March 05, 2015, 05:29:37 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 - sagittariansrock

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 111
I think Neuro mentioned hanging his 600/4 on a BR strap.

Lenses / Re: so, where is the Canon 35 1.4 II??
« on: February 22, 2015, 01:42:32 AM »
After releasing the EF 11-24 4L, i am waiting for the new ef 35 1.4 II that outperforms the Sigma 35 1.4 Art. Any hints on that?
None of the three wide angle-to-standard focal lenght 'L' primes (24L, 35L & 50L) can match the resolution and IQ needed for the new 50MP bodies. Particularly the 24L and 35L.

You clowns just don't get it, do you? Read what privatebydesign wrote; he's one of the most intelligent and well educated members on this board.  What he said is true.

Got out of the wrong side of the bed, SP?  :P

Couple of pics - first is a 5D with the 70-200 @ 200mm and the second is a T1i with the 85mm @ 1.8.

Really like the second shot WRT timing and composition. Nicely done!

A note on polarization,  two polarizers result in what is called cross polarization, which causes an increase in reduction of light transmission. This technique is used by geologists in optical mineralogy to determine internal structure as different minerals naturally polarize light transmitted through a thin section.

The net result is two polarizers can cause near opaqueness  when properly oriented to each other. Someone, don't remember who, make a double adjustable polar.  What I would recommend is a  larger polar with a step up ring.

Good luck!   Tom

I believe that is the principle employed in all variable neutral density filters.

Lenses / Re: APS-C 60mm or 100mm macro lens?
« on: February 21, 2015, 07:17:09 PM »
I am not sure I can see any benefit of getting the 60mm except for slower minimum shutter speed required. The DoF advantage of a wider FL vanishes due to a shorter working distance, I believe (please check DoFmaster).
Advantages of the 100mm on the other hand:
1. Greater working distance- always useful.
2. Compression will allow a smaller part of the background to be visible, and look less busy
(see the comparison between 60, 100 and 180mm in
3. No worries if and when you move to FF.
Given your intention to hand hold, I think 100L might be worth saving up for. I believe most people won't be repulsed by a smoother bokeh than the non-L, and will be able to hand hold it reasonably well at 1:1 (I was, and I am no great shakes at steady handholding).

Lenses / Re: which telephoto for travel?
« on: February 21, 2015, 04:33:23 AM »
I was in very similar shoes not long back when I realized I was missing a tele lens simply because I couldn't carry my 70-200/2.8 everywhere. I decided to go for the 135L, not sure if it would be the right solution (I was also considering the 70-300L and 70-400L). However, I can happily say that I have not looked back.
It is one of my most often used lens nowadays (other than my 24-70) and I try to shoehorn it into every job- I like it so much! It is great for portraits, indoor sports, events, shows, zoos, just to name a few of my recent uses.
So yeah, I would wholeheartedly recommend it. Your only limitation will be sticking to speeds above 1/160, but if you are shooting anything moving you'd have to do that anyway. And the high ISO capabilities of the 6D will help you out here.
(BTW, I have access to only the 35L and the 135L at the moment, and I just love the combo on my 6D).

70-200+1.4x on your better camera would be my suggestion, given the reach needed in a championship pool.

Lenses / Re: which 200mm lens to get
« on: February 21, 2015, 03:48:01 AM »
thank you all for your replies. My idea is to mosly hand-hold this lens. this is why the IS is essential to me with this focal lenght. i tried my 135L on my 7D (becomes 216mm) and the view was shaking quite a bit, which i am not use to. I appriciate 200mm f2.8L with respect to size, apature and optical quality, but i just cannot see using it if i cannot frame things properly.

It seems like you have all the good reasons (portraits, sports, "look") to buy the 200/2L. Given that situation, I don't see anyone regretting after having bought the lens. Especially since you are willing to save up for it.

Lenses / Re: so, where is the Canon 35 1.4 II??
« on: February 21, 2015, 03:44:13 AM »
but to say their autofocus is arguably worse is incorrect.

Sorry, I'm not a native speaker (native English speaker, that is :-)) ... doesn't "arguably" mean that you can argue about the point, i.e. find it correct or incorrect? The trusty site seems to think so, but it only translates single words and doesn't put them into a sample context.

Arguably generally means "there are very good points to argue in favor of" or "it can be argued (successfully)". I think the experience of several forum members provide enough data points to argue that Sigma AF can be iffy, although the problem might lie with Canon restricting the AF algorithms. As the only third party manufacturer that makes fast (>f/2.8) AF lenses for Canon/Nikon, the shallow DoF places Sigma at an unfortunate disadvantage.
On that note (sorry to sort of hijack this thread) does anyone know if the Sigma AF problems are limited to Canon mounts or do Nikon users also face similar issues?

Canon General / Re: Canon Loyalty Program Prices
« on: February 20, 2015, 02:24:17 AM »
Certain bodies are on 10% discount, like 6D and 5D III. So for those, a sale gives better prices (usually 15%, I have never heard 30% on an FF body).
For other bodies, CLP gives 20% discount, which makes that a better deal. Also, CLP always ships free.

Photography Technique / Re: Advice for upcoming "can't-miss" shot
« on: February 19, 2015, 10:38:23 PM »
Based on my experience shooting commencement ceremonies I would say the biggest challenges are reach, exposure and tracking.

