October 24, 2014, 03:14:49 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 - enice128

Pages: [1] 2
1
Sports / Shot some pond hockey today & also played some too!
« on: February 09, 2014, 08:56:06 PM »
It's been a while since i broke out my 70-200 so any feedback will be great & thanks in advance!

http://www.emcphotography.co/Sports/Pond-Hockey-Congers-Lake-NY/i-tVDSJ6p

2

If it means something to you to get great shots in this parade, it's a pretty simple matter. Be the big guy. Don't drink.
Take your 5D3 and get amazing images. Feel great the next day. No pain, no shame and no regrets.

-PW
[/quote]

I AGREE WITH THIS GUY....be responsible for once in your life LOL! Invite some friends over the next day with some hotties & some beads & drink on this day!

3
You have NO idea how drunk we get on this parade.....(I"m IN the parade)...and I'd not want to risk falling down and breaking the camera, or somehow losing it....we have drinks all along the route, people give beers to you, and we stop IN bars along the route.

This is New Orleans....even pacing yourself, you get pretty trashed and I'd not wanna try that while carrying $5K of camera.

Not to mention, since I'm part of the walking (stumbling) parade, I'll be carrying all my beads and other throws in my neck and in packs on my shoulders, etc...so, I'm walking, drinking and throwing, and giving girls kisses along the route....

Not really the environment for $5K camera that you very well might get trashed enough to accidentally throw to the crowd...

Ahhhhh now i see....sorry! I didnt see the part about u being IN the parade! I would suggest since ur gonna be in the parade that u would obviously have to arrive early. Definitely take somebody with u to get a spot up close w ur gear. And i guess ur Iphone or whatever anybody else suggests....sorry & have fun!!!

4
Sorry to put my two cents in but a once in a lifetime chance to do this.....how can u NOT bring ur dslr??? These r the moments of why u paid good $ for good gear! As an example, I'm into sports photography so if I had the chance to ultimately shoot in a professional stadium or arena....u can bet ur ass I ain't NOT bringing all my gear! I can understand its a pain in ass to carry around but please take ur setup even it's a hassle or you'll regret it later! I got the chance to shoot for the Columbus Day Parade in NYC on a float & I brought my backpack which was a pain but I used 4 different lenses to get different points of view!

5
Lenses / Re: Please explain the need for f2.8 zooms
« on: February 01, 2013, 10:16:01 AM »
My experience has been they are over all:

-- Faster
-- Sharper

I shoot a 2.8 version versus an F/4 version at say 4 or 5.6, I notice better AF and better over all quality on the shots on the 2.8 version.  I think with most zoom lenses, they have most of their issues at the end so a F/4 lens may be fairly equal to the 2.8 at say F/8 or F/11, but more wide open, especially at F/4 the 2.8 has always out performed in my experience. 

In many case, I find the build and over all range of the lens to be better.  This may be subjective, but in a similar example in the 50s, is the 1.2 really that much better than the 1.4 and the 1.8. 

Yeah.  It is.  Granted, it is an L versus non L as well, but I noticed a huge difference stepping up from the 70-200 F/4 to F/2.8, especially in speed.  Some may argue the price, and the F/4 is a solid performer, but when it comes down to it, with almost anything in life, if your desired range is at the edge of a products capability, you are often better off finding the product that slightly to moderately exceeds your need.
This is my main argument & reason on why I'm actually going today to upgrade to the 16-35II from my 17-40. A 2.8 aperture is so important for me. I do some small weddings, sweet 16s as well as other events using my 17-40 for over a year now but I feel it's not enough. I love using my 50 1.2 & 70-200 2.8 at these events but my 16-35 will now take the 17-40's place as my main lens. U cannot beat the the overall quality of 2.8 & I absolutely love the look of 2.8 with its DOF!

6
Lenses / Re: 16-35 f/2.8II vs 17-40 f/4
« on: February 01, 2013, 09:42:36 AM »
I rarely ever shoot that narrow. I usually like to utilize a lens for what its meant to be used for. For example, my 50 1.2 I mostly use at 1.2 but ill close down to 2.8, f4 or 5.6 for groups of people. Maybe slightly higher for larger groups but that's it. Unless all people in shot r of same importance I love that shallow DOF! I also love shooting in low light with or without my 580exII so this one xtra stop of light is huge for me. Even with my speed light Ill prob be able to lower my ISO. I dont feel like waiting for the 14-24, IF it even comes out along w it's high price point & probably gonna be too wide to shoot people. And w rebates ending tomorrow I might as well pull the trigger!

7
Lenses / Re: 16-35 f/2.8II vs 17-40 f/4
« on: February 01, 2013, 12:17:23 AM »
After owning 2 17-40's and having the 16-35 for the past 2 weeks I can tell you I either have a great copy or these reviews that say these two lens aren't very different stopped down is rubbish. The color rendition, contrast and flare control are far superior in the 16-35. I'm happy.
Thats what i like to hear! Not to take anything away from the 17-40 though!

8
Lenses / Re: 16-35 f/2.8II vs 17-40 f/4
« on: January 31, 2013, 09:46:42 PM »
Thats what i thought! I'm especially gonna grab it since i believe the canon rebates r gonna expire on feb 2 so itll be $200 more after that. I luv my 17-40 but i think i will luv the 16-35 even more so!
yeah I see you have the 1Dmk4, that body and this lens are a seriously awesome combo basically 21mm to 48mm FF equivalent and the slight crop makes it corner to corner sharp even wide open, Its overall a superb walk around general purpose combo
Thanks for making my mind up for me....im picking it up tomorrow! I just have this thing with 2.8 being the narrowest i like to shoot (unless with groups of people of course). Its a bit heavier but then again im used to my 70-200! The rebates r ending on the 2nd so i believe this will be the cheapest for some time. Im really would like to wait to see how the 14-24 plays but whos knows if & when its coming along with the price! And i believe it'll be too wide to shoot people even on my 1.3 crop with facial distortion! What do u think???

