Messages

61

Portrait / Re: Ruined photo, or rescue opportunity?

« on: October 10, 2012, 09:07:05 AM »

pwp's post is spot on.

If you shot this in RAW, it's definitely "improvable", I've saved shots worse than this.

And I agree that if it's not 100% satisfactory, it's amazing how much better it'll look converted to B&W.

62

Lenses / Re: If you could only have 2 lenses for a wedding...

« on: October 05, 2012, 09:37:39 AM »

24-70 f/2.8 II
70-200 f/2.8 II
two FF bodies with grips and spacious memory (5D2 or 5D3s)
at least one 580II or better for bounce/fill at the reception venue
Beyond that basic setup, add primes for those special shots... 35/50/85.

63

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D Center Cross-Type ?

« on: October 04, 2012, 10:15:56 AM »

Yeah I take exception to the "AF with large aperture doesn't work"... I shoot 1.4-1.8 all the time and the AF is great, and I don't have to stop and toy with live view, magnification, etc, just snap and go.

I do agree that you won't see the precise focus via your viewfinder, you're totally counting on the AF to do it correctly for you.

I found is that it's critical to AFMA your lens... I had to do +5 on my 50 f/1.4, it was no good without the adjustment @ f/1.4.

64

Lenses / Re: Portrait Lens

« on: October 02, 2012, 04:03:54 PM »

I'm a fan of wider apertures and the capability to both: blur undesirable backgrounds, and draw more attention to the focus of the picture.  Thus, in my mind the 24-105 is great for studio type work, but not for anything portraiture outside of that IMO.

The two wide-aperture lenses that I have experience with are the 50/1.4 and the 85/1.8... they're both good, and have different uses... full-body the 50/1.4, head/shoulders, the 85/1.8.

I've heard love and hate for the 50/1.2, but don't have experience... the 50/1.2 doesn't seem like it'd be any sharper for the extra $1,000 I'd spend, and I'm OK with the build-quality of the 50/1.4.

I haven't looked into the 100 f/2, however I'd probably go with the multi-purpose 100 f/2.8 macro instead since I already have a 85mm.

65

Lenses / Re: DPReview and DxOMark to partner for lens testing

« on: October 02, 2012, 03:42:55 PM »

Not a fan in either case, so don't care here. 

I'm still not sure why Amazon bought out DPReview, other than to have a review blurb/link on product pages.

66

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: What will happen with 5D2 in the marketplace? (poll)

« on: October 02, 2012, 03:41:12 PM »

I voted no change. 

It'll be discounted and discontinued ASAP, but it's still a fantastic camera with several qualities that the 6D won't have, such as better weathersealing, CF compatibility and a tougher/faster/durable shutter.

I think they'll be readily available in the secondhand market, but the price won't take a dive.

67

Lenses / Re: Canon 70-200 f2.8 mk2 and MK3 x2 converter.

« on: October 02, 2012, 11:06:42 AM »

I have this combo in my bag; it works great if you close to f/8, but not so much at f/5.6.

Closing one stop on a long zoom isn't an unusual thing tho, so it's all good.

68

Software & Accessories / Re: What are most people using for processing RAW

« on: September 27, 2012, 09:51:11 AM »

Photoshop CS6' ACR here. 

Depending on fixes needed, a lot of the time I won't even continue into Photoshop, I'll save right out of ACR and close Photoshop down after the panel closes.

My understanding is that this software is the same as what's in LR4, so that's a cheaper route if you need it.

69

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 5Dc as an entry for FF? yay or nay?

« on: September 27, 2012, 09:46:27 AM »

I actually tried out a 5Dc a few years ago, as a cheap way to get into full-frame.

I had two problems with the 5Dc which led to me immediately reselling it about two weeks later.

1)  small, low-resolution rear LCD.  I know you already know this, but it was a big deal to me.
2)  No live-view.  None at all.  This was the deal breaker for me.  I don't care about movies, but there are times where I need to put the mirror up and use live-view to take a shot.

70

Lenses / Re: 24-105 on FF, or 17-55 on crop?

« on: September 24, 2012, 08:30:33 PM »

I did some quick controlled focus testing, and the 7D performed *slightly* better, but at the breaking point of the 5D's focus (where it hunted more than locked), I would have been underexposed 2 stops at 6400, so I think I'm OK there   The 7D would have similarly been under by 3 stops at 3200 (the max I would use for that camera).

So, bottom line, I'm going to stick with the 24-105 on the full-frame camera and sell off the 17-55 for other more exciting lenses.

