topic Re: DSLR 101 2.0 in EOS DSLR & Mirrorless Cameras

DSLR 101 2.0

ebiggs1 — Mon, 18 May 2015 17:37:06 GMT

Maybe you will like these better. I try to please!

All with my best of class, 1.3 body the EOS 1D Mk IV. Birders favorite camera! I love this camera.

Re: DSLR 101 2.0

RobertTheFat — Mon, 18 May 2015 18:05:04 GMT

I particularly like the picture of the mallard drake. I heard a couple of those guys arguing in the pond back of my house last night.

Crop the redwing picture a bit from the upper right corner and see what you think.

Re: DSLR 101 2.0

jazzman1 — Mon, 18 May 2015 21:35:31 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:
Maybe you will like these better. I try to please!

All with my best of class, 1.3 body the EOS 1D Mk IV. Birders favorite camera! I love this camera.

I like all these shots Obiwan. Very nicely done, would love to take pics like these myself one day. What lens did you use??? The background is great too.

BTW...What camera settings did you use??????? (aperture, shutter speed, ISO, etc)

Re: DSLR 101 2.0

ebiggs1 — Tue, 19 May 2015 13:46:09 GMT

The photos are mostly uncropped and pretty much as they came from the camera. LR automatically applies lens correction and a small amount of screen sharpening. That was for the most part it.

The exif data should remain if exact settings are wanted but the gear used was the 1D Mk IV and a 500mm lens.

The camera was set to Av and f8 fixed. This permitted a SS of 1/1000 or 1/2000. ISO 800. Those figures are approx.

At this point in my career I can just look at a sceen and pretty closely guess or see the camera settings without a light meter or camera. You just get that way after awhile.

I took maybe fifty pictures that day and none were more than 40 or 50 feet from the subject. Most were very much closer. A couple were 10 or 12 feet, or even less. No telephoto lens made is better than getting closer. Remember that!

Looks like something from Jurassic Park.

Re: DSLR 101 2.0

jazzman1 — Tue, 19 May 2015 14:41:45 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:
The photos are mostly uncropped and pretty much as they came from the camera. LR automatically applies lens correction and a small amount of screen sharpening. That was for the most part it.
The exif data should remain if exact settings are wanted but the gear used was the 1D Mk IV and a 500mm lens.
The camera was set to Av and f8 fixed. This permitted a SS of 1/1000 or 1/2000. ISO 800. Those figures are approx.
At this point in my career I can just look at a sceen and pretty closely guess or see the camera settings without a light meter or camera. You just get that way after awhile.

I took maybe fifty pictures that day and none were more than 40 or 50 feet from the subject. Most were very much closer. A couple were 10 or 12 feet, or even less. No telephoto lens made is better than getting closer. Remember that!

Looks like something from Jurassic Park.

These pics are really nice Obiwan. Love all of them. I like the background in the 1st 2 pics where the background looks clear and mostly sharp. Then you have the other blurry backgrounds that are nice too. I like both ways and think each way looks good, it should depend on your scene and the look one is trying to achieve. I will use both technics with my pics. Sometimes I don't want to blur the background. We'e all the looks here intentional, or did they just happen random?????

I also really like that you used LR sparringly. I like the natural look straight out the camera. That's my thinking for my pics. I know I will have to use editing software when needed, but I want to make it my goal to take my pics with the best skills and camrea settings so I can keep editing changes to a minuim. If software does all the work in making our pics look good...where is the skills of the photographer???????

Re: DSLR 101 2.0

ebiggs1 — Tue, 19 May 2015 15:13:18 GMT

The BG blur or not, is controlled in this instance because of the subject to BG distance.

There is a saying photographers use, at least the good ones use, "less is more." Remember that!

But you are greatly mistaken if you think great photogrphy is done by great skilled photographers just in the camera. You may not like that fact but it is true. This used to be done in the darkroom but now is done on the computer with software. The possibilies are vastly increased and almost limitless.

Great photos are 1/2 photogrpher, 1/2 equipmnet and 1/2 post editing. Now go figure that one out!

Re: DSLR 101 2.0

jazzman1 — Tue, 19 May 2015 15:49:54 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:
The BG blur or not, is controlled in this instance because of the subject to BG distance.

There is a saying photographers use, at least the good ones use, "less is more." Remember that!

