Official Misc Photography Crew, Part IV "You're not close enough."

[ShoryuBrah]

I have to disagree. Though the Tamron actually is advantageous due to it's form of image stabilization (VC or w/e it's called), I tried both it and the Mark IIL somewhat extensively before purchase; the Tamron does great in Good to Average light, but when things get darker, it struggles - especially with off-center focus points. This becomes an issue for me during both events as well as fashion shoots when utilizing a ND filter; since sometimes I want to be shooting wide open, I don't have a lot of focal margain for error, and the Tamron missed too often to make it worth the price savings.

Interesting. I've seen a lot of people praising it in low light actually. I haven't used the 24-70 but I have their 70-200 VC SP which is basically the same tier and I haven't had any issues shooting in low light.

[azurejer]

Interesting. I've seen a lot of people praising it in low light actually. I haven't used the 24-70 but I have their 70-200 VC SP which is basically the same tier and I haven't had any issues shooting in low light.

Not only with accquiring focus at all, but with doing so without delay. The 'lag' of aftermarket lense focus is ever-present with this one (don't get me wrong - I shoot the Sigma 85 1.4 plenty, and it's awesome, not a lense snob). Maybe mine was a bunk copy, but the difference was well worth the price for me.

[Dominik]

I have to disagree. Though the Tamron actually is advantageous due to it's form of image stabilization (VC or w/e it's called), I tried both it and the Mark IIL somewhat extensively before purchase; the Tamron does great in Good to Average light, but when things get darker, it struggles - especially with off-center focus points. This becomes an issue for me during both events as well as fashion shoots when utilizing a ND filter; since sometimes I want to be shooting wide open, I don't have a lot of focal margain for error, and the Tamron missed too often to make it worth the price savings.

re: IS/VR/VC in a 24-70 2.8, who here really finds themselves needing it?

Obviously if you're shooting landscapes in low light you're better off using a tripod. For moving subjects like people, image stabilization can't do anything about subject movement so anywhere below 1/30-1/60 is going to be hit and miss.

[BlueSasquatch]

Definitely hit up the badlands. Even spend a night or two camping there if you can. All my recent pictures in this thread were taken there. Also there's a cool t rex on a leash statue on one of the highways. Makes for a cool snap shot. You have to off to the shoulder to get the shot.
.

Thanks for the advice bro, will be on the lookout for dino.

Looked up what Mangelsen carries around, his shots are what I would like to produce, 200-400mm f/4G ED-AF-S VR II runs $10,000. Good lord, that is insane. His prints cost about that much too, but still.

Trying to figure out what my current camera 'zoom' to mm is, to give me an idea of what lens I would want, and would be able to pull off similar shots to what I am now.

P510
42x Optical Zoom,
Lens Focal Length 4.3-180mm
Digital Zoom 2x (Approx equivalent of 2,000 mm in 35mm)

So would a lens of x-200mm match what I currently can do? and If I add a 2x Teleconveter lens, would that be the equivalent of my 2x digital zoom?
I have heard mm/35=rough zoom, but when I reverse the formula and take 42x35=1470 mm? Seems high.

I am just trying to determine what lens I would need (300mm, 400mm?) so that I do not feel like my P510 would get me a closer, better shot.

Also thinking about how little time I typically have to go from landscape to wildlife shots, changing lenses is starting to sound like it would cause me to miss the shot. I guess I am going back on the fence on DSLRs. Also quite a price tag.

What do people think about the Nikon 1 camera line? GF has a basic camera, trying to decide if it would be a good step up, or if it is just a strange niche market camera that is pretty much crap?

[cunfewzed]

Tell her "Sure, $100/hr sounds reasonable. My rate is $200/hr so I'll give you a 50% discount."

Yes! It's been hashed, but to re-hash, dis chick be cray-cray

re: IS/VR/VC in a 24-70 2.8, who here really finds themselves needing it?

Obviously if you're shooting landscapes in low light you're better off using a tripod. For moving subjects like people, image stabilization can't do anything about subject movement so anywhere below 1/30-1/60 is going to be hit and miss.

This has always been my contention. VR is great and all, but I'm not going to pay extra for it, at least not for what I do. I can see how it's useful @ 200mm on a 70-200, maybe, but even then, I'd probably opt to bump ISO before lowering shutter-speed to the point where VR would be necessary.

