July 31, 2014, 03:18:28 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 - Maui5150

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 23
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon price match the 1DX to the D4?
« on: January 07, 2012, 09:03:58 AM »

Small | Large

There are just as many specs where the 1Dx is BETTER than the D4.

Higher Resolution
Faster FPS
Native ISO I will lean towards Canon based upon past
More AF points.... It is yet to be seen whether the AF8 points in the Nikon make a difference as well as if that advantage is just limited

Nikon looks like it maybe slightly better on Video.

Hey Kia just came out with a new Optima... Maybe BMW will price match

EOS Bodies / Re: Whortwhile to go for 5D Mark II?
« on: January 06, 2012, 09:05:49 PM »
With the launch of the Nikon D4, such improvement like high ISO capabilities and advance video technology. Does the current 5Dmk2 still sufficient in today market? I'm seriously looking into getting one 5dmk2.

When the Lamborghini Reventon was announced, did it make the BMW 7 series irrelevant?

How much does the Nikon D4 cost?  $6000?  You could also look at the 1Dx which in many ways seems to offer more than the D4, but that is $6800?

The 5D MK II is pretty much 1/3rd the cost of either of those. 

Also unlike the D4 or the 1Dx, you can actually SHOOT the 5D MK II today... D4 and 1Dx... not so much.

Is the 5D MKII a little dated?  Perhaps.  Still takes excellent shots, you may have to work a little harder for them, but for the price of a D4, you can get a 5D MKII and a heck of a lot of nice L-Glass too

I should also say that I have spent a lot of time looking at the Sigmas, especially the 50-500 as well, and the 120-300.  The 120 to 300 seems like a fine lens, but also a 3K lens.  I think a lot of people would like an off-brand cheaper brand, but the more I look at reviews, sample images, it reminds me a lot of L glass versus plain EF glass.  Granted, I think a lot of the Sigma lenses are more comparable to the better Canon lenses when you are looking at their better lenses, but if it is sharpness you want, Canon seems to have the edge... Though were I to look at the 120-300 from Sigma versus the 100-400 from Canon, especially since it is a 2.8, but reviews I read indicate AF on the Sigma might struggle. 

I have never held and shot the Sigma, have the F4 Non-IS and just bought the 2.8 IS II.

When I was researching, I saw a lot of side by sides, not only of the F4 to 2.8 to 2.8 IS II, saw some Sigma 2.8 vs Canon 2.8 thrown in as well. 

Summary as I saw it:

-- Sigma is build cheap. Feel is not as good, but how much does that matter.
-- Sigma is soft, especially when looking at crops.

EDIT - I was thinking the Version II was a newer version, but the OS is newer I believe. You also could track down a Canon 70-200 F2.8L IS Version 1 for close to the same amount of money on the used market.  I have been seeing a range of $1200 if you are patient to around $1400 or so on average)

When it comes down to it, even though I have had my 5D MK II for a month, have not shot one second of video.

Now my T2i is quite different.  I have had that for about 14 months and have maybe 25 minutes total video...

.... If I understood neuro's tech posts correctly, the DOF will be more shallow on FF for the same subject distance and framing.

I thought for the same subject distance, the Crop has more OOF blur, but for the same framing the FF has more OOF blur... this is because on the FF, you need to get closer to the subject, thus the ratio of you to the subject vs the subject and the background is larger, where as with the crop, you need to be further back form the subject for the same framing; and when you move back, the ratio of you vs the subject and the subject vs the background becomesless... and that ratio defines the amount of OOF blur.... , the larger the ratio, the more OOF blur is what I understood.

That has been my experience with FF vs Crop.  In some of my tight spaces I could not even consider the 70-200 F4 on my T2i, but it is much more useable on the 5D MKII.  OOF Blur to my simple understanding is a function of Aperture, Distance to Subject and Focal Length.  So with a FF, you can change the DTS which allows for more playing around in tighter confines. 

This is also why I think with a FF if you are doing close up portraits with a lens wide open and have something F2.8 or below, you can even start get OOF on the face a lot more than you can on a APS-C sensor.

Weight has never really been that much of an issue for me, so and extra couple of pounds should not be a big difference.

I do have the 70-200 F4 Non-IS at the moment, and while it is a sharp and fast lens, I did find a couple times where I had to go to my 85 1.8 for light.  I am also really interested to see how the 2.8 performs AF wise with less light.  I have had times where my F4 Non-IS hunts, and everything I have read the 2.8 IS II does extremely well in this regard. 

Given my 50 1.4 and 85 1.8, I just started to notice that I wanted a little more speed with range over the 70-200 F4, and with my 24-105 F4 L as my main lens, I think the 2.8 IS II was a great comprise as well as a lens that I probably will never have to upgrade. 

Was debating swapping the 24-105 for a 24-70, but despite the extra stop in aperture, I find the 24-105 slightly sharper which I like. 

I think the last lens I need at the moment is a wide.  I have been debating the 17-40 F4L which is decent, but again, F4, and pretty much is almost an swap of my EF-S 10-22  price wise., though I think cherry picking a used 16-35 2.8 I will be the way I go. 

