September 02, 2014, 09:03:26 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 - FTb-n

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 13
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D or 5D3 for low light candids?
« on: April 03, 2013, 12:05:22 PM »
For the past year, since buying my 7D, I thought it or the future 7DII would have a permanent place in my kit.  Now, I'm not so sure.

I'm a two-body shooter.  The 7D is now my second body, but I find myself shuffling lenses to shoot mostly with the 5D3, thus defeating the purpose of using two bodies.  Need to payoff the 5D3 first, but I'm already considering a second FF down the road and will be weighing the merits (and price) of the 6D vs. another 5D3 for this purpose.

Curious side note.  The full resolution JPEGs from the 5D3 volleyball shoot averaged between 5-6 MB.  Those from the 7D averaged 8-9 MB.  ISO for both cameras were mostly 3200.  I'm guessing that extra noise accounts for the added data in the 7D files.

Also, I made a rookie mistake during the first game.  In switching from RAW to JPEG, I inaverdently switched to Large compressed.  But, even those images are cleaner than the ones from the 7D.

Funny that TrumpetPower mentions the 135 and 645 comparison.  Decades ago I went from a Canon FTb-n to a Mamiya 645 1000s.  When I first started playing with the 5D3 around the house and comparing it to the 7D, I did think "this is a lot like the Mamiya" -- only a tad lighter.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D or 5D3 for low light candids?
« on: April 03, 2013, 01:11:35 AM »
When you only own crop, you really don't want believe that FF is so much better due the added expense.  But, it is. 

Just shot a grade school volleyball event with the 5D3 and the 70-200 f2.8 II.  I shoot these events for my kids' school yearbook and upload a bunch that don't make the yearbook to share with parents.  For this stuff, I prefer to save time and space by shooting JPEGs.  With the 7D, I often got the shot, but I always had to post process the shoot to cleanup noise, and sometimes add some presence to the color.  But, I can see now that the 5D3 will save lots of time.  My shots from tonight need no post work, save for cropping on a handful of images.  Lack of noise was amazing.

With volleyball, you need to aim and shoot quick.  There's really no tracking of a subject.  Just pick the player who looks ready to hit the ball, aim, shoot.  I've been impressed with the 7D's ability to lock on quick, so far the 5D3 is just as quick, maybe a tad quicker because it offers a larger expanded point focussing option.  I had a shorter lens on the 7D and used it for a few shots.  All of a sudden, the 7D felt old.  A pity, really.

It was a fun night...we also won...

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Tips on shooting hockey?
« on: April 03, 2013, 12:54:52 AM »
I've used a T2i and a 60D for figure skating.  Both can handle the higher ISO, but both will have theire fair share of OOF shots do to relatively slow focus tracking.  The T2i has a very slow burst mode and buffer.   The buffer on the 60D is better for JPEGs, but RAW will fill up if you're not careful.

Consider Canon's refurb store.  I saved a bunch last year with my 7D from there.

Of the crop bodies currently available, I think your choice will narrow down to two options.

1. T4i -- With Digic 5, has the best high ISO noise reduction for JPEGs.  RAW images should be very similar.  Also offers auto-focus for video.  However, this is NOT a high action body.  Only 5fps and a RAW buffer of only 6 shots.  You can get excited about the action on the ice, fire lots of shots in a hurry (not all in burst), only to have a full buffer when the puck enters the net.  But, the price is good.  (The new T5i is essentually the same camera with minor updates.)

2. 7D -- The best sports crop Canon makes.  Compared to the T-series and the xxD, it's focus system is amazing and a great match for the 70-200.  I bought my 70-200 when I had a 60D and was frustrated with roughly 20% OOF of figure skating shots.  20% doesn't sound bad, but if your key moments are among the 20%, it's terrible.  For me, the 60D held me back from the full potentual of the 70-200.  As for the buffer -- nothing to worry about (I use use Transcend 600x cards).  8fps is a nice bonus.  Slower burst rates are often useless after the second shot.  For figure skating, I prefer shutter speeds between 1/500 and 1/800 at f2.8.  I routinely shoot at ISO 1600- 3200.  You will get noise, but Lightroom 4 does a great job at cleaning it up.

