Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Photo / Video Recording => Topic started by: divamum on November 02, 2008, 12:21:41 PM
-
The original thread was getting way too long so... here's a new one! (Thanks Eric B for the housekeeping suggestion) :)
Here's the original thread:
http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=70066.0
-
fun stuff. Here is the gf's cat in my den last weekend. Just having some fun taking kitteh pics
Dude is his name, blue is his game.
(disclaimer, though dude is a blue/grey cat, we found out after 1 month of being told it was a male, it is in fact a female. But, how can we change his/her name from dude so we just pretend it is a male kitteh)
-
Been a while since I posted.... and I'm not sure I've ever posted pics! Here's a recent one of the offspring all dressed up for Halloween, taken with my Rebel XT, 50mm 1.8 and 420ex flash
(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_imK9wTzuQIU/SQS_lckWrkI/AAAAAAAACDI/tB1Eki7cOzA/s400/IMG_2822sd.jpg)
And I was messing about with some zoom effects - this the XT and 28-105 II lens
(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_imK9wTzuQIU/SQC6h0_iUvI/AAAAAAAAB_g/ATlqKgWAw64/s400/lovelylaneorgans2a.jpg)
-
In to follow the new thread. Haven't been getting out much lately. :-\
-
Been a while since I posted.... and I'm not sure I've ever posted pics! Here's a recent one of the offspring all dressed up for Halloween, taken with my Rebel XT, 50mm 1.8 and 420ex flash
And I was messing about with some zoom effects - this the XT and 28-105 II lens
nice! +t
one I've titled.. against the wind.. the 100m f2
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3130/2926871422_6cb01f4c3d_b.jpg)
-
fun stuff. Here is the gf's cat in my den last weekend. Just having some fun taking kitteh pics
Dude is his name, blue is his game.
(disclaimer, though dude is a blue/grey cat, we found out after 1 month of being told it was a male, it is in fact a female. But, how can we change his/her name from dude so we just pretend it is a male kitteh)
hehe.. dude looks like a lady! well..not really..
-
a couple from today. A great day out shooting. Fun fun FUN!
(http://i510.photobucket.com/albums/s348/stirinthesauce/IMG_9756_resize.jpg)
(http://i510.photobucket.com/albums/s348/stirinthesauce/IMG_9685_resize.jpg)
(http://i510.photobucket.com/albums/s348/stirinthesauce/IMG_9802_resize.jpg)
(http://i510.photobucket.com/albums/s348/stirinthesauce/IMG_9680_resize.jpg)
-
heres a couple I took last weekend with my 30d>EF-hassy adapter>10mm extension tube>50mm hasselblad lens. Anybody else using anything other than ef mount lenses?
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3226/2976257357_5f3a580795_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3282/2976256777_ee59591c98_o.jpg)
-
Ashley as Eddie Vedder for halloween
(http://gallery.mac.com/scott.malone/100199/IMG_2682/web.jpg)
(http://gallery.mac.com/scott.malone/100199/IMG_2611/web.jpg)
(http://gallery.mac.com/scott.malone/100199/IMG_2660/web.jpg)
(http://gallery.mac.com/scott.malone/100199/IMG_2692/web.jpg)
-
thats great. i almost mistook her for eddy until i read the caption.. ;)
-
Woohoo! Just took the plunge and ordered an Xsi (it was that or a 40D, and I'm one of those folks that prefers the lighter/smaller body so given that the price just dropped again at B&H... no brainer really!). Very excited!
And if anybody knows somebody who is looking for starter camera... point 'em my way (the XT will be in the yard sale as soon as I'm sure the new one is worknig properly, but figured I'd go ahead and mention it nowanyway ;D )
And then if Santa will chip in for a Tamron 17-50 and a Canon 50mm 1.4 (ah, me... I can dream!!)
-
I think I might have went a bit crazy, but I sold my canon 70-200 2.8L non IS today. I'm going to miss it, but since I've moved to AZ I haven't been shooting enough to justify a $900 lens and its really just been sitting on my desk for the last few months.
I picked up one of the new Tamron 18-270mm lenses as the sample pictures I've found from it all seem fairly decent. I know it'll never be as sharp as the canon, but I think it'll get a lot more use. It seems like an excellent walk around/vacation lens.
I'm also pondering selling my canon 17-40 4.0L lens and getting the canon 10-22. I should wide quite a bit, and was thinking it might be fun to go wider.
-
Wow, that IS a drastic change Ed. You can always go back though. I understand where you're coming from though...there's always that balance that we try to get between quality and convenience. Until you try something out for yourself, you only have what someone else is saying and that's kinda hard to go on because you really can't translate that into deciding what might work for you.
Anyway, I just got back in the game and having been doing some intense research in the last few weeks and contemplating my future lens arsenal. What's clear to me is that I'm gonna be selling the 400mm fixed focus L lens to start the ball rolling to get wider angles. I'm with you in that wide angle shooting is something I need for the interests I have in shooting...also macro.
Question: Did the 17-40 do you are far as wide angle? I mean, do you find it to be wide enough for most landscape, cityscape, architechture and indoor shots? In addtion to the Canon 17-40, I'm considering the Tokina 12-24 f4.0, Tokina 11-16 f2.8 which are both highly rated, and the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 which also gets good marks. The latter two are fairly attractive because of the high marks plus the fast lens speed, since indoor shooting will be a high usage factor for this lens.
OTOH, I already have the 28-135, but that lens isn't as fast and isn't as wide. Since I also want to do high quality macro photography, I'm thinking that the 17-50, plus the 70-300 has my range covered, then a 100mm macro would have the macro covered. Sell the 400mm and the 28-135.
My biggest concern here though is that 17 may not be wide enough!
Thoughts?
-
i would trade steve's left nut for a 10-22 also :P ;D. i wanna go wide.
i also really want some big zoom, colorado has tons of far away shit to pull the trigger on. ive seen some reasonable 300mm zoom lenses at reasonable prices but cant man up when it counts. i miss the days of buy now think later. stupidity had its perks.
-
i would trade steve's left nut for a 10-22 also :P ;D. i wanna go wide.
If I had a spare jimbo, it would definitely be yours (the nut...not the lens)!
-
from my experience, 17 is fairly wide on a crop body, extremely wide on a full frame. If you want really wide and have a 1.6x crop sensor, get the 10-22 or the 12-24. Me, my 24 is like the 17 on a crop body. Wide but there are times I want wider. Hoping to get a 17-40L.
Ed, pm me before you dump that lens. I *might* be interested.
-
Question: Did the 17-40 do you are far as wide angle? I mean, do you find it to be wide enough for most landscape, cityscape, architechture and indoor shots? In addtion to the Canon 17-40, I'm considering the Tokina 12-24 f4.0, Tokina 11-16 f2.8 which are both highly rated, and the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 which also gets good marks. The latter two are fairly attractive because of the high marks plus the fast lens speed, since indoor shooting will be a high usage factor for this lens.
I always thought it did a fairly decent job at wide angle, but with my 20D the crop made it out to be almost 23-24mm if I remember correctly. It's ok and I've used that lens more than most others, but I think it'd be fun to have something wider. I'm going to have to look at the others you mentioned as well and do some research. My plan with the 17-40 was always to get a 5D and then it would have been plenty wide...but I doubt that will happen. When I went crazy and bought all these lenses I was planning on making some money off of photography, but these days it'd mostly just for fun.
Yeah, what stirinthesauce said. :)
I have the 17-40L listed on craigslist right now for $550, which is ridiculously overpriced, but everyone seems to lowball you on there. Some one emailed me and said "I'll give you $500 for the 70-200mm" to which I replied "no you won't" haha.
http://speshuled.smugmug.com/gallery/4626550_ZawJV#406616487_unycf
There are some photos of it if you're interested, I'll be honest though. This lens has reports of not being one of the sharpest L lenses and I've always thought mine fit into that category. It still does a great job, and a little bit of sharpening in post took care of the issue.
-
Thanks for the perspective on the 17mm focal length guys. I pretty much figured as much. Back in another life, I was HEAVY into photography and had a 28mm lens. In fact, back then...we're in the early 70's now and I'm talking Canon FD lenses...back then I really wanted two zooms but couldn't afford them...a 28 - 80 and a 70-200. I ended up getting a cheap fixed focus 28 and then a really cheap 70-200. The 28 was my workhorse behind the 50mm f1.8.
So basically, what we're saying here is that a 17-50mm lens has the exact equivalent focal length on a crop body of that 28-80 all those years ago. I do recall being pretty satisfied with that 28mm focal length all those years ago, so based on your feedback, that might be how I go.
So, I may be headed to this...sell the 28-135 f4.0-5.6...sell the 400L...buy a 17-50 f2.8 and buy a 100mm f2.8 for low light concert shooting and macro work. The 70-300 f4.0 stays for sports, wildlife and outdoor shoots. Hmmmm.
Anyways, thanks for the feedback!
-
I use the 16-35mm L for wide angle. Do i need wider, is there wider for indoors and landscapes?
-
I use the 16-35mm L for wide angle. Do i need wider, is there wider for indoors and landscapes?
I'm just getting back into photography, so I'm no expert by any means...but I've been doing quite a bit of research over the last 3 weeks and I think maybe some of my thoughts might give you some sort of answer to your questions...
First, there's definitely wider angles than 16mm. The popular Canon len is the 10-22mm. A couple posts up I mentioned a fast Tokina 11-16 f2.8 that came out last year. This one is stated on one review site (photozone.de) to be the best quality super wide angle out there...bar none....and this lens runs less than $600. So yeah there are definitely options. Another option is a 12 - 24 f4.0 Tokina. Also highly rated and low price, but a bit slower.
You might ask, well it doesn't seem like there's much difference between the low end of your 16-35 and the 11 or 12 low end of these others...I guess that depends on what you want out of the lens. I've read where on the low end, small differences in focal length can make a fairly significant difference in the field of view.
Referring back to the question you posed...whether you NEED wider is another story. Seems to me that it's personal preference, the type of shooting you do, etc. Do you often feel limited by the field of view that you shoot in? Obviously, when outside say shooting a tall building, you can theoretically keep moving farther away to adjust your field of view. However, inside a room, if you're as far away as you can get, the only option then is a shorter focal length lens.
Something to consider is that of course, the wider you go, the more you tend to have to deal with distortions like edge falloff and (what's it called) where the straight lines curve because of lens distortion.
As I recall, back in the day when I shot with my 28mm (which again is 17mm or so on a crop body) image distortion didn't become all that much of an issue. IOW, it wasn't totally obvious that the image had been shot with a wide angle lens. It's only with the super wide angle lenses that distortions become a major distraction...at least to me they are.
Don't know if that helps...this discussion is probably below your level of knowledge, but like I said, for me it's all fresh on my mind because these are the things I've been considering recently in making some decisions about what my lens aresenal is gonna consist of.
Take care.
-
I picked up a Tokina 11-16 and I love it on the crop body.. really opens up landscapes.. and comes in handy for house interior shots - for houses we are selling... combined with the 17-55 IS - they cover most landscape shots.
-
At the long end, the 55-250is is absurdly good for the price. It hunts a bit in lower light, but give it some lumens and it is one sharp lens for not a lot of money...
Also check out the Tamron 17-50 2.8. I don't have one (yet), but I hear it's also super sharp. It's the "most wanted" on my lens list at the moment... I SERIOUSLY want one of those!
-
OK, I am in the market for an affordable zoom lens for my wife for christmas. Probably will be mostly used for her landscape and kid photography but will likely make it to hockey games as well, as long as we have it
I have been looking at sigma lenses as they seem to offer a good balance between cost and performance..and these two are sold at b&h...question is what is the difference? I am guessing one is last years model and the other the new one...but curious if anyone can shed any light. My wife is the photog, not me, so I am running blind here ;D
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/391074-REG/Sigma_508101_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_APO_DG.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/163662-REG/Sigma_509101_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_DG_Macro.html
Appreciate any input
-
OK, I am in the market for an affordable zoom lens for my wife for christmas. Probably will be mostly used for her landscape and kid photography but will likely make it to hockey games as well, as long as we have it
I have been looking at sigma lenses as they seem to offer a good balance between cost and performance..and these two are sold at b&h...question is what is the difference? I am guessing one is last years model and the other the new one...but curious if anyone can shed any light. My wife is the photog, not me, so I am running blind here ;D
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/391074-REG/Sigma_508101_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_APO_DG.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/163662-REG/Sigma_509101_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_DG_Macro.html
Appreciate any input
the latter link is for the macro version of the lens..
Macro photography is close-up photography; the classical definition is that the image projected on the "film plane" (i.e., film or a digital sensor) is close to the same size as the subject. On 35 mm film (for example), the lens is typically optimized to focus sharply on a small area approaching the size of the film frame. Most 35mm format macro lenses achieve at least 1:2, that is to say, the image on the film is 1/2 the size of the object being photographed. Many 35mm macro lenses are 1:1, meaning the image on the film is the same size as the object being photographed. Another important distinction is that lenses designed for macro are usually at their sharpest at macro focus distances and are not quite as sharp at other focus distances.
In recent years, the term macro has been used in marketing material to mean being able to focus on a subject close enough so that when a regular 6×4 inch (15×10 cm) print is made, the image is life-size or larger. This requires a magnification ratio of only approximately 1:4, more easily attainable by lens makers.
hmm.. from the text in the links you gave, it looked like one lens was a macro and one wasnt. However, clicking on both links reveals that *both* lenses are macro versions.. One is an APO the other isnt, and to be honest I dont know the differences between the two..
-
one is an APO, the other isn't...from sigma's website:
n order to attain the highest quality images, the APO lens has been made using special low-dispersion (SLD) glass and is designed to minimize color aberration.
SIGMA's APO zoom lenses minimize color aberration. As the refractive index of glass depends on the wavelength of light, color aberration occurs when different colors form images at different points. This problem often occurs with telephoto lenses, but the Special Low-Dispersion (SLD) glass and
Extraordinary Low Dispersion (ELD) used in SIGMA's APO lenses helps to compensate for color aberration, thereby allowing them to produce of sharp images.
also, a review:
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/326-sigma-af-70-300mm-f4-56-apo-dg-macro-test-report--review
I don't know what your budget is, but there might be better lenses out there, but it'll take some time to read all the reviews. Also, I'd try www.pricegrabber.com and www.amazon.com too to see who has the best deal.
-
thanks for the input guys...have to do some reading now...
fwiw, my budget is probably sub $500...so if anyone has any suggestions, I would be interested to hear them...
-
Hey Nick...at a $500 budget, I'm thinking this...
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/397663-USA/Canon_0345B002_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_EF_IS.html
Review here...
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/200-canon-ef-70-300mm-f4-56-usm-is-test-report--review
Very nicely rated OEM lens with IS.
I have this lens and I'm quite pleased with it. The IS means that it has Canon's proprietary image stabilization built in which is a pretty nifty invention where gyroscopic compensation is put in the lens to allow the lens stabilize the image. This feature effectively speeds up the lens without more glass...Canon generally claims 2 to 3 f-stops increase in lens speed with IS. That's pretty significant, actually. This is a pretty cool invention and on the more expensive lenses, IS is generally considered a $400 or more upgrade to the lens, so with this lens costing $500 total, I think it's a great value.
PS: Go Pens!!!
-
over budget and without a tripod ring, but a great lens -
http://www.digitalfotoclub.com/sc/from-froogle.asp?id=226523116&rf=froogle&dfdate=11_13_2008
I've ordered from there before too, so I know they're safe.
Also, if you're interested in buying like new/used, you may want to check out the Flea Market on www.dgrin.com - kind of like ts for photogs. I see a Canon 55-250mm with image stabalization on there right now for $245.
-
thanks for the options guys! Now just need to get educated for what fits the wifes use, so I can get her that for christmas...
-
OK, I am in the market for an affordable zoom lens for my wife for christmas. Probably will be mostly used for her landscape and kid photography but will likely make it to hockey games as well, as long as we have it
I think you'll be hard pressed to find a lens that suits all three needs: landscape, kids, hockey games. I think it's best to decide which 1 or 2 are the priority. From the way your post is written, it sounds to me like landscapes/kids are a priority over hockey.
A 70-200 or 70-300 will probably work fine for hockey (though at 4-5.6 may be a little slow, requiring you to bump the ISO well high). I think landscapes are right out at 70mm, especially on an APS-C sensor. Kids - depends on the shooting environment. Outside on the playground, where you can get some distance between lens & kids, maybe. Inside, too long IME (unless it's a studio environment).
