[The1]

Originally Posted by HPFREAK

Took this whiel on a business trip to Scottsdale last month. I had to rush the shot a little since it was cold a hell there for some reason and they did not want me taking a lot of pictures for some reason. I took it with a canon 15-85mm lens that I took back after the trip. It was not worth the money. It is a fine lens but for 500 bucks not 800.


Hotel-Valley-Ho-Scottsdale by BMG130, on Flickr

Then did a moon shot with my new 70-200 F4 IS. this was taken hand held


IMG_0036 by BMG130, on Flickr

Nice shots, and the moon turned out great hand held.

[HPFREAK]

Thanks, that is clearly a 100% crop, but the 70-200 F4 IS is amazing. The IS in it is so good even at 200mm where you would get far more wobble. The only down side is it eats up the battery.

Originally Posted by The1

Nice shots, and the moon turned out great hand held.

[The1]

Originally Posted by HPFREAK

Thanks, that is clearly a 100% crop, but the 70-200 F4 IS is amazing. The IS in it is so good even at 200mm where you would get far more wobble. The only down side is it eats up the battery.

what body did you use?

and that 70-200 F4 is a very sharp lens. My buddy has been using mine lately, he's thinking about buying it off of me. I was using it the other day at his place, and i forgot how light and compact it is compared to the 70-200 F2.8 much easier to maneuver around.

[HPFREAK]

I am using a T2i right now but plan to get either the 5DmkII or the mkIII when it is finally announced and also if it is going to be drastically better. I wanted to get the 70-200 2.8 IS but the size is a bit much for this body and oyu are right it would be ahrd to lug that around on a hike.lol I would be scared that I may turn too fast and knock down a tree or somethin.

Originally Posted by The1

what body did you use?

and that 70-200 F4 is a very sharp lens. My buddy has been using mine lately, he's thinking about buying it off of me. I was using it the other day at his place, and i forgot how light and compact it is compared to the 70-200 F2.8 much easier to maneuver around.

[The1]

Originally Posted by HPFREAK

I am using a T2i right now but plan to get either the 5DmkII or the mkIII when it is finally announced and also if it is going to be drastically better. I wanted to get the 70-200 2.8 IS but the size is a bit much for this body and oyu are right it would be ahrd to lug that around on a hike.lol I would be scared that I may turn too fast and knock down a tree or somethin.

Just remember, It's the tree's fault for being in the way.



when I had my 70-200 F4 in my bag, I had lots of room and back strength to hold several more lenses (primes, macros, etc)

but now that I have the 70-200 F2.8 it's about double the weight, and side by side, considerably larger. In fact, it's roughly the same size as the 100-400mm when not extended.

My macro now sits beside my 135L and beside my 100-400mm always waiting for the day I plan to use them, instead of taking them with me with the possible chance they may get used.

My bag, as it sits most days, consists of my 16-35L attached to my 5DII and my 70-200 sits attached to my 7D. I carry my 24-70 along, but rarely attach.

The 16-35 sometimes makes it onto the 7d, but only when i want the little extra depth of field on my 70-200 F2.8

The real debate at this point in time, do i sell my macro and 135L? or keep them for portrait photoshoots only? It's a big internal debate.

[HPFREAK]

Since I got started in this hobby(for me), I have found that choosing a lens is one of the most difficult choices I have made in any hobby including cars, computers, and girlfriends. The reason is the costs invloved with these L lenses are such that you need to make sure it is something you will need. I bought the 70-200 F4 IS used from Samy's Camera here locally since I got it for 850 and new they are 1131 from B&H who has the best price right now. I tried the 15-85, 17-40, Sigma 10-20, tamron 12-24, Tokina 11-16 and I did not like any of them for the money and the only lens that would be usefull on my future 5D is the 17-40 and it has no IS which is going to be improtant for me long term as I get old.lol We can not always grab shutter speeds over 1/200th when stopping down to F11+. I like to be able to get those 1/15th shots and have them look sharp. The best I managed with no IS is 1/100th and got a pretty sharp image.

My next lens will be the 16-35L with the 5D. I almost got the canon 10-22 but again it is an EFS lens so it basically useless for the 5D. Once I get the 5D I plan to sell the T2i. The Crop body I will get will likely be the 7D since it has awesome AF and features. Crops are helpful with the 70-200 since you get that extra 100mm focal length on the 7D's 1.5x crop.

