Messages

121

Lenses / Re: Landscape tips needed on shooting the Grand Canyon

« on: November 14, 2012, 12:59:44 PM »

First and foremost, you folks are wonderful for the quick, detailed and thoughtful feedback.  I love this forum.

Let me buzz through this stuff and follow up.

- A

122

Lenses / Landscape tips needed on shooting the Grand Canyon

« on: November 13, 2012, 09:13:48 PM »

Hey CR folks,

I'm pondering a few days at the Grand Canyon, and I'd love your advice on a host of things. 

WHERE/WHAT I WILL BE DOING

I'm game for level day hiking around the rim, but I'm unlikely to walk/mule the descent into the Canyon itself.  I'm sure I will also get a good look at Sedona, the Page/Lake Powell/Antelope Canyon area, and possibly even Monument Valley.

Generally, I will be shooting landscapes (day and night).  But street/walkaround stuff (in the touristy places) and handheld macro work (cacti, flowers, etc.) will likely happen as well.  I have no desire to go after birds/wildlife unless I stumble across something (please note that I've spared myself the burden of owning huge glass -- madness that way lies, IMHO).

WHAT I WILL BRING

Since I'm driving to this, it will be easy to over pack.

Body + Lenses
5D3
24-70 2.8L (Mk I)
28 2.8 IS
50 1.4
100 2.8L IS macro
70-200 2.8L IS II + 2x III
Hoods for everything

Filters
UV and CPL for all of the above
ND grad 0.6 Hard + 0.9 Hard + Big Stopper only for the 77mm dia lenses above (the two zooms)

Standard stuff
Tripod, ball head, Arca plate, level, remote shutter, batteries, backup cards, etc.

QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS

Now, all that said, here are the questions:

1) Should I consider renting an ultrawide prime or zoom?  Given the wide open spaces, one might think I am missing 16-24mm on the list above.  Rent a 16-35?  Rent a 14 prime? 

2) I don't own a flash (no, I'm not kidding), but I can get my hands on a friend's 430 EX II -- how essential is a flash with landscapes?  In your answer, please consider that I'm only capable of doing rudimentary flash work at this stage (no trick shot / off-camera / radio stuff).  I will learn that someday, I'm sure, but this isn't likely to be that moment.

3) I've never done star trail work but might give it a go one night.  I'll read up on how, settings, etc., but is there any specific gear above what I'm bringing needed to do that?  Is the weight of my bag enough (15-20 lb loaded up), or should I build/buy some heavy stabilizing weights?

4) For those who have been to the GC, assuming the North Rim is closed this time of year, where is the best place on the South Rim to shoot?  I've heard that Lipan Point is a good spot shooting the Colorado from East to West, but I'm game for other great vistas if you know of any.

5) Will I have any flat horizons to use the ND grads against, or will I largely be bracketing for HDR to capture everything I am seeing?  I am opposed to HDR just for HDR's sake, but I recognize that with any bright sky I will have to make some tough exposure decisions.  Depending on my orientation to the sun, a CPL can only do so much to rein in the sky.  Have any thoughts on how to manage this best?


As always, I am in your debt.  Your advice is appreciated to no end.

Thanks,
A

123

Lenses / Re: Which extender is best

« on: November 13, 2012, 04:43:23 PM »

MARSU42,  I have similar setup.  I have the 50D and the 70-300L.  I have been tryng to decide on using the 70-300L with the Kenko for wildlife or purchase the 400mm 5.6.  Although I am not sure if there is any noticable difference in IQ using the Kenko extender versus the 4005.6 L by itself.

Any thoughts

I've not shot those, but an L prime (even a modestly priced one like the 400 5.6) without an extender should significantly outperform a zoom with an extender, right?

Using that same tool I referred to, comparing almost exactly what you are referring to:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=738&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=278&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

Disclaimer:  I don't know what apertures you shoot, and these comparison are only on FF bodies. 

Despite the disclaimer, my original guess appears to be in line with the sample shots -- even fully open, the 400 prime seems clearly sharper than the 1.4x F/8 70-300L.  Stopping down the 400 prime to the equivalent 'fully open' F/8 of the 1.4x + zoom aperture improves upon this slightly in the corners.

That said [with a fair shrug and hands going up in the air] sharpness isn't everything.  What you shoot and what you care about is your business.  Telling someone else what they should want in a lens is like telling someone how to raise their kids.   

- A

124

Lenses / Re: Hold out for EF 35/2 IS or jump in with classic 35 1.4L

« on: November 13, 2012, 03:26:12 PM »

How are you liking the 40 Dolina? I haven't had any recent work or time with the lens but from my simple tests, it looks amazing and the focus on the 5dm3 is without flaw. That said its not as fast as an L but then i expected that. I didn't buy it for fast focus.

