ric c sydney

Hello everyone,

 

I was a canon (5D and 580EX) shooter up until around 3 months ago when I finally made the carefully calculated

(or so I thought-;) decision to go to Nikon. I did this for many reasons that I won't go into here and overall I

am very happy with the decision but for one thing. I have been struggling with one aspect. I have used the SB-800

and D700 for my last 6 weddings now and can't seem to consistently achieve the day to night look of underexposing

the background (typically giving you beautifully saturated blue sky) by between -1 and -2 stops (usually) and

then letting the flash expose the subject properly. I was able to do this very consistently with my 5D and 580ex

but despite reading may posts and the manuals I am still not able to do this CONSISTENTLY with the Nikon setup.

 

I get the most consistency from the following settings:

 

D700

1. Shutter or Aperture priority depending on requirement

2. FP Mode (for higher shutter speeds as I use this technique mainly for sunny weddings typically beach)

3. Auto ISO off

4. Matrix Metering

 

SB-800

1. TTL (not TTL BL)

2. I have a stofen omnibounce on it and the head is angle to the usual 60 degrees front facing

 

However, this is 3-4/10 consistent vs the 7-8/10 consistent I was getting with my canon setup.

 

I pretty much always get the shot in the end. By embarrassingly chimping the LCD and taking a couple of shots and

adjusting by trial and error however its frustrating and IMHO unprofessional.

 

Can anyone please advise me on how to do this consistently please?

 

Thanks in advance for your help.

Bullet,

 

this is easy! If you are shooting family a lot, with young kids that is, you will need 17-55 2.8. Shut the gate. 17-85's slowness indoors and low light will drive you nuts unless you light up the place like a Xmas tree or invest in a AA battery company and then proceed to tick everyone off with continual flash at these family parties/events. A blended approach of flashless candids and flash lit posed shots is best I would suggest and try and limit intrsuive flash at these informal events. Primes are nice, I use them a lot, but if indeed u are a beginner changing lenses whilst trying to capture the shot at the decisive moment will also drive you nuts. Primes become very useful later on, once you can anticipate the moment better. I would then suggest your next lens after this would be the long zoom for outdoors events you are looking at.

 

A note on the Tamron, sharpness-wise you won't notice much diference to the Canon. However, out of focus highlights on sunny days will drive you crazy with ugly agitated Bokeh comapratively speaking to the Canon. A good way for you to look at this problem is by shooting a subject that has backlit tree branches in the background...Ugly on the Tamron. I have owned it.

 

All the best...Ric.

Thanks guys some great responses.

 

Ben, you raise an interesting point. Food for thought around the intimate feel. However in some of these very large reception halls this is cahllenging. I will however still be keeping my 135 F2 for this purpose.

All,

 

I was shooting a wedding on the weekend (my 5th) when I had an epiphany (which

may be blindingly obvious to some here -;)

 

In shooting events and weddings I have always stayed away from IS lenses

preferring to use 24-70, 35 1.4, 135 F2 on my 5D as I had generally accpeted

that IS = no benefit when shooting people. However, A key piece of my wedding

style is to "pick people off" in the crowd as they converse during the reception

usally getting some pretty good candids with my 135 F2. For this I use no flash,

crank up ISO to 1600 on my 5D and usually get a solid 1/80 to 1/160 shutter

speed depending on available light. If I stay away from backgrounds with too

many shadows (noise is much more visible in the shadows in my 5D @ ISO 1600) I

do get very useable shots with this approach.

 

Now to my question. If I only need 1/80 to say 1/125 in low light to stop

subject motion and I can say get this at ISO 1600, does that mean that if I had

the 70-200 2.8 IS (yes I know I am losing a stop versus my prime) I could be

shooting at 200mm because I have enough shutter speed to stop subject motion? To

push the example further, If I bought something like the 300mm 2.8 IS prime, as

long as I can get a shutter speed of say 1/80, does that mean I could do

something crazy like shoot out at 300mm and still get sharp non motion blurred

people shots? Consequently IS for lenses with focal lengths 100mm or less would

add no value here so its only for the long tele's.

 

This interests me greatly because it then opens up a raft of new creative

possiblities for me from a candids perspective for recepetions and other low

light events.(especially in some of the larger events and receptions I have shot)

 

Thanks in advance for any assistance you can provide.

