September 16, 2014, 01:00:50 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 - brianleighty

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 18
166
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: What to charge for wedding photography?
« on: September 14, 2012, 07:22:34 AM »
Just thought I'd give my experience with doing weddings. We started out with doing weddings with friends or people we know. Instead of really charging for them I basically had them cover the cost of equipment rentals (around $250). We've had a couple that we went a little over that and made a little profit. We've now shifted up to around $750. There was a mix up with this last wedding so we ended up doing it for $600 by accident but it's all good. We got some great pictures and it's really going to improve our portfolio a lot. For us starting out, that's the biggest thing I'm looking for is what's going to improve our portfolio. We're finally to the place where I feel we have enough work to get in the $1250-$1500 range which is pretty much where I think we need to be for the amount time it takes. We currently are telling clients if they put down a deposit before the end of the year it's the $750 but it's going up next year. I know we under price ourselves but I'm not doing this as a permanent rate and we've really been able to bless some people out that wouldn't have been able to afford anything or (shutter) some of those people that really shouldn't be doing a wedding with the gear they've got. Anyways, so that's our take.

Regarding people mentioning not getting the 5D Mark ii, I understand where they're coming from and I'm already wanting to try out the mark iii at a wedding next year but honestly I was blown away by the increase in quality going full frame. I shoot at ISO 800 on my 50D but on the 5D most inside stuff is shot around ISO 3200 which really gives me a lot more freedom. Not only that but I rented the Sigma 85 1.4 and found it to be way too long on the crop body but on the full frame it's more manageable. My thought is either rent nicer gear for the time being or invest in glass.  The Mark ii can be an excellent deal for what it is if you can find a good deal. I got mine for $2400 with the 24-105.  The Mark iii has been coming down in price and you'd be better off putting that money towards some nice glass for the time being.I actually haven't even tried it but the 35 1.4 springs to mind as it would work very well on your current crop bodies, it's on my list of lenses to rent, and once you go full frame it'll be awesome there as well. I use the 35 2.0 currently and it does well on a crop body so I'm sure the 1.4 is that much better. I know you didn't ask about equipment but since others chimed in, I thought I'd give my opinion on their opinions  :P

Sorry for the poor quality (was taken off of our Facebook account), but this is an example of a shot I don't feel would have been that great if it wasn't for being on a full frame and having a nice prime. You're work is an excellent example of not needing high end equipment to get some nice creative shots but that's inherent in your work and so nicer glass/ff will give you even more creative freedom

167
EOS Bodies / Re: 6D and crop feature
« on: September 13, 2012, 09:08:29 PM »
In camera cropping would be usefull if it came with a boost in FPS
Good point. Hadn't thought about that. But then again I never shoot anything but raw. Speed is definitely not a huge concern to me.

168
EOS Bodies / Re: 6D and crop feature
« on: September 13, 2012, 05:52:19 PM »
I saw that the Nikon D600 has a crop feature where you can move down to 10MP and get the extra reach offered by an APS-C camera.

Is it possible the 6D could be a 7D replacement that matches or exceeds the current 7D in crop mode, but also provides for a full frame mode?

I would like to stay with APS-C primarily as I do a lot of sports and wildlife photography but I would love to have FF where speed and reach or not required.

Is this too much to ask? There are some great deals on the 7D right now but I feel reluctant to pull the trigger, mainly because it's low light performance isn't that much greater than a Rebel. If I didn't have a Rebel, then buying the current 7D would be a no brainer, but as I have a Rebel there is still a significant premium to upgrade to the 7D when you factor in the low resale value of the Rebel.

It seems the only real advantages of the current 7D over the latest Rebel is the FPS and the focus system, but even there the latest Rebel has closed the gap.

I think the main reason Nikon is doing that if I understand correctly is their system can use DX lenses (the equivalent of EF-S) while Canon can't use EF-S on its full frame cameras. This could be totally wrong but I think I'm right here. It makes sense on Nikon since with a crop lens all your going to see is black or very heavy vignetting in the other area so it's a value added feature where as on Canon it just complicates things and if you really wanted that then they could offer a feature to crop the picture in camera but not while being shot. I'm curious how you know how the shot is going to be framed in that case as well through an optical view finder.

169
I've noticed several people mention the 6D having 2 card slots. I think this is DEFINITELY a feature that will be missing. It's an easy way to differentiate between it and the Mark iii plus if it's really trying to get the entry level ff market then most people upgrading will only be used to one slot while those that are using it for a 2nd body will realize that's the cost of saving some money or if it's really important to them then they'll go get a 5d mark iii.

170
$2100 is low enough to pressure Canon to release the 6D more quickly, but not enough to drop the price on the 5D2.  I'm on the fence right now without a camera, looking for the best FF I can get for under $1500.  The pipe dream of a $1500 D600 is gone, so I'm hoping (but not expecting) that a discontinued/refurbished 5D2 or D700 will pop up around that price by Black Friday/Christmastime.  However, the D700 sold out so quickly at $2000 that I think it'll be a long wait.  I may just have to return to the old 5D.
If you're willing to get a kit and sell the 24-105 for around $800 then you can have something pretty close to that. I got a 5D mark ii for $2400 with the 24-105. I said was going to sell the lens to my wife and then I just ended up keeping it :)

171
Software & Accessories / Re: Canon Direct Instock Alert Tool
« on: September 11, 2012, 10:13:56 AM »
Just thought I'd give another update. The Canon 70-200 IS L II Refurbished came back in stock last night. Once again my script sent me the email 1 minute earlier. What's even more interesting is I had the product setup for an alert on my other email account as well for Canon. The first one came at 2:45 but the other account didn't get the email until 3:01. Yikes! Canon's server sure must be slow for it to take that long. Either that or they must have a huge number of people using the notify tool.

