Author Topic: DSLR Advice (Canon 5D?) (Read 3971 times)

count_zero · « **Reply #25 on:** December 07, 2011, 02:08:02 PM »

Quote

Have these "CaNikon" users shot with a D700 or D3s and complained about low light performance indoors?

Yes, I actually find the conversations they have about performance of the cameras humorous. It's really echos everything we have complained about in m43 and 4/3 cropped sensor land. The difference is they have a little more room for error in composition when cropping photos. I don't dare shoot above ISO 1600 with color, where most of their limit is at ISO 3200. The common technique shooting indoor sports is set a high ISO, tune down the flash power, and don't worry about shutter speed. The reason for shooting at f2.8 and high ISO is that auto focus will work faster because it can catch more light to determine focus.

The latest complaint is that they get motion blur with those high end cameras if shutter speed is at 1/300 and no flash is used. If you're using a flash then it doesn't matter much what camera you use. I've noticed with the E-P3 and AF-tracking that I get much less blur on the main subject with 1/300 or less shutter speed. Problem with AF-tracking is that it gets confused with busy backgrounds, and sometimes doesn't track fast enough.

In future cameras that I will buy, my main focus for features to look for will be advanced focus tracking, better dynamic range, and fancy metering. High ISO noise quality, and sensor size don't matter much to me any more. I would be interested in more MP simply to have more data to crop with.

lisandra · « **Reply #26 on:** December 07, 2011, 02:15:35 PM »

Quote

and fancy metering.

olympus metering is quite fancy. Neither panasonic, canon, or nikon have nothing on olympu's 324 zone metering system. Focus tracking goes to nikon and dynamic range goes to sony.

RT_Panther · « **Reply #27 on:** December 07, 2011, 03:03:57 PM »

Quote from: count_zero on December 07, 2011, 02:08:02 PM

Quote
Have these "CaNikon" users shot with a D700 or D3s and complained about low light performance indoors?

Yes, I actually find the conversations they have about performance of the cameras humorous. It's really echos everything we have complained about in m43 and 4/3 cropped sensor land. The difference is they have a little more room for error in composition when cropping photos. I don't dare shoot above ISO 1600 with color, where most of their limit is at ISO 3200. The common technique shooting indoor sports is set a high ISO, tune down the flash power, and don't worry about shutter speed. The reason for shooting at f2.8 and high ISO is that auto focus will work faster because it can catch more light to determine focus.

The latest complaint is that they get motion blur with those high end cameras if shutter speed is at 1/300 and no flash is used. If you're using a flash then it doesn't matter much what camera you use. I've noticed with the E-P3 and AF-tracking that I get much less blur on the main subject with 1/300 or less shutter speed. Problem with AF-tracking is that it gets confused with busy backgrounds, and sometimes doesn't track fast enough.

In future cameras that I will buy, my main focus for features to look for will be advanced focus tracking, better dynamic range, and fancy metering. High ISO noise quality, and sensor size don't matter much to me any more. I would be interested in more MP simply to have more data to crop with.

Interesting...
I *think* I've achieved satisfactory results with my D5100 @ ISO 3200 and a slooow ƒ4.5-6.0 70-300 lens..

San Antonio Missions Catcher Federico "Eddy" Hernandez by RedTail_Panther, on Flickr

lisandra · « **Reply #28 on:** December 07, 2011, 07:51:34 PM »

Quote from: RT_Panther on December 07, 2011, 03:03:57 PM

Quote from: count_zero on December 07, 2011, 02:08:02 PM
Quote
Have these "CaNikon" users shot with a D700 or D3s and complained about low light performance indoors?

Yes, I actually find the conversations they have about performance of the cameras humorous. It's really echos everything we have complained about in m43 and 4/3 cropped sensor land. The difference is they have a little more room for error in composition when cropping photos. I don't dare shoot above ISO 1600 with color, where most of their limit is at ISO 3200. The common technique shooting indoor sports is set a high ISO, tune down the flash power, and don't worry about shutter speed. The reason for shooting at f2.8 and high ISO is that auto focus will work faster because it can catch more light to determine focus.

The latest complaint is that they get motion blur with those high end cameras if shutter speed is at 1/300 and no flash is used. If you're using a flash then it doesn't matter much what camera you use. I've noticed with the E-P3 and AF-tracking that I get much less blur on the main subject with 1/300 or less shutter speed. Problem with AF-tracking is that it gets confused with busy backgrounds, and sometimes doesn't track fast enough.

