April 19, 2014, 10:32:30 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 - jdramirez

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 122
256
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 26, 2014, 10:05:18 AM »
Boil it down.  I think I understand what you are saying and then just as quickly I don't have a clue.


If you can throw $10'000 on glass, but you cannot justify spending more than $500 on a body, then you are being unreasonable. APSC sensors are only using 40% of the L glass potential. Even if you only got 3 or 4 lenses and use them / love them equally, then each one will only get a quarter of your attention, while the body is used for 100% of the time. If you worry so much about the resale value, then why not buying used bodies? I'm sure about one thing - I should have bought a used 5D with 50/1.8'II instead of a Rebel with some zooms (for the same price). Yes, I'm not one of those "covering the range" people.
I think that there is a conflict between two topics - "lenses before body" and "FF vs Crop" - which shouldn't be merged. However, when they do merge we get "$10'000 of L before FF" which sounds like "marriage without sex", or "FF with only $8000 of L" which sounds like fun (and the right way to do it), or "FF before any L" which sounds like "sex before marriage" (kinda fun too :), for a hobby).

I don't think I was saying you should never upgrade your body... but with limited funds and the presumption of good light, you will be better off with a crop sensor plus s good L lenses versus a full frame and a 28-135.

Not to long ago a guy was asking if he should get a5d mkiii to pair with his 70-300... and everyone but me said Heck yes... I don't know if I'm clairvoyant, but I eventually got it out of him that his lens was a 75- 300, which is one of the worst lenses canon makes. 

So with the money, I'd rather spend 3000 on a 24-105, a t3i, a 70-200 f4L IS, and a 580 ex ii over the full frame alternative.  And with my math... I still have enough for a tokina wide angle or some nice primes...

Full frame is great... but you really should have some lenses to complement it.

As for resale value... yeah... that's the only way I can afford being in photography.

If I buy a lens for 1000, use it for 3 years and then sell it for 850, then I rented the lens for $50 per year... which in my opinion ifs well worth the effort.  But more often than not, I buy a lens for 700, and sell it for 850... so they pay me  $50 a year to keep their lens warn and in good condition.  And I'm happy to oblige.

Somehow most people think that FF is only better for low light and that it is the only advantage over APSC (or maybe they don't care about the rest), while there is actually much more than that (at least 2.5x more). Same people are most likely to support the in-camera JPG propaganda, because they don't care about the difference. If you take 5 different cameras (different brands) and get it all right in camera for shooting the same scene, you'll still get 5 different photographs. Then what? Choose the one you like best and declare all the rest a blasphemy? But do you remember that you did everything right in each camera? That makes no sense. Let's do science, not religion. 24-105L on 6D won't scream "you need something wider!".

257
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 26, 2014, 09:12:13 AM »

If you can throw $10'000 on glass, but you cannot justify spending more than $500 on a body, then you are being unreasonable. APSC sensors are only using 40% of the L glass potential. Even if you only got 3 or 4 lenses and use them / love them equally, then each one will only get a quarter of your attention, while the body is used for 100% of the time. If you worry so much about the resale value, then why not buying used bodies? I'm sure about one thing - I should have bought a used 5D with 50/1.8'II instead of a Rebel with some zooms (for the same price). Yes, I'm not one of those "covering the range" people.
I think that there is a conflict between two topics - "lenses before body" and "FF vs Crop" - which shouldn't be merged. However, when they do merge we get "$10'000 of L before FF" which sounds like "marriage without sex", or "FF with only $8000 of L" which sounds like fun (and the right way to do it), or "FF before any L" which sounds like "sex before marriage" (kinda fun too :), for a hobby).

I don't think I was saying you should never upgrade your body... but with limited funds and the presumption of good light, you will be better off with a crop sensor plus s good L lenses versus a full frame and a 28-135.

