60D users, friends and their random OT B.S.

yep, I know how that feels. I have been out of work a few times since 2006 and longest was 19 months
Although I have now been out again since April, and its not looking very good

so good luck and congratulations

Master of Defenestration wrote in post #14598915
Well, I should say that it slows it down...But it's not like it slows it down to the point of missing all the action. It is noticeable, moreso with lenses that are slower to focus to begin with (my 70-200 IS II is faster than my cheapo Tamron 10-24)...Plus, if it's a rapidly changing subject, like a car coming at you.

There is a focus setting that sets precedence. I dont remember what mine is set to.

Vixen89 wrote in post #14601987
I read that article too! I was surely set on the 400mm til I went to the store..

The sad part is, I tried the 100-400L in the store and thought it was awkward as having bees attached to my head...the push pull zoom design is completely different than I have ever used in my life. I know ultimately I want a prime but when I came down and thought bout it, the 100-400 will probably be better as a versatile all around let me get your wildlife photos and bird stalking lens I can get. I know the 400mm is the BEST as far as BIF goes, but I don't only shoot things of that nature, I do portraits, car photography, and anything else I can get my eye on. LOL --Jeremy helped me sway my decision when I thought about my current life situation versus stalking birds and hoping I can catch them here in Texas.

This is what the professional baseball player I ran into at the store said too, he said the moment I will get used to it, the faster I will be in catching shots with the zoom.

Im glad I could be of some assistance. I use the lens almost exclusively. It rarely leaves my 60d. missing shots sucks because your prime is too long. it doesnt happen every time you go out but it does happen.
as far as sharpness goes I will concede that the 100-400 is not quite as sharp but it is still very sharp.
the push pull is simple to get used to. took me about 5 minutes.

Congrats Josh on the job opportunity.
I hope everyone can stay gainfully employed in this time of craziness.

Vixen89 wrote in post #14601987
The sad part is, I tried the 100-400L in the store and thought it was awkward as having bees attached to my head...the push pull zoom design is completely different than I have ever used in my life. I know ultimately I want a prime but when I came down and thought bout it, the 100-400 will probably be better as a versatile all around let me get your wildlife photos and bird stalking lens I can get. I know the 400mm is the BEST as far as BIF goes, but I don't only shoot things of that nature, I do portraits, car photography, and anything else I can get my eye on. LOL --Jeremy helped me sway my decision when I thought about my current life situation versus stalking birds and hoping I can catch them here in Texas.

The 70-300L IS is no slouch, just sayin...

A tele prime is bulky and heavy as you know - but if you do get it - consider - if you don't already - a premium/enthusiast compact to put in your pocket also - like the s100 with its new Digic 5 goodness... The s100 and the G12 (I just got yesterday) have larger sensors than typical compacts, with quality optics and can serve as wide angle-mid-range quality compact zooms. The Lumix FZ150 (24x zoom) recenlty score Very Well on dpreview.com.

So - you have lightweight carry options if you lug heavy 400's around.
I 'hate' changing lenses which is why I got a G12 to carry along with my 60D/70-300L, covering the bases...

I've seen women carry the 100-400 and Sigma's 150-500 OS. Just make sure you have a quality neck strap or a good chiropractor plan

Shutterwolf wrote in post #14601761
Well my phone went off and woke me up today at 9am and it was Wal-Mart asking if I could come in at noon for a job offer.

Congrats man - really puts a bounce in the step!

jhayesvw wrote in post #14602351
There is a focus setting that sets precedence. I dont remember what mine is set to.

Im glad I could be of some assistance. I use the lens almost exclusively. It rarely leaves my 60d. missing shots sucks because your prime is too long. it doesnt happen every time you go out but it does happen.
as far as sharpness goes I will concede that the 100-400 is not quite as sharp but it is still very sharp.
the push pull is simple to get used to. took me about 5 minutes.

Congrats Josh on the job opportunity.
I hope everyone can stay gainfully employed in this time of craziness.

AHHHHHH, I was about to hit buy now and max said not too cause he'll be here in FW soon and he'll bring his 300 f/4 IS for me to try...that's on July 7th. T_T

Immaculens wrote in post #14602677
The 70-300L IS is no slouch, just sayin...

A tele prime is bulky and heavy as you know - but if you do get it - consider - if you don't already - a premium/enthusiast compact to put in your pocket also - like the s100 with its new Digic 5 goodness... The s100 and the G12 (I just got yesterday) have larger sensors than typical compacts, with quality optics and can serve as wide angle-mid-range quality compact zooms. The Lumix FZ150 (24x zoom) recenlty score Very Well on dpreview.com.

So - you have lightweight carry options if you lug heavy 400's around.
I 'hate' changing lenses which is why I got a G12 to carry along with my 60D/70-300L, covering the bases...

I've seen women carry the 100-400 and Sigma's 150-500 OS. Just make sure you have a quality neck strap or a good chiropractor plan

I didn't get a 70-300L only cause I own the 70-200 II already, which I love to death! <3

Don't worry bout me and carrying something heavy, that's what I've been working out everyday for! I power walk with 10 lbs daily!! xD

I'm back to square one...I'm not going to buy the lens yet I'm so ..lost, all I want to do is stare at birds ...:S

Got my 40MM, I will post up some samples in a bit.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …inphotography/7​404633158/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …inphotography/7​404635024/

Got a G12 yesterday - testing today and will through the week. This thing is built like a tank... as in a heavy mini-tank

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Shipping two weeks ahead of schedule! Yes!

Looking much forward to your photo and 'video' review of its performance, AF speed, accuracy, anything else to tell us. Its likely my next lens - selling my 50...

Thanks for posting!