 

Ric.

Ok. I think I can help a little here. I bought both at the same time (some people might say I'm nuts) and then just decided to eBay the one I didn't like. Tough, but here's what I found.

 

(a) price was not an issue for me.

(b) 5mm at the zoomend don't mean squat. Now if it were at the wide end it would be a whole other matter.

©We'll come back to this one at the end -;) The Canon is actually 2.5x the price here in Sydney.

(d)IS not as crucial as I thought. Of course much more useful on longer zooms actually from about 85mm onwards. USM though, THIS IS THE CLINCHER. CANON USM FOCUSING ABSOLUTELY EMBARRASES THE TAMRON FOR FOCUSING. NIGHT AND DAY. OH AND DON'T GET ME STARTED ON LOW CONTRAST SITUATIONS OR POORLY LIT. CANON....BANG...FOCUSED.....TAMRON...WELL IT SPENDS MORE TIME HUNTING THAN CRO MAGNON MAN IN THE ICE AGE -;)

(e) This is bull. tamron is very well built and will go the distance.

(f) answered above. Don't matter at the tele end.

 

Finally let me add that the Canon does seem to have 2 more advantages, at least on the 2 copies I have.

 

Firstly, the Tamron BOKEH at 2.8 is just not as nice as the Canon one. Subjective I know but the Canon one is smoother, creamier and more visually pleasing.

 

Secondly, and this is something you normally see with most Tamron's (as I've seen this with 2 other Tamron's I've owned), for some reason images tend to come out a little cooler and need some WB touch up to warm them up. Find myself being forced to shoot RAW for everything with the Tamron. The Canon one is always on the money and lets me osciallate between JPG and RAW and not worry.

 

Enough I've said my peace. These are my findings. As a consequence I have now ebayed my $600 AUD Tamron and kept my $1500 17-55 2.8 IS.

Hi everyone,

 

Firstly, as this topic crosses this and the digital darkroom forum, I have

posted on both.

 

I wsa hoping I could get some help in clairfying whteher or not the picture

styles I am selecting on my 5D are being taken into account by ACR in CS2. I

only shoot RAW and I know the LCD preview of course shows me a noticeable

differnce if I am changing picture styles for my shots, I also know Canon's DPP

definitely uses them when processing the raw file and even lets you change them

in the software on the fly.

 

What I need to know is if the different pciture style are being recorded in the

raw file ACR reads or am I just wasting my time changing these for different

shooting scenarios because ACR ignores them anyway?

 

Any thoughts or experience on this subject is very welcome. AS this will save me

a considerable amount of time in my current workflow.

 

Thanks everyone for your help in advance.

 

Ric.

Hi everyone,

 

I wsa hoping I could get some help in clairfying whteher or not picture styles

are being taken into account by ACR in CS2. I only shoot RAW and I know the LCD

preview of course shows me a noticeable differnce if I am changing picture

styles for my shots, I also know Canon's DPP definitely uses them when

processing the raw file and even lets you change them in the software on the fly.

 

What I need to know is if the different pciture style are being recorded in the

raw file ACR reads or am I just wasting my time changing these for different

shooting scenarios because ACR ignores them anyway?

 

Any thoughts or experience on this subject is very welcome. AS this will save me

a considerable amount of time in my current workflow.

 

Thanks everyone for your help in advance.

 

Ric.

Correction...if TAMRON only made a 24-105 F4 with IS...-;)...Ric.

Hi Roderick,

 

if you find 28mm on a 1.6 factor camera at the wide end acceptable, I did, then I would sincerely say to you...GO FOR THE TAMRON. I have now compared my 28-75 against 3 different 24-70's. One I owned (and sold later after seeing the Tamron in action), another was a rental and the 3rd belonged to a friend. The Tamron's AF is noisy (though not as bad as the Sigma 24-70 which sounds like a diesel truck!), the body is nowhere near the build quality of the Canon, yet it is still very respectable, but more importantly....the image results....Fantastic! The only situation where the Tamron didn't match and in some cases beat the three 24-70's was wide open at 28mm where it is a little soft but still very usable! Now when I get home tonight I will search through my Archives and see If I can find some of those test shots to post for you. And yes before I get all the Naysayers, they were done on tripod, with timer, remote switch blah blah.....

