it off.  For sports, IS is of no use.  Your 70-200 f/4 should be fine if you have decent light.  Try bumping up the ISO if it is cloudy and you aren't getting the shutter speeds you need.  Light room does a decent job of getting noise out, so I find a higher ISO is a good trade-off in poor light situations.

I have a 24-105 f/4 and I shoot soccer with it and it is amazing, very sharp, good AF.

A 7D is decent up to 1600 ISO, and the AF is really good.  It took me some time to learn the different focusing modes, but once I did, it works very well.

88

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: APS-C Image Quality (7d vs nex7)

« on: November 18, 2011, 12:36:16 AM »

I have sharpness on my 7D set to 5 or 6, shoot RAW and use L glass. It's tack sharp.

Dumb question, but I'll ask anyway.  Are you talking about the sharpness setting you apply in your post processing, or is there a sharpness setting for the JPEG conversion in-camera?  Is that part of a picture-style?

89

Lenses / Re: Canon 28mm f1.8

« on: November 18, 2011, 12:01:28 AM »

I own the Canon 28 1.8 and love it.

Can anyone with a Canon 28mm f/1.8 comment on the autofocus accuracy and speed?

How is the image quality when at f/1.8? 

How much does it need to be stopped down to get really sharp in the center?

90

EOS Bodies / Re: How often do you go through a body? Why do you upgrade?

« on: November 17, 2011, 09:25:03 PM »

For me, this is all just a hobby.  People that make money with their camera would be much different I'm sure.
Sorry for the long post, but this is a fun topic to comment on.

Pentax K-1000 in 1982.  Still have it.  Still works great.
Rebel XSi - Sept '2008.  Gave it to my Daughter after I got the 7D
7D - Oct 2010

XSi was my first Digital SLR, and re-entry into my photography hobby beyond the powershots.  It took me the first year to get really familiar with all the camera could do.  The XSi was great for most things I shot, but I started shooting a lot of indoor sports, and the XSi just didn't cut it.  When the 7D came out, I knew that would be a great fit for me.

I upgraded to the 7D for better AF, and better ISO performance, and faster FPS.  I really love it.  It fits me perfectly.

Since then I have been more interested in glass, and it seems like there is always one more lens I want.
Sept 2008 - EF-S 18-55 (gave away w/ XSi)
June 2009 - EF-S 55-250 I wanted to try something long, OK in good light with still subjects, otherwise no.  Not so good for action.
June 2010 - EF 50 f/1.4 - first fast lens, use this for volleyball, and basketball when I can get close enough.  Focuses slow and soft wide open.
Oct. 2010 - EF 85 f/1.8 - Awesome for Volleyball.  This is my main lens for this.
Dec. 2010 - EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS - should have gotten this much sooner than I did.  Best all-round lens for APC
Mar. 2011 - EF 24-105 f/4L IS - use this one for kid's soccer, not much else.  Thought I would use it much more.
Sept 2011 - EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS I (used) - for track & cross country, to replace 55-250(which I am selling).  Not really what I needed for outdoor track, but I got a good deal on it.  Thinking of selling it at some point to get one of the lenses on my wish list.

I still want EF 70-300L or 100-400L,  a wide prime, and a EF 135 f/2L (if I sell the EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS).
So I guess I'm a lens junkie.

I'm pretty happy with the 7D, so it will take a big improvement at a similar price point to the current 7D to get me to prioritize a new body over more lenses.  I likely won't upgrade bodies unless the 7DII has significantly improved ISO and IQ.  And I would wait a while after it ships for the price to come down a bit.

I have always wanted a FF just to experience that and maybe expand my photography experience, so I am tempted to get a used 5DII when the 5DIII comes out and people are selling their 5DII to get the new model.