Lenses / Re: Prime vs zoom
« on: April 01, 2013, 01:22:53 AM »
"Standard" kit for me was a 60D with a 17-55 f2.8 and a 7D with a 70-200 f2.8L II.  For a while, I used a 35 f2 for low light, but I had better success with the 17-55 even with slower shutter speeds (down to 1/30).  Now I've added the 40 for those times when I want to travel light(er).

With a recent acquisition of a 5D3/24-105 f4, I'll be shuffling lenses between this body and the 7D more often, but still relying on zooms.  But, I can see myself using the 5D3 with the 40 for short work in lower light.

Lenses / Re: Re-kitting on FF
« on: April 01, 2013, 01:06:48 AM »
I just added the 5D3 + 24-105 f4.0L IS to my collection.  (The 24-105 with IS will be more useful for me than the 24-70 without.)  The 60D is relegated to the kids along with an 18-135.  But, I'm keeping he 7D for sports/second body with the 70-200 f2.8 II. 

I most often shoot with two bodies (I hate changing lenses).  For outdoor sports, I still anticipate using the 7D with the 70-200.  For indoor sports, I expect to use the 5D3.  I love the 70-200 for indoor candids at events, even though it is sometimes a little long for crop.  But, I expect it to be even more useful on the 5D3.

In the short time that I've had the 5D3, it is easy to see that I will favor this body over the 7D most of the time.  I may still end up switching lenses more than I did with two crop bodies just to keep the most desirable lens on the 5D3 for the given situation.   

I hate to say this already, but I can easily see myself wanting a second 5D3 down the road and limiting myself to three lenses for most events -- 24-105, 70-200, and the 40.

Bottom line, it's way too early for me to give up on the reach (not to mention buffer and FPS) of the 7D for sports.  Time will tell.


Lenses / Re: Canon EF 35mm f/2.0
« on: April 01, 2013, 12:39:17 AM »
I know what you mean.  I got my 35 before my sister in-law's wedding and it proved to be my best lens for that event.  (I wasn't the wedding photog.)  I had a new found fondness for this classic.  Even after purchasing the 17-55, I still thought highly of the 35 as my low light, travel-light lens.  Granted, I didn't like is as well as the 17-55 when I needed it in low light.  But, it was still my travel-light lens.  I put off the 40 for some time because I already had the 35, and it was faster.  I thought the 40 was neat, but unnecessary.  But, when the winter rebate hit and the price fell to $150, I gave in and ordered it.  No offense to my 35 (or my 50), but I think this 40 is the new classic short prime.  It will make you forget about the nostalgia for the 35.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 35mm f/2.0
« on: March 31, 2013, 03:50:42 PM »
When using the 40 pancake, I grip the camera like an old rangefinder.  I hold the lens with my thumb an forefinger.  The other three fingers are folded into my palm with the body resting on these fingers.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 35mm f/2.0
« on: March 31, 2013, 03:05:04 AM »
Just finished playing with various lenses on both the 5D3 and the 7D in a poorly lit basement.  I repeatedly focused on stationary subjects a few feet away, about 8 feet away and about 12 feet away.  Granted, this is highly unscientific.

On the 7D, exposures with the 35 were at 1/30, f2.0, ISO 6400.  The 17-55 seemed a tad quicker than the 40, but both were locking on without hunting for the 8' and 12' objects.  There was more hunting at the shortest object.  I switched lenses quite a bit.  There were times when the 35 seemed as quick as the 40 and there were times were it clearly lagged behind when focusing on the 8' object.  Each of these three lenses handled the 12' object without hunting.  I also tried my 50 1.8 and found it hunting on just about every attempt to lock on each object.

