Top Geek
Forum Addict
YESSS!!! Shooting the drag races again this year!
I might need a new tripod because my Cullman Nanomax 250 will not handle it. It's too small and too brittle to be any good and I fear of putting my 7D on that, the tripod couldn't handle the weight but it was very cheap! I'm willing to spend a little bit more on a stronger and maybe lighter tripod. I just don't want it to cost more than ?120. Any suggestions? And also a ball head or the regular head with 3 axis?
For the tripod, it needs to handle at least a Canon 7D with the BG-E7 battery grip plus a Canon Speedlite EX 580 and a 70-200 f/4 L attached together so that's more or less than 2 kilos.
I really need to start shooting more with my primes, particularly the 50mm 1.8 since it's so easy to get stunning photos with it. Much too often I find myself out somewhere and the 18-200 gets all the action while the 50 and 105 never leave the bag. I'm going to start leaving the zoom at home to force myself to use my other lenses.
I find 50mm too long for my 1.6 crop. I'd need a 24 or 35 at most for a walk around methinks.
The Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM is a decent lens stopped down. It's better at smaller apertures than f/4 than the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L. However, at larger apertures, the 50/1.2L is markably better. Just to clarify.Convenience always makes things easier. Sometimes I feel like I'm only doing photography and getting praise from my friends because I bought a $450 body and a $350 lens (Canon 450D and 50mm f/1.4). Dealing with the point and shoot was too cumbersome and you were restricted a lot. But then I think about why I bought the camera in the first place: So I can take the highest quality pictures of my family members in case something ever happened to them (which was the problem with all the shots taken with the point-and-shoot).
I have the 18-270 tamron and most of the time these days it sits in the bag, and I take the 50mm around. The shallow depth of field look and the quality of the images from the 50mm is astonishing. My photography teacher in the class I took last year even told me that some photographers say it rivals the quality of L glasses.
Well, d'uh.But as you all have mentioned, it's the whole stepping back and around to try to get the shot in because it's zoomed in to 80mm that causes you to want to get your shot with the zoom lens.
Speaking of all this, when I was taking shots at a concert festival we had here in SD in April, I found that I had problems sometimes getting a good shutter speed since I was forced to use the 18-270. It goes down to f/6.3 at 270 and I had to crank the ISO to 800/1600. 1600 is the max on my little 450D, and at that point the images are super noisy. This is not to say that I couldn't take any shots with either lens, I mean here are some examples:
f/6.3 ISO 800 1/100s 238mm.
f/1.4 ISO 800 1/125s 50mm.
But the big difference here is that the original first image was darker (the second was slightly lighter). I had to crank up the exposure settings in Lightroom. I guess that's a reasonable trade-off and so the workaround for technical limitations is post-processing edits, but I'm wondering if it would have been better to have had a camera body capable of taking shots at ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 (without much noise).
What is your guys' opinions?
The Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM is a decent lens stopped down. It's better at smaller apertures than f/4 than the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L. However, at larger apertures, the 50/1.2L is markably better. Just to clarify.
Well, d'uh.
Without having done comparisons with regards to the 450D, I suppose it might be better to shoot the photo at 1600 instead of pushing it in PP, but you never know. My old E-3 behaves better when pushed 1 to 1 1/3 stop from ISO800 than it does when shot at straight ISO1600 or ISO2000.
But it goes without saying that a body with less noise at ISO1600 or ISO3200 would provide a better level of quality in dimmer light conditions.
Thing is, your priority is to get the picture. I've shot editorial photos in dead night at 1/6s, ISO3200 and f/1.4, and still gotten it usable.
First rule in little light is RAW. Second rule is the attitude, the attitude that you're getting the photo no matter what the result is. What follows next is up to you, and to what your camera can do. If the technical quality is so bad it would have to be a photo of a crashing Concorde to be worth anything, then that's fine.
As for future cameras, I'd look at the 5D2. When the 5D3 comes, it'll get quite cheap.
Yeah, but remember that a correct white balance set in PP will have huge bearing on how much noise you get.Yeah you're absolutely right. Gotta stop over-worrying about the technical parts of the shot and get the shot. I only shoot in RAW, and it saves my ass when I get a bad shot as I can manage to fudge it in post. LR as well.
It's not a bad idea, but it'll leave you with more photos to work through. Thing is, there are almost no must-have photos in a performance. There's always another moment that'll do the job. And then another. And then another. Meddeling over one lost shot is like the musician who thinks his new song about true love is indespencible, unique. Truth is, it's more than likely to be anything but..I've heard that when you have a low shutter speed to work with, you can usually manage to get a good shot in if you use burst mode. The middle shot(s) would then be the best one(s). Never tried it before (or I have but forgot) but I'd love to test that out.
Happy to be of help..Anyways, thanks for the heads up.