For kids & landscapes, I'd consider a wide-ish standard zoom, like a Canon 17-85 (http://www.adorama.com/CA1785AFSR.html), Canon 28-135 (http://www.adorama.com/CA28135ISU.html), or even Sigma 18-125 (http://www.adorama.com/SG18125OSEOS.html).
I'm pretty ignorant of Canon's lens lineup, so the above are just examples of what I think are more suitable focal length ranges for kids/landscape. And all will still allow you to shoot hockey if you can get up close.
As an afterthought, you could always go for a superzoom, like an 18-200, but quality will suffer, obviously. Depends on expectations / IQ requirements, etc.
$0.02
What lenses does she have already?
-
the priority you listed out is completely accurate, as the hockey is more of an afterthought. In terms of lenses she has already, she has the kit lens that came with the XTI (EFS18-55mm) and a portrait lens (EF50mm 1.8).
Honestly, she isnt even sure exactly how she would use it but 90% of what she shoots is portraits of our kid and landscapes.
-
just looking at the lengths she has i would look for a zoom to give her options.?.?
-
just looking at the lengths she has i would look for a zoom to give her options.?.?
thats the plan ;D
-
just looking at the lengths she has i would look for a zoom to give her options.?.?
thats the plan ;D
my lens list...
18-55efs
50 1.8
100 2.0
10-22 efs
to be honest, the only lens I'd like to add is either the canon 70-200L or the IS version.
outdoors- 10 22efs(landscapes, some misc shots), 18-55efs (which is a good lens IMO)
people indoor stuff - 50 1.8, 18 55 efs
shows - 50 1.8, 100 f2 (both are fine for smaller shows/club setting)
outdoor people - once again the 50 and 100f2
the only area Id like to cover is indoor/outdoor sports/recitals/plays etc for my neice/nephews, however I get away with the 100mm (160 on a cropped body) but I'd love to have something longer. Adding the 70-200 would fill any gaps I have.
I find the Canon 100m f2 to be spectacular for most of the things Ive been taping (small clubs, bars etc) and it is VERY compact. Plus it's fixed so I think the images are a bit sharper.
I'd say bite the bullet and go for the sigma 70-200 or the canon IS or non IS. Sure they are out of your budget for now, but you can use them into the future with body upgrades. You have a fairly wide 18-55 efs and a fast 50, so I dont think you'd lose too much by skipping over the 50 to 70 mm range and jumping to a lens that 5 years down the road you wished you'd had all that time... The only downside is if you move to a non-cropped body whereas the efs lens wont work which is my situation if I ever went full frame, but then I'd just keep my xti and use the 10-22 with 18-55 on the second body..
-
an option is this tamron
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=241&sort=7&cat=43&page=1 (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=241&sort=7&cat=43&page=1)
I picked this lens for my dad and used it in Costa Rica last year. A damn fine lens! I will probably pick this up for myself sometime over the canon L 24-105. This lens has great IQ, gets fairly wide and a decent zoom range. On a crop body not quite so wide but a good bit longer.
-
Honestly, she isnt even sure exactly how she would use it [longer zoom] but 90% of what she shoots is portraits of our kid and landscapes.
I'll offer a different take to the tele zoom, based on your above comment, Nick. Since she shoots ~90% with the kit lens, consider:
<1> upgrading it
I shoot my nieces a lot, both indoors and out. In addition to IQ, I especially appreciate a reasonably fast lens since the kids are mobile and the light isn't always great. I'm not familiar with the Canon lineup, but am thinking something along the lines of an 18-55 or thereabouts, with fixed f/2.8. In addition, I'd probably sell the 18-55 and replace it with an inexpensive (~$100) tele zoom. Best of both worlds, I think: better IQ and faster lens for the focal length she uses most + the option to play around with a tele zoom. If it turns out she loves the tele zoom, you can always upgrade it later. But I figure why spend big money on a tele zoom she may or may not use much.
<2> adding a wide zoom
If she's happy with the 18-55 for kids and landscape, perhaps she'd appreciate the ability to go wide for landscapes. Maybe a wide zoom, like 12-24, or 10-20, or in that range. It would allow her to go nice & wide on landscapes, which you know she already enjoys shooting - and might very well enjoy even more with the extra width. So maybe spend $400 on a nice wide zoom, since you know she enjoys shooting landscapes, and allocate ~$100 for an inexpensive tele zoom you can upgrade down the road if she decides she loves shooting the tele zoom.
Again, I'm not clued into the Canon-mount lineup, but those are two additional upgrade paths I'd consider.
-
Brian, thanks for the response. I really need to get in her head a bit and figure out what she is really looking to take the next step to and some of these options will fall into line...
-
I have the ef 16-35mm f/2.8 L nice wide angle, sharp.
Also use the 24-70mm f/2.8 L
and the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS
I shoot a lot of portait/people
just my .02 cents because i still cant seem to take a good photo
good luck in the search
-
Every tele-zoom that I've ever shot has a sweet spot.
Once I discover it, I always want to be there and begin to frame at that length more frequently.
I think that my next lens or two will be prime(s).
-
I shoot a lot of portait/people
just my .02 cents because i still cant seem to take a good photo
But are you implying that the reason you can't take a good photo is your gear as the previous poster assumed? I understand the previous posters point about lens sweet spots, but you can't get much better than L series lenses.
It seems that the point you're trying to make is that the best portrait/people photos takes alot of time and patience to get the best shots because the subjects either have to feel totally comfortable being in front of the lens or be oblivious to the fact that they're being photographed at all.
Finally, it could be how much time one spends in photoshop. I'm new to this, but I'm absolutely AMAZED at the miracles that photoshop can work on creating great images from average source material.
Also just my two cents.
-
I shoot a lot of portait/people
just my .02 cents because i still cant seem to take a good photo
But are you implying that the reason you can't take a good photo is your gear as the previous poster assumed? I understand the previous posters point about lens sweet spots, but you can't get much better than L series lenses.
It seems that the point you're trying to make is that the best portrait/people photos takes alot of time and patience to get the best shots because the subjects either have to feel totally comfortable being in front of the lens or be oblivious to the fact that they're being photographed at all.
Finally, it could be how much time one spends in photoshop. I'm new to this, but I'm absolutely AMAZED at the miracles that photoshop can work on creating great images from average source material.
Also just my two cents.
no not at all. It was a light hearted comment about the fact that i think i have very good lenses and equipment its just me that needs to get better at taking the pictures--and getting them sharper. I look like i can take pics just because of the equipment, i was just poking fun at myself for not taking good shots yet.
-
I shoot a lot of portait/people
just my .02 cents because i still cant seem to take a good photo
But are you implying that the reason you can't take a good photo is your gear as the previous poster assumed? I understand the previous posters point about lens sweet spots, but you can't get much better than L series lenses.
It seems that the point you're trying to make is that the best portrait/people photos takes alot of time and patience to get the best shots because the subjects either have to feel totally comfortable being in front of the lens or be oblivious to the fact that they're being photographed at all.
Finally, it could be how much time one spends in photoshop. I'm new to this, but I'm absolutely AMAZED at the miracles that photoshop can work on creating great images from average source material.
Also just my two cents.
no not at all. It was a light hearted comment about the fact that i think i have very good lenses and equipment its just me that needs to get better at taking the pictures--and getting them sharper. I look like i can take pics just because of the equipment, i was just poking fun at myself for not taking good shots yet.
Yeah, that's basically what I figured you were getting at. The previous poster was implying that you need to get your lenses in the 'sweet spot', but my point is that you really do have the gear to get the goods.
Anyhow, your point is well taken, even a million bucks in photo gear can't buy good shots if you don't a) use the gear properly, or b) do what you gotta do to get the good shots (lighting, exposure, composition, etc.)
-
Subscribing to Page 2.
I'm still very pleased with both of my Tamron lenses. They both are getting great reviews. I picked up the 70-200 when it just hit the market, so I didn't have any reviews to go by at the time. Here are some recent shots with the Tamrons. The last is in low lighting, in an effort to depict what is to be expected in a concert environment. I still haven't shot any live music, however.
Tamron 17-50mm 2.8: 50mm focal length; 100 ISO; 1/250 Tv; 11.0 Av
Tamron 70-200mm 2.8: 70mm focal length; 100 ISO; 1/200 Tv; 11.0 Av
Tamron 70-200mm 2.8: 200mm focal length; 100 ISO; 1/250 Tv; 7.1 Av
Tamron 70-200mm 2.8: 200mm focal lenght; 1600 ISO; 1/320 Tv; 2.8 Av
-
The last is in low lighting, in an effort to depict what is to be expected in a concert environment.
I'm guessing that last shot is about EV8 brighter than any concert that I've ever shot.
Rare to see white light, rare to see skin flare in a "rock" concert
Nice shots!
Film or dig... if so, what film?
-
these are from my hike yesterday in Indian Peaks Wilderness from the west side of Flagstaff Mt. I'm loving Colorado for the endless beauty to shoot.
-
I just picked up the tamron 18-270, not really a pro lens by any means, but I wanted something for vacations and trail riding. I haven't had the chance to get anything more than snapshots, but I'm going out this weekend. Guess this will be my test run.
-
these are from my hike yesterday in Indian Peaks Wilderness from the west side of Flagstaff Mt. I'm loving Colorado for the endless beauty to shoot.
Love that second shot with the moon! Very nice ;D
-
<1> upgrading it
I shoot my nieces a lot, both indoors and out. In addition to IQ, I especially appreciate a reasonably fast lens since the kids are mobile and the light isn't always great. I'm not familiar with the Canon lineup, but am thinking something along the lines of an 18-55 or thereabouts, with fixed f/2.8. In addition, I'd probably sell the 18-55 and replace it with an inexpensive (~$100) tele zoom. Best of both worlds, I think: better IQ and faster lens for the focal length she uses most + the option to play around with a tele zoom. If it turns out she loves the tele zoom, you can always upgrade it later. But I figure why spend big money on a tele zoom she may or may not use much.
The more I have talked to her, I think that this is the best step to take...upgrading the kit lens in this range. The lens that a buddy recommended is
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/423714-REG/Tamron_AF016C700_17_50mm_f_2_8_XR_Di.html
I am guessing that this is the lens that you have cgrooves? Based on my friends experience he found it to be a great walking around lens and a significant upgrade to the kit lens, which is probably the best bet for the wife given her current photo subjects...
-
I just got the Canon 17-40 f4.0L delivered last week. I was strongly considering this lens that you have linked because it's an f-stop faster and is also highly rated. I ended up choosing the Canon L-series lens which I'm really happy with, but I think I'd have been equally happy with the Tamron, especially in lower light situations. I can confirm that this zoom range is REALLY nice. I haven't taken the lens off my camera yet and so far I'm really loving the range that it offers.
-
Nice shots!
Film or dig... if so, what film?
Digital
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/423714-REG/Tamron_AF016C700_17_50mm_f_2_8_XR_Di.html
I am guessing that this is the lens that you have cgrooves? Based on my friends experience he found it to be a great walking around lens and a significant upgrade to the kit lens, which is probably the best bet for the wife given her current photo subjects...
Yes, that is the lens used in that first pic in my last post. It stays on my camera body probably 90% of the time. The motor is a little louder than the canon, and it sometimes hunts for focus in really low light a little longer than desired (if you set it to spot focus it improves), but it takes great shots. The lens has gotten great reviews, and is a great value.
-
thanks guys...now where to buy it...anyone use tristate or sigma4less retailers? I am probalby going to go with B&H, but if I can get it for $50 cheaper from a reputable retailer, I would consider it. Both of these show up on the fredmiranda site...also if anyone has any other recomendations for retailers, would be interested as well...
-
I have purchased several lenses from tristate.. they list almost everything on ebay using "Buy it Now" and will list something for you if need be - taking the extra 25-30% off with cashback makes it hard for B&H to compete. They get most of their bad reputation from trying to pile on worthless accessories for terrible prices.. but - when you use ebay and buy it now - that's a moot point.
Jeff
-
I've bought lenses from sigma4less before with no problems, that was a few years ago though. You also might want to try www.pricegrabber.com, might find something on there for cheap, and all the sites they link to are reviewed, so you can see what you're getting into.
-
quick and dirty, from my vacation last month in Virginia. This is looking off Lover's Leap coming out of the Virginial Highlands. The view was amazing.
(http://i510.photobucket.com/albums/s348/stirinthesauce/IMG_9953_resize.jpg)
-
lots of rain and snow lately which means the rivers are high around here. Good day to go out shooting, especially with the overcast sky. Here are a few from today. Real quick in cs3, minimal processing. All from my sigma 24-70 ex dg f2.8 on my 5d.
(http://i510.photobucket.com/albums/s348/stirinthesauce/IMG_0892_resize.jpg)
(http://i510.photobucket.com/albums/s348/stirinthesauce/IMG_0893_resize.jpg)
(http://i510.photobucket.com/albums/s348/stirinthesauce/IMG_0895_resize.jpg)
(http://i510.photobucket.com/albums/s348/stirinthesauce/IMG_0896_resize.jpg)
oh, and which is your favorite of the series. Curious to hear what you have to say.
-
Hard to pick a favorite, Jon, but I'll go with the vertical shot. I like both the composition with lace both near and far.
-
lots of rain and snow lately which means the rivers are high around here. Good day to go out shooting, especially with the overcast sky. Here are a few from today. Real quick in cs3, minimal processing. All from my sigma 24-70 ex dg f2.8 on my 5d.
oh, and which is your favorite of the series. Curious to hear what you have to say.
I dig the last one.. I like the void of still water up top, then the blur of the active water below.. kinda like a contrast of situations. still water/moving water
-
;D
I like both of those 2. Think the vertical one I will frame and put in one of my galleries. That bottom one is going I believe on my wall in a 24x18 frame. No matting. The spot I have picked needs a horizontal frame, not a vertical.
Thank you for the feedback.
Oh, I want a 5dII >:D
and more L glass >:D >:D
and more and more >:D >:D >:D
-
Nice shots, Jon!
I like 4 & 2 the best, in that order.
Here's a couple of recent shots from Orlando.
-
This thread is always so much fun to check in on. Haven't been around in a wee while - been too busy shooting pictures! Upgraded to an xsi which I LOVE (and have listed my old XT body in the yard sale in case anybody's interested).
Here's a recent couple of shots - some ice taking on Thanksgiving, and also starting to mess around with "studio" lighting (although my "studio" consists of a couple of worklamps from Lowes and some dollar store foamboard reflectors!
(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_imK9wTzuQIU/SUMGxmUkG1I/AAAAAAAADaI/uIx-GiGUlhQ/s640/aislinglightingpractice2-23s.jpg)
(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_imK9wTzuQIU/SS9DJQ3NbII/AAAAAAAADG0/IPljw_e_xaY/s640/iceleaves-1ss.jpg)
-
Nice shots everyone...
OK, my turn.
Here are some family and pet shots. I chose these to share just because I like the shots. I think it's pretty difficult to get good shots of people and also animals, so I'm pretty pleased with all of these. The boys are my nephews and the guy is my Irish brother-in-law John. (To put this thread on subject with a music oriented list, John is good friends with Larry Mullen Jr, U2's drummer, since they knew each other in primary school. Whenever U2 tours John gets free tix and backstage passes for any show John wants to show up at!!! The bastard!)
These were all taken at Thanksgiving. The cats are my sister-in-laws two cats.
The dog is my beloved cocker spaniel, Rudy. He's the best dog I've ever had in my life. He has a perfect personality, is a fantastic companion to both my wife and me, and he's constantly happy and cheerful. For this particular shot, he still wasn't up from an afternoon nap and I think he was probably wondering WTF I was doing sticking that camera in his face during naptime! LOL.
All shots were taken with my Canon 40D and the 70-300 lens, except the shot of the dog, which was with my new 17-40L and the gray cat which was the 50 f1.8. The cat shots were taken with 430EX Speedlite flash unit set to bounce from the ceiling.
(http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p265/stevetoney/20081209-_MG_7092.jpg)
(http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p265/stevetoney/20081209-_MG_7081.jpg)
(http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p265/stevetoney/20081209-_MG_7037.jpg)
(http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p265/stevetoney/20081209-_MG_7036.jpg)
(http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p265/stevetoney/20081209-_MG_7028.jpg)
(http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p265/stevetoney/20081209-_MG_7034.jpg)
(http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p265/stevetoney/20081209-_MG_6926.jpg)
-
I love that last one, Tony!
