Killswitch Engage @ The Palladium 2/23

[Compact Diss]

Enjoy!
C&C Welcome!

1.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/blu2200/kses2.jpg

2.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/blu2200/ksegr1.jpg

3.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/blu2200/ksegl1.jpg

4.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/blu2200/kseb1.jpg

5.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/blu2200/ksed2.jpg

6.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/blu2200/kses1.jpg

7.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/blu2200/KSEd1.jpg

[johnstoy]

It would help to see your gear list and the EXIF on every picture...

While the composition, framing, and subject are pretty good, you have focusing and motion blur issues... without EXIF there isn't much to talk about...

From my experience, there are workable and salvageable images beneath all of those heavy light colors.

[jcanfield]

Yeah, could be sharper, But I really like them overall! Great set,

[calicokat]

Nice shots, I like the first drummer shot best

[René Damkot]

I too like #5 best. And I also agree with the 'could be sharper' comment.
Tough lighting on the first few: lots of red...

[woman4life]

I rather like the third one. Lots of red, but with the contrast with the blues I think it looks pretty good, and it's reasonably sharp. :) In other words, I just think it looks cool. :)

[Compact Diss]

Thanks everyone.

#5 is my absolute favorite.
As for EXIF data, I guess that can be found on my flickr site in my signature. I used a Canon Rebel XT, Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens for these shots.

Here's my question, I am upgrading to the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8. I'm wondering if the sharpness of my shots will increase with the upgrade. I see a pattern if you look through my pictures on flickr, they all seem the same and I'm not feeling like I achieve great sharpness. It may be my technique but I'm wondering if the lens may be a factor.

Any thoughts appreciated-
Joe

[narlus]

sharpness in this case is likely more a function of shutter speed rather than lens characteristics, though autofocus accuracy can also come into play. looking @ the exif of 3 of the photos i saw posted here, yr shutter speeds are fairly low (1/30 - 1/60), which is the downside of using a zoom.

btw, 3 and 5 are the best in my opinion, and are good solid images.

[lacerado]

Great shots of an awesome band. I especially like the shot of Howard Jones (#1). The band seems to have really taken off since his introduction two albums ago. That man just has so much energy and you really captured it there.

[Mrselfdestruct]

nice shots, close up and clear. I saw them at Ozzfest in 05

[Compact Diss]

sharpness in this case is likely more a function of shutter speed rather than lens characteristics


I just ordered the Canon 24-70mm so I hope to have some nice new examples to tell if the lens can make any difference at all. I have always felt the Tamron is slow to focus, I was not happy when I first bought it but saw it being used as my primary for shows. I had intentions to upgrade for a while now and I did. I'm hoping to have some much sharper pics very soon...my first L!

Joe

[johnstoy]

I just ordered the Canon 24-70mm so I hope to have some nice new examples to tell if the lens can make any difference at all. I have always felt the Tamron is slow to focus, I was not happy when I first bought it but saw it being used as my primary for shows. I had intentions to upgrade for a while now and I did. I'm hoping to have some much sharper pics very soon...my first L!

Joe

There is a noticeable difference in the High Resolution (a sign of expensive, quality glass) of the 24-70mm... Compared to the 50mm 1.4 and the 85mm 1.8 lenses which are really great on their own... the 24-70 is approx 10% sharper... In other words, take the same picture using your lenses and enlarge them on the screen... you will find the pixels starting to break up sooner with the non L lens...;)

Shutter speed is next... Borderline speeds are risky, and 1/125th is just cutting it... Shoot open and stay well above the minimum for it's focal length... This lens extends as it gets wider and therefore is longer and more difficult to hold steady... However, it it "the Brick"... It is great cause it is massive and heavy, (feels like a brick) adding lots of stability when aiming...

EDIT: High Resolution qualities are measured in judging the quality of medical microscopes... The best and most expensive microscopes have the highest resolution... :D

[narlus]

There is a noticeable difference in the High Resolution (a sign of expensive, quality glass) of the 24-70mm... Compared to the 50mm 1.4 and the 85mm 1.8 lenses which are really great on their own... the 24-70 is approx 10% sharper... In other words, take the same picture using your lenses and enlarge them on the screen... you will find the pixels starting to break up sooner with the non L lens...;)

my bullsh!t detector just got pegged. show me some data!

btw, the 24-70L doesn't do so well at f/2 and under. :D

[johnstoy]

Get one and test it your self... it's a 2.8L...

[René Damkot]

Sorry, but this test (http://www.fredmiranda.com/24-70/) shows otherwise...

[johnstoy]

Enlarge it untill the pixel breaks with both lenses and the "L" lens wins every time...It's high resolution I'm talking about...

It's the standard test for microscopes...Enlarge it till you can't any more and the one that continues to enlarge further wins...

[narlus]

Enlarge it untill the pixel breaks with both lenses and the "L" lens wins every time...It's high resolution I'm talking about...

