January 31, 2015, 07:37:33 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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 13
Canon General / Re: Why Wedding Photographers’ Prices are “Wack”?
« on: December 24, 2013, 03:18:56 PM »
I see a number of good responses here and many mention thoughts that have crossed my mind over the years.

I am curious as to why so many people seem to feel qualified to decide what a person in ANY trade should earn.

I have been fortunate to make a full time income that is at the upper end for our industry. I avoid weddings like the plague specifically because the clientele are emotional, delusional (at times) and believe that I should earn 10% less than a gardener.
I choose clients who will not freak out by my pricing thus I do not do retail photography. Everyone has scissors yet few cut their own hair. Those that do, look the part and would never go to a professional.

The attraction for so many to do wedding photography is that it appears easy, fun and lucrative. Anyone who has shot one ( I shot many as a younger man) knows that it is demanding, time sensitive, and long with lots of off event work. Digital has made even the most casual snapper somewhat unimpressed with those who make a living doing it.

My nephew asked me the other day why anyone would pay me to take pictures and my answer was " I take pictures for people who will get fired if they don't show their boss a good photo". "If you knew you would lose your job for bad pictures would you hire someone who had always made your boss happy or would you use your phone?".

The DIY mentality rampant in the digital world means that if you do get hired, many clients believe that the fee should be roughly the amount to offset the inconvenience in your day.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony A7R shutter vibration problem?
« on: December 22, 2013, 12:58:53 PM »
All cameras shake, it's just this one is super light.

I found shutter shake in my SLRs in the 70's. I spent a lot of time figuring solutions to the problem because I was making very large prints from my 35mm negs.

This is nothing new, but the ability to zoom in on files has created a whole new reality among photographers looking for the slightest evidence of image imperfection irrespective of its actual visibility in a final print (which is only rarely made.
This is not limited to Sony critics and the current shutter shock alarmists in the mirrorless world but is a fixture of digital imaging.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 135mm f/2 DG OS Art Coming? [CR1]
« on: December 17, 2013, 11:56:46 AM »
Big DSLR announcement, hmmmm. Could they make a camera with an EF mount? Just think, all the sigma lenses sold to canon users would now work on it along with the canon lenses too, it would be a Trojan horse coup d'e'tat

Some have speculated they may introduce a m4/3 camera with their Foveon sensor. It would add interest to the format but they need to play a lot of catch up to meet the usability expectations of current M4/3 users.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: A 40mm f/0.85 for Your EOS-M?
« on: December 14, 2013, 12:31:46 PM »
IBECAT will work well with IBEDOG?

IBEGON? Already am.

Canon General / Re: History: The Original Canon EOS 5D Camera
« on: December 06, 2013, 11:27:36 PM »
I still preferred the colors out of my 5Dc than my MK3s. I skipped the mk2 series because it wasn't worth upgrading for me.

I never understand comments like this. It is digital, why not profile your camera to get whatever "look" you want from it? The free with every Canon camera ever Picture Style Editor is a remarkably powerful program that you can even edit and save then upload your "look" to the camera Picture Styles menu, and every shot with that style comes out looking exactly as you'd like it to.

Thanks for that. I have been using Canon digital since my 10D and never looked at that software.

EOS Bodies / Re: "Two New FF Bodies in 2014" - if 5DM4, would you jump in?
« on: November 30, 2013, 01:26:54 AM »
I think the only bells and whistles that could be added would not be anything that would make me chuck my MkIII.
Better Hi ISO? I doubt I would see the improvement in the real world. Real low light shooting is such a crappy affair that AF and other issues rear their heads before any client looks at noise.

Better DR? They may improve it but again, will I see it in my deliverables? Doubt my client will.

Higher frame rate? Only in silent mode but then it wouldn't be silent anymore.
WiFi? The implementation is poor in all the cameras and when it busts I will have to send it in as opposed to switching out an Eye-Fi card.
Better video? Don't shoot video.
Better AF? Nice but not switch bait.

IOW I love my camera. If a new one comes out I will buy the cheap MkIIIs as they come up used.

Lenses / Re: IS Versions of the 50mm, 85mm & 135mm Coming? [CR1]
« on: November 27, 2013, 02:42:57 PM »
Finally a 50mm with a decent AF system?
The 135mm f/2 L IS would be lovely for weddings!

I agree but if their recent offerings are any guide it would be an f2.8.

Canon General / Re: Consumer DSLRs "dead in 5 years"
« on: November 27, 2013, 12:36:53 PM »
If DSLR's are to be replaced will cell phones, then why is there so much interest in FF and medium format cameras?

The interest is largely in the echo chamber of online discussions. The market for DSLRs as it stands is far larger than the enthusiast community online and chatting about the various merits and demerits of cameras.
A huge amount of this market is soccer moms  chasing their kids around the house. If a simpler, easier and more convenient alternative presents itself she will use it.
The sales numbers speak for themselves. DSLR sales are in decline albeit slower than P&S but they are not increasing. The costs will have to be recovered at some point and in some way. Layoffs, plant closure, R&D spending cutbacks seem to be the usual recipe for this sort of problem.

