kari v

<blockquote>

<p> Today's jpeg engines are so far superior to even a few years ago, that many people are turning out great jpegs with very fine tonal range. As others have said, the main advantage of raw is control and occasional rescuing of clipped details.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>...and the JPG engine of, say, Lightroom will be even better in few years from now. You can always render better and better JPGs from old raw files (or just completely different). JPGs from my original Canon 5D look pretty awful by today's standards, especially at high ISO, but RAW + Lightroom = 5D output upgraded almost a decade in few seconds.<br>

<br>

Even if you don't always shoot RAW I'd give it a change 1) at high ISO 2) with subjects of infinite detail like landscapes 3) when the highlights clearly burn in camera JPG.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've noticed that some elements seem to be quite out of focus and lack detail - even when they're close to being at the same distance as the focus point - especially towards the right side of the image.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Looks fine to me. Depth of field isn't that great at f2 and you've tilted the camera a bit. Baskets and hands are in sharp focus and right side slides outside of DoF. Remember that it's called the focus plane for a reason - a sharp cut across 3D objects.<br>

Of course if the right side softness is persistent, even when shooting with a carefully leveled tripod then there's a problem. Probably not in focusing though, the lens could be badly centered. But judging from this photo alone I don't see a problem.</p>

<p>I must say that while $130 is not cheap it does not sound that bad for a dedicated 58/1.2 adapter. I'm not an expert but I doubt you're going to find a quality adapter for substantially less. I mean finding precisely milled adapter with optics worth of your 58/1.2 for ~$25 on ebay..? How many are you prepared to try? ;)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>plus...i love photography and i would love a full frame camera!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Every other line seems to be about D800... Just go for it! :D<br>

<br>

Lenses. This sounds perhaps boring but 24-70/2.8 really is a fine workhorse. D800 + 24-70 won't be cheap but very durable in every way.<br>

It's just about money really. You know what you *want*. But comparing D800+24-70 vs D7100+Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS the price difference is staggering!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>i'm not sure i agree with your statement about impeccable image quality not being a defining factor for most couples. also, i do a bit of music / gig photography. the better low light performance of the D800 and D610 is a real plus for me. i want to give the customer the best too</p>

</blockquote>

<p>All three cameras are insanely good in low light compared to the situation just a few years ago. Only fellow photographers can spot the difference and even that requires 100% crop. If you can clearly see the difference in sizes *people really use* then it makes me wonder how you're used to exposing and post editing your shots.<br>

Companies can be picky about product shots etc. but I've never heard "normal people" complaining about situational photos like live gigs or weddings.<br>

<br>

Not trying to be rude here, just pointing out that for business that subtle difference in high ISO performance and almost non-existent difference at base ISO is not the thing you should be concentrating on.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>4. also...best FX / DX fish eye without breaking the bank</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Price/performance goes easily to Samyang 8/3.5. Very sharp corner to corner on DX, for the quality it's almost free (or at least used to be, haven't checked in a while). Manual focus but it's a fish-eye so no worries there really.</p>

<p>Best: 100/2.8 Macro. No flaws whatsoever and focuses really fast for other than macro work. Very natural rendering. My 50/1.4 is perhaps a bit sharper(!) at f4 but 100/2.8 is just really pleasing and "right".<br>

Worst: EF 28-80 3.5-5.6. 35-70 and 28-90 variants are also really bad and 70-300 4-5.6 kit tele was pretty much unusable for anything else than 4x6. New kit lenses, even original 18-50, are much better.</p>

<p>Sounds like simple bad luck. I've shot with 5D mkI for years without an issue. Usually humidity isn't much of a problem in Finland but +40 to -40 C and related condensation is challenging enough I'd say.</p>

<p>But if you're a Nikon guy to begin with why not stay with Nikon? D610 seems great, you'll get improved AF and a couple of stops more usable high ISO range. D70 can continue it's duties as a backup with familiar control layout.</p>

<p>Set your aspirations higher! The video's nice home footage but miles from any pro work.<br>

That said, there's nothing wrong with your camera and lens, actually it's completely possible this was filmed with T3i+kit lens. Just study lighting and post processing in general and practice. And focus on consistency! Remember white balance (bouncing completely all over the place in your example but at least not mid-scene), camera panning style, transitions from scene to scene... Lenses are nice but don't really matter that much for material like this.<br>

