February 28, 2015, 10:02:09 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 - FTb-n

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 21
31
A 70d has advantages over the big brother that will definitely matter to some: size, weight, swivel screen, touch screen, wifi, right hand-only control, to name those who come to my mind right now...

I forgot about the LCD and wifi features of the 70D -- trade-offs for better weather sealing and a more rugged body of the 7D2.

To be fair, the SL1 also deviates the linear path with its unique benefit of its small size.

32
hmmmmmmmm.........

The 5D3 was designed as an all-round camera.....
The 7D2 was designed to fit a niche......

What do you think? 
The 5D2 seemed to be a wedding/portrait body only -- a true niche.  The 5D3 upped the ante for weddings, portraits and events plus pulled it out of the niche category by making it a reasonable alternatively for less demanding action.

I wouldn't put the 7D2 in the niche category, it seems to belittle its other talents.  The 7D2 appears to be the new king of the crop bodies for all subject matter that truly excels with action photography.  Plus it is a genuine pro body in build quality.
Just my opinion, but to me the 1DX and the 7D2 hold down the top spots in the Canon Ff and Crop world, while I would put the 5D3 and the 70D as the all round cameras in their categories......
I would agree.  The 7D2 tops the 70D in every category except price, while the 1Dx tops the 5D3 in just about every category except price, weight, and silent shutter.

The progression through the crop bodies is pretty linear with the higher end body improving upon the lower end in just about every feature.  But, when looking at the top four pro-grade bodies -- 7D2, 6D, 5D3, 1Dx -- the distinctions are more detached.  The 1Dx may be king of them all, but the 6D, 7D2, and 5D3 each have unique strengths.  Pending one's subject matter and budget, it would be quite reasonable to augment one's kit with two or more of these bodies to target specific needs.

33
hmmmmmmmm.........

The 5D3 was designed as an all-round camera.....
The 7D2 was designed to fit a niche......

What do you think? 
The 5D2 seemed to be a wedding/portrait body only -- a true niche.  The 5D3 upped the ante for weddings, portraits and events plus pulled it out of the niche category by making it a reasonable alternatively for less demanding action.

I wouldn't put the 7D2 in the niche category, it seems to belittle its other talents.  The 7D2 appears to be the new king of the crop bodies for all subject matter that truly excels with action photography.  Plus it is a genuine pro body in build quality.

34
Lenses / Re: What prime should I get?
« on: December 08, 2014, 09:31:48 PM »
With your Canon T3, I'd recommend a 35mm f/2 IS as your first prime.  Its close to the normal focal length for a crop sensor.  It will also be a great lens for video or on a full frame body.  I presume your previous post about a upgrade means you will stay with crop bodies.
+1

I love my 35 f2.0 IS lens.  It's sharp, bright (more than a stop brighter than the 70-200 f2.8L II) and focuses much quicker than the old non-IS version.  At a 56 mm "full frame equivalent", it's a good normal lens for crop.  The f2.0 and IS will give you great low light potential.

If you're looking for something cheaper, I can also recommend the 40 f2.8 pancake.  Also very sharp.

If you want something wider, look at the new 28 f2.8 IS or the new EF-S 24 f2.8 STM.  I can't speak from experience, but these have been favorably compared to the 35 IS and the 40.

As for 50 mm lenses, I'd wait.  Canon is expected to replace the 1.8 and/or the 1.4.  They are old, tired, and soft compared to the new primes that Canon has introduced (at least wide open).  With the recent IS versions of the 28 and 35, I'm hoping for IS 50 f1.8 or faster -- maybe by next spring??  I know, wishful thinking.

35
The comment about the 5D3 being sharper cropped to a 7D image size is a bit of a lie.

It's no lie.  EF lenses are designed for full frame bodies (film and sensor).  I'm going to butcher this explanation (Neuro does a much better job explaining this and I bet he's thinking, "not this again"), but lenses have limits regarding the degree of sharpness to which they can focus the light.  The larger pixels in a full frame sensor generally do a better job of rendering the edge of a sharp object (such as a fine line in a test chart) from a full frame lens.  Put that line under a microscope and that edge will look fuzzy.  Now, pack lots of smaller pixels close together along this edge and they will capture the "fuzz."  Because the smaller pixels aren't as efficient in capturing the light as the big pixels and this fuzzy line could spill more across the tiny pixels, thus recording a less sharp image.  All of this may vary by lens, with some able to focus better for the small pixels than others.

