October 20, 2014, 09:12:03 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 - Botts

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 13
This depends entirely on your use case.  If dollars weren't an issue for me I'd keep the 24-105mm for casual night shots at a place like Disneyland, and a 24-70 f/2.8 II for event photography.

If you're like me, and like to travel light whenever possible, and may be taking night time photos of landscapes handheld, the IS benefit is immense.  I'd take a good 3-stop IS improvement over a 1-stop aperture improvement all day long.

If you're shooting people giving a speech or other photos of people on stage, the motion stopping ability of the extra stop of aperture far outweigh the IS advantage, your shutter times will be fast enough IS is generally moot.

Right now, I'm comparing my photos taken on two recent photo trips, one with the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC and one with the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS.

I am seriously considering the Tamron as the cost is so similar, and with the Tamron you gain that extra aperture stop.  Also, I found the working distance on the Canon's macro mode to be so short that it rendered it useless to me as a very casual macro shooter.

That sounds much more in line with what I'd expect.

Here's an experiment: open Activity Monitor (should be in Utilities), and pin it to your dock. Go up to View -> Dock Icon -> Memory Usage. You'll get a pie chart in the dock, showing your system RAM. Red is active, Yellow is Inactive, Blue is Wired, and Green is Free. The first three are basically "RAM being used". Green is what you have available. Go about your workflow, but check on it when things start getting slow. Do you have any green? If you have available RAM, then upgrading probably won't help. With 50MB images, you theoretically probably have enough. As others have said, it depends what else you're doing simultaneously, etc. I've found that 12 is usually enough for me for LR processing, but when I run into trouble is when I have PS stitching together panoramas.

Sparknotes: If things get slow and you have no available RAM, an upgrade would definitely help. If you have available RAM when you experience slowdowns, the bottleneck is elsewhere.

great advice - thanks, I did just as you wrote and see that I have about 1gb in the green while I play around with editing my files.   so I'm probably ok with 8gb.

thanks again bseitz!

Prior Apple Genius here.  Bseitz brings up what seems like it should be the truth.  The reality is though that OS X and Aperture are extremely intelligent when it comes to allocating RAM.  Aperture won't use what it really needs at the expense of other processes to an extent.  It knows that you may flip into something more important, so it won't take what it really wants.

Swap used in activity monitor gives a better indication of whether or not you've maxed out your RAM.

Finally, as someone who has used a MacBook Pro with both 8GB and 16GB of RAM in a similar use case to yours, I noticed a big increase going to 16GB of RAM.  Going from 16GB to 32GB in my iMac wasn't as big of a difference, still a nice little boost though.

Technical Support / Re: Connect DSLR to PC/Projector wireless
« on: February 17, 2013, 05:59:16 PM »
If you let us know if the projector has: VGA, HDMI, or DVI that would be great.

I'm assuming you have a recent Canon DSLR with Micro-HDMI

If it's got DVI, then you just need a cable like this:  http://www.amazon.com/Accell-J132B-002B-Type-D-Female-Adapter/dp/B005PHHO5M

If it's HDMI, you need: http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=102&cp_id=10253&cs_id=1025301&p_id=7556&seq=1&format=2

If it's got VGA, you'd need something like this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA0U008N4201 and a standard VGA cable.

Lenses / Re: Is your midrange gear insured?
« on: February 17, 2013, 09:33:11 AM »
I insure nothing. Regardless of how high the risk is, I'm sure the insurance companies have figured it out better than I could, and if it's profitable for them, it can't be for me, in the long run.
Otherwise, you are paying for not having to do the math and for feeling a little less uncertain about the future. Maybe that feeling is worth the money to you. But it will cost you money, not save it.

On a grand scale, for long-term you're correct.  On a realistic scale though, it comes down to risk tolerance.

Right now, I'm sitting with $9,000 worth of gear in my backpack.  This is currently my hobby.  If my backpack were to disappear, I'd be crushed, and not able to repurchase the gear.  It would take me several years to rebuild my collection.  For me, the risk of losing the insurance premium by not using it is far outweighed, by the potential risk of $9,000. 

The math doesn't make sense to insure when you include the risk of actually using all 9k of gear.  But I am not an insurance company that can afford to "write off" the capital loss.  For an insurance company, it makes sense to insure me, I'm likely 100% profit.  But to me, the cost is worth it.