On the 5D3, exposures with the 35 were at 1/80, f2.0, ISO 12800.  The 24-105 f4.0 was the quickest to focus when set to 24mm and the slowest when at 105mm.  When set to 35mm, it was about even with the 40 and the 35.  I do think focusing the 35 on the 5D3 was constantly quicker than on the 7D.  But, the 50 1.8 brought up the rear and had similar hunting issues as with the 7D.

My take-aways:

- the zoom lenses focus quickest when zoomed out and set the bar for comparing the primes.
- the 40 f2.8 was consistent and kept up with the zooms.
- the 35 f2.0 was more inconsistent on the 7D.  It sometimes rivaled the 40 and sometimes did noticeably worse.
- the 35 f2.0 was more consistent on the 5D3 and rivaled the focusing performance of the 40.
- the 50 f1.8 likes to hunt -- a lot.

For me, the real test will be backstage at this upcoming ice show.  I'll leave the 50 home, but will be playing with both the 40 and the 35 on the 5D3.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 35mm f/2.0
« on: March 30, 2013, 04:49:29 PM »
First, the 50 1. 8) to which I referred was supposed to be a 50 1.8.

The 5D3 is less than a week old.  I'm still in the mode where I'm comparing various lenses and ISO settings on the 5D3 versus the 7D.  Today, it's a head-to-head comparison between the 5D3 24-105 vs. 7D 17-55.  I know what the results will be.  But I still want to see it for myself.

Haven't gotten to the 35 on the 5D3 yet.  I'll play with that more tonight as the sun falls.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 35mm f/2.0
« on: March 30, 2013, 02:48:52 PM »
I had the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS for the crop bodies before purchasing the 40 2.8.  Optically, the 40 didn't offer anything that the 17-55 already gave me -- except it's compact size.  I do feel less conspicuous with the 40 and for me, the difference between the 40 and the 35 in focal length is negligible.

It really comes down to that extra stop.

I shoot a lot of figure skating events.  The most challenging are ice shows where I'm contending with spotlights for performance shots and flashlights for backstage photos.  Two years ago I rediscovered my old 50 1.8 for backstage photos with a borrowed T2i.  At the time, my main lenses were the 3.5-5.6 zooms.  The 50 made these backstage photos possible.

I then upgraded by adding the 60D, 35 f2, 70-200 f2.8, 17-55 f2.8, and 7D (in that order) before last year's ice show.  I expected to be using the 35 extensively for behind the scenes shots at ISO 6400.  I actually found the 17-55 more useful do the IS and quicker focusing.

More recently, I shot a school event at a bowling alley with "cosmic bowling" (as in very little light).  All I took was the 7D and the 35 2.0.  My keeper rate was very low and I attribute this to problems locking in on focus with the 35.  I had better success at a similar event with my 60D and the 17-55 f2.8 IS.

My conclusion is that the 35 on crop when shooting ISO 6400, f2.0, and shutter speed slower than 1/100 is a hit-or-miss thing.  I'm better off with the 17-55.  But, if there's enough light to shoot at 1/200 of faster, the 35 may give you an edge in stopping action.

My solution to the low light backstage challenge was to add the 5D3 to my kit.  There's another ice show in a few weeks and I plan on using the 35 on the 5D3 for that extra stop and comparing this to the 40 (and likely the 50 1.8).

As for overall value, my 40 is used a lot more than the 35.  Candidly, I'm still debating the real value that the 35 offers.  For very low light on crop, it has been of little benefit over the 17-55.  I have higher expectations with the 5D3.  But then, the 5D3 is so much better in low light, I may still prefer the 40 for its sharp corner-to-corner performance.  I'm not adding any more lenses until I get more experience in low light with the 5D3, but FWIW, if I didn't have the old 35, I'd rather put that $300 toward the new 35 2.0 IS (or the 35 1.4).

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 35mm f/2.0
« on: March 30, 2013, 12:59:13 PM »
I bought mine in September 2011 for use on crop bodies.  I think it's sharper than my 50 1.8 II and better built.  It's just as noisy as the 50.  It was focusing short, but Canon corrected this under warranty.

