April 19, 2014, 09:28:09 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Act444

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 18
151
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Options for 60D upgrade/replacement?
« on: September 29, 2012, 02:09:17 AM »
I was actually quite amazed w/60D's AF performance at the last show, especially given the crappy show lighting the AF system had to deal with, with skaters constantly out of spotlight and all. My thinking is, if the 60D's basic 9-point system could handle that, I can only imagine what the advanced 5D/1DX focus system is capable of...implement this in a 7D2 and we'll be all set!

But I think for now the 60D does what I want it to do in terms of this type of use. I don't do it often, and I don't get paid so it's not a travesty if I miss a few shots. For events/general photography I would welcome the better IQ/high ISO performance of a FF camera. It would be nice to keep the 60D as well

152
Lenses / Re: what filter for my first "L" Lens
« on: September 28, 2012, 06:52:01 PM »
I like the Hoya Super HMC series filters, that's what I use.

153
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Options for 60D upgrade/replacement?
« on: September 28, 2012, 10:44:56 AM »
Interesting. I agree that the 70-200 can be awkward (especially at the 70mm end) on the 60D...the shots it has enabled me to get, though, are just phenomenal. Love that lens! And it has good range for sports/action as well when you are right on the sidelines. I still think the lens is far too big/heavy for general walkaround use though. 70-300L is better for that.

Quote
The lowlight usability of the 5D3 is just nuts by comparison.  With the 60D I was always trading slowing the shutter and opening the aperture to try and maintain a 100-800 iso.  I checked my Aperture library and only have two keepers above 1600 iso from the 60D.  With the 5D3 I dont even think about noise until I get to 12800.  And after pixel peeping some keepers in the 12800-25600iso range, I have to say its not just the amount of noise...its the TYPE of noise.  The noise in the 5D3 is soo much less distracting that the 60D.  Cant emphasize that enough.  The noise in the 5D3 typically looks more "artistic" than the 60D, much like film grain and less like the 60Ds "video camera" noise look.

Yup, just found out for myself yesterday after taking test shots on my memory card. Nothing short of amazing.

60D's (and T2i's) metering is often all over the place. 5D3 seemed to slightly underexpose (more or less consistently) when I tried it though?

The key to all this is that I think the biggest difference will come in amount of time spent in PP. I constantly have to adjust WB, exposure (minor), sharpness, and noise levels for shots. With the Raw files I took with the 5D I think only one of the ones that turned out needed adjustment. BIG difference.

154
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Options for 60D upgrade/replacement?
« on: September 28, 2012, 01:56:50 AM »
Quote
Just curious, if AF is 2nd most critical next to IQ, why do you think the EOS-M would be better than the T2i?

Actually, that is fulfilling a different need (a need for something compact, yet high quality). I think the EOS M uses the hybrid live-view focus mode so I'd expect it to be more accurate, if a bit slower. I don't imagine it would be any slower than my P&S, which can already take a couple seconds in dark settings...but the IQ upgrade (and the additional photographic controls) would be welcome by me.

As for the 5D3, went to play with one again at the store. Love it more and more. This time, actually got a decent lens (Sigma 50 1.4 I think) put on it. Ran some tests at high ISO and tested the AI Servo a bit. wow is all I can say. Up to 6400 perfectly usable. Even 12,800 is usable although quality degradation is visible. This alone would be a HUGE upgrade over the 60D which just squeaks by at 3200. Also, 5D photos appear much cleaner and more crisp when compared to my 60D (except for shots at ISO 12800 and 25600). 60D/APS-C has a more "digitized" look in comparison IMO. The Servo performance was just ok, perhaps even mildly disappointing- but I've seen how complicated the AF system is so perhaps have to spend time tuning it. The lens being 3rd-party might also have something to do with it. I bet/hope it would be better with Canon's L lenses. (As an aside, I ran into a really strange yellow banding issue I've never seen before, but apparently it was caused by the store's fluorescent lighting tubes)

Yeah, so if I can get a deal on the thing...might go for it. I've decided that EVENTUALLY it will get done (upgrade to FF)...but there are some lens changes that have to be made (give up 17-55 for 24-70, replace 35 with 50) and with the 5D3 price, can't afford to do it all at once. Looks like the 24-70 isn't even widely available yet anyway...store didn't have any, and haven't really found any on the net.