Then again, to answer your question, for very shallow depth of field (much more blur than shown here) you'll need something like Sigma 30/1.4 (Canon 35/2 IS would be much better for handheld stuff because of the stabilizer) but shooting with fast lenses will be very difficult and requires careful planning!<br>

For now just study and in no time you'll be better than your reference. :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So, I guess the real question would boil down to - whether to go all out on Canon 35 f/1.4 L or pick the New Sigma counterpart (35 1.4). At this point I've heard all good things about the Sigma, but my past experience makes me stay away from it. Yet, if someone can convince me to go Sigma route, I'm all ears!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well... There are no bad reviews of the Sigma and here, too, you have positive feedback. How much more does it take? ;)<br>

Seriously though, focusing and the whole lens is a completely new design and it really shows. Is there a store near you where you could test it?<br>

There's nothing wrong with the 35/1.4L it's just starting to show its age and the price is much higher.</p>

<p>I enjoy my Canon 50/1.4 because it's flawless across the frame at f4-5.6. and "dreamy" at f1.4 - that is to say it has low resolution and massive aberrations. :D But I like it and it's small, cheap and reliable. 35/1.4L is similar old design. Perhaps not as "bad" but Sigma's a clear winner here technically and Canon really has some updating to do.</p>

<p>I don't know about the 30/1.4 Art but Sigma 35/1.4 is absolutely stunning in every aspect, tested on 35mm and aps-c sensor. Focusing is spot on and fast in low light and build quality top notch, it feels more like Zeiss than Sigma or Canon consumer grade.<br /> I understand your feelings towards Sigma products but as far as I'm concerned this lens has *nothing* to do with older Sigma designs. I'd pick it before Canon 35/1.4L any day (and did) - Sigma's just about the best fast 35mm lens there is.</p>

<p>That said. 35/2 IS sounds interesting. Small lens, sharp enough I presume, and IS. For handheld video IS is very nice indeed.</p>

<p>Edit: Sigma 35/1.4 will look monstrous on 550D. :D<br>

It really is large and heavy. Not necessarily an issue but perhaps makes 35/2 IS even more interesting...</p>

<p>When speed is not needed Canon 5D (mark I) is still a strong contender image quality wise. 35mm sensor, nice large viewfinder, 12Mp, pretty weak anti-alias - pixel sharp images are easy to get. For a while I shot with Canon 5D and 7D. While 7D was Fast and fun to use 5D sensor produced much more naturally detailed prints (especially landscapes, "infinite detail subjects") without much editing hassle. 16x20 no problem at all. Furthermore ISO 100-200 images were cleaner, tightly packed aps-c sensor seemed to often produce slightly gritty over all feel. Yes, I'm nit picking here, but still. In Lightroom 5D files require zero noise reduction (even high ISO noise is very evenly distributed and not offensive) and even the default sharpening amount can be a bit on the strong side.<br>

Compared to other Canons in the price range like 40D/50D 5D wins hands down in image quality and compared to Rebels it wins in ergonomics too. New Ti range could be interesting if you require snappy jpgs straight from the camera, good quality back screen and a small body, otherwise not much there.</p>

<p>Few cons.<br /> JPG quality is really out-dated. RAW is pretty much the only option.<br /> Focusing is not nearly as bad as some say. Accuracy is very good using the middle point but it isn't an action camera by any imagination.<br /> It feels more like a 35mm film slr than digital. Back display isn't very good and it has absolutely no bells and whistles, not even different automatic modes on the dial, just A, Av, Tv, M. You also hear and feel the mirror in a very different manner than with newer designs.</p>

<p>So, under $600, accustomed to older gear and not in a hurry... I can't really think of anything better. Unless you simply don't want Canon that is. :)</p>

<p>I've never seen that one in stores, at least not in Europe. :(</p>

<p>Marc & JDM, this is not the same lens you're referring to. Samyang 8/3.5 has been around for a while now, and under different names too, especially in US, but "filmmakers" version is a different lens. Apart from video, it would be great for people who shoot both FF and crop as the shade doesn't block corners on 35mm cameras.</p>