This has been my primary low light lens and pseudo macro.  I don't have much need for a macro, but this thing focuses very close and is handy for the occasional close-up small item shots.

The 35 f2.0 has a reputation for being soft in the corners on full frame.  For some subjects, this may not be a problem.  But, it's nice on crop bodies that stay within it's sweet spot.  You can compare it with other lenses on

I've since added the 40 f2.8 pancake to my kit which has replaced the 35 as my "travel light" lens.  The 35 sharpens nicely at 2.8, but the corners remain soft.  The 40 is sharp corner-to-corner wide open -- and it's quiet.

The 35 can be nice when you need the extra stop, which is why I'm keeping mine.  But, I'd recommend the 40 instead.  With rebates, it's twice the lens for half the price.

EOS Bodies / Re: Favorite or Preferred Film body?
« on: March 29, 2013, 07:38:37 PM »
My favorite is the FTb-n, the F-1's little brother.  Partially for sentimental reasons, I learned the craft with this camera.  Great micro-prism focus and 12% center spot meter.  Fully manual and no dependency upon batteries for the shutter.

I've done more with AE-1 bodies, but only using manual exposure shooting.  The electronic bodies are great for shutter speed accuracy and the FTb-n may need more maintenance to keep the shutter speed accurate.

However, if I were in the market for an FD film body, the F-1n would be my first choice.  It has everything I like about the FTb-n and it's built like a tank.

+1 on the Canon QL-17 for something a tad smaller and lot quieter.

Canon General / Re: Monopod VS IS (Image stabilization)
« on: March 27, 2013, 04:02:14 AM »
I'm a strong believer the anything one can do to minimize camera shake will help sharpen the image.  I use monopods when feasible.  They work great at figure skating events where your vantage point is often limiting and you can't readily move around to get a better angle.  But, all to often, I find monopods more restrictive when trying to get the shot.  For example, at grade school basketball games, I'm able to shoot courtside, but I need to be able to move quickly to stay out of the way or to dodge a player who's blocking my shoot.

In both of these examples, I'm typically shooting faster than 1/400 with a 70-200 f2.8L II on a 7D.  Conventional wisdom suggests that higher shutter speeds eliminate the need for added camera shake prevention -- such as IS or a monopod.  But, a 200mm lens on a crop body is like a 320 on full frame.  The reciprocal rule suggests the 1/320 is the minimum safe hand held speed for this lens.  1/400-1/500 isn't that much faster.  IS and/or a monopod will definitely help.

When it comes to candids, such as wedding receptions or event photography, you have to be quick to get the shot.  Physical supports like a monopod will likely get in the way.

On paper, it may make sense to save money and use monopods instead of spending extra for IS.  In practice, I think you'll lose more shots quickly tire of carrying the monopod everywhere.  You may find some situations where a monopod is an acceptable alternative to IS for a given some lens.  But, if IS is available for the given focal length and aperture, it will give you greater flexibility than the monopod.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D or 5D3 for low light candids?
« on: March 21, 2013, 08:23:02 PM »
Thanks for all the feedback. 

A 5d3 with the 24-105 is on its way.  For my use I think this lens will be more versatile than the 24-70 (I or II) (and cheaper).  I've got the 35 f2, 50 f1.8, and 40 f2.8 for the more light challenging events.  I need to see what I can do with these lenses before considering faster zooms or primes.  (But, an 85 f1.8 or a 100 f2 could be tempting down the road.)

Noise Ninja was my primary NR software until I learned how clean up noise with Lightroom 4.  I now use Lightroom 4 exclusively.  Note that I'm shooting grade school sports and figure skating with a 7D and ISO typically between 2000 and 4000, sometimes 6400.

I've been very satisfied with Lightroom 4 and, in particular, it's ease of use.  I particularly like that Lightroom 4 offers noise reduction when converting from RAW to JPEG.  Noise Ninja won't work directly from RAW images.

To be fair to Noise Ninja, there is a lot to the software that I have yet to learn.  It could have offer more to offer than Lightroom, but I'm not past the learning curve yet.

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 13