March 01, 2015, 03:44:34 AM

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 - Besisika

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 22
Theater, Concert and Event / Re: My First Concert Shoot
« on: February 26, 2015, 01:37:04 PM »

Most images were rejected because the performers had a microphone or some other object covering part of their face!  How rude!  LOL

1.  Some of my lenses had a problem locking focus on the performer's faces. 
 I only brought three lenses, the 35mm 2.0 IS, the 50mm 1.2L and the 85mm 1.8, since I knew I would be able stand at the edge of the stage.   
2.  I almost always shot wide open.   

I am not professional either but shoot few of these a year, sometimes in low light, sometimes not.

I find shooting concert and boxing to be very similar. I do a lot of waiting for the moment.
I chase for 3 things:
1 - the right light: I usually don't shoot in magenta or green or red - shoot mainly yellow and I really wait for it. I need this kind of shoot for any member of the band and I prefer taking those when he/she doesn't move - these are image quality shots (1/80-100s)
2 - story: I chase for their reaction - here I go for high ISO and faster shutter speed (1/250s). I don't care about the light, I just need the right reaction.
3 - For him/her to look at me (1/100s).

I use only prime (that's because I don't own a zoom, I only recently bought 100-400 II and haven't had the chance to try it). My preference is 85mm at 1.2 for 1, 200mm 2.8 for 2 and 135mm 2.0 for 3. I will soon incorporate wide (or super wide) angle in my arsenal.
I always start with 1 then 2 then 3. Always wide open. The distance gives enough dof.
I never focus on their face, I focus on their chest and when really, really needed I use a flash trigger with assist beam.
I always shoot burst of 3 at least, sometimes 4 or even 5. My configuration is shoot first then focus, and for the second shot: focus first then shoot.
Usually, the 2nd click is the keeper, so I pre-shoot.
The key for me is waiting for the right moment. I really really pay attention to that and can go 3-4min without taking any shot until I get what I want, then I burst.
When I am the main photog, I ask for permission to use flash and when allowed I bounce it from  the other end of the room (einstein) using, usually, a lighting ratio of 35-50% flash.
When dealing with a very famous artist, I rent the 200 2.0, but it is quite heavy for a concert, hand-held.

Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: February 25, 2015, 10:25:19 AM »
Where did you buy this lens and how much did it cost? Neither Adorama nor B&H have it in stock. Amazon has 1 in stock selling for $300 over list.
I got mine form Camera Canada-  Excellent service and cheaper price due to currency conversion!
Call them and check if  it is in stock, tell them Renato sent you.

Thanks! I ordered their last but one stock unit today. Eagerly awaiting shipment.
Got mine from there too.
I like their service. They let me know couple of days before they shipped.
It is worth the waiting. The lens is amazing.

Lenses / Re: supply of 16-35 f4 is and decision on WA for travel
« on: February 24, 2015, 05:13:27 PM »
Did you contact cameracanada.
that's where I buy majority of mine and haven't dissapointed me yet.
B&H lists it at $1,199.00 while at  CAD 1,279.00
I ordered the 100-400 II and waited only 1 month.
Shoot them an e-mail to see how long would you wait. Summer is still far away.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L Shipping This Week in United States
« on: February 24, 2015, 10:56:47 AM »
I pre-ordered one.  My primary focus is concert photography, which is often "lighting challenged" with a lot of movement on stage.
While you're waiting, here's a review of the Nikon 14-24 for concert shooting.  I imagine you've seen his site by now, but if not, he's got a lot of great stuff on it:

Mack, these are fabulous!
Now I see what are we talking about.
Thanks for sharing.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L Shipping This Week in United States
« on: February 23, 2015, 06:19:52 PM »
I pre-ordered one.  My primary focus is concert photography, which is often "lighting challenged" with a lot of movement on stage.  I already sold my 16-35mm 2.8 II, and just listed my 14mm 2.8 II for sale, with funds from both going toward the purchase of this lens.

In my experience, the quality of the 16-35 2.8 II was just not up to par with the 24-70 2.8 II and 70-200 2.8 II on a variety of levels.  Also, once I tried the 14 2.8 II, I found the additional 2mm in width to be very useful (and the overall image quality much, much better), though being stuck at one specific (specialty) focal length could be limiting.

Yes, it would be great to have a newer 2.8 lens with better image quality and more zoom, but as many here already mentioned, it isn't likely to come about anytime soon.  This 11-24mm is groundbreaking and is pushing technological envelope as it is (and since it was announced with the 50MP bodies, seems much more geared to landscape and studio photography, though obviously not limited to those disciplines; much in the same way the 100-400mm was announced with the 7DII for a different sort of focus).

