Random Photography Stuff

[DibblyDobbler]

How about a low content thread for Random questions, points of interest, equipment chat, etc etc?

Don't want to clutter up 'Random Photographs' and not worth its own thread? Stick it in here

[DibblyDobbler]

I'll go first

See depth of field - does it come after the point of focus, before it, or a bit of both

[DibblyDobbler]

And another - I'm vaguely considering upgrading from a 24-104 F4 to a 24-70 f2.8.

Anybody think it's worth it and if so - do I go for the Canon 24-70 or the Tamron which is supposedly very nearly as good and half the money... Hmmm...

[DibblyDobbler]

Pickled said:

I always thought it was the plane that is in focus.

And we're off to a flier

[DibblyDobbler]

DavidY said:

I've got the Tamron (on a 6d) and like it very much, its fantastic value for money and has IS which the Canon f2.8 does mot. It also costs half the Canon!! It beat the Canon in a recent test in Advanced Photographer magazine, but the Canon did get one more mark out of 25 for IQ. So I would say if you want value for money or IS get the Tamron, if ultimate image quality matters to you then cough up for Canon...simples.....

Thanks David - my thinking was along these lines (and I also have a 6D). I do slightly wonder if I would miss the 70-105 range but probably not I guess as cropping is no issue with all the pixels we have to play with...

[DibblyDobbler]

LongQ said:

Perceived Depth of field and then for simplicity ignore Tilt and Shift options ....

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/tech...

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dof-cal...



On the basis that seeing is a large part of learning ...... have a play.

Cambridge in colour is usually a worthwhile immersion.

You can get DoF apps for mobile devices of course.

Or buy an old style lens and it will have markings in place!

Such is progress.


The answer, in rough terms, is approximately 1/3 before and 2/3 after the plane of focus are considered to be the rules of thumb but that can become quite meaningless in some situations. Macros for example.

Ah - thanks LQ.

Now you've said it I believe I had read that before but forgotten. Will study the links later

[DibblyDobbler]

leglessAlex said:

Interesting. I'd like to do the same, I knew the Tamron exists but didn't know it was so good.

Random question, if I got the 24-70 obviously I'd have to get a 70-200 to compliment it. Is the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II really worth it? They hold their value like crazy and most of the things you read about them do tend to agree that they are the dogs knackers.

I think the answer is yes - but only if you need that focal length covered. I had a cheaper 70-200 for a while and it was great but I just didn't use that range very often so I ended up selling it (and for once never felt the need to reverse my decision!). I believe the optics are fabulous though....

[DibblyDobbler]

chrismarr said:

I'm thinking about upgrading my D600 and can't decide whether its D800, D810 or D750 - cheaper , damn expensive or a wee bit cheaper . I keep looking at the A7r too now ... Would i use it more if it was smaller? Would i take it out more often ? Should i stick with my 600 and wait until i really need to upgrade !!

Go for the A7R! I want to see how you get on

[DibblyDobbler]

leglessAlex said:

I was afraid you'd say that, £1200 even second hand they cost!

Having extra reach is important for me, I'm in a wheelchair or on prosthetics both of which limit my movement and therfore limit how close I can get to something or what perspective I can have on it. Having a decent zoom range helps massively for that.

Ah I see - the user name is not a pun!

Well my experience was the 70-200 range was too long for most things but no long enough for birds, planes etc. Many people love it though so I don't think for a minute you'd be disappointed (I believe it does weigh a ton though - might be worth factoring that in...)

[DibblyDobbler]

DIW35 said:

LongQ said:

The answer, in rough terms, is approximately 1/3 before and 2/3 after the plane of focus are considered to be the rules of thumb but that can become quite meaningless in some situations. Macros for example.

I always thought that it was approximately 2/3 ahead of the point of focus and 1/3 behind which is why it is advised that if you are using hyperfocal distance you should aim for 1/3 of the way in to your shot.

I think what you are saying means LQ is correct doesn't it? (assuming 'before' means towards you and 'after' means further away)

[DibblyDobbler]

Bought myself a 'Little Stopper' today - only £82

[DibblyDobbler]

LongQ said:

Good grief.

I can remember when they were less than £1 for 3.

Much less than a £1 come top think of it.

