September 02, 2014, 05:19:47 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 - Sporgon

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 122
166
Lenses / Re: Need help deciding on my next lens
« on: July 10, 2014, 04:25:57 AM »
Shouldn't the excellent EFs 17-55 f2.8 be considered ?

Considered, yes, but imho then dismissed unless you need constant f because what's the use of getting a fast zoom on crop? If you're that desperate for light or thin dof go ff (if you can cough up the $$$), otherwise crop is all about flexibility, reach and having fun shooting.

For exactly the same reason one might want a fast zoom on anything else.

Crop is 'all about' getting 95% of the product for 50% of the price.

167
Lenses / Re: Need help deciding on my next lens
« on: July 09, 2014, 05:20:06 PM »
Shouldn't the excellent EFs 17-55 f2.8 be considered ?

168
Unfocused, that was well done!   :D

+ 1  ;D

Your real name's not Shakespeare is it ?

169
Photography Technique / Re: 85 vs 135 for portraits
« on: July 09, 2014, 10:13:28 AM »
Thanks for posting that link Sporgon!

Looking at Eastwood's examples, it appears to me that most of the variation in portrait perspective occurs in the range of 24mm to 70mm.  The difference between 100 and 300 was minimal to my eye.

Yes the critical wording here is portrait perspective. This example may shed some light on why the 135 has been a popular focal length over the years of 35mm photography: it is the shortest focal length to give 'optimum' portrait perspective, and as we know, shorter focal lengths are easier to manage......

170
Photography Technique / Re: 85 vs 135 for portraits
« on: July 09, 2014, 09:11:20 AM »
There you go:

http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/strippage.htm

You can see that once you get to 135mm there is little more alteration to the perspective with longer lenses - because of the distance / depth of plane that you are dealing with in this particular (tight portrait) scenario.

171
Photography Technique / Re: 85 vs 135 for portraits
« on: July 09, 2014, 09:02:48 AM »

So for example a 300 mm lens won't be more 'flattering' than a 135 but you will get considerably more subject isolation, but you'd need much more space and more light.

Ugh? Is this your personal experience or are you having some charts available to support this theory? Not that I'd dispute what you say, but right now my impression would be that 300mm *does* have significantly more compression than 135mm even to the extend that 300mm looks to "flat" for my taste.

The 300mm does indeed result in more compression than the 135, but at a shooting distance of around 250 inches over a nine inch range it is negligible compared with the 135, whereas there is between that and the 85 at appropriate shooting distances.

Somewhere on the web there is a comparison of a head shot with focal lengths from about 17 to 400mm. I'll have a quick look to see if I can find it for you.




172
Photography Technique / Re: 85 vs 135 for portraits
« on: July 09, 2014, 08:18:29 AM »
Does 85 cut it for pure head shots? Is 135 not versatile enough for half body shots?

It largely depends on your subject. If you have a model that is already blessed with 'desirable' features: small nose, big eyes, normal ears (  ;D. ) then the 85 makes for good tight head shots. However most people aren't quite like this so the perspective given by the 135 is preferable. The advantage of this perspective perspective begins to drop away beyond 135mm though subject isolation increases, which you may find desireable. So for example a 300 mm lens won't be more 'flattering' than a 135 but you will get considerably more subject isolation, but you'd need much more space and more light.

The 135's versatility for half body shots depends entirely on space available, and to a lesser degree light, because of less dof.

Personally I would consider the 85mm to be the more versatile of the two by a considerable margin.

173

 I need more! You see, I have grown and you have remained static. You're not willing to change. You sit idly by while my new friend, Nikon, keeps growing.

Wow ! You must indeed be a man among men ! I've been in photography over thirty years and rarely can I keep up with the mk II. Be aware your new love may just be after your wallet, especially as she is so young and you no doubt, are a tad older  ;)

174
I think what you are asking is 'can increased luminance make up for less total light ?'. I am not an expert on this, but I think the answer is 'no'.

Regarding your question of ISO for different cameras and formats: in the days of film I believe that the emulsion used in say Kodachrome 110, 135 or 120 was all exactly the same. Someone correct me if I am wrong. This works because exposure works on luminance intensity, not total area of light.

So I'm not sure if different digital formats use a given ISO differently.

However different cameras DO use a given ISO rating differently, the 'ISO sensitivity. For instance with the cameras that I have owned in recent years, for ISO 100 the actual ISOs are as follows: Nikon D200 - 98, 5D - 92, 5DII - 73. 1100D - 78, 6D - 80. Both the D200 and 1100D are aps so there is no pattern for the smaller sensor there.

You might say 'well who cares about this. The meter in the camera deals with it'. Well it is very important to those of us that use a separate meter to know where to set it. For instance if I set my Sekonic incident light meter to 100 ASA for the 5DII it will give me under exposure. In this case I find best results setting the Sekonic to ISO 64.

This info is another of the good, accurate things DxO mark offer. ( Why DxO lets itself down with its ridiculous camera and lens 'scores' I do not know. )

So there is variation in individual model's ISO senitivity, but not in the way you were asking about. 