I think in some cases on my 5D IIIs and 6Ds f/4 will be perfectly fine (and really, an added benefit of more being in focus).  When the lighting and action pushes it too far, I can mount it on my Sony A7s and I don't think lack of light will be a problem.

I'm super stoked about this lens.  I've learned to really love super wide angle photography in the past year or two, so the possibilities that open up with 11mm really intrigue me.  Also, having it on a zoom that goes to 24mm is just way more attractive to me in how practical that is, compared to a prime 14mm which becomes a one trick pony in many of my shooting situations (and sometimes is a one trick that never matches any photographic opportunity).

Sounds good!
Let us know how it goes. I think concert/event photographers are hesitating about it. Post some samples once you have some. Should be fabulous but all for now is just speculation. I still can't picture it out, how wide that would be.
Would it better than the 16-35 F4 for us? You would be the first to know.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L Shipping This Week in United States
« on: February 23, 2015, 04:57:04 PM »
Okay, so I've got a 6D. I shoot a bit of everything. Events, sports, landscape.
I've got EF 8-15mm, older EF 15mm, TS/E 24mm, Sigma 24-105, and so on... Had 16-35 2.8 II cause too soft.
Was gonna get the 16-35 f/4. But now I don't know. Which would you get? Can't see getting both. Love the idea of 11-24 with straight lines, but 16-35 generally more useful, lighter and less expensive. Could anybody justify owning both?
I have been debated on the same subject myself.
I own a 24-70 f4 and a sigma 35 1.4 and it is time to buy a SWA.
I can't justify at this time, shooting events, the need for the 11-24 for $3000. I am speculating what it can do but I can't justify it yet.
At 16-18mm you can shoot even the whole gospel choir jumping up and down without any trouble from 3m away.  At 1/200sec and ISO 6400 you will make your heart hurt only. So why not step further away a bit and shoot it with a 24 1.4 at 2.0? and whenever a flash is allowed, get lower ISO with deeper DOF.
There maybe sometime when I would really use the 11mm but would I spend $3000 just for that? How many of these photos would I need? Simply, I can't get the justification, if I don't shoot landscape.
I am going to go for the 16-35 F4 and use it with flash whenever possible, plus great well stabilized SWA handheld video, then add the sigma 24 mm 1.4 for a lesser price.
These two would give me more stuff to sell than just only from the 11-24, even it was at 2.8 non-IS at the same price.

Lenses / Re: Which Lens to buy for Portraits
« on: February 20, 2015, 11:46:52 AM »
I never use them wide open because the depth of field is zero and one eye oof always looks a bit weird to me... I think these were done at f8 and about 220mm
And that what differs corporate from beach portrait. Some people seem to be surprised why the OP would shoot at 4-5.6 or above.
Glad you guys begin to show proper portrait shots for the topic.

Lenses / Re: which 200mm lens to get
« on: February 20, 2015, 10:31:06 AM »
Hello everyone,

 however my issue with this lens would be size/weight and not really being as "special" as my 135L. My ultimate choice would be 200mm F2 L.

Looking at your list, actually, to me you miss the most special (85 1.2) so I assume that "special" thing is more a personal taste.
Both 200mm f2.0 and 2.8 are "special" in my taste, but different "special". I rent the 2.0 occasionally because I cannot afford it, and the 2.8 became my second best after the 85 1.2, because of the "special" thing. I don't use my 135 that much.
If you are shooting something moving, unless you pan, you won't really need an IS and you have already the 135 so the main difference is just the focal length and at 200mm 2.8 is special (at least to me).
My suggestion is rent each one of them and then decide, because to me you are the only who can take the decision.
I use prime, mainly, and I went for the 100-400 II for my zoom. Big, but worth it. I got it two weeks ago and haven't stop playing with it yet.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D Classic Good Enough for Pros?
« on: February 19, 2015, 11:29:50 AM »
A good experienced professional photographer will get the job done with whatever gear he owns (or rents if necessary) ... BUT, the newest technology will allow more versatility in a greater variety of shooting situations. 

A good pro will understand the limits of the technology in hand, and either upgrade if the work warrants the expense, or make arrangements to acquire what s/he needs ...

The newest technology allows a pro to accept a greater degree of challenge in the work flow as well.   Can lesser technology do a great job -- yes it can.  Can lesser technology create the identical results as can the newest technology -- no it can't.  Understanding those limits makes the difference in the quality of the final product and the ability to meet the demands of a client.
Know your gear apparently is the first rule of photography.

