ruben leal

<p>If you are looking for a long lens with a large aperture to be able to use faster shutter speeds, beware of the shallower depth of field (DOF) you will get in that scenario, specially if you move on to a full-frame camera. A long lens with a larger sensor used in a short distance equals a great magnification, which is the factor to get a shallow DOF, which translates into a portrait of a person's head with sharp eyes but out-of-focus nose and ears. While many people like this, and a truly great portrait when properly executed, it also means a lot of concentration to keep the proper focus point on the subject's eye, which may be distracting for a portraitist trying to get a nice composition, even more when the subject won't hold a pose.<br> For example, even while I like the shallow DOF of my 100mm f/2 when used for portraits, I won't try to get a profile image of a couple during their wedding with an aperture larger than f/5.6, and will even try to use f/8 to make sure both of them appear sharp enough in a 8x10" print of a photo taken from a side with such focal length.<br> This example translates to my choice of f/4 IS zooms, and fast primes (fixed focal length lens): If I don't have the time to select a fast prime, and carefully focus with the camera on a tripod, then I can't be sure I will get a properly focused photo with an aperture larger than f/4.<br> Then I would suggest you to test your camera with higher ISO levels, even up to 800, and see the final result you would deliver (perhaps a printed photo), and only when you had seen the results you would be able to choose between a large aperture and a high ISO (you should be able to do this testing with your 50mm f/1.8 starting at f/2.8 and ISO 100, and closing the lens' aperture while increasing the ISO to keep a constant exposure). Don't worry about the on-screen noise of a RAW file, only the finished product matters (and even then you could improve a poor result with a software to remove noise).</p>

<p>I guess it depend's on your style and the specific model you plan to buy.<br> Pros: Continuous light let's you, or your assistant, easily place the lights,<br> Cons: LED lights still aren't as powerful as a flash.<br> There are lots of video tutorials on the web, you should be able to see if the power and working distance matches your style. Perhaps people in the wedding forum could share their experience, as I usually see more wedding photographers using LED panels than any other group of photographers (perhaps LED lamps are also used by macro and product photographers). </p>

<p>There is some noise in the image, but it doesn´t appears in an 8x10 print (hadn't printed it larger yet).<br> Next time I should turn on the long exposure noise reduction to compare results (you can check the EXIF for additional details). The temperature in the nearest airport, according to WeatherSpark, was 10°C (50°F), so I would say up in the mountain was closer to 0°C (32°F). The location, in case you want to look for further weather information, is: 25.2404°N 100.4296°W.<br> By the way, I use PhotoPills in my iPhone to plan my night time photography, and I recommend it.</p>

<p>Hi Chris, did you have luck with your two hour test?<br> This is an image without further manipulation than changing the white balance to 3600K, and re-sized to show it within the thread.</p><div></div>

<p>I also use Op/Tech's Rain Sleeve. Two more reasons:<br> - These need so little space, I can always have a couple in my bag, while my friends using larger weather protectors usually end leaving their's at home; and<br> - As I always have more than one, and almost every time I'm out with friends, there is someone without rain protection for their camera, I usually give one of mines to someone in need (it helps they are so cheap). </p>

<p>By the way, without all this information, we can only make a guess. So I will take a chance with the little information we have: The "fuzzy" photo is the result of a low shutter speed, which may be the result of a low light environment. This may be solved in various ways:<br> - Using a higher shutter speed (which may need either more light, a higher ISO sensitivity, or a wider lens aperture -which is a lower Av value-),<br> - Using a solid support for the camera (such as a tripod, but resting the camera on a table or a wall may also work),<br> - Using an "IS" (or equivalent) lens (that is an "Image Stabilization" device within the lens which may help you in low light conditions).<br> The last two options will only work for similar photos than the one you posted, which means they won't solve motion blur for a moving object, like a player in a sports game.</p>

<p>Hi Melissa, welcome to the forum!<br> If Jeff's questions seem to be overwhelming for you, could you post the original JPG photos? We could read the EXIF information (the technical information of the photo) directly from the file, or you may just check (either using the camera or the software included with the camera) and share the shuther (Tv) speed, aperture (Av) value, and ISO speed.</p>