-
The spaniel is so cute! Great shots, all.
gotta love the 50mm 1.8 - both of those last shots of mine were taken with it. These days, it's the lens that lives on my camera because it's ALWAYS the one I go to first. I really want the 1.4, but until I have the $, the 1.8 will do nicely...!
-
^ Unbelievably, Rudy was a rescue dog. We adopted him from the Annopolis, MD humane society 4 years ago when he was three. It's a bit unusual to find a pure breed in the pound, but we think that the previous owners were probably young, had babies, generally didn't know how to rear a dog, and just had no time for Rudy. Even though he wasn't a physically abused dog, it was obvious he'd been neglected socially and probably yelled at alot, and we think probably just penned up for his first three years. So, when we got him he was very shy and timid, tended to cower a bit, but showed plenty of signs of being the happy and compliant dog that he is. It took us a year to get him acclimated and to really trust us, and probably another year for him to eliminate all of the timidity. But now he's just a completely adjusted, happy-go-lucky lazy well adjusted cocker! He's just the perfect faithful dog and we both love him to no end!
We'd adopted dogs from the humane society in the past, but getting Rudy REALLY enhanced our view of this organization and now that we're a little older, we've been contributing more to various causes. I know it shouldn't be like that...IOW, just because we got a great dog, shouldn't be reason to support them more. It's not really that as much as Rudy helped us to realize what a great cause the humane society is. Most of our charity contributions go to support the humane society now and other animal preservation efforts.
-
From the balcony of my upstairs apartment here in Slovenia. First shot is looking northbound.
(http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p265/stevetoney/20081113-_MG_6463.jpg)
Second shot take from my balcony, looking southeast. The mountains in the distance are about 10 miles off and where the mountains disappear to the left is near the Croatian border...this is actually where the Serbs met the Slovenes for the 10 Days War immediately following Slovenia's elections to declare their independence in 1992. It was a minor conflict actually in which not many people were killed. After a 10 day stand-off the Slovenes flanked the Serbs, at which point the Serbs left unwilling to fight at that point. This all happened before the heavy violence in the 93 through 95 time frame which happened in Croatia and Bosnia (think Blackhawk Down).
(http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p265/stevetoney/20081113-_MG_6467.jpg)
The last shot is taken from the street in front on my apartment...typical Slovenian scene in a small village where the church is the most prominent building in the village.
(http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p265/stevetoney/20081113-_MG_6469.jpg)
-
Great pictures, that town looks like something from 200 years ago.
-
Looking to trade or sell my 35/2 and 17-40/4L for a 24-70/2.8. Any interest?
-
I love that last one, Tony!
Definitely! Great composition and DoF.
I'm new to TS (Hello all! :)), so I thought I'd chip in with my gear:
Canon400D body w/battery grip
Sigma 17-70mm/f2.8 lens
Sigma 70-300mm/f4.5 lens
Canon 50mm f1.4 lens
My main photographic passion is long exposure night photography, especially in London (where I live) or any city. I love the element of unpredictablity with it! Here's a few of my favourites:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3066/2329273673_b8c28f2629_b.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2318/2428726387_859dc06acd_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3255/2581654964_443bafd8f4_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3124/2292613816_0a3bc1f454_o.jpg)
-
Welcome to ts.com Zenith. Great shots, all. But I give the composition award hands down to number 3. I love the converging lines...and the thematic concept within the photo of convergence of virtual with reality....or maybe the concept of what was converging with what is.
-
took some pics (http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,115613.0.html) last night...man it felt GOOD to get outta the house!
i would really like some feedback on the pp for this shot (posted here and the linked thread)
(http://arkatechs.com/images/IMG_8307.jpg)
-
im no one to advise on much being such a newb and all, but would noiseware help with the above shot?
-
i took these monday right after it quit snowing monday.
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c326/westfaliamama/IMG_0933.jpg?t=1232051627)
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c326/westfaliamama/IMG_0948.jpg?t=1232051698)
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c326/westfaliamama/IMG_0950.jpg?t=1232051727)
-
im no one to advise on much being such a newb and all, but would noiseware help with the above shot?
:o
i actually added that noise!! :laugh: i was going for an OLD photo look from a dark bar. kinda like a prohibition era type shot. maybe more sepia tone would have helped? maybe i just couldn't pull off the look i was going for.
-
im no one to advise on much being such a newb and all, but would noiseware help with the above shot?
:o
i actually added that noise!! :laugh: i was going for an OLD photo look from a dark bar. kinda like a prohibition era type shot. maybe more sepia tone would have helped? maybe i just couldn't pull off the look i was going for.
no, i am just jaded toward noise being the owner of a noisy camera at high iso. ignore me.
-
took some pics (http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,115613.0.html) last night...man it felt GOOD to get outta the house!
i would really like some feedback on the pp for this shot (posted here and the linked thread)
First off, I'm a sucker for black and white. Second, this photo is dripping with attitude. Third, I'm hearing bluesy type of funk coming from out of that photo.
As far as the image goes, I like how the contrast puts a totally black background against the fretboard and his fretting hand. Then there's THE EXPRESSION! That expression is simply what draws you into the picture and EASILY is the highlight of this image.
-
Zenith,
Really nice stuff. I miss London. I love the shot across the Thames looking back at Canary Wharf. Had a friend that lived on Isle of Dogs so spent lots of time down in that area when I lived in England. Did you use flash to expose the barge in the foreground?
-
some from this past weekend with my 5d and sigma ex dg f2.8
Ya'll know how I like my waterfalls.
(http://i510.photobucket.com/albums/s348/stirinthesauce/IMG_1384_finish_resize.jpg)
(http://i510.photobucket.com/albums/s348/stirinthesauce/IMG_1391_finish_resize.jpg)
(http://i510.photobucket.com/albums/s348/stirinthesauce/IMG_1378_finish_resize.jpg)
(http://i510.photobucket.com/albums/s348/stirinthesauce/IMG_1374_finish_resize.jpg)
-
some from this past weekend with my 5d and sigma ex dg f2.8
Ya'll know how I like my waterfalls.
as you can see, I too have a fondness for waterfalls that goes back to my youth.. hehehheehhhhehehehe..
-
nice backdrop ;)
-
bumping this
yesterday late afternoon. Processing quick and dirty.
(http://i510.photobucket.com/albums/s348/stirinthesauce/IMG_1457_finish_resize_crop.jpg)
(http://i510.photobucket.com/albums/s348/stirinthesauce/IMG_1459_finish_resize.jpg)
-
bumping this
yesterday late afternoon. Processing quick and dirty.
nice!
-
Thank you :)
The place I went is one of the premier wildflower spots in the state. It also just happens to be 5min from my house. Several other falls at this place. I will be doing lots of forages here in the next 2-3 months as the season changes and progresses.
-
bumping this
yesterday late afternoon. Processing quick and dirty.
Love Image #1. I'd be shooting that stuff everyday if it was nearby.
Did some playing with my studio strobes. Got a few nice ones of our new daughter...
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3491/3296261622_ddb524590c.jpg)
Nikon D300
Nikkor 17-55/2.8 @ about 5.6
Calumet Genesis 200 Monolight
Bowens 60" Octabox
Alien Bee CyberSync CSRB/CST Remote Flash Trigger
-
very nice!
-
This is an awesome shot...really makes me want to get a second flash unit so that I can have both a 580 and 430 slave and master pair. Course doubt even then I could get the nice soft lighting you've obtained in this shot without some nice diffusion...
I have to chuckle a bit at this actually because I had a flashback to my own days as a kid when Dad would pose us and then fiddle around with his camera for soooo long...we'd just be like...Daaaaaddd woodja just take the picture! Course, now that I've got a bunch of gear, I guess now I'm just like dear ole Daaaaaddd!
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3491/3296261622_ddb524590c.jpg)
-
This is an awesome shot...really makes me want to get a second flash unit so that I can have both a 580 and 430 slave and master pair. Course doubt even then I could get the nice soft lighting you've obtained in this shot without some nice diffusion...
I have to chuckle a bit at this actually because I had a flashback to my own days as a kid when Dad would pose us and then fiddle around with his camera for soooo long...we'd just be like...Daaaaaddd woodja just take the picture! Course, now that I've got a bunch of gear, I guess now I'm just like dear ole Daaaaaddd!
Funny how we become our parents! Luckily right now she can't complain so eloquently, she just starts crying after about 15 minutes.
It's a single light shot, so no reason you couldn't do it with a regular strobe either manual or TTL. I was shooting a 200 Watt Second monolight on the lowest power setting as ISO 100 so I certainly didn;t need all the power I had. Just pick up an inexpensive soft box on Ebay. I use a Brolly Box with my SB-800 and it works great.
Something like this...
http://cgi.ebay.com/New-40-White-Black-Umbrella-Photo-Studio-Brolly-Box_W0QQitemZ170288662559QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLight_Controls_Modifiers?hash=item170288662559&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1205|66%3A2|65%3A12|39%3A1|240%3A1318|301%3A1|293%3A1|294%3A50
Then you just need a clamp to hold the strobe and I can actually use my Mic stand as a light stand .
http://www.calumetphoto.com/item/MF6829/
-
is there any tutorials on lighting, I like the portrait shots and really dont understand light box or the things that are suggested.
-
i also need a tutorial on flash photog when in manual mode. im doing well with only shooting in manual, but have yet figure out using a flash unless i go to auto pilot.
TIA
-
is there any tutorials on lighting, I like the portrait shots and really dont understand light box or the things that are suggested.
I don't want to sound like a flippant, but wouldn't just diving in with a flash unit, a cord to allow you to move the flash off camera, and some misc. materials around the house to bounce the light off be enough to at least get started. Seems to me that the best way to learn, especially in digital photography where there's nothing lost with taking tons of sample shots, would be to just do it. Other than that, I think there are plenty of books out there with chapters on basic and creative lighting techniques. But even then, I think there's a bottom line in that the effective shots are gonna come from the elbow grease that results from trial...adjust...trial...adjust again and keep doing it until you have something that you're satisfied with...and then with practice you'll start to develop a better eye for how the lighting ought to be and with minimum extra effort you'll be able to get that lighting.
-
is there any tutorials on lighting, I like the portrait shots and really dont understand light box or the things that are suggested.
I don't want to sound like a flippant, but wouldn't just diving in with a flash unit, a cord to allow you to move the flash off camera, and some misc. materials around the house to bounce the light off be enough to at least get started. Seems to me that the best way to learn, especially in digital photography where there's nothing lost with taking tons of sample shots, would be to just do it. Other than that, I think there are plenty of books out there with chapters on basic and creative lighting techniques. But even then, I think there's a bottom line in that the effective shots are gonna come from the elbow grease that results from trial...adjust...trial...adjust again and keep doing it until you have something that you're satisfied with...and then with practice you'll start to develop a better eye for how the lighting ought to be and with minimum extra effort you'll be able to get that lighting.
that is exactly what i have been doing, experimenting with lots of shots say 5,000 photos so i have taken a lot of photos every week. I have many different lighting arrays. I have some flood lights some work lights from home depot, i mount them in 5-6 different locations depending on where i am shooting in the house. When i asked for a tutorial i did not necessarily meant from a book, maybe just form others experience. I have built a mouse trap, but maybe someone out there built a better one. So again after taking thousands of pics a week and not getting some better results that i am looking for i just simply asked what works for other people. I would be hard pressed to see anyone put in more elbow grease than me, especially working with the subjects i work with. ( i should not end with a preposition) so yes i do take offense to your comments. thanks for the help.
-
so yes i do take offense to your comments. thanks for the help.
You're welcome...I think??
Obviously I had no clue what amount of practice you put in, but I certainly didn't intend for my response to be offensive. I don't know you from Adam and my suggestions were meant to be helpful based on personal experience. In fact, since you have put so much time in, it seems that you agree with the legitimacy of my suggestions?? (Note that the only reason I put the 'flippant' comment at the beginning is that I thought, based on your initial post that you are a lighting noob and oftentimes noobs get a little squirrely if you simply tell them that 'practice makes perfect' so wanted to provide a bit of a self-depracating icebreaker to preempt my suggestion.)
Regardless, I probably can't add anything more about what you're after since right now I haven't got anything of detail to add to the lighting discussion.
-
I'd also say in my opinion lighting is tricky and trying to start with multiple light setups only complicates and confuses things (read me). Learn how to use a single light and use it well, then build from there.
There are a few resources I use that are great..
Strobist, great flash centric blog with a DIY ethic. Their Lighting 101 stuff is a great intro to off camera lighting
http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/
Good studio lighting podcast, a little more geared to experienced users, but there are always useful tips even for beginners.
http://www.studiolighting.net/category/studio-photography-podcast/
The big thing with flash is shutter speed controls the ambient light in an image, aperture controls the flash exposure. If you are truly playing around with manual flash setting your camera in manual mode is imperative as well. "Bigger" light source is softer. A typical on camera flash is only a few inches square so yields a very hard light. You can make your flash bigger by bouncing or using soft boxes etc. Any time you use a modifier on a light it looses efficiency and will impact exposure.
If you get more serious and want a great tutorial on flash photography try The OneLight DVD it's kind of pricey but makes a good foundation..... http://onelightworkshop.com/DVD_Ordering.html
-
more waterfalls from this morning. Had a good snow, went to the wrong part of the state though, just a inch or so where I went (compared to the 4" I woke up to). Then drove hour and half back home to another spot, got off 3 shots and the sun came out. So, back home to process. Here are a few, quick and dirty processing.
(http://i510.photobucket.com/albums/s348/stirinthesauce/IMG_1592_finish_resize.jpg)
(http://i510.photobucket.com/albums/s348/stirinthesauce/IMG_1600_finish_resize.jpg)
(http://i510.photobucket.com/albums/s348/stirinthesauce/IMG_1605_finish_resize.jpg)
(http://i510.photobucket.com/albums/s348/stirinthesauce/IMG_1630_finish_resize.jpg)
(http://i510.photobucket.com/albums/s348/stirinthesauce/IMG_1633_finish_resize.jpg)
whooops! See some lens dirt on that 3rd one. Time to go back and clone that out :P
Full gallery here:
http://jpbuffington.smugmug.com/photos/swfpopup.mg?AlbumID=7487153&AlbumKey=mB47u (http://jpbuffington.smugmug.com/photos/swfpopup.mg?AlbumID=7487153&AlbumKey=mB47u)
-
more waterfalls from this morning. Had a good snow, went to the wrong part of the state though, just a inch or so where I went (compared to the 4" I woke up to). Then drove hour and half back home to another spot, got off 3 shots and the sun came out. So, back home to process. Here are a few, quick and dirty processing.
Do you prefer the slightly flat look with a somewhat desaturated look? It seems to me that bumping the contrast up a bit would do amazing things for these shots.
-
are you referring to the ones I posted or from the gallery in the link? The ones I posted above are just basic raw conversion. The ones in the link to my smugmug accoutn are the finished product.
However, just a few thoughts running through my head:
Winter scenes are difficult with color, they are going to be flat as it is. Try to eek out what color there is. However, they could use some more post processing. Also, another thing that has been on my mind for quite sometime after talking with a friend who is a nikon user (I notice your are a nikon guy). He stated that he always thought canon (cmos sensors) have softer colors. That got me thinking, I can always pick out a shot that was done with a nikon over a canon. Not saying one is better than the other, just different. The ccd sensor pics always seem more contrasty in general.
Enough rambling, regardless, thank you for your feedback.
-
one that was finished.
http://jpbuffington.smugmug.com/photos/485101973_7J4dc-L.jpg (http://jpbuffington.smugmug.com/photos/485101973_7J4dc-L.jpg)
-
are you referring to the ones I posted or from the gallery in the link? The ones I posted above are just basic raw conversion. The ones in the link to my smugmug accoutn are the finished product.
However, just a few thoughts running through my head:
Winter scenes are difficult with color, they are going to be flat as it is. Try to eek out what color there is. However, they could use some more post processing. Also, another thing that has been on my mind for quite sometime after talking with a friend who is a nikon user (I notice your are a nikon guy). He stated that he always thought canon (cmos sensors) have softer colors. That got me thinking, I can always pick out a shot that was done with a nikon over a canon. Not saying one is better than the other, just different. The ccd sensor pics always seem more contrasty in general.
Enough rambling, regardless, thank you for your feedback.
I've heard that same thing although it's also I think very dependent on how post processing is handled. I've seen lots of instances where people even mix colorspaces which can have some really strange results.
It seems to me that the huge benefit of the winter/flat light is you aren't fighting such a massive dynamic range spread from sunlight to shadow that you would in direct sunlight, plus it easier to slow down the shutter to get that gorgeous cotton ball flowing water.
