March 04, 2015, 07:33:34 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 6 ... 21
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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Software & Accessories / Re: Lightroom 5.7 - Is it working for you?
« on: December 04, 2014, 03:28:20 PM »
After my old laptop died, I just upgraded to a Lenova W540 i7 2.4 GHz with 16 GB RAM and the 2880x1620 IPS display (with the built-in X-Rite color calibrator).  With this new machine, I also upgraded Lightroom to 5.7.

Last night, I edited my first batch of photos.  When trying to crop by moving the left image border in, I'd hover the mouse over the dotted line and wait for the angle adjustment icon to change to the double-arrow re-size icon...and I waited...several seconds...move the mouse a bit to wake things up...and waited...several more seconds.  Not a big deal for the first photo, but this became a consistent pattern after several photos.

What is really odd is that this bug seems limited to the left image re-size border. Hover over the top, right, or bottom, and you get the double-arrow icon right away.  I wasn't accustomed to seeing this with the old machine and it didn't hit me that this might be a 5.7 issue until I revisited this thread.

If I still have a copy of 5.6, I may go back.

I wish Canon would maker this easier for us all by releasing a 24-70 f/2.8L IS USM.  A sharp 16-35 f/2.8 III would also be nice.  With IS, the holy trinity zoom workhorse set would be amazing.  I'm losing hope that Canon intends to alleviate our need to either sacrifice features our own two lenses for the same purpose.
+1.  But, I fear the price.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: T3i to 7dii or new lens
« on: December 03, 2014, 10:21:43 PM »

 I'm just wondering when I'll get the 8th box, people with 1000 posts have 7, so do I with 5000+

I count 9 bars, ask the admin to remove one if you want 8.
Wow.  Mt. Spokane is now wrapping the yellow boxes on a second line.  Thanks for contribution to CR!

Lighting / Re: 72" umbrella... what to look for and what to avoid?
« on: December 03, 2014, 10:16:31 PM »
JD, if you get one, please share you impressions of it.  I'm very interested in learning what you find out and how you like it.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: T3i to 7dii or new lens
« on: December 03, 2014, 09:41:10 PM »
Funny, I read it as shooting sports with his son meant outdoors! (American Football, Football, lacrosse, marbles)
Funny, indeed.  I keep forgetting the world-wide audience of this site.  In Minnesota, kid sports seem to be more prevalent during the school year.  It may start with cross country and outdoor soccer, but then migrates to football under the lights and then basketball.  Lots of basketball.  In fact, if looking for a sport for a younger kid, basketball is often the most prevalent option with numerous city rec leagues.  There are opportunities for soccer and cross country, but "American" football typically means under the lights.  Indoor soccer is also popular and then there's hockey, figure skating, and volleyball.  Even though my own son plays baseball in the summer, most of the sports that I shoot is indoors for the school.


EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: T3i to 7dii or new lens
« on: December 03, 2014, 08:07:27 PM »
Call me a contrarian, but it is not THAT much life.  Sure the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II will work fine on a t3i, but not exactly the best focusing.  Better off going F/4 at that point and saving cash.  70-200 f/2.8 IS II on a t3i is like Snow Tires on a Ferrari... Sure it works, may be better than nothing, but sort of missing the point.

I'm relating to personal experience.  I got hooked on the 70-200 f2.8 by using a Mark I verson on my XT and on a friend's T2i during a figure skating ice show lit only by spot lights.  I had been using a non-L 70-300 f4-5.6.  The f2.8 was critical to getting reasonable shots and a huge improvement over the 70-300.  It also improved the focusing performance of my XT.  In my case, I upgraded my XT to a 60D then added the 70-200 f2.8 II.  Had I owned the T2i, I would have done the lens upgrade first.  The T2i/T3i shares the same sensor with the 60D and 7D.  This offered the low light performance that I was lacking with the XT.  Center-point focusing on the T3i should benefit from the 70-200 f2.8L lens.  No question that tracking and buffer won't be as good as the 70D, but for casual sports, it's still workable. 

Since the OP referenced sports shooting with his son, this likely means indoor sports.  I would rather shoot with a T3i/70-200 f2.8L II than a 70D/70-200 f4.  Of course, I'd rather have both the 70D and the 70-200 f2.8 II.