Okay, that's my stab at explaining the why.  If I butchered it, I warned you.  The thing that's important to me is that increasing "sharpness" requires more than simply packing more pixels into a smaller space.  The lens' ability to focus the light and the pixel's efficiency in capturing the light also play a factor. 

Sometimes pictures can say it better.  Checkout the link to The Digital Picture's comparison tool of the 70-200 f2.8L II on a 1Ds III vs. a 60D.  Those lines are softer on the 60D which has smaller pixels that are more tightly packed together.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

As previously mentioned, the bigger sensor allows for higher ISO which allows for faster shutter speeds that can reduce blur and further sharpen an image.

Again, my explanation may have some holes in it, but image sharpness isn't just about the pixel density.  Much of what I shoot is high ISO (1600 and up).  With the 70-200, cropping a 5D3 image will give you a sharper image than a native 7D image.  Go outside in bright light and lower ISO, and this difference is less clear.  Even outside, I get better results cropping my 5D3 image over my native 7D image, but we are nitpicking here.  This is enough to mitigate the 1.6 crop factor for me.  But, it doesn't mean that the 7D can't produce pleasingly sharp images.  It does, especially in bright light.

I would love to see The Digital Picture add the 7D2 to their comparison tool to see if the Mark II version is any sharper than the Mark I.

36
Both are great options.  I migrated from the 60D to the 7D and now the 5D3.  I shoot a lot of kid sports, but don't plan to get the 7D2.  The 5D3 is an underrated sports body.  If your need isn't heavily dependent upon high speed burst or extended burst in RAW (which can fill a buffer), the 5D3 does a great job.

From a sports perspective, I think of the 5D3 and the 7D2 as little brothers to the 1Dx.  They are different and have their own strengths.  If low light is a bigger concern than burst mode, then the 5D3 is the better choice.  If burst mode and buffer is a bigger concern then the 7D2 is the way to go.

For general use, both should do well.  But, full frame has some distinct benefits.  You will see better low light performance and better color depth.  Granted, the latter is mostly visible when comparing FF to crop directly, otherwise, you may not see it.  Using a 35 2.0 IS, I also find the 5D3 can lock on focus in lower light than my 7D or 60D.  I suspect it will out perform the 7D2 as well, but perhaps not as easily as the older crop bodies.

I find that the 70-200 f2.8L II performs better on FF than on crop.  Images from the lens are sharper on a FF sensor.  You have better control over DOF -- meaning 2.8 on FF offers smaller DOF than on crop.  And, for many occasions, the 70-200 focal range is more usable on FF.

Incidentally, I was concerned about losing the 1.6 crop factor.  In my experience with the 70-200 at 200 mm on both the 7D and the 5D3, a 5D3 image cropped match the 7D image is sharper than the 7D image.  Hopefully, the 7D2 will be sharper than the 7D, but you won't lose any real "reach" from what you have now.

I'd go for the 5D3.  Once you go FF, it's hard to back to crop.


37
Lenses / Re: Yongnuo EF YN 50mm F/1.8
« on: December 07, 2014, 04:29:54 PM »
I don't see the point.  The EF 50 1.8 and the EF 40 2.8 are already good budget "normal" primes -- and the 40 is particularly sharp.  For those of us who want reliable, powerful, manual flash, at a bargain price, Yongnuo has done a nice job filling this need.  I don't care about ETTL, just consistent power, temp and quick recycle -- should be easy to do for a third-party.  It doesn't matter to me whether Yongnuo did a good job on the ETTL side.  But, I'm far more demanding with glass.

38
Sports / Re: Basketball
« on: December 06, 2014, 11:00:05 AM »
TexPhoto, I'd love read about he details of your shots -- lens choice, ISO and body, shutter speed for for the controlled blur.  I'm also curious about the overhead setup.

39
Sports / Re: Winter Baseball
« on: December 06, 2014, 10:49:44 AM »
Love the first baseman's dive for the ball.  Please share some photo details -- lens, ISO, shutter.