Anyway after I just saw a review of NIK software Viveza 2 of this guy who said "oh I whipped out my Canon 800mm Prime to snap a pic of this bird, and here is a link to it...For $14,000!!!lol Ya you better be pretty sure that is something useful, and you are going to make the money back on your photos.

Originally Posted by The1

Just remember, It's the tree's fault for being in the way.



when I had my 70-200 F4 in my bag, I had lots of room and back strength to hold several more lenses (primes, macros, etc)

but now that I have the 70-200 F2.8 it's about double the weight, and side by side, considerably larger. In fact, it's roughly the same size as the 100-400mm when not extended.

My macro now sits beside my 135L and beside my 100-400mm always waiting for the day I plan to use them, instead of taking them with me with the possible chance they may get used.

My bag, as it sits most days, consists of my 16-35L attached to my 5DII and my 70-200 sits attached to my 7D. I carry my 24-70 along, but rarely attach.

The 16-35 sometimes makes it onto the 7d, but only when i want the little extra depth of field on my 70-200 F2.8

The real debate at this point in time, do i sell my macro and 135L? or keep them for portrait photoshoots only? It's a big internal debate.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by HPFREAK

Since I got started in this hobby(for me), I have found that choosing a lens is one of the most difficult choices I have made in any hobby including cars, computers, and girlfriends. The reason is the costs invloved with these L lenses are such that you need to make sure it is something you will need. I bought the 70-200 F4 IS used from Samy's Camera here locally since I got it for 850 and new they are 1131 from B&H who has the best price right now. I tried the 15-85, 17-40, Sigma 10-20, tamron 12-24, Tokina 11-16 and I did not like any of them for the money and the only lens that would be usefull on my future 5D is the 17-40 and it has no IS which is going to be improtant for me long term as I get old.lol We can not always grab shutter speeds over 1/200th when stopping down to F11+. I like to be able to get those 1/15th shots and have them look sharp. The best I managed with no IS is 1/100th and got a pretty sharp image.

My next lens will be the 16-35L with the 5D. I almost got the canon 10-22 but again it is an EFS lens so it basically useless for the 5D. Once I get the 5D I plan to sell the T2i. The Crop body I will get will likely be the 7D since it has awesome AF and features. Crops are helpful with the 70-200 since you get that extra 100mm focal length on the 7D's 1.5x crop.

Anyway after I just saw a review of NIK software Viveza 2 of this guy who said "oh I whipped out my Canon 800mm Prime to snap a pic of this bird, and here is a link to it...For $14,000!!!lol Ya you better be pretty sure that is something useful, and you are going to make the money back on your photos.

Get IS whenever you can, it's worth the extra money. They open up all kinds of night shooting opportunities for you. Even with IS, you'll want a solid tripod for those stopped-down scenics at low ISO, even in the daylight.

If a 5D isn't too far in the distance, then the 24-105mm f/4L IS is excellent. It's true wide-angle to portrait length with IS. The 16-35mm is also truly excellent, but 16mm is VERY wide on a FF sensor. It's only needed for certain specialty shooting. I prefer my 24-105mm for its versatility and when I need a really wide image I stitch together a panorama.

Why do you mention the 7D? It's a 1.6x crop, BTW. It's a great camera, I own it and the 5D MkII, but it's more of a sports/wildlife body for most of us. I've got a 500mm on my 7D for wildlife and either the 70-200mm or 24-105mm on the 5D MkII for almost everything else. Once in a blue moon I put the 70-200mm and the 1.4x TC on the 7D for shooting relatively large animals or close animals.

Here's an example of the 24-105mm on the 5D MkII, with four or five images stitched together:


Sailing heaven, the British Virgin Islands as seen from Tortola by dcstep, on Flickr

[HPFREAK]

I was thinking of the Minolta 7D being the 1.5 and thought the Canon was the same. Ya I looked at the 5D in the store with the 16-35 and it is really wide and produces some distortion that can look good in certain ways and is generally used for interior shots. My neighbor who just moved had one for doing real estate shoots. He said that is the only time he has really used it and keeps the 24-105 on it most of the time. I am thinking about getting the 1.4x TC at some point just because I do not want to buy another huge lens right now before I get teh 5D.