So current bag 

{GAP} Wide Angle (16-35 or 17-40}
24 - 105 F4 L IS
50 1.4
70 - 200 F2.8 IS II
85 1.8

Might look into a TC 2X to extend the 70-200 as a compromise over the 100-400, though if a version comes out next year, that might be nice, but right now, I want at least a F4 which is why the current offering is out. 

Then again, I would not mind finding a FD 400, 500 or 600 at a decent price

I have been hunting the I version.  Delayed on one which went for $1300 and have seen a lot go for $1500+  There of course are cherry picked ones with recent date of manufacture as well.    I have an Amazon Gift Certificate for $275, so brings the price of a II down to around $1800 currently, so at $1300 versus $1800 I can almost lean frugally to the I version and save the $500, but once it starts pushing $1500,  the $300 difference for NEW and Version II becomes negligible. 

I really wanted to stay closer to around $1300, but as it pushes closer to $1500 - $1600, hard not to go for it and go version II

* UPDATE     UPDATE      *

So the one I was watching on Flea-Bay pushed over $1400 as expected... Probably would have needed to go $1450, if not more...

So went Amazon route for $1800 with my Gift Cert.  A little more than I wanted to pay, but still should be a stellar lens

You know... as is typical for me... The moment I start entering in the credit card information, I start re-thinking things...

Was doing some fashion shooting last week, and whether in natural light or with strobes, my 70-200 F4 Non-IS was starting to bug me a little.  Takes great shots, but I found myself wanting to blow out the back more in some cases, and since moving to the FF 5D MKII I am actually surprised how much I have been shooting the with the 70-200 indoors.

so now, what is a complete change, is I am leaning to the 2.8 IS either MK I or MK II.  Missed a few gems on the MK I at or below $1300, and though I know the II is sharper and faster, $700 is $700. 

So it comes down to a couple of days... I will likely see if I can track down a MK I 2.8 in the next day or so for under $1300, otherwise, suck it up and drop the $2K on the MK II. 

EOS Bodies / Re: Do you REALLY need a new camera?
« on: January 05, 2012, 08:42:27 AM »
Do you really need a new camera? 

That is suggestive.

My progression, at least the the DSLR range has been T2i to 5D MKII. 

Did I need the 5DMKII?  For me, yes.  Huge difference in capabilities and IQ.  The t2i did well, but things pop more with the 5DMKII.

For me, I probably have one more body to go, which will likely be the 5DMK III, but probably a year or two after it has been out and the price has dropped.  Only thing I would like more out of the 5DMKII is a little more ISO and a better AF. 

Other route I have been considering may be to go to a 1DSMKIII down the line, which I believe gives me both of those, but is also double the price tag, if not more than what I paid for my 5D MKII. 

EOS Bodies / Re: D4 AF vs 1d X AF
« on: January 05, 2012, 08:28:33 AM »
I would not even really mind the AF on the 5D MKII if the AF points had a little more spread than the center focus that they do.

Canon General / Re: Tiffen DFX V3 anyone?
« on: January 04, 2012, 12:25:18 PM »
I have not done much "printing" yet, but have been using the V2 of DFX for a while.  Definitely does a nice job and provides a huge range of options... Some times too much.  Also nice where it has a bunch of canned presets and some of the ones have a huge amount of variability/configurability.

I probably use this package more than any other filter/plugin set

EOS Bodies / Re: New to Full Frame - some help with lens(es)?
« on: December 23, 2011, 09:21:07 AM »
I also just jumped from the T2i to the 5D MK II

Current stable of lenses:

24-105 F/4
50 F1.4
85 F1.8
70 - 200 F4 Non-IS

For my T2i I also have the kit 17-55, the 18-135 and the 10-22

I am looking to add the 16-35 2.8 MK I to add wide angle to the 5DMKII as well as add in the 70-300 L to add some length back and add IS.

I think over all I would be happier with the 24-70 2.8 as it is faster and a little more versatile, but given my current lenses, the 24-105 was the compromise to keep from having to switch lenses. 

The best thing I love about the FF besides IQ is that my 70-200 is now more useable in the studio.  Sometimes getting shorter is not a bad thing 

EOS Bodies / Re: Whortwhile to go for 5D Mark II?
« on: December 22, 2011, 09:07:26 AM »
There are really too camps... Those that preach the latest and greatest, and those who take a more balanced approach. 

For most people, money comes into.

Part of the equation is timing. 

Is the 5D MK III going to be better than the 5D MK II... Pretty safe bet.

Will the 5D MK III be MORE EXPENSIVE than the 5D MK II... Even safer bet.

Will the 5D MK III be $1000 more than the 5D MK II... I think that is pretty safe. 

I am expecting the the MK III to be somewhere around $3200.... Could be as low as $2900 as well as could be as high as $3500... but for anyone expecting $2500... dream on.  Not in 2012, probably not in 2013, buts seems reasonable for 2014 perhaps.