In future cameras that I will buy, my main focus for features to look for will be advanced focus tracking, better dynamic range, and fancy metering. High ISO noise quality, and sensor size don't matter much to me any more. I would be interested in more MP simply to have more data to crop with.

Interesting...
I *think* I've achieved satisfactory results with my D5100 @ ISO 3200 and a slooow ƒ4.5-6.0 70-300 lens..

San Antonio Missions Catcher Federico "Eddy" Hernandez by RedTail_Panther, on Flickr

true, but that shot was at 1/800 of a sec, I think hes referring to situations with lower shutter speeds. I dont even think he means dslrs arent capable, but that with flash and advances the differences between crop sensors and FF have shrunk. Its either that or I dont get it.

lisandra · « **Reply #29 on:** December 08, 2011, 03:34:05 PM »

back to the situation at hand...Pretzston, hows the decision making coming along? its great youre taking workshops, they advance you 1000%. If you can find one on flash it is well worth it, Mark from this very forum is a flash and print guru, so he can be a world of help. Flash lets you do some cool motion stuff too!

Details

Jason C · « **Reply #30 on:** December 08, 2011, 09:36:40 PM »

I am not a flash-master, but i can get it to work sometimes:

5D
50/1.4
1/200th sec
f/4
iso 400
1/200th sec
430 EX Speedlite, direct w/diffuser.

5D
50/1.4
1/200th sec
f/4
iso 400
1/200th sec
430 EX Speedlite, ceiling bounce w/bounce card. Family getting restless...

The 5D will make an excellent back-up, if you plan on the 5D2.

Jason C

mynameisjonas · « **Reply #31 on:** December 09, 2011, 03:12:22 AM »

Quote from: pretzston on December 05, 2011, 06:53:29 PM

And, as ridiculous as it may seem, I gotta get the expensive 45mm tilt shift. I have actually literally used the diorama filter in the PEN to develop some style with the effects. I would like to execute it for real.

I don't think that's ridiculous at all. Two of my favorite wedding photograpers, Jonas Peterson and Sean Flaningan, both use tilt-shifting (real or fake, I don't know) with great results:
http://jonaspeterson.com/
http://seanflanigan.net/

pretzston · « **Reply #32 on:** December 09, 2011, 06:40:33 PM »

Nice!

Well, here is the deal. I have been switching around things in my head. The guy who is behind the workshop I'm going to (very all around awesome workshop with 4 photographers, 3 full days, 30 people broken up into three groups, staying in a mansion with a chef, covers everything from marketing and branding to lighting and in Vegas!) happens to be selling his Sigma 85 1.4. Since I am able to trade t-shirt (I own a screen printing shop) with him, the cost for the lens will be about $400. Can't beat it! So, this got me rethinking where the money is going and distances etc.

This is what I am thinking and in order:

Sigma 85 1.4 Used (bought)
Canon 5D2 (body)
Canon 35 1.4 or Canon 24-70 2.8
Flash/Accessories/Trigger ?
Canon 45 2.8 tilt

And then, what if I go with the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 version I instead of the II? I am concerned with the weight that I might not use it as much as I hope and might not get as creative. And, $2.K! I would probably just be going with it if I didn't just luck into a cheap alternative of the Sigma 85 1.4.

I like the 16-35 2.8 but the above seem to be more practical at the moment.

I know that the practical aspect of the 2.8 24-70 zoom is a good move. And it certainly gets wide. If I got the 35 1.4 it wouldn't go too wide. But I was thinking I could get a wide non L F4 lens or something for a temp wide. The 35 1.4 just looks so amazing!

lisandra · « **Reply #33 on:** December 09, 2011, 07:32:51 PM »

Quote from: pretzston on December 09, 2011, 06:40:33 PM

Nice!

Well, here is the deal. I have been switching around things in my head. The guy who is behind the workshop I'm going to (very all around awesome workshop with 4 photographers, 3 full days, 30 people broken up into three groups, staying in a mansion with a chef, covers everything from marketing and branding to lighting and in Vegas!) happens to be selling his Sigma 85 1.4. Since I am able to trade t-shirt (I own a screen printing shop) with him, the cost for the lens will be about $400. Can't beat it! So, this got me rethinking where the money is going and distances etc.

This is what I am thinking and in order:

Sigma 85 1.4 Used (bought)
Canon 5D2 (body)
Canon 35 1.4 or Canon 24-70 2.8
Flash/Accessories/Trigger ?
Canon 45 2.8 tilt

And then, what if I go with the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 version I instead of the II? I am concerned with the weight that I might not use it as much as I hope and might not get as creative. And, $2.K! I would probably just be going with it if I didn't just luck into a cheap alternative of the Sigma 85 1.4.

