[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/p/ - Photography



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



I find that I;m always comparing lenses before buying them trying to work out if its worth dropping an extra grand for the f2.8 instead of the f4 or the f5.6.
Assuming the lenses in question are equally sharp at f4 or 5.6, should I just look at getting a better body and shooting higher ISO and save money on the lenses.

Mostly I'm looking at the 70-200mm canons at the moment and using a 6d.
>>
Lenses > Bodies
>>
ISO won't get you dof
>>
>>3163728
The real difference is the F4 IS has the best image quality and the F2.8s are more rugged and aren't made with fancy glass that shatters when it's dropped from 2 feet high.
>>
>>3163728
Are you me? I'm looking at 70-200mm as well, for my 6D... I'm trying to find out more about the IS and non - IS F4 versions though
>>
>>3163728
throw your EOS 6D in the bin, get a D750, get the Nikkor 70-200 f/4.
Or if you insist on staying with Canon (vom) get the 70-200 f/4L IS. The 2.8 is no use to you when you leave it at home because it takes up so much space. If you have the f/4 you'll actually take it with you.
>>
>>3163728
you're not a professional. you don't need to spend thousands just for ONE stop of light.
>>
>>3163728
Tamron 70-200/2.8 G1 (VC USD) or the earlier non-VC Macro variant
There, I just saved you a bunch of dolla. Half the price of the Canun f/4 if bought used.
I have the Macro variant and it delivers, you won't have any regrets going third party.
>>
>>3163728
I think you're looking at the problem from the wrong angle.
I acted like this: I want a tele, but do I really need a zoom? No. (Well, sometimes I do, I get some odd jobs that would require a 70-200)

So what I did was buying a Canon 100mm 2.8 IS L Macro that just popped up on the used market for an ungodly low price (400€, brand spanking new. When I got to the guy he said he had 16 calls after mine, in 30 minutes - alright I got lucky) - because I think having IS and f/2.8 is much more valuable than reaching 200mm for what I do.

You, do you NEED a 200mm lens, or not? Because if you, for example, do concert work, portraits, that sort of stuff... you'd rather have a fast lens than a zoom tele. Look for a 135mm f/2, or the same 100 2.8 IS, they're great lenses and most importantly they're small and light.

>>3163931
le gearfaggotry face
People like you should realize that as far as outright image quality goes, nothing has changed since the Canon 5d2.
>>
>>3163964
>as far as outright image quality goes, nothing has changed since the Canon 5d2
For Canon, yes, but the rest of the world moved on years ago.
>>
The lens is a better investment in the long run. Itll last for generations of camera bodies.

A body on the other hand is obsolete in a few years
>>
>>3164067
No, it applies to everyone.
The only difference, sensor wise, lies in really high ISO performance, so for concert work you might enjoy noiseless pictures more easily, but some of the best concert photography has been taken on friggin' film, so that's not a relevant point.

If you go outside, take a good picture and print it, the results will come out exactly the same with a 5d2 or with the newest coolest FF camera on the market.
And of course the 5d2 had horrible autofocus, but I'm just talking about quality here.

Claiming otherwise is just /p/ bullcrap at its finest.
>>
>>3163931
>get a D750

>SHUTTER FAILURE
>>
>1.000 coins for a measly one (1) stop
Dont do it its worthless .Seek better lighting
>>
>>3164071
>as far as outright image quality goes, nothing has changed since the Canon 5d2
Do other anons agree here? Is this why older FF bodies loose value so slowly?
In that case, do i go for 5d2 or D700 or a super new Nikon D7200?
>>
>>3164091
does not matter, IQ is similar.
get the crop if you need the 1.5x reach instead of wide angle and you want a modern snappy AF system and burst
get the FF if not
>>
>>3164093
I shoot landscapes and I got the crop. Smaller lenses and altogether smaller kit for hiking rules way way over FF fetishism.
>>
File: d750review32[1].jpg (95 KB, 640x856)
95 KB
95 KB JPG
>>3163964
>let's subject the sensors to a bit of a challenge
>>
>>3165290
that says everything i need to know.

>anything but canon
>>
>>3163728
For night or indoor sports (or even sports past 5pm at dusk) 2.8 is essential.

If you don't need to hit 1/1250 in darkness, yeah, sure, get the f4.
>>
File: IMG_6957p.jpg (1.31 MB, 2049x1366)
1.31 MB
1.31 MB JPG
>>3165290
>>3165294
I shoot nightlife with a Canon 5d2 and I've NEVER had this problem.
That picture just tells you that if you're a bad as fuck photographer and underexpose by 3+ stops, the Nikon might save your ass.
Again, people have been taking wonderful pictures with film, since the 5d2 all that Bayer FF technology did was allow you to get away with bigger mistakes, but it didn't make photography better qualitatively speaking.