Clue: I have no intention of putting it in my Gob

[DibblyDobbler]

ian in lancs said:

After a frivolous and fruitless foray into landscape I'm have both a 12-24 and a 16-35 (nikons). I don't really use either! I think I should keep one but which one! The 12-24 is awesome and deserves its place in the trinity but is heavy and filters are a no-no! The 16-35 is equally awesome, takes 77mm filters, has VR, is lighter and a more useful range (but overlaps with the 24-70). Decisions, decisions. I think I've made it but then change my mind. Aargh!

Get rid of the 12-24 (or even both!)

[DibblyDobbler]

leglessAlex said:

I have a bit of a random question that fits in this thread I reckon.

How happy are you with the pictures you take?

I ask because often I'll get friends complimenting me on a picture I think is crap, I always have a very firm idea of what I want the picture to look like but it never seems to be quite there. I get very hung up on the flaws, does this ever change? Even a picture of the moon I took a while ago that's super clear and sharp I'm not very happy with and I can't even say why.

Obviously there are some staggeringly good 'togs on here, I always think "I'd be happy if I took a photo that good" but maybe I wouldn't, I guess I'm chasing after perfection.

I think you're not alone in that - I don't like about 90% of what I shoot even though friends and family are always complimentary. Ask on here for honest feedback and you'll usually get it! Keep chasing perfection though, that's a good thing

[DibblyDobbler]

Gents some help please with the below from a chum who has a Canon 600D I think with a Tamron 150-600 - any ideas?

TIA


Camera peeps. Had issue with Tamron lens a wee bit back. Batt ran down really quick. A couple o charges and it seemed ok. Now. When i try to use big lens get ... err1. Comms with lens faulty. Did a google and a few things about battery. Cam said it was full. Charged it. Took half hour to fill. Still get error. Cam now says its only half full. Do i need a new bat or u think lens is stuffed?

[DibblyDobbler]

LongQ said:

If I read that right the battery sounds dodgy.

Would be a good idea to try another as a starting point. Non-Canon versions should be OK (in my experience) and have the benefit of being affordable.

Thanks I have fed that back to him )

[DibblyDobbler]

Help Please

I have been fannying about experimenting with my popup flash to see if I can get it to work for macro shooting.

Normally I'm on Manual mode + f14 + 1/200 + iso100 ish or something similar.

The flash is not that powerful (as you would expect) so I though to myself to whack the Flash exposure compensation up to max (ie +2) - but I'm not understanding what it does!

With all other settings the same - for a middling aperture(eg f9) - the FEC does make it brighter or duller

But for a small aperture (f16) it has no affect at all - is this because the flash is already at maximum power and the dilithium crystals will no take it Captain ?

TIA

[DibblyDobbler]

Hi Allan!

Funnily enough I have just bid on a second hand Tokina 11-16 to go on my crop body (100D) - £200ish on Talk Photography. It's my choice for a UWA on a crop.

I also have the 16-35 F4 for my 6D - brilliant lens but possibly not wide enough on a crop (personal preference obviously). Welcome to a shot if you are ever over in Edinburgh

[DibblyDobbler]

Comacchio said:

Long time again...

I've just changed jobs, so no longer around the country (thankfully, in a way!)! You've fair stepped up your gear.. well done!

Have you previously used the 10-22mm Canon? Would be interested in the difference in IQ between the two!

Allan

Hmm - all the gear and no idea sums it up quite nicely Funnily enough I am intending to downsize at some point soon and probably go back to a crop body.

The 16-35 F4 is brilliant but as above probably not wide enough on a crop
The Toki gets great reviews for its IQ and does f2.8 (Milky Way shot?)
The Canon 10-22 and Sigma 10-20 are also good (I've had both in the past) but the fact I'm currently bidding on the Toki tells you which I think is best...

[DibblyDobbler]

Well if anybody is interested I'm thinking of going back from full frame to crop. Been using my 100D more and more lately and the 6D now feels like a brick! Can't tell any difference in the images either (even when looking closer than any sane person would).

So I've picked up a second hand Tokina 11-16 and if it passes muster for landscape work I'll probably sell the 6D, the 24-105 (great but not much use on a crop) and the Samyang 14mm (overlaps with the Toki) - leaving me with a 100D, Toki 11-16, Canon 16-35 F4L, Tamron 16-300, MPE-65, and 400 5.6L. Might also get rid of one or other of the 16-35 and 16-300 but not sure yet.

Anybody think I'm doolally or good idea/bad idea etc? What have I not thought of?

Cheers