 

As to sample variations, mine was spot on the first time but I'm sure it can happen. It also happens a fair bit with the Canon 24-70 too. The friend I spoke of earlier had to return his 24-70 to Canon with front focusing issues!

 

Now if canon only made a 24-105 F4 with IS I'd be a very happy camper!

 

Good Luck with it...Ric.

All thanks for your responses. Sorry it took me so long to update here, my son's been sick unfotunately and have had little time for anything else.

 

I think the conclusion I am getting to here is that the fast primes may be a necessary evil (continual lens changing) for the low light stuff and the 2.8 on the 24-70 still will not be enough for that. However, from what I am hearing the 24-70 will provide the extra Bokeh I want and the ability to not miss the shot with the child/ baby photography. I will wait for the 17-55 2.8 IS and see how it stacks up before making a call on the 24-70.

 

Thanks again all.

 

Regards, Ric.

Hi Guys & Gals,

 

My Gear: 20D, 24-105 F4 L IS, 50mm F1.4, 85mm F1.8, 70-300 F4-5.6 IS

 

My Shooting Profile: Low light social events, baby/children candids,

general travel and walkaround

 

Requirement:

 

1. Fast glass for low light social events. Fast enought to both

negate camera shake and subject motion blur (without needing to

change lenses 50 times AAArrrrrgghhhhh!)

 

2. Large aperture glass with flexible zoom for great bokeh for

baby/kids portraits/candids (Sick of primes....I want a solution

without the nightmare that is trying to keep up with kids madly

trying to switch primes quickly enough without missing the shot or

getting dust on my sensor..Aaaaaarrrggghhh!)

 

3. Decent reach in a relatively compact form for walkaround &

Travel.

 

So, the 24-105 is a 'Good' on point 1., a 'Barely Accepetable for

2'., and BRILLIANT for 3.

 

AM I NUTS OR DO I NEED BOTH THE 24-70 F2.8 AND MY 24-105 F4 ? I keep

seeing people doing the either/or thing between the 2 and I keep

thinking why do I seem to need both?

 

(maybe even the new 17-55 2.8 IS to complement the 24-105 if anyone

has any thoughts or knowledge on the former I'd love to hear from

you please)

 

I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO HEAR FROM PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN IN THIS

DILEMMA AND HAVE BOTH OR FOUND AN ALTERNATIVE

 

Thanks for your help....Ric.

Yes there is Dan. I don't know about the software you mention, but with the bundled software that came with the camera you will see that if you open up your EOS Viewr Utility, you will notice in the icons across the top I think its either the 3 or 4th last from the right. If you click on the icon whilst you have a photo opened up, you will see it brings up the 20D multiple focus points and actually highlights in red which focus point(s) were used for the shot just like the 20D does. I've only done this on RAW files though so you will need to check if you shoot .JPG.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Ric.

Phillip,

 

at last check, Friday afternoon last week, Ted's, Paxton's and CCC camerahouse couldn't commit to an ETA. There is also nothing on ebay.com.au either.

 

Try calling Canon as they may have some more info if you are hanging for it.

 

Ric.

Sheldon,

 

our postings must have crossed each other on the server -;). Excellent response. Thanks for taking the time to post your findings (and an example) especially since you have exactly the same kit and Wow...had you had a relatively stationary subject, its encouraging to see that you have got 5 stops out of the 3rd Gen IS!

 

Thanks,

 

Ric.

Jack & Mark U,

 

guys I'm clear on what freezes subject motion and the effects of ISO on EV in low light. Thanks for your responses but I fear the lack of clarity in my question -;) might have put you on the wrong path so to speak. Apologies.

 

Dan, Andrew, Conrad,

 

excellent responses thank you. So, if understand correctly, IS is approx 3 Full Stops better not EV increments/shutter speeds. Confusing, as I have seen some literature that says 3 shutter speeds faster which I now see is misleading.

 

This then also clearly explains how in low light, the 24-105 F4L IS will give me 2 full stops more over the 24-70 2.8L from a camera shake perspective. The tradeoff being, the 24-70 would give me better subject motion freeze by 1 stop.

 

These full stop explanation also then negates the EV 1/3 vs 1/2 debate as well!

 

Now if instead of Canon releasing a 17-55 2.8 EF-S IS lens they would just release an EF 17-105 2.8L IS.......I would be a very very happy camper!

