hocus_focus

July 12, 2011

It's a single image in fact, rotated and distorted. Here's the original:

July 12, 2011

Here's an image I made. It's almost finished. I'm struggling with the final part and wonder if you can help.

How can I get the two exposures on the left to merge together? I'm using PS CS5 on PC. Thanks for help!

July 12, 2011

5d2 is a great camera. I don't understand why so many are unsupportive. You don't need to be a pro to buy a FF.

That said, 50mm is not a great general purpose lens. It's too long for interiors, groups and landscapes. It's also too short for portraits.

Consider something wider as a general purpose lens, like 35mm f/2 or 35mm f/1.4. Or better still, get a 24-70mm f/2.8. Add a portrait lens like 85mm f/1.8 or 135mm f/2.0 and you have a great set.

July 8, 2011

My lenses are 17-40, 35L, 135L and 70-200 f4 is. and yes Im looking to make 1 purchase based on what ppl suggest these IDEAL 2/3 lens setup would be.

</blockquote>

So you're gonna base a purchase on what complete strangers tell you?

You already have everything you need. For what it's worth, I'd pack either the two primes or the two zooms and be done with it. Excellent combo.

If you need to purchase something, get a 24-70/2.8 and pair it with 135L. Works for me. That or the two primes would be my choice. Much more fun than the two zooms. Yes the 24-70 is superior in quality to 24-105.

Have you thought about a lighting kit? There's no built in flash on 5D and you definitely need one with those slow zooms you owe. You also need flash for stunning portraits on location.

July 5, 2011

I too think that FX would be more likely to disappear than DX. Note that for the last 75 years, the trend has been for cameras to get smaller.

</blockquote>

For the last 75 years, people have been using full frame format. The more serious photographers even medium format.

But you claim small sensors will take over? Think again.

Neither DX nor FX will disappear any time soon.

July 3, 2011

William, how much I appreciate your long posts and how much experience you might have, I find your approach quite theoretical and stiff. With all due respect, you're overthinking your equipment. It seems you want to be prepared for everything and thus be prepared for nothing. I prefer a more simple (not simplistic!) and intuitive approach.

I also haven't seen you talk about lighting or portable studios, which deserve at least as much thought as cameras and lenses. Some great photographers I've met put more thought into lighting, backgrounds and poses than cameras and lenses.

July 3, 2011

Economics - cost of 2nd body is far less than cost of hassle, loss of reputation, possibly cost of restaging wedding for reshoot. Furthermore, possession of backup body pays dividends in terms of peace of mind and ability to focus on task in hand. You can work without backup, just as you can drive a car without a spare wheel, but you will need it sometime, and when you do you'll be glad you have it!

</blockquote>

You didn't answer how many times your gear failed. I presume never. Prime cameras and lenses don't break just like that.

Philosophies aside, I'd like to quantify how many times what part of equipment failed.

July 3, 2011

And what was the failure?

I read about redundancy and buying extra cameras as back-up but I rarely hear about doubling lenses.

Personally, my equipment has never failed me and I know a few pro photographers who use only one camera at wedding. Seems redundant and paranoid to buy equipment that will never get used. I'd rather involve an amateur 2nd shooter, just in case equipment fails.

July 3, 2011

William, bringing back this topic, what you say is nice on paper but how feasible is it in practice?

You chose 16-35 because it can act like a standard zoom on 30D and wide zoom on 5D. However, from what you wrote above, you never mount the 16-35 on 5D! Even if you did, I question whether this is a feasible work method.

Basically you are using the 16-35 as a 17-55 or 24-70 but you are missing the point that

<ul>

<li>a) 24-70 is optyically better than 16-35 in the 24-35mm range and </li>

<li>b) a 5D has +- two stops less noise than 30D. That's a major difference. </li>

<li>I'm not even gonna mention the change in DoF between 30D and 5D.</li>

</ul>

That said, why not have two 5D2s: one with 24-70, the other with a prime (50/1.4, 85/1.8, 135/2 or whatever).

July 3, 2011

Alright William! Have a nice day.

July 2, 2011

William,

Thanks for summing up your inventory. When you went to weddings, what did you actually carry around your neck and waist? I cannot believe you hauled all those lenses and extenders. And even if you did leave them in a van, what did you actually carry / use most often?

July 2, 2011

I think this thread is blown out of proportion... FWIW I use both a 24 and 85 but for backpacking (not wedding) but I add the 17-35mm as well. Between the three lenses and a FX/DX combo, I find it great for minimizing the load. The DOF issue is about one stop more on DX. The multiple FOV/less lenses is the advantage...I have done this for a long time now while most forumers frown upon this very idea. Folks, it's isn't rocket science...use it to your advantage.

</blockquote>

Thanks Leslie. Finally a sensible post. What bodies do you use?

Equivalence aside, how many of you actually own or use 24/1.4 and 85/1.4 ?

