William Michael

<blockquote> <p> . . . got a super deal on a 5D (Mark I?) . . . using the 50 f1.8 II . . . and a 20-35 f3.5-4.5 and 35-70 f3.5-4.5 lenses . . . Of the 2 [17 to 40 or 24 to 105] which would you buy?</p> </blockquote> <p>I’d buy the 24 to 105/4L IS USM.<br> It is my most regularly used lens on my 5D Series for general walk around shooting and is used at least 10 times more than my 16 to 35. If I had a 20 to 35 (which I have used) although an old lens and also old design, it could do probably about 60% of what my 16 to 35 does do, whereas the newer 24 to 105 L lens could do A LOT more than the 35 to 70 that you presently have (I have not used the 35 to 70). </p> <p><strong>However, what I suggest that you do is different:</strong><br> Use ONLY the 20 to 35 for one month, on you newly acquired 5D: and then for the next month use ONLY the 35 to 70: and then after those eight weeks of agony keeping your excitement at bay, you will KNOW which one of the two lenses FL range that YOU want. Whilst you are making that FL choice you can think about Image Stabilization, which is very useful for most photographers. And also think about Lens Speed (maximum aperture) which might be very to you also; in which case another zoom lens might enter the equation, for example the 24 to 70/2.8L MkII. </p> <p>Both the 17 to 40 and the 24 to 105 lenses will still be for sale, and at good price in eight weeks time. Painful, but logical.</p> <p>WW</p>

<p>I cannot see any photos in your portfolio.</p> <p>WW</p>

<blockquote> <p>"Personally, I do not care a whole lot about noise. . . I'm really pushed to choose . . . the ISO goes up . . . that's about still <strong><em>being able to get a shot</em></strong>."</p> </blockquote> <p>+1<br /> Having pushed Tri-X to ASA 3200, I still think that a 20D is pretty marvellous.<br /> Even a Canon D60 was actually quite super fantastic.</p> <p>Also - noise is not as noticeable in the print as it is on the screen, especially if the screen is viewed at 100%</p> <p>That's not to say I don’t care about getting the best from the gear that I use: I do care and I care a hellava lot. But I am not going to get in a twist about it if I have to make the shot and there just has to be some noise in it: as a <strong><em>general</em></strong> motto - "noise is better than blur"</p> <p>The other very important thing to remember is: don’t underexpose.<br /> And also – DO NOT underexpose</p> <p>WW</p>

<p>If you are looking for a formula to the method, assuming the scene is STATIC:<br /> 1. I will determine the APERTURE that I require in respect of DoF and sometimes in regard to the effect of Aperture on Image Quality; for example I might choose to stop down to alleviate possible Veiling Flare if I am shooting into the light.<br /> 2. I will sacrifice shutter speed to hold the ISO up to the point of the shutter speed becoming outside the limit of "safe". <br /> 3. If the shutter speed becomes "un-safe", then I will sacrifice ISO.</p> <p><strong>The key is to know what a ‘safe’ shutter speed constitutes and also be aware of what influences the noticing any resultant blur due to camera sake</strong>:<br /> 1. Focal Length used<br /> 2. Subject Distance<br /> 3. Final Image size and/or Cropping</p> <p>I term this as part of ‘knowing the limits’ and I think it is important to know all the limits associated with the Craft as those limits might apply to what one is interested in shooting.</p> <p>As a practical example I collect photographs of Church Architecture, especially interiors. I don’t generally use a tripod and I don’t use HDRI. I know that when using a wide lens and the Subject at a reasonable distance I am safe to regularly hand hold at 1/13^th and still ensure good quality, no blur, using the 24 to 105 F/4 IS USM. So when I get to 1/13^th second, I will bump the ISO for that shot.<br> <br /> The same method applies when using a non-IS lens also. I will occasionally push the limits of Shutter Speed if I think that it is necessary – but in these cases I would use another safety-net, such as shooting a few individual shots or shooting a burst of three and most often the second shot is near perfect. Also one can use “mirror-up” that often helps. Breathing, Stance, Camera Grip and Mental Focus are important also. So is practice. I have pulled several shots Hand Held with a 24~28mm lens at around ¼ second (no Image Stabilization): but also I am aware that I cannot sustain a success rate of 90% or better using that Shutter Speed - in fact it would be closer to about 30% perhaps less if I were unable to focus (my brain into the zone).</p> <p>Of course if the Subject is NOT STATIC then there are another set of limits to consider and those are the limits of SHUTTER SPEED to arrest SUBJECT MOVEMENT: but I assume that the question is not about that.</p> <p>WW</p>

