December 22, 2014, 10:50:05 AM

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 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 14
91
Lenses / Re: IS mandatory? 70-200 f/4 IS vs. f/2.8 Non-IS
« on: April 17, 2013, 01:32:42 AM »
I ended up getting the 70-200 F4 IS. It is a lot lighter than the F2.8 version, and if you are going to be lugging it around all day the extra weight becomes a big factor.

A great point that makes a huge difference in how likely you are to carry your 70-200mm vs leave it in the car or hotel room.

Finally I checked the original posters signature, he is shooting with a 6D.  He's got the ISO flexibility to give up the stop to gain IS.  It's a compromise, but since he said he's primarily shooting subjects that are stationary, he is probably better with IS, knowing that he's got the high ISO performance if he's shooting things that move.

92
Lenses / Re: IS mandatory? 70-200 f/4 IS vs. f/2.8 Non-IS
« on: April 16, 2013, 03:51:52 PM »
Well, title says it all. I've never shot with an IS telephoto lens and I was wondering if that should affect my next purchase? I don't do video whatsoever and I try to shoot handheld when possible (although I will 'pod it when necessary). The couple stops of Aperture seem to be quite a difference but I'm willing to compromise if the IS makes that much of a difference. As you all probably know, these lenses are within the same price range so the money isn't a factor. Thanks in advance!

* Most of my photography are static objects but I do like to shoot moving animals occasionally.

I went through a similar decision last year.

I shoot handheld whenever possible.  I shoot mostly static objects with my camera, sometimes I shoot moving animals.

For me, on a static subject, the IS made a bigger difference than the extra stop in terms of sharpness.  I went with the 70-200/4 IS.

This was with the 70-200/4 IS on a 6D at 1600 ISO, f/4, 1/125s.

IMG_2250 by BrianBotterill, on Flickr

93
Lenses / Re: Lightweight lens for backpacking and bicycle touring
« on: April 16, 2013, 03:31:18 PM »
Are you planning on taking only one lens?  If so, the 10-22 might leave you wanting more reach over the course of a trip like that.  I'd suggest the 15-85 from those you mention.  It's a great lens, obviously wide zoom range, good MFD, and my heavily used refurb. copy has sharpness on a par with my 24-105L.  I've not seen it bundled as an entry level lens... maybe you are thinking of the 18-55 kit lens.  Downside of the 15-85 is it's 5.6 at the long end.  Put a shorty 40 or fantastic 50 in your pack for lower light capability.

The 15-85mm was a common kit lens with the 7D.  Certainly not an entry level though.

If you aren't planning on using your camera for a lot of handheld night shots, I'd certainly go with the 15-85mm, it has fabulous range, and is quite sharp.  If you are ok with less range, and would benefit from a wider aperture, and marginally more sharpness consider the Canon 17-55/2.8 IS.

You can't go wrong with either.  I think you'll feel extremely restricted if you only take an ultra-wide.

94
Technical Support / Re: MacBook Pro : Best RAW Processing Software?
« on: April 16, 2013, 03:25:41 PM »
I use Aperture to convert my RAW files about 90-95% of the time.  Images that need extra work get processed with DxO and reimported to Aperture as TIFF files.

DxO's perspective, and distortion/vignetting correction is second to none.

I'm an Apple Aperture Certified Pro, so I have more background than most with Aperture, and love teaching it.  Once you learn how to master keywords, and smart albums, I find its asset management second to none.

I can't wait for a new version of Aperture, or ideally, for Apple to acquire DxO, but even still, I really like it for normal use.  If you decide to go Aperture, I'd definitely recommend Peachpit Press' Aperture book.

95
Technical Support / Re: Which RAW processing software do you use?
« on: April 16, 2013, 03:20:54 PM »
I feel bad voting DxO as it stops Aperture from getting an extra vote.

I use Aperture to convert my RAW files about 90-95% of the time.  Images that need extra work get processed with DxO and reimported to Aperture as TIFF files.

DxO's perspective, and distortion/vignetting correction is second to none.

96
I was also looking into the new version to use on a Mac with a 5D III. Anyone else have experience with how it's working on a Mac? There seems to be a few details in the installation that have to be followed very specifically.

Bombproof on my retina MBP.  I use it lots.  The key is getting the right version of Mono. You cannot just go download the most recent version of mono

See this support email I received.

