Messages

1

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Am I crazy to sell my Canon gear?

« on: May 20, 2013, 11:44:54 AM »

So, if you try something new, try it in your hands before you sell the old gear, at the least.

Yeah, actually I've been to my local Fry's and Best Buy to handle a lot of the NEX cameras. I knew that the C3 has been discontinued so the next best thing was the F3 and I actually liked the small format of the camera. It's smaller that I wished it was, but I liked the portability.

Yes ... You are crazy to sell your Canon gear ... Especially because two months back you were seeking advice as to how to improve your gear -
Give it 6 months and if you don't find yourself craving for the DSLR IQ, Sell your gear.

+1. Give it some time and live with your gear.

+1 Give you current gear at least 6-9 months before moving in a different direction.  If you have only had your 5Dc for 2 months, that's not enough time for a real evaluation.

I have been using my 5Dc for a few months now. I love it and I don't think I will not let go of it, but I'm kind of tired of lugging a huge DSLR around everywhere. I'm not getting compensated in anyway for my photos,. But I understand that gear is just tools for photographers, and i think smaller gears will be better for now.

You did not mention the kind of photography you do.
Decision depends on that.

+1.  If you like the creativity of thin DoF, stick with FF.

Sorry, I didn't realize I didn't include that: Landscapes, Still Life, Group Shots and Portraits (Candid Portraits)

2

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Am I crazy to sell my Canon gear?

« on: May 20, 2013, 05:11:53 AM »

So after a long time being absent from photography I have decided that I want to stop my pursuit in becoming a semi-professional photographer.

That being said, I don't want to give up photography. I just want to be able to take good pictures for my personal portfolio! So I'm considering selling all of my Canon gear (Canon 5Dc, 17-40mm, 50mm, and 70-200mm) and buying a smaller set up that is unobtrusive.

I would probably get around 1,750 for everything in total. With that money, I planned on getting this set up:

• Sony NEX C3 w/ 16mm f/2.8
• Sigma 30mm f/2.8
• Sony 50mm f/1.8

Anyways, am I crazy for going this route?

3

Lenses / Re: Wedding with crop bodies, help with rentals.

« on: April 08, 2013, 09:49:03 PM »

As others have noted, outdoor light can be gruesome deep shadows, over exposed highlights, etc.  Absolutely have him rent or borrow a external set of flashes and reflectors.  They will do far more than renting a lens and the AF risks that brings.

What kind of external flashes are you suggesting? We have two speedlight 580exII and two 430exII. Is there anything else flash wise that we need? I think we also might use some wireless triggers but I don't know how they're going to use it outdoors.

4

Lenses / Re: Replacement for Sigma 18-55

« on: April 08, 2013, 03:31:40 PM »

Repair shop telling me £70+VAT for new barrell.

Can live with that, had it been much more I would have put it towards a new lens instead.

I've been very happy with the images from this lens, so if it can ride again then I'm happy.

Was quite looking forward to some fun ideas for a viking burial for a dead lens though...

If your lens wasn't going to be okay I would have suggested you turn it into a lens mug. Kind of like giving your pet to a taxidermist. Well, Execpt you can stuff your lens with coffee or ice cream

5

Lenses / Re: Wedding with crop bodies, help with rentals.

« on: April 08, 2013, 03:28:32 PM »

If you're going to rent a 70-200, don't get the f4, go for the f2.8, the sharpness is amazing. You also may want to consider renting an L Prime, as they also produce good results.

My friend doesn't want to use my bodies because he wants to be able to put all the good ones that he took in his personal portfolio. Weird but he doesn't want to get his clients hopes up by using a body that he doesn't have. Its his personal preference.

Yet he wants to use a rented lens?

So if we go for the f/2.8 should we get the non-IS or the IS version?

Lenses aren't a big deal for him. He can rent all the lenses he wants. It's the body that he really wants to wait for. He will not shoot with a FF camera until he has his own. He's set on that ideology. I've tried telling him that 5Dc's aren't that expensive.

6

Lenses / Re: Wedding with crop bodies, help with rentals.

« on: April 08, 2013, 12:27:52 PM »

Why not use your 5D and 1Dmk2? Or is your sig out of date?