I would imagine you will be shooting at around 80-100mm at a distance of 20-30 feet. I prefer a lens with IS and a wider DoF to a faster lens without IS in this situation because a wider DoF allows you to prefocus more confidently (see below). The DoF at 25 feet with a 90/2.8 is <4ft as opposed to 5.5 ft for 90/4. Also, you can bounce a 430EX-II in a 30 feet room. Personally, my preference will be renting 70-200 f/4 IS or better yet, a f/2.8 IS (v1 is fine) just in case the room is bigger than you think. Nothing is worse than having to crop the subject among a busy background. Longer FL will give you separation as well. 

Most importantly, pre focus. The worst thing that can happen is if either the camera refuses to focus because there isn't a high contrast object in the AF point or if it focuses on the wrong spot at the heat of the moment. Especially because my 6D sometimes hunts if it doesn't find a suitable subject (even with a 135L). You can PP everything, but not your son's face if it is out of focus. So before he reaches the spot, especially if there are awardees before him- set your point of focus, aperture, ISO and shutter speed. When he gets the award, it becomes a simple matter of clicking the shutter. Needless to say, I recommend using back button focus to ensure the camera doesn't try to refocus when you shoot, but switching to MF also works.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D Classic Good Enough for Pros?
« on: February 19, 2015, 08:50:37 PM »
nc0b's post reminds me of a recent trip where I spotted a pair of does next to the car, and asked my wife to take a few shots as I was driving and was in the wrong side. Now, all she had was a 6D and 135L attached to it. However, the competence of 6D's AF couldn't even come into play as she isn't familiar with dSLRs (and staunchly refuses to be, to my dismay)- so this image is essentially unfocused (I had it set to BBF and forgot to tell her), shot at ISO 100 and f/8 (whatever it was set at- fortunately the S/S limiter was set at 1/200 FWIW).
So you have an image that is, at best, fine for a Facebook post. With correct technique, even with this camera/lens combo, this could have been a really good shot- because of the beautiful golden hour light and the cooperative posing of the subjects. So, I had a camera in the car and it was the right time, but I wasn't at the right enough place (the passenger seat of my car).

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D Classic Good Enough for Pros?
« on: February 19, 2015, 03:15:18 AM »
I remember the excitement when the 7D first came out.  For a long time, it was THE camera to buy with the best video features and the AF and build quality was as good as it got.  Its a little sad to read some of the comments above, which clearly indicate that time and technological advances wait for no one.

To the OP, it is easy to say that a 1DX, 5Diii and 7Dii are better cameras.  But I assume you are asking due to budget constraints?  In the 7D price range, you are probably comparing it to a used 5D/5Dii, 1Ds Mkii, maybe a new 70D, 6D etc.  In which case it is the ruggedness and speed of the 7D vs slightly better image quality of the FF cameras vs the benefits of buying a new 70D (which is also meant to be a good camera). The answer comes back to what features you value most, the subjects that you shoot and the environment in which you do it.

I wouldn't say the difference in IQ is slight from the 7D to FF (implying 6D, I suppose). From what I have heard, 70D is at least a stop better than the 7D.
I don't think it is sad, this basically underlines the fact that the basic factors like understanding lighting and composition will be relevant for eternity, while tools such as the 7D are just transitory.
It is interesting to listen to Steve Jobs talk about how modern technology becomes obsolete in such a short time (interesting because you realize he understands how short-lived his legacy will be):

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D Classic Good Enough for Pros?
« on: February 18, 2015, 05:08:30 PM »
Short answer:
Yes, the old 7D is good enough for professional use.

Long answer:
If you do not need to shoot without a flash in dark places ...
If you do not need more than 8 frames per second ...
If you do not need continuous AF in Live View ...
If you do not need to go above ISO1600 ...
If you can settle for a lower hit rate than current cameras ...
If you will not feel inferior to have an old camera ...

So yes.
The old 7D is good enough.

Great answer!

The OP and some posters give extreme examples such as 1D X and 5DIII not being always necessary and how a Rebel in a safari is better than a 7DII at home.
But let's face it- I would use a 7D today ONLY if I couldn't even switch to a 70D. Yes, even switching to a 70D will be a considerable upgrade from a 7D.
7D was a great crop sensor camera (arguably the greatest) in its time. But that time has passed. Technology has moved on. Pros shot great images with manual focus lenses. However, you cannot expect the sharpness and IQ to be even close to the stellar lenses of today. Would you ask, how did pros shoot before AF was developed?
There are better choices than 7D depending on what you want. If they can't be had, yes, 7D will satisfice...

Lenses / Re: Advice on Canon PRIMES
« on: February 18, 2015, 02:10:57 PM »
The 100 mm f/2.8 L macro is another magic lens for the macro use. Its rendition is absolutely great. It seems like a faultless lens. I cried when I gave it back.

I agree, but I find the bokeh "faultless" and even to the point of "boring" though - it's optimized for macro, and you certainly don't get results like these f1.2 primes from it. Even the bokeh my 70-300L looks more interesting most of the time, but of course that's personal taste.

What would be the point of bringing up two defferent lenses with two differents kinds of magic if they were similar?
You find the bokeh of the 100mm L macro boring because the lens is too perfect.
You do realize that you are a snob, don't you?

I think that's a bit harsh. As Marsu said- it is a matter of personal taste. I also didn't like the bokeh on the 100L and decided against purchasing it. Perfection can be relative- the 100L is not designed to be a portrait lens. It is also not designed to be a fast focusing lens. So on those counts, the 85L and 135L are better choices. Horses for courses.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 111