<p>There's a lot of related info over the Internet, but you may be interested in how photo agencies and magazines cover major sports events.<br> Here's an article on the subject: http://gizmodo.com/the-inside-story-of-how-olympic-photographers-capture-s-1521746623<br> You may also google for technical resources, like the Sports Illustrated case study here: http://store.tekserve.com/business/Data-Storage-and-Security/Case-Studies</p>

When you compare live view and histograms vs. final results, are you comparing against the same display just after taking the photo? The camera display is just a visual reference, not a calibrated monitor in a controlled environment (if you use the display as an exposure measuring tool, but you don't calibrate such display to the current lighting conditions, the results are similar to yours, because the human eye compensates for the environment conditions). Also, the histogram is a representation of a JPG interpretation of your capture. Then, the adjustments made over the JPG capture (style, contrast, white balance, etc.) will affect the histogram, even if the RAW image's histogram looks distinct in the computer.

Something I didn't expect is the inclusion of interchangeable focusing screens in a camera with the "intelligent viewfinder", which, by the way, with this version II seems to solve my major gripe about it: the dual axis level was very confusing to me in the original 7D, so I hope it becomes more intuitive being a separate part of the viewfinder instead of sharing the focusing points as level indicators.

I completely agree with Puppy Face. I wouldn't replace the 24-105 L at this point, that's a relatively new lens, what about replacing the 100-400 L? And no, I don't think the 200-400 L is a replacement, at least no at that price. On the other hand, I believe a 24-105 STM opens the door to speculations about a new 'full-frame' camera with Dual Pixel CMOS AF, which obviously is in the works (once Canon is leading the way with that video focusing technology, they should use it in every single new camera, even more now that Apple implemented it in the iPhone 6, then they may feel the need to replace all their non-L USM lenses to include STM).

Regarding the WiFi module, I also believe Canon should have a cheaper alternative, nevertheless this product is specifically focused on live sports media coverage, where budget is less a concern (although then a 1Dx would be a better option). In live coverage of sports, they use the WFT module to physically connect the multiple cameras in an arena via a wired Ethernet, something impossible with the EyeFi or similar offerings in the market. But, again, I for one believe Canon should also cater for mere mortals who just want a simple lower cost WiFi connection.

<p>With Today's announcement of the new EOS 7D Mk II we seem to forget there are new lenses too:</p> <ul> <li>EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM</li> <li>EF 24-105mm f3.5-5.6 IS STM</li> <li>EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM (Pancake)</li> <li>EF 400m f/4 DO IS II USM</li> </ul> <p>http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup</p>

According to PopPhoto.com, the lever around the joystick is for quick area focus selection. They say it has two media slots: 1 CF, 1 SD. Price is set at $1,800 (same as 7D at introduction time). Has anyone read anything about the viewfinder? The PopPhoto note says it has interchangeable focusing screens, which I doubt are compatible with the active viewfinder of the current 7D (at least no other Canon camera has both so far, but there is always a time for a first).

Harry, by the responses here, there seems to be little interest in the stroboscopic subject. Continuing where I left on my previous post, I just learned a couple things reading the article in this link: http://people.rit.edu/andpph/text-digital-stroboscopy.html 1) (Some) film cameras were able to keep the shutter open while rewinding the film, allowing to displace the photographed subject within the frame, 2) As digital cameras don't have a "moving" sensor, the effect can be achieved by rotating the camera while doing the stroboscopic exposure. Certainly a complex process, but worth giving a try.

There seems seems to be a comprehensive introduction to the subject in RIT's website, but the thread in the following link has a nicer photo which explains the settings: http://www.scooterresource.com/forum/threads/canon-430ex-stroboscopic- mode.12583/ I never used it, but I may find the occasion some time.