Not to long ago a guy was asking if he should get a5d mkiii to pair with his 70-300... and everyone but me said Heck yes... I don't know if I'm clairvoyant, but I eventually got it out of him that his lens was a 75- 300, which is one of the worst lenses canon makes. 

So with the money, I'd rather spend 3000 on a 24-105, a t3i, a 70-200 f4L IS, and a 580 ex ii over the full frame alternative.  And with my math... I still have enough for a tokina wide angle or some nice primes...

Full frame is great... but you really should have some lenses to complement it.

As for resale value... yeah... that's the only way I can afford being in photography.

If I buy a lens for 1000, use it for 3 years and then sell it for 850, then I rented the lens for $50 per year... which in my opinion ifs well worth the effort.  But more often than not, I buy a lens for 700, and sell it for 850... so they pay me  $50 a year to keep their lens warn and in good condition.  And I'm happy to oblige.

258
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 26, 2014, 07:18:32 AM »
Glass before body: How many of you shoot 200-400mm 1.4X 4.0L with a 6.2mp Digital Rebel?

How many of you pros own one of those?   ::)

It is on my to try list... I 'd mull it over if it can ever be found in the $6000 to $7000 range.

259
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 26, 2014, 06:55:18 AM »
That's a leftover from the film era, when the body was mostly a light-tight box for your lenses and for your sensor (film), and no one caring about quality were shooting APS.

Now, an FF body will make your L lenses work better.

I still agree with the sentiment... for 2 reasons... Lenses don't depreciate quickly... so you are better off running your body into the ground (150K of actuations) because it won't really be worth that much after a few years when you try and sell it.  Point in case... the 1d iii which sold for $6K and is now selling for $1k.  Whereas... if you bought a few nice lenses, you can still get well more than 16% of their original value.

And you can put an L lens on an older body and still get fantastic results... depending on what you are shooting.  If it is landscape or portraiture, the advances in high iso performance and AF performance are minimized and you can still get some amazing images using an older XTi.  Heck... if you are still rocking the t2i, there haven't really been that many advances along the lines of the crop sensors that would warrant buying a t5i. 

When I sold my XS... it was a wash... when I sold my 60D, I lost $200 in depreciation... and when I sell my 5D mkiii, I will lose around $1000 in depreciation... which kills me.  But maybe I avoid that by just using the mkiii until it dies in 10 years.

260
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 25, 2014, 03:20:44 PM »
I listened and was actually berated by some "pro" photographers for having so many L lenses believe my point at the time is that and a "amateur" XSi and later T2i.  I didn't care, and I'm glad I waited and bought good glass first :)

I'm trying to do the math from five years ago.  I bought the 60d for 1100 and sold the lens for 300.  Then I sold the xs I had for 375 resulting in an upgrade for 425.  I needed something with video and I didn't want to spend $200 on a video camera and have to carry two devices around. 

So my cash in pocket was only $425, 225 if I did get a video camera.  And 225 doesn't get us very far when we are talking about lenses. 

I don't want to say I regret going body first... because I simply didn't have the coin to go lenses first.

261
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 25, 2014, 03:00:00 PM »


The philosophy down here is buy better glass before upgrading the body.

Roger Machin, head of Canon South Africa gave me that advise.

I heard that too long time ago... but did I listen... nah.  I had my heart set pin the 60d and because of my lack of glass I always used my 50 f1.8.  The funny thing is that when I upgraded to the f1.4, I never used it because it wasn't the best lens in my arsenal.

Now... all my lenses fight for time on my body & I feel sad when I have to leave one behind.

262
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 25, 2014, 12:26:03 PM »
But would anyone crop boobs?

Shockingly yes.  I had a friend who had them reduced and it felt like she got a gift from good and then proceeded to return them for store credit.

The wife also had a friend who reduced, or cropped if you will, and I got to see them and I was unimpressed.  Just... seems sad looking. 

And the sister in law... but I'm not going to talk about that.