I like the 16-35 2.8 but the above seem to be more practical at the moment.

I know that the practical aspect of the 2.8 24-70 zoom is a good move. And it certainly gets wide. If I got the 35 1.4 it wouldn't go too wide. But I was thinking I could get a wide non L F4 lens or something for a temp wide. The 35 1.4 just looks so amazing!

400$$!!! I hate you!!!!!!!

The redone list still makes plenty sense, the 24-70 is quite useful and will see a lot of action (then again I am a zoomie...) and the 35mm 1.4 is also a very good choice since the 85mm is quite cropy and more a specialty lens (but really worth it). The tilt is a world class lens, ask Mark (n2hhr). Flash and accessories are a must. On the 70-200 side of things, I really gotta insist you should save for the version 2, even if you dont get it from the get go, on the pixel packed 5D Mark II youll reeeally see the difference. if down the line you do get an even more pixel packed 5D3, this lens will be able to keep up with it easy. I know its 2k$, but itll be worth that for years and years to come (as long as you dont scratch the glass) and its so sharp youll fall in love with it instantaneously. The store I got the 70-200 sony G from will actually buy it back from me for 50$ more!

pretzston · « **Reply #34 on:** December 13, 2011, 11:53:19 AM »

Don't worry. I'm def down for the 70-200 eventually. I shoot all primes now so I'm used to moving in and getting close etc... but... I totally see the advantage with the reach and zooms.

Update:

Sigma 85 1.4 (used, purchased)
Canon 50 1.4 (used, purchased - $250)
Canon 45 Tilt (used, purchased - $1000)

I had been eyeing up the tilt for $1400+ for a while now knowing it was going to be an essential part of continue my style given I have pushed the limit of the diorama filters with portraits. Saw it used from Borrowlenses.com, bought it. I think I will never regret it. A 50 was on their cheap, boom.

My dilemma now is the body/lens from B&H.

5D2 w/ 24-70mm 2.8

or

5D2 w/ 35mm 1.4

I have caught myself in a pit of paralysis analysis. The wide help of the 24 or the fast help of the 35. Keeping in mind, I have my EP3 kit with wide, fish, zooms, etc along with me at all times.

Also, landed another wedding and have another good lead.

panzerfaustnl · « **Reply #35 on:** December 13, 2011, 03:47:03 PM »

You have done a wedding before?

voyager · « **Reply #36 on:** December 13, 2011, 05:18:00 PM »

Where did you find a 50mm f/1.4 for $250!?

lisandra · « **Reply #37 on:** December 13, 2011, 06:20:13 PM »

Quote from: pretzston on December 13, 2011, 11:53:19 AM

Don't worry. I'm def down for the 70-200 eventually. I shoot all primes now so I'm used to moving in and getting close etc... but... I totally see the advantage with the reach and zooms.

Update:

Sigma 85 1.4 (used, purchased)
Canon 50 1.4 (used, purchased - $250)
Canon 45 Tilt (used, purchased - $1000)

I had been eyeing up the tilt for $1400+ for a while now knowing it was going to be an essential part of continue my style given I have pushed the limit of the diorama filters with portraits. Saw it used from Borrowlenses.com, bought it. I think I will never regret it. A 50 was on their cheap, boom.

My dilemma now is the body/lens from B&H.

5D2 w/ 24-70mm 2.8

or

5D2 w/ 35mm 1.4

I have caught myself in a pit of paralysis analysis. The wide help of the 24 or the fast help of the 35. Keeping in mind, I have my EP3 kit with wide, fish, zooms, etc along with me at all times.

Also, landed another wedding and have another good lead.

if you get the 24 you're pretty much covered in the ranges save for a longer zoom or prime. You got two 1.4s already...

pretzston · « **Reply #38 on:** December 13, 2011, 08:42:53 PM »

Quote

if you get the 24 you're pretty much covered in the ranges save for a longer zoom or prime. You got two 1.4s already...

As much as I have been fond of some images I've seen with the 35 1.4, I am leaning towards the 24-70. It is just, with the Pana 20mm 1.7, I find it lacking even in low light. So, 2.8 scares me. But, 24-70 really completes the wide end of the camera.

Quote

You have done a wedding before?