I only mention it because you can obviously really bump up the saturation and make the colors really pop, I just wasn't sure if it was a conscious decision or not. Looking at the fully processed image it seems to me that you went for the cool winter feeling that is more true to the actual colors present while still working to bring out the color in the cliff face. Like you say not not right or wrong, just an artistic choice. I've seen landscapes that over do the saturation/vibrance thing and kind of end up walking all over subtlety.
Do you use Lightroom, Photoshop, Aperture, or something else?
-
whooops! See some lens dirt on that 3rd one. Time to go back and clone that out
I see quite a few dirt specs in a lot of your recent shots. Are those in the lens?
Reason I'm asking is that I have several specs of dirt/dust/sand in my older 28-135 USM lens and I want to get it cleaned out before selling it. Sending it back to Canon is not an option because from what I understand it costs over $200. That's almost what the lens is worth. I tried to shop vac it out and that didn't do it. The next step is trying canned air, but apparently kids get high off it and I haven't found any in the 3 stores I've tried thus far. Any suggestions out there?
Later,
pjdavep
-
Thanks for the feedback and yes, I was going for more of the true "winter" feel but also to bring out the available colors (the red/orange in the cliff face).
I use PS CS3 for my processing. Monitor calibrated with a Pantone Huey.
And for pjdavep:
the dirt specs are a reality when far afield. The images I post here (barring that very last link) are never finished products, rather just quick raw processing, to show what I have been out and up to.
I sell my landscapes in art galleries and gift shops in this part of the state so I am very concerned with the product I put out. Posting on here is not of a high concern ;) So yes, you are liable to see quite a few flaws. As for the lens, don't think I have any dirt on it. Most of the time it is this dust magnet, my 5d, that attracts it to my sensor. My little red rocket air blower stays with me at all times but sometimes needs to be used more than I care to. Clone stamp is my friend :)
-
Thanks for the feedback and yes, I was going for more of the true "winter" feel but also to bring out the available colors (the red/orange in the cliff face).
I use PS CS3 for my processing. Monitor calibrated with a Pantone Huey.
If you have not played with it yet take a shot at Lightroom. It took me a while, but once I "got" it I hardy seem to use Photoshop any more except for specific retouching or more advanced masking. From what I understand Lightroom 2 even adds many of the masking features that used to require PS. I love the ability to apply setting in batches to similar images. Lightroom makes my post processing so much quicker. There is also a nice plugin for uploading to Flickr.
-
Lightroom 2 is awesome, I haven't opened photoshop in probably a year or more. Granted I haven't been taking anything worth while lately, but lightroom does a great job at letting you make simple adjustments, quickly.
Here's one from my recent trip to Key West:
(http://speshuled.smugmug.com/photos/478912779_6cyfJ-M.jpg)
I seriously think I've forgotten how to set up a good landscape photograph. I'm losing my touch. Thats probably my best out of 200+ pictures, and its still craptastic. I think I need to take a photography class or something to get back in practice.
-
I seriously think I've forgotten how to set up a good landscape photograph. I'm losing my touch. Thats probably my best out of 200+ pictures, and its still craptastic. I think I need to take a photography class or something to get back in practice.
Landscapes are probably my weakest genre. I just don't shoot them much, probably because I'm not very good at it. I need to work on it as well.
-
rule of thirds, s curves, diagonal lines. You want your eye to be drawn through the scene. Shoot in the early morning, late afternoon (twilight), utilize clouds. Overcast days leave the sky out of the subject matter (but still a great time to shoot). Forget about shooting mid day or throughout the day (unless cloud coverage will block out the sun for diffuse light).
/Your 10 second lesson for the day.
-
Yep, my main thing lately is trying to get something in the foreground before the background/landscape, but in the desert this hard cuz the foreground stuff is so boring. Twiggy bushes just aren't as photogenic as they should be.
I also need some filters, which will improve the sky problems.
-
you can make the twiggy bushes photogenic. Try going super wide, use the bushes for depth. Try early morning pre sunsrise light or twilight. Use interesting cloud formations reflecting the last light/first light for interesting colors.
/8 sec lesson :P
-
is it just me or is concert shooting the easiest? seems like its all im good at....(not that im any good, but its all i shoot without total disappointment.)
-
I always liked my concert photography too. I think I was pretty good at it. I was also shooting every weekend, sometimes during the week...all that practice definitely helps. I haven't done that since I've moved to AZ. When I moved here I wanted to start up an event photography business...unfortunately, I'm lazy, didn't take my camera out enough, lost my focus, and ended up in merchandising. Ugh! But, it pays the bills...once the bills are gone though, good bye crappy job!
-
is it just me or is concert shooting the easiest? seems like its all im good at....(not that im any good, but its all i shoot without total disappointment.)
My opinion is that it's you, Jim. You probably just have a knack for it...the timing, the angles, etc. Maybe the venue's that you've been going to are good for shooting.
I haven't found it very easy because the logistics haven't supported it where I've been shooting. It's mainly the lighting...but also it's been because the stage isn't right, the crowd doesn't support me getting to the right positioning that I want to be in, etc.
One thing I love is having a camera that shoots 5fps, because I've gotten to where I'll anticipate an emotional musical passage and start shooting and that's been a great way to get 'the right moment' captured.
I guess alot depends on ones expectations too. I find that I'm rarely pleased with anything I shoot, even though I get lots of comments about 'great pictures'. I'm always assessing composition, colors, sharpness, etc. and it seems like I'm constantly concluding where I could have done better.
I also need to relax my old school of thought (leftover from my film days, I guess) that it's not OK to crop to final image. For some reason, I'm more satisfied with the image if I got the composition right straight from the click, rather than having to crop it in PS to get the best composition...anal I know.
Anyway, there are some shots up on LivePhish dot com that were taken during Hampton last weekend that are just KILLER looking...so sharp and so full of vibrant color even though I'm sure the venue was less than ideal for shooting.
Why can't my shots be like those???
-
Why can't my shots be like those???
technique both in capturing the image and in photoshop :P ;) ;D
-
Why can't my shots be like those???
technique both in capturing the image and in photoshop :P ;) ;D
No doubt. Subjectively, what percentage of the quality in those images do you think is skill with the camera vs. skill with the software?
(Probably can't really provide a good definitive answer, but still curious about your opinion.)
-
speaking of cropping, I can't take a straight picture to save my life, I'm always tilting/cropping in lightroom.
-
Anyway, there are some shots up on LivePhish dot com that were taken during Hampton last weekend that are just KILLER looking...so sharp and so full of vibrant color even though I'm sure the venue was less than ideal for shooting.
Why can't my shots be like those???
Honestly, the lighting in that room was unbelievable. I got decent shots with my total POS P&S. If I had had a media pass and my D300 I would be wetting myself.
Just an example with a $100 P&S...
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3663/3345347731_c690b1bf9c.jpg)
Did these outside with my D300...
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3621/3345005335_b36295d17e.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3316/3345002681_84cd6bd62d.jpg)
And came away with a decent shot at the beach...
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3309/3344997163_130b0bc266.jpg)
-
brought the 10-22efs to vegas last week..
(http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g213/ericBowne/vegas%20baby/IMG_0018.jpg)
(http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g213/ericBowne/vegas%20baby/IMG_9979.jpg)
(http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g213/ericBowne/vegas%20baby/IMG_0189.jpg)
(http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g213/ericBowne/vegas%20baby/IMG_0242-2009-05-03at14-46-032.jpg)
-
I want that lens, nice shots. Did you use a tripod?
-
I want that lens, nice shots. Did you use a tripod?
I used this for the bellagio fountain shots..
(http://www.joby.com/images/gorillapodslr_camera.png)
-
I've seen those before, but never knew how they'd hold up...seems they work pretty nice!
-
(http://jpbuffington.smugmug.com/photos/545089203_B5jki-L.jpg)
(http://jpbuffington.smugmug.com/photos/544572643_Wkab4-L.jpg)
Have I told ya'll that I love shooting wateralls? :P Here are a couple from this month. Top is Milk Sick Creek above Milk Sick Creek Falls. This is a wet weather stream, accessible from some off trail hiking. Perfect day for shooting (light wise). The next is from Old Stone Fort State Park. Too many waterfalls and cascades to count or shoot. This is right by my house so I enjoy shooting here often. Just 2 picked at random. Hope you enjoy them half as much as I did there shooting. :)
-
I am considering making the leap into digital SLRs. Any thoughts on buying refurbished? Adorama has the XSi at a good price.
-
Go for it. Any way you can find out how many clicks on the shutter mechanism? They're supposed to last 100,000 or more. If you can't find out the shutter clicks and the price is right and they'll give you a decent warranty, you probably don't have anything to lose as long as that's the body that you want. The XSi is extremely popular and a nice size camera (not too big or small) that will give you excellent results with a good lens. If they aren't giving a big price break off new though, my propensity would be to just go with the new one so you are assured of full life.
Keep in mind that jumping to more expensive models, you're kinda paying for the extra's at the outter limits...higher ISO's, more megapixels, perhaps faster shutter speed, etc. I find these to be quite useful actually in the shooting that I do, but you'll want to assess the need for these extra's when making your camera body purchase. If you're gonna be using the camera mostly...say...for shooting in normal lighting conditions in broad daylight, then perhaps you won't use those extras.
Also, pay attention to the lens that is packaged with the body that they're selling. That probably goes without saying, but they usually package some of the cheapest lousiest lens with the kit packages and you might want to just buy the body without a lens so that you can save a few bucks to invest in a better lens.
Personally, I think the extra features I'm willing to pay the most incremental money for are faster lenses and the highest possible ISO I can get with my camera. However, initially most people initially go for the largest possible zoom range with their lens.
-
I went ahead and pulled the trigger today. $549 shipped for a factory refurbished Canon EOS Rebel XSi. All original items normally included are present. They gave me a 1 year warranty as well. The standard kit lens was included (EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS). I realize that new glass will be in order fairly quickly. For another hundred bucks, I can get the EF 50mm f/1.8 II and be set for a while. $650 total price and I am just under what I would pay new, but with two lenses. Pretty happy with the deal.
-
have fun!
-
and leave your wallet at the door. >:D
-
I went ahead and pulled the trigger today. $549 shipped for a factory refurbished Canon EOS Rebel XSi. All original items normally included are present. They gave me a 1 year warranty as well. The standard kit lens was included (EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS). I realize that new glass will be in order fairly quickly. For another hundred bucks, I can get the EF 50mm f/1.8 II and be set for a while. $650 total price and I am just under what I would pay new, but with two lenses. Pretty happy with the deal.
FWIW, I'm gonna list my 70-300 f4.0-5.6 IS USM lens for $375 on ebay as soon as I get back from a week long business trip. If you look in the rig pics section, you'll find some Phish and Summercamp pics that I shot...all with the lens I'll be selling. IS works like freaking magic on these 200 - 300mm focal length zoom lenses.
-
OK, I'm so far behind in the Canon dSLR world that I need a bit of help. I've got a number of clients who could use some regular photography of their products- mainly restaurants. I'm beginning to think that at $200/session to hire a photographer, I could go out, purchase amid level dSLR and a macro lens to cover my clients for their advertising and web needs far more cheaply (especially since the fees come out of our budget, not theirs).
So, here are my questions:
1. Are new new EOS Rebels decent for this purpose? If not, I can always go back to a 20D or something like that, but we're not going to be producing anything other than photos for web use, some magazine printing, newspaper printing and press kits.
2. What's out there right now for decent macro lenses for product shooting?
-
OK, I'm so far behind in the Canon dSLR world that I need a bit of help. I've got a number of clients who could use some regular photography of their products- mainly restaurants. I'm beginning to think that at $200/session to hire a photographer, I could go out, purchase amid level dSLR and a macro lens to cover my clients for their advertising and web needs far more cheaply (especially since the fees come out of our budget, not theirs).
So, here are my questions:
1. Are new new EOS Rebels decent for this purpose? If not, I can always go back to a 20D or something like that, but we're not going to be producing anything other than photos for web use, some magazine printing, newspaper printing and press kits.
2. What's out there right now for decent macro lenses for product shooting?
I would think a basic Rebel would be fine, particularly for studio use where you can control everything. You could do a fairly inexpensive macro as well since you likely won't be shooting really large apertures so you have some depth of field. I'd guess you could fine something for around $200. The big thing for food is lighting, it's an art and you will probably end up spending as much on lighting as you do on camera/lens to get top quality results
-
OK, I'm so far behind in the Canon dSLR world that I need a bit of help. I've got a number of clients who could use some regular photography of their products- mainly restaurants. I'm beginning to think that at $200/session to hire a photographer, I could go out, purchase amid level dSLR and a macro lens to cover my clients for their advertising and web needs far more cheaply (especially since the fees come out of our budget, not theirs).
So, here are my questions:
1. Are new new EOS Rebels decent for this purpose? If not, I can always go back to a 20D or something like that, but we're not going to be producing anything other than photos for web use, some magazine printing, newspaper printing and press kits.
2. What's out there right now for decent macro lenses for product shooting?
I would think a basic Rebel would be fine, particularly for studio use where you can control everything. You could do a fairly inexpensive macro as well since you likely won't be shooting really large apertures so you have some depth of field. I'd guess you could fine something for around $200. The big thing for food is lighting, it's an art and you will probably end up spending as much on lighting as you do on camera/lens to get top quality results
I'm pretty familiar with what's out there for lighting as that hasn't changed much in the last 5-10 years :) Thanks for this!
-
My response was gonna be virtually the same, except I was gonna add that if you have to pay for lights, you might be better off just paying someone the $200 per session rate, which doesn't seem like all that much to me if they're good. However, since you say that you've got lighting covered (and this is without a doubt the most important aspect of your shoot), I concur with the earlier comment that a decent macro lens would work just fine with the Rebel series. My opinion is that the basic image quality for most DSLRs is excellent given good glass and the incremental increase in cost of the camera body is largely a function of features. Having said that, I do understand that the image quality going from a crop-frame camera to full-frame body can be quite startling, but so is the cost difference (for new at least).
-
My response was gonna be virtually the same, except I was gonna add that if you have to pay for lights, you might be better off just paying someone the $200 per session rate, which doesn't seem like all that much to me if they're good. However, since you say that you've got lighting covered (and this is without a doubt the most important aspect of your shoot), I concur with the earlier comment that a decent macro lens would work just fine with the Rebel series. My opinion is that the basic image quality for most DSLRs is excellent given good glass and the incremental increase in cost of the camera body is largely a function of features. Having said that, I do understand that the image quality going from a crop-frame camera to full-frame body can be quite startling, but so is the cost difference (for new at least).
Food product lighting requires a minimal cost- I've done it plenty of times. As far as $200 per session here's how it stacks up in the coming year for my clients- I've got 4 clients each of which has quarterly (if not more often) shooting needs to highlight different menus for as many as 10 different publications. At 200 per session that means that we're spending 3200 per year on photography costs, plus we're at the scheduling whim of someone else. The best time for my guys to shoot is often on Sundays or Monday mornings when no one is in the restaurant. That doesn't even include the special shooting we may have to do for special events.
-
There was a great post on Strobist a while back on lighting food that this post reminded me of...
http://strobist.blogspot.com/2009/06/food-photography-made-easy-lunch-box.html
Great setup for a low budget shot.
-
Food product lighting requires a minimal cost- I've done it plenty of times. As far as $200 per session here's how it stacks up in the coming year for my clients- I've got 4 clients each of which has quarterly (if not more often) shooting needs to highlight different menus for as many as 10 different publications. At 200 per session that means that we're spending 3200 per year on photography costs, plus we're at the scheduling whim of someone else. The best time for my guys to shoot is often on Sundays or Monday mornings when no one is in the restaurant. That doesn't even include the special shooting we may have to do for special events.
Nice savings there! For that cost savings, I might be inclined to use those figures to justify some higher quality Canon glass to go with that Rebel body that you're talking about. But then again, I'm a total gear slut (not just audio gear, mon) and I'm a sucker for using this type of logic to overextend my cash flow limitations!
-
Food product lighting requires a minimal cost- I've done it plenty of times. As far as $200 per session here's how it stacks up in the coming year for my clients- I've got 4 clients each of which has quarterly (if not more often) shooting needs to highlight different menus for as many as 10 different publications. At 200 per session that means that we're spending 3200 per year on photography costs, plus we're at the scheduling whim of someone else. The best time for my guys to shoot is often on Sundays or Monday mornings when no one is in the restaurant. That doesn't even include the special shooting we may have to do for special events.