<p>50mm more at tele end is really negligible, you probably wouldn't even notice it.<br /> For good $$$/mm ratio try something like Sigma 150-500 OS or good old EF 100-400 L IS. There really isn't anything really cheap at 300mm+.</p>

<p>I have no idea what BiF means...</p>

<blockquote>

<p> For sports and wildlife, I'd go with the 1D3.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then again 7D would offer most 1D mkIII "action features" and more resolution at lower cost and in smaller size.<br>

1D series weather sealing should be a bit better but 7D holds up just fine in rain and snow too. And of course before weather sealing is of any use you should upgrade lenses to sealed variety...</p>

<p>What's your current gear like? 5D mkII and 1DmkIII won't take EF-S lenses so take into consideration extra cost of upgrading your lenses.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Could also be that the dramatic lack of dynamic range that throws off the in-camera software (given that the differences in signal are going to be smaller)?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think it has to be the software. Low dynamic range / contrast means that noise and signal are very close to each other - in dark both are amplified. Film will give you murky results too.</p>

<p>To add contrast any spotlight works well, it doesn't have to be halogen. This is very easy to test.</p>

<p>Light spectrum is another thing that really does affect images. Standard fluorescent can be downright awful as you get both murky contrast and odd spectrum.<br>

I changed our home lights to powerful natural spectrum bulbs and studio has natural fl tubes. Makes a world of difference in comfort, and in image quality when I shoot at home in room light.</p>

<p>Pick either Tamron 17-50/2.8 or Sigma 18-50/2.8, both are very nice and cover the range from wide angle to small tele. Tamron makes some noise when focusing, Sigma's silent. Image quality is good, Tamron is usually the winner in tests but Sigma's very good too and in some test the winner. I didn't find any massive difference myself.<br /> For some $ more take a look at Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS (stabilized).</p>

<p>28-75 Tamron is a fine lens but are you sure you don't want wide angle coverage at all? I know I like 75mm tele quite a bit more than 50mm but still...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>and file dimensions must not exceed 1920 pixels for width or 1080 for height. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I mean that if you happen to have a square image you can't make it 1920x1920 without losing quality in scaling process. You should make it 1080x1080.<br>

Feeding more than 1920x1080 pixels to the projector doesn't make it sharper, it'll actually make the projected image to have even less than that resolution and apparent sharpness is diminished too!</p>

<p>1. Just offer basic jpg-files to your projector. Anything else is just slower and won't offer any advantages in such a low resolution.<br /> 2. That's quite possible. The algorithms in your blu-ray player may or may not be good.<br /> 3. Picasa does a decent job scaling. Windows Photo Gallery used to be worse but I haven't bothered testing it for a long time. If you're showing images (full screen, not in a window) that are already scaled to proper size it doesn't matter.<br /> 4. Not really, any digital feed is fine. What you can do with your computer is adjustments and even proper calibration that you can't manage with a blu-ray player.</p>

<p>If you want the image to fill the whole area and look as sharp as possible you have to crop them to 16:9 ratio, scale them down to 1920x1080 and sharpen in a way that best suits your projector. You can skip the 16:9 part, but resizing and sharpening should be done by you for the best results and file dimensions must not exceed 1920 pixels for width or 1080 for height. This is the only way to avoid the effects of crappy scaling by your blu-ray player or projector.</p>

<p>Yep, EOS 3 is still a bit pricey. $85 (63€) would be an absolute steal! I've seen prices as high as 220€ ($300) around here.</p>

<p>EOS 5 isn't anything special comared to the higher-end models but it's a capable shooter and should be pretty cheap. An old photographer friend of mine still uses his for the occasional film assignment so despite being plastic it can take some 20 years of use.</p>

<p>Sigmas are very popular, small towns can be a bit quirky when it comes to lens availability. It's merely bad luck on your part, nothing really lens related.</p>

<p>Remember to take some evening/night shots too, that's where it gets much more interesting (park soccer on a sunny day is not very demanding) and you may find that the Sigma hunts much less and even when it hunts it'll pick up focus again much faster. Other than that just test the lens in conditions you mostly intend to shoot in. No need to make it more complicated really. If it feels good it probably is good.</p>