263
Lenses / Re: Hard choice the 50 1.4 or 85 1.8
« on: February 25, 2014, 10:17:01 AM »
Well... things changed a bit... I've gotten a bigger bonus at work then expected. So now it will be bothe the 50 and the 85, and selling the 40 later.

But I'll get the 85 first :)

good idea with good new 50's coming soon i would not bother with any current 50
and also consider the sigma 85 f1.4 its closer in performance to the 85 1.2L than the 1.8 if you can stretch the extra $

I saw the rave reviews about the sigma 85 but I've stayed away from it because of the auto focus issues that have plagued the other lenses in the sigma line... any idea if the 85. Is better in that regard?

264
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 25, 2014, 10:04:55 AM »
First and foremost should be the subject being interesting... then maybe being enhanced.. but just like boobs... going from an a cup to a c cup is good.... a to a double f... just kinda weird.
Nice analogy - LOL - and I feel the same way about HDR and over saturation.

Can we start a thread called: double f stops or bigger.

265
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 25, 2014, 09:52:36 AM »
I don't want to muddy the waters here, but it sounds like this conversation is heading towards artistic expression versus technical know how... and I would just like to say... high dynamic range. 

I see so many boring photos that have been hdr'd with crazy color saturation and extreme contact that in no way shape or form Lloyds normal. 

I played with it for a while and I'll use it periodically if I need the added dynamic range because the lighting circumstance is difficult to contend with... but I stopped making the mundane psychedelic.

First and foremost should be the subject being interesting... then maybe being enhanced.. but just like boobs... going from an a cup to a c cup is good.... a to a double f... just kinda weird.

If you can take amazing pictures, then that makes you a photographer. Post-processing makes you an editor, and although thats what it takes to be photographer nowadays i.e. be both photographer & editor... It wasn't like that back in the day. And you have to agree...

Nope. Don't have to agree.

A photograph is a thing. The person who makes the thing is a photograph-er. The thing is not made until the image captured by the camera is made visible on the paper or other viewing surface. This "making" consists of the entire process from choosing/arranging/lighting the subject, adjusting/aiming/operating the camera and doing what one will to get it onto the paper. Ansel has already been mentioned as an example of a "back in the day" photograph-er who certainly made use of his dark room, his enlarger, and whatever other tools he chose, to create his "art". The photographs thusly made have  been greatly admired by many, and few of the admirers fail to call him a "photographer", rather than an "editor". (Ansel the dodger/burner?)

Adams and the numerous other "photographers" one could mention as widely recognized and acclaimed, used the tools available to them in their time, just as we do today. I don't doubt that they would envy us our new tools.

It hardly seems appropriate to try to differentiate a carpenter from a measurer, a sawer or a hammerer. Perhaps we should further distinguish him as a laser level technician, an adhesives  applier, or a plumb(vs. apple)-bobber.

Are we having fun yet?  :-)

Larry - I need to totally disagree with you. Photography is the skill of producing photographs. There is a big difference between a photograph and digital picture.  "digital art" produces stunning pictures - which more often then not do NOT reflect anything real.

Photography as I understand it - is about recording a real moment or object in the most accurate way.

Yes I understand that some tweaks can be allowed - but these should be minor and unnoticeable. The "photo" should remain something real that the photographer saw. Photography is about VISION - NOT about enhanced photoshop / lightroom skills.

My 2 cents

Your understanding, as per my understanding, is totally wrong. Will find a photo I saw yesterday on this forum on a TS lens which was beautiful and far from accurate. Will find it and post next so you can see better.

266
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 24, 2014, 09:09:28 PM »
Hi everybody  :)

So as I move into my 3rd year of photography, I find my 500D isn't able to help my take my photography to the next level and its beginning to feel like my L series lenses are begging to shoot on a full frame body.

I've never had the chance to shoot full frame so most of what I know is pure theory derived from reading reviews etc online.

With South Africa's economy in a bit of trouble, I can get a hardly used 5D mkii for a reasonable price so I'm considering taking that.

