January 31, 2015, 11:28:07 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 - keithfullermusic

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 26
Canon General / Re: Canon USA Changes the CPS Program
« on: September 11, 2013, 04:32:14 PM »
I just sent an email to Canon stating how disgusted I am with their recent policy change, and I encourage others to do the same if they feel the same.

Canon General / Re: Canon USA Changes the CPS Program
« on: September 11, 2013, 04:07:24 PM »
this is nuts to me.  canon sent me this email the other day listing all the things they are taking away and made it seem like they are doing me a favor.

the only reasons why i got cps gold was for the big repair discount and equipment loans.  so now, they reduce the service discount and essentially eliminate loans?

nikon is sounding better every single day...

Lenses / Re: Is There Such Thing As a "Best" Normal Lens for Crop?
« on: September 10, 2013, 12:34:22 PM »
Is there such thing as a best normal lens (prime or zoom) for crop?


it seems like its been suggested, but here is what i do:

I put the camera in Tv mode, and set my ISO to whatever I want (usually 100-400), then let the camera decide what it thinks the aperture should be at a 30 second shot.  Then, I take the shot.  If I like what the camera chose I then switch it to Bulb mode and match the settings. 

Let's say I was at 30 seconds, ISO 200, f/7.1 and I want a 60 second shot- the easiest thing to do would just be to lower the ISO to 100, which would mean that a 60 second shutter would give the same exposure as the first shot.  If ISO isn't an option (if I was at 100 initially) and I wanted the 60 second shot, I could go 60 seconds, ISO 100, and f/10 - this would give the same exposure as 30 seconds, ISO 100, f/7.1.

Now, let's say I was at 30 seconds, ISO 200, f/7.1, but now I wanted a 2 minute shot.  I could go to Bulb mode, hold the shutter for 2 minutes, drop the ISO to 100, and go f/10.  That would give me the same exposure as before.

My point is simple - just find an exposure you like at a time where the camera is able to meter.  Then, just do the math.

Lenses / Err 1 on 100mm f/2.8
« on: August 21, 2013, 11:51:52 PM »
So today, out of nowhere, my Canon 100mm macro started giving me an "Err 1" message.  I cleaned the contacts and it doesn't work.  I tried other lenses on my 5d3 and they all worked, then I tried the 100mm on my 50D and it started to work, but as soon as i take the picture i get the error.  I'm assuming that this is something that I will have to send it to get fixed. 

I know this won't be productive, but i have to take some time to vent.  This lens is LESS THAN 3 YEARS OLD!!!  it cost me about $550 new, and now i have to fork over another $153+ to get this thing fixed?  it's not like i dropped it, got it wet, banged it into the wall, or melted it - it just stopped working.  i checked online and apparently its some cable in the lens that burns out?  if this is the case, how can canon seriously expect users to pay this amount on something that is so new and out of their control?  way to stick by your products canon...

anyway, its now my birthday - thanks canon.

Lenses / Re: Why Does the 100-400L Sell So Well Still ?
« on: June 06, 2013, 03:34:14 PM »
because its an awesome lens.  sure, compared to some other lenses out there it doesn't compare.  however, for the price - its hard to beat.

Here are a few shots i got of an osprey less than two weeks ago.

I got nothing.  Apparently, Santa doesn't like people without lots of money...

Lenses / Re: 50 1.4 on 5d3 anyone?
« on: December 11, 2012, 02:58:57 PM »
I have that combo and its my favorite.  Some are saying that its a crappy lens?  That's some of the stupidest "advice" I've ever heard.  I use it at paid gigs ALL THE FRICKIN TIME!!!

I looked into the sigma, but the reviews of it were that its great if you get a good copy, and I didn't want to deal with all that crap.  On top of being amazing in low light, focusing fast and accurate, and producing beautiful images, it also has the benefit of being small, light, and discrete.

If you want a 35 (as someone mentioned), then get it.  If you want a great 50, then get the 1.4.

Video & Movie / First video (5D iii)
« on: December 02, 2012, 04:53:53 PM »

I've never done a video before, but i figured with such a sweet camera i should try it.  the video is of how we made our save the date envelopes.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: The First Canon EOS 6D Video Footage
« on: November 28, 2012, 02:54:31 PM »
maybe i'm an idiot, but i thought that it looked really good.

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.

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).

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

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.

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.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 26