I have to say though that the Nikon D700 is one serious body and the ISO performance is much better from all the reviews I have seen. It is hard to jump to a different make though.

That is a really cool shot by the way. You have the panoramic tripod attachment or a tripod that has the degree markers built in?

Originally Posted by dcstep

Get IS whenever you can, it's worth the extra money. They open up all kinds of night shooting opportunities for you. Even with IS, you'll want a solid tripod for those stopped-down scenics at low ISO, even in the daylight.

If a 5D isn't too far in the distance, then the 24-105mm f/4L IS is excellent. It's true wide-angle to portrait length with IS. The 16-35mm is also truly excellent, but 16mm is VERY wide on a FF sensor. It's only needed for certain specialty shooting. I prefer my 24-105mm for its versatility and when I need a really wide image I stitch together a panorama.

Why do you mention the 7D? It's a 1.6x crop, BTW. It's a great camera, I own it and the 5D MkII, but it's more of a sports/wildlife body for most of us. I've got a 500mm on my 7D for wildlife and either the 70-200mm or 24-105mm on the 5D MkII for almost everything else. Once in a blue moon I put the 70-200mm and the 1.4x TC on the 7D for shooting relatively large animals or close animals.

Here's an example of the 24-105mm on the 5D MkII, with four or five images stitched together:


Sailing heaven, the British Virgin Islands as seen from Tortola by dcstep, on Flickr

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by HPFREAK

I was thinking of the Minolta 7D being the 1.5 and thought the Canon was the same. Ya I looked at the 5D in the store with the 16-35 and it is really wide and produces some distortion that can look good in certain ways and is generally used for interior shots. My neighbor who just moved had one for doing real estate shoots. He said that is the only time he has really used it and keeps the 24-105 on it most of the time. I am thinking about getting the 1.4x TC at some point just because I do not want to buy another huge lens right now before I get teh 5D.

I have to say though that the Nikon D700 is one serious body and the ISO performance is much better from all the reviews I have seen. It is hard to jump to a different make though.

That is a really cool shot by the way. You have the panoramic tripod attachment or a tripod that has the degree markers built in?

I took that pano by hand, but my tripod has a Arca-Swiss Z1 ballhead with built in pano function and degree markers. The degrees are not critical. It's important when you're at wide angle to use plenty of overlap so that the stitching together is easy (avoiding the curved edges).

Also, RAW conversion software, like DxO Optics Pro and Lightroom, correct for the geometric distortions of the 16-35mm and the 24-105mm, so don't just look at an out-of-camera jpeg and say, "that's a lot of distortion." When shot in RAW and run through competent software, there's no issue.

The D7000 is an excellent crop-sensor camera that has better high-ISO performance than the Canon 7D, but not better than the 5D MkII. The 7D isn't bad at all. If you're going to shoot Nikon, the D7000 is what I'd recommend for wildlife.

Here's one taken with the 7D at ISO 1600, 700mm (500mm +1.4x TC), f/5.6 and 1/320th sec, HANDHELD. I don't see any noise problems or need to change systems:


Beautiful white-tail doe munching on grasses by dcstep, on Flickr

[HPFREAK]

Well that is a good job for sure. I have CS5 and I tried to make the image I was getting from the 15-85 look right and it just never did. It looked ok but just a little too stretched on the edges. The D7000 is good, but I was saying that I was thinking of the D700 for myself and that it has better ISO perf than the 5D. Both are good but the D700 beats it, but I think Nikon generally does better in ISO performance from what I have seen in many reviews and tests. You are lucky you can get a clean shot at 1600 ISO. The t2i can not do this, I have tried. 800 is the limit.

I just should of spent more and done a Full Frame body right off since it is more along with the performance and features I am looking for now. I really did not know enough about what I wanted when I got it and it was a bit of an impulse buy. I also listened to people who said the glass matters moret than the body. True to some extent but the sensor matters just as much along with the features in the camera. the T2i lacks some features and abilities I want. I know the T2i is capable of a lot though.

Originally Posted by dcstep

I took that pano by hand, but my tripod has a Arca-Swiss Z1 ballhead with built in pano function and degree markers. The degrees are not critical. It's important when you're at wide angle to use plenty of overlap so that the stitching together is easy (avoiding the curved edges).

