Messages

46

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* A Bit of EOS 70D Info [CR1-CR2]

« on: April 19, 2013, 12:44:04 PM »

I was curious by all this discussion so I took two shots. One with the 7D and one with the 5DII to see how they compare in overall IQ. I tried to keep things constant including framing and settings. The 5D II file looked sharper and brighter. The 7D file was pretty close though. Pretty obvious test but hey, now I know for myself.

(I should add that the out of focus blur is more prominent in the 5D II image due to the lens being closer to subject and aperture being the same - f/3.5, as on the 7D.)

47

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D mark III problem - 32gb sandisk extreme pro destroyed

« on: April 19, 2013, 12:38:15 PM »

I noticed one of my Sandisk CF cards was acting funny. Then I looked at it closely today and realized it looked a bit different to my other three. I am convinced it is actually a fake. My Lexar card reader doesn't recognize it and my laptop showed me the blue screen of death moments after. I also recall an error on my 7D but just removed the battery and it was fine. Now I realize it was prob that same card. What the heck should I do with it? Throw it away? I have contacted the seller (Amazon marketplace) since I bought it last month maybe they might offer something? Prob not. Kinda annoyed with myself, I'm usually more careful.

48

EOS Bodies / Re: 21mp Sensor in the 7D Mark II? [CR1]

« on: April 18, 2013, 11:25:50 PM »

For me to buy a 7DII, sensor performance will need to be greatly improved.  I don't care about being able to push an underexposed shot 5-stops, it's just not the way I shoot.  I do want better tonal transitions and cleaner low and high ISO performance.  The thing that stands out to me is how "durable" APS-H and FF Canon raw files seem to be compared to APS-C files.  My 7D files require more sharpening and more overall PP compared to FF raw files, and that's understood, but when I do PP aggressively, the images start to fall apart pretty fast.  If that can be improved, I'll stick with APS-C because I'm still reach limited, otherwise, I'll keep my 7D and add a FF body....

I agree the RAW files from the 5D II can be pushed a lot more than the 7D ones. I also find myself using the NR sliders a lot more when using 7D files! Even after correcting images that are shot at ISO 100 they start to look noisy. Just an extra annoying pp step i would like to avoid.

49

EOS Bodies / Re: 21mp Sensor in the 7D Mark II? [CR1]

« on: April 18, 2013, 10:01:56 PM »

I wonder will we see DIGIC 6, or dual fives in the 7DII? Not sure how adding more pixels to either camera will improve anything. I guess it's not a huge jump though I can't see the high ISO looking any better than it does now on a 7D. Wish they'd stick with 18mp and just aim at improving image quality but then where's the marketing strategy? Numbers sell.

50

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* A Bit of EOS 70D Info [CR1-CR2]

« on: April 18, 2013, 09:49:19 PM »

It's simple physics. If you have 24 million pixels crammed on a aps-c sensor those pixel must be very small and therefore each pixel well will collect less light resulting in more noise. Sure it might be theoretically able to resolve more detail but in reality it wont as any detail will be smudged by noise as the processor is now making up values for the insufficient light. You can't add light that wasn't there to begin with. The 1DX will have the advantage as the pixels are larger, collect more light and the process produces a much more accurate image. In the real world this means better image quality and sharper images.

51

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* A Bit of EOS 70D Info [CR1-CR2]

« on: April 18, 2013, 01:22:46 PM »

So, do please tell me: in what real-world shooting situation would you want a shutter speed two stops slower (ISO 100 => ISO 25) that you can't reasonably stop down an additional two stops (f/4 => f/8) where you wouldn't already need significant ND filters in the first place?

For effect, the aperture is kept as open as possible ... accentuate the subject, blur the background ... and not necessarily people ... but road signs, trains, etc.

Sunny-16 rule ... ISO 100, f/16, ¹/₁₂₅ ... thus ISO 100, f/2.8, ¹/₄₀₀₀.

Now, I'm not really complaining, because my 30D's can do ¹/₈₀₀₀. But seeing as there is a trend with Canon on reducing the maximum shutter speed down to ¹/₄₀₀₀, it means I'm already shooting at the limit ... and this reduces the flexibility of a DSLR over an FSLR ...