Do you have flashguns? If not, you may want to rent a few of those + a 50mm will work well as a portait on crop)

I'm doing the videography not the photography haha

My friend doesn't want to use my bodies because he wants to be able to put all the good ones that he took in his personal portfolio. Weird but he doesn't want to get his clients hopes up by using a body that he doesn't have. Its his personal preference. My girlfriend wants to use mine 5Dc but she's worried about the weight affecting her through the whole event.

7

Lenses / Wedding with crop bodies, help with rentals.

« on: April 08, 2013, 03:01:15 AM »

Well, my group and I have a wedding to shoot in two weeks. My girlfriend and my friend will be the photographer. They aren't well equipped though. They'll be running with a Canon 500D and 600D. I understand the the low light will be a struggle for us. Luckily for us, the ceremony and the reception will take place outdoors. I'm just hoping that the weather permits to use low ISO. The wedding will be at around 8:00am and the reception will be at like 12:00pm What I'm suggesting we do is have the main photographer carry an UWA and a Telephoto. He is in charge of getting the shots of the Bride and Groom mainly. My girlfriend will be the pickup photographer, getting shots that my friend might miss.

The main photographer has a Sigma 10-20 for UWA so we plan on renting a Canon 70-200 f/4
My girlfriend needs a normal-tele zoom so should I rent a Canon 17-55mm or the Canon 24-105mm

Also, we aren't really prepared but were doing this as a favor for a close relative and we aren't really getting financially aids. It's just nice to have some great photos for our portfolio.

8

Lenses / Re: Why can a Sigma 10-20mm fit on a "FF" Body?

« on: April 08, 2013, 02:01:28 AM »

Quick question, why does the Sigma 10-20mm f/4.0-5.6 fit on a FF body? I thought that the lens was an EF-s lens since it was for a crop body? I shot with it for fun and it was almost like a fisheye lens. Anyone have that experience as well?

The difference between a FF and APS-C camera is not only the sensor, but also some other parts are different in size, due to the different sensors. The smaller sensor in a APS-C allows the use of a smaller mirror as well. Some distances are given in a camera like sensor-shutter, shutter-mirror, mirror-lens; this gives the distance between the sensor, and the back of the lens.

Canon was the only camera maker who decided to use the space freed by the smaller mirror for the lens. This gave them more options to design the EF-S lenses, with the backdraw, that they do not work on a FF body, since the mirror would collide with back of the lens when the mirror flips up.

3rd party lens makers design their lenses to fit on all APS-C cameras, just with a different mount. Since the other manufacturers still use the sensor-lens distance from the FF cameras, these lenses still fit there. This means that you actually should be able to use every 3rd party lens made for Canon APS-C cameras and mount it on a Canon FF body.

I think especially with a wide angle lens the effect is interessting, but normaly it does not make much sense to mount a "cheap" APS-C lens on an "expensive" FF body.

Of course we wouldn't want to mount a cheap lens one a pro body. I actually mounted it on my Canon ELAN 7. I loved that super wide almost fisheye distortion that the lens produce. Of course it isn't a money making shot, it does provide a lot of fun images Also the film gave them a super retro look (I made a mistake developing it. I don't know what I did but it looks funky haha)

9

Lenses / Why can a Sigma 10-20mm fit on a "FF" Body?

« on: April 05, 2013, 04:04:13 AM »

Quick question, why does the Sigma 10-20mm f/4.0-5.6 fit on a FF body? I thought that the lens was an EF-s lens since it was for a crop body? I shot with it for fun and it was almost like a fisheye lens. Anyone have that experience as well?

10

Landscape / Re: My Personal Best Landscape Shots - Advice/Critizism accecpted

« on: April 01, 2013, 07:55:06 PM »

I agree about the harsh lighting.  I really think one of the keys to good landscape photography is good light (yeah I know, this applies to *all* photography), wait till the “golden hours” and hike(ride?) out in the dark

I wish, we waited just a couple more hours. That sun was just relenting on that day though.
The wind was awesome on the other hand.

11

Landscape / Re: My Personal Best Landscape Shots - Advice/Critizism accecpted

« on: April 01, 2013, 07:00:09 PM »

why f8? Could use f5.6
why ISO 200? using f5.6, you can use iso100
light is a bit on the harsh side, due to time of day and altitude (guessing).  Consider a circular polarizer or a variable nd filter or ideally own both.