Nice savings there! For that cost savings, I might be inclined to use those figures to justify some higher quality Canon glass to go with that Rebel body that you're talking about. But then again, I'm a total gear slut (not just audio gear, mon) and I'm a sucker for using this type of logic to overextend my cash flow limitations!
I'll probably pick up a 60mm 2.8 macro and leave it at that.
-
Nice savings there! For that cost savings, I might be inclined to use those figures to justify some higher quality Canon glass to go with that Rebel body that you're talking about. But then again, I'm a total gear slut (not just audio gear, mon) and I'm a sucker for using this type of logic to overextend my cash flow limitations!
I don't know anything at all about doing that..... ;)
I just hope you are not coming here to get talked out of it 'cuz you are in the wrong place!
-
Sorry to keep this going, but is there any reason I shouldn't go back to just using a 20D over the new rebel? I mean I know the new rebel has tons of features, but I could get a used 20d with grip for like $350.
-
Sorry to keep this going, but is there any reason I shouldn't go back to just using a 20D over the new rebel? I mean I know the new rebel has tons of features, but I could get a used 20d with grip for like $350.
I don't think it matters for your stated purposes. The only real drawback to something like a 20D is likely in low light the newer sensor will do better, but for studio stuff you control the light so it should be fine. It just becomes a question is the better low light performance worth the extra $$ as a nice to have.
-
It's worth it IMO.
-
the 20d is still a workhorse. Hell, I keep debating buying a 2nd for a backup to my 5d. I am still surprised at how often I see this model used at weddings, engagements, etc.
Was reading some old posts on here from like 2004, noticed you said you would NEVER go digital ;) :P ;D
-
from last weekend, just out for a stroll at the state park just down the road. You know how I like my waterfalls ;)
Quick and dirty processing:
(http://i510.photobucket.com/albums/s348/stirinthesauce/IMG_3420_finish_resize.jpg)
Maybe I'll post some from my trip last month to the monongahela national forest in West VA if I ever get around to processing them.
-
the 20d is still a workhorse. Hell, I keep debating buying a 2nd for a backup to my 5d. I am still surprised at how often I see this model used at weddings, engagements, etc.
Was reading some old posts on here from like 2004, noticed you said you would NEVER go digital ;) :P ;D
Yah. I still prefer film, but I can't process at home and my processing options are limited. For client stuff I really have to do digital.
-
**eagerly awaiting the UPS driver, who has my camera**
-
http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/07/22/canon.hybrid.is/
Canon develops new angle-aware image stabilizer
-
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2509/3746911531_35ca70f5d4_b.jpg)
-
gorges!
-
taken this morning
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3486/3751397952_a13654db1a.jpg)
link to all sizes: http://www.flickr.com/photos/7524886@N07/3751397952/sizes
-
damn! i need to upgrade my body so badly. what glass? 50mm?
-
correct
-
first show with the camera...
Canon EOS Rebel XSi, EF 50 mm f/1.8
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7524886@N07/sets/72157621869864700/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/7524886@N07/sets/72157621869864700/)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2575/3764919844_ede50d8a4b.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2655/3764871896_5b6dccc5bc.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2540/3764108451_7aecdf3c2b.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2421/3764875098_a1083149a4.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3489/3764077941_acf5566d71.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2673/3764911536_56d964c651.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3592/3764114829_2ea04f2c48.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3420/3764120425_70e39fbda0.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2623/3764117531_14ac9640aa.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2656/3764915566_fdcdd4bb6b.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2435/3764916170_f473466d08.jpg)
-
wow first time out, great work lee!
-
I am considering making the leap into digital SLRs.
ditto (don't tell my wife). I know I like canon. what's a good entry level dslr? when I say entry level I mean price and ease of use etc. I honestly know nothing about them but know I would like to ;)
edit: most use would be nature and just everyday random stuff. of source shows when I can but that is really a second thought. nature stuff is my main interest.
-
I am considering making the leap into digital SLRs.
ditto (don't tell my wife). I know I like canon. what's a good entry level dslr? when I say entry level I mean price and ease of use etc. I honestly know nothing about them but know I would like to ;)
edit: most use would be nature and just everyday random stuff. of source shows when I can but that is really a second thought. nature stuff is my main interest.
You probably can't go wrong with the camera body that leehookem bought. Since getting back into SLR photography, I haven't tried but a few Canon bodies out, and even then only to hold them in the camera showroom, but I completely adore my 40D. Now that I've learned how to use it, it's second nature in my hands. Besides features, the main difference between the Rebel models and the 40D/50D is size, so if a larger camera body is a distraction for you, then the Rebel would be a great choice. You could drive yourself crazy reading reviews, which nit pick about all of the minor differences between the camera bodies, but I personally think they all will offer great value to the entry level user and you wouldn't be disappointed with any of them. Besides, at this level, it's 'delta features' that make the primary difference in price points between the average and the top dollar model, not photo quality which is more a function of the lens anyway.
-
IN, with Canon XSi. :)
wedding I shot (Canon 28mm 1.8 f/s):
(http://bemerick.smugmug.com/photos/576838691_bXZz4-XL.jpg)
(http://bemerick.smugmug.com/photos/576859253_Ktyg3-XL.jpg)
(http://bemerick.smugmug.com/photos/576830504_XYPdE-L.jpg)
(http://bemerick.smugmug.com/photos/576772643_naebL-L.jpg)
-
So I am in the "about to jump to DSLR" boat. My sis bought an XSi and loves it. She suggested looking at the T1i which appears to be in the $750 range. I read a complaint there are some bugs/errors that pop up occasionally on the T1i and that it also runs hot while shooting HD video, but that is not why I am buying a still DSLR camera. Any opinions?
I am also not totally opposed to buying something used. Maybe a 20D? I am thinking around the $700-$800 range.
-
the 10-22efs on a foggy dock in East Harpswell, ME
(http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g213/ericBowne/maine%202009/IMG_1628.jpg)
and at acadia national park, maine
(http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g213/ericBowne/maine%202009/IMG_1065.jpg)
at 22mm
(http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g213/ericBowne/maine%202009/IMG_1052.jpg)
in brunswick, me
(http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g213/ericBowne/maine%202009/IMG_1002.jpg)
bar harbor, me
(http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g213/ericBowne/maine%202009/IMG_1337.jpg)
(http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g213/ericBowne/maine%202009/IMG_1168.jpg)
the 50mm 1.8 plastic fantastic lens..
(http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g213/ericBowne/maine%202009/IMG_1148.jpg)
the 100mm f2
(http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g213/ericBowne/maine%202009/IMG_1159.jpg)
and for a matter of perpsective..
(http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g213/ericBowne/maine%202009/IMG_1049.jpg)
-
Nice shots. You have a bit of dust on your sensor in the upper left when vertical/ upper right when horizontal. Probably time to clean or at least use a blower to remove the dust.
-
from early last spring, did some off trail hiking to a wet weather falls and cascading stream
(http://jpbuffington.smugmug.com/photos/545076425_pbFHY-M.jpg)
(http://jpbuffington.smugmug.com/photos/545098633_Ey2qP-M.jpg)
-
Really nice shots. Love the rich colors and shadow detail. You are so lucky to be near subjects like that.
-
indeed, very nice jon.
-
thanks! Lots of places around here to shoot. Endless opportunities. Never enough time for post processing, ordering, framing, etc :P This falls was called Milk Sick Creek Falls. Only a wet weather spring and falls (the falls comes out of the cliff face). This wet spring provided the perfect opportunity and overcast sky gave me the perfect softbox! ;D
-
anyone been to Seneca Rocks in West Va.? Took a trip there a couple months back, very cool. Hiked to the top...maybe I will post a pic of that.
Nothing special here, hazy mid day with harsh light. With that said, here is a shot of it.
-
yep, friends of ours had a mini festival there on his property 2 yrs ago. love that place, we used to skip school and road trip down there also when we were kids.
*watch out for the holes, they might be 50-100' deep.
-
Here is one from about 2.5 years back, with my old 20d. Upper Greeter Falls, Savage Gulf, TN.
(http://www.jpbuffington.org/photos/526466265_PtTrc-M.jpg)
-
another from this spring. Some Alpenglow! Coming back from Cades Cove after sunset and all of a sudden the mountain peaks were glowing red. Pulled over and shot this as it was fading. Sun had LONG since set below the horizon behind me (maybe 20-30minutes). Lasted less than 5 minutes. Pure Alpenglow is fairly rare to see. Picture is not so inspiring other than capturing something I have never witnessed with my bare eyes.
(http://www.jpbuffington.org/photos/589801300_EP6FW-M.jpg)
-
Here is one from about 2.5 years back, with my old 20d. Upper Greeter Falls, Savage Gulf, TN.
(http://www.jpbuffington.org/photos/526466265_PtTrc-M.jpg)
thats fantastic! what lens is that?
-
I've never had any luck with those frozen waterfall shots. How are you guys doing it? I've been shooting at long shutter speeds with the aperture closed down, but still can't get it.
-
thats fantastic! what lens is that?
You oughta know, you own it ;)
Waterfalls are tricky, been doing them regularly for 3 or 4years. I always use a polarizer, hell an ND filter would be very advantageous for me but I only shoot in diffuse light (overcast or cloudy) or either early morning or late afternoon after the sun was set. That one above was late afternoon after the sun had set. Also depends on how hard the water is flowing on how long I am going to expose for. Muliple seconds on a heavy waterfall, it is going to look washed out. Less hard flowing water I may expose for 5, 10, even up to 30 seconds. However, I generally underexpose 1/2 stop, 1 stop or even up to 2 stops to preserve highlights and check the histogram after each shot. Then it is all in the box (photoshop).
Best advice is practice practice practice. What I did.
-
thats fantastic! what lens is that?
You oughta know, you own it ;)
Waterfalls are tricky, been doing them regularly for 3 or 4years. I always use a polarizer, hell an ND filter would be very advantageous for me but I only shoot in diffuse light (overcast or cloudy) or either early morning or late afternoon after the sun was set. That one above was late afternoon after the sun had set. Also depends on how hard the water is flowing on how long I am going to expose for. Muliple seconds on a heavy waterfall, it is going to look washed out. Less hard flowing water I may expose for 5, 10, even up to 30 seconds. However, I generally underexpose 1/2 stop, 1 stop or even up to 2 stops to preserve highlights and check the histogram after each shot. Then it is all in the box (photoshop).
Best advice is practice practice practice. What I did.
thinking about trying my luck with waterfalls again this weekend. what stand/mount do you use on these trails?
-
I got my 50D in the mail this week. Actually it's my second. I decided to chance it and go the referb route first. That was a miserable failure. Shot about 25 test pictures with that and then it died (made a nasty clicking sound and would not take any pics). The referb was the 50D w/ 28-135 kit. I didn't really want that lens, but I got it for $1100 shipped. I figured a body alone cost about that and it would get me going. I wasn't happy with the test shots. I really wanted the 17-40 f/4L lens...so once the referb died, i decided it was a sign from above to get the lens I wanted! :P
So I ended up getting the camera and body from NewEgg of all places. They had the best price by far. Ended up being about $1800 shipped.
Unfortunately it's been nasty weather here this week so I haven't had a chance to make a real photo trip, but I'll probably head up to Rocky Mountain National Park on Saturday.
Next on the agenda is the 70-200 f/2.8L lens. After that I hope to add the 50mm f/1.4. I plan to use those for concert photos and the long lens for some nature photography (might at the doubler if 200mm isn't enough for me).
Here is one test pic that turned out really nice:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v331/sloppyart/50D-Test---Sunflowers.jpg)
-
awakening the beast..
(http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g213/ericBowne/IMG_34912.jpg)
HDR image taken 9/17/2010 on the outskirts of Cape May, NJ..
-
(http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g213/ericBowne/IMG_4111.jpg)
-
Nice pics.
HDR is pretty cool.
I've been slacking on the photo trips. I need to get out there and try some HDR fun.
-
Hello,
I posted yesterday before I found the Canon thread. If some of you guys could weigh in on these Canon packages, that would be great.
http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=142215.0
Thanks!
Josh
-
(http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g213/ericBowne/IMG_4349.jpg)
(http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g213/ericBowne/IMG_4380.jpg)
-
nice shots! What HDR software are you using?
-
nice shots! What HDR software are you using?
HDR is essentially taking multiple shots of the same scene at differing ISO settings?
-
HDR is essentially taking multiple shots of the same scene at differing ISO settings?
Not necessarily different ISO, but different exposures. Typically, one combines a brighter exposures to bring out detail in dark/shadow areas (sometimes at the expense of blown highlights) with a darker exposure to capture highlights at the expense of dark/shadow detail. While not reserved strictly for such scenarios, it's often used to capture scenes in which the dynamic range is greater than the camera sensor's capability.
-
To clarify:
I am assuming these are HDR images (they sure look like it). I am assuming these were taken with a Canon dSLR, none of which have settings to automatically create HDR images (unlike some cheaper cameras - i.e. the iphone) and require multiple images taken with different aperature settings or speeds to be compiled with software afterward. I was asking what software is being used to align and then merge the different layers (i.e. Photoshop, Gimp, Photomatix, etc). Sorry for any confusion.
-
To clarify:
I am assuming these are HDR images (they sure look like it). I am assuming these were taken with a Canon dSLR, none of which have settings to automatically create HDR images (unlike some cheaper cameras - i.e. the iphone) and require multiple images taken with different aperature settings or speeds to be compiled with software afterward. I was asking what software is being used to align and then merge the different layers (i.e. Photoshop, Gimp, Photomatix, etc). Sorry for any confusion.
I can recommend Photomatix. I don't like Photoshop's HDR workflow/result.
Don't change aperture or ISO when shooting different exposures for HDR. Use the shutter speed instead. Use raw format if you can and at least 3 images and a tripod.
If you use jpg make sure you use an image preset with neutral contrast and color.
You can use any camera that have manual, semi-automatic, exposure compensation or exposure lock to create real HDR images, grunge or more "real" looking.
You can also do "false" HDR by using only one image, at least if you're shooting raw (jpg will work but the quality will suffer). Just make two copies of the image and make one dark, one bright and keep one neutral and then export the 3 images and put them together in Photomatix or a similar app.
Another "false" method is using two images and you put them together in photoshop in the same image but different layers and then using a layer mask to reveal the parts you want from one image on top of the parts you want to hide in the other image. This last method can't get the "grunge" effect you can see in the images in previous posts.
-
Thanks for the info on the HDR...that is an interesting effect.
I pulled the trigger on a 60D with the EF-S 18-200 lens. The pictures I took last night turned out great, considering it was so dimly lit up on stage, but were still blurred. I do think that if there had been better stage lighting I would've pulled the shots off to my liking.
The review of this lens can be found here:
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_18-200_3p5-5p6_is_c16/
Any opinions on the specs?
This shot was taken with the no flash mode, fully automatic, from a good 30' away. The lighting in the picture probably looks brighter than what it was in the club.
(http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z231/sprung598/IMG_0034.jpg)
Josh
-
When photographing in dim light, it's harder to see if the camera has got the focus locked in the right spot. It's also harder for the camera/lens to find the focus in dim light. It looks like it's a bit sharper in the background on the wall lamp and mic stand, but i'm not sure. With a shutter time that long, it can also be blur when the artist moves. I like the image anyway. Just take a lot of images and then keep the ones you like the best. Have a big memory card and use the continues shooting mode on the camera..
I can see that you used ISO 3200, still the shutter speed was very slow (1/5). Even if you have image stabilization, the image can be a bit blurry. It's often useful to have a tripod or at least a monopod, but you can get sharp images without support. Putting the left hand under the camera and the left elbow in against the body to your hip usually do the trick. Getting a faster lens is also a solution, but an expensive one...
I think you will be happy with your choice of camera and lens. 60D seems to be a great camera. I have never tried that lens, but it's nice to have a lens that covers that zoom range.
It will always be a compromise with that kind of a lens and the sharpness will often be better with a lens with a shorter focal length or a prime lens. If you need a lens that is much faster and if you can get pretty close to the stage and doesn't cost a fortune, you should consider canon 50mm/1.8. It's not rugged, made in plastic, but it's sharp and it will let you take pictures in low light. It's small so you can probably have both lenses with you. It's also a nice portrait lens. Just remember that the depth of field will be really shallow when you use it wide open at 1.8 or close to that.
Good luck.