Technical Support / Re: at what shutter speed you turn IS off?
« on: February 17, 2013, 09:22:24 AM »
You don't need to shoot a single image ever to have a very in depth knowledge of how the technology actually works. Personally, with regards a technical question relating to Canon gear, I would go with the word of the real Chuck over Jay Paredes.


chuck westfall will also tell you the 6D has a great autofocus system.   ::)

It depends on use case.  If you're not shooting action, the 6D does have great autofocus, it's quite accurate, and works in extremely low light.  If you are shooting sports though, you wouldn't call it great.  I'd take slightly less accurate AF for speed every time for sports.
I would say though, for me, I'll use IS all the time, unless I'm on a tripod.  I rarely shoot at 1/1000s as I'm usually more concerned about deep DOF.
That said, I'm shooting animals on Tuesday, I'll have to test my AF speed with the 70-200 f/2.8 II and the 70-300L with IS on and IS off, to see if it's a notable difference.

Technical Support / Re: How do you store and archive your images?
« on: February 17, 2013, 09:16:14 AM »
1st backup -> Daily Aperture Vault on external NAS
2nd backup -> Monthly vault on external HDDs kept at work.  Brought home only to backup.  (Currently using an OWC 4-bay enclosure)
3rd backup -> CrashPlan+ backup 1,500 miles away.

I'd consider blurays, but the cost is too high per GB right now for me.

I had the Tamron rented 2 weeks ago.  Liked it, the vignetting was a little strong IMO at 2.8 though.
It took sharp images, but my copy appeared to have the 6D issue with VC.  Apparently the newer Tamron 24-70 VC's function perfectly with the 6D.

I receive the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS tomorrow night for a week long trial as well.  I will report my results here.

I had the 24-105mm before, but the Tamron blew it away if you don't need those last 35mm.

Lenses / Re: Is your midrange gear insured?
« on: February 16, 2013, 11:37:45 PM »
Another question since I stayed clear of insurances so far: What happens if I actually loose something and the company has to replace it? Do say "No problem, no need for proof it was really stolen or it's a fraud attempt, here's your (insert value here) and have fun with it"? Does the insurance rate rise afterwards or (when) do they cancel the contract? Sorry if this sounds silly or naive, but I really have no experience with insurances at all.

My insurance company (home insurance as I'm not a pro) told me that if I'm in the USA or Canada, they'd like a police report stating the loss, but if I'm in Mexico, or a country that the police will hassle me in, they'd rather I not take the risk of reporting it.

My home insurance also didn't require an itemized list, just the ability to prove what I had in the event of loss. So I keep a copy of the receipts for all my gear in a folder in a safe, and a PDF copy of all receipts on my laptop, and in the cloud with DropBox. 

I believe this is partially because my insurance plan also covers "mysterious disappearance" without exclusion.

Canon General / Cannon / Nikon Meme
« on: February 05, 2013, 09:12:56 PM »
Haven't seen this on here yet.  Couldn't find an off-topic forum so I thought here would be best.

Lenses / Re: VC on the 24-70 f/2.8 VC
« on: February 05, 2013, 01:29:46 PM »
I'll have to rent another copy to try it then.  With the lens I was shooting with the 17-55 was decidedly better.

Also, bring that lens hood with you if you buy the Tamron 24-70mm, flare kills it's contrast.

Lenses / Re: African Safari Lens Help
« on: February 05, 2013, 01:25:41 PM »
Yikes. I wouldn't want to carry your camera bag if your thinking of bringing all of that!

The weight limits are likely far smaller than you are expecting.  Weigh your camera gear some time, it's heavier than expected.  I'd consider purchasing a LowePro CompuTrekker AW Plus.  It's huge, but it balances weight well.  In mine I had a 7D with 500L mounted, a T2i, 70-200 f/4, 10-22mm, 430EX II, 15" MacBook Pro, and Gitzo 3541LS with Wimberley.  It weighed a ton, but carried everything I needed.

I'm looking at a Botswana Safari soon with a maximum of 46 pounds of luggage including carry-ons.  That really limits the options.

Some fast glass would be great if you're thinking of any evening animal shots.  I'd still bring the 7D, but maybe not the EF-S lenses, keeping the 7D as a backup only.  I'd also leave the 100-400 at home if you're thinking of the 70-300L.