Thanks for the contributions guys!!

71

Lenses / Re: 24-105 on FF, or 17-55 on crop?

« on: September 24, 2012, 07:25:41 PM »

Dylan777, it's on my shortlist, however I'm having to juggle some gear to get into the fullframe world.  Fiscal responsibility and all that heartbreaking stuff.  I was also let down to have to get a 5D2 instead of a 3, but it's a large price jump there too for an enthusiast-level guy.

I've done some preliminary testing, and so far neuroanatomist (love that name/avatar!) is 100% dead on. 

Overall it's kind of a wash, which means I'd elect to keep the 24-105 for its' range and better EF compatibility (and red ring woooo haha).

Here's what I found:

1)  The 24-105 is indeed wider and longer by a smidge
2)  The 24-105 has just slightly better OOF/DOF for portraits wide-open, both quality and quantity.
3)  Sharpness is a wash.
4)  Camera-wise, the 5D2 has to jump one stop (or maybe a smidge more actually) to match a 7D.
5)  Camera-wise, the noise levels at the comparable highish ISOs (7D-1600, 5D2, 3200) produce a comparable IQ/noise level.
6)  The 5D2 can exhibit a pretty bad vertical banding if you have to push the levels, but the 7D isn't much good at 1600 (generally messy) in the same vein.
7)  The metering is different for each of the cameras, and the color balance (when all set the same in ACR) is visually different... hard to say exactly, but looks like the 17-55 produces a slightly more saturated image with more yellow/green, however I liked the RAW image from the 5D2 better for moving forward with an edit.

The only thing I haven't tested are the center AF points on each in low light... waiting until post-sunset so that I can control the light in my living room.  "On paper" they have the same EV working range and sensitivity/type, so you would think the f/2.8 lens would win out, but I'm not sure that I care about focusing in almost full dark with this type lens anyway.

72

Lenses / 24-105 on FF, or 17-55 on crop?

« on: September 24, 2012, 04:16:00 PM »

I recently stepped up to a fullframe kit, and have been trying out the 24-105 that came in the kit.

I didn't, however, have the extra cash to step up to a full-frame short 2.8 zoom ($2300!!).  I previously used a 7D and 17-55 for this.

Question to the great pool of talent here... should I keep my 17-55 for a short 2.8 zoom, or take a hit on low light and use the 24-105?  

Seems like the OOF area and IQ differences will sortof balance out (the FF can go a stop faster, same rough IQ, with the same light, but the lens is a stop slower)

However, I'm thinking about keeping the 7D and 17-55 so that I can get better hit on focus in low light (2.8 focus points versus f/4).

Thoughts?

73

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How much saturation do you usually add/remove in your photos?

« on: September 21, 2012, 12:46:31 PM »

As others, I shoot RAW, and add anywhere from none to +10 or so in ACR afterwards depending on how dull the image is.

74

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D or 5D Mk II

« on: September 20, 2012, 01:38:48 PM »

I'm surprised to see such a large percentage of people, vote for the 6D over the now-discounted 5DII.

I'm a APS-C shooter looking to move to FF... after seeing the shape of things, I snapped up a $2600 5D2 kit from amazon, to replace my 7D and 17-55.  I figure that means I paid $1700 or so for the 5D2 itself.

The biggest things that I didn't like were the only-marginal improvements in AF, the need to make part of the body plastic for the wifi/GPS, making it less dust/weatherproof, and the slower, laggier, less durable shutter. 

As a bonus, my 7D used CF, so I don't need to re-buy memory cards.

75

EOS Bodies / Re: POLL: With what features would you consider the 6d?

« on: September 18, 2012, 09:58:32 PM »

AF option 3 was the deal-breaker for me... just ordered a $2599 5D2 kit from amazon instead.

While the lack of improved AF was the deal-breaker, the added gizmos (wifi/gps) meant that the body couldn't be full magnesium or as weatherproof, and the camera is generally crippled worse as compared to the 5D2 (lower shutter max speed/sync/durability was the one that really stood out for me).

As somebody that's more interested in core features and ruggedness, versus gadgets, the 5D2 kit was too good to pass up at $300 cheaper, with no waiting.  Had I wanted to spend more than I did, I would have saved my pennies for a 5D3 instead.

As somebody else has said on here, it's pure Canon marketing/strategy genius... the 6D will draw in beginners from the Rebel line who love the added gadgetry and promise of FF heaven, while the enthusiast-level people on the fence will be pushed upwards to the 5D3, especially after the remaining 5D2s are sold out.