172
Technical Support / Re: Removing Vignetting On 3rd Party Lenses
« on: September 11, 2012, 10:04:12 AM »
There are sliders for all of those, and for white balance there is an eyedropper tool which you can use to select a white or grey reference and it'll figure out the WB and temp for you.  Also there are auto white balance and auto tone tools, but I haven't played with those.  I regard LR as essential.

Jim

Yes, my main issue with LR has been the white balance and look of the pictures is never as nice looking for me as DPP. I downloaded a trial of LR after DPP crashed on me that time though and noticed if I changed some tab from 2010 to 2012 or something like that the colors and white balance were much closer to what I get in DPP so I guess I'll have to decide if it's worth switching over or not. I think I've gotten a little too accustomed to DPP but if it ends up crashing on me again then I might make the switch.

173
Lenses / Re: 40 2.8 with extension tubes
« on: September 11, 2012, 09:15:53 AM »
@Brian, I see that you have a 50 f1.8. I also have one and have used it with the Kenko extension tubes with good results. If have the $ I would say just buy the set of tubes from Kenko (about $200). If you are going to rent I would recommend going with a 12mm tube if you are shooting wedding ring macros. Hope this helps. Good luck.

Thanks everyone. I'm renting 40 2.8 again and the Kenko extension tubes. We'll see how we go. @Mt Spokane, I have contemplated using a 1.4 TC or close up lens with the 70-200 IS II but decided to go this way based on some back and forth with Roger over at Lensrentals.

174
Technical Support / Re: Removing Vignetting On 3rd Party Lenses
« on: September 11, 2012, 09:07:31 AM »
You can do this in light room in bulk, look for some tutorials to show you

I agree on LR4; It can get a bit slow when you have a lot of brushstrokes but for vignetting it is absolute dynamite.  I'll run one through if you want to put up a CR2.

Jim
Crap. I was wondering if that was going to be the answer. Currently I don't have the money for LR. I was pretty upset with DPP a few weeks ago when it crashed on me after an hours worth of work. I'm assuming this means I would just use lightroom for everything, white balance, exposure and color correction as well? Is it in any way automated or a slider or what?

175
Lighting / Re: Direct Flash - How to make it useful?
« on: September 10, 2012, 05:27:37 PM »
I can never get good direct flash, how do you get decent images like the one below.

http://photos.posh24.com/p/737011/z/david_letterman/the_most_memorable_celebrity_quotes_from_2009.jpg

I like off-camera and very competent in that, but direct flash I never could quite grasp it.

Tips?
Without seeing the EXIF data and what sort of like it was taken in you don't know. My guess just looking at it is that's not a full on flash for the light source but more for the dot in the eye and removing some shadows. That's just my guess though.

176
Technical Support / Removing Vignetting On 3rd Party Lenses
« on: September 10, 2012, 04:10:38 PM »
So I use Digital Photo Professional for editing my pictures. I normally don't have to mess with vignetting at all due to most of my lenses either being Canon or they have low enough vignetting that I don't notice it. I just did a wedding with the Sigma 85 1.4 though and when wide open it has a fairly noticeable amount of vignetting that I'd like to try and remove. Is there anyway to do this inside of DPP? If not, what's the best way to go about trying to fix this in something like Photoshop or something else in bulk? Thanks.

177
Lenses / Re: 40 2.8 with extension tubes
« on: September 10, 2012, 01:28:42 PM »
Yeah I rented one this past weekend and it did seem to focus fairly close. Although the 35 2.0 I have is capable of focusing even closer. I'm looking for higher magnification than can be offered by the lens itself. I don't currently have any extension tubes or else I would of done some experimenting with that while I had the lens so sounds like I'm going to try out the 40 again and this time rent some extension tubes as well. Pretty much as expensive as renting a macro this time around but long term if I decide to buy it'll be cheaper and work on all my lenses.

178
Lenses / Re: 40 2.8 with extension tubes
« on: September 10, 2012, 11:51:32 AM »
The 40/2.8 will give a higher max mag due to the higher native mag and shorter focal length.

Sorry, no idea on optical difference though, but I expect the 40/2.8 would give better results.
Thanks, well if I'm renting the 40 and I have the 50, if I have the time I might try taking a couple of shots on both and see which is better. Thanks Neuro.

179
Lenses / Re: 40 2.8 with extension tubes
« on: September 10, 2012, 11:20:57 AM »
The 40/2.8 does great with a 25mm tube, mag is ~0.8x.  IIRC, working distance is ~6-10", can't check exactly as I've loaned out my 25mm tube.
Thanks Neuro I'm assuming the 40 would work much better than the 50 1.8 that I also have stopped down?

180
Lenses / Re: Any Wedding Lens Advice?
« on: September 10, 2012, 10:50:35 AM »
The 70-200 2.8IS ii is a great option. Expensive and heavy but a really awesome lens. One other option that I haven't seen listed in the postings so far is the Sigma 85 1.4. I just rented this for a wedding this weekend and was really happy with it.

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 18