Messages

16

EOS Bodies / Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?

« on: May 13, 2012, 06:18:46 PM »

Video is not the reason this thing is more expensive. The 5D2 HAD video when it came out and it did not cost this much. Getting rid of video will not change the fact that Canon is getting greedy.

No, getting rid of video won't make the US Dollar  buy more Japanese Yen.

If that was the issue, then almost all new Canon products would be seeing a massive price hike like this, and they aren't.

Then I wonder what explains the high growth of lens prices (http://www.canonpricewatch.com/canon-lenses-better-stocks/) for some years now... Compare to the USD value against the Yen: the dollar lost ⅓ of its value against the yen in five years!
Should have Canon (a Japanese company, may I remind you, whose accounts are done in Yens) really followed it, a lens costing $1000 (= 120000¥) in August 2008 should be $1500 now!

For every product that's gone up in price, I can name one that's stayed the same. Their printers, their powershots, the starter DSLR line, etc.

17

EOS Bodies / Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?

« on: May 13, 2012, 05:54:12 PM »

Video is not the reason this thing is more expensive. The 5D2 HAD video when it came out and it did not cost this much. Getting rid of video will not change the fact that Canon is getting greedy.

They're always "greedy" in the sense that they want to maximize sales revenue. Price will inevitably drop if/when they lose enough sales for it to outweigh the extra revenue from the  higher prices. They probably figure that most of the target market for this are spending so much on glass, tripods, lighting etc that they won't sweat a few dollars on the body.

To me, greedy isn't just wanting sales. "Greedy" is purposely charging a significant amount more for the product than its actual worth with no consideration for the customer. I believe the 5D2 was fairly priced at launch and would gladly have paid that amount of money for a camera. Canon still makes their profit, while I believe I'm paying a fair price. Greed comes in when the profit exceeds what the consumer believes to be a fair price. Some people will still pay the price for it (and if they can, then props to them) because to them as long as they have the product it doesn't matter. Other people will be more choosy.

If it were $3,000 I don't think I'd be complaining at all, actually. Maybe even $3,100. But $3,500? Very optimistic on Canon's part and it's taking advantage of the fact that some people don't actually care about price vs value (usually this happens when someone has enough money that a $500 difference seems minuscule).

I can afford it, so I'm not one of those people who's upset because they can't. I just care a lot about the value of what I'm getting.

18

EOS Bodies / Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?

« on: May 13, 2012, 04:12:32 PM »

Video is not the reason this thing is more expensive. The 5D2 HAD video when it came out and it did not cost this much. Getting rid of video will not change the fact that Canon is getting greedy.

No, getting rid of video won't make the US Dollar  buy more Japanese Yen.

If that was the issue, then almost all new Canon products would be seeing a massive price hike like this, and they aren't.

19

EOS Bodies / Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?

« on: May 13, 2012, 03:54:17 PM »

Video is not the reason this thing is more expensive. The 5D2 HAD video when it came out and it did not cost this much. Getting rid of video will not change the fact that Canon is getting greedy.

20

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 price drop?

« on: May 13, 2012, 03:51:07 PM »

... Is $1,300 really worth an AF system...

For me, yes. For others, evidently not. I would buy the mark III over the II on the AF system alone. I've invested thousands in L glass for marginal improvements in image quality (okay, and low light performance) so I'd pay $1,300 to double or triple my rate of in focus shots, sure.

Put another way... if I already had a 5D II and Canon told me they could put a 1D X autofocus system into it for a parts/labour charge of $1,300 - would I do it? Hell yeah.

For me, it's worth it too. I shoot animals and things that move far more often than I'm sitting around shooting people that are sitting down or posing. But an AF system, while invaluable, is still just an AF system. It didn't exactly require a ton of engineering to get done (considering the 7D already has a similar system with less focus points) and probably, at most, I'd value it at $500 new over the 5D2. Not $1,300. Is it something I need and would have to pay the extra money for? Yes. But that doesn't mean it's actually worth the ridiculous prices they're charging.

21

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 price drop?