[Dominik]

This has always been my contention. VR is great and all, but I'm not going to pay extra for it, at least not for what I do. I can see how it's useful @ 200mm on a 70-200, maybe, but even then, I'd probably opt to bump ISO before lowering shutter-speed to the point where VR would be necessary.

Exactly. I like it on the 70-200 2.8 where it allows me to shoot around 1/60-1/100 at the long end when the subject is still but generally like you said it's better to avoid dropping the shutter speed and just bump the ISO or use flash.

Adding it to the 24-70 just seems like overkill. It's already a decent chunk of glass that will only get heavier and bulkier with VR not to mention more expensive.

I can see the appeal of VR in a lens for travel but something like a 24-85, 24-120 or 24-300 makes more sense than a bulky 2.8 there.

[Final_Rep]

In the works to license this photo for website use to a medical company:

[acrawlingchaos]

Trying to figure out what my current camera 'zoom' to mm is, to give me an idea of what lens I would want, and would be able to pull off similar shots to what I am now.

P510
42x Optical Zoom,
Lens Focal Length 4.3-180mm
Digital Zoom 2x (Approx equivalent of 2,000 mm in 35mm)

This may take a bit of explaining, so bear with me.

The 42 Optical zoom on that model camera is equivalent to 24 -1000mm.
The 2 x digital zoom is nothing, it's just cropping the photo "in-camera".

The 42x zoom isn't all lens either. They are taking into effect crop factor (which is a reference to the image sensor). Crop factor will affect focal range. If you have a 500mm lens with a 1.6 cropped sensor, your effective focal range would be 830mm. If you had a 1.4 teleconverter, your glass focal length would be 700 (500 x 1.4 = 700). If you had a camera with a 1.6 crop factor, the effective focal range would be 1120mm (700 x 1.6 = 1120). Please read the below link to really familiarize yourself with crop factor.

http://digital-photography-school.co...tor-explained/



There are many other aspects you need to keep in mind. Your current camera has many limitations. Your maximum shutter speed is 1/2000. If you are doing fast moving wildlife, this is too slow to freeze the motion of birds. You also only have a min shutter speed of 15 seconds, which means milky way shots are out.

The ISO range on your current camera is limited to 6400. Noise over 800-1000 is probably very evident, and the aperture is slow on your camera (f 8.9 at 1000).

The lens on superzoom cameras are very complex and sharpness is suffered in comparison to a less complex design.

What do people think about the Nikon 1 camera line? GF has a basic camera, trying to decide if it would be a good step up, or if it is just a strange niche market camera that is pretty much crap?

What is your price range for a camera? How much do you want to invest in glass? Are you willing to go used?

[Dominik]

The 42x zoom isn't all lens either. They are taking into effect crop factor (which is a reference to the image sensor). Crop factor will affect focal range. If you have a 500mm lens with a 1.6 cropped sensor, your effective focal range would be 830mm.

This is a common belief given it's used in a lot of marketing for crop sensor cameras however the only thing that changes with a crop sensor is the field of view.

A 50mm lens on an APS-C or DX sensor camera is still 50mm. Magnification doesn't change. You're not getting more reach. All that's happening is field of view is reduced to give the illusion of a longer lens. If you shot a pano to cover the area cropped away you'd see the same image.

Where "more reach" comes into it is when you have a higher resolution sensor than if you cropped the image on full frame. For example, DX crop on a D800 = 15.3mp. Shoot with a 300mm lens on both a D800 and 16mp D7000 and it's pretty much line ball. Now shoot with a 24mp D7200 and the extra 8mp gives you more resolution from the 300mm lens and a larger image at 100%.

[acrawlingchaos]

This is a common belief given it's used in a lot of marketing for crop sensor cameras however the only thing that changes with a crop sensor is the field of view.

A 50mm lens on an APS-C or DX sensor camera is still 50mm. Magnification doesn't change. You're not getting more reach. All that's happening is field of view is reduced to give the illusion of a longer lens. If you shot a pano to cover the area cropped away you'd see the same image.

Thank you for the clarification. No doubt they are including crop factor to figure this number out.

[KRANE]

Its all misleading marketing gobbledygook. And digital zooms are even more marketing nonsense. Disregard those completely.

[VmissileX]

Today, actually now...i'm gonna try to shoot more of the festival. I'm hoping to get "up close and personal" with a nice 50. Lets see what occurs.

It may be also a good time to do some candid street stuff. Lets see.

[azurejer]

re: IS/VR/VC in a 24-70 2.8, who here really finds themselves needing it?

