|
...I somehow managed to never take any landscape shots with my 10-22  Just a shitton of social/party shots.
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 02:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 14:13 |
|
|
As funny as it sounds I really don't like my ultra wide for landscapes. I think part of that is the fact I haven't used it that much for that purpose, but on my recent trip I found that the 40mm STM was being pulled out for landscapes, either single shot or stitching multiples. The ULW did get used a majority of the time, so there is that. As for the dimly lit cathedral hand hold thing. You really don't need f2.8 to make a hand held shot feasible. These are all natural light(with dim artificial lights as well,) and the one of St Peters was at dusk hence the 1600 ISO.  _MG_6446.jpg by Flying Ferris, on Flickr  IMG_1633.jpg by Flying Ferris, on Flickr  IMG_1769.jpg by Flying Ferris, on Flickr  IMG_1816-Edit.jpg by Flying Ferris, on Flickr That said I have heard the Tonika is a excellent lens and wouldn't try to sway someone from buying one as forum members here have really liked their copies. Just a difference of opinion or comfort level on where photographers want to draw the line on not being able to handhold with a particular lens. if 1/10 or in the neighborhood sounds to low to you then by all means grab the f2.8 lens. Ferris Bueller fucked around with this message at 03:26 on Dec 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 03:08
|
|
|
Here are few I've taken with my 8-16. IMG_2299 by Jabba the Hutt, on Flickr  IMG_2593 by Jabba the Hutt, on Flickr  IMG_3456 by Jabba the Hutt, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 03:14
|
|
|
You guys are really making me reconsider posting my 17-40 f/4L in the gear thread. I was all set to put it up for sale this week since I never use it, but now I'm back to wondering if it doesn't hurt to just leave a wide-angle in my bag.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 03:19
|
|
|
1st AD posted:...I somehow managed to never take any landscape shots with my 10-22 I use my ultra wide for dense urban shooting and parties, not so much for landscape.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 03:20
|
|
|
Eh, if I'm taking landscapes sometimes I want to be able to snap off a quick wide instead of stitching shots for a pano. Because I'm lazy and never bring a tripod on my hikes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 03:46
|
|
|
LiquidRain posted:You need something very close to you in order to take landscapes with an ultra wide. If you're taking panorama photos and such, they're not that useful since all the detail in the distance is REALLY "in the distance." Close objects look really close, far objects look really far. Same here. I use it mostly for really big things close up. Something as large as a mountain can look very small if it's far off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 03:49
|
|
|
Just throwing my .02 in here - the 10-22 is one of the sharpest non-L lenses Canon makes. It's sharper than the full-frame 'equivalent' the 17-40. It also has less distortion than the 17-40! It was by far my favorite lens for the four years I owned a APS-C camera, and it's worth every penny! Now I miss it 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 03:57
|
|
|
Gambl0r posted:Just throwing my .02 in here - the 10-22 is one of the sharpest non-L lenses Canon makes. It's sharper than the full-frame 'equivalent' the 17-40. It also has less distortion than the 17-40! It was by far my favorite lens for the four years I owned a APS-C camera, and it's worth every penny! Now I miss it Yeah this and the Sigma 30mm are the only APS-C lenses I still own.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 03:59
|
|
|
Gambl0r posted:Just throwing my .02 in here - the 10-22 is one of the sharpest non-L lenses Canon makes. It's sharper than the full-frame 'equivalent' the 17-40. It also has less distortion than the 17-40! It was by far my favorite lens for the four years I owned a APS-C camera, and it's worth every penny! Now I miss it I like the 10-22 so much that I modified mine to work with my 6D. I took out the black plastic cover over the rear mount. It hard vignettes from 10mm~14mm. It must be used in live view from 10-12mm because the mirror will hit the rear element. But I don't care about these things because it is so awesome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 04:34
|
|
|
Thanks for the words and samples! Not a very easy decision to be made here. Since I shoot primarily video, I think I'm actually going to opt for the Tokina 11-16mm since it has a constant aperture through its entire range. I'll probably pick up the Samyang 8mm fisheye as well for the novelty at some point so that I don't miss out on the extra-wide fun.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