Photographing an aircraft where I want the background blurred, as well as the propeller, requires a wide aperture and a slow shutter speed. ND filters work, but as I've said, they're a hassle ... especially when the subjects (and hence shooting conditions) change rapidly ... remove hood, remove ND filter, put ND filter in pouch, replace hood, put pouch in pocket ... see same type of shot ... redo in reverse ... miss shot ... swear ... get fingerprint smudge on filter ... swear again ... ... as opposed to press button ... adjust ISO ... shoot.

Does a varying ND fader help?

They're already all complaining that they can't be bothered to use a filter.

I'm still trying to figure out who'd be wanting to shoot flying aircraft at f/1.4 in the noonday Sun. I mean, seriously? Because that's what it would take to go past the limits of the 30D.

If you're really shooting ultra-fast primes wide open in harsh light, you're doing it for some special effect and you should be prepared to go out of your way to achieve your vision. But I don't think I've ever seen a good shot of a flying aircraft taken with a wide-open 50 f/1.4 on a harsh sunny day by a photographer on the ground, and I really very much doubt I ever will. My heart, it bleeds for these poor souls...but not for their lack of ISO 50.....

Cheers,

b&

Oh I see. I just read the latest comment and didn't see the prev ones about all that ISO 25 nonsense.

Like you said - ND filter is the only real option. I don't see why you would be taking it off an on if the conditions are bright then leave it on. You can always increase ISO for more light, no need to remove it.

Stopping down wont make much difference to the background. f/4 works just fine around 200mm if the subject to background ratio is right. No need to shoot wide open.

52

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* A Bit of EOS 70D Info [CR1-CR2]

« on: April 18, 2013, 06:46:52 AM »

So, do please tell me: in what real-world shooting situation would you want a shutter speed two stops slower (ISO 100 => ISO 25) that you can't reasonably stop down an additional two stops (f/4 => f/8) where you wouldn't already need significant ND filters in the first place?

For effect, the aperture is kept as open as possible ... accentuate the subject, blur the background ... and not necessarily people ... but road signs, trains, etc.

Sunny-16 rule ... ISO 100, f/16, ¹/₁₂₅ ... thus ISO 100, f/2.8, ¹/₄₀₀₀.

Now, I'm not really complaining, because my 30D's can do ¹/₈₀₀₀. But seeing as there is a trend with Canon on reducing the maximum shutter speed down to ¹/₄₀₀₀, it means I'm already shooting at the limit ... and this reduces the flexibility of a DSLR over an FSLR ...

Photographing an aircraft where I want the background blurred, as well as the propeller, requires a wide aperture and a slow shutter speed. ND filters work, but as I've said, they're a hassle ... especially when the subjects (and hence shooting conditions) change rapidly ... remove hood, remove ND filter, put ND filter in pouch, replace hood, put pouch in pocket ... see same type of shot ... redo in reverse ... miss shot ... swear ... get fingerprint smudge on filter ... swear again ... ... as opposed to press button ... adjust ISO ... shoot.

Does a varying ND fader help?

53

Lenses / Re: need help consolidating my lens collection

« on: April 17, 2013, 09:40:51 PM »

Just a suggestion -

Sell 10-22, 50, 35L, 28-135, 24-105L

Buy 24-70 f/2.8L II

I'd like to hear what your reasoning is.

My reasoning is that unless you really need to go wider than f/2.8 you can "consolidate" all your lenses for one lens that does pretty much all you want.

Don't need primes if you have the 24-70 II thus eliminating the need for the 35 and 50. Plus your 70-200 covers the rest. Keep the 70-300 for travel.

It depends on how important IS is for you at the 24-70 range. I find that I rarely shoot a static subject in poor light, and you can always crank up the ISO if needed (well you can on a 5D III maybe not so much on the 7D). 

Not saying this is the solution but just something to consider.

54

Lenses / Re: How good is 16-35 f/2.8 over 17-40 f/4?

« on: April 17, 2013, 07:47:24 PM »

For low light indoor situations a fast prime like the 24mm f/2.8 IS might be the answer. They've come down in price quite a bit, could be worth it to have in your kit. It's small, light and would give you not just an extra stop of light but the ability to shoot at much slower shutter speeds so effectively giving you 4 or 5 stop advantage.

