July 30, 2014, 08:13:50 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 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 21
EOS-M / Re: Mount EF, EF-S or L lens on EOS-M --- Your thought???
« on: October 30, 2013, 03:08:21 PM »
I've used it with the 40 2.8 a couple of times. No point in putting anything much larger as I may as well take my DSLR (which is far more responsive, no shutter lag, etc.)

Reviews / Re: Review: EOS M System
« on: October 15, 2013, 11:19:33 PM »
In good light the M produces excellent images.  In mediocre light it does OK.  In poor light, well, let's just say it isn't full frame!

Pretty much all you need to know about the M - in just 3 sentences!  ;D

Although there is a noticeable difference in low-light performance with the 22mm vs. the 18-55mm.

Lenses / Re: Questions on EF 24-70mm II on 5D Mk3 vs EF-S 17-55mm on 7D
« on: October 14, 2013, 10:25:30 AM »
I can speak on this topic from experience.

I *used* to use a 17-55/60D combo at certain social events. While I loved it in reception-style settings (where I often had an external flash like the 580EX II), I was often disappointed with the results when I used available light (ex. a well-lit room). They would often be noisy and lacking detail, even when I opened up all the way to 2.8. It was far better than the Tamron 17-50 I was using with it before, however.

Fast forward to this year, when I sold the 60D after acquiring a 5D3 late last year, and therefore had to give up the 17-55. I replaced it with - you guessed it - the 24-70 II. After using both combos in similar situations, here are my thoughts:

- My keeper rate was generally higher with the 17-55/60D, primarily due to the IS.

- However, (generally speaking) the quality of the 24-70II/5D3 is significantly better than what I was getting out of the 60D. This is even after accounting for the higher ISOs I often have to use to get shutter speeds fast enough to prevent blur in the absence of IS (which surprised me).

- I find that in general, I'm happier with what I'm getting out of the 24-70 II/5D3, even if my hit rate is somewhat lower (I take more shots to compensate). The pictures are not only sharper and cleaner, but the background blur when shooting at 2.8 is sometimes "Wow". Sometimes I miss the IS, but honestly, I don't think I would ever go back to using a crop camera when shooting these types of events. This is where FF cameras really shine, to me.

ETA: Another note...24mm on the 5D3 is noticeably wider in my experience than 17mm is on 60D/7D.

EOS-M / Re: 18-55mm EF-m IS STM experiences
« on: September 27, 2013, 12:53:48 PM »
At first, when I viewed test pics I was very lukewarm about it.

But, after buying one and using it on many occasions, here are my real-world thoughts:

Outdoors in good light - it is surprisingly good. It is clearly a step above any P&S and can keep pace with the DSLR kit lenses. Don't expect top-notch L quality - but man, for its size, I was really impressed.

Indoors, however, it can struggle a bit sometimes. I prefer using the 22 (or 40 + adapter) to shoot events indoors.

I used used a 7D/5D3 combo at a recent event...but I did the opposite of what you're proposing. I put the 24-70 on the 5D and the 70-200 on the 7D. That way, I get the benefit of reach on the 7D and the wide-angle of 24mm on the 5D.

Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EOS 70D
« on: September 11, 2013, 04:14:31 PM »
^ Really? Wow, sort of makes me feel glad I picked up that secondhand 7D and didn't wait...

One of the biggest differences between the 60D and the 7D for action sports is the buffer capacity and speed of the card...would hit the buffer limit regularly on the 60D when shooting action (RAW). To hear that the 70D is no different/a step down is a bit discouraging.

I have both. I got the 24-70 to replace my 17-55 as a social event lens when I moved up to FF. The lack of IS is less of a concern since people move around, but still, it was nice to be able to "drag the shutter" to lower ISO whenever people posed.

As for the difference between it and the 24-105, the 24-70 is better at 24 and distorts a little less. I find it has sharper corners at the wider apertures. However, 70mm (lack of sufficient reach in large spaces) and lack of IS prevent it from fully replacing the 24-105 for me, which still has a use (general outdoor photography, travel). But the 24-70 wins in the indoor, tight environments of events.

^ Ah yes, that's true.

Still, there's always the 70D...BUT, having handled the two cameras there is a significant difference in feel (the 7D handles much more like a "real pro's" camera while the 70D feels more consumer-oriented & plasticky). Both cameras seemed similar in speed though.

I would like to see a 1.3x sensor in the new 7D, perhaps at 25MP, if only for improved high ISO performance compared to 1.6x. Or, if they can vastly improve 1.6x high ISO, even better.

Lenses / Re: Conversation with pro re: 50L vs. 50 f/1.4
« on: September 03, 2013, 05:00:57 PM »
Ever since switching to FF, I've been looking for a decent 50mm lens. I've yet to find one.

I tried the 50L. Couldn't get a SINGLE sharp shot with it even after nearly 100 pics and fiddling with focus adjustment. I really wanted to like it but I know the soft shots would frustrate the --- out of me. So I wrote it off.

The 50 1.4 was much easier to use, but lacked the durability and weather sealing. Pics also had an odd color to it (couldn't really put my finger on it). As another poster mentioned, even on a 5D3 the servo tracking was horrendous...


I'm contemplating using this same combo to shoot an ice-skating show coming up...the 7D and 70-200 (the IS II version) for the show action and a 5D3 with the 24-70 II for backstage shots. I want the reach of 1.6x for the show so I can get the ends of the rink, but I also want the clean ISO performance/superior IQ of FF when the reach is not necessary. A case to get the best of both worlds, but since I have not handled multiple cameras before, this will be an experience...

The other option is switching out the 5D3 with the 6D for the backstage stuff, but haven't decided here yet. I used a 60D/70-200 before and it's simply too long and awkward when you are up close and personal, although it is ideal for capturing the action.

Would be interested in reading about more of your experiments. I embark on my own test in a couple of weeks.

EOS Bodies / Re: 6d
« on: August 30, 2013, 12:24:11 AM »
Here's the quick version: If you don't do sports or shoot anything moving quickly, look no further.

Lenses / Re: New Lens Announcement Tonight [CR3]
« on: August 21, 2013, 05:08:47 PM »
Can I get it in an M mount please?
Thank you!


EOS-M / Re: Some EOS M Information [CR1]
« on: August 19, 2013, 04:08:05 PM »
Forget new cameras, that macro lens sounds nice...

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D logical upgrade from 7D?
« on: August 16, 2013, 01:32:24 PM »
Yeah...perhaps the new 7D can be 1.3x crop with improved high-ISO performance...the 1D X being FF kills it for me as a sports cam (price too).

APS-H is dead.   :P

I can see the price killing the 1D X as a sports cam, but not it being FF - the IQ of a 1D X image cropped to the 1DIV's FoV is as good or better than the 1DIV.

I understand that...I was speaking more in relation to my own needs/desires though. That's the one time I really value the reach of 1.6x - the lenses you would need to get the same FOV on FF either don't exist or require one to sell his soul. When you can't get closer, the reach is nice to have- can put more pixels on subject/have additional cropping latitude.

I found that most times I can get close enough to where I can benefit from FF, and the IQ is unbeatable. the few times I can't, however...

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 21