Also, RAW conversion software, like DxO Optics Pro and Lightroom, correct for the geometric distortions of the 16-35mm and the 24-105mm, so don't just look at an out-of-camera jpeg and say, "that's a lot of distortion." When shot in RAW and run through competent software, there's no issue.

The D7000 is an excellent crop-sensor camera that has better high-ISO performance than the Canon 7D, but not better than the 5D MkII. The 7D isn't bad at all. If you're going to shoot Nikon, the D7000 is what I'd recommend for wildlife.

Here's one taken with the 7D at ISO 1600, 700mm (500mm +1.4x TC), f/5.6 and 1/320th sec, HANDHELD. I don't see any noise problems or need to change systems:


Beautiful white-tail doe munching on grasses by dcstep, on Flickr

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by HPFREAK

Well that is a good job for sure. I have CS5 and I tried to make the image I was getting from the 15-85 look right and it just never did. It looked ok but just a little too stretched on the edges. The D7000 is good, but I was saying that I was thinking of the D700 for myself and that it has better ISO perf than the 5D. Both are good but the D700 beats it, but I think Nikon generally does better in ISO performance from what I have seen in many reviews and tests. You are lucky you can get a clean shot at 1600 ISO. The t2i can not do this, I have tried. 800 is the limit.

I just should of spent more and done a Full Frame body right off since it is more along with the performance and features I am looking for now. I really did not know enough about what I wanted when I got it and it was a bit of an impulse buy. I also listened to people who said the glass matters moret than the body. True to some extent but the sensor matters just as much along with the features in the camera. the T2i lacks some features and abilities I want. I know the T2i is capable of a lot though.

Shooting at ISO 1600 doesn't require luck, it requires correct exposure. Expose Right (to the right of the histogram) and know how your equipment works. The 7D and the T2i share the same sensor, so I'd be surprised if I couldn't duplicate my shot with the T2i. Lightroom or DxO is where to apply noise reductions. PS is not as good and LR is also a better place to do your geometric corrections.

LR, DPP and DxO are for RAW conversion, lens correction and other global adjustments. Save PS for masking, touching up isolated spots, HDR stacking and pano stitching, where its power is well suited.

Don't follow one impluse buy with a second one. If a D7000 is the camera your want, don't buy a D700, wait. If you decide to stay with Canon, then the 5D2 isn't going to disappoint you in its high-ISO performance. Realize that as soon as you buy either a Canon or a Nikon, there'll be a new camera out in six months that'll "beat it" is some aspect. The announced Canon 1D X looks like it's going to blow away all FF cameras in terms of ISO performance, fps speed and AF quality. That'll last no more than a year and some camera from Sony, Nikon or Canon will beat it in some or all of those aspects. That won't deminish the fact that it's a great camera with capacities that we could only dream of in the film days.

If you switch systems, make this the last time you do it. Buy good, competent bodies and focus your energy on getting the best lenses that you can afford for the type of shooting that you prefer.

Dave

[HPFREAK]

I have not heard of DxO before. I was planning on getting NIK Dfine for noise or actually the entire collection for 250 with my girlfriends student discount. That is why I got CS5 extended. No way I would of paid full retail for it. I like the NIK programs control point adjustments so you do not have to be forced to make global adjustments. I agree though that CS5's NR is a little poor, but I have heard that you can do NR on certain layers so as not to disturb the detail of the entire photo, but I ahve not figured that out yet. I do all of this in my spare time which I have very little of these days. I will have less with tax season around the corner.

The 1Dx is for Professionals or people with tons of money burning a hole in their pockets.lol

Originally Posted by dcstep

Shooting at ISO 1600 doesn't require luck, it requires correct exposure. Expose Right (to the right of the histogram) and know how your equipment works. The 7D and the T2i share the same sensor, so I'd be surprised if I couldn't duplicate my shot with the T2i. Lightroom or DxO is where to apply noise reductions. PS is not as good and LR is also a better place to do your geometric corrections.

LR, DPP and DxO are for RAW conversion, lens correction and other global adjustments. Save PS for masking, touching up isolated spots, HDR stacking and pano stitching, where its power is well suited.

