August 27, 2014, 03:35:42 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Normalnorm

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12
1
Lenses / Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« on: August 26, 2014, 12:55:56 PM »
You mentioned nothing in your original post about needing to shoot low light, so it seems the 200/2 is not necessary for that reason.

You would save so much money by going with the 70-200/f2.8, especially since you don't need that extra stop.  With the money you save over the 200/2, you can pick up a few books on composition in photography, and also on composition in painting (where there is much overlap).  Basically, a book that will teach you about rules of composition, about using contrasting elements, about using negative space, about using symmetry, etc etc.  You don't need to "kill" your background with f2 when you know how to properly compose a photograph.  I used to have the same lust after that lens, luckily I never bought it thanks to the wise words spoken by a professional portrait photographer. 

I've got a few buddies who either have the 85/1.2, 135/2, or 200/2, and I just think "what are you doing???"  They claim those lenses are great for background separation.  You know what else is?  ANY lens and a knowledge of composition.  I saved so much money, and weight, by going with the 70-200 f4, which is also my most expensive lens.  You can tell it eats at my friends' hearts that I am taking better photos with gear that is not high end.  But as they always say, a great photographer can take a better photo with an iPhone than a shitty photographer with the best SLR.

I urge you, because I used to be in the same position of lust for that amazing-bokeh lens as you, to reconsider.  You have the potential to save so much money, which will increase what you can spend on other things.  Not having spent thousands upon thousands (or even tens of thousands) on gear has allowed me to travel much more (which in itself is a lot of fun, whether it be traveling locally, nationally, or even internationally), practice photography more, and just enjoy life more. 

Think about it this way.  You'd be paying thousands more in order to take pictures where less and less stuff is in focus.  Yes, I know that it is a fantastically sharp lens , but let's not kid ourselves about to the real reason most people lust after the lens.  Super thin DOF/background separation.

Thank you. Excellent post. Way too much time spent looking for the "magic bullet" that will make fantasy photos when the truth is that hard work and practice is what gets it done.

2
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 23, 2014, 10:13:21 AM »
oh and my two cents about the ongoing DR debate here:

1) for me it appears to be mainly some swaggering by different sides about who knows most about signal processing or on-chip circuitry. My "blabla indicator" beeps all the time while reading these posts.
2) this debate has nothing to do with the actual discussing of 7D rumors
3) the whining about "I'm not able to get decent photos until the DR finally improves... :'( :'( :'(" sssh! If the professional photographers get to know about the horrific DR issue with canon cameras, they will move to Nikon or Sony! AAAH! (For some reaons, they still stick to Canon despite this horrible horrible low DR...). Go outside, take beautiful pictures, be happy. Don't ever waste a thought about DR. I presume limited DR is not the reason if your pictures look bad for 95% of your pictures...


Hahaha!

3
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Another Nikon full-frame
« on: August 10, 2014, 08:39:57 PM »


I gotta say, I'm glad Canon isn't getting into this silliness.

If one listened to the noise on the forums it would seem that this is exactly what the public is clamoring for. I see almost nothing but "What we need is a FF (insert camera here) and sell it for $1200."

4
Reviews / Re: NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP
« on: August 04, 2014, 12:23:19 PM »
The only scenario I can see this working is if Nikon is ignoring the other MF players altogether and taking aim at Canon's top end customer base of wealthy hobbyists.

 The notion that there are legions of pros snapping up vast quantities of high end gear is false. Nikon is not unaware of the many converts from Canon to the D800 because of the additional resolution and the predilection to pixel peeping.

But in the end it would seem that Nikon lacks the resources to assemble a system that even matches Leica's S system much less Hasselblad and Mamiya/ Phase.

OTOH maybe this is a front for Sony' s purchase of Nikon.  :o

5
EOS Bodies / Re: Mirrorless vs DSLR Camera
« on: August 03, 2014, 10:44:21 PM »
I still don't see wedding photographers using more than entry level camera bodies, I've certainly never seen a 1D.

You need to get out more. I don't know of any seasoned pros that are using entry level gear. Amateurs and newbies are (for good reason).
I think his observation is based on the fact that so many of the wedding shooters remaining ARE amateur/newbies. There are a fair number of seasoned pros using top gear for weddings but the trend for revenue of wedding shooters has been down. The number of wedding shooters selling workshops to  newbs on how to make big bucks shooting weddings is certainly up.