I wasn't using my Canon 17-40mm because my friends were filming with it. My Tamron 17-35mm is sharp @ f/8.0
I didn't realize that I was shooting ISO 200 until I got home. I don't use auto ISO and that could have been my downfall.
Yeah, It was about 5:00pm and the sun was beating down really heavily. That's one thing I did forget to bring, my circular polorizer. I don't have a VND filter. Got any suggestions?

12

Landscape / Re: My Personal Best Landscape Shots - Advice/Critizism accecpted

« on: April 01, 2013, 06:02:28 PM »

Also, I printed out of these photos on a 16x20 board from my work (Walgreens) and it looks way better than I expected. I forgot that DSLRs are meant for large printing. I think I shall cover my wall in 16x20s of my favorite pictures

13

Landscape / My Personal Best Landscape Shots - Advice/Critizism accecpted

« on: April 01, 2013, 06:00:16 PM »

So for the Easter weekend. My parents and I decided to take a trip to Palm Springs. We rode this Sky Tram that took us to a place called Desert Trails (?) I was pretty sick so I wasn't completely in. I didn't look at my camera's screen after I took my shoots becuase I was out of it. So when I got home, I opened the photos in Lightroom and with a little color adjustment, turns out to be my personal favorite photos.

I don't know how to link Flickr photos to CR, so I'm just going to post a link to my Flickr account

http://www.flickr.com/photos/synomis/sets/72157633145608770/

Please let me know what you guys think I should do. I left all the EXIF data so you guys can see how I was shooting.

I used lightroom to adjust contrast, colors, and noise.

14

Lenses / Re: Which Super-Zoom is the best?

« on: March 30, 2013, 03:23:39 AM »

g.

As for which super zoom, the Tamron 18-270 VC seems to be the best of the bunch.

EDIT: The 18-270 VC weighs almost the same as the Sigma 17-70, it is also the lightest super zoom.

Well, I asked her about this weight question and she said she wants something that won't be cumbersome for me in my backpack (-.-)

Weight really isn't a priority for us. It's mainly more of a convenience for when we go backpacking this summer. She wants to pick up any shots that I miss. It's kind of like having a backup photographer. I'll be packing an UWA and a TELE (2 zooms).

What range is included in your "does it all"?  As you doubtless know, no superzoom lens goes really wide, and the longest zooms don't go wide at all (barring point-and-shoots such as the Canon sx50).  And what does "best quality" mean?  (If she likes low light photography, aps-c + superzoom = inferior quality.)  What's more, if she "hates the gear", she should see how such a lens feels when attached to that little camera - it might be quite unbalanced and unpleasant to use....   

But are you sure she wants a dslr at all?  If she doesn't need to zoom in terribly far, a Sony RX100 might make more sense - near-dslr quality, tiny, no lenses to change and easy to use (if you like handling point-and-shoots, that is).  Or, if her dislike of the gear relates mainly to size and weight, what about micro 4/3, where the cameras and lenses are all much smaller and lighter than dslr gear?

I've tried to tell her that the Sony RX100 will be fine for her use but she's been accustomed to using DSLRs after I've let her play with mine. It's more of a personal preference for her. Although her hands are tiny and cute, she loves feeling in full control.

I'm bringing my S100 if she needs it haha. The Sony NEX C3 is something that she's looking at too. Thanks for the heads up

For sheer quality, the EF-S 15-85. It's a much better lens than the 17-85, as well as being significantly wider, and is of L quality. The 15mm at the wide end is more useful in many ways than the loss of length as the better IQ allows you to crop. Also, its size is suitable for the small camera

That Canon EF-s 15-85mm is actually a good choice, but she wants to see if theres any other choices before she pops $700 for a lens. haha

15

Lenses / Which Super-Zoom is the best?

« on: March 28, 2013, 11:07:11 PM »

With the release of the Canon 100D on the horizon. I wanted to know what is the best super-zoom to buy that my girlfriend could use. She likes photography, but she hates the gear that comes along with it. I'm fine with carrying 3 lens (UWA, 50mm, Tele) but she wants to just have one lens that does it all. She does want the best quality from her gear so I wanted to know which super zoom has the best quality. I understand the negatives of a super zoom lens. So I'm asking everyone out there if they have any recommendations.

NO. The Canon 28-300L is not going to be an option