But you are greatly mistaken if you think great photogrphy is done by great skilled photographers just in the camera. You may not like that fact but it is true. This used to be done in the darkroom but now is done on the computer with software. The possibilies are vastly increased and almost limitless.

Great photos are 1/2 photogrpher, 1/2 equipmnet and 1/2 post editing. Now go figure that one out!

I have no problem with what you're saying, if you read my post closely you will see i said much the same thing. Never said one should not do post editing, but believe it should be used sparyingly. Of coarse I'm aware that in certain situations, and depending on what one is trying to achieve, you do what's needed. In post editing I believe your statement "more is less" applies here. I have no problem with the peeps who use a heavy hand with their editing....to each their own. Everyone has the right to see and do things their way. But I have to believe that not all great photographers think the same way on this, and some also believe that more is less here. But maybe I'm wrong, what do I know.

Far as your math it don't add up 1/2 + 1/2 + 1/2 = 1 1/2, not a whole (1)

Re: DSLR 101 2.0

ebiggs1 — Tue, 19 May 2015 20:40:29 GMT

" I have no problem with the peeps who use a heavy hand with their editing...."

It isn't a matter of approval or whether you care if others do it . It is about making your photographs the best they can be. That is the aim and goal of all the greats. As a general rule, however, less is more. This like all rules is not etched in stone. It will be interesting, after a few years, to see how your mindset changes and grows. If you stick with it, that is? As quite a few folks don't, even though they are on fire at the on set. Seen it too many times to not know it happens.

Always put the emphasis be on the emphasis! Any way you can.

"Far as your math it don't add up 1/2 + 1/2 + 1/2 = 1 1/2, not a whole ..."

Oh, but it does and at some point you will believe so, too. You need to let the main most thing be the main most thing.

I might be the camera this time but the lens next. It could be the camera every time! Or if could be you, whatever the shot calls for.

Re: DSLR 101 2.0

jazzman1 — Mon, 25 May 2015 08:07:55 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:
" I have no problem with the peeps who use a heavy hand with their editing...."

It isn't a matter of approval or whether you care if others do it . It is about making your photographs the best they can be. That is the aim and goal of all the greats. As a general rule, however, less is more. This like all rules is not etched in stone. It will be interesting, after a few years, to see how your mindset changes and grows. If you stick with it, that is? As quite a few folks don't, even though they are on fire at the on set. Seen it too many times to not know it happens.

Always put the emphasis be on the emphasis! Any way you can.

"Far as your math it don't add up 1/2 + 1/2 + 1/2 = 1 1/2, not a whole ..."

Oh, but it does and at some point you will believe so, too. You need to let the main most thing be the main most thing.
I might be the camera this time but the lens next. It could be the camera every time! Or if could be you, whatever the shot calls for.

I hear you. For the most part I agree, cause I know where you're coming from. Have no problems here. As you say, I may change how I think here, I've been known to do that from time to time. Just so you know I'm an artist, and have an artistic background.

About me quiting, don't hold your breath. I've been into photography since I was a kid. I'm only new to DSLR's. I've used point and shoot cameras long as I can remember (the 60's), and have been using video camcorders at least since the 80's. I started out with polaroid cameras, to point & shoot....then to super 8 camcorders, then to VHS casstte, then to digital tape camcorders, Now Digital HD. I still use my camcorders almost as much as my DSLR (I have 2 camcorders), but my DSLR is starting to win out. I know the feeling of newbies coming and going in almost every hobby I've been involved with. In fact, I see it now in the photo clubs I belong to. I see newbies posting bunches of pics and saying how great the club is, only to disappear in a week or so. Some show back up in 6 months or so only to disappear again after all the alcolades about being happy to be back. It amazes me that they think the regulars really buy what they say. Our club has over 1,000 members on record, but I've never known more than 10 or so to ever show up for a photo meet. (most meets) Occasionally for an outting like the Zoo, maybe 25 or so show up, never the same group of peeps at each meet. Then we're back to the regulars again. So I'm well aware of the newbie disappearing act. But talk is cheap, time will tell Obiwan. As I said, don't hold your breath

, now using Digital HD

Re: DSLR 101 2.0

ebiggs1 — Wed, 20 May 2015 14:03:42 GMT

" I may change how I think here, I've been known to do that from time to time. "

Hmm, ... really! The biggest issue with new 'still' photographers is, they don't know what they don't know.