Obviously if you're shooting landscapes in low light you're better off using a tripod. For moving subjects like people, image stabilization can't do anything about subject movement so anywhere below 1/30-1/60 is going to be hit and miss.

I imagine for macro shots (the new Mark IIL doesn't have as great of a mfd as the I, which is a bit of a pain) it would help, as well as a select few options; a recent example being a wedding I shot where their son was running around them in a circle. I was trying to leave the exposure a little long to make him into a recognizable blue whilst they slow danced, but I ended up with 1 keeper on dozens of attempts. Not a big deal for me, but would be nice to have.

[Smithers115]

Fuck me sideways, that lens is 2 grand?!

anything with nikon on the box is expensive haha

In the works to license this photo for website use to a medical company:

love your pics

[VmissileX]

so i shot more photos of the festival.

Just can't say how much i love the 50 1.8.

OK and how cool pancakes and dom's advice was.


But srsly...the 50 1.8

[EatingPancakes]

Today, actually now...i'm gonna try to shoot more of the festival. I'm hoping to get "up close and personal" with a nice 50. Lets see what occurs.

It may be also a good time to do some candid street stuff. Lets see.

so i shot more photos of the festival.

Just can't say how much i love the 50 1.8.

OK and how cool pancakes and dom's advice was.


But srsly...the 50 1.8

No doubt. There is a reason it's called a "standard" lens. It'll get to the point where you know what's gonna be in frame before you even bring the camera up. Prime lenses are best lenses.

I've been meaning to do a comparison between all my 50s just for the hell of it.

I've got the Nikon 50mm 1.8D, Canon 50mm 1.8 EFII, and the Minolta 50mm 1.7. Will probably do that after all this hurricane brouhaha.

[VmissileX]

No doubt. There is a reason it's called a "standard" lens. It'll get to the point where you know what's gonna be in frame before you even bring the camera up. Prime lenses are best lenses.

I've been meaning to do a comparison between all my 50s just for the hell of it.

I've got the Nikon 50mm 1.8D, Canon 50mm 1.8 EFII, and the Minolta 50mm 1.7. Will probably do that after all this hurricane brouhaha.

I loved it.
I'll upload pics tomorrow...just don't have the time to do anything tonight really.

primes are great. I may buy just another 35mm, and a 85mm (now granted when i go FF, which'll be months down the road). The D series is just awesome. I'm glad it exists still.

Zooms have that advantage of not constantly switching lenses though. That 24-70 2.8g looks sexay.

[Jattz]

Fuark. So in.

Will post when I get some time to organize some pics.

[EatingPancakes]

I loved it.
I'll upload pics tomorrow...just don't have the time to do anything tonight really.

primes are great. I may buy just another 35mm, and a 85mm (now granted when i go FF, which'll be months down the road). The D series is just awesome. I'm glad it exists still.

Zooms have that advantage of not constantly switching lenses though. That 24-70 2.8g looks sexay.

I have this love for medium range f/4 lenses. The 24-120 for Nikon and 24-105 for Canon are two of my favourite zoom lenses from each.

With noise performance the way it is now, you don't lose much from not having those couple of stops. Though I tend to be a photographer of stationary things, having that extra stop to give you that extra bit of shutter speed without raising the ISO comes in handy for moving stuff where VR would be pointless and not help in the least anyway.

When it comes to an everyday all-rounder, f4 zooms are my favourite by far.

[KRANE]

Now, now, stop all this salivating over prime lenses. We know they're good, and better in most cases, but they still have limitations.

Incidentally, wouldn't you think its safe to say that the extra stop or two in lens limitation is off-set by the newer more sensitive sensors when it comes to light? I'd wish there was a comparison of this.

[VmissileX]

I have this love for medium range f/4 lenses. The 24-120 for Nikon and 24-105 for Canon are two of my favourite zoom lenses from each.

With noise performance the way it is now, you don't lose much from not having those couple of stops. Though I tend to be a photographer of stationary things, having that extra stop to give you that extra bit of shutter speed without raising the ISO comes in handy for moving stuff where VR would be pointless and not help in the least anyway.
`
When it comes to an everyday all-rounder, f4 zooms are my favourite by far.

Since i'm still learning, i still haven't found my niche yet. Just trying to shoot everything. This event stuff has really got me very interested. i'll have to do further research when the day comes down.

anywho, heres a pic i shot today with the 50mm 1.8. It looks oversharpened when uploaded to flickr. IDK, why....regardless....