155
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5Diii pink picture problem
« on: September 27, 2012, 07:38:52 PM »
EDIT: Nevermind, I figured out what happened. Sounds like the lighting was the issue and not the camera...so weird because I've NEVER seen it before...(but that's a relief)

original post below
_______________________

Played with a 5D3 in the store today and noticed something very weird...just wondering if 5D3 owners have run across this one:

Shooting in fluorescent lighting (what the store had), seemed to occur at higher ISOs (3200+) there was a weird yellowish cast across over part of the photo. It was usually across the bottom ~1/4 but it's occasionally in other parts of the photo as well. Very odd...was wondering if it was the white balance or something...even in RAW can't seem to fix the color cast since it's only in 1/4 to 1/3 of the pic... maybe it's isolated to the store model or something, but I've NEVER seen this before on either the T2i or my 60D (or any other camera I've shot with)


156
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Updrade a 550D to ...? Advice needed please
« on: September 27, 2012, 02:35:49 PM »
A used 60D would seem to be the answer to your question. I went the same route- a T2i (550D) to 60D. It's not a night & day difference, but there are little things that you might appreciate (beefier grip, quicker access to key settings via the top screen among other things)

157
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 60D actually doesn't need AFMA?
« on: September 27, 2012, 02:32:31 PM »
Just to point out, though...AFMA also applies to the focus confirmation for manual focus.
We discussed that as well.  He commented that his 50 f/1.2L had back focus, which translates to imprecise focus with the focus confirmation.  His preference was to use the precision focusing screen; he did not pay attention to the focus confirmation.

His 50L might have had back focus, but might not.  What it does have is focus shift, which is back focus when you stop down from wide open, that varies with the aperture selected.

Anyone know if this problem has been fixed (or how it performs on the newest bodies like the 5D3)? While contemplating my move to FF, I've been thinking about trading in 35 1.4 for the 50 to get equivalent FOV.

158
Lenses / Re: 24mm on a crop body?
« on: September 27, 2012, 02:13:39 AM »
Use a 24-105 on my 60D (and also on the T2i I had earlier) Great range, at least outdoors walking. 24mm is only limiting when you get inside, especially in small rooms. But in that situation, the f4 aperture is another limit to deal with and the 17-55mm is a better choice indoors. Like I mentioned in another thread I'm contemplating moving up to FF which would turn it into a wider lens (might miss the reach of 105, although even on 1.6x it wasn't long enough for many applications)

I didn't like the variable aperture on the EF-S zooms, so I was willing to give up the wide angle which I hardly used anyway.

159
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Options for 60D upgrade/replacement?
« on: September 26, 2012, 05:27:56 PM »
...So the 6D certainly sounds like an attractive choise, after all having the main feature I would want. Given your type of photographing, which specific features would you really miss with it and how often in real life would them make your pictures worse?

Exactly the question(s) I'm attempting to answer at the moment (and don't have the answers just yet). One thing people have really made a lot of noise about, it seems, is the AF. The 60D has 9 points, all cross-type, center point being extra sensitive w/lenses f2.8 or faster. Since I started with the T2i, which only had a center cross-type point (like this new 6D), I've gotten in the habit of always using the center point. But I HATED the AF on the T2i. One of the biggest reasons I upgraded relatively quickly, actually. All over the place and very unreliable- I wanted better AF. The 60D AF, while still far from perfect, is definitely better & much more consistent. I would hate to go back to a T2i-type focus system, personally. I guess only the tests (and field experience from users) will tell the story. To me, AF ability is the second most critical element of the camera (to IQ).

Another beef seems to be flash sync speed. When I shoot flash, I'm usually at 1/100 sec or lower (exceptions have been when I have the 70-200 and need faster to freeze action). The one time I could see running into the limit is perhaps, fill-flash for outdoor shots. Don't really do this often so it's not that big of a deal for me. Then there is the shutter speed limit of 1/4000 on the 6D vs. the 1/8000 on the 60D. I don't recall ever using a shutter speed above 1/4000 with the 60D but I remember hitting the limit a couple of times when I had the T2i (think I was using f1.8 outdoors or something). I suppose I could live with those limitations, but it still bugs me, spending $$$ on this level and having to compromise. Stuff to think about, I suppose.

My experience with the new EOS M camera, if I go for it, may determine how I proceed from here. (that is the camera I currently have my eyes on since I'll have nearly immediate uses for it). Perhaps that can serve my APS-C needs and I can step up to a FF DSLR for the serious stuff to get maximum IQ.

160
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Options for 60D upgrade/replacement?
« on: September 26, 2012, 09:39:20 AM »
My copy of the 70-300L is very very sharp at 70mm till about 135-ish even on the 5D3.  I start noticing the edge softness above 200mm even at f8-f11.  The center frame sharpness is identical for both bodies.  For your application at 300/5.6 the edges would be blurred anyway.

If you're not looking at the 24-70 for shallow depth of field and mainly just for low light, I think the 17-55 on 60D with IS is better.  I'm not very stable so the slowest I can handhold is 1/100 even at 24mm so I really miss the image stabilization from the Sigma lens.  After I acquired the 24-70L, I found out that Tamron makes a good 24-70 f2.8 with IS, it's too late for me but you might give it a consideration.