This is ISO 1600 with a 5d2, with no particular care to editing, just Capture One's noise reduction with a fairly low setting, and plenty of shadow recovery and detail extraction that makes noise worse. Is it perfectly noiseless? No, of course. Would that add anything to the photo? No.

Again, for flashless concert photography a newer body would be better - faster AF, more ability to pull from shadows and highlights make things more comfortable, but at the same time plenty of people pack 400 ISO colour film to concerts and pull out great results, so don't fret over the latest cameras, they'll just make you a lazy photographer if you'll use them just to pull 3 stops of shadows from a wrong exposure.

>>3164112
I went with a Sigma DP2M for that because fine detail rendition in landscape is a thing I love.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 5D Mark II
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
PhotographerPhotographer
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width5616
Image Height3744
Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2017:10:06 16:37:40
Exposure Time1/100 sec
F-Numberf/2.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating1600
Lens Aperturef/2.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Subject Distance0.00 m
Metering ModePattern
FlashFlash, Compulsory
Focal Length24.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2049
Image Height1366
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3165312
Holy shit dem bitches look like plastic
>canon skintones
>>
>>3163743
Fpbp
>>
>>3163728
I spent about four hours last night shooting a show with my 70-200 f/2.8L IS and my arm feels like it's gonna fall off.

Remember to take weight into account when making your decision.

(That being said, poorly-lit show with fast-moving dancers and I had to shoot from the back row of chairs. I needed that f/2.8)
>>
>>3165360
Get a fotosniper
>>
>>3165360
fucking right? I shot a volleyball game handheld and between the shitty bleacher seats and the camera, my back was killing me.

next time I'm bringing my monopod, for sure
>>
File: Untitled-1-7.jpg (232 KB, 1482x906)
232 KB
232 KB JPG
>>3164112
FF is not that heavy , but anyway, if you care about size & weight go mirorless.
Why do people still go for APS-C is a mystery for me
>>
>>3165290
From https://petapixel.com/2014/10/14/nikon-d750-review-nikon-youve-created-monster/

That's a 5-stop underexposure recovered in post of an ISO100 shot.

5 stop underexposure tells us that this is basically shooting at the equivalent of ISO 3200. When actually shot at ISO 3200 rather than shot at ISO100 and pulled up five stops, the 5D3 is actually very clean.

So all this is really showing is that the Nikon uses an ISO invariant sensor whereas the Canon doesn't.

Don't get me wrong, it's still damn impressive performance from the D750, but posting the image without context implies that the Canon completely shits the bed, which is misleading.
>>
>>3165363
>fotosniper
>>3165365
>monopod

Unfortunately, wouldn't work for this context--it's a pole dance show, which means that half of the problem is that I have to keep swapping back and forth between portrait and landscape when the peformers move (very rapidly!) between vertically-oriented poses and horizontally-oriented poses.

Part of the problem was that I didn't have my vertical grip on, I think. I don't usually use it for weight reasons, but it sure is helpful for grip reasons. Night 2 of the show is tonight and I'm bringing it along this time.
>>
>>3165312
> but it didn't make photography better qualitatively speaking.
That's true for digital photography as a whole

> plenty of people pack 400 ISO colour film to concerts and pull out great results
This is hard to believe though
>>
>>3164112
You get FF for landscapes because of better build and wider high quality lenses, not noise performance.
>>
>>3163728
I got a 6D and the 70-200/2.8, first version, non stabilized
it's pretty good even at 2.8, but it might not be worth it depending on the stuff you do

will you be taking pics of fast moving subjects in maybe less than ideal lighting conditions?
will you be taking pictures in much less than ideal lighting conditions?
do you have arms strong enough to hold the weight for enough time?
if not, then you probably can do with an f/4 lens
>>3163948
I remember a sigma tele being very very slow with the AF, so OP definitely check the AF performance of that if you'll be needing fast AF, having a fast one can really really be convenient
>>3163964
>as far as outright image quality goes, nothing has changed since the Canon 5d2
that's just a guy who's bitter because he can't afford anything better than a 5d2
>>3165290
as another guy pointed out, that's read noise
my 5d3 doesn't have nearly as much noise when shot @ 3200iso
>>
>>3165402
>You get FF for landscapes because of better build and wider high quality lenses, not noise performance.
I agree that noise isn't an issue for most landscape photos (although if you're doing nighttime landscapes it can be), but you do get a little bit of extra sharpness and dynamic range with full frame cameras, too.