The OP referenced a need for a 70-200 lens, a fast 85, and some sports with his son.  The 70-200 f2.8 II will satisfy these needs.  In my opinion, if the OP goes for the body upgrade now and a 4.0 zoom, he will regret the zoom purchase and eventually seek to replace it with the 2.8 Mark II version.  If he can't afford both a body upgrade and the 70-200 f2.8L II now, start with the lens and do the body upgrade later.   The 70-200 f2.8L II is one of those lenses that can bring out the best of any body.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: T3i to 7dii or new lens
« on: December 03, 2014, 05:12:35 PM »
I am mostly a macro photographer but will become an occasional sports photographer for my son.  I really overlooked the 70D as an option.  Would this be enough since I am not spending all my time with action photography?  Also, the 70D lets me set some money aside for a possible future lens. Thanks for all the advice so far.
The 70D would be a nice body for occasional sports.  I used the 60D for this purpose until action photography became a very serious interest.   Then I upgraded to the 7D, then the 5D3.

However, I still think you see a bigger bang for your buck with the 70-200 f2.8L II.

Hey, Marsu42, +1 this and you'll get closer to another yellow box  ;)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: T3i to 7dii or new lens
« on: December 03, 2014, 05:01:42 PM »
I don't doubt that a 7D2 would be a fun upgrade from the T3i.  But, given the lens choices that you offer, consider the 70-200 f2.8L II.  There will likely be rebates and below $2,000 pricing in the next few weeks.  This will give your T3i some new life. 

See where your photography goes with this lens.  You may still find a need for the 7D2 down the road if action is your main interest.  Or, you may want to drastically up the low light and IQ performance by pairing this lens with a 6D.

Lighting / Re: 72" umbrella... what to look for and what to avoid?
« on: December 03, 2014, 04:52:00 PM »
I've collected bunches of umbrellas over the years, mostly Photoflex.  My favorites are two 60" convertible which I most often use as shoot through umbrellas (without the black backing).   If there is reason to believe that the 72" umbrella is reasonably built, $25 sounds like a very low risk experiment in large light modifiers.  It may even serve well as a reflector.   First choice is white for individual portraits and small groups.  It may well be a special purpose modifier, but if you want more wrapping light, I'd give it a try.

How often do you grab the 24-105 f4L over the 24-70 f2.8L II for low light events?

I shoot a lot of sports and events.  My main lens is the 70-200 f2.8L II on a 5D3.  For candids at events, I love the IS and will shoot at 1/40 sec if need be when the subject is relatively still.  But, I prefer to shoot closer to 1/200.  My first FF short zoom was the 24-105 f4L -- loved the IS, but I've been spoiled with the 2.8 speed of the 70-200.

With the 24-105 f4L I often need to rely on IS to shoot at slower shutter speeds.  But, I now prefer using the 24-70 f2.8L with a faster shutter speed.  I also find that the 24-70 f2.8L is MUCH quicker to focus in lower light than the 24-105.  At a recent high school dance line event, I shot with two 5D3's and both the 70-200 and 24-70.  The 70-200 was my primary lens, but I did a lot very quick grab shots with the 24-70 and was amazed how it locked on to focus so easily.

It is also worth noting the 24-70 is a brighter lens.  I find that it's 1/3-2/3 stops brighter than the 70-200 f2.8.  I think of it as a 2.4 with a little more DOF.

I'm still torn myself because there are times when I prefer the 24-105 because of IS.  One is when shooting groups in lower light and I need a smaller aperture for it's greater DOF.  IS offers me the slower shutter speeds that could challenge my hand holding abilities.  A second scenario is landscapes with moving water where I want really slow shutter speeds.

Still, the 24-70 f2.8L is my go to short zoom for events.  Low light performance and focus speed over the slower f4 lens is why.  The killer IQ is an added bonus.  I think you will regret getting rid of it.

FWIW, I also own the 35 f2.0 IS and plan to get the new 50 IS if Canon ever refreshes the 1.4 or 1.8.  The 35 IS is great for really low light events.  It's not as flexible as the 24-70, but it gives me the extra stop and the IS and works as my backup for these events.  I'm hoping that a future 50 IS in the f2.0 or faster range will do the same.  Then, I will be less inclined to use the 24-105.

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