40
Lighting / Re: 72" umbrella... what to look for and what to avoid?
« on: December 06, 2014, 01:01:29 AM »
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00409BAFQ/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0055P49HU/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

I decided on these two.  I got two different brands of the same type partly to see if there is a qualitative difference, but also because I HAD to buy one directly from Amazon in order to receive a $25 discount... so.. that works for me.
The 60" sounds big, but I find that they are very manageable and versatile for indoor shoots.  I stick with 40-45" for outdoor unless I have an assistant and there's virtually no wind.  I suspect that you're going to like the 60's.

I'm curious which brand that you like better.

41
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: buying suggestion: a 5D3 or 1Dx?
« on: December 05, 2014, 12:00:08 AM »
I have real issues with using cameras without a viewfinder.  Hoping that somewhere along the way they work on an integrated EVF.  Live view solutions just dont cut it.  I have an iphone for that.
+1. 

I have an S100 and G16, both good cameras in their element, but I don't like shooting by looking at the back of the camera.  I know, the G16 has a viewfinder...sort of.  But, mirrorless without an EVF that can match that of an SLR is a non-starter for me.

42
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: buying suggestion: a 5D3 or 1Dx?
« on: December 04, 2014, 09:48:08 PM »
I shoot events and sports (mostly middle-school level) and opted for two 5D3 bodies.  Don't get me wrong, I'd love a 1Dx and it may be in future at some point.  But, a 5D3 with a 24-70 f2.8L II and second 5D3 with a 70-200 f2.8L is a killer system for events where candid photography reigns.  It also satisfies my sports needs.

Oh, that silent shutter on the 5D3 is great for church events and special services that the pastor asked me to shoot.  I'm far less conscience about being a distraction.

For me, two bodies is a must and I needed that leap into FF-land.  Next up is rounding out my lens collection, then I'll consider the 1Dx.  If I shot college level sports, maybe football under the lights, the 1Dx might be higher on my G.A.S. list.  But for now, one or two mid-range f1.x primes and the new 100-400 are higher on the list than the 1Dx.  This is a roundabout way of saying that it all depends upon whether your lens needs are fulfilled and whether 2 bodies is important to you.

43
Get the second 5D3.  I did and am thrilled with it.  One with a 24-70 f2.8 and second with a 70-200 f2.8 II is a killer combination.

If you get a crop for a second body, you will often be switching lenses between the bodies.  There was a time when my 7D was my backup to the 5D3 and I spent a lot of time moving the 70-200 between the two based on whether I wanted the reach, versus the pop and sharp detail on the 5D3.  Ultimately the pop and IQ on the 5D3 outweighed any reach advantage of the 7D.

44
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: GAS Advice (crop sensor)
« on: December 04, 2014, 04:21:20 PM »
The best time to upgrade a body (or a lens) is when the limitations of the body start holding you back.  In what ways does the T2i hold you back?

My gut reaction is to first recommend a lens upgrade, either 70-200 f2.8L II if you need the longer focal range or a 17-55 f2.8 for the shorter range.  The T2i sensor is still a very a good sensor and these lenses will help you get more out of that body.  Plus, they will have long-term roles in your arsenal when you do upgrade the body (unless you go full frame, then the 17-55 won't work).

But, what do you shoot?  What areas do you want to expand upon?  Is full frame a thought?

45
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: T3i to 7dii or new lens
« on: December 04, 2014, 04:12:32 PM »
Maui5150, we may be wrestling with how to apply our personal experiences with our perception of the OP's need.
 
I see the OP's sports need to be minimal now, maybe picking up as his son grows up.  I also perceive his gear acquisition as a longer path than this single purchase.
 
If the sports in question are outdoor where light isn't an issue, then a 7D2 with a 70-200 f4 would be the way to go -- for today.  down the road, an ideal setup would be the 7D2 with the 70-200 f2.8L II.  Or, if sports never becomes a priority, maybe a 6D with the  70-200 f2.8L II.  But, what path to take to get there?
 
The 7D2 offers maybe a stop of the light advantage over the T3i with respect to noise (for RAW images).  It offers more focus points, but for getting shots of a specific athlete, you will still be using a single point for focusing.  The advantage that the 7D2 offers is that you can add a bunch of expansion points around that single point and you can move this group around the frame to improve composition.  Additionally, the 7D2 offers 10 FPS vs. 3.7 FPS of the T3i.  Finally, the 7D2 offers a burst rate of 24 RAW files over 6 RAW files of the T3i.
 
