Messages

61

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]

« on: April 07, 2013, 11:04:08 AM »

Last time I got excited about a big announcement I was dissapointed.

This better not be some baloney about some lame extra picture styles or a new shop opening in China.

62

Lenses / Re: What shall i get next ?

« on: April 07, 2013, 12:19:49 AM »

Take your 17-40L and place it on the 60D. Nice, instant midrange zoom. Price zero.

Nothing wrong with the YN 560, get some wireless triggers and learn off camera flash. Get some cheap modifiers like an umbrella and go shoot some portraits.

Have you got a decent tripod? You're gonna need one with if you're doing landscapes.

63

Lenses / Re: Prime vs zoom

« on: April 06, 2013, 11:56:39 PM »

Depends on what I'm shooting. I prefer zooms for outdoors, walking around and events. If I have the time and I'm working indoors or doing something specific like a headshot or products then primes are the way to go.

If I had the money though I'd have the 24-70L II and 70-200L II with a 5D III and be done. Two lenses that pretty much do it all would be awesome.

I feel like I have too many lenses and too much overlap.

64

Lenses / Re: Landscape Lens advice

« on: April 03, 2013, 12:49:58 PM »

Only we photographers scrutinize corner sharpness. Most viewers just look at the image as a whole. The 17-40L is a fine lens if you have a tripod and shoot at f/8 and narrower (which is ideal for landscapes anyway).

Also, I use the corner softness and vignetting wide open to my advantage for close up of objects to create some subject isolation.

65

Lenses / Re: Advice on replacement/upgrade for my kit 18-55 Ef-s kit lens

« on: April 03, 2013, 04:37:35 AM »

Since you onnly mention image quality as a reason for upgrading, and as you are delighted with the nifty fifty, here is some contravertial advice: DON'T UPGRADE.

There are are a few reasons to upgrade the kit 18-55 lens:

-you might want a faster, or constant, or even a faster constant aperture, say if you do portraiture or video.

-you might want better construction, say a filter ring / hood mount that doesn't rorate

- you might want faster focusing, quieter focusing, full time manual over-ride.

These are all fair enough reasons to upgrade, edpecially if you have a particular interest such as landscape where polarisers grads and hoods are used, or sports where speed is of the essence.

But here's the rub: ever since the first 18-55is ( first shipped with the 450d) the image quality has been very good, and these lenses represent excellent value.

You would need to spend quite serious money to get anything even slightly better.

I would suggest using your 'upgrade' money to expand your range, maybe a telezoom or another fast aperture prime lens ( a short trle like the 100mm f2.0?)

If you want a faster aperture then I find the digma 18-50 f2.8  dc macro a very good lens, the newer 17-50 f2,8 os version is reputed to be even better.

+1 if you can't get the job done with the kit lens and 50mm combo you're not trying hard enough. I had that lens for over a year and I got loads of great shots from it before I even considered upgrading. For me the limiting factors were no full time manual, poor build and not constant aperture (that was a biggie).

Also now I am starting to realize there is not much going on in that focal range. If like me you use it almost all the time at 18mm you're better off buying the 10-22mm. You already have the other end covered with the 50mm. My combo these days is one wide angle zoom and one tele prime. Not much looks good in between. Though that is just my opinion.

66

Lenses / Re: What is your favorite lens and why?

« on: March 31, 2013, 04:30:13 AM »

That is a difficult question. I have only used my 135L a few times but I can see that being one of my faves. Even in harsh daylight the images came out nice sooc. Lovely color and contrast, definitely a unique look.

My 17-40L is prob my most used. It's really versatile as a walkaround at the 35-40 end. Though it's versatile it's not my most fun lens. More of a functional workhorse.

The 70-200 f/4L IS was my first L lens and I am still very impressed with the image quality. The IS is awesome and the lens is light enough for travel and walking around. It's not really discreet enough for street use which is a shame as it rocks as a street lens.

I am starting to get to know my lens - only had them for a year. Still figuring out which ones are best for whatever situation. I like to limit myself to just one or two lens on any given day. It really helps me realize when I should have used zooms and when primes are better.

67

Lenses / Re: Landscape Lens advice

« on: March 29, 2013, 07:46:29 PM »

The 17-40L is fine if you stop down to f/8 or f/11, corners look fine around 24 - 40mm. But as you said you mainly use it between 17 and 24mm maybe a 17mm TS-E would be better. Personally I think with digital photography nowadays it's rather easy to correct the lens distortion, vignetting and perspective and apply sharpening (selectively). But then I've never used a TS lens before so I could be missing out.

Landscape is a broad term. It really depends on the scene and which parts you are trying to capture. There's no right focal length. Sometimes the compression from a tele lens actually works better. Just my opinion.

68

EOS Bodies / Re: What is missing from the 7DII specs

« on: March 29, 2013, 10:56:37 AM »

Question - why are all camera AF points bunched around the middle. Even with a corner one selected I still end up doing some focus and readjustment. Why can't we have some points way oug in the corners? Is it not technically feasible?