The question then becomes not if you should go for the MK III, but when do you go or the MK III.

That camera right now is vaporware.  It does not exist (in a consumer purchasable product) yet, the feature set is not known, as well as the supply is unknown.

I do lust after the MK III, but went with the MK II for now... because... well I can actually shoot with it. 

Will that cost me some money?  Of course.  Any product you use for a period of time devalues. 

I probably will not go for the MKIII IF IT IS AVAILABLE until this same time next year because of the sales... So even if it costs me $500 by the time I turn around and sell my MK II, that is about $10 a week.  I actually expect the 5D MK II to hold its value more and really only lose about $300 in the end, so about $6/Week. 

Show me where you can rent a 5D MK II for $6/week. 

It is a HUGE step up of a body for me, and well as I am getting better results NOW rather than a year from now

There will always be cheap shooters for weddings, and in the end, people get what they pay for.  When people sit down an look at wedding albums, the shots that stand out will generally be from the Professional, or that cheap shooter will develop, learn and be charging higher as their skills and reputation develop.  Absent the cheap shooter, there will always be cousins, friends, brothers, sisters, and others with camera who will take their place, so just because the $100 amateur is not there does not mean there would not be a photography student or other similar learner who is showing skill.  Some of it is supply and demand, but a lot of it is a person only has so much to spend, and you never were in the running regardless.

Someone previously said they had lost a client due to another person undercutting them.  In all likelihood that was true; but there is also the possibility that when they saw what that person was charging, they realized that there was no way they'd be able to swing that much.  Enter Shooter B and his bargain basement price.  They figure, "okay, maybe we can talk the really good guy down a bit since we still prefer his work."  No luck with that, so they end up going with Shooter B.  So even if Shooter B never existed, our friend here on the forum never had a chance at that job to begin with.  Not because someone cheaper existed or because they were "overcharging", but because the potential client just didn't have the budget for that level of service.

EXACTLY.  Near where I live there is a Kia dealer right next to a BMW dealer.  On the lower end maybe some of the BMW 128 drivers go cheap with a Kia sedan, especially when it comes to service costs, but would the person in the market for a 7 or 8 series run next door and say, Hmmmm I can get the BMW 750li for $107K or a Kia Forte for $25K.

I don't hear BMW yelling, "Hey KIA IS SELLING CAR CHEAP"  They are undercutting our business!

It is an exaggeration, but again, the Kia buyer really never is in the market for a BMW 750li Lottery Winning aside.

There will be many many many familys who simply will not pay more than a few hundred dollars for a wedding photographer, because in the end, their experience may be you look at the pics for a year or so, then they sit on the shelf...

Especially with divorce rates so high... 

My big wedding picture is currently in the attic waiting for a more suitable picture to reuse the nice frame. 

How many people are on their second marriage?  You think the "glimmer" has worn off just slightly on the idea.

I think there are actually more single people than married people now, and while memories are important, many many people are gun shy.

Also look at it this way... Would you rather work for someone who likes your work, likes your price, or someone who is stretching their dollar and hoping to squeeze more or add more out of you in the end to make it pay off. 

If someone only thinks shooting a wedding is worth $100 do you think you will up sell a lot of pics?  Do you think they are going to be easy clients to work with or difficult?

I understand the larger point of the perception that the amateur devalues the field, but I think it also saves you a lot of headaches in the end. 

How long does it take to field phone calls, discuss packages, etc.?  What if all the people who just wanted cheaper shots had no options and were spending time with you trying to figure out how they can get you to shoot for $250 or $300???

I have been away from sales for a LONG LONG time, but one of the first lessons I learned, especially when doing say presentations, was to only do so when a decision maker was in the room.  Ultimately you will have to present to them most of the time anyway, and presenting to underlings without signing authority most often was just a practice presentation.  It costs time and money to do a sales pitch, field phone calls, etc, especially when they were never in a ball park price wise.

You can look at it under-cutting your business, but I look at it as also saving you a great deal of time. 

I think there are more of these people who go with the $100 Guy with a good camera for a wedding that never really could come near to your price.

Do you consider a big night on the town a meal at Morton's or TGIFs? 

Ever have a client you gave a bit of a deal to?  Ever find that sometimes those are the ones you bust your a$$ the most for? 

Just a different perspective.

On the side I buy and sell high end designer fashions.  Have done well with it.  Have great customers who pay more than I expect sometimes, and even worries me because I find it is more than what I perceive the value to be, but more times than not, those are the happiest customers.  I also run into a TON of tire kickers, who only want to pay me half or less of what I consider the floor price to be.  They are persistent.  They can also be the biggest pain in the neck to me in terms of "minute details or issues"  I have more issues with someone who got a $100 items from me down to $75 in terms of grief or complaints, than someone I sold a $2000 item in my eyes for over $4000. 

I have also run into those who expect the finest and are seriously demanding, but when it comes to expectations and delivery, when someone steps out of their comfort range and pays more for an item or service than they are comfortable with, they tend to holler and scream the most. 

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 23