<p>It would be a good idea to get out of the sports etc. program modes in order to control the camera yourself. In "sports" mode the camera tries to keep your shutter speed high which is good for freezing fast subjects but what if you want more depth of field (smaller aperture) or want to slow down your shutter for panning or intentionally motion blurred shot?<br>

Read a photography book or two and practise the basics. It won't take long really and with a new lens it'll be fun too. :)</p>

<p>I think Canon bodies meter even if you shot through a piece of plastic duct...<br /> Skip the Rebels and oldest models. EOS 50 / Elan / 7 are fine and if you want to spend a bit extra for a great body then take a look at EOS 3.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I always keep an open mind when reading claims like this. Canon's 70-200 series of lenses are legendary -- among their sharpest zooms. So having a third party lens outperform them at a fraction of the price would be very interesting indeed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's a reason for EF 70-200/2.8 IS mkII and that is the optical quality. I find mkI to be good but not great, so it's no wonder Sigma fares fine against it.</p>

<p>On the other hand mkI is more even performer across the zoom range and in the frame corners, it also has panning IS mode, guaranteed to work weather sealing and there won't be any AF related problems in the future when Canon decides to alter their algorithms. One can find second hand mkI for less than the new Sigma so I wouldn't be worried about "quality for fractional cost".</p>

<p>I'm one of those people who like large aperture shooting but still when doing business I mostly stop down. If you have enough space behind your model and/or you're close enough you can use something like f5.6. For close ups you can use f8 or even f11 in order to keep whole face and ears in focus (sometimes just barely). Of course if you want to go with something very dreamy and shallow dof that's a bit different story, but still, in order to maintain consistency in eyes-sharp shots, I'd say a f2.8 zoom is fine.<br>

We don't know your budget but Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS is a great lens and if you're shooting mostly with flashes or with tripod you can save quite a bit by going with non stabilized Sigma or Tamron 17-50/2.8 zooms. I've shot with both and they're very good. Great flexibility for ~$400.</p>

<p>(Yeah, forget the 70-200/2.8, cost and weight are considerable and I'm not really seeing what you'd actually do with it. Besides, your non-model clients won't appreciate a lens of that caliber staring at them.)</p>

<p>Here's a list which gives you a glimpse of mid-level pricing from Newegg.com.<br>

If you have a working dvd/blu-ray drive, mouse/pen set and keyboard from your previous set and your display is still good to go, then this is the stuff you need. Basically you could shave off some by not buying a video card but then you need to change your motherboard to something with in-built features or use your previous card if you have one.<br>

You could add a 2TB HDD for around +$70. Also, if you don't have Win7 64bit licence it's about +$100. No need for videocard? That's -$100.<br>

So, without new great display and provided that your friend builds it for you you can have a new computer with quality parts (+Win7 licence) for $750-900.</p>

<p>Components I chose are a bit random as it's been almost a year now that I last checked test charts and new products in-depth but these should reflect the price point pretty nicely and when the time comes I'm sure your friend will make good up to date list, that is, with similar prices but providing higher performance.<br>

When comparing to brand name offerings keep in mind that this is a custom build and some parts may be quite a bit better here even if specs look like the same at first.</p>

<p>Antec Three Hundred + BP430 Black Steel ATX Mid Tower Computer Case 430W Power Supply<br>

Item #: N82E16811129065</p>

<p>CORSAIR XMS3 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 Desktop Memory Model CMX8GX3M2A1333C9<br>

Item #: N82E16820145315</p>

<p>MSI P67A-G43 (B3) LGA 1155 Intel P67 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard<br>

Item #: N82E16813130583</p>

<p>Intel Core i5-2500K Sandy Bridge 3.3GHz (3.7GHz Turbo Boost) LGA 1155 95W Quad-Core Desktop Processor BX80623I52500K<br>

Item #: N82E16819115072</p>

<p>Corsair Force Series 3 CSSD-F120GB3A-BK 2.5" 120GB SATA III Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)<br>

Item #: N82E16820233206</p>

<p>VisionTek 900310 Radeon HD 5670 1GB 128-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.1 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video Card<br>

Item #: N82E16814129153</p>

<p>Total: <strong>$764.90</strong></p>