-
That's a pretty good lens, but might be tough to work with in low light. Since the f-stop is limited to 5.6 at 200mm, I'd keep it at whatever length will allow you to keep the f-stop at 3.5 and then get in as close as possible. The IS will help, so definitely keep that on. I generally try to use 2.8 with a speed of 50, but the narrow depth of field can make it hard to get a well focused image especially when I'm at a good distance.
-
One other thing worth mentioning is the white balance is very warm. It's not unusual at all for low light shots to skew that way. It is also pretty easy to fix.
One final point. The IS function is usually best turned off when using a tripod as it can actually cause a loss of sharpness when the camera is on a tripod. I know that was not the case for your image, but keep it in mind for the future.
-
thanks for the feedback!
-
nice shots! What HDR software are you using?
photomatix plug in for aperture.. and thanks!
canon rebel xti with canon efs 10-22mm
-
A couple of shots from dog training yesterday....
(http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z231/sprung598/IMG_0069.jpg)
(http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z231/sprung598/IMG_0076.jpg)
-
A couple of shots from dog training yesterday....
Your photos would be better if you did not cut off the dog's legs and the people's limbs too.
-
A couple of shots from dog training yesterday....
Your photos would be better if you did not cut off the dog's legs and the people's limbs too.
Thanks for the feedback
-
I am about to pull the trigger on this:
http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=142377.0
That is the same lens you mentioned, right?
If you need a lens that is much faster and if you can get pretty close to the stage and doesn't cost a fortune, you should consider canon 50mm/1.8. It's not rugged, made in plastic, but it's sharp and it will let you take pictures in low light. It's small so you can probably have both lenses with you. It's also a nice portrait lens. Just remember that the depth of field will be really shallow when you use it wide open at 1.8 or close to that.
Good luck.
-
Yes, that's the one...
-
I'm seeing March 4th Marching Band at the Wow Hall tomorrow; probably a lot of motion in not the best lighting. Suggestions?
Thanks!
Josh
-
I'm seeing March 4th Marching Band at the Wow Hall tomorrow; probably a lot of motion in not the best lighting. Suggestions?
Use your 50mm 1.8 and leave the 18-200mm super zoom at home because it is way too slow. With the 50mm you probably want to be at least 6' away. I would suggest being at the front of the stage to the side if possible. Also read this other post that I made on concert photography.
http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=136496.msg1776449#msg1776449
Since you have a Canon, use evaluative metering with negative exposure compensation. Do not use spot metering because with Canon, spot metering only measures the exposure at the center and not using your selected focus point, when your focus point is not the center focus point. Also the Canon 60D should be able to produce decent pictures at iso 3200, but try with iso 1600 first.
-
I'm seeing March 4th Marching Band at the Wow Hall tomorrow; probably a lot of motion in not the best lighting. Suggestions?
Use your 50mm 1.8 and leave the 18-200mm super zoom at home because it is way too slow. With the 50mm you probably want to be at least 6' away. I would suggest being at the front of the stage to the side if possible. Also read this other post that I made on concert photography.
http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=136496.msg1776449#msg1776449
Since you have a Canon, use evaluative metering with negative exposure compensation. Do not use spot metering because with Canon, spot metering only measures the exposure at the center and not using your selected focus point, when your focus point is not the center focus point. Also the Canon 60D should be able to produce decent pictures at iso 3200, but try with iso 1600 first.
The 200mm lens is what I've got right now, the 50 hasn't arrived yet...thanks for the suggestions!
Edit to add...I had a bunch of pictures become unreadable on the flash card last weekend. Any thoughts on recovering them? They are in .jpg format.
-
I'm seeing March 4th Marching Band at the Wow Hall tomorrow; probably a lot of motion in not the best lighting. Suggestions?
Use your 50mm 1.8 and leave the 18-200mm super zoom at home because it is way too slow. With the 50mm you probably want to be at least 6' away. I would suggest being at the front of the stage to the side if possible. Also read this other post that I made on concert photography.
http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=136496.msg1776449#msg1776449
Since you have a Canon, use evaluative metering with negative exposure compensation. Do not use spot metering because with Canon, spot metering only measures the exposure at the center and not using your selected focus point, when your focus point is not the center focus point. Also the Canon 60D should be able to produce decent pictures at iso 3200, but try with iso 1600 first.
The 200mm lens is what I've got right now, the 50 hasn't arrived yet...thanks for the suggestions!
Edit to add...I had a bunch of pictures become unreadable on the flash card last weekend. Any thoughts on recovering them? They are in .jpg format.
Google Photorec...it's saved me multiple times now with my digital camera.
-
Is there a reason why that happens?
-
a couple from maui
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5014/5467313860_873663df19_b.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5294/5467315212_7fa1ae6f50_b.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5180/5466720159_68ded79891_b.jpg)
-
hello crew :)
I'm rocking:
Canon XSi
Canon 28mm 1.8 USM
Canon 28-105mm 3.5-4.5 USM
Canon 70-300mm 4-5.6 IS USM
Canon 430ex II flash
-
I have flash envy. Where are the pictures?
hello crew :)
I'm rocking:
Canon XSi
Canon 28mm 1.8 USM
Canon 28-105mm 3.5-4.5 USM
Canon 70-300mm 4-5.6 IS USM
Canon 430ex II flash
-
I have a hard time picking out pictures that I think are good............
here's one of my friend Amy's kid a couple weeks ago:
(http://bemerick.smugmug.com/Chicago/Amy-Grayson-Ashlock-Visit/i-8tVCWv7/0/XL/IMG9517-XL.jpg)
my friend Brian:
(http://bemerick.smugmug.com/Chicago/Brian-Niedermeier-Chicago-1/i-4CH85md/0/L/IMG9697-L.jpg)
(http://bemerick.smugmug.com/Chicago/Brian-Niedermeier-Chicago-1/i-zrL4B2G/0/XL/IMG9735-XL.jpg)
and waaaaay back before I had a flash. My cousin in-law's wedding:
(http://bemerick.smugmug.com/Weddings/Kevin-Lindsey-Hrodeys-Wedding/i-9XWQDXw/0/X2/MG6233-X2.jpg)
all those are with my 28mm.
-
just bought a 50D w/grip. Selling my XSI w/grip.
-
annnnnnnd just bought a 5D mark II with grip. selling my 50D. :) great camera, I just decided I wanted full frame.
-
Already have the 50D...let me know when you're selling the 5D II...
what are you thinking...couple of weeks? :P
Seriously...congrats. Awesome camera.
-
haha. thanks :)
-
Since we brought our kids home early this year, we've been shooting a lot, and I've come to find some limitations in our equipment. We have a Rebel XS w/18-55 kit lens, 70-300 telephoto kit lens, and 50 f1.8 lens. Before, we would generally shoot with the kit lens and used the zoom for wildlife when we were in Ethiopia. Now, I find myself using the 50mm lens way more often to get sharp shots of the kids (especially when they're moving!). I also find I can get more accurate shots with this lens + no flash (we're just starting to get into the world of manual settings). It's worked really well outdoors and in the evenings.
In an effort to potentially upgrade, what should I be looking for? I'm torn between a zoom and prime lens for everyday stuff - was thinking maybe a 28mm lens would be good for daily shots, but a zoom is convenient. Any suggestions? This is just thinking for now, and any potential budget would be < $500 for sure (see above reference to having kids).
-
well, do you need wide (44mm equivalent) shots? That'd be the 28. I had the 28 f/1.8 and it was awesome, but pricey. Almost $500 used. I ended up upgrading to some L glass, 24mm 1.4 (II), just to get an L lens.
I can't recommend the 85mm f/1.8 enough for portraits. On a crop Rebel it's a little long though. I would maybe just stick with the 50mm for now, because it's an awesome bang for the buck - unless you're finding what you have isn't working for you. the 50 1.8 should be plenty fast enough, and on a crop camera it's about 80mm, which is the perfect portrait length.
side note, just got my 5D Mark II in! :D
-
well, do you need wide (44mm equivalent) shots? That'd be the 28. I had the 28 f/1.8 and it was awesome, but pricey. Almost $500 used. I ended up upgrading to some L glass, 24mm 1.4 (II), just to get an L lens.
I can't recommend the 85mm f/1.8 enough for portraits. On a crop Rebel it's a little long though. I would maybe just stick with the 50mm for now, because it's an awesome bang for the buck - unless you're finding what you have isn't working for you. the 50 1.8 should be plenty fast enough, and on a crop camera it's about 80mm, which is the perfect portrait length.
side note, just got my 5D Mark II in! :D
I'm curious about a wider prime lens because the 50mm is usually too close when I'm indoors. If I'm using the kit lens, I'm usually in the upper 20s, lower 30s mm range. Really like how sharp the 50mm lens is, though!
-
well then I can recommend the 28mm 1.8. But try to buy it used, on POTN
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=14
Because new it's like $700, yet it sells used for around $450 in mint condition.
-
well then I can recommend the 28mm 1.8. But try to buy it used, on POTN
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=14
Because new it's like $700, yet it sells used for around $450 in mint condition.
The 28mm 2.8 is much less expensive - can you help me with what everyday situations the 1.8 would perform better? How much different would it be for low light situations?
-
from the digital picture:
"Canon's other current 28mm prime, the Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM Lens, is the most logical comparison lens. Even though smaller and less expensive, the Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 Lens nearly keeps up with the f/1.8 in sharpness. The f/1.8 obviously has wider apertures available, but even stopped down to f/2.8, the f/1.8 is not much sharper than the f/2.8 lens. The 28mm f/1.8 is sharper in the corners, but at identical apertures, these lenses are not very dissimilar. What is noticeably different is the corner shading on the Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 Lens. Corner darkening is the most significant differentiator when comparing images taken with these lenses. The f/2.8 has a little more barrel distortion than the f/1.8. Of course the f/1.8 is better built and has USM AF with FTM (Full Time Manual) focusing. I regard the Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM Lens, as the better lens, but the better performance and build are not lost on the price."
I love USM, and will never go back. Full time manual focus is a must have, for me. Also USM is fast and quiet.
But if you're on a tight budget, check out the 2.8 and see what you think. You can always sell it if you don't like it or if it's too slow for you.
-
Thanks for the help, and the link to the other website. That looks kind of like a TS.com for Canon photography.
Any other suggestions are welcome, of course, as this is still just thinking out loud.
-
yup, pretty much exactly what it is. I recommend joining, they're good people :)
-
I know Primes and L's are so desired, but I love my 17mm-55mm 2.8 IS. One lens that can shoot in a variety of conditions and as long as you can accept EF-S lenses you are set. There is no L equvelent since you either have to go to a 4.0 IS, or a 2.8 without IS.
I have a 50 1.4 that doesn't get much use because I can get most shots with the 2.8 IS.
-
I know Primes and L's are so desired, but I love my 17mm-55mm 2.8 IS. One lens that can shoot in a variety of conditions and as long as you can accept EF-S lenses you are set. There is no L equvelent since you either have to go to a 4.0 IS, or a 2.8 without IS.
I have a 50 1.4 that doesn't get much use because I can get most shots with the 2.8 IS.
well yeah, but the 17-55 2.8 is regarded in almost L status. It's $1K.
also, personally I feel like at 2.8 and that reach, if you can't hold it steady then you may have issues ;)
-
http://bemerick.smugmug.com/photos/i-SrQ7FQk/0/O/i-SrQ7FQk.jpg
24L II on the 5D Mark II :D
too big to img link.
-
got to spend the day at one of my favorite places
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6020/5938434637_98867a3193_b.jpg)
-
After playing with my camera more (and learning more about manual capabilities), I think I'm going to go the route of replacing the kit lens with a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non-VC. Seems like a worthy upgrade, allows me to go more low light than currently, and has zoom flexibility. Maybe I'll save for a Sigma 30 f1.4 or something after that, as I still like the sharpness and low light of my 50 f1.8 and like having a fixed length.
-
j5brock, do you shoot for a living? Because that is a crazy impressive list you have there. Current I've got this setup:
Canon EOS 5D Mark II + Grip | 17-40 L f4 USM | 50 f1.4 USM | 85 f1.8 USM | 70-200 L f4 IS USM | 1.4x II TC | 430EX II
-
I've got these two lenses as well. I think they are fantastic for taking pictures of my family, which is the main reason why I bought everything. I normally use the 50 1.4 in low light situations, like around the house. The 17-55 2.8 is my main walk around lens.
I wish I could justify a lens with a longer reach. It would be nice for concerts that allow photography, or landscapes, etc.
As an aside: Photography + Recording = major damage to bank account. At least with the photography, I can justify to my wife because my pictures of the family are about 10x better since upgrading to the DSLR + lenses from the Sony F828. But the recording....it's a much harder sell!
I know Primes and L's are so desired, but I love my 17mm-55mm 2.8 IS. One lens that can shoot in a variety of conditions and as long as you can accept EF-S lenses you are set. There is no L equvelent since you either have to go to a 4.0 IS, or a 2.8 without IS.
I have a 50 1.4 that doesn't get much use because I can get most shots with the 2.8 IS.
-
I wish I could justify a lens with a longer reach.
The nicer lenses don't depreciate nearly as much as a camera body. Seems like you could find one that you would later be able to re-sell close to what you paid for it.
I will again repeat to myself, don't spend $500 on a used fisheye. Don't spend $500 on a used fisheye. Don't spend $500 on a used fisheye.
-
(http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g213/ericBowne/IMG_5574.jpg)
My uncle at the Head Light.. Cape Elizabeth, Maine
-
Cool shot. Is that HDR?
I was messing with HDR today. Didn't get anything I liked a ton. Just looks to weird to me.
Here are a couple HDR shots:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v331/sloppyart/Lake_Isabelle3_HDR2.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v331/sloppyart/Lake_Isabelle2_HDR2.jpg)
Not HDR...but turned out pretty good:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v331/sloppyart/IMG_6474.jpg)
All 3 taken with my 50D w/17-40 f4L.
Shot these at Lake Isabelle in the Indian Peaks Wilderness about an hour from Boulder. Really cool place. TONS of snow left up there. There was actually an ICEBERG floating in the water (too far away to get good shots of it though).
-
Picked up a 5 year old Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 fisheye for $500 yesterday...love it already. You can set the aperature to 3' to infinity and everything outside of 3' is in focus, pretty cool trick, just hammer away on the button. Some of my String Summit pics are here:
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1908300629198.2096927.1292295815&type=1
-
Does anyone know the official policy for Phish and cameras? The Gorge says only personal cameras are allowed, but I'm hoping I can bring mine in....
If anyone with thoughts on this could PM me (I'm driving today). Thanks!
Josh
-
Any suggestions on renting a lens? Horror stories or good experiences.
I'm going to 3 stages of the US Pro Cycling Challenge and would like a longer lens that my 17-40. I'm probably just going to go with the 24-105 f4 L. I don't need super zoom as I will be pretty close to the action.
Anyone ever shoot cycling? I've done some races that were lap based (24 Hours of Moab and some local short track races). I think I might need to be a little more on the ball since I'll only have a short time to get all my shots. Probably not a bad idea if I start looking at a lot of Tour de France shots. :P
I'll be shooting on Monarch Pass and Independence Pass (Colorado) and also in Golden on the final stage.
Should be a fun time. Probably some good opportunities for pictures the fans / pre-party as well as general amazing views.
-
Does anyone know the official policy for Phish and cameras? The Gorge says only personal cameras are allowed, but I'm hoping I can bring mine in....
If anyone with thoughts on this could PM me (I'm driving today). Thanks!
Josh
How'd it go?
-
Any suggestions on renting a lens? Horror stories or good experiences.
I'm going to 3 stages of the US Pro Cycling Challenge and would like a longer lens that my 17-40. I'm probably just going to go with the 24-105 f4 L. I don't need super zoom as I will be pretty close to the action.
Anyone ever shoot cycling? I've done some races that were lap based (24 Hours of Moab and some local short track races). I think I might need to be a little more on the ball since I'll only have a short time to get all my shots. Probably not a bad idea if I start looking at a lot of Tour de France shots. :P
I'll be shooting on Monarch Pass and Independence Pass (Colorado) and also in Golden on the final stage.
Should be a fun time. Probably some good opportunities for pictures the fans / pre-party as well as general amazing views.
I have not rented a lens, but I talk to many people that have, and haven't heard any issues.
On a 50D (crop) I think the 24-105 would be a good choice, as long as you're close. f/4 isn't that fast but as long as you have good light it should be fast enough if you are running relatively high ISO and shutter. The IS will help a lot, and it's a light lens from what I hear. I can't think of another medium range zoom that would be better for you, at least Canon-wise. 24-70 will be super fast ( 2.8 ) but you may not need that much light, and it's a brick with no IS.