Like, I agree with you that a crop is just fine for 99.9% of landscape photographers, but there are legitimate image quality reasons to want to go full frame even if you don't shoot in dark clubs.
>>
>>3165372
>This is hard to believe though
Might have gone a bit overboard? But I did see some great ballet photos done with ISO 400 color film pushed to 1600.

>>3165409
>that's just a guy who's bitter because he can't afford anything better than a 5d2
Nah I just know my priorities. Just saying, you have a 6d, which is virtually the same camera for all practical purposes, but with a shittier body construction. And unexcusable shitty AF for the year it came out. If you bought a used 5d2 today you would be taking the same exact photos, but with money to spare for better glass that actually makes the difference. Or a better screen. Or whatever floats your boat, but buying the 6d was a poor economic decision given it doesn't improve over the 5d2 in any meaningful way.

I got a 5d2 because when I bought it the 5d3 was just out, and I didn't see a consistent enough quality increase to warrant the extra price. I will probably buy one in the future just to get the better AF, though.

And yes, I tend to buy used cameras because I treat them as cars: there's plenty of casuals that never scratch the surface of what DSLRs can do, so I'm pretty convinced that buying used pro bodies not used by pros is a great way to get all of the bang for cheaper.

>>3165402
I also think the bigger sensor does something for the rendition of details, imho.
>>
>>3165357
Yeah I was a bit heavy handed, but that's why I posted this picture, just reduced clarity and they had a TON of makeup on. I guess anti-sweat makeup to last for 4 hours of dancing does that.
>>
>>3165951
The d700 came just about the same time as the 5d2.
Price for used Nikon around 650eu , price for used Canon around 200eu more. What do? I have two measly manual focus nikkor primes so I don't care about 'system'
>>
>>3166099
stick with nikkor. better dr, color depth, everything lol. the only thing that canon has thats better is their 70-200 lens
>>
>>3165365
>>3165360
The both of you need to git gud. I shot motorsports for a good 8 hours on two occasions with a 70-200/2.8G VRII and a 80-400G VR and I wasn't particularly sore. I was slinging two bodies as well.

Yeah, they're kinda heavy.

>>3166099
At least the Nikon has the prograde AF system and the one that they kept for 2 generations of cameras. D700 is legendary, 5D2 is merely good.
>>
>>3163769
Just got myself a 70-200 f/2.8 II AND a 6D Mark II.

Both second hand.

The camera from a guy shooting the solar eclipse with just 300 exposures. $1495 plus half shipping
I love 70-200 2.8 II cause I replaced my 200mm 1.8 which is 7 lb. Dont get me wrong though. When I need sheer speed and resolution, I use the 200mm 1.8. It edges the 70-200 for the extra 1 1/3 stops

>>3164071
Some of my best concert film was on Kodachrome 200. Pink Floyd and their lasers look really beautiful

>>3165367
This.
>>
>>3165363

>photo sniper

Pretty sure taking this to an event would mean jail time in today’s America.
>>
>>3166328

>best concerts were on kodachrome

Link.
>>
File: DSC05910 (Custom).jpg (945 KB, 2667x2000)
945 KB
945 KB JPG
>>3166330
Link? These are my personal pictures. Let me see if I can take a lightbox photo

Stand by

Here is one

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelDSC-H2
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2017:10:07 20:06:39
Exposure Time1/40 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating320
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length6.00 mm
Image Width2816
Image Height2112
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3166330
I should get a film scanner but I want a CoolScan9000 as I have hasselblad stuff too, over 4000 of those
>>
>>3166099
Canon guy, if you have no gear at all, start with the d700 if you have a good one available.
Some quirky things off the top of my head:
12mp are good enough but you don't have much cropping freedom - that makes you a better photographer, so it's all good.
If you're interested in cheap ettl flashes you'll have a bit more troubles finding one on Nikon compared to the tons of chink crap you can easily get on Canon.
Sigma and Tamron lenses tend to cost a bit less on Canon.
Canon has in general more decent cheap lenses.

But the d700 is a killer body. Easily beats the 6d as an actual photography tool.
>>
>>3166100
Not true at all, but given the choice I'd start with the d700 because it has actual pro AF and not just a center point, fucking Canon jews even their film cameras had better AF and they had the balls to pull that shit even with the 6d.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.