The pancake is super sharp for the dollar.  Wide open it's very good, but F/4 - F/5.6 it's stellar.  There have been some reviews shooting down it's performance when stopped far down (F/11 or smaller), so I wouldn't advise it for landscape work.  And, famously, it's a slow focuser if you are accustomed to USM glass.  Useable for sure -- but it's not quick.

I will say that it stays in my bag far too much; my 28 2.8 IS and 50 1.4 can simply do more for me (better in low light, I have filters of that size, can do landscapes, etc.), so those lenses see much more use.

Would love to see them make a 22 pancake (like they did for EOS-M) so that I could have a small/wide/fast walkaround for my crop.  That's a single lens mirrorless alternative that I could get behind.   

125

Lenses / Re: Which extender is best

« on: November 13, 2012, 03:17:12 PM »

My personal experience is limited here, but my thoughts are:

1) Don't buy an extender for just the lenses you have today.  Think about what will be in your bag down the road, and with that in mind, get the most compatible tool you can.

2) I own a 2x III and only have one lens (the great 70-200 F/2.8L IS II) that I use it on.  Though it's somewhat less sharp than the native glass, you know the argument -- less weight/size to carry, less risk to smuggle into events that you shouldn't bring large glass to (read: sporting events), less heavy/expensive glass not getting used, and far less cost.  For me, as an enthusiast (i.e. not a pro), this is an easy decision for the aforementioned reasons, and I love my extender as a result.

3) AF speed with an extender does suffer a bit, so sports may be problematic depending on what you shoot.  I've shot baseball with it very well, but I've only been framed on pitchers or batters (which are easy targets) -- hockey, basketball, etc. would likely be a nightmare with one.

4) If you are a pixel peeper, let Bryan Carnathan show you the way...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Extender-EF-2x-III-Review.aspx

As always, the good Mr. Carnathan has nice mouseover comparisons of the different extenders.  Look about 40% of the way down the page for the sharpness comparison.

Also, he has controlled lab shots with/without extenders here:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=3&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=2

Feel free to noodle with apertures and extenders (just change focal length, the 1.4 or 2.0 should be obvious based on seeing 280 or 400 on a 70-200 lens).  Then mouseover left to right on the graphic to see each.  Super useful!

Just my two bits.

- A

126

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: What do you Love about the 5D3? POLL!

« on: November 11, 2012, 01:10:48 AM »

Thanks to the OP -- forums like these so often devolve into competitive fanboy sour grapes on hardware decisions, so it's a pleasure to share what is actually great about our gear.

As an enthusiast (read: not a pro photog!), my experience upgrading from crop to FF with the 5D3 was as good as billed.  So please take my comments with a grain of salt as I am largely in love with my camera.

So, what do I love about my 5D3?  Let me count the ways (in no particular order):

• The AF system is a joy to use.  Having the 1Dx's AF system is, quite simply, a gift.  This single-handedly justifies the price increase of the 5D3 over the 5D2 and 6D.
• The large 100% FF viewfinder is such a treat to use that going back to my crop feels like going back in time, like "So this is how people shot so long ago -- how quaint."  I love all the grid options as well -- very helpful for 'horizon parallelism challenged' shooters like myself.
• The grip is the best I've ever used, hands down.  A big piece of this comes from the thickened hand grip compared to my old crop, but in addition, both the grip shape and materials are spot on.  The thumb rest/grip feature is so thoughtfully designed.
• Low light performance has been as good as billed.  I routinely shoot ISO 6400 with minimal cleanup needed, and I have no hesitation to climb up to 10000 should the situation demand it.
• It often goes overlooked, but moving from crop to a 5D3 is like moving from kit glass to an L series lens.  The build quality is stellar, and so many things we don't think about -- weather-sealing, magnesium body, etc. -- will help this camera survive whatever I put it through.
• The silent shutter mode is fantastic.  I know it was meant for weddings/events, but it's great for shooting  candids, kids, etc.  Also, when I finally grow a pair and commit myself to street shooting, that silent shutter might minimize any ruffled feathers of the subjects in frame.
• I love the SD card option.  Card readers suck, and so many friends and family members have laptops with SD slots built-in.  Sharing JPG shots is a snap.  I don't shoot video, and rarely cover sports, but it's good to know that I can slide to higher speed CF if ever want to.
• The in-viewfinder level is a great feature.  See my grid comments above.

More will hit me later, I'm sure.

