|
corkskroo posted:Thanks guys. I don't know that we don't give a poo poo about AF, just that the benefit on the mkiii might be overkill. I think the additional ISO on the 6D and the wifi make it more attractive than the mkii, which isn't really cheaper than the 6D anyway. A lot of the pros for the mkiii that I listed don't really seem like things that matter to us too much, except the moire on 6D video, which is annoying. If I were doing food photography at home/ in a "studio" I'd be way more worried about my lighting gear than the camera. ISO and AF (good or none) wouldn't matter to me. Good lighting makes good photos and when you have good lighting the camera doesn't really matter much. If that is indeed what you're doing, you'll get far better results investing in lighting and maybe a new lens or two. On the other hand, I can't blame you for wanting to upgrade the Xt, that thing is ancient. I'd vote for 6d since a lot of the 5d3 features won't matter to you.
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 16:20 |
|
|
Hey, I was wondering how the Tamron 17-50 2.8 ranks against the Sigma 17-50 2.8. I am selling my T1i to buy a 7d, and have to include my kit lens, but I wanted to know which one I should upgrade to
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 23:23
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:While we're on the subject, would a 5D classic have better high ISO performance than a 600D? I was considering buying one as a full-frame stills camera, I don't really care that much for video. Yes. The 5D is a lot better in low light than the 600D.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 01:49
|
|
|
Haggins posted:If I were doing food photography at home/ in a "studio" I'd be way more worried about my lighting gear than the camera. ISO and AF (good or none) wouldn't matter to me. Good lighting makes good photos and when you have good lighting the camera doesn't really matter much. If that is indeed what you're doing, you'll get far better results investing in lighting and maybe a new lens or two. We do natural light by a window that we've covered with tissue paper for a nice soft look and we have a bunch of bounce boards. We did buy a cheapo light kit at one point but like the natural light better. Right now we aren't loading up on lighting gear mostly because we will probably move ot a much smaller place some time in the nearish future and don't want the added bulk. We also do a fair amount of location shooting of food and the people who make it so I think starting with upgrading what we'd take in a backpack and eventually thinking about creating a more pro "studio" set up (space allowing) is the way to go. Funny thing is, just today I was eating lunch at the bar in a place where we're known for my wife's pro food writing exploits and they were asking how I got into photography and if I had just invested in a really awesome camera after studying or just interest. Even the ol' XT looks like a drat pro camera to random people. (Then they comped my lunchtime cocktail, hooray local notoriety!)
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 02:20
|
|
|
So uh here's what it looks like when you're trying to shoot as your 5d mirror is falling out of place (on a shoot that HAS to happen that day): I know I can fix this, but it's a good excuse to jump up to a 6d.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 03:43
|
|
|
Haggins posted:If I were doing food photography at home/ in a "studio" I'd be way more worried about my lighting gear than the camera. ISO and AF (good or none) wouldn't matter to me. Good lighting makes good photos and when you have good lighting the camera doesn't really matter much. If that is indeed what you're doing, you'll get far better results investing in lighting and maybe a new lens or two. Yeah there's no real reason to take the 5D II/III over the 6D for food photography. Hell only reasons I would take the 5D III over the 6D in any case would be photojournalism, video, or sports photography.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 10:41
|
|
|
Also if you're an autofocus lover. The AF on the 5DIII is godly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 11:10
|
|
|
ShutteredIn posted:So uh here's what it looks like when you're trying to shoot as your 5d mirror is falling out of place (on a shoot that HAS to happen that day): Happened to me during a Zombie Walk, I freaked out because until that point I hadn't heard of it being so common. A week later and it had been fixed for free by Canon, with a new, fantastical robust mirror support or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 02:50
|
|
|
I'm planning on buying some filters for my 5D Mark II. I have 3 lenses: EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM - 77mm EF 50mm f/1.2L USM - 72mm EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM -58mm So I figured I could get a 77mm one and just buy some adapters for the other two sizes. Is there any catches with this or brands I should avoid? If it matters, I believe they're screw on filters. Also i'm mostly a hobbist, not a pro so it's slightly annoying to change that won't be a big deal for me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 07:25
|
|
|
Can't use hoods with a step up ring.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 10:27
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Can't use hoods with a step up ring.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 11:09
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Can't use hoods with a step up ring. I knew there'd be something. That shouldn't be a big deal, I don't often shoot with the sun in shot. Thanks dude! Combat Pretzel posted:About that... Some prominent internet jerks are like "argleblargle gently caress hoods", because the coating on lenses is apparently so magical, that flares are impossible. What about it? I think this guy summed it up: http://digital-photography-school.com/why-you-should-use-your-lens-hood
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 12:05
|
|
|
the_lion posted:I knew there'd be something. That shouldn't be a big deal, I don't often shoot with the sun in shot. Thanks dude! Hoods don’t help when the sun is in the shot—they help when it’s out of the shot, but still close enough to hit the front element.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 12:11
|
|
|
After upgrading to the 6D, I intend to be a pain the rear end to myself and am going the prime only route for the time being. So I guess I'm not just being pretentious by keeping the hood on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 14:06
|
|
|
I mostly use my hood to protect the front element. The flair reduction is just a bonus.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 14:11
|
|
|
Haggins posted:I mostly use my hood to protect the front element. The flair reduction is just a bonus. I use Gimp. I mean, sure Photoshop has a lot more features, but sometimes you don't need all those bells and whistles. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 16:09
|
|
|
I regularly drop my car keys and stub my toes on my own furniture, a lens hood is "for my own good".
