April 17, 2014, 05:59:34 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 - thepancakeman

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 29
286
Software & Accessories / Re: Looking for a good monitor
« on: December 30, 2011, 05:14:29 PM »
I'd say pick one and stick with it. Adobe RGB gamut covers more and is therefore "better" for pros, especially in greens for landscapes. But you have to set your camera to AdobeRGB, computer to adobergb, monitor to adobergb, and make sure you're printing in adobergb, the whole toolchain has to match. Then what do you do with all the photos you've got already, which you shot in sRGB? You can convert the colour space, of course, and it may be worth all the time and effort to you if you manage to sell a lot of them, but for me it's not worth it and i'm sticking with sRGB...

I've been thinking about switching to AdobeRGB, but in reading thru your chain/workflow above brings to mind the question of--what happens to/how do you handle images that are delivered to clients as digital instead of prints?  Do you just convert and go, or would you have to redo any/all color corrections, etc?

287
PowerShot Cameras / Re: Using PowerShot SD1400 IS to replace camcorder
« on: December 29, 2011, 12:10:00 PM »
What are the disadvantages of using the point and shoot camera in place of a camcorder?

IMO, the biggest disadvantages to shooting video with a P&S are that during recording, autofocus and optical zoom are both disabled.

 ???  Only got to play with it for a few minutes at Christmas, but my sister's new SX40 (that does count as P&S, no?) had both autofocus and optical zoom while in video mode.

288
Lenses / Re: Replacement for Tamron 17-55mm f/2.8?
« on: December 28, 2011, 10:26:42 PM »
By the way, how did tamron 17-55 work for you? I'm thinking of buying it for concert photography. Recommended (yes/no)?

It really didn't get much use.  Neither my wife or I shoot wide very often (planning to change that), and the IQ just didn't compare to the 24-105.  Which of course makes it that much more disappointing that it failed after probably less than a couple hundred photos (in 5ish years).   >:(

289
Lenses / Re: Replacement for Tamron 17-55mm f/2.8?
« on: December 28, 2011, 10:23:30 PM »
Your specs have really boxed you into a 16-35 f/2.8L in the Canon product line.  As you probably know, that’s a $1,400 lens.  With the 5D II running at around $2,000, might this be the time to jump to FF?  17mm on your 40D is equivalent to 27 on FF, so your 24-105 would actually be wider than what you’ve been shooting with.

The 16-35 definitely looks like a sweet lens.  However, the fact that it's a big chunk of the cost of the 5d2 which pulls the 24-105 into about the same range is a very good (and dangerous to my pocketbook) observation.  I will have to ponder!  +1 for the suggestion--thanks!

290
Product cycles really don't have any bearing on when a camera body will be released

 ???

291
... at this rate, we will need to sync up 5d updates with home appliances or perhaps even furniture.

I like it!   "Well, time to replace the 5d and the living room carpet again..."

292
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS USM
« on: December 28, 2011, 10:23:10 AM »
Yes she is gorgeous, great capture!  However am I the only one in thinking the focus is sharper on the front of the camera she is holding rather than her eyes (maybe it is intentionally done like that... )  ?

I noticed that too.  Her face looks soft--but the pattern on the dress which should be in the same place does not.  A little post-processing going on?

293
Lenses / Replacement for Tamron 17-55mm f/2.8?
« on: December 28, 2011, 10:14:27 AM »
So our Tamron 17-55mm f/2.8 just died.  That leaves us with the 24mm on our 24-105 L as the widest we currently have and that's just not going to cut it, so I'm looking for suggestions.  We currently have only APS-C bodies, but in general are trying to stay away from EF-S lenses becuase good glass is expensive and I don't want to see that $ left behind when we add a FF body.

Things I'm looking for:
  • Fast (nothing slower than 2.8 )
  • Prefer zoom over prime, but that's not an absolute
  • Not EF-S
  • Relatively inexpensive (good glass is never cheap, but some is more affordable than others)
  • 17mm minimum, wider probably even better

Thoughts?  Thanks!

294
Lenses / Re: New Photographer. Need suggestions :)
« on: December 28, 2011, 09:59:18 AM »
I think LENS CHOICE is more important than your choice of camera body.

+1.  Good lens + mediocre body = decent photos.  Crappy lens + awesome body = crappy pictures.

295
Lenses / Re: New Photographer. Need suggestions :)
« on: December 27, 2011, 02:54:12 PM »
i dont know if any1 could help me but is a 60d or 7d good enough to shoot weddings? or would i need to look at maybe the 5d?

It depends on the expectations, but I know of "successful" wedding shoots (because I was involved as backup photographer) that were done with a 40D.

296
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Sooner Than Later [CR2]
« on: December 27, 2011, 02:52:29 PM »
Good things come to those who are patient.  :)

Yes, but he who hesitates is lost.   ;)

297
EOS Bodies / Re: Is it worth picking up the 1D-X?
« on: December 22, 2011, 01:54:31 PM »
On the other hand I am not sure it is truly worth the expense.

Let me pre-empt this with an apology, but I'm grumpy today.   >:(

"Worth the expense"--worth is it's value to you, which we cannot define, and relative expense is hard to determine without having your financial statement in front of us.  If you need (or want) a body that does more than one you currently have and have the funds for it, then go for it. 

At this point the 5d3 is completely theoretical, so trying to compare the two is not doable.  You can certainly hedge your bet by not pre-ordering the 1DX with the hopes that the 5d3 will at least be announced before the 1DX comes to market and you can then make an informed decision between the two.  But this is at the risk of "going to the back of the line" for the 1DX.

Good luck with the decision!

298
Thanks for that thepancakeman, looking at the business perspective, a professional is still people who earn 100% from photography and this is also described by CPS Asia (Canon Professional Service Asia) if you want to join them. I did some seach to find something that support their statement and what I can say is :

1. I love and learn to improve in photography = I'm a photographer

2. I earn 100% in photography = I'm a professional photographer*

3. I earn 50% (or less) in photography = I'm a amateur photographer*

4. I just "point and shoot" and I owned EOS-1Dx = I'm a cameraman**

I know that that is no law to define yourself as a photographer, but I just agree with some of you guys (as Jim Lai also write in his article**), if we are willingly to improve and make a progress in photography, so it is proper to call youself a photographer, isn't it???


For their purposes they have to define specific requirements, but there are still easy examples that make it laughable.  Option 3--I am an "amateur photographer" because I only make $200,000 a year doing photography but happen to have an investment portfolio that nets me $300,000 a year.  RRRIIIIIGGGHHHHT.
 ::)

(BTW, that is a theoretical example, not my personal situation.   :'()

299
Lenses / Re: New lenses for me
« on: December 22, 2011, 10:34:51 AM »
Depends on what and how you like to shoot.  On APS-C bodies, my wife never takes off the 24-105, but I almost never take off the 70-200.  Of course I'm mostly shooting outdoors; it can definitely get a little tight inside.  Our 70-200 is the f/2.8 which reduces the need for IS for most of the time, but trying to catch some shots at my brother's graduation last weekend was pretty much impossible without the IS.

300
EOS Bodies / Re: Do I need a better camera or a better pair of hands?
« on: December 22, 2011, 10:17:30 AM »
Watch out for too shallow DOF ( #3 )

I actually like the shallow DOF on #3...

I think the keyword here is "too"--the shallow DoF is nice, but a half inch to an inch so deeper might be a little better effect, IMHO.  Hard to say for sure without comparing directly.  When I'm uncertain with this kind of shot, I'll just shoot 2 frames with the second one stopped down a bit and then I can decide which is better after the fact.  Of course this could just be do to my lack of experience.

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 29