Yeah, I looked at most of my shots from 200-300mm and (with a few exceptions) they are all attempting to isolate subjects from the background. So the edges are OOF anyway.

As for the 24-70, I currently use the 17-55 for wide perspective at social events (group shots, portraits from short length, candids) and where I find IS to come in most handy is when the lighting is dim and I'm forced to use a flash. Normally with regular shutter speeds the background comes out dark, but I can take advantage of IS to use much lower shutter speeds and try to get more of the background lit. I notice the colors come out richer when I do that as well. That is one perspective I will miss (unless there is another way to achieve this)...otherwise for most event shots I have to shoot 1/80 anyway or the person moves enough to become blurry.

Quote
I haven't tested the 35L but if you like the 35/1.4 on the crop sensor, you'll definitely like it on full frame.  I recently shot a charity event with the 24-70 mostly at that focal length and at 70mm.  It is wide but not too wide as to cause distortion.  You can really get close to your subject while also including some of the environment.  I also have the 50/1.4 which I rarely used on the 60D because it's too narrow for most things and not as sharp as the 70-200II for portraiture.  I use it a lot more now on the 5D3 because of it's size and weight and low light ability.  The depth of field seems better too on the 5D3, it's smoother.  It's almost useless at f1.4 though.  I don't know why you would need an f1.2.  I personally rarely use my lenses wide open.  I prefer the look of f4-f5.6 for sharper portraits and just blur the background and I prefer to raise my ISO for low light.  I'd rather have grainy photos than blurry/ out of focus ones, but I'm still learning, I've only been shooting for about a year so that might change.

Isn't this a similar perspective to 24mm on the crop? Perhaps I'll look through my event photos and see how many I take at ~22-24mm setting. Often I tend to stick mostly to the ends (17mm good for group shots as long as folks aren't at the edge of the frame; 55mm good for head shots at close range). But the main appeal of the 35 1.4 is that it's the only ultra-fast lens in my collection. All others are 2.8 or slower. Without flash, I can shoot even in the darkest of places with it (color balance is another issue altogether, but shot is better than no shot). That is why I mentioned the 1.2 (I know the 1.4 is there, but I didn't like it even on a 1.6x camera due to softness and fringing at 1.4-2.8 )...but we'll see. Most sites seem to be unimpressed by it given its price premium, and I look at a few sample shots and wasn't astonished (although they were landscape shots in daylight, that wouldn't be my use for a lens like this)

161
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Options for 60D upgrade/replacement?
« on: September 26, 2012, 01:28:32 AM »

Just to let you know, that with the 5D3 I noticed that some lenses that are very sharp on the 60D were softer on the edges.  But you really need to pixel peep.  The lenses that I noticed this are 70-300L and the 24-70L

Interesting. I really like the 70-300L on the 60D - it can be soft at times (especially near the 70mm end) but it really shines at the critical 300mm f5.6 setting. Is the key difference just softer edges?

Quote
I don't think you'll need the 24-70 if you already have the 24-105.  The 24-105 would be a great walk-around lens for the 5D3.

I already use the 24-105 as my walkaround on the 60D, but it is certainly unique in that sometimes it is not wide enough to get a whole scene in, yet it is also not quite long enough to isolate a subject in the near distance. But it is the best compromise lens IMO, and the variable apertures on the EF-S options (e.g. 15-85) killed them for me. I take it the 24-105 would give a much wider perspective on FF and thus would make it a somewhat more versatile lens.

Actually, the reason I would want the 24-70 is for a replacement to my 17-55. I don't think I would use the 60D for wide shooting any more if I went FF, so that's why I would likely look to give it up. The f2.8 vs. f4 would likely make a difference for indoor social events, just like it did when I used the 70-200s. The 60D (if I choose to keep it) would exist solely for use with the 70-200 and 70-300 in order to get maximum reach out of those lenses.

Another lens in question (just thought of this) would be the 35 1.4. I LOVE this perspective on the 60D, very natural FOV. However, on a FF this would effectively become more of a wide angle. There's the question of whether that would suit my style (also considering that I might also later have the M with the 22mm lens which is the same perspective), or whether to trade it in for a 50 1.2 or even an 85. Could even help fund the new 24-70 along with the 17-55...

Quote
With regards to the 6D, I agree with you that it doesn't seem much of an upgrade.  I think I would rather get the 7D or the 5D2 to get more value for the money.

It's unfortunate...I didn't like the way everyone was trashing the 6D without so much as a preview, but that said, I was hoping for a little more based on the price point. If they priced it at $1500 (identical specs) it would be a much more attractive option. At $2100 it's almost tempting to look for deals on the 5D3...