Making something risky and disruptive is not usually part of the business plan of most companies however, to their credit, Sony is a lot more adventurous in this regard.
But I would also note that the biggest change to the camera industry was the phone and not a FF or MF camera.

Lenses / Re: Ken Rockwell reviews canon 50mm f/1.0
« on: November 22, 2013, 03:20:46 PM »
I finally have to ask since I've seen a lot of hate here for Ken Rockwell - can somebody please explain why this is?

Because he had been trolling around for years tossing out bizarre mini-blogs to make controversy and grab traffic and then got tons of traffic and then became labelled the go to camera expert on the net despite having so much nonsense mixed in all over his site and many of the more beginning photographers he was trying to attract wouldn't have a clue as what parts of his website were good and what parts were nonsense passed off as wisdom or the truth.

SO…. why are people still reading his blog? If he keeps getting brought up as a voice then we are to blame for perpetuating the problem.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus Initial Impressions
« on: November 19, 2013, 01:37:37 PM »
literally it is a great great lens , almost perfect , no doubt about it.
but it is just too huge , it is longer than the Nikon 24-70mmf2.8G, I think  the size makes it just an impractical lens for many.
I do not mind 4k for a lens of this great, but I do really hate the huge long ugly barrel design.
So I will use my Zeiss 50mm f2 MP for another few years.
if you guys do not mind the huge 50 kind of lens , then just get it , there is nothing comes close to it at least in a lab test.

Ultimate IQ was the goal, not a pancake.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus Initial Impressions
« on: November 18, 2013, 08:36:53 PM »
Honest question.  I don't get why a well made lens with half dozen machine ground lenses of a particular shape and in one configuration can cost 10-20x what another well made lens with a half dozen machine ground lenses of a similar shape and configuration?  How can the shape of a lens element or the coating cost so much more to produce?  What is special about this lens that Canon, Nikon or Sigma could not reverse engineer (i.e. lens shape) and produce for $400?

It is only slightly about materials and labor.
This is a prestige brand. It is the Rolex of lenses. They are thoroughly aware that the market for manual focus lenses is small so the ones on sale must either be ultra premium (Zeiss, Leica,Schneider etc) or super cheap (Samyang).
By leaving off AF they obviate the need to license, design, and test a configuration for both Nikon and Canon and the attendant support and repair expenses of all of this.
By imbuing the lens with the last bit of resolution, bokeh quality and superb build, they can maximize their profit over a small production run. By dropping the price they lose the cachet of scarcity and the mythic  legend of its alleged excellence.
Familiarity breeds contempt. Scarcity and urban legend breed awe.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Review: Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 Distagon
« on: November 14, 2013, 11:12:51 AM »
What? Its the best?
Crap, I just spent money on the Rokinon 14mm.
My life is over.

Reviews / Re: Review - PocketWizard PlusX
« on: November 13, 2013, 01:23:32 PM »
I use PWs exclusively for their reliability.

The only thing that I am unhappy with is the lack of a metal foot. I like the locking feature but even with care the feet break occasionally. The Yongnuo triggers do have metal feet but no lock so are not what I want.

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: A Pellicle Mirror by Canon
« on: November 11, 2013, 08:52:00 PM »
as from a technical standpoint I do not see how an EVF will ever even be as good as an OVF, let alone superior to one. Personally, I am hoping the classic slap-happy, noisy DSLR lasts for another 50 years...after which point I'll probably be dead, and will no longer care.  :P ;D
I agree that for the applications you cite an EVF would not be the solution. However I think that we are not likely to see the abandonment of EVFs but rather further improvement.
Perfection is not really necessary to be able to achieve 98% of what a photographer needs to know before pressing the shutter.
I have been photographing a series of jobs over the last week where I dearly would have loved to pre-chimp my shots.
I was in a variety of fast moving situations with varying light brightness and color temp that necessitated rapid shooting and chimping to ensure that the exposure was ok.For the most part I was doing well but I would have realized a whole lot less PP had I gotten closer in camera.

I acknowledge the shortcomings but like RF finders, EVFs have their uses.

Lenses / Re: The 24-105 and/or the 24-70 II ...
« on: November 09, 2013, 01:26:50 PM »
Another vote for the 24-105.

I am often at the 105 length. I am also often in low light situations shooting candid groups.
I used to think that f4 was a real drawback but I found that even at f4 the DOF was insufficient for good images of multiple subjects.

F 2.8 would help with focus and image isolation but as that is not the goal of my work I can pass on it.
Available darkness needs high ISO and a still camera.

I do a lot hand held but I also use it on a tripod where I get extremely sharp results.
I am happy about the price drops as it allows me to get a great price on a backup of this critical tool.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 13