Lenses / Re: Which Lens to buy for Portraits
« on: February 19, 2015, 11:08:37 AM »
That is because those that say it don't understand the difference between lenses and perspective. Stand in the same place and crop a 50mm image to the same framing as a 100mm lens and the perspective, 'look', is the same.
Now you get me curious. I have never done the test and never paid attention to it (I admit) but thanks for bringing that out.
I will do my testing to see.
I am curious if, say the compression, being the apparent distance between the tip of the nose and the eye remains the same.

Anyway, I stick to using longer focal length, not below 85mm for corporate portrait and similar on a full frame (environmental and lifestyle are different matter). I don't want to crop anything if I don't have to (this is one of the very few instances when I respect the get it right in camera stuff (which I really hate)). Besides, I prefer respecting those important people personal space.
Usually, I shoot at 85mm for horizontal head and shoulder , for longer (say knee - up - vertical) I prefer 200mm, everything in between: 135mm. But that is personal preference.
The way I see it, 70-200 allows you to have all these in one gear, besides at f4-5.6 70-200 II vs 85 1.2 you won't see much of a difference. Don't get me wrong, I use primes, but you would have to buy all 3 instead of just one.
I have primes because I shoot mainly events and there I really need wide aperture, 2.8 won't cut it for me.

Lenses / Re: Which Lens to buy for Portraits
« on: February 18, 2015, 06:05:28 PM »
So I would only use a range of about 50-100mm.
70-200 would be my choice as well.
Tripod mount is very good, stopped down to f4 - f8 it is very sharp. I would just use it on the longer end if room allows it. I don't shoot in offices but during business events (so I always have room) and only occasionally.
I don't own it anymore and I do less that type of shoots nowadays, but if I get an assignment that what I would rent.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D Classic Good Enough for Pros?
« on: February 18, 2015, 04:47:33 PM »
7D is still a good camera and depending on what you are shooting could still be professional. I have a friend whose photos are better than mine and she is with a 7D.

Just be prepared to buy another body soon enough, unless you are tough with GAS.
You would tempt to when you can't get where you want to go and you put the blame on something else, starting with your gear.

Canon General / Re: Lost half of my Canon DSLR
« on: February 17, 2015, 04:35:01 PM »
Sorry to hear that Dylan, hopefully home insurance would do something.

Photography Technique / Re: What is your keeper rate?
« on: February 16, 2015, 11:28:58 AM »
As for wildlife, my work has gotten better and better technically, but I've upped my standards for a good image considerably.  The rate also depends a lot on the subject.  For BIF shots, even with the 1D X at 12FPS, my rate is extremely low because I'm very picky about the wings, background, head & body angle, etc.  For an animal that's not moving much, I do much better.  And yes, the NOOOO moments are just horrible.  If I have time, I'll chimp and zoom in to 100% to make sure the shot is sharp, but you don't have that luxury most of the time.
To me this is the key.

I am pretty much still in learning phase of my photography so I do not really delete anything.
I review them and then put them aside in safe keeping. I pull them out the next season and I focus on how to improve them.
My biggest challenge when began photography was that I didn't even know which one is good. So I decided to keep them all and funny enough as my technique advances I found good ones that would be "keeper" if just I did this and that.
Today, I usually think about "keeping" some shots after shooting the same event at least 5 or 6 times.
Example, I shot speed skating twice last winter from the spectator stand. None of them is useful except for studying my mistakes. Then I studied it, found aspect of photography that would help to learn it and shoot that as well. Bought appropriate gear for it and did everything to be able to shoot from the press stand.
This Saturday I shot 1500 shots and none is a keeper. I reviewed them and went to shoot again on Sunday, took another 3000 shots.
I will post on Flickr around 30 of them (for the sake of the players), so if that is a keeper then it is below 1 of 500. During my next shoot (most likely on February 28th) I intend to keep few of them. These would be the ones that would represent my work.

What if I get an exceptional shot during the studying phase? The answer is that I do not "keep" it because to me I got them unplanned and don't represent who I am. I would try to get the same shot, and if I manage to then the next one would be a keeper.

So, agreed, as I am getting better I get more demanding and my "keeper" rate remains low. And yes, it depends on what I am shooting. In sport, it is below 1/500 when I master the discipline, for event since I have to deliver I would keep for the customer sake 1/50 but deep in my hurt I would keep maybe 1/200 (or 300).

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS-1D X Replacement in 2016 [CR1]
« on: February 13, 2015, 02:10:20 PM »
I'm very happy with my 1D X - I'd rather Canon deliver something really solid in a year then rush something sooner :)
+1, 2017 sounds right for me to upgrade. I would wait 1 year for the price to drop a bit.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 22