9
Lenses / Re: 16-35 f/2.8II vs 17-40 f/4
« on: January 31, 2013, 06:26:40 PM »
Thats what i thought! I'm especially gonna grab it since i believe the canon rebates r gonna expire on feb 2 so itll be $200 more after that. I luv my 17-40 but i think i will luv the 16-35 even more so!

10
Lenses / Re: 16-35 f/2.8II vs 17-40 f/4
« on: January 31, 2013, 05:33:39 PM »
Take it from me.  I've been shooting Canon DSLRs since 2006 and have owned two 16-35 2.8 IIs, and probably half a dozen 17-40Ls over time shot on full frame 5D mark I and Mark II bodies as well as Rebels and a 40D.

The 17-40L and 16-35LII are optically Canon's best ultra-wide zooms.  They both perform equally as far as sharpness goes and both look identical stopped down.  (the photo on the front page of my site was shot with the 17-40 and 5D2 and even at 1900 px wide, that image is super sharp corner to corner.  Shot at F/22 too!

The 16-35 Mark II  shines obviously in low light and wide open is SUPER SUPER sharp in the center (excellent for casual/fun portraits) it's just a JOY to use in ALL situations whereas the 17-40L is a joy to use in SOME situations.  the 17-40L is softish wide open especially in the corners.  the 16-35LII shows excellent center sharpness wide open and good in the corners. 

Is it worth the extra 7-800 bucks?  YES YES YES.  I am so happy with my 16-35L II and it's going to stay with me likely forever.
I think I'm finally gonna pull the trigger on the 16-35 II tomorrow! I've been contemplating it for some time now. I had a used excellent copy on hold but they accidentally sold it! So now I have to spend for new. I'm trading in my 17-40 for $400 so that should help some. I shoot mostly people, sports, sometimes landscapes so 2.8 is huge for me. Did a party the other nite w my 17-40 & my 50 1.2 @2.8. What a difference w each lens.  I do t even wanna use my 17-40 no more....I'm spoiled at 2.8!!! One question though....how's the 16-35 when shooting sports? Is it fast enough because this will be my main event lens for shooting weddings, sweet 16s, etc. as well as getting close up action when shooting sports along w my 70-200 2.8 II???

11
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D III or 1D IV for sports!
« on: January 31, 2013, 11:10:50 AM »
The main question that i have to ask u is since u shoot sports, why did u sell the 1D IV? I recently traded in my 7D for an excellent 1D IV & i havent looked back since! Canon's 1D series go hand in hand w shooting sports. In fact al the pro shooters like SI photographers were using this camera until the 1DX recently released pushing their ISO way up there. I heard that the 1D III had poor auto focusing which is where the IV shines, as well as high ISO capabilities. Of course the 1DX is the way to go IF u can afford it.....i know i can't. Plus the 1DX is FF so im also tapped out financially when it comes to anything larger than my 70-200 2.8 II. So i still enjoy the crop factor which is 1.3 compared to 1.6 from my old 7D. So im losing a bit of reach but ill take it w the IV's benefits. Either rob a bank & grab the 1DX or get ur old 1D IV back!!!

12
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1 ds mark3 vs 5d mark 3 image quality
« on: January 06, 2013, 02:03:29 PM »
Got it thanks! I haven't heard anyone saying anything negative regarding the 5D III. Photojournalists, wedding photographers all love it. Me on the other hand was not even considering it due to it being full frame, for me that is. I can't afford to lose the reach & can't afford lenses that r $5000+ to compensate this. But to each his own as they say.....which is why they finally made the 1Dx full frame for sports pros.

13
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1 ds mark3 vs 5d mark 3 image quality
« on: January 06, 2013, 01:41:40 PM »
What does that "S" mean anyway? Is it just the full frame model???

14
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1 ds mark3 vs 5d mark 3 image quality
« on: January 06, 2013, 01:38:35 PM »
Sorry...i didnt notice that "S"....oh well!

15
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1 ds mark3 vs 5d mark 3 image quality
« on: January 06, 2013, 12:59:00 PM »
I would say it depends on what type of shooting you're interested in which is the most important factor in choosing a body. For me i have a passion for sports so upgraded my original body from an xsi kit (when first getting into photography years ago) to the 7D. Just recently i traded in for a 1D Mark IV which happens to be a HUGE upgrade from the 1D III. I can tell you that i know A LOT of people who recently got the 5D III when the IV was released since it dropped in price a substantial amount. Its full frame & you cannot beat that sensor or image quality as well as high ISO capabilities. My new 1D IV has 10 fps & great high ISO which is extremely important when shooting sports with fast SS  but i've heard the 5D III is RIDICULOUS! I'm mentioning all of this as an example because the 5D wouldnt do anything for me since my passion is for sports. What im gaining i would lose with reach since full sensor & i cannot afford 300mm+ lenses to make up for this which is what the pros do as well as fps. Sure i could crop & with the 5D u can a great deal not losing any quality. So it all depends on what type of photography you're gonna shoot!

Pages: [1] 2