Re: DSLR 101 2.0

jazzman1 — Wed, 20 May 2015 14:13:57 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:
" I may change how I think here, I've been known to do that from time to time. "

Hmm, ... really! The biggest issue with new 'still' photographers is, they don't know what they don't know.

Re: DSLR 101 2.0

RobertTheFat — Wed, 20 May 2015 15:20:32 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:
" I may change how I think here, I've been known to do that from time to time. "

Hmm, ... really! The biggest issue with new 'still' photographers is, they don't know what they don't know.

That is, I think it's fair to say, a failing not unique to photographers (still or otherwise).

Re: DSLR 101 2.0

jazzman1 — Wed, 20 May 2015 17:25:45 GMT

@RobertTheFat wrote:
@ebiggs1 wrote:
" I may change how I think here, I've been known to do that from time to time. "

Hmm, ... really! The biggest issue with new 'still' photographers is, they don't know what they don't know.
That is, I think it's fair to say, a failing not unique to photographers (still or otherwise).

Thanks for you guys insightful observations.

And by the way I agree with all that's been said about the high quality of lens by XYZ makers. I've been reluctant to name any brands other than Canon for fear that my post will get deleted. For some strange reason others can do that but some of us seem to get hit for saying less. So, whenever I fail to give a XYZ brand any accolades it does'nt mean I don't agree, only I feel I'm treading on water here and don't want to rock the boat.

Re: DSLR 101 2.0

ebiggs1 — Wed, 20 May 2015 21:58:20 GMT

"Hmm, ... really!"

They don't delete unless you break one of the rules. After all it is their site and it is a Canon site, pretty fair to say, don't you think?

They don't want you pointing to third party web sites. And they don't want you to advertize other brands. Not too difficult to understand. But I have mentioned Sigma and Tamron and I believe I have reported the facts and truth about them. I do consider all the rest as pure junk and not worthy of reporting. Oh, yeah, there are a few high end lenses but insignificant for the vast majority of us. Plus they all have issues of their own.

Canon is not dumb. They know the score and the competition. Maybe they gather some market info from it? Who knows?

Up until a few years ago, maybe two, I would not touch a third party lens. Things change. I have changed. They have changed. Nobody, but nobody makes the lenses that Canon does. Period! End of story.

Re: DSLR 101 2.0

jazzman1 — Thu, 21 May 2015 13:27:47 GMT

I was out shooting last night for the 1st time after dark in my same favorite park. My results were not very good. I tried to get shots of downtown accross the water that I take all the time in the daylight. I had my 24-105 f/4L and 70-300 f/4-5.6L. A few shots were ok, I had to raise ISO to 1600, even to 6400 at some ranges, stopped down a notch, and kept my range at 70mm with the 70-300mmL. Anything I tried to shoot at any closer zoom range (100-300mm) my camera struggled and the shots blurry. My 24-105mmL did a little better on the park around the park lights. Some shots on the park around the park lights were Ok, but anything accross the water was'nt much good. I see I'm going to have to get a faster aperture lens for night shots but not sure what I should get. I know I will need f/2.8 or faster. What would be a good all around 1 lens choice for low light??? What aperture and Zoom range??? Or is an all around lens not a good choice for this???

Re: DSLR 101 2.0

Stephen — Thu, 21 May 2015 13:29:14 GMT

Hi Jazzman1!

We only remove or edit posts that violate the FORUM GUIDELINES.

That being said, we don't mind if you talk about third party lenses at all, however we do mind if you link to a site where you can purchase said lenses.

Our general "rule of thumb" is that we remove links/posts that promote or send anyone to a site that sells anything and is either not a well-known/trusted company or an Authorized Canon Dealer. This is to protect our Community members more than anything. This includes personal photography sites that sell prints as soon as you click the link as well as online shopping sites.

Bear in mind that you're free to use whichever brand of lens that meets your needs, however the EF lens technology (the magic smoke inside the lens) has never been licensed to any other company, ever, so Canon does not support any third party lenses and cannot guarantee that our camera bodies will work with any third party lens, or even recognize that said third party lens is even attached to your Canon camera body.