<blockquote> <p>"I should have added that if I was in your shoes (which I decidedly am not), doing a freebie where I was free to shoot independently, as well as do my own post vs. a (minimally - $2/300) paid gig where I was constantly doing assistant work (fetching things, setup, herding cats, etc.), and not expected to think, I would take the freebie in a heartbeat (assuming the mortgage was already paid ;) ). IDK, that's just my opinion. . .<em><strong>You'll learn a heckuva lot more a heckuva lot faster.</strong></em>"</p> </blockquote> <p>+1<br> Sage. </p> <p>IMO this advice applies to experienced Photographers, too.</p> <p>WW</p>

<blockquote> <p>“I have a <strong><em>Pentax K50</em></strong> with a 300mm Tamron telephoto lense. I've been able to take amazing pics of my daughters playing outdoor sports (lacrosse and soccer) on the <strong><em>"sports" setting</em></strong> but indoors for gymnastics the pics are all grainy.”</p> </blockquote> <p>The EXIF reveals <em>“Action Program biased towards shutter speed”</em></p> <p>The ‘sports’ setting which you used is a “Basic Camera Mode” setting. The selection will probably have an icon of a running man. In this setting the camera is in a fully automatic mode and will be selecting the shutter speed and the aperture and the ISO - AUTOMATICALLY. I also expect that the maximum aperture of your Tamron lens is: F/5.6.</p> <p><strong>So what is happening? </strong><br /> Typically, the “sports” mode on most digital cameras will bias the exposure to use close to the fastest shutter speed possible; and if that is not possible, the camera will have a default slowest shutter speed that it will use if the ISO and the Aperture make that selection possible.<br /> What has happened is, because your camera is capable of attaining ISO 512,000 - it did so - simply to allow the shutter speed of 1/500s because it is seeking to arrest SUBJECT MOVEMENT.</p> <p><strong>What to do?</strong><br /> Now the point is: a shutter speed of 1/500s might not have been necessary to capture that particular shot, because the subject seems to be standing reasonably still and if you used the Shake Reduction Function in your camera, that Gymnasium shot might have been possible at 1/60s, which in turn would have allowed an ISO of ISO 64000, which is still very high but probably would have been better.<br /> But to do this, you need to take control of the camera and use Manual Mode –OR - a semi automatic mode (for example Aperture Priority, Shutter Priority or Program Mode) and ensure what you choose will allow: <strong>the manual selection of ISO</strong> and also <strong>override control over the Shutter Speed and the Aperture.</strong><br /> <br /> .</p> <blockquote> <p>“What would I change to get good crisp action photos in indoor settings with typical fluorescent gym lighting?”</p> </blockquote> <p>The sample image seems to be exposed reasonably OK, so we can draw the conclusion that F/5.6 @ 1/500s @ ISO 512000 is around a correct exposure for that gymnasium’s lighting.</p> <p>Assuming that we need to keep the shutter speed at about 1/500s to ensure “crisp ACTION shots”, we can therefore extrapolate that inside that gym, if we were using an F/2.8 lens then we could pull the shot at:<br /> F/2.8 @ 1/500s @ ISO 128000.<br /> Or using an F/2 lens: F/2 @ 1/500s @ ISO 6400.<br /> So you should consider getting a faster lens (bigger aperture).</p> <p>Young athletes typically do not move at break-neck speed, so to arrest their action you might be able to use a shutter speed of 1/250s, which will save another stop. In any case you will gain much by having a faster (larger aperture) lens.</p> <p>In some school gymnasia I use an 85mm F/1.8 Prime lens and I get access near to beside the device or at the side of the mat and typically I am shooting between ISO 3200 ~ ISO 6400. School gymnasia are notorious for poor lighting. A fast Prime Lens, like 85mm or 100mm might be an elegant solution, but obvioulsy you will need to get closer if you want those tight shots.</p> <p>Also you might not really need “action shots”, because, for many gymnastic activities there are moments in the discipline where the athlete is steady and still, even momentarily. With practice you can release the shutter at those times when the athlete is static and get a good, crisp shot. Again this is easier to achieve with younger athletes as their routines are not yet too complex or fast.</p> <p>Also, as already mentioned, using Flash is an option, however, where I reside mostly all Gymnastic Governing Bodies do not allow Flash Photography on the floor – you need to check that for where you live.</p> <p>WW</p>