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 16:51
|
|
|
bisticles posted:I use Gimp. I mean, sure Photoshop has a lot more features, but sometimes you don't need all those bells and whistles. I find that all you need to craft a compelling image is hart, otherwise they are destined for the undertaker. But in the end, nobody is Mr. Perfect.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 17:40
|
|
|
If I ever need to remind myself that I need a hood to protect my lenses from bumps, I just need to look at how hosed up my hoods are.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
the_lion posted:I'm planning on buying some filters for my 5D Mark II. I have 3 lenses: Any idea what kind of filters you're looking to get? Is it just for protection, or are you looking to shape the image, like with a circular polarizer or colored filter? Personally, I really like experimenting with filters. Yeah, with the flexibility you have in RAW editing, you can fake a lot of it in post, but if you come to like the effect of one particular filter, there's no reason to use that as a starting point before you start subtracting in post. For nature/landscape shots, the Hoya Intensifier really makes colors pop, especially with flowers and around autumn. The Tiffen 81C has also been helpful in balancing skin tones with outdoor shoots. With your 50mm f/1.2L, you might want to get a 3-stop ND filter so you can shoot wide open on bright days, but if you haven't run into a shutter speed limitation before, then it might not be an issue. Like evil_bunnY said, you usually can't put on a lens hood over step-down adapters, which may be a deal-breaker if you're shooting in situations where flare from the side or unexpected bumps are an issue. All the filters I have are 77mm, and I use adapters, though if you thought a regular exposed front element was a dust/fingerprint magnet before, an oversized filter hanging off the front is much worse. Usually I'll get the shots I want and then switch back to a hood if I want to use a filter for a few shots.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
It's really a pain to use filters and a hood at the same time anyway, especially a filter that needs constant adjustment like a polarizer. If you really need to, just use your hand as a flag in a pinch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
Haggins posted:It's really a pain to use filters and a hood at the same time anyway, especially a filter that needs constant adjustment like a polarizer. If you really need to, just use your hand as a flag in a pinch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
doctor 7 posted:How is the image quality? I got the 70-200 non-IS 2.8. Things ways a ton but takes superb photos. Takes a while to focus but on my 60D it hasn't missed focus after it found it. On my Rebel it did a few times. Great image quality regardless. I wound up snapping some random shots. No sharpening (or cropping because im lazy) in post.  IMG_7032  IMG_7061  IMG_7063  IMG_7088 Takes good cat pics too.  IMG_7110
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
I hate step up rings because I am too lazy to keep switching poo poo out. I'm fumbling around enough with prime lenses that I don't need another thing to drop. I guess they'd be fine if you rarely switch lenses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 01:08
|
|
|
saw a 100d in a store today, things pretty loving small. With a pancake it would kinda own.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 02:27
|
|
|
Continuing from the earlier discussion on ISO performance of the 5d/6d versus older cameras: I had yet to venture much higher than 3200 ISO on the 6d so I tried the two highest settings just for fun tonight. Subject of course had to be a catte. No noise reduction/any other adjustments made with either pic. I was pretty impressed with the 51200. Had to manual focus for both because it was pretty much a completely dark room (had a light shining from an adjacent room). It is amazing how far cameras have come just in the past few years. ISO 51200, f/5 , 1/125  20130605-IMG_4092 by LeeMHarp, on Flickr ISO 102,400 f/4, 1/10  20130605-IMG_4102 by LeeMHarp, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 02:58
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:I find that all you need to craft a compelling image is hart, otherwise they are destined for the undertaker. But in the end, nobody is Mr. Perfect. Was this a sneaky 90s WWF reference?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
If you're getting a filter just for protection, do yourself a favor and get a good one. When I first got into photography a few years ago I picked up the cheapest possible UV filters ($6-10 range Tiffen, Vivitar, etc.) and ended removing them every time I shot because the flare was horrendous (thus defeating the purpose of having something to keep me from touching the front element on accident). I upgraded to using B+W MRC 010M filters and the difference is incredible. I picked this particular type after seeing that they did really well in some filter flare shootout some guy posted on his blog where he tested like 30 different filters in the same shots (can't currently find it on Google, unfortunately). I still remove them for certain kinds of high contrast shots, especially during night photography, but they stay on for pretty much anything I do during the day, and I've not seen any flare problems since. I use hoods too, usually. I guess you could say that I like to double-bag it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 03:12
|
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhT05YQD4DM Around 5:00 is when you can get a really good demonstration of the glare cutting capabilities of a good CPL filter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 03:34
|
|
|
Inf posted:If you're getting a filter just for protection, do yourself a favor and get a good one. I agree with this. I have a clear B+W 72mm MRC Nano Clear for my 35L and 50L and currently a heliopan 77mm filter. I have a B+W 77mm UV filter too that I haven't used / needed yet. Neither interfere with my photos and if anything I'd rather have a fingerprint or dust on the filter than on the lens.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 03:43