6
Canon General / Re: New Speedlite Coming? [CR2]
« on: July 17, 2014, 01:20:39 PM »
I live in the desert and it gets hot outside (surprise). I was shooting with fill recently in the sun and the flash shut down from overheating due in large part (IMO) to the elevated ambient temp.
Fortunately I do not have to do this much.

7
Canon General / Re: New Speedlite Coming? [CR2]
« on: July 17, 2014, 11:04:57 AM »
A fat Li-on battery like the Ving 850 would make sense.

8
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Dynamic Range Question
« on: June 28, 2014, 01:39:21 PM »
I guess the real question you are asking is how much of a difference in DR is needed to see a real difference in a final image.
The debate seems a little misguided to me in that the quoted DR figures for cameras do not seem to be from a single objective standard for starters.

Second, when we do see differences in the DR ratings it is often quite small, on the order of a stop or so. This then raises the question as to whether this real difference in DR measurement results in real visible difference in a final image.
While many salivate over the purported DR of MF backs, I have yet to see a demonstration where the vaunted advantage is discernible over a well processed Nikon or Canon RAW file.

IMO the bulk of perceived advantage that is reported anecdotally about this camera vs. that camera comes from default rendering decisions embedded in the RAW files as they are imported into RAW processors.

As Dgatwood noted, try theater photography for a real test of DR. Then you will bump into the limitations of any sensor on the market. After PP the image quality will be far more about initial exposure and PP rather than the camera chosen.

9
EOS Bodies / Re: DSLR vs Mirrorless :: Evolution of cameras
« on: June 23, 2014, 09:17:26 PM »
I like the aspects of mirrorless for size and silence.
What I do not like is:

1. Having a dark VF for a bit when I bring the camera to my eye. I do like rapid response and a DSLR can frame immediately.

2. Really ugly preview in the studio when using flash. In available light I love the preview but it goes out the door when I put a flash or trigger on the camera.

3. Generally small batteries that go along with small bodies. I am not a fanatic about having the absolute smallest camera so I would be happy with a  slightly larger body to hold a more robust battery.

10
Even if one does it full-time stuff still happens. The greatest danger is when lulled into a false sense of security that allows lapses. A pro will generally not share his or her gaffes as it is far more psychically painful.
-Norm

11
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS Sample Images
« on: May 20, 2014, 09:57:08 PM »
This won't make me a better photographer but it will help me fill the gap between my 17 TS-E and the 24-105. 8)

12
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Interested in Hasselblad?
« on: May 12, 2014, 10:42:10 AM »
If they keep Hasselblad's marketing department we might get a re-badged M.  :o

13
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50mm f/1.4
« on: May 11, 2014, 04:48:21 PM »
My experience with the 50 1.4 was that I went through three copies before deciding it was a bad design (or toweringly flawed QC). I bought a Sigma 50 1.4 and after sending IT back once it has been a sharp performer.
The real problem was that 50 is a nearly useless FL for me so I am selling it to get the 35.

14
In the immortal word of Monte Zucker "Beauty is in the eye of the checkbook holder."

The reason a "client" does not like an image has never hurt my feelings but was a message to me that I was not on their wavelength.


You refer to this affair as a dissatisfied client situation. Once the the consumer of your work is identified as the client it becomes a business situation. What you love is irrelevant.

While there is some disagreement on this thread as to how to handle it my opinion is that you have to address it as a business deal as you were approached because of your skill. Their dissatisfaction will redound back to you in poor word of mouth so as a purely defensive move you have to invest even more non-revenue generating effort to protect your local reputation.

The real benefit to you in this situation is the education received.

It reminds me of a very early job a friend had in his job as a commercial photographer. He was very excited to be called about a product photography gig as he saw it as entry to the glamorous world of high end product photography. The client did not want to discuss the products as he said they would be very large sellers and did not want to tip off his competition. It turned out the client had a line of sex toys and vacuum penis enlargers that he need to photograph for a catalog. Needless to say the job was a bust as far as portfolio material.

15
I had an earlier Sigma 50 1.4 that I did not use much. When I started using it I found it awful so I sent it back to Sigma for service as I was convinced that it was out of spec.
Sigma reported that an element had come loose and they had re-assembed it and it now performs beautifully.

Unfortunately, I find I seldom use this FL so the new one is of no interest to me. However the 35 does interest me.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12