Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 30 May 2011 (Monday) 21:45
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Questions Regarding 5D II

 
joecar2000
Member
35 posts
Joined Dec 2010
     
May 30, 2011 21:45 |  #1

Two quick questions regarding the 5D II...

Keep in my mind that I take many pictures, but I'm mainly a film guy.

I currently only own one lens (24-105 mm).

1) Is there anyway to take a picture that looks exactly like it does through the viewfinder? For instance, I'll look through the viewfinder and it looks beautiful and natural with great falloff. I'll snap the picture and then forget about the ISO being high or the aperture too low. Is there a way to take a picture exactly as it seems through the viewfinder?

2) I just graduated and I'm getting more into film work. My price range is $500-1000. I need a lens that's great with depth of field and focus. Also, IS is needed. Any suggestions?

Thanks all in advance!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Mac
Senior Member
274 posts
Joined Feb 2005
     
May 30, 2011 22:10 |  #2

Well, I am not sure if there is an easy answer to your questions. First, in order to make the image look the same as it did through the viewfinder, you as the photographer have to make the exposure. The camera can guess, but the camera won't know exactly what you want the image to look like. Get to know the camera, it's quirks. Learn to see as the camera does.

Also, I have very few images that don't need some sort of post processing. Not sure if you are processing them or not, but a little processing can really make an image better.

As for the second question, are you looking for more or less DOF? I don't have the 24-105, but have been reading up on them and it seems like a great lens. What is it not doing well for you right now?


Sean
www.akamac.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
joecar2000
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
35 posts
Joined Dec 2010
     
May 30, 2011 22:17 |  #3

Mac wrote in post #12506774 (external link)
Well, I am not sure if there is an easy answer to your questions. First, in order to make the image look the same as it did through the viewfinder, you as the photographer have to make the exposure. The camera can guess, but the camera won't know exactly what you want the image to look like. Get to know the camera, it's quirks. Learn to see as the camera does.

Also, I have very few images that don't need some sort of post processing. Not sure if you are processing them or not, but a little processing can really make an image better.

As for the second question, are you looking for more or less DOF? I don't have the 24-105, but have been reading up on them and it seems like a great lens. What is it not doing well for you right now?

Regarding your answer to the second question, I love my lens currently. I'm just looking for more depth of field. My filming style has always been sort of a Peter Berg hand held (not Paul Greengrass style though) style. I want some great DOF for over-the-shoulder shots as well as establishing shots.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
swoffa
Senior Member
Avatar
452 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 23
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
May 30, 2011 22:32 |  #4

Maybe it's just me but I find your question confusing. Do you want more DOF(ie more of the image in focus) or a shallow DOF(ie more foreground/background blur)?

If you want more DOF, set your aperture to a higher number. A lower number for just your subject in focus and greater blur.

The 24-105 wide open is F4 from memory. So you'll get more background blur(less DOF) if you set at f4 and get closer to your focal point.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
joecar2000
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
35 posts
Joined Dec 2010
     
May 30, 2011 23:05 |  #5

swoffa wrote in post #12506915 (external link)
Maybe it's just me but I find your question confusing. Do you want more DOF(ie more of the image in focus) or a shallow DOF(ie more foreground/background blur)?

If you want more DOF, set your aperture to a higher number. A lower number for just your subject in focus and greater blur.

The 24-105 wide open is F4 from memory. So you'll get more background blur(less DOF) if you set at f4 and get closer to your focal point.

Sorry, I want more shallow depth of field.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
swoffa
Senior Member
Avatar
452 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 23
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
May 31, 2011 05:18 |  #6

joecar2000 wrote in post #12507057 (external link)
Sorry, I want more shallow depth of field.

Then you will have to set it in AV mode and the widest aperture (smallest number). So in the 24-105 that would be f4. The closer you are to your subject the shallower the DOF will be.
If you want even shallower DOF you'll need a lens that can get wider. Like f2.8 or f1.8 or f1.4 but we are talking extra dosh now if you stick with the canon brand. The "nifty fifty" is a ripper lens and dirt cheap for the results. It's a 50mm f1.8 lens and that will give you a shallow DOF.

Have a look on flickr (external link).

I'm a beginner still myself so someone may be able to elaborate on the above, or correct me if I'm wrong.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TijmenDal
Goldmember
Avatar
1,214 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
     
May 31, 2011 05:30 as a reply to  @ swoffa's post |  #7

As to your second question:
- I would recommend NOT to get IS. It's futile if you're shooting on a tripod, and if you're shooting handheld it doesn't do anything because there's too much shake. Invest in good stabilizers. Get a Glidecam HD2000/40000. It's a lot of money, but MUCH better and about the same you spend on IS.
- As for lenses: as you don't need the IS, just get old glass.
These are without a doubt the best lenses you'll find for the price:
Olympuis Zuiko OM 28mm f/3.5 - 50$, not a shallow DOF, but VEEEERY sharp. Amazing!
SMC Takumar 50mm f/1.4 - 100-150$, super fast, tack sharp. As good as any 50mm gets.
Nikon Nikkor 85mm f/2 - 200$ (Ah Nikon! Yugh!) But seriously, amazing for the money.

Get those 3 lenses for 350-400$ and spend 400-500$ on a GOOD stabilizer.

I got a 135mm SMC Takumar f/3.5 (there's also a f/2.5, but that one was too expensive :P ) coming in, I'm pretty sure it's gonna be amazing! I'll let you know.