« on: May 13, 2012, 03:01:21 PM »

People on another photography forum I go on are swearing that the price is going to drop by Christmas because the D800 is just too competitive. The D800 is an equivalent camera, selling for $500 less. If you're a professional, $500 might not seem like a lot and can be made up quickly. If you're an amateur or a hobby photographer that's enough to push someone towards the 5DII instead (assuming they don't already own it). I don't see a price drop happening until they stop selling the 5dII's, which right now are priced much fairer.

Is $1,300 really worth an AF system, some nifty added features, and slightly better performance? A lot of photographers are saying no. A lot of the people who bought the 5D3 at launch are really defensive about this and trying to justify their purchase.

22

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Critique my Progress?

« on: May 13, 2012, 02:23:16 PM »

I think you have improved very much. I like that you are getting to the dog's eye level (as someone suggested in the old post).
The last one with the dog in the water I think is the strongest here. It's technically good and has decent composition. That and the wet dog has a great look. Also notice how much better the image is when you take the leash off and don't have that distraction in the photo.

How I would improve the other three:
The biggest problem with the first (with the ball) is the background is distracting (mostly the tables and the sky is also close in  value to both the ball and the man.). I think if you shifted your camera angle you might have been able to separate from the background a bit more. Other than that, I think this shot is just fine and the color and exposure look good (not bad getting detail in the dog and the man's skin).
The one with the shoe looks a little cold on the color balance yet especially if you compare it the nice warm white balance you have on all the others. I'd white balance so the shadow is warmer since only 1/4 of the dog is getting the direct sun. Also, the dog's head seems to be abnormally large. Might not be the right lens for the shot. Finally, I'm not letting you off for the shoe. It's digital and the 7D has a pretty good buffer. Shoot some more shots and get one without the shoe. It's not a 12 exposure roll of film where you have to hold back.
The portrait of sorts looks right on with exposure and color. Focus is good. Everything is technically good. It might be better if the dog filled the frame a bit more (the head most often should not be dead center like this), Oddly, I like the edge of the owner's body in the photo although the leash is distracting.

You might want to think about getting closer to the dog's face and filling the frame with it. Unless you have added to your lens collection even the 50mm with the 1.6 crop is going to seem a bit distorted close especially with dogs. You might want to think about a bit longer lens that can focus close.

This is all very nit-picky and if you warm up the white balance on the shoe, I think most people would be glad to have images like this of their dog. You've improved your dog photography a lot.


Pets can be a very difficult subject and dogs can be right up there with some of the hardest of pets (it depends on the situation and the dog). They are small. It can be hard to get them to be still long enough to compose (let alone get focus on the eye). Sometimes they get nervous and just won't look right even if you get the perfect shot. Cats can be far worse - they will simply be stubborn and refuse to be photographed.

Great shots,
James

Thanks!

I actually really appreciate that you're getting nit picky and giving me ways to improve. There are always ways I can improve and any feedback is great (most of the people I show my pictures to say things like "oh nice pictures you have a good camera" and "nice dog", I recently used my point-and-shoot to take some pictures and had someone complimenting the detail my dslr gets, they failed to notice it was me that made the shot work, not the camera). Every bit helps.

In the photo where the dog's head is abnormally large, he is actually sticking his neck out towards me. I think I took a few shots and I'll have to dig through an see if I have one where he isn't doing that. However, I do need a better portrait lens. For this I was using the 17-40mm, but I also own a 50mm f/1.4. I'm still trying to fine tune my future lens collection and decide which combination would work best for me.

Right now my plan is to get a 24-70mm (probably this winter?) and eventually sell the 17-40mm for a 16-35mm. Another thing I'm considering is grabbing an 85mm (I've been told they are invaluable) because compared to the other lenses I want it's very affordable. I also need a lens that can focus closer up to things, and a macro lens/macro adapter. I don't do a lot of macro photography, but on occasion I've found things like bugs or ticks or even slugs that I wish I could get closer to to focus in more detail, but the 50mm has to be x distance away. So thanks

23

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Critique my Progress?

« on: May 13, 2012, 03:29:06 AM »

I made a thread a couple of months back (can be found here) asking for advice because my pictures on my 7D seemed "dull".