162
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Options for 60D upgrade/replacement?
« on: September 25, 2012, 10:23:53 PM »
So, here I am with a 60D (great camera), and several lenses I've invested in over the period I've gotten into photography. While I've gotten great shots and achieved results with what I currently have, I do have some money saved up and I'm currently evaluating options, including perhaps stepping up to a better body. Ever since I've started, the ratio of money I've spent on bodies (T2i -> 60D) vs. lenses (24-105, 17-50 Tamron -> 17-55 2.8, 35 1.4, 70-200 f4 -> 70-200 2.8 II, 70-300 L, 85 1.8, 100 L Macro, 40 2.8 ) is obviously heavily biased in favor of the glass. (Also have a 580ex II flash unit)  I've been starting to think about perhaps paying more attention to the other end to get the best IQ that I can.

Couple of notes:

1) Hobbyist (not a pro, don't make $$ off this stuff so don't need top-performing equipment, nor do I have that kind of money to spend)
2) General photographer here (i.e. don't specialize in anything particular, although I'll tell you what I do NOT do: studio work/portraits, weddings, tripod work. Have done parties though, probably the closest thing to a wedding-type setting)

I've been debating whether to step up to FF - I have to say I've really become accustomed to and utilized the reach of APS-C on the 60D (and the T2i before it) with lenses like the 70-300L and I love how far back I can stand at events and still get nice close-up shots. I've shot some ice-skating performances - reach has come in handy there as well. On the flip side, when shooting an event (book) signing with the 60D and 70-200 2.8 I often find 70mm to be too long when I have an opportunity to get to the table, and I have to back up. However, the 200mm end is nice during the actual reading when I can be in the back of the room and still get closeups. And, at events where I have the 70-300 people on occasion will ask for group shots and 70 is too long on the 1.6x camera. There are times where I've been wanting more in terms of IQ, especially indoors where I dislike using flash and have to crank up ISO. Also, outdoor landscape shots (even with a quality lens like the 24-105), while not bad, don't seem as sharp as they could be. I looked at some sample landscape shots from a 5D in a review the other day and was blown away at how much more detail was in the images.

I've heard about this new 6D, and it got me thinking whether it is worth it. In many ways, though, it's not a TRUE upgrade to a 60D because it does step back in a few respects and step forward in others. The 5D3, OTOH, is a definite upgrade but after handling one yesterday at the store, although I was amazed and couldn't put the thing down, I'm wondering whether it is really a tad too much camera for what I do (coming from the 60D, it seems so complicated!). But, I feel like the 6D is the opposite- might leave me wanting just that little bit more, although I'm tempted to wait for a review first. As an aside, I've also been eyeing the new EOS M as an eventual replacement for my SD950IS P&S...want a capable compact camera to complement the DSLR and be able to get good shots in venues, etc.

So- what to do? This is something I might do over the next few weeks or months. There's this 6D...the prospect of a possible 7D Mark II next year, the 5D3 now (although a bit cost prohibitive, I CAN squeeze it out if I can get a good deal for under $3K). Only issue would be the 17-55 (only EF-S lens I have) which I'd have to give up for a 24-70 that is 2x the price...and no IS...although I would like to keep the 60D if I can as a 2nd body.

You guys have helped me out before...I'd appreciate any thoughts, etc.


163
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 60D actually doesn't need AFMA?
« on: September 25, 2012, 08:27:26 PM »
I haven't really found myself wishing I had it, but I did have to return the first copy of the 40mm 2.8 I got due to extreme back-focus. I don't know if AFMA would have fixed it or not (it was off at times by as much as a foot/foot and a half), but I returned it and picked up another copy which was much better.

164
EOS Bodies / Re: Comparing 6D with 5D3
« on: September 25, 2012, 09:33:05 AM »
Played around with a 5D3 at the store yesterday for a few minutes. Probably shouldn't have done that- couldn't put the thing down!  ::)

Coming from a 60D, this just seems like a whole new world of camera. But I was most impressed with the FF IQ. Notably cleaner at high ISOs...and seems like the FF sensor tends to be better than 1.6x at capturing minute details?

Makes me more intrigued by the 6D, if the quality can hold up...then again, probably wouldn't be a TRUE upgrade from a 60D besides the sensor (and still spending nearly 2K, come on). 60D will probably stick around in that case.

If 5D3 price falls into high $2000s/good deals arise, perhaps the temptation to go "all out" will be there...only thing that sucks would be having to give up the 17-55 (for a 24-70 + lose IS), great lens...

165
EOS Bodies / Re: 7DII feature requests...
« on: September 22, 2012, 01:46:09 AM »
As far as I'm concerned, only one thing - better high ISO performance than 60D/T4i/M/other current 1.6x cams. Everything else is just bells/whistles.

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 18