When indoor sports is the subject, we need to look at the full impact of low light, beyond noise.
 
The 7D2's noise reduction may offset the loss of a stop with the 70-200 f4 vs. the f2.8 II.  But, what are the ramifications of focus lock under low light with a 4.0 lens vs. 2.8 lens when using the 2.8 sensitive focus points?  I suspect that the OP will see an improvement in his center-point focusing performance with the 2.8 lens over the 4.0 lens.  Plus, the 2.8 Mark II lens reportedly has the best focusing performance of all the Canon 70-200 zooms.  I'm not suggesting that the T3i with the 70-200 2.8 will outperform the 7D2 with the 70-200 4.0.  But, in low light, the 2.8 lens will improve the performance of the T3i while the 4.0 will limit the potential of the 7D2.  I have noticed focus misses with my 24-105 4.0 on both my 7D and my 5D3 that I don't experience with 2.8 lenses (17-55, 24-70, or 70-200).
 
Keep in mind, we are considering kids in sports.  We aren't, yet, talking about a lot of speed.  I see no issue with center-point focusing for these events.  I've spent many years shooting center point with an XT.  I also don't see the 3.7 FPS as an inhibiting factor.  Burst rate has its place, but ought not be a crutch for poor timing.  If anything, limiting one to a slower rate may improve one's skill set in timing the shot.
 
I shoot most of my sports with a 5D3 and still use the 7D for outdoor events.  There are times when I use the burst mode, but I think it can be over-rated.  Again, this depends upon the sport and the level of play.  In my experience, even the 8 FPS can be too slow to be a reliable alternative to timing the shot.  For example, try shooting a kid throwing a free throw in basketball and getting that shot where the ball is only inches away from the hands after the throw.  If you start bursting as the shooter begins the throw, you will miss it.  You'll get a shot before the throw followed by one with the ball leaving the frame.  A lot can happen in 1/8 of a second.  The best chance of getting this shot is by improving your timing.  Of course, the 10 FPS of the 7D2 or the 12 FPS of the 1Dx, just might be fast enough to offset poor timing.  But, it isn't hard to get this shot with a T3i.
 
Again, we are talking about young kid's sports here.  When I shoot younger figure skaters for the club, my 60D (with a focus system similar to the T3i) does a fine job.  It is with the older, faster athletes that I see a distinct benefit of the 7D and 5D3 focus systems during AI SERVO.  Better athletes need better focus systems to track them.  Younger athletes, not so much.  I believe that the biggest hindrance that the T3i presents with kid sports would be the buffer.  You do have to be conscience of it filling up.  If a skater is preparing for a jump, don't fill the buffer with shots of the approach.  Save some room for capturing the jump itself.
 
Add to this the OP's inclusion of the faster 85 (which is a fine lens) and I still think that the 70-200 f2.8L II offers more bang for the buck now.  When light and fast action aren't part of the picture, the T3i sensor can challenge the performance of the 7D2 sensor.  The 70-200 2.8 will give the OP greater control of DOF and a greater opportunity for fantastic portraits and candids.
 
I still recommend the 70D, the 7D2, or a full frame body down the road.  If the fast action (which excludes the young ones) isn't an immediate need, why not wait until the price of the 7D2 drops and benefit now from the good deals on the 70-200 2.8?  Then determine which body will best serve his need. 

I certainly have a bias here.  If the OP really gets into photography, I do think the 70-200 f2.8L II will at some point have a place in his bag.  I'm just not sure which body is best.  I can't advise getting lenses that would become obsolete by the 2.8 zoom.  Further, it would be a shame to make a cumulative investment in lenses now that would inhibit a future purchase of this 2.8 zoom.  I think this lens is THAT good and will help him define his direction in photography.  It did with me.  It was a big help to my then immediate need in low light sports with a crop body.  Now it's an even better lens on my 5D3 -- together better in low light, more useful focal range, greater DOF control, and sharper on FF than crop.
 
Ultimately, I don't know if my assumptions and perceptions accurately reflect the OP's current interest and need.  But, I do hope that offering the differing experiences and views in this thread will help him weed out those that don't apply and come to a conclusion that best serve's his current need and his future acquisition of gear.
 

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