Lenses / Re: VC on the 24-70 f/2.8 VC
« on: February 01, 2013, 10:54:13 AM »
I don't have my Aperture library with me, but when I get home I'll grab a couple.

I started even using a 1 second burst to allow the VC to for sure have a chance to settle.

With respect to AFMA, I used Focal Pro on the lens as soon as it arrived, and got good AFMA results, so that's not it.  It's clearly motion blur.

Lenses / VC on the 24-70 f/2.8 VC
« on: February 01, 2013, 02:53:54 AM »
Hello everyone!

I just rented a 24-70 f/2.8 VC from Lensrentals.com and have been using it to shoot around Disneyland.  One thing I'm noticing, and wonder if it may be just this copy is that the VC/IS, isn't nearly as good as I had expected.

I have extensively used a 7D & 17-55 f/2.8 IS combo, and the IS on the 17-55 seems at least a full-stop equivalent better than the Tamron's VC, closer to 2 full stops.  I could handhold 80% of my shots sharp on the 17-55 at 1/8, but I'm only hitting about 20% sharp with the 24-70 @ 1/20th.

Has anyone else been able to do a similar comparison?

Lenses / Re: Quick decision help: canon 24 vs zeiss 21
« on: January 15, 2013, 04:13:50 PM »
I would qualify Optikus's reply : manual focussing on an slr is much more difficult with wide angle lenses than with longer focal lenses. That's because things don't "snap in focus" in the same way, due to the wider dof. You may see things in focus on your viewscreen, which provides a small enlargment of your picture, but when printed at a significant size, you find out that your focus plane is not where you expected it to be.

Even if you've manual focused with an SLR before it may not be like MFing on a DSLR.  Keep in mind that MF only SLRs had good focusing screens that sacrificed brightness for accuracy.  Things like split prisms are extremely useful.

New SLRs don't have these focusing screens and thus it is extremely hard to nail manual focus.  You could always use liveview to MF in 5 or 10x, but this is slower.

Expect to upgrade the focusing screen (not easy) in your 5D3 to maximize MF lenses.

Lenses / Re: 6D & new lenses
« on: January 15, 2013, 12:06:15 PM »
I'm getting a 6D this week, moving from my Canon XS. I'm 41 and am not a pro, but w/ 2 boys in scouts/soccer/choir/skiing and a lot of travel out West and in the Catskills I have an eclectic mix of photo opportunities, I don't want to miss anything.
  I love the photo-journalistic style of photography. Over the last year, I've shot exclusively the Sigma 30mm f1.4 (50mm equivalent) on my crop camera to better learn this science/art. What I learned best was that I love shooting w/o a flash, but that the 50mm equiv. is often not wide enough, and that I need more iso, hence full frame.
   I can do the 6D and starter lenses now to get a feel for what I really like in Ff, and can do a serious lens @ 1x per year thereafter. I'm thinking about starting w/ 6D and 40mm 2.8 STM, and Tamron 70-300 now, then moving to 70-40 and a 35mm f1.4 the next year. Followed in year 3 by a 70-200L 2.8 IS, year 4 w/ a 24-70 2.8. Somewhere in there getting a 135 F2 as well for indoor events.
   What I could really use is some input on whether this is the right game-plan, or whether I should just get a 24-70 2.8 now, and fill in from there (only hesitation is IS)?
   Thanks for any productive input from a first time poster on this great site!

I would recommend that given what you are going to shoot, you must seriously consider the 135L. The lens is an absolute beast for indoor sports, low light conditions and street photography. Also, this is one of the relatively cheaper L lenses Canon offers and is perfect "value for money".

Many people forget about the 100f/2 USM.  This lens is half the cost of the 135L, almost as sharp, and it tracks action really well.  I'd put the $500 savings from buying the 100/2 instead towards a good normal length zoom.  Or instead buy a 200/f2.8 for the extra length.

I'd say start with the 40STM, and get the 50/1.4 later if you really feel you need that extra stop.  My 50/1.4 only goes on in really special occasions.  (Mostly dark rides in Disneyland).  Otherwise, I use the 40STM.

Also, rather than a 35L, I'd seriously consider a 17-40 or 16-35mm.  Way more versatile, and I don't find I need that fast of glass in a wide angle lens.  I'd just throw on my 50/1.4 instead.  When I was shooting crop, I'd have had a 35L high on my list, now that I've shot FF for a little bit, the 35L has dropped on my lens list.

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