|
|
|
Inf posted:I still remove them for certain kinds of high contrast shots, especially during night photography Can't you just raise the contrast in post? Edit: I also have B+W 010 MRC UV filters on all of my lenses and always use my lens hoods. I use a Black Rapid strap so the camera is always dangling off my hip so the 360 degree protection provided by the hood + UV filter combo is really nice. It lets me walk around, explore, and shoot at will without worrying about anything in the environment damaging my lens. INTJ Mastermind fucked around with this message at 03:53 on Jun 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 03:49
|
|
|
geeves posted:I agree with this. I have a clear B+W 72mm MRC Nano Clear for my 35L and 50L and currently a heliopan 77mm filter. I have a B+W 77mm UV filter too that I haven't used / needed yet. Neither interfere with my photos and if anything I'd rather have a fingerprint or dust on the filter than on the lens. Except in extreme environmental conditions, you're better off with hood only for protection. Desert, near the surf on the beach, shooting from moving vehicle in dusty conditions, rain (to complete the weather seal). The lens is not going to be hurt by dust or a fingerprint, and cleaning it is no harder than cleaning the filter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 03:53
|
|
|
bisticles posted:Any idea what kind of filters you're looking to get? Is it just for protection, or are you looking to shape the image, like with a circular polarizer or colored filter? Haha, nah it's not for protection. That's a whole can of worms- some people like it, some people get very angry about it for some reason. I just wanted to have a play around, maybe some polarisers or something like that Hoya Intensifier. Sure you can do stuff in post but sometimes I just want it "done" in camera.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 04:13
|
|
|
So hey, glad that a lot of my questions about the 6D and 24-105mm f4 were answered on the previous page. My question is: Would the 24-105 be a good lens for wedding photography? I figure I could run that and maybe keep my T2i with my 50mm 1.8 as backup? What is the best route I should take here?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 04:33
|
|
|
I've had some time with the T3i now, and it's a pretty good camera. I'm noticing a lot of noise once I get to 800 ISO, but I'm wondering how it compares to the T4i or T5i. Is there enough of a difference where it would be worth upgrading while I'm still able to do so, or is it all close enough that I shouldn't be so picky and I can take care of the noise through other means anyways? Being new to better cameras, I'm not sure what I should be expecting, but I'm enjoying it enough that I'm fine with throwing more money at it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 04:41
|
|
|
iSheep posted:So hey, glad that a lot of my questions about the 6D and 24-105mm f4 were answered on the previous page. Depends. Are you going to bring speedlights with you? Every wedding I have been to except for one has been too dark for an f4 lens without flash. I suspect they'd be even too dark for f2.8 without flash. Bring your own light, if you can.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 04:42
|
|
|
bobfather posted:Depends. Are you going to bring speedlights with you? Yeah I am pretty sure I would plan to use a speedlight of some sort, I haven't really started looking into those because I'm still trying to finalize camera + lens. Gets overwhelming man.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 04:46
|
|
|
iSheep posted:Yeah I am pretty sure I would plan to use a speedlight of some sort, I haven't really started looking into those because I'm still trying to finalize camera + lens. Gets overwhelming man. The 24-70mm 2.8 is a nicer lens for sure, but I have the 24-105mm f4 myself and I shot a few wedding. They were mostly outside, inside I switched to 50mm. There's 2 models of the 24-70, the newer one is small, less heavy and is weather sealed. According to wikipedia, it's a significant improvement on image quality. If you had a flash, either lens would be fine inside I think unless it was a dungeon with no light. If money is a real problem, look at reviews of the 3rd party 24-70s by Sigma or Tamron. I'm sure someone in the thread will have a bit more knowledge about those than I do. My guess is that they'll be cheaper, but the auto focus won't be as good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 05:44
|
|
|
Drunk Badger posted:I've had some time with the T3i now, and it's a pretty good camera. I'm noticing a lot of noise once I get to 800 ISO, but I'm wondering how it compares to the T4i or T5i. I'm pretty sure it's the exact same filter so there shouldn't be much improvement. I've a T3i too and yeah, the noise on higher ISOs is something I'm starting to really notice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 10:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 16:20 |
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:Can't you just raise the contrast in post? Nah, the situations I'm talking about are long exposures at night where you have black sky and street lamps in the same shot, for instance. Even with a high end filter there will be SOME glare (it's impossible to remove it all), and it can create really sharp green ghosts of street lamps against the black sky. My current UV filters don't cause any perceptible decrease in contrast, it's just what little glare there is becomes obvious in shots where there are extremes of darkness and light. The lenses themselves create glare too, obviously, but their inherent glare is quite different and less obnoxious since they usually result from reflections off of curved glass surfaces so they manifest in a more diffuse way. Glares off flat filters are the worst -- they're really sharp and defined. I've seen images of those stupid spiral CFLs in glare before, coils and all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 15:34
|
|