As you can see: good glass doesn't have to cost a lot. Especially when shooting video (when you don't need AF), it's a waste to buy 'digital' glass in my opinion.


//Tijmen
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/tijmendalexternal link

Gear
______________
flickrexternal link
_____________

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PG1
Member
163 posts
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Australia & Nth America
     
May 31, 2011 05:42 |  #8

Consider 50 1.8 or 1.4. Both fantastic "learning" lenses for shallow depth of field in the price range you mentioned.


Too much gear, not enough skill or time!
5DIII, 6D & 7D; 16-35 L, 24-70 II L, 70-200 f/2.8 II L, 100-400 L, 135 L, 35 L, 24 TSE L, 50 1.4, 85 1.8
Extender 1.4 II. 580 EX. Gitzo 1541T, 3541LS, Markins Q3T, Q20.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
joecar2000
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
35 posts
Joined Dec 2010
     
May 31, 2011 10:55 |  #9

PG1 wrote in post #12508115 (external link)
Consider 50 1.8 or 1.4. Both fantastic "learning" lenses for shallow depth of field in the price range you mentioned.

I was thinking 50 mm 1.2 or 70-200 mm for shooting. What does everyone think of these?

Another thing I'm looking at is this - is there a lens that helps with NOT bending the image when the camera shakes? I've filmed and many times I'll move the camera a bit swiftly only to have the camera sort of bend. I have a feeling this is with every camera though.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jetcode
Cream of the Crop
6,234 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2009
Location: West Marin
     
May 31, 2011 11:40 |  #10

#1 No ... Photo diodes and the human eye are two very different sensors.
#2 You need a large piece of film to get the depth of field where f/32 is the sweet spot in the lens




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mattograph
"God bless the new meds"
Avatar
7,693 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Louisville, KY
     
May 31, 2011 21:16 |  #11

This might make your decision harder -- or easier -- as he gives you lots of choices.

But Vince LaForet is sort of Canon's go to guy when it comes to vetting out how to use the HDDSLR tech to its max. Remember, this is THE guy Canon picked to do their sample video productions when they introduced the camera.

He is a canon guy, so hes gonna recommend canon.....

But he says the first lens you need for film is the 24-70.. read it here:


http://blog.vincentlaf​oret.com/mygear/lenses​/ (external link)


This space for rent.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
joecar2000
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
35 posts
Joined Dec 2010
     
Jun 01, 2011 17:06 |  #12

mattograph wrote in post #12512721 (external link)
This might make your decision harder -- or easier -- as he gives you lots of choices.

But Vince LaForet is sort of Canon's go to guy when it comes to vetting out how to use the HDDSLR tech to its max. Remember, this is THE guy Canon picked to do their sample video productions when they introduced the camera.

He is a canon guy, so hes gonna recommend canon.....

But he says the first lens you need for film is the 24-70.. read it here:


http://blog.vincentlaf​oret.com/mygear/lenses​/ (external link)

He seems to have recommended all of these:

24-70mm 2.8
50mm 1.2
70-200mm 2.8L
100 mm 2.8
135mm 2

I've been searching videos for footage and what it looks like. Does anyone have any information about these and whether they are worth the money or not?

Or should I just be worried about an audio set up? Ha.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sam_M
Senior Member
Avatar
535 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2007
Location: New Hampshire
     
Jun 01, 2011 18:48 |  #13

Ok, had to re-read things, but I get what you're asking. You are using the 5D2 primarily for videos, and are looking to find a lens that provides a shallow depth of field, focuses quickly and has IS.
Couple of things here. As far as I know, the 5D2 does not autofocus during video, it is manual focus only, so the speed of the lens focusing is a moot point in regards to what you're asking. Secondly, the 'bending' as you put it, is known as jellyrolling, and is somewhat a intrinsic side effect of DSLR video. I know some cameras are worse than others, and firmware upgrades may help as well, but for now, you just have to avoid jiggling or move the camera rapidly, especially in regards to panning.
As far as what you should do for lenses, I would recommend prime lenses due to their wider apertures, which will help with the depth of field as well as being typically brighter, which will aid in manual focusing. If you are dead set on a zoom, try to get a shorter focal length with a wide aperture (like a 24-70 2.8) unless you plan on getting a steady cam rig.
I hope this helps you out.


Canon 1D MKIV 50D | Nikon D810 D200
and other assorted glass, plastic, and metal.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mattograph
"God bless the new meds"
Avatar
7,693 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Louisville, KY
     
Jun 01, 2011 22:31 |  #14

joecar2000 wrote in post #12517967 (external link)
He seems to have recommended all of these:

24-70mm 2.8
50mm 1.2
70-200mm 2.8L
100 mm 2.8
135mm 2

I've been searching videos for footage and what it looks like. Does anyone have any information about these and whether they are worth the money or not?

Or should I just be worried about an audio set up? Ha.

If you watch his movie, reverie, then go back to the lens listing, he has reference images for you to review. By looking at those, then back at the movie, you can see which lens he used for which shot.

Not super clean, but more than you get from most folks.


This space for rent.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
joecar2000
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
35 posts
Joined Dec 2010
     
Jun 07, 2011 19:48 as a reply to  @ mattograph's post |  #15

Quick question:

Does the 24-105 mm and 24-70 mm work on the 7D as well?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,882 views & 0 likes for this thread
Questions Regarding 5D II
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Ronaldwilliam
673 guests, 273 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.