Just what can I expect in terms of image quality and noise performance? Is the IQ of a full frame substantially better than a crops? Will I be able to take relatively noise free images at say ISO 3200?

The reviews seem to indicate that the native system for L series glass is full frame. Does this mean that I will experience a dramatic improvement in IQ?

The more I read, it seems that crop bodies have a singular advantage over full frame and that is the increase in focal length.

Can you guys chip in and throw some opinions and facts my way please?

Thanks in advance everybody.

You will love full frame cameras, but you won't like how much the lenses cost.

There are some value ef lenses... but if you get a nice body, it is just a waste to put on mediocre lenses. 

Even then... if you just go with primes like the 40mm, 35 f2 is, 100 f2... you can get by.

not to mention the decent 3rd party options...

Speak of the devil and he'll try and sell you a tamron.  Kidding... I swear.

267
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 24, 2014, 09:02:42 PM »
Hi everybody  :)

So as I move into my 3rd year of photography, I find my 500D isn't able to help my take my photography to the next level and its beginning to feel like my L series lenses are begging to shoot on a full frame body.

I've never had the chance to shoot full frame so most of what I know is pure theory derived from reading reviews etc online.

With South Africa's economy in a bit of trouble, I can get a hardly used 5D mkii for a reasonable price so I'm considering taking that.

Just what can I expect in terms of image quality and noise performance? Is the IQ of a full frame substantially better than a crops? Will I be able to take relatively noise free images at say ISO 3200?

The reviews seem to indicate that the native system for L series glass is full frame. Does this mean that I will experience a dramatic improvement in IQ?

The more I read, it seems that crop bodies have a singular advantage over full frame and that is the increase in focal length.

Can you guys chip in and throw some opinions and facts my way please?

Thanks in advance everybody.

You will love full frame cameras, but you won't like how much the lenses cost.

There are some value ef lenses... but if you get a nice body, it is just a waste to put on mediocre lenses. 

Even then... if you just go with primes like the 40mm, 35 f2 is, 100 f2... you can get by.

268
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 24, 2014, 04:36:57 PM »
Those who think that an image should be perfect from the camera have clearly never worked with film. Negative film was all about the developing and printing. Those on this thread who call post processing 'editing' and not photography are way off the mark. Post processing ( aka developing and printing) has ways been an integral part of photography.

"But transparencies were straight from the camera"! Not so in the professional world. When I was in my teens and used to assist some pretty well known London photographers even transparencies were 'post processed'. Test strips were developed from a shoot, and then the developing process (generally time) was adjusted depending upon what the initial test clips had shown. Colour was added by duping; that is re photographing the transparency with selective colour. 

Processing is as much photography as firing the shutter; always has been.

I think what Stella is meaning is that as a photographer you can become complacent about exposure when always shooting RAW. There was a staunch advocate of shooting RAW on CR about six months ago, who I think has now left, and he stated that a full stop difference in exposure was neither here nor there. That's a mistake in my opinion. Nailing the optimum exposure for a scene makes for better IQ in the image - thank goodness. I hope that will continue.

I contend that the shroud of tourin was the first raw image... and that definitely was in need of post production.

269
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 24, 2014, 04:35:04 PM »
Ansel Adams was known for saying "50 % of the creative process happens in the darkroom"

That was his pickup line at bars...

270
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 24, 2014, 09:15:44 AM »
Typical photographer progression:  shoot JPG for a while...hear about the benefits of RAW, shoot JPG+RAW for a while, processing RAWs for a few 'select' images and keeping just JPGs...fully understand the benefits of RAW and switch to RAW only...wish you could go back and properly process some images for which you have only the JPG and regret not shooting RAW only from the start.
Ouch! that hurts ;D ... just like truth hurts ...oh, how I wish I shot RAW from the beginning ... but most of the time, one only learns from making mistakes. :-[

That was me to the tee... but I didn't have a program to read raw... so I give myself a pass.

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 122