Marilie, could you elaborate a bit more on your specific needs? My experience in low light requirements includes scenarios where prime lens with really wide apertures are the only solution, but also scenarios where a sturdy tripod is more important than the lens in use, going through the usual wide aperture zoom lenses as well as lenses with image stabilization, all depending on the subject, camera body, circumstances, etc. For example, a contemporary dance presentation under dim violet light may need a normal length prime lens with a wide aperture to freeze a dancer in mid-air. On the other hand, a night scene showing the movement of the stars (actually the rotation of the Earth) may be done with an exposure of an hour, requiring the lens diafragram to be partially closed, but depends on a very sturdy tripod to hold the camera still for the length of the shot. Examples of differences of lenses depending on the camera body are the applications where the Sigma f/1.8 zoom lens could be used (but it only works for cameras with APS-C sized sensors). Also, depending on the generation of the camera's sensor, size of its photo-sites, density and resolution, you may use a higher ISO sensitivity to compensate for the lack of "speed" (wide aperture) of the lens. Finally, as it has been mentioned a lot in this thread, the location of your shoot may change your equipment options, as it isn't the same to carry a large aluminum tripod from Manfrotto with a Canon 1DX and a 70-200 f/2.8 IS Mk II, than it is to carry a gigantic carbon fiber Gitzo tripod with a Canon 6D and a prime 200mm lens, but both may deliver the same exact results.

Not an answer to Harry's issue (I believe Rob has already explained the reason), but I recently read this blog entry in Canon's Learning Center with information on the digital camera file naming standard, so it may be interesting for some of you in the forum: http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/blogs/2014/20140708_winston_filenames_blog.shtml

Arturo, wouldn't you be better served by adding a little more light to your studio to allow your current camera to focus properly, and then use your savings in better lenses? I don't know what's the sync speed of your camera, but surely you can have enough light in your studio to allow your camera to focus, and still use a shutter speed faster than 1/125s to prevent that base light from interfering in your results. What f-stop do you commonly use when doing studio photography? I know from first hand experience that older Alien Bees had dim modeling lightbulbs, but you can change those for brighter ones, or even keep the studio overhead lighting once the strobes are set (this depends on your style, but unfortunately I didn't find any examples of your work here in photo.net). You may also use a small flash in your camera just to use it's focusing aid.

David, had you ever compared for similar conditions under film against digital? Even 800 ISO film was really "noisy" (grainy) compared to today "objectionable" noise standards, and it was used as a professional tool (Portra 800 was my default film for nighttime indoor weddings). I guess most people would currently say T-MAX 3200 was a joke from Kodak, how could someone use such a grainy image?

Aaron, I don't use a previsualization App (I tried several none resulted as effective as expected). Right now I only remember Lens Agent, but it is actually focused on movie formats. The Apps I currently use for planning my landscape photography are PhotoPills, TPE (The Photographers Ephemeris), Photo Transit, and Theodolite. Photo Transit has an interesting previsualization tool based on Google Maps' Street View, as long as it is available for the place you are visiting. Worth taking a look if you are interested in landscape photography.

Some people expect a plastic look in digital images, but when you compare some 100 years of film (or so called these days "analog") photography to today's cheapest digital cameras, there is no digital noise to be worried about. Rest assured you need to make a major mistake to have objectionable noise in a printed photograph from your camera.

Back to the original cropping question, here's my opinion: 1- If a DSLR user wants to crop, they will probably be using a zoom lens, so no cropping would be needed, 2- Pre-configured cropping, in conjunction with prime lenses is quite limiting, why would I crop from 24 to 28, if I could crop to 25.5mm in post? If I'm carrying primes, I may have the next one anyway. 3- If this is for visualization, I would use a pre-visualization App in my smartphone before taking the camera from the bag, and decide what fixed focal length lens I need for the composition at hand. If I'm doing all this, I'm so careful in my photography that cropping 4 or 6mm is worse to me than just using a L grade zoom lens instead of a prime lens. By the way, I believe the cropping ratios are a different story: even while they won't show in the optical viewfinder of current Canon DSLRs, a quick chimping will let you know that your subject properly fits in an 8x10 or 6x8, something very useful when doing event photography and being paid to produce a specific print size (I used to have visual references in my film cameras' viewfinder back when I did wedding photography and delivered traditional albums with 5x7s).

Hi David, you may also want to add a monopod to your kit. Some of these may be used as walking sticks, and will also help carrying the weight of the camera system when shooting. Back when I did wedding photography, it helped my back a lot to use a monopod (of course in a wedding you carry the camera on your hand most of the day, but a walking stick will be useful when walking in nature trails anyway).