We hope this gives you a general idea of how we operate. We want you to feel safe to discuss your gear without worrying too much about your posts being edited. We try very hard not to censor anyone!

Re: DSLR 101 2.0

jazzman1 — Thu, 21 May 2015 14:33:37 GMT

Thanks Stephen,

@Stephen wrote:
Hi Jazzman1!

We only remove or edit posts that violate the FORUM GUIDELINES.

That being said, we don't mind if you talk about third party lenses at all, however we do mind if you link to a site where you can purchase said lenses.

Our general "rule of thumb" is that we remove links/posts that promote or send anyone to a site that sells anything and is either not a well-known/trusted company or an Authorized Canon Dealer. This is to protect our Community members more than anything. This includes personal photography sites that sell prints as soon as you click the link as well as online shopping sites.

Bear in mind that you're free to use whichever brand of lens that meets your needs, however the EF lens technology (the magic smoke inside the lens) has never been licensed to any other company, ever, so Canon does not support any third party lenses and cannot guarantee that our camera bodies will work with any third party lens, or even recognize that said third party lens is even attached to your Canon camera body.

We hope this gives you a general idea of how we operate. We want you to feel safe to discuss your gear without worrying too much about your posts being edited. We try very hard not to censor anyone!

Thanks Stephen, this really helps and clears up the issue for me.

I'm sorry if I've ever violated the guidelines, was'nt intentional If I did. I'm a very loyal Canon customer, been using Canon products most of my life. I've had cameras, lenses, camcorders, printers, and many acc. I've purchsed Canon products from authorised dealer stores to Canon shop on your website. I don't even own any 3rd party camera/camcorder gear. I have mentioned and talked about 3rd party gear in conversations here on this site but don't ever remember advertising or promoting any. If I did so it was unintentional and I fully understand why you would have such a policy. Again thanks much for bringing clarity to this issue for me.

Re: DSLR 101 2.0

jazzman1 — Thu, 21 May 2015 17:23:12 GMT

Canon has a new EF 50mm f/1.8 STM lens that's an upgrade to the old one for the same price. It has better specs, even a metal seat, over the older 50mm. Would this be a good choice to replace the old 50mm f/1.8, or is the EF 50mm f/1.4 a better choice??? I've heard about focusing issues with the 50mm f/1.4

Comparison Chart [Mod note - Cleaned up and fixed link]

BTW....It just dawned on me that I could use my Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens for nightime low light shots. I had it with me last night but did'nt think to try it. I only have used it 1 time since I had it and most times I even foget I have it. It does'nt have a metal seat and I've heard it may stick to my camera and be hard to take off. For this reason, I've been reluctant to use it.

Re: DSLR 101 2.0

jazzman1 — Thu, 21 May 2015 15:47:35 GMT

Thanks Stephen for the correction of my link. I thought that link may not work but thought to try.

Re: DSLR 101 2.0

ebiggs1 — Fri, 22 May 2015 15:16:06 GMT

First you know I only comment on lenses that I have personally used. At least I try to manitain that posture. Since I have not used the new version of the 50mm f1.8 I can not comment. Personally I do not like the EF 50mm f1.8. I have had two of them. For the average Joe, they are probably, OK but not for me. They do not, or at least have not stuck on any camera that I have ever used one on.

The EF 50mm f1.4 is a very fine lens. I highly recommend it. It is not a full stop faster than the f1.8 you have, however. Never the less, I would sell the f1.8 and buy the f1.4 today! Now if you really want the King of 50's, you want the EF 50mm f1.2 l II. This is THE 50mm. There simply is nothing like f1.2. It may not be quite as sharp as the f1.4 and it is harder to use correctly but well worth it. So much so, I sold my Sigma 50mm f1.4, the sharpest 50mm made, in favor of the EF 50mm f21.3 L II.

If you want the shapest 50mm on the planet, the Sigma 50mm f1.4 ART is it. Period. I do think everybody should have a 'normal' lens. That is a 50mm on a FF and a 35mm on a cropper.

But it don't get any better than this combo. The 1Ds Mk III and the EF 50mm f1.2 L II.

I know the 5D Mk III guys (!Bob from Boston!) are turning blue because I chose the DS3 but except for the high ISO thingy the DS3 is the better camera. I sold all my 5d's, (1, 2, and 3) remember.