It's the standard test for microscopes...Enlarge it till you can't any more and the one that continues to enlarge further wins...


these lenses aren't used as microscopes.

did you look at the link rené provided?

i'm not knocking the 24-70, and i'm not much of a pixel peeper either, but i think yr belief about the relative merits of the L and non-L primes is off.

[johnstoy]

It's simple...try one and you'll see the difference...go beyond 100% magnification that Miranda uses as a standard... all the way till the pixels break up...

Besides, quality glass performs, as it does in 60,000 dollar microscopes and there is a difference in the High Resolution of glass...

[René Damkot]

I am curious about what you mean. I've used the 28-70L, and IMO it's more usefull to have a sharp image, then a less sharp one, even if the sharper 'breaks up' (?) beyond 100%

[narlus]

why would you go beyond 100%? does a putative difference even manifest itself if viewed @ 100%?

do you disagree w/ the FM findings/conclusion, based on the images posted?

edit - if i understand your point, you are saying that the 24-70 would out-resolve (the resultant image would be clearer and sharper) the prime when doing heavy cropping of an image. is that it? if that's the case, the FM review i'd say disproves that theory, based on the jpgs i saw.

[johnstoy]

My test was very simple...Take a picture from 7 feet away, of a black and white, type written page, on a bulletin board using the center focus point only...focus on the type. ..with both lenses...(or all of your lenses), then start enlarging them on the monitor, till the pixels beak... The L wins...

I'm wondering if Miranda's test was using all the sensors or if he chose to use the center sensor point to focus... cause his images at a 100% look out of focus...

Mine all stay in focus till the pixels start breaking up when enlarged beyond 100%...

Anyway, I'm not here selling lenses to you guys, so be happy with what you are using...

Let's get Compact Diss to try the enlarging test and see what he says...

[Compact Diss]

The only test I will be doing is trying to get a damn sharp image of a musician moving at a furious pace...

[carbonXevo8]

2.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/blu2200/ksegr1.jpg





who is this guy and where is adam d?

[bacchanal]

There is a noticeable difference in the High Resolution (a sign of expensive, quality glass) of the 24-70mm... Compared to the 50mm 1.4 and the 85mm 1.8 lenses which are really great on their own... the 24-70 is approx 10% sharper... In other words, take the same picture using your lenses and enlarge them on the screen... you will find the pixels starting to break up sooner with the non L lens...;)

Shutter speed is next... Borderline speeds are risky, and 1/125th is just cutting it... Shoot open and stay well above the minimum for it's focal length... This lens extends as it gets wider and therefore is longer and more difficult to hold steady... However, it it "the Brick"... It is great cause it is massive and heavy, (feels like a brick) adding lots of stability when aiming...

EDIT: High Resolution qualities are measured in judging the quality of medical microscopes... The best and most expensive microscopes have the highest resolution... :D

Well, i'm late to the party but...It's all for not if you can't get the shutter speeds to take a sharp photograph. From what I've seen the difference in sharpness between a 24-70 and the primes you mentioned is probably within the limits of copy variation...and that is giving the 24-70 the benefit of the doubt. Imo, there is no way that you can say one lens resolves xx% better than another. Color rendition may be a different story.

The 50 lags a little in AF speed, but if we're comparing the 85 and the 24-70, there is no question that both are very capable of getting the job done (assuming there is enough light).

Performing arts isn't really the place for pixel peeping anyway...hand held in a pit at 1/30, you're not going to be scratching your chin thinking about which lens has 10% better high resolution.

[Compact Diss]

If anyone wants to check out what the new lens has done for my work you can go to my site and check on Machine Head, Gojira, Trivium, and any band that is in the WBCN rumble, there are 12 sets of them.

The lens is amazing but the the factor is the lighting, crap lighting crap photos. I have been photographing the "rumble" all week and I have had to use shutter speeds just around 20-30. Of course this varies with each band but if I can get them while they are perfectly still I get amazing shots-you can check out any of the rumble bands and see the clarity.

Joe

[CrazyStang]

Aahh, I love Killswitch. Nice pics, but you should have gotten some of Adam D!

[taygull]

I will ad that a great L glass will get you sharp images, but you must upgrade the body as well.

Since I made the switch from a 20D to a 1D Mark IIn and a 5D I honestly do not have to sharpen an image to print it. On occasion my images seem to sharp.

I'll also say I NEVER use primes. My 24mm-70mm f/2.8L takes 95% of my shots.

[narlus]

I'll also say I NEVER use primes. My 24mm-70mm f/2.8L takes 95% of my shots.

different venues, different shooting style, different musical styles...i'd be SOL w/o my primes, and i'd bet Kalle's in the same boat.

i still had my 70-200 f/2.8 IS rental lens w/ me so i dragged it out last night to the middle east upstairs. it probably looked pretty impressive on my 30D, but i will be willing to bet that my primes got *way* better photos for me last night.

right tool, right job.

[DwightMcCann]

I like #3 better than #5. John is entitled to bull**** given his background. I understood what you were saying Narlus. I have medical appointments and then two shoots today, a shoot tomorrow and again Sunday, for various things, and then I'm off to Texas to visit taygull.