In all, it's a stellar camera.  I really cannot find fault with the camera other than some super picky little make-it-perfect-for-me things that are, candidly, too much to expect Canon to give me. 

127

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

« on: November 10, 2012, 12:59:03 PM »

Seems like I'm part of that minority of people who are actualy grateful of having IS in a 35/2 lens.

May be you are part of the minority of people willing to pay 900$ for such a lens!!!
It's your right of course. I prefer to be part of the minority of people who enjoy the 35mm 1.4L ...

The lens is being introduced at $849, not $900.  And the introductory price most likely won't last.  The 24/2.8 IS was also introduced at $849 and is now $669 with the instant rebate — a much more reasonable price. 

So watch for the 35/2 IS to be $669 at some point, or at least closer to $700 than $900.  The 35/1.4L is currently $1,329 with the instant rebate, so it looks like the 35/2 IS will cost about half as much as the 35/1.4L after the introductory price falls.  That seems about right.

I love the 35/1.4L but it's quite large & heavy.  I'm looking forward to trying the new 35/2 IS as a possible substitute for or addition to the 35/1.4L.  A compact, high quality 35/2 with IS sounds like a fantastic lens.

+ much.  I agree with everything you said.

Not only compact size, but also the compact 'noticeability' that comes along with it.  I've recently moved to a large city, so street shooting is now easily within my reach.  The new IS wide angles are great in that they are quite unassuming for that task.  Most L glass, in contrast, looks like serious gear and is more likely to wind up people I may be shooting.

128

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

« on: November 09, 2012, 01:55:44 PM »

But this conversation will become 4, 5, and 6 stop IS much faster than Canon can develop, say, F/1.0 lenses.  IS will become a bigger and bigger part of the low light conversation, along with the body's ability to process higher and higher ISO.

I'm not so sure where the technical barriers for new IS systems are (does anyone know?), imho much more likely iso capability of newer cameras will solve the problem.

But since you're quoting the review of the prime with IS and this thread is about the 24-70/4, too: The hybrid IS system is much louder and in certain angles produces frightening noises - at least on the (or my) 100L.

Agree.  I tried out the 70-200 F/4 IS and the 70-200 F/2.8 IS II side by side.  The F/4's IS makes a similar sound to the 100L's whirring noise when the shutter is half pressed.  Frightening might not be my word, but it's noticeable.

The 70-200/2.8L IS II is inaudible for all intents and purposes (thought I never shoot video to be fair).  You have to put your ear next to it during focusing to hear it.  The new 28 IS is similar.

129

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

« on: November 09, 2012, 12:48:51 PM »

That's true about the IS -- but it's getting better all the time.  From Bryan Carnathan's site:

"Sharing the honors with its sibling 24mm f/2.8 IS Lens, the Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens is the first Canon prime lens wider than 100mm to have image stabilization. The combination of an f/2.8 aperture, 28mm focal length and 4-stop IS makes the 28 IS, at review time, arguably the second most low-light-handholdable full frame format Canon lens available (just behind the 24 f/2.8 IS). And perhaps the second most handholdable Canon lens available.
 
Lenses being introduced with image stabilization far outnumber those coming without it. Image stabilization has matured nicely since it was first introduced, and the IS system in the 28 f/2.8 IS is example of this maturity.
 
The IS sound from this lens is barely audible. I have to put my ear to the lens to hear the light IS shhhhhhh that is mixed with light clicks when the lens is moved. The viewfinder shows no evidence of image stabilization going into effect (jumping/shaking/etc.) - aside from the stabilized view in the viewfinder.
 
With good technique and a stable, standing shooting position, I am getting a very good percentage of sharp shots at 1/5 - 1/4 second. Beyond 1/4 sec, the keeper rate drops off gradually with sharp images still obtainable at close to 1 sec exposures. The IS assistance I experience is about 3 stops."

Okay -- three stops in this case.  But this conversation will become 4, 5, and 6 stop IS much faster than Canon can develop, say, F/1.0 lenses.  IS will become a bigger and bigger part of the low light conversation, along with the body's ability to process higher and higher ISO.

130

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

« on: November 09, 2012, 11:24:09 AM »

Doesn't it make sense that people would pay a premium for a much more handholdable low light lens? Up until these IS lenses (24, 28, 35) being released, what was the best low light prime from Canon? And with the exception of motion blur issues, will the ability to stop down 4 stops of shutter speed really make these lenses a low key shooters wet dream?

The next lens for me will be a wide prime…..which one?

@PVS -- Re: IS being useful and worth paying for on wide lenses -- we are a minority indeed.

The notion that F/1.4 trumps F/2 with IS makes me shrug.