Tenderloin posted:I don't think the Sigma 8-16mm takes filters but would love to hear more about the differences. Definitely deliberating between this and Canon's 10-22mm which is a stop faster and about $100 cheaper, but I have the 17-55mm and kind of like that the 8-16mm doesn't overlap at all. Hmmm. My Sigma 8-16 came with a detachable cuff which acts as an extra hood but also has a thread to attach screw on filters. That said, using it at anything other than 16mm will leave your pictures looking like a Bond film intro.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
Well I pulled the trigger and got the 5DMkIII. It arrived and I am hoping to use it tonight at a club and see how it does in a dimly lit scene. ISO 1600 used to my max setting indoors, I'm hoping to use 6400 tonight. Any owners with opinions on where noise becomes unacceptable?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
Maybe 10,000?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
Djimi posted:Well I pulled the trigger and got the 5DMkIII. It arrived and I am hoping to use it tonight at a club and see how it does in a dimly lit scene. ISO 1600 used to my max setting indoors, I'm hoping to use 6400 tonight. Any owners with opinions on where noise becomes unacceptable? Anywhere from 400 to never depending on your definition of "unacceptable."
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
Djimi posted:ISO 1600 used to my max setting indoors, I'm hoping to use 6400 tonight. Any owners with opinions on where noise becomes unacceptable?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Noise wise, ISO 1600 on my old 550D looks similar to ISO 6400 on my 6D, so you'll be in for a treat. Can't wait. Happy New Year for those celebrating!
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Anywhere from 400 to never depending on your definition of "unacceptable." It's amazing to me that people who would have bought 800 speed disposable cameras 15 years ago on vacation, or paid a wedding photographer a lot of money for pictures taken on portra 800, will spend a lot of time on internet forums ranting about how 6400 ISO is just UNUSABLE on their whatever camera. If I have to take a picture at 12800, I'd rather take it and downsize it than not take it at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:It's amazing to me that people who would have bought 800 speed disposable cameras 15 years ago on vacation, or paid a wedding photographer a lot of money for pictures taken on portra 800, will spend a lot of time on internet forums ranting about how 6400 ISO is just UNUSABLE on their whatever camera. If I have to take a picture at 12800, I'd rather take it and downsize it than not take it at all. I think it's more the fact that, unless you're shooting black and white, digital at higher ISOs looks much worse than film (or it used to anyway). With high-ISO film, you just had lots of grain but with digital you start getting weird colour issues. Like, if you bump up any of the Canon T3i/550D/60D sensors to over 6400, the colors start looking awful. Saying that, the 5D3 and newer models are all starting to look really good a super high ISO.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 11:56
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:I think it's more the fact that, unless you're shooting black and white, digital at higher ISOs looks much worse than film (or it used to anyway). With high-ISO film, you just had lots of grain but with digital you start getting weird colour issues. Like, if you bump up any of the Canon T3i/550D/60D sensors to over 6400, the colors start looking awful. Saying that, the 5D3 and newer models are all starting to look really good a super high ISO. high iso noise on my 6D looks way better than the noise on my 550D (I mean the look of the noise, not "how high I can go before the noise is too much"); it's more like grain than rainbow pattern
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 12:20
|
|
|
My 50 1.8 isn't looking too good anymore. Second hand prices for the Canon 50 1.4 and Sigma 50 1.4 are similar. Would I be an idiot to not go for Sigma? I know it's important to check focus on the Sigma.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
If you can do micro AF adjustments and it does miss often, it shouldn't be too hard to find a setting that works for most things except infinity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