Quote
Hi Brian,

It looks like you're using the wrong version of mono - you should install the version listed in the manual - this can be found on www.fo-cal.co.uk/mono

That should resolve the issues you're having

many thanks

greg

Quote
On Mon, Jan 7 at 6:24 PM , Brian wrote:
From: Brian
Subject: Focal Pro, nothing but Fully Automatic works.

FoCal Type: FoCal Pro for Mac
FoCal Version: 1.7.0.250M

Message Body:
Hello,

I’m using Focal Pro for Mac with a Canon 6D.

It gives me a warning message which I have attached when I start the program.

Whenever I try to use a function other than Fully-Automatic, Focal crashes with no warning or message. Is there a way to resolve this?

Yours,
Brian

Also for those of you having inconsistent or poor results, more than 10eV is the key.  A single 500w halogen work lamp wasn't bright enough for me indoors, I had to use 2 to get anywhere near consistent results.

97
Lenses / Re: $1000 budget, need lens recommendation for Canon t1i
« on: April 11, 2013, 09:51:45 PM »
I would guess that 25% of the time, the camera will be used indoors where there isn't great light and a flash won't be possible to use.  I'm worred that the 15-85 won't be any improvement over the kit lens in that type of shooting situation.

No, the 15-85mm will not help you there.  The 50/1.4 or 50/1.8 would be good...if a short tele is what you need in those situations.  Else, consider the 35/2.

Here's my suggestion:

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 $499 (better IQ than the Sigma 17-50 and cheaper, too).
Canon 50mm f/1.8 II $109
Canon Speedlite 430EX II $254
Manfrotto 294 tripod w/ QR ballhead $135

Leaves you $3 from your $1K budget.  :)

Thanks for the tripod recommendation.  I will do some homework on the Tamron lens as well.

If you could spring like a few extra, or save up before buying the tripod, I would certainly go with http://www.ebay.com/itm/Benro-A2691TB1-Travel-Angel-Tripod-Kit-A2691-B1-T131-/290825133906?pt=US_Tripods&hash=item43b6875f52.  I know you said no eBay, but it's a way better deal off eBay than B&H.

Otherwise Neuro's suggestions are great.  The Tamron 17-50/2.8 is way way better in dim light than the kit lens.  The Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC is even better but $150 more.

98
Software & Accessories / Re: Program like GEOSETTER?
« on: April 09, 2013, 03:07:42 PM »
HoudahGEO for OS X is phenomenal, but obviously not Windows compatible.

99
Software & Accessories / Re: Pixma Pro 9000 II prints are dark
« on: April 08, 2013, 02:11:22 PM »
make sure that u calibrate your monitor such that the luminosity is around 80 or 90 (cd/m2). this is critical. it is likely that your monitor will look too dark to you. that is ok. get used to it. this is the luminosity of paper. if the monitor brightness is set properly, then the images will look like what u c on your monitor. you need to adjust the brightness of your images to a properly calibrated monitor so that the brightness of what u c on the monitor is the same as what u c in print. ur prints will always b too dark until u do this.

John nailed it.  If your iMac display is set to full brightness, no printer could match the brightness.  Even my comparably dim (to your iMac) MacBook Pro is too bright at 332 cd/m2. 

One trick you can do, is pickup some 4x6 paper of the same type as your larger paper, that way you can print a hard proof before you go to your larger, more expensive  paper.

100
Software & Accessories / Re: Program like GEOSETTER?
« on: April 02, 2013, 05:44:05 PM »
Does the suggestion have to be Windows compatible?

101
EOS Bodies / Re: Expect a REALLY Big announcement on Monday
« on: March 31, 2013, 02:26:22 PM »
I heard that Apple and Canon are collaborating on a DSLR which has iPad functionality on the touchscreen interface. I'ts supposed to be called the "iCanPad".

actually.... why not?

and it will have a new scene mode dedicated to taking pictures of kittens...... because if there is anything that the web needs more of, it's pictures of kittens...

Kitten mode?! I need me one of these!  I'll own the internets!

102
Lenses / Re: Lens recommendation
« on: March 27, 2013, 11:06:42 PM »

Do you like 40mm on the 17-40?  I find it stays on my 6D far more than my 50mm.  Those 10mm make a big difference.

I've shot with the 24-70/4 IS, and the 24-70/2.8 VC in the last month.  I found I really liked the 24-70VC, but I also love the 35mm f/1.4.  It'll depend on what you shoot the most.

