January 26, 2015, 09:32:54 AM

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 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 25
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.

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)

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?

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...

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...

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.

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.

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...

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.

Lenses / Re: Upgrade from Sigma 18-200
« on: September 21, 2012, 09:39:14 AM »
I think 24-105 is fine on my 60D but it really depends on your style of shooting. I find it to be a bit tight (and slow) indoors, but outside it's fine, for the most part.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: A positive feedback for 6D
« on: September 20, 2012, 10:16:24 PM »

I think the 6D would be an excellent travel camera.  With a FF sensor, you can just bring a pancake and you are good to go, even in low light situations.  The -3EV AF is a terrific feature.

That's exactly what I'm thinking here. I already have the 24-105, slap that on and that's the travel pack right there. The high ISO would be perfect for no-flash places & evening excursions, the wider view fine for landscape and tourist shots, and the sealing good for unexpected weather conditions. Not that the 60D wouldn't do a fine job in that regard- it would- but eventually, when it's possible to take that next step, this might be an option.

Still, the price must come down several hundred dollars first. I'm also interested in that new EOS M camera (different reason - might get good use in areas where DSLRs are too bulky/attention-grabbing/suspicious/etc.) so (after reviews) might spring for that and then see what next year brings.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: A positive feedback for 6D
« on: September 20, 2012, 06:58:22 PM »
I'd be interested in the answer to that question as well. As a 60D owner I'm actually surprised at how similar the two cameras seem to be...
I recently upgraded from the 60D to the 5DII.  They seem very similar in most of the ways that I shoot.  A couple ergonomic issues are different, but largely they are the same.  For example, the AF seems identical.  The metering on my 5DII seems a little more accurate.  The key differentiator is the ISO speed and cleaner noise at higher ISOs, which benefits the 5DII (and 6D) substantially.  Regardless of how the 6D performance shakes out, you should consider a 5DII upgrade path because the ISO performance is a real upgrade.

Thanks for the insight...interesting. I really do like the 60D- it even exceeded my expectations when I shot some action last week- for having "only 9" AF points I got quite a few keepers. :) My only complaint about it, and it's not really a complaint per se as it's a wish - I would like better high ISO performance. There are times that I'm feeling the limits of ISO 3200 (yes, even with an f2.8 lens) and would like to go higher but can't due to the excessive noise levels. Hoping the new 7D II has this, and I can keep the crop factor for my long lenses.

To clarify, any use for a FF camera like the 6D would be mostly travel, walkaround and events. If I chose to go this route, I would almost certainly keep the 60D to get maximum reach out of my telephotos (70-200 2.8 and 70-300). Lens-wise, I have mostly EFs anyway - the only EF-S I have is the 17-55 (but it's one of my most used ones).

I'd like to see how the 6D's AF performs in practice, and whether it is at least on par with the 60D, because it sounds like at least on paper, with the exception of the low-light rating, it's somewhat of a downgrade. Plus, if it's true that FF cameras require more accurate focusing due to more limited DOF, this would seem even more critical...?

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: A positive feedback for 6D
« on: September 20, 2012, 09:33:10 AM »
Hmmm if, in real life, the autofocus works better than the 5D mkii and the image quality turns out to be at least as good if not better I might well start getting excited about this camera as a potential 60D upgrade!

I'm in the same boat.  I want to go full frame.  When I shoot weddings, I use the company's 5D mk2/mk3 so I don't really NEED one.  I'd like to have a FF body for personal use for less than the price of a mk3.  If the AF is good, I'd be much closer to a final decision.  My 60D has 9 AF points and all 9 are cross type but I typically just use the center and recompose anyway.

I wish it had AF during video. When I'm shooting videos, I usually like to focus manually and was looking forward to having a DSLR that had AF during video if I wanted to shoot a 2nd angle on a tripod and just let it run while I manually focus with the other camera but alas, I might have to get a T4i just for that purpose.

Does anyone who's actually played with the 6D know if the AF on the 6D works BETTER than the 60D? any thoughts or input would be welcome.

I'd be interested in the answer to that question as well. As a 60D owner I'm actually surprised at how similar the two cameras seem to be. The 6D is not a total "upgrade" though since IIRC the 60D can do 1/8000s, slightly faster flash sync and at least on paper, AF seems to be more well-rounded. (I want to see reviews of the 6D AF in practice before passing judgment, unlike several others here it seems)

BUT, the 6D does have the low ISO 50 option which sort of compensates for the lower 1/4000s max speed I suppose, which the 60D does not have.

EOS Bodies / Re: At what price point will you consider buying the Canon 6D?
« on: September 18, 2012, 12:56:42 PM »
Thought process will go like this, assuming it happens within a year (and there is no 7D replacement on the horizon)

At $1700 I'll start thinking about it

At $1600 I'll take a look at it

At $1500 I'll consider it.

At $1400 I'll probably pick one up. :)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon Announces the Canon EOS 6D DSLR
« on: September 17, 2012, 12:52:36 PM »
So much negativity - and there hasn't even been a review or image gallery yet.

To me, this could potentially be an interesting camera. But not at the current asking price. If this comes down a few hundred dollars over the next few months, it may actually be worth a look *IF* the image quality and high ISO performance match that of the 5D III.

As someone who prefers the reach of a "crop" 1.6x camera, if the image quality of FF is truly a step up- it may be something to think about...whether I could potentially have both. But FF cameras are just too expensive...even the most basic ones as we see here today.

Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
« on: September 15, 2012, 02:43:18 PM »
went to an ice-skating show last weekend...not much of an action/sports photographer, but wanted to take a crack at it since I had the chance.

All pics shot with a 60D

more here http://www.flickr.com/photos/8440248@N08/sets/72157631538518705/with/7987248991/

Sports / Re: Shooting the Olympics - what separates us from the pros
« on: September 15, 2012, 01:55:55 PM »
Impressive. Thanks for sharing.

Yes, carrying a huge camera certainly is a bear...but in the end, I always think it is worth it once you see the finished product.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Arrived
« on: September 14, 2012, 07:22:05 PM »
About the IS thing - it "IS" really nice to have for events, though, because I like to try to use slower shutter speeds when people are posing- this lets in as much light as possible and 1) keeps ISO as low as possible or 2) keeps the backgrounds from getting too dark if I'm using flash. Of course, when people are moving about, shutter speeds need to be reasonable anyway, so IS is not so important in that regard.

The 17-55 is my perfect lens for this type of work for that reason. I just wish it were more durable/weather sealed, kinda flimsy considering its price. I would have been interested in an IS version of the 24-70...sounds like this is a good one, though.

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 25