Sure, the F/1.4 glass can pull off some DOF tricks that you can't at F/2, but for the other 95% of the time you are using an F/1.4 lens, you will have to stop down and crank the ISO higher than an F/2 IS to get a useable shutter speed in low light.  Not a good bargain for this low-light handheld shooter.  (Again, it's about how/what you shoot.)

As such, until the 35L II arrives (where the sharpness is presumed to beat this new lens), the 35 IS is the lens to get, IMHO.  One stop slower in return for 4 stops of IS?  Yes, please.

131

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon Surveys for 5D Mark III

« on: November 08, 2012, 03:30:26 PM »

Great question.  I've loved my 5D3, but there are a few niggly bits that could be addressed above and beyond the obvious better/faster/more DR stuff that everyone will certainly want:

• Deeper button reconfiguration options - only some buttons can do certain things, this should be expanded
• Rating photos should be recognized by vanilla handler programs like iPhoto (I know -- Apple could fix this, too)
• Would love to see the electronic level (the lesser used in-viewfinder one) automatically toggle on when shooting vertically as I don't use a grip.  This is simple enough to enable as they already have accel/gyro support for separate horizontal and vertical AF point selection, right?
• As I shoot a lot in the dark, the -3EV AF capability of the new 6D would be a nice pickup, but I am assuming that this is all hardware and off the table.  But here's hoping -- even with F/1.4 glass my 5D3's AF can hunt in very low light.
• More useful auto ISO options for aperture, shutter speed, etc.  I like the thought of Auto ISO but feel a bit limited by what I can/can't set for acceptable boundaries.

Little stuff said, I love this camera.  I think the sensor is the only (even remotely) weak link of the 5D3.  DR would be my #1 improvement.

- A       

132

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

« on: November 08, 2012, 01:31:04 PM »

One wonders if in 10 years, the majority of camera glass will be unbelieveably small/light F/4, F/5.6 glass with 7-8 stops of IS.  I know that's heresy for this forum -- who constantly push their gear to get the most out of their shots -- but it's a possibility, right?

- A

While I don't doubt that IS will eventually make its way down to more lenses in the future, what you suggest would not work for those shooting action.  IS elements would also have to be larger to accomodate more travel to counteract lower frequency jitter/shake, which is a sizing issue.

Agree 100% -- fast glass isn't going away for DOF, event, sports needs.  It will always be needed.

I'm just arguing that IS technological advancements aren't creating other problems like speeding up zoom lenses might (i.e. back pain from a pickle jar of a lens).  Prime example -- compare the 200mm F/2.8L vs. the 200mm F/2L IS:  6-7x the cost and 4x the weight for one stop and IS.

So if I'm Canon, there is a bigger return on investment (and more potential for improvement) in developing 5-, 6-, 7-stop IS technology for all lenses rather than building a 5 lb. F/2 standard zoom.  You get more stops for more lenses (I'm presuming that any IS tech breakthroughs are transferable to other designs) rather than chasing a one-off holy grail lens for the 1% of most discriminating users to be sold for weaponized plutonium prices.

So it makes more 'useability' sense that we're seeing IS getting stapled onto modest aperture glass.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love a cake-and-eat-it-too F/2.8 standard zoom with IS.   

133

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

« on: November 08, 2012, 12:26:07 PM »

Short focal lengths? What about 50mm to 70mm? I don't think that's short at all. It'll especially be useful on the long end. And the IS will also be useful with the "slow" f/4 aperture. Even if you're getting a shutter speed of 1/10 at the 24mm wide end, wouldn't it be nice to have IS then? The IS will also certainly help the macro shooting. So it serves a great purpose on this lens, I think.

The choice between this and the f/2.8 should be clear = pro wedding shooters who need the speed and bokeh will go for the 2.8, hobbyists and video shooters will go for the f/4.

A few more thoughts on this lens: http://www.aputure.com/blog/?p=4228

Correct me if i'm wrong but what's the point of IS in such short focal lengths?

With the release of 24-70 f/4L IS it will be a tough choice for some to decide with the 2.8 non IS version, what do you think?

@Aputure (nice blog, btw) -- there has been a healthy 50-75% of us on this forum that IS is not needed on wide glass, and that speed should always trump IS w.r.t. Canon's spec decisions.  I cannot discern if this is due to...

• Classical thinking -- the old rule of thumb that you need 1/[focal length] for shutter speed, and therefore, wide glass needs IS less than long glass.
• Value thinking -- why should we pony up extra for IS when it's not truly a must, I got by without it for years, etc.
• In the 'I hope the new announcement is the lens I want' / 'Canon only makes so many lenses' department, it could be sour grapes, frustration, incredulity etc. that Canon chose IS instead of a fast aperture -- see all threads re: these recent lens announcements
• A stigma that IS is for beginners, soccer moms, etc. and not for enthusiasts or pros.