It's not technically feasible.  Since you asked...     Canon EOS DSLR Autofocus Explained

The relevant part:

AF Point Coverage
 
For many people, this is a big issue in comparing cameras. While it would be wonderful to have AF points available over the entire extent of the frame, there are technical limitations on the spread of the AF points - at best, they can only occupy the middle area of the frame, because of simple geometry and optics. In a nutshell, there are four reasons for this limitation:

• Size of the secondary mirror. Light for AF passes through the semi-transparent part of the main mirror (most is reflected up to the viewfinder), then is reflected off the secondary mirror down to the AF sensor. There is limited space behind the main mirror, based on the necessary geometry (i.e. the main mirror has to be at a 45° angle to the incoming light, and the secondary mirror has to be behind the main mirror and at an angle of 90° to the main mirror, so it's length is limited by the distance between the main mirror and the image sensor).
• Distortion. With many lenses, the edges of the frame are subject to distortion (barrel/pincushion), and that reduces the accuracy of phase detect AF.
• Vingetting. The AF system needs a certain amount of light to work. Almost all lenses vignette to some degree, meaning there might not be enough light at the edges of the frame. For example, the EF 17-40mm f/4L has >2 stops of vignetting wide open at the wide end - that means at the edges of the frame, you're below f/5.6 and AF sensors would not have enough light to operate (i.e. in dim light you'd be below the EV sensitivity of the sensor).
• Temperature. Canon has stated that larger AF sensors are more susceptible to changes in temperature with the result that they change size, getting either larger or smaller as the temperature rises and falls. That reduces the accuracy of the AF system overall.

It's worth noting that none of these limitations apply to contrast detect AF, so using LiveView you can autofocus right out to the edge of the frame.

Cool thanks for the info. I had a feeling about the lens problems, that makes sense. And I deffo know about the 17-40 vignetting and its bad enough trying to focus with an outer AF point on a 5D 2 as it is!

Hmmm I didn't know about the liveview thing. I need to give it a try!

69

EOS Bodies / Re: What is missing from the 7DII specs

« on: March 29, 2013, 10:25:48 AM »

Question - why are all camera AF points bunched around the middle. Even with a corner one selected I still end up doing some focus and readjustment. Why can't we have some points way oug in the corners? Is it not technically feasible? I seem to always end up cropping images to get eyes in that nice one thirds line area. Thats what I want - AF points spread way out.

70

EOS Bodies / Re: What is missing from the 7DII specs

« on: March 29, 2013, 08:38:18 AM »

19 AF points?? No no no. We need some more!! And only one CF card slot? What the hell? Where's the SD slot like the 5D 3? And what was wrong with the weather sealing in the 7D?

I'd like to see a faster x sync speed and much better all round ISO performance. Especially ISO 100. It should be cleaner. I think wifi is more useful to me than gps. Now can you tether wirelessly to your laptop?? That would be cool.

Not that I was waiting for a 7D 2 as I only bought my 7D last year. No reason to upgrade really. The 6D got a lot of flak when we first heard about it and it turned out alrite. Maybe this will grow on us but theres nothin really ground breaking or exciting that has me jumping up and down with impatience.

71

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announces the EOS T5i

« on: March 21, 2013, 08:10:20 AM »

Am I missing something in the spec list? What is the difference between this and the T4i? Is this just the same camera but with a newer kit lens?

72

Lenses / Re: Do I need the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM?

« on: March 19, 2013, 10:43:46 PM »

I would't recommend it for OP unless you really need something wider than f/2.8 even then the 85 fringes so badly at those wide apertures it makes it pointless. However it does have one great use - put it on a 7D and you get some decent reach in a compact design. Great for street photography and sneaky candids.

73

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Saving video straight to laptop?

« on: March 19, 2013, 04:00:50 AM »

You'd use something like http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/hyperdeckshuttle/ to capture directly to SSD or a http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/ultrastudio/ Mini Recorder if you wanted to capture directly to a Mac laptop (they make USB3 bits for PC's too).

I take it you're shooting static stuff in a studio setup?

It was just a thought I had on how to take video clips longer than 12mins. I think I could work around it for filming. Those CF cards aint cheap and I thought my laptop would have been a nice easy option. Guess not.

74

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Saving video straight to laptop?

« on: March 17, 2013, 12:33:28 PM »

The 5D MK II and MK III cannot do this.  The feature is being added to the 1D X.  You can do it with a Nikon D800.
 
It works by using the HDMI output, but the output is at reduced resolution in all but the 1D X.  This makes direct recording undesirable.

That's incorrect, uncompressed HDMI output will be added to 5D Mark III in April, no plans for 1D X and other cameras yet.

So, after April, 1D C and 5D Mark III are the only two cameras in the Canon DSLR line that are capable of utilising external recorders.

Thanks. I saw that info on another thread too.

75

Black & White / Re: street photography...feedback please!

« on: March 17, 2013, 12:24:51 PM »

In my experience high contrast scenes are always going to work well, look for deep shadows next to bright highlights. Sharp, clearly defined edges. Texture such as stones, rocks and brickwork all work well too. For skies look for storm clouds or clouds with definition. Portraits can work well if you know how to light them in a dramatic way.

For post processing I use Nik Software Silver Efex pro. The high structure preset really brings out the detail. A quick n dirty method I use in LR is to convert to black and white in the basic tab then crank up the blacks and overexpose until the whites are almost blown. Then add clarity and contrast to taste.

I used to convert almost half my pics to black n white simply because of ugly lighting and color that i wanted to hide. I now try and work on my composition and lighting. I only convert to black and white now if I have a specific reason to. It's too easy to fall into that "oh it looks crap in color so I'll just do it black n white" routine.

Most color shots with good lighting also work well as a B&W.