 

Thank you all.

 

Ric.

Hi everyone, hope you are all keeping well. I will try and keep my

questions as short as I can but they do a require a little

explaining. Firstly, this is NOT a 24-105 F4 to 24-70 F2.8

comparison, I am merely using those 2 lenses to illustrate my point.

By way of background, I currrently have as my default kit a 20D with

a 24-105 F4L IS and shoot mostly parties and social events with 80%

of the work I do being in indoor low light situations. Now to the

questions:

 

1. If 3rd Gen IS gives me 3 shutter speeds faster (can be sometimes

more...I know) better in low light, and my 20D out-of-the-box

increases shutter speed to the effect of 1/3 EV, which then means

those 3 shutter speeds are giving you the same as an extra F Stop,

does that not mean that, in low light, the IS in the 24-105 being F4

is giving me the same advantage as the 24-70 F2.8 from an EV and

effective shutter speed perspective?.... My point being, if this

makes them equal from that perspective, am I right in assuming that

for my situation, One full F stop faster piece of glass is much

better that 3rd Gen IS? as that will not only stop my shake but also

subject motion, which I notice in a few of my shots where I'm steady

but the subject is not -;)

 

2. Secondly, if 3rd Gen IS is good for 3 shutter clicks, which at

the default 20D setting of 1/3 EV for each click equals roughly 1EV,

wouldn't I just change the custom settings to make EV change by 1/2

EV and then by factoring the 3 clicks better wouldn't that leave me

at 1.5EV instead of 1 and hence get better low light performance and

motion stop? Or am I missing something obvious?

 

As you can see, I really need some help on clarifying the advantages

of IS in low light against a faster shutter speed. I have read many,

many, articles/posts on IS and none that I have read seem to clarify

this!

 

Thanks for your help.

 

Ric.

Tom,

 

I was looking at both lenses only recently, see my posted thread about 2-3 weeks ago RE: choosing between the 2 lenses and looking at Bokeh. What I did in the end, is go with the 24-105 as I had mostly low light and family & friends candids in mind. No regrets, this lens is absolutely fantastic! I have a friend who went the other way and bought the 24-70. While he's happy and it suits his needs (he shoots mostly sports), I have borrowed it for a weekend and still would choose the 24-105 with the extra range, lighter weight for carrying around on your neck without becoming a hunchback -;), and IS over the faster lens with shorter range and no IS.

 

Good Luck...Ric.

Hmmmm Thanks David...interesting...I think I may have a look at the Sigma...My main concerns in going away from Canon though are resale value if its not what i want and Sigma's sometimes inconsistent build quality

All,

 

thanks for your contributions they are greatly appreciated. Definitely helping my thought process. I'm not quite there yet though. I know that generally primes are sharper and who can argue with F stops of 1.8 and 2.0 for great Bokeh but with a 2 year old little man jumping all over me most of the time -;), its incredibly difficult to switch lenses mid stream in the field without dust becoming a real problem, much less carry around 3 or more primes with me wherever I go, so I think I need the flexibility of a zoom that covers the generally most often used ranges that these 2 can provide.

 

Guys, it looks like a few of the people posting are using some sort of formula or equation to compare Bokeh in lenses? Can anybody clarify? I understand the correlation between F stops, Aperture and focal length, but I didn't realise there was a mathematical correlation for these and Bokeh?.....Thanks...Ric.

Hi Everyone,

 

I was hoping to get some advice. this is my first post. 90-95% of my

photography is around getting the absolute best candid and portrait

shots of my friends and family either at events or travelling. I

have a Canon 20D and bought the 17-85mm IS lens thinking this would

be the perfect multipurpose lens for me. It has been fantastic. The

range is great and IS is fantastic for me (I drink lots of coffee -;)

 

I am very very dissapointed with the lack of background blur (bokeh)

capability of this lens. I love this aspect of photography. I love

the 3D effect created by it. So I want to ebay this lens and am

looking at either the 24-70 2.8L or the 24-105 4L. I'm leaning

towards the 24-105 4L for the range flexibility, lighter weight and

IS capbility, but am really woorried that an F Stop of 4 will still

not produce the kind of background blur I love in most sitautions.

 

Any help you can offer would be greatly appreciated?