Good luck!
-
(http://i57.photobu cket.com/albums/g213/ericBowne/IMG_5574.jpg)
My uncle at the Head Light.. Cape Elizabeth, Maine
Neat! :) It's kinda odd that it looks a bit grainy but it's ISO100.
-
Does anyone know the official policy for Phish and cameras? The Gorge says only personal cameras are allowed, but I'm hoping I can bring mine in....
If anyone with thoughts on this could PM me (I'm driving today). Thanks!
Josh
How'd it go?
I wrapped the camera in my hoodie and put it in my bag, Just held both the hoodie in my camera in my hand while they checked my bag, got it inside no problem. What amazes me is that it seemed like security was trying really hard to search people and it is so easy to walk things right by them.
Edit to add...I think I'm gonna buy one of these for my monopod:
http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-TS-1-TacShot-Release-Monopods/dp/B003U7SR0U/ref=sr_1_7?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1312912884&sr=1-7
-
Just got back from the US Pro Cycling Challenge. I did 2 stages (both mountains). Total time of seeing actual racing = 30 minutes. Photos taken = about 500. :P
The buffer in my 50D was not happy with me.
I've got one more day of the race on Sunday. I had so much fun I think I might rent (or borrow) and extra body and a longer lens next year. I had the 50D with a rented 24-105 f4 L and absolutely loved it.
-
I was testing out the 60d that i just got last night and is my camera bad or a strange phenomenon that when i try to shoot a pic of the time on my digital clock the numbers are not fully recorded they are segmented jurt portions of each number are visible.
-
I was testing out the 60d that i just got last night and is my camera bad or a strange phenomenon that when i try to shoot a pic of the time on my digital clock the numbers are not fully recorded they are segmented jurt portions of each number are visible.
Slow your shutter speed on the camera down to <1/60th of a second. The camera is accurately documenting the facyt that the LEDs on the clock are refreshed, likely at 60hz and are not all on when the shutter actually snaps the photo. At 1/30th of a second all of the LEDs should refresh at least once and your clock will appear normal.
-
Just checking in... looking at some Rebel DSLR's online between Amazon, Best Buy and different Photo/review sites. Any recommendations on a roughly $1,000 budget? There's a EOS Rebel T3i 18mp with a 18-55 & 75-300mm lens for $899 discontinued, regular $1,100.
Any and all comments appreciated. Wife is on me to pull the trigger on something.
-
I recommend getting a used 5D or 7D with a higher shutter count for around $1K - $1200.
-
I recommend getting a used 5D or 7D with a higher shutter count for around $1K - $1200.
I will check it out, thanks a lot!
-
FYI that's for the body only. But those are some great bodies.
-
FYI that's for the body only. But those are some great bodies.
Yea that's what I was figuring. Looking at them know, they look nice! Price and having to buy used are the obvious only negatives, all the features are the positives.
Would you say the body on the Rebel I suggested is maybe average at best?
-
Just checking in... looking at some Rebel DSLR's online between Amazon, Best Buy and different Photo/review sites. Any recommendations on a roughly $1,000 budget? There's a EOS Rebel T3i 18mp with a 18-55 & 75-300mm lens for $899 discontinued, regular $1,100.
Any and all comments appreciated. Wife is on me to pull the trigger on something.
What do you want to do with it? Concerts? Familiy pics? Landscape? Little of each? This would make it easier to suggest what would work best for you.
Personally I'd go with a less expensive body and nicer lenses.
On the 5D vs. 7D front you're looking at two different sensor sizes. The 5D would be better for wide angle (ie landscape), and the 7D better for a zoom lens (ie sports). Both are great bodies.
-
Yea sorry I should have specified. It's really going to be a little everything. Most being family oriented, event type pictures, but everything else you mentioned. And the more we can do, the more we will do.
Thanks again.
-
My understanding is that the mojo is in the glass and that bodies are a bit more transient (used lenses also seem to depreciate much more slowly).
Yea sorry I should have specified. It's really going to be a little everything. Most being family oriented, event type pictures, but everything else you mentioned. And the more we can do, the more we will do.
Thanks again.
-
In some ways, yes. Except when you're talking about Full Frame vs. Crop. 5D is full frame and will give you the best image perspective to work with. Also a better pixel size and density. The 7D on the other hand is very fast and great for video. But are larger sized and to me have a better hand feel. Really, the best thing to do is to go into a camera shop if you can find one, and hold all of them.
-
I purchased a T3i and now that I've been shooting for a bit I wish I would have went with a 7D.
Just checking in... looking at some Rebel DSLR's online between Amazon, Best Buy and different Photo/review sites. Any recommendations on a roughly $1,000 budget? There's a EOS Rebel T3i 18mp with a 18-55 & 75-300mm lens for $899 discontinued, regular $1,100.
Any and all comments appreciated. Wife is on me to pull the trigger on something.
-
I have a 60D and really like it, although I probably haven't touched the real capabilities....
-
I purchased a T3i and now that I've been shooting for a bit I wish I would have went with a 7D.
The T3i is a great body. What is it that you don't like about it? I have the 50D and it took me a while to get used to it. Once I did my photos got a lot better.
Did you buy it as a kit? The lens that comes with the T3i is a piece of shit. I borrowed my sisters crappy zoom lens (something - 300) that is the entry level lens for them. The results made me want to puke. Totally worthless. I could see that as being a problem.
-
just a tip for a beginner - buy a 50mm 1.8 for $95 and thank me later. Best bang for your buck out there.
-
So you just want to do photos only and NO video?
This is a good buy
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/675617-REG/Canon_4462B001_Canon_EOS_Rebel_T2i.html
and this lens as mentioned already.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12142-USA/Canon_2514A002_Normal_EF_50mm_f_1_8.html
I have the 60d with the 50mm 1.4 and the 17-55mm 2.8(this lens is suberb!!the focus ring is beautiful and the image is very sharp!!)but not cheap.
In my opinion the kit lens is garbage i would recommend to not bother with it as the focus ring is a complete toy.
Other than build quality which is still very good on the T2i the image sensor is the same on the T2i,T3i,60d, and the 7D.The only difference i can tell is that the 60d and 7d have a max shutter speed of 8,000 vs. 4,000 on the T2i and T3i.And the 7d has dual processor which does NOT improve image quality but lets you shoot more pics into the buffer for burst mode.Which is unlikely you need anyways.I would recommend on a budget the T2i and the 50mm 1.8 and than you'll need a zoom next.
-
$700 bananas ain't too bad for a nice new toy. Anyone have any thoughts or experiences to share about using a 60D in not-so-nice weather? Are the bodies and lenses fairly weather resistant?
So you just want to do photos only and NO video?
This is a good buy
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/675617-REG/Canon_4462B001_Canon_EOS_Rebel_T2i.html
and this lens as mentioned already.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12142-USA/Canon_2514A002_Normal_EF_50mm_f_1_8.html
I have the 60d with the 50mm 1.4 and the 17-55mm 2.8(this lens is suberb!!the focus ring is beautiful and the image is very sharp!!)but not cheap.
In my opinion the kit lens is garbage i would recommend to not bother with it as the focus ring is a complete toy.
Other than build quality which is still very good on the T2i the image sensor is the same on the T2i,T3i,60d, and the 7D.The only difference i can tell is that the 60d and 7d have a max shutter speed of 8,000 vs. 4,000 on the T2i and T3i.And the 7d has dual processor which does NOT improve image quality but lets you shoot more pics into the buffer for burst mode.Which is unlikely you need anyways.I would recommend on a budget the T2i and the 50mm 1.8 and than you'll need a zoom next.
-
Yea sorry I should have specified. It's really going to be a little everything. Most being family oriented, event type pictures, but everything else you mentioned. And the more we can do, the more we will do.
Thanks again.
i just bought a 60d and was considering the options in the same ballpark. the build on the t3i is not nearly as solid as the 60d. my friend who is a pro told me that i needed to handle them.. so i went to frys and did...it's a big difference, to me anyway. but from all the spex that i saw/online reviews, the only thing i saw that really stuck out is that the 7d shoots at 8 fps v 5.3 on the 60. that's significant for fast action stuff, but i think i'm going to be taking pictures of cacti, street scenes, and rock bands. so for me it did not add up to a reason to plunk down the extra $$. there are other differences that should amount to a better image on the 7, but from the comps i saw.. i could not tell a difference. some of the youtubereviews said that the 7d (v 60d) was not the camera for video, others said it was, and vice versa. all the video i've seen and made with the 60d look great. i almost considered the sony as it has autofocus in video mode, but thought that the amount of lenses available was a drawback.. it's worth checking out if you're looking at the t3i. on the other hand, as the lens is is the microphone, you could do well to go wit the t3i and save some money for a better lens.
-
Anyone have any thoughts or experiences to share about using a 60D in not-so-nice weather? Are the bodies and lenses fairly weather resistant?
Bueller....Bueller....anyone?
-
Anyone have any thoughts or experiences to share about using a 60D in not-so-nice weather? Are the bodies and lenses fairly weather resistant?
Bueller....Bueller....anyone?
Not I, but I'm most definitely considering the 60D, although it's more than what I wanted to spend.
Thanks to everyone for the great feedback! As I'm researching, I'm referring back to this thread and the comments.
I guess if I go with one of the Rebel models I'll try to avoid the stock lens, and buy the lens that was listed here. So I suppose it's a matter of shopping around for the best deal.
-
Anyone have any thoughts or experiences to share about using a 60D in not-so-nice weather? Are the bodies and lenses fairly weather resistant?
Bueller....Bueller....anyone?
I've had no issues with the 50D. I put it away in a downpour though. Not exactly sure what you mean by "not so nice."
In a little rain or drizzle I've had no issues. It's "weather sealed." If there is moisture in the air I'll just break it out when I want to take a picture. After that it goes inside my rain jacket.
No idea if the 60D might be slightly less "weather sealed" due to the movable screen on the back.
-
on the other hand I've used my 5D2 on the deck of a sailboat in a storm :D
(http://bemerick.smugmug.com/Chicago/Passage-Trip-872011/i-3bXxgvB/0/X2/IMG2134-X2.jpg)
-
Nice Brian!
I give up, what city is that??
-
Nice Brian!
I give up, what city is that??
That would be Chicago. One of my favorite cities. I need to get there on a photo trip. Shot a lot in NYC and San Fran. Been to Chicago a lot, but never with my good camera.
-
yup :)
-
Nice Brian!
I give up, what city is that??
That would be Chicago. One of my favorite cities. I need to get there on a photo trip. Shot a lot in NYC and San Fran. Been to Chicago a lot, but never with my good camera.
Wow I've definitely missed that side of the skyline from the lake. Very nice without either of its 2 trademark towers. Easily my 2nd favorite city having visited a handful of times. Didn't recognize any of those buildings, and that water is awfully green! Nice shot!
-
great shot
(http://bemerick.smugmug.com/Chicago/Passage-Trip-872011/i-3bXxgvB/0/X2/IMG2134-X2.jpg)
-
I was so desperate....I Google'd it.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-60D-DSLR-Camera-Review.aspx#Sealing
(http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Other/Canon-EOS-60D-DSLR-Camera/Canon-EOS-60D-DSLR-Weather-Sealing-Front.jpg)
As shown in the images above, the Canon EOS 60D has received the same level of weather sealing as the EOS 50D. This amount is slightly less than the 7D's level of sealing.
-
Interesting that the 60D has some sealing. It isn't advertised to have any. The 7D has sealing and a Magnesium alloy body. I'm trying to decide between the 60D, saving up for a bit for the 7D or saving up some more and getting the new 5D. I like the 20D, but at least 50% of my shots aren't focused well and for that reason I don't use it much. I like low-light, nightime and indoor photography, so having a good auto focus is important. From what I've read the 5DIII>7D>60D in that regard.
-
The 7D has sealing and a Magnesium alloy body.
I think the big gripe about the 60D body (not from me personally) is that it has a polycarbonate boy and is thus more prone to breakage.
On your purchase, I'd suggest waiting until the new model comes out and there will probably be some great prices on the older bodies.
-
Which new model? I've only heard of the 5dIII which is already out and the new 1D which just got announced. Is there a rumor that the 60D or 7D is getting replaced soon?
A couple of things I don't like from playing around with a 7D:
1) I found it hard to select just the center point for AF selection. Seems like it requires 2 button presses - hit the + button and then the multifunction button then select the focal point? I never actually got this to work while playing with it, so I'm not sure if it will remember this setting after you turn the camera off. With my 20D, I compose with the center AF point, hold the shutter button to keep it locked and then compose the shot by moving the camera. I hate having to keep pressing the shutter button to get the camera to randomly select the point I'm trying to focus on. Probably not a big deal if there's plenty of light, but when shooting wide open the DOF is too narrow to let the camera pick a focal point.
2) Live view: I also never really got this to work. I'm use to using the viewfinder, but it would be nice if the live view was also automatically on - again when using a small DOF/wide open lens it would be cool to be able to quickly check the focus with the 10x magnification. Ideally, I'd focus and compose using the viewfinder then just glance quickly down to see the 10x magnified focal center point on the LCD and if it looks good, hit the shutter button.
-
7D mark II has been rumored for awhile.
-
Yeah, I've seen rumors of the 7DII for over a year. I was thinking if it was coming soon, it would have been announced this week. My guess now is September. I have a vacation in July, so I'm thinking about making the move to upgrade then. Would suck to buy right before the new model is announced though.
-
Which new model? I've only heard of the 5dIII which is already out and the new 1D which just got announced. Is there a rumor that the 60D or 7D is getting replaced soon?
A couple of things I don't like from playing around with a 7D:
1) I found it hard to select just the center point for AF selection. Seems like it requires 2 button presses - hit the + button and then the multifunction button then select the focal point? I never actually got this to work while playing with it, so I'm not sure if it will remember this setting after you turn the camera off. With my 20D, I compose with the center AF point, hold the shutter button to keep it locked and then compose the shot by moving the camera. I hate having to keep pressing the shutter button to get the camera to randomly select the point I'm trying to focus on. Probably not a big deal if there's plenty of light, but when shooting wide open the DOF is too narrow to let the camera pick a focal point.
2) Live view: I also never really got this to work. I'm use to using the viewfinder, but it would be nice if the live view was also automatically on - again when using a small DOF/wide open lens it would be cool to be able to quickly check the focus with the 10x magnification. Ideally, I'd focus and compose using the viewfinder then just glance quickly down to see the 10x magnified focal center point on the LCD and if it looks good, hit the shutter button.
John,
I set my camera up & I now use the rear focus technique and I will never go back to using the front "original" shutter button to focus again.
In a nut shell rear focusing is using a custom function on your camera that allows you to "move" the shutter focus button to the back * button.
You then keep your thumb pressed on that to track & focus & then use the shutter to take the picture.
This allows you to track a object and keep it in focus. If at any time you want to recompose the image just release the focus button, recompose & shoot.
No more switching to one shot.
This link may explain it better:
http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2011/09/13/rear-focus-tutorial/
or
http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/backbutton_af_article.shtml#showAll
-
Interesting that the 60D has some sealing. It isn't advertised to have any. The 7D has sealing and a Magnesium alloy body. I'm trying to decide between the 60D, saving up for a bit for the 7D or saving up some more and getting the new 5D. I like the 20D, but at least 50% of my shots aren't focused well and for that reason I don't use it much. I like low-light, nightime and indoor photography, so having a good auto focus is important. From what I've read the 5DIII>7D>60D in that regard.
The price between the 5D III & the 7D is 2,000.00!
I have shot with all three you mention and your best bet is the 7D for the price.
The 60D is nice & the swivel screen is pretty cool but the auto focus & tracking on the 7D
outperform the 60D for sure.
If you have the 20D & upgrade to one of these beauties you will drop your jaw at the sheer size of the file!
Make sure to get bigger CF cards too.
I put my 20D in my car for "grab" shots and I laugh evertime I see the tiny LCD screen!
What will you mainly be shooting?
-
Datfly,
so do you like the 5dIII and or the IDx? I hoping to get these bodies when funds are there. They appear to have better AF and focus selection.
Do you like any of the camera's mentioned above, I know the 1Dx is not out yet but the specs about the focus area seems to be very good.
just looking for some advice
-
Datfly,
so do you like the 5dIII and or the IDx? I hoping to get these bodies when funds are there. They appear to have better AF and focus selection.