55

Lenses / Re: need help consolidating my lens collection

« on: April 17, 2013, 07:41:39 PM »

Just a suggestion -

Sell 10-22, 50, 35L, 28-135, 24-105L

Buy 24-70 f/2.8L II

56

EOS Bodies / Re: A Bit of EOS 70D Info [CR1-CR2]

« on: April 15, 2013, 08:41:20 PM »

Sounds pretty good, it's got everything you need in a mid range crop camera. Wonder how that SL1 sensor is doing so far?

18 megapixels is plenty. Glad they didn't add more. Seems like Canon are putting an end to the megapixel race - until they bring out the big megapixel camera (but that's a high end product for specialists).

Weather sealed? Wonder how much it will get compared to a 7D?

6.5 fps is respectable. I could live with that.

I never liked the 60D to be honest. I picked one up at a camera store, it didn't agree with me and from that point on I ignored it. The 7D was love at first sight! It's like it was custom made for me. A perfect fit.

57

Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM

« on: April 14, 2013, 11:31:42 AM »

Sadly, both lenses have no weathersealing. I think it's a shame to shoot with optics worth a grand and they get spoiled in the first rain. I think the producingcosts of some siliconrings can't exceed more than a few bucks. Of course the design would be a little bit more complicated, but this lense is meant to be superior...

It even would push canon a little bit more to produce a Mark II of their own lense, for a fair price.

How often do you shoot in the rain?

"Spoiled in the first rain"  Do you really think these lens are THAT delicate?  Admittedly, most of my kit is weathersealed, but I have shot with non-weathersealed lens in a lot of crazy weather and have yet to have a lens be "spoiled in the first rain".  I think you should always exercise caution and protect your gear as much as possible, but I don't think either the 35L or the Siggy are quite so delicate as that.

@ Vscd: All you need really is a decent rain cover for your camera bag for unexpected showers. Or are we talking about actually walking about in the rain with your gear cos that seems silly to me even with weathersealed lenses. 

58

Lenses / Re: Keep my 70-200 f/4 IS?

« on: April 14, 2013, 08:18:57 AM »

Interesting - I thought by having a 70-200 II I'd do away with the 135L or is that extra stop worth it? I was debating buying the 135L when I already had the 70-200 f/4 IS but figured 2 stops was a big enough advantage.

I own both the 70-200 2.8 II and 135L and use both frequently.  The extra stop of aperature on the 135 comes in handy at times.  The 135 is also lighter and less conspicuous with a shorter minimum focal distance (which helps in tight quarters).  I use the 135 much more for indoor portraits and kid shots.  I use the 70-200 outdoors more and for indoor sports.  You probably shoot different things than I do, but both the 135 and 70-200 2.8 have a permanent home in my kit.

Yeah I see your point about the 135L being a bit more discreet, though with the lens hood attached it looses some of it's stealth!

59

Lenses / Re: A 4000$ budget for Lenses on 5D3... need suggestions

« on: April 14, 2013, 08:11:21 AM »

16-35 f/2.8L II  would be a good start though if weight is an issue maybe the 17-40 f/4L. I like the size and weight of the 17-40 and it's fairly wide enough to capture what I need (buildings, architechture, landscapes etc).

I would recommend the 70-200 f/4L IS over the 70-300L as its lighter and has a constant f/4 aperture throughout the range. Though it depends on what kinda range you need, maybe pick up a 1.4x tele convertor to go with it.

Since you already have the 50mm 1.8 I don't see any advantage of getting the 40 STM other than size difference (which isn't much really). The fifty is really versatile and the fast aperture will work well in low light. 

So with the wide and lens and 70-200 that prob still leaves you 2K to spare. Buy some extra memory cards and spare batteries and use the rest to enjoy your holiday!

60

Lenses / Re: Keep my 70-200 f/4 IS?

« on: April 14, 2013, 05:31:46 AM »

Interesting - I thought by having a 70-200 II I'd do away with the 135L or is that extra stop worth it? I was debating buying the 135L when I already had the 70-200 f/4 IS but figured 2 stops was a big enough advantage.