Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

What I dislike about my 60D- if you are upgrading bodies beware NOT A REVIEW

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

chrisheathcote
chrisheathcote e2 Member 8240 forum postschrisheathcote vcard United Kingdom
28 Nov 2012 - 1:40 PM

With regards to the LV feature I can't say I've really used or am likely to use. I prefer to use the viewfinder. However it is handy for shooting candids and where you want the camera low to the ground (as I found when I went round Canterbury cathedral. Some if the shots would have meant me lying on my back to get to the VF Smile

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
28 Nov 2012 - 1:40 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

GlennH
GlennH  91918 forum posts France1 Constructive Critique Points
28 Nov 2012 - 2:11 PM

I did something similar in Russia recently, Chris - literally laid the camera on the ground in a church. If you get the 60D on a tripod, Live View is superb for achieving pinpoint focusing accuracy mostly because of the ability to zoom in 10X. I've fluffed enough differential focusing pictures to appreciate that, plus I'm getting older - no longer have the eyes of a hawk! Smile

Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1315154 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
28 Nov 2012 - 3:05 PM


Quote: It uses contrast detection AF, which theoretically should make it more consistent rather than less

If your going to be using live view a lot you may as well get a mirror les body.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeUNGYmmqXo

steve_p
steve_p  81096 forum posts England
28 Nov 2012 - 5:19 PM

Some years ago I went from a 350D to a 30D. I had a Sigma 70-300, this was fine on the 350D. It didn't appear so good on the 30D but I don't think there was a lot of difference in the megapixel count if I recall correctly. I bought a 7D then found the Sigma was certainly not up to it! I bought a 70-200 F4L, what a difference!!

Just backs up what everyone says get the best glass you can!

LenShepherd
LenShepherd e2 Member 62450 forum postsLenShepherd vcard United Kingdom
29 Nov 2012 - 7:55 AM


Quote: the results from my sigma 17-70 and sigma 70-300 were more than acceptable and appeared sharp, however now I am putting the same lenses on a much better body, the flaws in the 70-300 are starting to show. Prompting me to upgrade.

I am not sure what you are reporting, and maybe even if there might instead be an issue with your new camera, your skill level, or your expectations.
All lenses have some relative weaknesses.
All lenses contribute along with the sensor to the resolution in the final image.
When you increase the camera MP you should get more image detail with any lens including the lenses you already own. You may get more detail with a better lens, though nothing obvious in a 16x12 inch print at f8-11 as all lenses are close to equal for resolution and sharpness at these apertures.
If you are not getting more sharpness, check out your new body. Also the more MP you have when viewing an image at 100% the more you magnify whatever you photographed. The extra magnification often calls for faster hand held shutter speeds, perhaps a better tripod, and faster shutter speeds to stop subject movement - whatever lens you use. Also if you photograh moving subjects accept small aperture lenses often do not have the fastest subject tracking speed.

chrisheathcote
chrisheathcote e2 Member 8240 forum postschrisheathcote vcard United Kingdom
29 Nov 2012 - 12:56 PM

Thanks for the tips Len.
Apologies if I may have put this in the wrong section. This was intended as a light hearted tongue in cheek thread (I forget its difficult to get a dry sense of humour across in text). As I said I have no issues whatsoever with the camera, I believe it has developed me immensely, firstly because of the issue over lenses (I'll come back to this in a min) I have found myself looking for alternative composition using my other lenses and because I am so pleased with the shots I have taken I am more confident in my ability. My point with the lenses is that before, because of the limit of information that the sensor was recording was lower, the gap between the lenses was less recognisable. As the ability of the body increases any weakness that the lens may have, will be more obvious and noticeable, it is more that when I compare pictures taken with the same lenses on my 350D and ones take with the 60D, the 60D images with my 17-70 have improved more than the ones on the 70-300. My 70-300 was the first lens I bought to add to my kit lens and is what I would consider a budget/entry level lens due to cost, aperture etc. my 17-70 I would consider an intermediate lens, ie more expensive, faster lens, OS and would expect it to be better and then of course you get to the professional L Lens, which are the dogs danglies Smile but come at a price. If their wasn't a difference in quality and ability, why do people spend so much more for Canon L Lenses.

Because I can now see the difference in lens ability between the lower and mid range glass and the impact it has had on me and my photography, it is making me want the best (L) glass for even better image quality and having tried the 70 200 f2.8 L and the 100-400 L IS it confirmed this. (I daren't even try FF Smile

My point of the narrative was to show my journey and highlight that you need to be prepared that by upgrading the body, you may end up wanting to upgrade glass as well

Steppenwolf
30 Nov 2012 - 8:52 AM


Quote: My point with the lenses is that before, because of the limit of information that the sensor was recording was lower, the gap between the lenses was less recognisable. As the ability of the body increases any weakness that the lens may have, will be more obvious and noticeable, it is more that when I compare pictures taken with the same lenses on my 350D and ones take with the 60D, the 60D images with my 17-70 have improved more than the ones on the 70-300.

I've always found that the difference between a top of the range lens and a budget lens is that the good lens can deliver sharp pictures at a bigger aperture - the top of the range lenses usually also have larger apertures. However, even the cheaper lenses can deliver excellent pictures when you find the right aperture (usually between f8 and f11). People buy the top of the range lenses because they want to use bigger apertures - or often just because they have the money to buy the better lens. The differences between an expensive and a cheap lens are often very small when the lenses are stopped down.

I'd be interested to know what are the weaknesses that you're now seeing with the 70-300 that weren't apparent before.

Last Modified By Steppenwolf at 30 Nov 2012 - 8:53 AM
JackAllTog
JackAllTog e2 Member 53577 forum postsJackAllTog vcard United Kingdom58 Constructive Critique Points
30 Nov 2012 - 10:02 AM


Quote: ... My point of the narrative was to show my journey ....

Agreed, i can't believe how many 'revelations' I've had on this discovery of photography; And how many more I expect there yet are.
Its the little things you can't even notice in the beginning, then as time goes on you start noticing the small things more. Whether its technical, arty or science things there always seems to be something new discover, try out or just discuss. When all these small things come together well its a good chance for a great image - the percentage of shots worth keeping goes up and you can more reliably deliver the shot you want.

Keep up the narrative, its good to see that other see and learn where we can.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.