Do you like any of the camera's mentioned above, I know the 1Dx is not out yet but the specs about the focus area seems to be very good.
just looking for some advice
BFT,
I primarily do bird photography so for me the Mark IV with the 1.3 crop factor and 10 FPS is my workhorse.
I keep it on my 300 2.8 around my shoulder for grab & flight shots and I have the 7D with the 1.6 crop factor on my 500 4.0 lens
& tripod for reach, birds in trees, swimming ducks etc.
The 1DX is just way too much $ for me & for a FF camera the 5D Mark III will do just fine.
I will add the 5D III for the superb dynamic range & the lightning fast auto focus & tracking plus
the option for FF landscapes that I "intend" to do one day.
I rented the 5D3 from Lensrental.com for one week to decide if I wanted to spend the 3,500.00 on it. I do & will.
The 6 FPS did not hinder me and the files were butter smooth. A stunning camera that is clean at some high ISO's.
Check some of my recent shots with the 5D3 here.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/floridanaturephotography/
-
Datfly,
so do you like the 5dIII and or the IDx? I hoping to get these bodies when funds are there. They appear to have better AF and focus selection.
Do you like any of the camera's mentioned above, I know the 1Dx is not out yet but the specs about the focus area seems to be very good.
just looking for some advice
BFT,
I primarily do bird photography so for me the Mark IV with the 1.3 crop factor and 10 FPS is my workhorse.
I keep it on my 300 2.8 around my shoulder for grab & flight shots and I have the 7D with the 1.6 crop factor on my 500 4.0 lens
& tripod for reach, birds in trees, swimming ducks etc.
The 1DX is just way too much $ for me & for a FF camera the 5D Mark III will do just fine.
I will add the 5D III for the superb dynamic range & the lightning fast auto focus & tracking plus
the option for FF landscapes that I "intend" to do one day.
I rented the 5D3 from Lensrental.com for one week to decide if I wanted to spend the 3,500.00 on it. I do & will.
The 6 FPS did not hinder me and the files were butter smooth. A stunning camera that is clean at some high ISO's.
Check some of my recent shots with the 5D3 here.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/floridanaturephotography/
thanks so much
I am looking for low light performance with good auto focus, I mainly take photos of people and indoor shots. I use the 40D with "L" glass and i am looking for another body, but an upgrade also.
there has been rumors of light leak on the 5DMIII, which canon said they will address soon.
wow went to the link GREAT pics
now you say the Mark IV is your work horse for auto focus and tracking will the 1Dx be on par with it also like the 5DMIII?
thank you
-
Datfly,
so do you like the 5dIII and or the IDx? I hoping to get these bodies when funds are there. They appear to have better AF and focus selection.
Do you like any of the camera's mentioned above, I know the 1Dx is not out yet but the specs about the focus area seems to be very good.
just looking for some advice
BFT,
I primarily do bird photography so for me the Mark IV with the 1.3 crop factor and 10 FPS is my workhorse.
I keep it on my 300 2.8 around my shoulder for grab & flight shots and I have the 7D with the 1.6 crop factor on my 500 4.0 lens
& tripod for reach, birds in trees, swimming ducks etc.
The 1DX is just way too much $ for me & for a FF camera the 5D Mark III will do just fine.
I will add the 5D III for the superb dynamic range & the lightning fast auto focus & tracking plus
the option for FF landscapes that I "intend" to do one day.
I rented the 5D3 from Lensrental.com for one week to decide if I wanted to spend the 3,500.00 on it. I do & will.
The 6 FPS did not hinder me and the files were butter smooth. A stunning camera that is clean at some high ISO's.
Check some of my recent shots with the 5D3 here.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/floridanaturephotography/
thanks so much
I am looking for low light performance with good auto focus, I mainly take photos of people and indoor shots. I use the 40D with "L" glass and i am looking for another body, but an upgrade also.
there has been rumors of light leak on the 5DMIII, which canon said they will address soon.
wow went to the link GREAT pics
now you say the Mark IV is your work horse for auto focus and tracking will the 1Dx be on par with it also like the 5DMIII?
thank you
From what I have read the autofocus system of the 5D3 is the same as the 1DX but the 1DX has more FPS.
If low light is your main priority stay away from the 7D, too much noise for that & go for the 5D3 that excels
in low light at higer ISO's.
The 5D3 IS on par or slightly better at tracking & focusing tan my Mark IV !!!!!
My advice is rent it for a few days or a week before you shell out thousands.
Datfly
-
I am looking for low light performance with good auto focus, I mainly take photos of people and indoor shots. I use the 40D with "L" glass and i am looking for another body, but an upgrade also.
there has been rumors of light leak on the 5DMIII, which canon said they will address soon.
The 5DIII will be perfect for you then, great pro-level autofocus from the 1DX and excellent low light performance. I have had my 5DIII for a few weeks now and love it... a lot. I also upgraded from a 40D with an L lens (I only have one actually, 35mm 1.4L) and the difference is, not surprisingly, immense. The best $3500 I ever spent (although I did get $210 cashback by buying it from J&R using my Discover card). I'm not so sure if the light leak issue is really a big deal or more of a non-issue
-
I am looking for low light performance with good auto focus, I mainly take photos of people and indoor shots. I use the 40D with "L" glass and i am looking for another body, but an upgrade also.
there has been rumors of light leak on the 5DMIII, which canon said they will address soon.
The 5DIII will be perfect for you then, great pro-level autofocus from the 1DX and excellent low light performance. I have had my 5DIII for a few weeks now and love it... a lot. I also upgraded from a 40D with an L lens (I only have one actually, 35mm 1.4L) and the difference is, not surprisingly, immense. The best $3500 I ever spent (although I did get $210 cashback by buying it from J&R using my Discover card). I'm not so sure if the light leak issue is really a big deal or more of a non-issue
thanks for the information. Seems I will be setting up the proverbial envelope savings account stashed under the mattress.
I know this has been discussed everywhere but......
I have been using Canon since 1979 ( i was 12), I just recently was asked while at one of my weekly Rotary meetings was to take a picture and someone handed me a NIKON, it was a DSLR and snapped off a few shots, ( ended up in the local paper), I liked the feel and the ability to use a DSLR and kind of dress it down for a simple point and shoot type of pic. With My canon 40D as of now I sometimes have a hard time adjusting for a simple on the go photo that is really just a pic of the moment instead of a " work of art" type of pic.
so are there any NIKON><CANON users?
anyone use both NIKON and CANON now? $$$$$$$$$
Anyone use Canon for 20 years then switch to NIKON? or vice versa?
any and all personal experiences welcomed.
thank you
-
I am looking for low light performance with good auto focus, I mainly take photos of people and indoor shots. I use the 40D with "L" glass and i am looking for another body, but an upgrade also.
there has been rumors of light leak on the 5DMIII, which canon said they will address soon.
The 5DIII will be perfect for you then, great pro-level autofocus from the 1DX and excellent low light performance. I have had my 5DIII for a few weeks now and love it... a lot. I also upgraded from a 40D with an L lens (I only have one actually, 35mm 1.4L) and the difference is, not surprisingly, immense. The best $3500 I ever spent (although I did get $210 cashback by buying it from J&R using my Discover card). I'm not so sure if the light leak issue is really a big deal or more of a non-issue
thanks for the information. Seems I will be setting up the proverbial envelope savings account stashed under the mattress.
I know this has been discussed everywhere but......
I have been using Canon since 1979 ( i was 12), I just recently was asked while at one of my weekly Rotary meetings was to take a picture and someone handed me a NIKON, it was a DSLR and snapped off a few shots, ( ended up in the local paper), I liked the feel and the ability to use a DSLR and kind of dress it down for a simple point and shoot type of pic. With My canon 40D as of now I sometimes have a hard time adjusting for a simple on the go photo that is really just a pic of the moment instead of a " work of art" type of pic.
so are there any NIKON><CANON users?
anyone use both NIKON and CANON now? $$$$$$$$$
Anyone use Canon for 20 years then switch to NIKON? or vice versa?
any and all personal experiences welcomed.
thank you
I have always hear Nikon is better on the ergonomics side.
I think both systems are top quality and I tell other photographers who ask
buy the system that most of your friends or fellow photographers use and this way
you will always have help.
Nikon used to be way more expensive then Canon but now they are almost the same.
The only dual Nikon / Canon people I know are wildlife photographers who need the Nikon
200-400 lens.
The Nikon D8000 30-some MP is Amazing!! I was drooling over the images.............
-
you mean the D800 ;)
-
With My canon 40D as of now I sometimes have a hard time adjusting for a simple on the go photo that is really just a pic of the moment instead of a " work of art" type of pic.
I have always hear Nikon is better on the ergonomics side.
IME Pentax has the best ergos, followed by pretty-good Nikon, and then pretty-bad Canon (especially their prosumer or consumer models). Regardless of brand / make / model and ergo quality, it's mostly just a question of getting accustomed to your particular camera and / or lens for the type of shooting you do -- unless what you want to do is buried deep in an on-screen menu and there's no option to re-map hard buttons or create shortcuts, in which case no amount of practice will help. Shoot a lot, even just for practice, to help build the muscle and brain memory and it'll become second nature in due time.
-
agreed. Though I don't mind the ergos on my Canon 5D2. I do usually use the grip though.
-
I've read and re-read the manual, so I just ordered a copy of this.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/032147404X/ref=ox_ya_os_product (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/032147404X/ref=ox_ya_os_product)
-
I dont mind the egos on the canon or Nikon. The biggest struggle with Canon for for me is the flash unit, my 550ex or whatever they are calling it these days does not like to stay on to the Shoe with the tiny sliding pice of plastic they call a LOCK. Now where the bottom of my flash unit is coming apart and the little section that sperates itself from the rest of the flash body is "showing it's innards" and then when engaged on top of my Canon it either fires, misfires, I got to hold it on steady with my hand or i get a big white picture due to the poorest contact between shoe and flash.
anyone have this issue with their flash units and canon. This one problem is driving me towards Nikon. I hear Nikon flash system is very good.
Does Canon fix flash units?
-
I dont mind the egos on the canon or Nikon. The biggest struggle with Canon for for me is the flash unit, my 550ex or whatever they are calling it these days does not like to stay on to the Shoe with the tiny sliding pice of plastic they call a LOCK. Now where the bottom of my flash unit is coming apart and the little section that sperates itself from the rest of the flash body is "showing it's innards" and then when engaged on top of my Canon it either fires, misfires, I got to hold it on steady with my hand or i get a big white picture due to the poorest contact between shoe and flash.
anyone have this issue with their flash units and canon. This one problem is driving me towards Nikon. I hear Nikon flash system is very good.
Does Canon fix flash units?
Canon will fix your flash. Expect about 125.00 min.
I have the 580 & the 580 II and I have never had a problem with them
except for the fact I dropped one.
Get a micro screwdriver & tighten the screws on the flash and on the hotshoe.
Once again yes, Nikon has a much better flash system but the new Canon Speedlite 600EX-RT is pretty
amazing. I had a brief look at it and the 1DX this weekend in St. Augustine.
-
I dont mind the egos on the canon or Nikon. The biggest struggle with Canon for for me is the flash unit, my 550ex or whatever they are calling it these days does not like to stay on to the Shoe with the tiny sliding pice of plastic they call a LOCK. Now where the bottom of my flash unit is coming apart and the little section that sperates itself from the rest of the flash body is "showing it's innards" and then when engaged on top of my Canon it either fires, misfires, I got to hold it on steady with my hand or i get a big white picture due to the poorest contact between shoe and flash.
anyone have this issue with their flash units and canon. This one problem is driving me towards Nikon. I hear Nikon flash system is very good.
Does Canon fix flash units?
Canon will fix your flash. Expect about 125.00 min.
I have the 580 & the 580 II and I have never had a problem with them
except for the fact I dropped one.
Get a micro screwdriver & tighten the screws on the flash and on the hotshoe.
Once again yes, Nikon has a much better flash system but the new Canon Speedlite 600EX-RT is pretty
amazing. I had a brief look at it and the 1DX this weekend in St. Augustine.
Hello, I do have the 580EXII flash. Now where the lock latch is, and when you go to lock the flash in--the part that seems to be loose regardless of being on the camera shoe or not is the rubber piece that is just under/supporting the metal connectors on the flash unit. That is the part that loose? Its the part that is right under or "supporting the metal flash unit connectors--its all loose and moves around a lot/
is this fixable by the screw?
or does this sound like I need to send it in to Canon?
i dont know what is holding the shoe contacts on the flash, the section of the shoe contacts on the flash--at that rubber support is were it is very loose and seems to be separating from the rest of the flash unit? so its the flash unit not anything at this point to do with the shoe on the camera
anyone help
-
http://www.finchannel.com/Main_News/Tech/109085_Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_II_and_EOS_7D_Digital_SLR_Cameras/
The FINANCIAL -- Canon U.S.A., Inc., one of a leader in digital imaging solutions, is proud to announce that its EOS 5D Mark II and 7D Digital SLR cameras have been used on the set of Marvel's latest movie, "Marvel's The Avengers," to capture thrilling point-of-view action shots that can be seamlessly intercut with footage from the film's principal 35mm and digital cinematography cameras to heighten the film's visual impact.
-
i have a t1, but have lost the wall charger. do they make replacements for those..?
thx, in advance.
-
i have a t1, but have lost the wall charger. do they make replacements for those..?
thx, in advance.
Like this?
http://www.amazon.com/LP-E5-Battery-Charger-Canon-Rebel/dp/B00358P4QO
-
i have a t1, but have lost the wall charger. do they make replacements for those..?
thx, in advance.
Like this?
http://www.amazon.com/LP-E5-Battery-Charger-Canon-Rebel/dp/B00358P4QO
thx, sparkey. that is exactly what i need.
+t
-
Just checking in... looking at some Rebel DSLR's online between Amazon, Best Buy and different Photo/review sites. Any recommendations on a roughly $1,000 budget? There's a EOS Rebel T3i 18mp with a 18-55 & 75-300mm lens for $899 discontinued, regular $1,100.
Any and all comments appreciated. Wife is on me to pull the trigger on something.
Did you decide on a camera? I purchased the 60D last March with concert photography in mind knowing it would be the biggest challenge and have pretty good success right out of the gate.
Here's a link to my shots of Phish last June from the tapers section area at Great Woods, which was my second attempt at low light photography. I think the camera had a lot to do with the results ;D
I find photography a natural compliment to taping. Good luck and have fun!
-
I'm excited to have bridged the gap between my shooting and recording. I've started making videos of really intimate music performances - as simply as possible.
Here's a sample from a recent project, I'd love to hear any criticism of the piece. I'm battling with getting my levels up to Internet "broadcast" levels without making them sound overly compressed or limited.
Here's a first one: https://vimeo.com/89167864
the others on my channel: https://vimeo.com/stephenschauer
This video was shot on 3 Canon 5d mk2, and recorded straight in to a Tascam HS-p82 using a Royer 122, and a pair of Mojave Audio 101fet omni's in a spaced pair out of frame. I learned a lot on this - and came up against all sorts of issues with color correction to make the different cameras all sync - each having a different lens - so there were lots of variables. I mixed it on Reaper with stock plugins - trying to keep it as simple as possible.
What can I do to get the levels up and retain the naturalness of the sound?
Best,
Stephen
-
Now that's what I like to see (and hear)! Thank you for sharing.
I like to think ahead to what a treasure videos like this will be for their kids and grandkids.
Here is a recent concert recording with two Canon DSLRs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUOOoHFoj2w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUOOoHFoj2w) - SZYMANOWSKI Nocturne and Tarantella: Tarantella
-
Sick. The Foghorn is the heat! Nice work.
I'm excited to have bridged the gap between my shooting and recording. I've started making videos of really intimate music performances - as simply as possible.
Here's a sample from a recent project, I'd love to hear any criticism of the piece. I'm battling with getting my levels up to Internet "broadcast" levels without making them sound overly compressed or limited.
Here's a first one: https://vimeo.com/89167864
the others on my channel: https://vimeo.com/stephenschauer
This video was shot on 3 Canon 5d mk2, and recorded straight in to a Tascam HS-p82 using a Royer 122, and a pair of Mojave Audio 101fet omni's in a spaced pair out of frame. I learned a lot on this - and came up against all sorts of issues with color correction to make the different cameras all sync - each having a different lens - so there were lots of variables. I mixed it on Reaper with stock plugins - trying to keep it as simple as possible.
What can I do to get the levels up and retain the naturalness of the sound?
Best,
Stephen