I find myself quite often at both ends of 24-70/2.8 and at 135/2.

July 1, 2011

Hi William,

What camera models do you use and which lenses aside 24/1.4, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8?

July 1, 2011

Brad: If you create an image with the entirety of the sensor on a DX camera (with a sensor 1.5x smaller in each direction than an FX camera) used with a 24mm lens at f/1.4, the field of view and depth of field will match that of a 36mm (24 x 1.5) lens used at f/2.1 (1.4 x 1.5) on a full frame camera placed in the same place and with the exposure adjusted accordingly (either by multiplying the ISO or the exposure time by 1.5 x 1.5 = 2.25). This comes from the geometry of the scene. It's not easy to set multiples of 1.5 in the aperture or ISO; it's easier to compare a fictional 2x crop. Sadly my camera's having a sensor clean, otherwise I'd generate some images to prove my claim; I'll have to do this at some point anyway, so I'll try to come back to this thread.

</blockquote>

Exactly. I'm shocked so many (though not all) of you pass for gear experts but don't know the basic implications of different sensor sizes. There's more than FoV changing; DoF is also altered.

"The most important effect of the aperture is that it balances against shutter speed to get you the right exposure." - No, no, no, no, noooo! The most important effect of aperture is to control depth-of-field. Simply balancing aperture against shutter speed removes any aesthetic judgement from your hands and gives it to the camera's dumb exposure meter.

</blockquote>

Exactly. Someone got it right!

As for "why is a 35mm f/2.2 boring", I suspect the OP just meant "non-exotic" (because f/2.2 isn't especially fast for a 35mm prime) and "incapable of the creative choice of an extremely narrow depth of field" - not that this is the only aspect in making a non-boring image. But I can see that, if you're shopping for expensive primes, a 35mm f/2.2 might not seem exceptional. I'd taken the "bland, boring remark" as being tongue-in-cheek because the sentence it referred to used "boring" repetitively. I may have been overly-generous. Still, in the implicit context of "I've just paid for a 24mm f/1.4, I wish it worked as a 35mm f/1.4 instead of as a 35mm f/2.2, perhaps I should buy a new lens instead of another body" I can see that perhaps a lesson in avoiding NAS might not have been welcome, however well-intended.

</blockquote>

Andrew got it all right. Hope this clarifies everything.

Now let's get back to the discussion... What I'm worried about most is that with the kit mentioned, either you're at 24 and 135mm, or at 35 and 85mm. I find myself most often at 24mm 70mm and 135mm so I might throw in a cheap 50/1.4 which on crop camera produces the FoV of a 75-80mm lens (and maintin the 24mm on full frame).

July 1, 2011

I also find it interesting that Hocus Focus is using a 5DMkII, D700, and D300... The only reason I can fathom is that the OP was second shooting for a pro that lent out a 5DMkII and lenses. Any light shed on this would be helpful.

</blockquote>

I have my own gear plus I have access to gear from other shooters. We borrow or rent. Big deal.

I would worry more about the topic rather than debate what's in my bag and what's not. Just saying so you don't confuse yourself.

July 1, 2011

You're just confusing yourself by pretending that the aperture is "effectively" different between sensor formats. The most important effect of the aperture is that it balances against shutter speed to get you the right exposure. This doesn't change at all when you switch between FX and DX camera bodies.

</blockquote>

I'm not talking about exposure but about depth of field. Major difference!

So every time you need to change a lens you actually have to change TWO lenses (unless you're leaving the body cap on a body)

</blockquote>

Good point but even with one body and two lenses, you still need to grab two lenses. Where else do you put your unscrewed lens? In a lens case or on a body... doesn't change a thing. Except that if you screw it on a body, you don't need the cap!

July 1, 2011

My Current setup is as follows, Dual cameras 5D Mark II with 24-70 2.8 (80% of photos in wedding ceremony) 5D 70-200 2.8 non IS (20% use, candids in wedding ceremony) I was thinking of replacing the 70-200 since it's the non IS version and gets limited use durring the ceremony. I would still keep it becuase I love using it for portraits, but not mounted on my second body durring the ceremony. I was looking at the 100mm marcro IS 2.8L for the 5D. It would complement and give slightly longer reach than the 24-70, but also offers IS and macro. So it could be a usefull lens. The other option would be the 135L, no IS but 1 more stop of light. How usefull would this be in a low light scenerio? with no IS i'm still limited to 1/125 shutter speedss versus the 100L. if i'm light limited I could probabbly go down to 1/7 of a second, that's a 2 stop advantage with the 100 macro. The ideal would be the 70-200 2.8 IS ii, but not till this season is over, the funds are not there. I've heard that the 100mm 2.8 macro IS has focus prioblems in low light? is this true? What would be my best option. If you need to see my style of shooting you can visit my website Thanks in advance for your help Nick

</blockquote>

Hi Nick,

If it's still of use to you, I have the same set you do. 24-70L, 100L and 135L on 5D2.

