August 20, 2014, 03:15:52 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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 30
61
I'd go with the 5D Mark III, because you're not going to be photographing much with a camera that doesn't exist.

Well as you might guess there will be a replacement on the 7D so that for i mentioned it as a 7D II, but it can also be a 8D...

Welcome to the forum!  If you hadn't gathered from the responses, there is a fair amount of burnout here from people asking about purchasing cameras that don't exist yet.  As there hasn't even been a solid CR2 on the 7DII, let alone any actual hands on experience, it is impossible to give recommendations for or against it.

The general rule of thumb around here is if you need/want to take pictures now, buy what you want now.  If you are waiting for some specific feature, it might make sense to wait, but if it's just waiting for something better, there will always be something better coming out and so you wait forever.

I can cite my own position on these two cameras, as that is something I'm weighing.  I currently have a 7D, and although I am less than thrilled with the IQ, it does what I need it to do for the time being.  I've been very tempted by the 5D3, but as I am almost exclusively a sports shooter, I'm waiting to see what the 7D2 brings to the table.  I would also like wifi in my next body (which is a strike against the 5D3), but that's not a deal breaker.  Should the 7D2 not have the high (and low!) iso quality that I'm looking for, along with wifi, I'll likely get a 5D3.  But in the meantime I can afford to wait because I'm not missing any particular photo opportunities with my current setup.

Hope this helps!

62
Photography Technique / Re: How (and Why) I Took the Shot #1: Overlook
« on: February 11, 2014, 04:15:34 PM »
This lack of intrinsic content is, I guess, what Arctic Photo was referring to. The photo means nothing by itself and the elaborate text looks like a futile exercise meant to draw attention. Any random shutter actuation can be embellished with touching words, but it doesn't turn any of them into interesting images.


You mean as opposed to this stunning $4.3 million dollar photo that has such intrinsic content?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhein_II

/sarcasm

63
Photography Technique / Re: How (and Why) I Took the Shot #1: Overlook
« on: February 11, 2014, 01:59:09 PM »

BTW, this series is being requested by a certain very large company in the industry, and so I will write them despite opinions on a message board.
So opinions on a message board only matter when they are positive?

Hmmm...opinions on a message board vs. relationship (and paycheck) from large industry player.  I'm with Dustin on this one. 

I very much appreciate Dustin's honesty and that he's not simply trying to push his name or portfolio.
I don't get your point?

Maybe I didn't get your point.  I understood you to be saying that he should use the opinions of this board on whether or not to write his column when his primary driver is something completely external and a whole lot more valuable than the opinion of random internet strangers.  And I disagree with that. 

The fact that he's listening to feedback here and willing to tweak his output to better meet our needs/desires is just a statement of his generosity, not a statement of the value of our feedback.

64
Photography Technique / Re: How (and Why) I Took the Shot #1: Overlook
« on: February 11, 2014, 12:52:26 PM »

BTW, this series is being requested by a certain very large company in the industry, and so I will write them despite opinions on a message board.
So opinions on a message board only matter when they are positive?

Hmmm...opinions on a message board vs. relationship (and paycheck) from large industry player.  I'm with Dustin on this one. 

I very much appreciate Dustin's honesty and that he's not simply trying to push his name or portfolio.

65
Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked
« on: February 11, 2014, 12:37:34 PM »
you know I've gone full circle I really really wanted it and now I don't know.

I'm confused: did you go full circle or only half-circle?   Full circle is when you're back where you started (you wanted it, then you didn't, now you do again.)   ;)
I'm at 540 degrees at the moment.... so full circle and change.

Haha!  I hear ya--I'm usually good for at least 1080 before I make any useful decisions.  Thankfully, this one isn't one of them.  But 5DIII vs 7DII and yay or nay on Tamron 150-600 on the other hand have got me doing Olympic caliber spins.

66
Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked
« on: February 11, 2014, 11:57:50 AM »
you know I've gone full circle I really really wanted it and now I don't know.

I'm confused: did you go full circle or only half-circle?   Full circle is when you're back where you started (you wanted it, then you didn't, now you do again.)   ;)

67
EOS Bodies / Re: Announcement Talk Begins
« on: January 03, 2014, 12:56:19 PM »
I'm hoping we get some juicy news on the upcoming new Rebel camera.  I'm not holding my breath, but I think this year they might BeDazzle the neck strap.

There are a lot of attempts at humor around here with varying success, but this really was funny!   ;D

Thanks for brightening my day. 

68
As a tangentially related note, these rebates from Canon can be pretty nit-picky.  I had one that was denied because I didn't include the entire thickness of the cardboard with my UPC from the printer. 

They clearly say you have to "cut out the UPC" which I did, but nowhere do they say you have to include all 1.5" thickness of cardboard that makes it too thick to send with a standard envelope and postage (I left the UPC on only the first 2 layers of cardboard).

Anyway, the point being that I understand a certain amount of paranoia about these rebates.  And for what it's worth, I've been a happy Adorama customer for 15 years.  Although generally B&H is good as well, my last order from them I had to call back after the fact and get a price-match for Adorama because I didn't double check before hand.   Doh!  :-[

69
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus Initial Impressions
« on: November 20, 2013, 07:06:01 PM »
Best?  So, it's the lightest?  And has the greatest zoom range?  Is unprecedented in it's telephoto capabilities?

People that market "the best" anything drive me nuts.  Maybe it's the sharpest in the corners wide open.  Maybe it has the truest color representation and saturation.  Great, but that doesn't make it "best" in a million different other scenarios.

huh?