Don't follow one impluse buy with a second one. If a D7000 is the camera your want, don't buy a D700, wait. If you decide to stay with Canon, then the 5D2 isn't going to disappoint you in its high-ISO performance. Realize that as soon as you buy either a Canon or a Nikon, there'll be a new camera out in six months that'll "beat it" is some aspect. The announced Canon 1D X looks like it's going to blow away all FF cameras in terms of ISO performance, fps speed and AF quality. That'll last no more than a year and some camera from Sony, Nikon or Canon will beat it in some or all of those aspects. That won't deminish the fact that it's a great camera with capacities that we could only dream of in the film days.

If you switch systems, make this the last time you do it. Buy good, competent bodies and focus your energy on getting the best lenses that you can afford for the type of shooting that you prefer.

Dave

[M_Six]

These are both ISO 1600 shot on a T1i and using Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) noise reduction. The Canon T-series cameras are no slouches when it comes to noise at high ISO. Like Dave says, you need to shoot right and then reduce exposure. Works wonders. And learn to use ACR (which is part of CS5). It can really bring out the best in your images.

[gcochard]

Here's a picture of the moon that I took at 100% crop.



Handheld with my 55-200 VR.

[The1]

Originally Posted by HPFREAK

I have not heard of DxO before. I was planning on getting NIK Dfine for noise or actually the entire collection for 250 with my girlfriends student discount. That is why I got CS5 extended. No way I would of paid full retail for it. I like the NIK programs control point adjustments so you do not have to be forced to make global adjustments. I agree though that CS5's NR is a little poor, but I have heard that you can do NR on certain layers so as not to disturb the detail of the entire photo, but I ahve not figured that out yet. I do all of this in my spare time which I have very little of these days. I will have less with tax season around the corner.

The 1Dx is for Professionals or people with tons of money burning a hole in their pockets.lol

Don't think of buying the T2i as a bad choice/wrong choice. Think of it as a stepping stone to a better camera. You learned all the basics on that camera and learned that you're really enjoying photography. As a result of that camera, you have a better idea of what you would look for in future cameras, and what you can do without.

I see it as a necessary step in some cases. DC is an exception to that. He took a chance and dove in 100% committed to the 5DII and it worked for him. There are lots of people who try that, and you can find their 5DII's on creig's list or e-bay.

If you're looking for noise in a picture, you'll find noise. I can find noise in a 100 ISO photo. but it's at 100% crop if i do see it. If i'm at 1600 ISO I won't make it to 100% crop before seeing it, but I can guarantee that if i printed that picture on an 8x10 sheet, you would think it was shot at 100 ISO.

Basically what i'm saying is, If you're looking for it you will find it, especially when you start zooming in. a 100% crop on an 18 megapixel camera is a picture would take up likely about half your wall. Just think. Your high definition televion you have (1080p) is only 3 megapixels. So if you have a 40" and you're looking at the image at 100%. Then that image would be able to be seen fully on a televiosion that measured 6 times the size of a 40".... that would be a 240"

that's a lot of details....

[HPFREAK]

True it is a fine camera to learn on, but now I am read to go all in. I was wondering about the noise and how it would show on prints of normal size. I have been told that it really wont show unless you do a much larger print. That is good to know and realize that a little noise is ok. I am also trying to find some good people to go out and shoot with locally. I think if I am around some people that have been doing it awhile I will learn a lot mroe and get exposed to more places to have a chance at some nice photos.

Originally Posted by The1

Don't think of buying the T2i as a bad choice/wrong choice. Think of it as a stepping stone to a better camera. You learned all the basics on that camera and learned that you're really enjoying photography. As a result of that camera, you have a better idea of what you would look for in future cameras, and what you can do without.

I see it as a necessary step in some cases. DC is an exception to that. He took a chance and dove in 100% committed to the 5DII and it worked for him. There are lots of people who try that, and you can find their 5DII's on creig's list or e-bay.

If you're looking for noise in a picture, you'll find noise. I can find noise in a 100 ISO photo. but it's at 100% crop if i do see it. If i'm at 1600 ISO I won't make it to 100% crop before seeing it, but I can guarantee that if i printed that picture on an 8x10 sheet, you would think it was shot at 100 ISO.