The gap between 70mm and 100mm is too small to justify a lens change, that's why I got the 135L. It's an excellent lens for portrait and wedding if you don't want to lug around the 70-200.

You will not miss IS, I never do because when shooting people at a wedding, you will never want to go down to 1/7". 1/125" is perfect and f/2 produces a beautiful background blur.

As for focus problems, all lenses have AF problems in low light, even 135L when it gets really dark. 135L is faster than 100L, no doubt, but I wouldn't call 100L slow.

That said, I would get 135L first (you'll never want to use 70-200 again eheh) and if you need macro ability, get a dedicated macro lens. 100 macro non-IS with flash or tripod is fine, as is 100L. Forget about extender tubes, they suck.

70% of my wedding shots are made with 24-70L, 30% with 135L and a few with 100L.

July 1, 2011

Lenses aren't boring. Photographs can be boring, photographers can be boring, but a lens is just a tool. <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.citysnaps.net/" target="_blank"> This guy </a>shoots almost exclusively with a 35 on a full frame camera.

</blockquote>

Well good for him! That was such a bland, boring remark... sigh.

July 1, 2011

I'd be more likely to use the D700 and just stop down and/or move closer to the subject if I was looking for changing the DOF or wanting different framing.

</blockquote>

The thing is: I do not want to have more depth of field. I pick f/1.4 lenses to achieve shallow DoF. However, on crop cameras, part of that shallow DoF is lost.

Moving in closer is not always an option but is a good idea nonetheless :)

July 1, 2011

I'm not sure I understand your point about noise, by the way.

</blockquote>

Full frame cameras generally produce less noise and more detail. I'm concerned about losing detail and adding noise when screwing prime lenses on a crop camera.

July 1, 2011

Why are you indicating a different f-stop for the lenses on a crop camera?

</blockquote>

Because a smaller sensor produces more depth of field. It's called <a href="http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/">equivalence</a>. You can calculate the difference <a href="http://www.dofmaster.com">here</a>.

In other terms, 24/1.4 on d300 will not produce the same images as 35/1.4 on d700 given the same distance and FoV. 24/1.4 on d300 will look more like 35/2.2 on d700, excluding noise and detail.

July 1, 2011

I came up with the following idea: mounting 24/1.4 and 85/1.4 on dual format cameras, let's say on d700 and d300.

In terms of field of view and depth of field, this gives effectively 24/1.4, 35/2.2, 85/1.4 and 135/2.2. I would consider this set for portraits on location, weddings, baby shoots and travel.

If anyone uses that lens set with dual format cameras, I'd love to hear their opinion because I have some concerns.

<ol>

<li>First, while 135/2.2 is still impressive for portraits and sports, the exotic 24/1.4 becomes a boring 35/2.2 on crop camera. </li>

<li>Second, I'm concerned if the added noise will degrade your expensive lens collection. </li>

<li>Third, I wonder if you don't get tangled up with the lens changes and their different properties on dual format cameras. At any point in time, you will either have 35/2.2 and 85/1.4 or 24/1.4 and 135/2.2 (in terms of FoV and DoF). Is this feasible in practice? </li>

</ol>

July 1, 2011

I choose to use two cameras and three of four lenses which I also carry - typically one zoom and two (or three) Primes. But one of the great leverages of a digital system is the dual format; so I would rarely if ever have two digital cameras of the same format.

</blockquote>

24/1.4 and 85/1.4 seems like an excellent combo for dual format cameras, giving effectively 24mm, 35mm, 85mm, 135mm.

However, I thought full frame cameras were chosen for the shallow DoF. The exotic 24/1.4 becomes a boring 35/2.2 on crop camera and the equally expensive 85/1.4 turns into 135/2.2 (in terms of FoV and DoF). Not to mention the added noise.

If anyone uses that lens set with dual format cameras, I'd love to hear their opinion.

July 1, 2011

I recent got the 24-105 f/4 L to complement my 24-70 f2.8 L. This morning I took a couple of sample pictures with it, no hood, no filters. The vignetting (at all lengths) is aweful. I really got the lens mostly as a walk around because it's lighter and has IS, but these sample pictures are the worse I have ever seen. Is this normal, or do I have just a terrible copy of the lens?

</blockquote>

You might want to activate peripheral illumination correction if your camera supports it.

Why would you want 24-105 if you have the optically superior 24-70? I would have added 135/2 for walk-around. Not heavy at all.

July 1, 2011

For smaller groups, I tend to prefer a reflective umbrella (silver interior, but NOT the ones which are normally white and become "reflective" through the use of black backing material - it's different light!

</blockquote>

What's the difference between silver relfective and white reflective umbrella? I don't mind some loss of power if the result will be softer light.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by hocus_focus