Sorry, just saying that "best" doesn't consider need.  It's not the best sports lens.  It's not the best travel lens.  So saying it's the best lens without any qualifiers is just blatantly wrong. 

Sticking with a favorite, car analogies:  a McLaren might be the best car if you're going to the track, but not if you're towing your boat to the lake or picking up friends from the airport.  So you can't just say a McLaren is the best car, just like it's inaccurate to say that this is the best lens.

70
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus Initial Impressions
« on: November 18, 2013, 06:07:15 PM »
Best?  So, it's the lightest?  And has the greatest zoom range?  Is unprecedented in it's telephoto capabilities?

People that market "the best" anything drive me nuts.  Maybe it's the sharpest in the corners wide open.  Maybe it has the truest color representation and saturation.  Great, but that doesn't make it "best" in a million different other scenarios.

71
Canon General / Re: Should I get into this industry?
« on: October 25, 2013, 03:38:06 PM »
To be honest I don't like your photographs.

You are certainly entitled to that opinion.  But conversely, the most expensive photo ever ($4.3 million) looks like crap to me--I don't think the photographer cares whether I like it or not, and that bank that cashed the check certianly didn't.

The point being, as others have said--it's not about being a good photographer.  It's about finding people that are willing to pay for what you are willing/able to provide.  It's tough, requires some luck, but is absolutely possible.

As for the nay-sayers that say "don't ruin your hobby"--although that CAN be true, it doesn't have to be true.  I have had some hobbies that have been ruined by doing them for money, and I have some that have only gotten me more interested/passionate by doing them (semi-)professionally.  If you think you'll love, then go for it!

72
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Can this 7D package be worth over $9500?
« on: September 10, 2013, 01:32:33 PM »
Well, the same seller has the same kit listed twice for $1.2k or so, and then for $9.5k. Somebody is not getting it, indeed.

All it takes is one sucker, and the seller hits the jackpot... but the actual value of that package is less than the eBay seller fees on the $9500 asking price.

This is it exactly.  This particular vendor seems to have multiple, nearly identical, packages with both realistic (and sometimes even good) prices and ridiculous prices.  And informed buyer obviously will not bite on the jacked up price, but there are enough people out there with more money than brains, see that it includes a "pro wide angle" lens and buy it. 

Perfectly legal, morally questionable.  Of course, one could argue people that are that dumb need to be relieved of the responsibility of having that kind of money to burn.

73
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: August 29, 2013, 05:28:32 PM »
After reading the rants and proclamations of everyone I am confused. As a photographer I am in charge of the DR, contrast, color, etc. in a photograph. This is the difference between taking photographs and making them. It is called technique. I have been using a trio of 40D's since they came out. On a recent visit to my local camera club, everyone assumed that I was using FF cameras. I didn't tell them about the "ancient" cameras that I was using. Nearly everyone at the club was using a FF camera. One tidbit I picked up from my mentor was that "A real photographer can make a good photograph with any camera." He was right. The first photographs I sold were taken with an adjustable 126 Instamatic! As I write this I am waiting for UPS to deliver my 70D's and I couldn't be happier. While everyone is making needless arguments and making excuses I will be making wonderful photographs with "substandard equipment."
Cheers!

Glad that works for you.  Alternatively, I would say a good photographer can make a decent image out of most exposures.  Where I "make my money" is taking really crappy exposures and making them into something nice.  Does that make me an editor?  Not any more than the other side of the coin simply makes you a cameraman.  The best, most efficient photographers excel on both sides of the shutter actuation.

74
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: August 29, 2013, 05:25:19 PM »
I love how people keep arguing over the sensors and how much more DR they actually need. These people aren't photographers, they're editors with cameras. Tons of DR is like a crutch for them. Wow, they screwed up their shots,, shouldn't that mean they have to live and learn from loss? Lazy. Such a worthless excuse for a petty argument.


This really doesn't make any sense.  Every good songwriter, author, or photographer is also a good editor. It's always been that way.

Also it's odd (IMHO) to excuse away technological advancement for the sake of technique. Why can't one attain both? Should we have puffed our chest at the implementation of auto-focus? Should we have held our noses at IS? After all, good technique can nullify those as well....

Right, but you're supposed to be a photographer first and an editor second. DR doesn't help you when you're actually taking your shot, though it might give you peace of mind knowing the very basics of exposing an image is no longer relevant. At least for however many stops you can recover =P No one has to hold their noses with IS btw, apparently you no longer need the breathing technique to prevent motion blur.

Huh, I always thought I was a photographer first, and a cameraman second.  My bad.   ;)

75
Reviews / Re: Review: Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 VC USD
« on: August 19, 2013, 09:53:52 AM »
Shot our championship softball team a few days ago.  I'm very impressed of what this lens does.  Sharpness is on par with my 24-70 Mk II, and the VC is bang on brilliant (as folks over here would say :) ).  The VC also does automatic panning, so no need to switch levers and such.  Here are some sample shots from the day.

Nice shots!  How well does the AF work for sports?  Can you compare it with the Canon Mk I and Mk II at all?  I have the Mk I and am looking to upgrade, and I find the Tamron tempting, but pretty much shoot sports exclusively.  Thanks!

You might want to check out the video links that I posted earlier in the thread.  They definitely address AF speed.

Haha!  Thanks--I'll do that.  I didn't have the opportunity to do that last time thru, but I'll give 'em a look.  Thanks!

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 30