<blockquote> <p>I've done outdoor shoots in open shade and never seemed to have <strong><em>this focus issue</em></strong> even using similar settings.</p> </blockquote> <p>Just re-iterating, as much as one can interpret the low resolution sample image, it is my view that there is NOT a focus issue with the sample shot. The issue is with Subject Movement which was not arrested because of using too slow a shutter speed.</p> <p>If this conclusion is correct then it would also fit with you not having this same problem before - simply because the subjects' was not moving on the other shots and/or or the shutter speed was always fast enough to arrest any movement.</p> <p>Moreover the EXIF reveals that you used 'Av Priority' Camera Mode, which in turn allows for the possibility that you might not have been closely monitoring the Shutter Speed during the session for every shot.</p> <p>WW</p> <p> </p>

<p>I agree with the general advice – bump the ISO shoot at a faster shutter speed and be cognisant of the DoF that you actually have.</p> <p>I use that lens often and I also shoot a lot of Portraiture using only Available Light. <br> http://www.photo.net/photo/10963088&size=lg<br> The 85/1.8 is very sharp but at that shooting distance you have very little DoF to play with and if you were shooting Hand Held all that you needed to do was move a few inches and you have lost the eyes in sharp focus . . .</p> <p>However . . . I agree it is difficult to be sure what is exactly the issue with the sample shot from that small JPEG, but I did download the image link and then upsize it. And what I see is that NONE of the face appears to be in sharp focus, but clearly the webbing on the sleeves of the shirt is in good focus. This leads me to believe that the culprit is SUBJECT MOVEMENT which was NOT arrested due to using TOO SLOW a SHUTTER SPEED.</p> <p>I think that the Subject’s head was moving. Kids do that often. Perhaps you might have a really close look at those areas I have mentioned.</p> <p>Also the whole image appears that it could do with Post Production Sharpening - did you apply any P.P. Sharpening to the image?</p> <p>My “safe” Shutter Speed when shooting available light for a child about that age would be around 1/250~1/320s, or faster.</p> <p>WW</p>

<p>I’d like to take up the aspect of the conversation that Marcus raised:</p> <blockquote> <p>How does the money work? However much the client pays extra is what I pay the 2nd. I don't mark it up, nor do I make a profit on the up sell. Client pays an extra $250, I pay the second $250. <strong><em>I don't tell the client that explicitly, but if they asked, I'd be happy to tell them the truth</em></strong> (That's how I consider all my business decisions).</p> </blockquote> <p>Firstly: in respect of my previous post, I was not implying that I would be untruthful to a client nor am not implying that Marcus ascribed any implication to the meaning of what I wrote.</p> <p>That clarified, what I want t ask is:<br /> What is different to answering the client when they ask you about the costs to your business in respect of an employee’s wage, salary or hire fee than if they ask about the wholesale cost of albums or printing or etc?</p> <p>Simply, my view is it is not the clients’ perogative to ask about such matters, nor is the business owner obliged to disclose the costs of running the business.<br> I don't discuss the costs of running my business, with my clients.</p> <p>WW</p>

<p>Hi Bob, as a general answer to your question, when I hire any other Photographer, the money details of that contract remain between the second and me (and my business partner), the Client doesn’t know nor needs to know those arrangements.</p> <p>So for the last wedding I did which required a second person NOTHING was ‘arranged with the bride’ other than the fact that she required work which required me to employ another photographer and I had a contracted price for the job with the Bride and also a separate contracted arrangement with that other photographer.</p> <p>In today’s marketplace where I am and I guess where you are too, a $1000 wedding really doesn’t allow for any squeeze room on the net profit to employ a second photographer - net profit meaning after one has taken out their own ‘wages’ for the day and also the Post Production.</p> <p>But you make a good point and for some with less experience in wedding photography it might be a very good idea, if the gig is big enough, to employ a second photographer with more experience even if the slice of the money is less than ‘wages’. In essence, this is what this person did: <a href="/wedding-photography-forum/00bsPR">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00bsPR</a></p> <p>WW</p>