I don't find my sigma 50 misses too often but I generally don't use it wide open for portraits and have micro adjust on my 7d.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:I think it's more the fact that, unless you're shooting black and white, digital at higher ISOs looks much worse than film (or it used to anyway). With high-ISO film, you just had lots of grain but with digital you start getting weird colour issues. Like, if you bump up any of the Canon T3i/550D/60D sensors to over 6400, the colors start looking awful. Saying that, the 5D3 and newer models are all starting to look really good a super high ISO. Sure, if you need it at full size, since you can't be too agressive with the chroma noise removal if you need a 5000 pixel wide image still. But that doesn't make it useless/unusable - it makes it useless for gigantic fine art prints. It's perfectly fine for taking pictures of my kid without grabbing my flash and posting them on facebook at 1000x700. And at that point I'm feeling spoiled that I can even take a picture of my kid without a flash in that little light anyway. I guess what I'm trying to say is, the internet seems to be full of a lot more people who profess to need fine art quality out of their digital cameras than my impression of the actual amount of fine art photographers that are in the world. These are both EOS-M photos, taken in JPG , one @ 6400, and one @ 12800, with just a little run through perfectly clear, but no real effort put into them. They're not useless for what I want them to be, which is snapshots of my kid that I can post on FB and send to grandma to ooh and ahh over, and maybe put a 4x6 on my desk at work for a little while. And these were underexposed and had to be lightened so they're worse than they had to be too.   Edit: I think this one is 3200 or 2500, something else people say is unusable from this sensor  and if you don't mind smooshing detail, you can get very clean (detail not really that significant at this size, for this use, IMO, but everyone has opinions. Personally I prefer the not smooshed, but if one valued clean above all else I guess this would work. I'm sure if it was a photo of my wife, she'd prefer it since it would make her skin look 10 years younger ) Strong noise reduction  vs not (SOOC default jpg NR, just resized)  Edit again: And one more that I spent more than 30 seconds on (but still less than 5 minutes, on a JPEG mind you) to clean up a little without totally wiping out detail. I stand by my statement that this sensor is totally usable @ 6400 and 12800, for the right purpose. 
timrenzi574 fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Jan 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
drat, it's going to take a while to figure out the autofocus system on the 5d3. I'm so used to doing center point + recompose.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
Are you referring to back button focus with the (AE lock * )? Or something else?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
Djimi posted:Are you referring to back button focus with the (AE lock * )? Or something else? probably making use of all of the different points and how awesome that sounds. recently I got the Tamron 17-50, mostly because it's so recommended and I found it for ~$200 brand new on Amazon Japan (from Amazon no less. sorry, gotta keep bragging about that deal.) Since I've been using primes so often for the last few years, it feels like a cheat code to have such wide angles available...at 2.8. It's amazing. If you have a crop body, you must get this lens. I carried my pancake 40 around in my bag while walking around Tokyo and didn't use it once (which is kinda sad, I love that little guy too). I'll have to check the pictures soon but just the feeling from using the 17-50 is pretty stunning.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:drat, it's going to take a while to figure out the autofocus system on the 5d3. I'm so used to doing center point + recompose.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 07:10
|
|
|
Mathturbator posted:How do you cope with the fact that you can't see the red AF confirnation blinks in daylight? Me, I've enabled the beep confirmation, so I sound like it's babby's first camera. edit: I suppose that snarky answer needs a bit of expansion. I've not had issues with AF confirmation visibility in daylight because my 5D III is always in AI Servo. If I switch to manual focus for a set shot (landscape, stars, product photography, etc.) then I'll just use Live View by zooming in on the area I want in focus. The viewfinder never factors into the equation for focus confirmation -- just framing. Star War Sex Parrot fucked around with this message at 07:47 on Jan 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
Mathturbator posted:How do you cope with the fact that you can't see the red AF confirnation blinks in daylight? (from http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/38003/why-isnt-the-focus-indicator-light-showing-when-focused-on-my-canon-5d-mark-iii) There are several menu settings that affect when the red illumination of focus points is activated. By default, the red indicator lights will only illuminate over the active focus points when focus is achieved and the brightness of the scene in the viewfinder is low. You can modify this in the menu settings. Under the AF 5 (purple) tab, select VF display illumination. The Auto option is the default setting. Select Enable to have the points light up regardless of the brightness of the scene. Select Disable if you do not want them to light up. It is explained on page 103 of the 5DIII user manual. The red lights will only blink over whatever black indicators are visible. This may be all, some, or none of the focus points depending on the setting chosen under AF point display during focus. To change which focus points are displayed and when they are displayed in the viewfinder, see page 102. This adjusts the black non-illuminated display of the focus points.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 07:46