Basically what i'm saying is, If you're looking for it you will find it, especially when you start zooming in. a 100% crop on an 18 megapixel camera is a picture would take up likely about half your wall. Just think. Your high definition televion you have (1080p) is only 3 megapixels. So if you have a 40" and you're looking at the image at 100%. Then that image would be able to be seen fully on a televiosion that measured 6 times the size of a 40".... that would be a 240"

that's a lot of details....

[The1]

Originally Posted by HPFREAK

True it is a fine camera to learn on, but now I am read to go all in. I was wondering about the noise and how it would show on prints of normal size. I have been told that it really wont show unless you do a much larger print. That is good to know and realize that a little noise is ok. I am also trying to find some good people to go out and shoot with locally. I think if I am around some people that have been doing it awhile I will learn a lot mroe and get exposed to more places to have a chance at some nice photos.

The only way to really find out is to print a few for yourself, take an SD card with some of your favorite shots and a few etras that you took at 800 ISO+ and print some out.

you'll be surprised at what you see.

as long as you're not going 100% crop on an 11x13 or something like that, you're not really going to have much trouble.

beyond that, depending on what post processing programs you're using, you can change how much dpi can be set for the picture and such. this way you can get even finer details on prints in some cases.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by HPFREAK

True it is a fine camera to learn on, but now I am read to go all in. I was wondering about the noise and how it would show on prints of normal size. I have been told that it really wont show unless you do a much larger print. That is good to know and realize that a little noise is ok. I am also trying to find some good people to go out and shoot with locally. I think if I am around some people that have been doing it awhile I will learn a lot mroe and get exposed to more places to have a chance at some nice photos.

What do you consider "prints of normal size?" That's critical. I've been doing 11"x15" books with two-pages spreads with both my 7D and 5D2 with no problems with noise.

It's too easy to look at our images on the monitor at 100%, 200% and 500% and think, "look at all that noise." Very few of us print in those sizes, so you need to not put too much stock in what you see there. The only time I look that big anymore is when I'm making corrections.

Dave

[HPFREAK]

Basically something like 8x10 or something a little better like your 11x15. If I was going to print something I really liked I would want it to be big enough to put on a wall and not have it look too small for the wall. Standard postcard size like what you would get at a 1 hour photo place is not what I want. What type of printer are you using or do you have them done at a shop? I have been debating on if I should get a printer since so far I have not had any pics that I felt deserved to be printed.

Originally Posted by dcstep

What do you consider "prints of normal size?" That's critical. I've been doing 11"x15" books with two-pages spreads with both my 7D and 5D2 with no problems with noise.

It's too easy to look at our images on the monitor at 100%, 200% and 500% and think, "look at all that noise." Very few of us print in those sizes, so you need to not put too much stock in what you see there. The only time I look that big anymore is when I'm making corrections.

Dave

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by HPFREAK

Basically something like 8x10 or something a little better like your 11x15. If I was going to print something I really liked I would want it to be big enough to put on a wall and not have it look too small for the wall. Standard postcard size like what you would get at a 1 hour photo place is not what I want. What type of printer are you using or do you have them done at a shop? I have been debating on if I should get a printer since so far I have not had any pics that I felt deserved to be printed.

I using a professional, vanity-book binder, MyPublisher, using heavy paper and deluxe finishing. These are coffee table books that my fans (both of them) rave about. Great gifts too.

We went to The Grand Canyon with friends in November. For six pages, I took three panoramas and filled two-pages with each pano (22"x30"). I ordered a lay-flat binder and the prints are stupendous. All were hand held, stitched panos with the 5D2 and the fantastic 24-105mm lens.

Dave

[HPFREAK]

Sounds like a serious setup. I am going to hold off on a printer until I get better and most likely will have them printed professionally for family and friends.

Originally Posted by dcstep

I using a professional, vanity-book binder, MyPublisher, using heavy paper and deluxe finishing. These are coffee table books that my fans (both of them) rave about. Great gifts too.

We went to The Grand Canyon with friends in November. For six pages, I took three panoramas and filled two-pages with each pano (22"x30"). I ordered a lay-flat binder and the prints are stupendous. All were hand held, stitched panos with the 5D2 and the fantastic 24-105mm lens.

Dave

[antoine@lutzperformance]

Originally Posted by turo

Took this one last year.


The skyline that never sleeps... by arturodonate, on Flickr

nice shots