Yup, one, with my EP3. I have 5 or 6 lined up for 2012.

lisandra · « **Reply #39 on:** December 13, 2011, 09:06:17 PM »

Quote

As much as I have been fond of some images I've seen with the 35 1.4, I am leaning towards the 24-70. It is just, with the Pana 20mm 1.7, I find it lacking even in low light. So, 2.8 scares me. But, 24-70 really completes the wide end of the camera.

2.8 is kinda scary for indoor stuff, this is where your mastery of a hotshoe flash will come in. For outside as long as there is even a tiny bit of sunlight its more than ok but for indoors if you set a mid high ISO (well, mid high for full frame anyway), say 800 (or 500 with a low ceiling if youre bouncing it and using a gary fong) with an aperture from 2.8 to 4 and a shutter speed of 1/80 to 160 you can get results surprisingly natural and close to what you would without flash. I think youll love the look the moment you try it. This for example, is ISO 500, f3.3 at 1/80 of a sec

panzerfaustnl · « **Reply #40 on:** December 14, 2011, 03:06:18 AM »

@TS. I understand that this is a hardware discussion, but knowing where they have there marriage will solve a lot of your questions. Especially if you go there once or twice before the wedding.

I don't know where you live, so I don't know if it's mid-winter in your region or full-summer, that changes what you want for outdoor love & honeymoon shoots.

If you know the spaces they are using for the wedding, maybe you can practice there before the wedding. You can think of tactics for remote flash and the use of panels for reflecting flash light.

When you know all of these things and you have your strategy and tactics ready, than you know what you need.

pretzston · « **Reply #41 on:** December 14, 2011, 12:58:26 PM »

Just to throw something else into the mix... I just got the thumbs up for some awesome new potential projects.

Through the shirts and posters we print I have a lot of music contacts. Looks like I'm going to be able to get a photo pass for major concerts from Live Nation. So, I'm talking about big rock bands etc. For example, I took my mom to Sting a few weeks back. We were front row courtesy of Live Nation. I kept thinking about how if I even had my PEN I could get some amazing shots. Now I think I will have the permission to bring a 5D in with a huge lens if I want.

So... maybe that 70-200mm 2.8 is the way to go! What do you think Lisa? haha. Any thoughts on a live concert shooting?

voyager · « **Reply #42 on:** December 14, 2011, 08:13:14 PM »

You'll need larger than f/2.8 for good concert photos.

lisandra · « **Reply #43 on:** December 14, 2011, 11:02:40 PM »

Quote from: pretzston on December 14, 2011, 12:58:26 PM

Just to throw something else into the mix... I just got the thumbs up for some awesome new potential projects.

Through the shirts and posters we print I have a lot of music contacts. Looks like I'm going to be able to get a photo pass for major concerts from Live Nation. So, I'm talking about big rock bands etc. For example, I took my mom to Sting a few weeks back. We were front row courtesy of Live Nation. I kept thinking about how if I even had my PEN I could get some amazing shots. Now I think I will have the permission to bring a 5D in with a huge lens if I want.

So... maybe that 70-200mm 2.8 is the way to go! What do you think Lisa? haha. Any thoughts on a live concert shooting?

I dont do em anymore, Im 110 pounds and not fond of being pushed, Im even less fond of being pushed by another photographer. For concerts actually wider lenses are better, if you have a press pass that allows you to be right there on the stage youll do a lot of overhead guesstimating stuff (I didnt have a live view tilt screen back then). Which is why wide works, it gives a cool sense of a band instead of just the singer, and is safer. You might think you need the fastest lens in the universe, but you dont, you dont even want it, you want f2.8-4. DOF is impossible to control on a fast moving dynamic concert at F1.4-2 on a 5D2, you might get a fantastical shot but its ruined because its focused at the tip of the singers nose. Wide angles from up close at f2.8-4 will land you more keepers on concerts, even if you do focus slightly off. Noise be damned, shoot at ISO 3200-6400.

panzerfaustnl · « **Reply #44 on:** December 15, 2011, 12:07:13 PM »

Concert shooting isn't that fun anymore. If you are lucky you may take 5 pictures and then you have to leave. At least with the big boys and girls. Locals are often more fun to do.

lisandra · « **Reply #45 on:** December 15, 2011, 01:11:40 PM »

Quote from: panzerfaustnl on December 15, 2011, 12:07:13 PM

Concert shooting isn't that fun anymore. If you are lucky you may take 5 pictures and then you have to leave. At least with the big boys and girls. Locals are often more fun to do.

thats another thing, they dont give out all access passes anymore, its 3 songs at the most and get out.

Author Topic: DSLR Advice (Canon 5D?) (Read 3971 times)

Related Topics

Recent Topics

Recent Gallery