|
|
|
I honestly just rely on the fact that if AF is not achieved, the 7D (and I imagine any other Canons) will focus seek and put the lens through its entire zoom range. If AF is good, I won't see the hunt. There's also the AF confirmation light in the viewfinder, or yeah, use the beep. It's there for a reason, and I don't see why you wouldn't use it if this is an issue for you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 07:55
|
|
|
Djimi, I appreciate the effort but I've studied all I could find about the new AF system, and I do have the VF display illumination on enable. The problem is not that the AF confirmation lights are not showing, but they are so dim they are only visible in low light. It's easy to confirm this by focusing in a scene that's half dark, half light. You'll be able to see all AF points in the dark part of the VF light up, but you won't be able to see any points in the bright part. I read somewhere it's because of the way the AF system is constructed, being brighter would interfere with the exposure or metering. On the 5DII, you could clearly see which of the 9 AF points were selected, because it was glowing bright red (or they all were, I forgot), bright enough to see in any light. The AF system is still a vast improvement, but that little detail actually worked better for me on the 5DII. Of course, beep confirmation works and then there's the green dot confirmation in the VF too - it's just personal preference that I'd like to see the focused points in the VF. By the way, I recommend the book "Canon 5D Mark III experience" by Douglas Klostermann, it's got a well written chapter on the AF system. Well worth the price for anyone learning to use the 5DIII AF.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 08:32
|
|
|
Mathturbator posted:AF stuff
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 08:59
|
|
|
Let me know what you think, maybe I'm a sperg.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 09:16
|
|
|
I've never noticed it as being an issue or even an annoyance after the first week of using it. Just got used to working with other ways of focus confirmation, including the green dot and trusting that it focused on the point I had selected as my focus point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
BrosephofArimathea posted:- a tele prime or zoom: 135L or some flavour of 70-200, I guess. I really liked the 85mm length on aps-c. I bought the 70-200L (non IS) last summer ($1300ish) and it's a great lens though it struggles in lowlight and makes me wish I had saved and gotten the latest IS version. The 135 ($980) is great if you have the room to maneouver with it it's sharp as hell even wide open. I'm always happen when I am in a setting that I can use it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
I'm in the process of selling my 5D Mk III, and I've got someone who is interested in it (via email) saying they want my serial number because a number of 5D3s came from the factory "potentially damaged" and that Canon released a list of the affected serial numbers. I'm not going to give them my serial either way, I'm just curious if the whole 'factory damaged 5D3s and serial number list' thing is real or not. Edit: Some research turns up a light-leak issue with certain cameras in the first batches, that must be what they're referring to. Fart Car '97 fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Jan 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
YES YES YES YES YES
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
I currently have a 650D which I bought just over a year ago now and am starting to feel like I want to upgrade. I really can't afford the jump to full frame at this point but I'm considering a smaller upgrade to a 60D. I know that it has a far better viewfinder and has better controls but realistically will I see any improvement in image quality or does the fact that Canon keep wheeling out the same sensor mean there'll be no difference?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 14:13 |
|
|
geeves posted:I bought the 70-200L (non IS) last summer ($1300ish) and it's a great lens though it struggles in lowlight and makes me wish I had saved and gotten the latest IS version. You're damned right about the 135mm. Finally got a chance to do a portrait session with it this weekend and was really happy with the color & contrast rendering, plus just the magic that it does with people's faces. I hadn't heard about the 70-200 f/2.8 being a dog in low light. Are you talking about AF, or just getting a steady shot in general?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 16:14
|
|