I'm mostly a hobby photographer. I don't do it for money unless someone explicitly asks me to (this has happened once, but it wasn't a huge job they just wanted prints and offered to pay more than the prints would cost so I made a decent profit). I just do things for the enjoyment of documenting every day life and memories.

After seeing some of the suggestions in that last thread, I followed through, and I think I've improved a ton. Let me know what you think.

Most of my pictures can be found here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kreebby but for the sake of keeping things specific I'll only post a few choice samples.

Same dog, though older. Same park, too.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kreebby/7180043844/#in/photostream/

Ignore the random shoe, he got in the way of my picture last minute.


Portrait of sorts (very candid)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kreebby/7180077038/#in/photostream/

Same exact water at the same part of the beach as in the other thread:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kreebby/7180084990/#in/photostream/

What do you guys think?

24

Portrait / Re: Candid portraits

« on: May 13, 2012, 02:31:33 AM »

Exif data can be found here.

25

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Is immortal

« on: May 12, 2012, 08:51:35 PM »

This has made me proud to own a 7D.

26

Animal Kingdom / Cats and Dogs

« on: May 10, 2012, 01:26:25 PM »

I try to make sure I get photos uploaded every week, and often take photos every day (if not every other day). My subjects usually end up being my pets, because they're there. Other times I go for plants and landscapes. I do candid shots so it's usually impossible to "set things up". I just get the camera out and hope for the best.









What do you think?

27

Software & Accessories / Tripod Suggestions

« on: May 10, 2012, 01:13:44 PM »

So I'm now finally in the market for a tripod. Awhile back on here I was told to skip any cheap tripods and go straight for the good brands like Manfrotto. Now, I'm a hobby photographer that might hope to make some money on the side (I have done so already for small stuff, no major things) but this isn't my main job. I've read through this and while the suggestions for the cheaper head and body are nice, it's out of budget. I need something for less than $600.

Here's what I need in a tripod:

• Strong enough to handle a Canon 7D with a 70-200mm lens on it.
• Adjustable/flexible legs so I can use it on hiking trails and uneven ground.
• Relatively easy to pack and take with me if I travel.
• Tall enough, without being super tall (I'd say enough to equal a person of 5'4-5'6 holding a camera and taking a shot)
• Easy to set up.

I don't need some professional tripod that can handle a 300+mm telephoto lens. I just need something versatile that can be used to take a family photo on the couch, can be used on hikes, and can be used around dog trials and horse barns without taking forever to set up. I looked myself but there are so many options even with just one brand and I'm not sure where to start. What I'd be more interested in is getting a high quality head that I can use later if I decide I need better legs. This is the best I can do for right now, and "just saving up a little more to get something better" isn't an option right now.

So any recommendations would be really great.

28

Third Party Manufacturers / Macro Adapter?

« on: May 10, 2012, 12:46:50 PM »

I was wondering if anyone knew of any inexpensive third party macro adapters that that would work with any of my lenses (50mm f/1.4, 17-40, 70-200mm f/4L). I was looking into a macro lens for canon but the price was around $200 used for the cheapest one. I am not that big of a macro photographer, but I take pictures of things from day to day and some of the things I want to photograph are very small (found a tick on my dog once that I wanted to take a shot of). So before I go investing in a used macro canon lens, are there any adapter alternatives? For me "cheap" means less than $150.

29

Lenses / Just how important is IS?

« on: February 16, 2012, 11:04:31 PM »

I did a search non it but nothing in the first few pages came up.

I went for a used 70-200mm f/4L. It's ordered. It does not have image stabilization. Why? It cost twice as much with IS and I wanted to buy an external flash and a tripod too. I plan in the future to maybe sell it and upgrade to the IS version when I can afford to. For now, expanding my arsenal is top priority. Anyway, I did a search on IS via google and found a bunch of websites talking about how everyone needs IS and people who don't get it won't get as many great photos etc etc.

What is your take on it, guys? Is it really a waste of money to buy a non-IS lens if you can't afford the IS version? Just how necessary is IS?

30

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Off Lighting/Color With 7D

« on: February 16, 2012, 05:04:14 AM »

I always shoot in RAW mode.

Thanks for the help everybody! I'll try for some more pictures tomorrow or Friday using the suggestions and post the results here.