...but it's probably a combination of the above.

I personally believe that IS helps at all focal lengths as I am frequently shooting at toxically high ISO without a flash or a tripod.  So IS effectively buys me stops, plain and simple.

Now, this is predicated on the thought that the slower glass + IS buys me a virtually faster lens than the current fastest glass (again, I'm rarely shooting moving objects in very low light).  This is due to some simple math of:

     [# stops of IS] - [# stops slower than the fastest lens in this length] yielding a positive number. 

So if, somehow, the proposed new lens had a watered down 2 stop IS or if the aperture was much slower than the fastest alternative, then that IS lens would be less attractive than its fast non-IS alternative.

Keep in mind that IS is improving far more quickly than camera companies have been offering faster glass.  Consider that Canon had a constant F/2.8 standard zoom in 1993 and nothing faster has ever been developed.  (Some of this is cost and weight, but still, they aren't exactly rushing an F/2 standard zoom out, much to the chagrin of this forum community.) 

One wonders if in 10 years, the majority of camera glass will be unbelieveably small/light F/4, F/5.6 glass with 7-8 stops of IS.  I know that's heresy for this forum -- who constantly push their gear to get the most out of their shots -- but it's a possibility, right?

- A

134

Lenses / Re: Hold out for EF 35/2 IS or jump in with classic 35 1.4L

« on: November 06, 2012, 03:40:52 PM »

I had to make a similar choice a few months back -- the 35L or the new 28 IS.  Rented them both first.  I ended up choosing the 28 IS and have been quite pleased.

Money didn't factor into this call.  My considerations were as follows (apply these to your situation as needed):

The 28 IS (2.8 + 4 stops IS) is more handholdable in low light than the 35L.  That applies to what I shoot, but perhaps not for you.  (I'm often shooting nighttime street or stationary people indoors at social events.)  With my 5D3, I can bring home useable shots from ISO 6400 - 10000 shots at 1/20 of a second.  The 35/1.4L cannot bring those shots in without shooting wide open (i.e. soft anywhere but in the center with an unusably small DOF for my needs) and at an even higher ISO to net a useable non-IS shutter speed.

New non-L EF (not EF-S) designs rival old L designs from an IQ perspective.  The new 28 is as sharp as the 35L in head to head on the 28's wide open end (comparing both at F/2.8 ).  The 35L is a shade better in the corners when you stop it down for landscape work.  So I shot both and couldn't really see a difference in the IQ.

IMHO, the 28 IS has better build quality than the 35L.  The 28 IS build/materials/etc. is nearly identical to the modern 'plastic' L lenses like the 100L macro (though the 28 lacks a gasket), whereas the 35L is dated, has cheaper looking/feeling plastic, etc.  As an owner of the tank-like 24-70 F/2.8L Mk I and 70-200 F/2.8L IS II lenses, I was shocked to see the famous 35L I've heard so much about resemble my non-L 50mm F/1.4 in build quality.

The 28 is small, light, and unassuming.  I love this as I often shoot candids, street, etc.  In return for this little lens, I lost the prestige of a red ring.  Great trade for me, but perhaps not for you.


So, given all of the above, I went with the 28.  It was the right call for me.  Had the same IQ statements been true and the new 35 F/2 IS was available then, I very well may have gone with that lens instead of the 28.  But, if you like what F/1.4 - F/2 looks like, are shooting moving targets (where IS's longer useable shutter speeds won't help you), or need a red ring -- the 35L is the option.

135

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

« on: November 06, 2012, 03:01:50 PM »

All good points on how companies adapt and evolve. 

I don't feel the Kodak analogy is appropriate b/c that's a much more stark black/white scenario of accepting change in a changing world.  That analogy would only be appropriate if Canon demonstrated true head-in-the-sand behavior, like (hypothetically) if they decided to never enter the mirrorless market.

FWIW, I liken Canon/Nikon to Toyota/Honda in that they have a mature, segmented market with very set expectations, pricing strategies, and a conservative take on innovation.  Then, Sony, who I liken to Nissan/Kia/Hyundai, is trying to create new markets, or offer 'tweener' products that straddle two segments.  They play a combination of innovation / disruptive offerings to shake things up in an attempt to rope in mindshare and proponents.  I personally think they should be looked at more seriously by the photography community, b/c the disruptive gameplan is pretty brave -- that fixed lens FF compact (RX1, I think?) is a bold offering.

- A