Jay-Bird wrote in post #14603078
Got my 40MM, I will post up some samples in a bit.

quick 40mm STM review

http://www.ephotozine.​com …2-8-stm-lens-review-19464

Hi, I was wondering if anyone had any advice for shooting indoors with low lighting. I primarily use my camera at all the various plays, hula recitals, etc that my kids have and seem to be having problems getting good shots. This was taken in my son's school cafeteria with my 85 1.8 prime. I know that the shutter speed was too low for hand held but when I tried raising the iso the noise became very apparent.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/69093531@N03/7​353749094/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/69093531@N03/7​168548183/

I need your take on this one. Never mind the posing because somebody else was directing.

I wanna talk about DOF. I shot this at F2.8 with my Siggy 17-50mm and at 21mm.

I was about 4 feet away from the subject and the background(fence) is like maybe 10 or more feet away. Looking at the result, the background is not blurry enough. We know we can't use a 1.2, 1.4 or 1.8 in a group shot like this, other's will be out of focal plane.

I can only do enough bokeh on this lens when i'm very close to the subject.

Is this one of the disadvantages of a cropped sensor compared to a full frame?

what do you think guyz?

mnk231 wrote in post #14603222
Hi, I was wondering if anyone had any advice for shooting indoors with low lighting. I primarily use my camera at all the various plays, hula recitals, etc that my kids have and seem to be having problems getting good shots. This was taken in my son's school cafeteria with my 85 1.8 prime. I know that the shutter speed was too low for hand held but when I tried raising the iso the noise became very apparent.

[URL="http://www.flick​r.com/photos/69093531@​N03/7353749094/"]IMG_7​407 by [URL="http://www.flick​r.com/people/69093531@​N03/"]tignpu, on Flickr

Here is another of my daughter at Chuck E. Cheese for her birthday. I believe that this one was taken with my Sigma 17-50mm.

[URL="http://www.flick​r.com/photos/69093531@​N03/7168548183/"] [URL="http://www.flick​r.com/photos/69093531@​N03/7168548183/"]IMG_7​282 by [URL="http://www.flick​r.com/people/69093531@​N03/"]tignpu, on Flickr

Every once in a while I'll get something that I think is decent. This one was taken at my daughter's May Day program with a 70-200 mkII.

[URL="http://www.flick​r.com/photos/69093531@​N03/7168544947/"]IMG_7​136 by [URL="http://www.flick​r.com/people/69093531@​N03/"]tignpu, on Flickr

Any help/tips are greatly appreciated. On Flickr they look okay but when I look at them at home they don't look that good. After going through three 60D user threads and this thread I know that it's not the camera. Am I being too picky?

Well here goes nuthin'.

I think the first shot is just too cluttered. Blurry heads in the foreground and a big sign and large areas of dark and light in the background all fighting for your attention. And all the kids have dark hair which mostly blends into that dark curtain.

I like the second shot for kind of the same reasons that the first shot is lacking. Less distractions, you got in close to your subject and threw the background into a blur. It's maybe a bit underexposed but has a nice warm look to it.

The third shot's not bad either except for having to look over someone's shoulder. I still have trouble with this myself but you have to keep an eye on everything in the frame and not just your subject.

It would help if we could see your EXIF data but flickr seems to strip it from all pics. Maybe try posting some shots from Photobucket or some place that leaves the EXIF intact.

@ Vinz: Nope! Look at the DOF for a crop (7D) vs FF (5) in the DOF Calculator

http://www.dofmaster.c​om/dofjs.html

Immaculens wrote in post #14603096
Shipping two weeks ahead of schedule! Yes!

Looking much forward to your photo and 'video' review of its performance, AF speed, accuracy, anything else to tell us. Its likely my next lens - selling my 50...

Thanks for posting!

Heres a cat:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …inphotography/7​405108816/

mnk231 wrote in post #14603222
Hi, I was wondering if anyone had any advice for shooting indoors with low lighting. I primarily use my camera at all the various plays, hula recitals, etc that my kids have and seem to be having problems getting good shots. This was taken in my son's school cafeteria with my 85 1.8 prime. I know that the shutter speed was too low for hand held but when I tried raising the iso the noise became very apparent.

http:// …http://www.flickr.com …/69093531@N03/7​353749094/ IMG_7407 by tignpu, on Flickr

Here is another of my daughter at Chuck E. Cheese for her birthday. I believe that this one was taken with my Sigma 17-50mm.

http:// …http://www.flickr.com …/69093531@N03/7​168548183/ IMG_7282 by tignpu, on Flickr

Every once in a while I'll get something that I think is decent. This one was taken at my daughter's May Day program with a 70-200 mkII.

http:// …http://www.flickr.com …/69093531@N03/7​168544947/ IMG_7136 by tignpu, on Flickr

Any help/tips are greatly appreciated. On Flickr they look okay but when I look at them at home they don't look that good. After going through three 60D user threads and this thread I know that it's not the camera. Am I being too picky?

You shot the first one at 1/80 ISO 640 wide open f1.8

You can shoot at ISO 3200 with ETTR (Exposure to the right) which means probably 1/2 f-stop more than what you 've got. Use 1 stop for the speed (shoot 1/160) to eliminate motion blur/camera motion (don't forget the effect of the crop factor) and f2.2 as the aperture.

If you shoot RAW you will compensate the overexposure reducing the noise, and some NR will take care of the rest.

If you shoot JPEGs, they will come fine straight out of the camera.

I don't even think about using ISO 3200 1 stop overexposed on evaluative. Often I'll go ISO6400, and with some NR ISO 12800 is usable.

Edit: In the second photo you realize that you focused on the ticket... Shooting wide open at f1.4 the rest of the girl is outside the depth of field. You could use ISO 3200 and shoot at f2.8