April 21, 2014, 11:45:49 AM

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 - keithfullermusic

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 25
31
Lighting / Re: Entering the world of needing a flash at darker weddings
« on: November 12, 2012, 10:13:34 PM »
i've got a 5d3 and 430EXii with cowboy studio triggers.  I've never had any problems with any of them - they work amazingly well.

If you're going to be in really dark areas with high ceilings a lot, then just buy a cheap manual flash because ETTL will probably have the sucker on full blast the entire time anyway.

32
Lenses / Re: 24-70 F/4L IS - Why I will Buy/Not Buy this lens.
« on: November 08, 2012, 02:04:44 PM »
i just don't see a point in buying a lens in the low telephoto range at f/4 - especially when its well over $1,000.  IS is great, but I love shooting at 1.4-2.8, so this sort of thing is about as useless as it gets FOR ME (not everyone).

33
Lenses / Re: Hold out for EF 35/2 IS or jump in with classic 35 1.4L
« on: November 06, 2012, 01:49:27 PM »
2.0 vs. 1.4 is vastly different.

a) 1.4-1.8 looks incredible - especially 1.4 if you get the focus right.

b) 1.4 is amazing in low light.  2.0 is really good, but that's an entire stop different.  sure, 4-stop IS is great for static objects, but if you're shooting events i think shutter speed is more important.  What would you rather have, 1.4 @ 1/50 or 2.0 @ 1/100 with people moving around?  I'd vote for the former.

c) IS is really really really nice for video, but at 35mm you aren't going to need it as much as you would at say 100mm

d) size and weight are different

e) price

34
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]
« on: October 30, 2012, 05:49:07 PM »

For those just joining us and trying to make sense of this non-trivial CR3 -- and are not furious right now -- we've been riffing on these possibilities:

1) Canon is fully '70-200'-ing their 24-70 lenses into a lineup of (eventually) four offerings.
2) This is tailored for video -- STM, parfocal, etc.
3) It will be very small / very light in comparison to prior 24-70 lenses.
4) This is a 'value L' in the vein of 17-40, 70-200 F/4 non-IS.  Sub-$1000.  Logically paired with the new 6D.
5) This will be legendarily sharp for the new uberpixel bodies we will get down the road.
6) This new 24-70 IS will replace the 24-105 IS and drive more people to buy pricey 70-200 lenses.

For the record, I really thought more people would be outright furious about this.  I thought 50% of respondents would be out for blood.  Good composure, team.

- A

it makes total sense why people are pissed.  NO ONE is asking for this lens - NO ONE.  Sure, it might be good for video, and sure, it might be a good low priced option.  But as far as I can tell the 24-105 already does this and more.

It just indicates to consumers that Canon doesn't give a rat's @ss what people want - they are just going down their own path.  people have been begging for the new 24-70 with IS for YEARS, and this is Canon's response?

If they are getting rid of the 24-105, then ok - this makes sense.  However, if they are still offering both I don't get it.

35
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]
« on: October 30, 2012, 04:29:12 PM »
i'm like most people here when i say that i simply don't get it.

my only thought is that it is for video.  i don't do much video, but i know most (not all) love IS, and you probably aren't doing much video with wide open apertures of 2.8.  otherwise, this is just as insanely stupid lens choice.  if nothing else, it just pisses off canon users for never getting what they are asking for.

36
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 focus for birds in flight
« on: October 26, 2012, 04:37:24 PM »
That's a good question - last week I tried some birds in flight (not really my main interest but thought I'd try something slightly different) and was using the 5D3 with 300mm f2.8 IS and Kenko DG 300 1.4x TC, 9-point expansion, silent shutter continuous drive and AF tracking mode 5. I didn't take too many shots but didn't get any keepers. I put this down to:

1. Need more practice - I normally do portraits/city/landscape type stuff so flying things are harder for me.
2. Using the 1.4x TC maybe slows the communication to the lens meaning it isn't responding quickly enough using AF mode 5. I used the same body/lens/TC at an airshow and AF mode 2 after reading about airshow photography on another site. Whilst I did get some very good shots, overall I wasn't impressed by that tracking mode for aircraft (prop and jet).
3. Uh....something less obvious.  ???

Hopefully our friends on this site will share their wisdom soon!

i would not use silent mode for this.  it just slows down the shot.  i only use silent when i'm close to animals or at a quiet event.

37
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 focus for birds in flight
« on: October 26, 2012, 04:36:04 PM »
this depends:

if there is a busy background i usually use zone or center expansion, but typically zone.

if i am shooting birds with the sky as the background i just use straight out full auto focus.  this works flawlessly in those cases because the only thing for the camera to focus on is the bird.

38
Canon General / Re: Canon Can't Even Make a Billion Dollars Anymore
« on: October 26, 2012, 12:56:12 PM »
everyone thinks that they are a business expert all of a sudden now that these numbers came out.

one of the biggest problems is that Canon is based in a country whose currency is rising compared to the markets where they sell products.  that means that even if they sold the exact same amount of everything, and spent the exact same amount they would still pull in less revenue and less profit.  on top of that, the world economy is down which means less disposable for most consumers and less business to business sales.  together, that equals less sales.  to top it all off, smartphones are completely eating up the point and shoot market.

people - canon is not taking huge hits because you think the new 5d cost too much.  its not because you think the 24-70 costs too much.  these prices are very equal to what their predecessors were in terms of japanese currency - but now the rest of the world's is worth less compared to what it was, so things cost more.  also, canon sells a lot more than just 5Diii's and 24-70 ii's...

39
1D X Sample Images / Re: 1dx + 400mm 2.8 @Axalp Switzerland
« on: October 24, 2012, 11:14:21 PM »
Those are some of the sweetest shots I've seen of planes.  Ever.

40
Lenses / Re: New 50mm f/1.4 lenses are metal throughout?
« on: October 22, 2012, 06:14:20 PM »
Why does everyone want a heavy metal lens that would cost like 3 times as much?

41
i'm just going to repeat what everyone has been saying - faster shutter speeds.

1/400-1/500 is not fast enough for action.  you want at least 1/1000 for things like football (at least).

the shots don't look like the lens missed - they just have motion blur.

42
Mine quits all the effing time, so I don't even try it anymore. I have the latest eos utility and I'm running Lion, which is up-to-date.

43
I've heard amazing things about this - http://www.cheetahstand.com/servlet/the-38/Cheetah-Qbox-24/Detail

If I end up getting a softbox, this is the one I'll be getting.

And, why would you not want to buy anything from this guy?!?!

44
Lenses / Re: Canon should change name to Coma
« on: October 10, 2012, 12:00:50 PM »
I'm on an iPad, so I'm not going to go look at all those sites right now - i will later when I get to a computer.

However, are you saying that all canons are total cram at sky shots?  I find that hard to believe because I've seen some INCREDIBLE ones from the 5D ii & iii.  I've also seen the most amazing time lapses ever shot on the mark ii.

I'm not trying to dismiss what you're saying, but to me it sounds like you're stating that no canon camera can take a good star shot.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 25