175
Photography Technique / Re: Shoot from the rearend of the subjects.
« on: July 07, 2014, 05:16:25 PM »
No offense to Keith, but I'll try to class it up a bit ;).  These are from a campaign I shot a few years back:

Class it up a bit ? OK  ;)

176
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How disappointed will you be if . . .?
« on: July 07, 2014, 04:54:17 PM »
since my wife is a bit upset that I sold her old body

That thought has crossed my mind but my wife wouldn't like it either  ;)

177
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How EXCITED will you be if . . .?
« on: July 07, 2014, 04:48:28 PM »

Serious 7D shooters are not necessarily amateurs on tight budgets.


Not everyone can afford to spend significant amounts of money on a camera body, or indeed lenses, yet they may wish or really need to have a given performance. Many people who earn their living from photography cannot afford 'the best' or 'the latest'. I was at a large function recently where the official photographer was using two Nikon D200 s, 2005 tech. ( With its CCD the D200 was, and still is, a fine camera).

When I was at the London Olympics I was surprised to see so many of the official photographers with ringside access using 7D s. I think someone on a 7DII thread here on CR recently said they were surprised at how many 'non gripped' Canons with pop up flash were in use at such a big event as the World Cup, so one would assume they were 7D s. 

For the images that these people are producing there will be no perceivable difference between FF or crop; no one will know the difference. That situation will change in low light sports though. Will this situation change; will Canon want it to change ? This may be one reason why the new 7DII won't be 16 mp. It is one thing to offer a cheaper, credible alternate to those that cannot afford a 1Dx, but quite another to allow that cheaper alternative to compete in every sphere !

So as I have said before, the 7DII has to be significantly cheaper than a 5DIII.

The 7D is far from being a cheap camera anyway, so someone who is really 'budget minded' would be splashing out on one. However if the 7D and the 5DIII were the same price I think the 7D only be a very small percent of purchases.

178
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How EXCITED will you be if . . .?
« on: July 07, 2014, 02:42:11 PM »
16 to 24 MP, but FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAST (10 fps) and with 1 stop improvement in low light ability (I judge that the 6D has a 2 stop advantage over the 60D of the same sensor vintage). Small pro-grade weather-sealed body, under 900 grams. Giant buffer, 30 RAW at 10 fps. 1DX/5D3 focusing system, fewer points, perhaps, but similar algorithms. AF at f/8. Costs the same or less than the 6D.

I've seen some cost comments from folks. I know that this is a thread about positivity, but sub $2k, sub 6D pricing may be a tough get depending on how 'pro' this body is designed.

As I've said many times in this forum, for some people, the reach of APS-C is vital to what they do (BIF people come to mind).  To those folks, crop is a really high-quality 1.6x T/C without the T/C headaches of AF responsiveness or significantly lessened IQ.  To those folks, the length upside lets them not have to buy a $10k+ lens to get their shots or for those who do have that money, it lets those great lenses reach even further.  To those folks, Canon could eeeeeeasily get above $2k for this new body.

I don't want to be a pessimist, but I kind of want this thing to be so good it's worth over $2k.  I'll say it:  if it's a $1,599 camera, it probably won't be so compelling performance wise for me.

- A

I think if the new 7DII was anything like approaching the price of the 5DIII it would lose it's whole raison d'etre. When sitting in a range with FF cameras - especially fast ones like the 5DIII - crop has to be cheaper, otherwise it loses it's ace card. I suppose it could be marketed a little more expensive than the 6D without upsetting the range, as the two will be completely different cameras. Personally I still think it will (eventually) sit just under the 6D price.

179
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How disappointed will you be if . . .?
« on: July 07, 2014, 02:33:49 PM »

Look at the original 5D and compare against the MK III significantly different, but II to III not so different.

My experience was that from 5D to MK II not so different but MK II to MK III significantly different.

Do other peoples experience match colinrb or mine?

I know this is going off thread, but it is an interesting question because it really depends on where your priorities lie. The 5DII offered a significant improvement in tonal quality over the original, especially in more extreme lighting conditions, a noticeable increase in resolution and a moderately better higher ISO performance. OOC jpegs can be quite useable. The II also had the much improved screen, video capability etc.. The 5DIII gives a very subtle improvement in tonal quality over the II, but a huge improvement in high ISO performance. It is also much faster, has an improved level of build, and of course, the AF in in a different league.

If you look at the overall package of the camera, I would say on balance that each mark was an equal jump forward in 'overall' performance.

I think most would agree that the first incarnation of the ubiquitous 18mp sensor in the 7D was the worst, so hopefully if the 7DII does have a new sensor it will be more thoroughly sorted than the original. 

180
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How disappointed will you be if . . .?
« on: July 07, 2014, 12:32:15 PM »

Bigger sensors aren't better in low-light, larger apertures are.  Bigger sensors work better in low-light when you can use a longer focal length at the same f-stop, thus increasing aperture. 

I think that from that statement you are confusing light intensity with quantity of light. So a large aperture ( greater intensity) coupled with a larger sensor ( greater quantity) is going to provide more light than the equivalent in a smaller sensor.

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 122