srika

another wide crowd shot... damn those monitors...

large version

srika

50th Anniv Playmate Colleen Shannon @ Sound-bar

einsatz

Is it me, or is there a sort of grid pattern in the noise?
That's weird.
She's yummy.

srika

I ran Noise Ninja on it with some rough (read: quick) settings so there very well could be...

MrChad

most camera's use a Bayer filter for the colors since sensors can only read black and white, by principle all noise should conform to the Bayer patter of a 2-green, 1-blue, 1-red grid in some form.

srika

picture of a picture...

srika

god I cannot wait to pick up the 24-70 2.8... /thinkingoutloud

Billiam

I'm seriously thinking about that same piece of glass myself. It's between that and the 24-105 f/4 IS. I just have to do some thinking on what I'm most likely to end up shooting in this focal length range. As of right now, I'm leaning toward the 24-70. If I didn't have the 5D, I think I'd probably be leaning toward the IS on the 24-105.

srika

Hey what do you mean by this?

Billiam

My thought is that the 5D's low noise is probably worth about 1-1.5 stops of exposure by itself. In my mind that partially negates the "necessity" of IS on the 24-105 and makes me lead toward the greater creative DoF control with the f/2.8 glass.

srika

oh ok. I would have to agree with you. From what I've seen, for shots where I look through the viewfinder, where I'm able to stabilize, the IS isn't as big a factor. The IS does help a lot when I'm taking a shot without looking into the VF, such as the one you see in the first post on this page.

I had been wondering about how the 2.8 doesn't have IS, but I guess you don't really need it on such a fast lens, eh.

Mizouse

noooo... the 24-70 2.8 is a lens i want

i love how its nickname is called "the brick"

srika

yea its one heavy mother..

srika

Good one from Saturday nite.. Junkie XL. This is JPG - very minimal PP on this..

srika

looks like I oversharpened just a tad above... sometimes after you work on a ton of pics you get kinda numb to it lol.... :<

this one is converted from RAW... no NR applied. can you tell any difference?

srika

After some testing, under-exposing is better for club photography, at least for me. Much harder to recover an over-exposed pic.. and, sometimes impossible. At least with a very underexposed pic, you can set it to grayscale and be OK.

Crazy88

^^

That picture of the girl is nicely done, It looks fine by me. She looks like a club girl you could take home, nice smile & everything.

moeronn

It looks like she has the Playboy Bunny logo shaved into the top of her head.

As for the Raw photo, the foreground/subject look good, but the background looks like it could use a bit of NR.

srika

haha didnt even notice that.

btw here are 2 raw files, in case anybody is like, really bored, and feels like taking a stab at em..

MrChad

I love my 24-70L but it has seen very little use since my switch to digital my 17-40L lives on my 30D now, much lighter and with ISO 1250-3200 being so clean the f4 isn't an issue for me -- actually I prefer 4 to the DOF of 2.8 it's very shallow some days for me.

If I shoot chromes however the 24-70L is still my favorite combo on an Elan7 - likely the best feeling combo I have ever held. I prefer the feel of the Elan even to that of the Eos 3.

srika

Ok this is kinda distressing me. Am I gonna be able to do wide-angle shots like this with the 24-70 2.8??? That's all I need to know. I have trouble with DOF on the 24-105 f/4 when I have a group of people who are standing 2-3+ deep... one thing I have figured out is that the more you zoom in, the shallower DOF gets. I did not know that. So when I need maximum DOF I use the widest possible - which in my case right now is 24mm.

moeronn

IIRC, Both of those are EF lenses, right? Then at their widest angle, they should give you the same coverage.

Just remembered you're using a 5D which means they have to be EF lenses.

MrChad

DOF is more a function of aperture then focal length, but that's not entire accurate to say. Wider glass helps but f/8-16 in 24 vs. 17 will help more.

f/4 and IS is likely more useful to you then f/2.8 will ever be for maximum DOF.

If you really want or need an F/2.8 I'd look at the 17-55/2.8 IS if you have a crop body. Else 24mm should be plenty wide on a 5D or FF.

Mizouse

i think since you're shooting in low light and w/ fast moving subjects 2.8 would be nice so you can get the extra stop of shutter speed

einsatz

OK Seeing as I haven't played around with the Camera RAW stuff in PS since I got it, I decided to give it a shot. I seem to have gotten distracted and cropped off parts I wasn't interested in. Those legs look yummy.


I actually like how the patterns in what she's wearing looks on the image.

srika

I am quite sure I get deeper DOF as focal length decreases. Take a look at this comparison of only a 16mm difference - I took the first shot and then zoomed in a little - I wonder if its more a function of the camera/lens combination or if its a general rule of thumb?

24mm


40mm


24mm


50mm

srika

haha nice crop lol.. looks kinda dark tho

srika

btw this was one of the first shoots with the new cam. If I were to take this shot again today, I would be at 24mm and move closer to the subjects, and I guarantee you both of them would be in sharp focus.

danny25

It's a rule of thumb. The longer the focal length the shallower the DOF given the same aperture. I believe the DOF may technically be the same, but since you're zoomed in the effect is exaggerated.

srika

makes sense.

MrChad

It's true, DOF should not be confused with focal length compression artifacts. Iris or Aperture is the only way to truely control DOF.

High ISO, IS, and some type of the support (bean bag, tripod, monopod) and f8 are the only way to go for maximum DOF. And the blurry fast moving people should make great shots at 1/1

srika

^^^ god.. these is way more to DOF than I thought.. :P

srika

friends bday party Saturday, at a cafe kind of place.

the rest are here.

Mizouse

is this with the 24-70?

care to introduce me to your friends

srika

Glad you asked... nope! Same lens, 24-105 f/4 IS. All of these were at f/5, ISO 500. A combination of factors - the ceiling had white tiles, that really helped. Most places I shoot, the ceiling is BLACK, usually matte black. sux. Or, there is no ceiling, just a bunch of random unpredictable lights. And also, I put a little extra effort into these pics..

Mizouse

is that to my question about introducing me to your friends or you using the 24-70

srika

I asked em, they umm.. said.. they'll call you..

srika

WTF????? i think i was looking at the pic while typing the response....

Mizouse

yea i didnt even pay attention to what you typed there

danny25

"these is"... i didn't even notice that... I was also distracted.