24mm Lens / EOS 5D<div></div>

<p>Ah! OK. Thank you Robin and Jamie.<br> I did not understand that the queston meant that when a lens was NOT attached to the 25mm Tube it was that instance, when it did not work.</p> <p>WW</p>

<p>OK, Nathan, we'll leave this matter such that you'll fiddle and attempt to find a fix and reason by yourself.<br />Also thank you for the heads up directive about any future questions: I too am a busy person.</p> <p>WW</p>

<blockquote> <p>"Should the first generation EF 25mm extension tube work with the classic 5D?"</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes. <br /> <br /> The only difference between the two original EF Extension Tubes and the MkII versions is that the MkII versions, at the FEMALE end, will accept an EF-S Lens Mount, whereas the original Extension Tubes will NOT accept EF-S Lens Mounts<br /> <br /> Also, I understand that the Extension Tube EF12 is NOT compatible with the following Canon Lenses: <br /> EF 14 F/2.8L; EF 14 F/2.8L MkII; EF 15 F/2.8 Fisheye; EF 50 F/1.0L; MP-E 65. <br /> (In addition to the above list, the Extension Tube EF25 is NOT compatible with the EF 20 F/2.8; EF 24 F/1.4 L and EF 24 F/1.4L MkII)<br /> <br /> *</p> <blockquote> <p><br /> "I attached either of (2) Canon 25mm extension tubes to the 5D body, but with no added lens - for a microscope.” “Yet the 12mm extension on the 5D works fine without a lens."</p> </blockquote> <p>If this means that the camera gives an error message <strong>only when a microscope is attached to the Extension Tube - </strong>then attaching the microscope is most likely the offending detail.<br /> <br /> WW</p>

<p>I wrote my response here: <a href="/alternative-cameras-forum/00cZPe">http://www.photo.net/alternative-cameras-forum/00cZPe</a></p> <p>WW</p>

<p>I have nothing against Leica: but I started out exploring Fuji and bought into Fuji this January. I have kept my Canon DSLRs so Fuji is a 'complement to' and not a 'substitute for' my Canon Kit. Fuji is less expensive than Leica and has some excellent glass: they were the main reasons for choosing Fiji over Leica.</p> <p>If you can live with one lens, the x100s is worth a look, maybe to get a feel for a "rangefinder". Even consider the x100 because you might get one very cheaply now and you could experiment to consider better if you like the idea before committing a lot of money to the exercise. As you state that you like the idea of film, then I can advise that shooting JPEG SOOC and using the in- camera FILM Settings, is great fun and quite liberating.</p> <p>***</p> <p>BTW, Richard for people who are interested in the responses, it is actually a pain following the same conversation in the two threads, that's why there is a rule against doing it.<br /> REF: <a href="/leica-rangefinders-forum/00cZPk">http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00cZPk</a></p> <p>WW</p>

<div></div>

<p>Any reason why, after several requests, you can't post an example of the problem, an example with the Standard Photographic Grey Card in the shot? </p> <p>WW</p>

<p>Only commenting on the choice of Focal Lengths for Prime Lenses: 35mm and 100mm, I would choose for the tasks that you outline.<br> I actually prefer 35mm and 85mm, which, IMO is a perfect pair of Primes, for those tasks.<br> I've often chosen 35mm; 85mm and 135mm as the perfect triplet.<br> I am not keen on 50mm if there is a 35mm for use.</p> <p>WW<br> (all lenses' Focal Lengths are mentioned with respect to use on 135 format aka "Full Frame" cameras and thus assuming Ruslan means an EOS 6D)</p>

<p>Nadine Ohara died quietly and gently Friday 15^th February around noontime.<br> Nadine had been ill in the latter part of 2012 and was hospitalized in mid December diagnosed with Stage 4 Cancer.<br> She was treated with Chemotherapy, with initially good results during January 2013.<br> Sadly though, it was a fight that she could not win.<br> The Ohara Family requested this information be not made public, until now.</p> <p>WW</p>