I'd sort your LightRoom or your Aperture by list and focal length.  That will likely really help with your decision.

Hi, I find I don't really use the 17-40 using the full 40mm but I do use it a lot around the 30mm and 35mm range. I would like to have both at some point I'm just trying to find which one to have first. I'd like it more for portraits at the moment. If you've used both, how does the tammy 24-70 2.8 vc bokeh compare to the sigma 35mm 1.4 bokeh? Thanks for the info

I'd reach for the f/1.4 every time if I were shooting portraits at 35mm.  At 35mm, 2.8 really isn't enough to throw the background sufficiently OOF in my opinion.  The Sigma 35mm bokeh can be harsher than the Canon L bokeh in my opinion as well.  If I were buying a 35mm solely on bokeh quality, I'd buy a used Canon 35mm.  If you're taking landscapes or other things you want extremely sharp, you may want to go Sigma.

If you are looking for a "traditional" portrait where you focus on the individual, and have no regard for the background being in focus, or really showing where the person is, I'd go with a 70-200 f/4 even, or a 100mm or 135mm as the length really helps with narrowing depth of field.  At 125-200mm and a close subject, even f/4 is enough to really throw out the background.
If you want to shoot "environmental" portraits, where the surroundings of your subject are important, one of the areas I really struggled when developing as a photographer was using too wide of an aperture.  I.e. I have portraits that I intended to be environmental, but the environment is entirely out of focus.  The worst was when I tried to compromise and have a half blurred environment.  Since then I've started using my tele's for portraits, and a 35mm or similar, usually my 40STM for environmental portraits, and not worry about keeping a small DOF.

103
Lenses / Re: Lens recommendation
« on: March 26, 2013, 01:32:34 PM »
I forgot to mention i do have the 50mm 1.8 canon but i feel it is a odd length for me i feel like its too long. I am borrowing this lens (the 17-40) basically until i buy the next lens. I am on a limited budget i basically have enough for one lens. I have about $1350 at the moment

If you feel 50mm is too long on your 6D, then you will likely feel the same about the 35 on your T3i.  I'd go for the Tammy.  After a few months, see if you've developed a preference - where you've used it the most (i.e., wide or tele end), and base your prime lens purchase on that.

Do you like 40mm on the 17-40?  I find it stays on my 6D far more than my 50mm.  Those 10mm make a big difference.

I've shot with the 24-70/4 IS, and the 24-70/2.8 VC in the last month.  I found I really liked the 24-70VC, but I also love the 35mm f/1.4.  It'll depend on what you shoot the most.

I'd sort your LightRoom or your Aperture by list and focal length.  That will likely really help with your decision.


104
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D2 refurb or new 7D as backup to 5D3?
« on: March 24, 2013, 03:25:06 PM »
My lenses - I own:
24-105L, 35 f/1.4L, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8 and 70-200 f/2.8

I think if I take the money I save from buying a 5D2 and put it into a 16-35 f/2.8 II, I'd have a nice wide angle I could use for the 7D that puts me into the ~24-50mm effective range.

I also have been weighing the cost of a 1.4x II extender - $399 to $499.  Half to more than half the way to the $969 refurbished 7D...  Rather have the 7D (for now) plus it gives me 1.6x AND AF that still works @ f/2.8 and faster using double cross-type points...

Thanks to everyone.

I think you made the right choice with the 7D for now.  It's a great camera, with great autofocus.

I would REALLY consider renting that 16-35 first.  I was all gung-ho to buy one, so I rented it and realized that I'd likely never use it.  Alternatively to getting the 16-35, I'd strongly consider buying a used 17-55/2.8 IS (~$800).  The lens is very sharp, it has IS, and is still a fixed 2.8.  It is for crop body only, but is the best normal lens on the 7D.  Then you could use either your 85/1.8 or 70-200/2.8 on your 5D3.  You'd have the advantage of both focal length ranges at reach at all times.

105
After using all three methods, traditional, back button AF, back button AF off, I settled on the last, it has all the advantages of independent control that traditional doesn't, but not the thumb committing and tiring disadvantage of method two. I strongly recommend people play with all their settings to find out what works best for them in any particular scenario.

I shoot like private does with AF-On as AF Off, and I really like it for the same reasons he mentions.
It blows the mind of my bird shooting friends, but it works well for me.  I find that I find the need to kill AF far more than I find selectively activating AF useful.

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 14