Juggler 01 by Dev.Chatterjee, on Flickr

This guy was quite entertaining. He came up to a part of the audience close to me and that was how i was able to get this shot. Otherwise he was quite far away. Will look into more work on these photos tomorrow. It was fun to watch. This guy was juggling...the guy before juggling fire.

[ShoryuBrah]

There are certain effects with primes that you just can't do with a zoom. For example getting paper thin DOF at 24mm isn't going to happen at f4 or f2.8. I've also had to shoot at 1/60, f1.4, ISO 12800 before. Try that at f4, ISO 51200, and you won't get very good results. Zooms do have their advantages though.

[KRANE]

There are certain effects with primes that you just can't do with a zoom. For example getting paper thin DOF at 24mm isn't going to happen at f4 or f2.8. I've also had to shoot at 1/60, f1.4, ISO 12800 before. Try that at f4, ISO 51200, and you won't get very good results. Zooms do have their advantages though.

I'm pretty sure I can do that test. Now what's the 5Ds maximum ISO again?

[ShoryuBrah]

I'm pretty sure I can do that test. Now what's the 5Ds maximum ISO again?

[img]http://phonictalk.com/images/pt_why2_cartoonmanthinking.gif[/ig]

I said you wouldn't get very good results, not that you couldn't do it. And also I calculated that wrong, it would be ISO 104K. Assuming you meant 5D3, since the 5D tops out at 6400 or 12800, I know your results won't be great because my 6D out performs the 5D3 at high ISO and I find 51+K nearly unusable.

Also I'm talking real world usage here. A well lit room at 1/2000, ISO 51K will look a lot different than a poorly lit room at 1/60, 51K.

[EatingPancakes]

Since i'm still learning, i still haven't found my niche yet. Just trying to shoot everything. This event stuff has really got me very interested. i'll have to do further research when the day comes down.

anywho, heres a pic i shot today with the 50mm 1.8. It looks oversharpened when uploaded to flickr. IDK, why....regardless....

Juggler 01 by Dev.Chatterjee, on Flickr

This guy was quite entertaining. He came up to a part of the audience close to me and that was how i was able to get this shot. Otherwise he was quite far away. Will look into more work on these photos tomorrow. It was fun to watch. This guy was juggling...the guy before juggling fire.

It might just be the compression. What are you editing in? It might be you have a sharpen export setting toggled.

[KRANE]

I said you wouldn't get very good results, not that you couldn't do it. And also I calculated that wrong, it would be ISO 104K. Assuming you meant 5D3, since the 5D tops out at 6400 or 12800, I know your results won't be great because my 6D out performs the 5D3 at high ISO and I find 51+K nearly unusable.

Also I'm talking real world usage here. A well lit room at 1/2000, ISO 51K will look a lot different than a poorly lit room at 1/60, 51K.

I understood all that brah. It was suppose to be a light humor response (hence the goofy image), as the post before it. Nevertheless, here are some samples from dpreview.com for your entertainment.

[oday2]

DSCF1307
by SylvainTruchet, on Flickr

Taken in the French Alps

[LieutenantGains]

I never hesitate to use my 5D3 at ISO 12800. Basically about equal to ISO1600 on my old 50D.

[Dominik]

In the works to license this photo for website use to a medical company:
[img]http://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/t1.0-9/10603274_10152609694288624_1944962916524254118_n.j pg[img]

Beautiful. Must have been one of the best parts of your job when they were flying you over those mountain ranges.

Prime lenses are best lenses.

No argument there. Faster, sharper, smaller, lighter. If you have the time to change lenses and there is no AF speed/accuracy issue compared to a modern 2.8 zoom, then they're an obvious choice.

The only exception I can think of is the 14-24 2.8 which owns the ultrawide primes. Canon and Nikon don't make a better 14mm. There's the incredible Zeiss 15mm 2.8 which has a slight edge but you lose AF.

Anyway, here's a shot of my favorite prime sandwiched between two speedlights and also a tip for metering flashes: connect a trigger to the sync port of your light meter.

In situations where you're photographing someone important and they might only be able to give you a few minutes of their time, it definitely helps. Even if you have one of the fancy TTL triggers where you can adjust levels from the commander window it still allows you to quickly dial in a starting point before you fine-tune the power levels.

[tomdotcom]

Primes rule. Can't remember the last time I shot with a zoom.