February 01, 2015, 04:50:44 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 - shunsai

Pages: 1 [2] 3
Canon General / Re: How well do you see color?
« on: February 26, 2013, 02:41:53 AM »
    Your score: 11
    Gender: Male
    Age range: 30-39
    Best score for your gender and age range: 0
    Highest score for your gender and age range: 1520

Not sure how to interpret that...  ???

Canon General / Re: What's your definition of "Pro"?
« on: February 11, 2013, 11:00:24 AM »
I'm really impressed with the depth, insight and humor of some of these answers!

My definition of the difference between an amateur and pro has always been...

(Honestly though, I kind of prefer some of the other definitions.)


This pretty much sums up how I feel. I'm getting a kick out of reading this thread and the wide variety of responses! I still have my own ideas, but they're not so concrete as some of the ones here. Still giving me a lot to think about.  :D I'm starting to think that for many people here, it doesn't have to be "either" "or"... for some of you, you can very well be- BOTH!

Canon General / Re: What's your definition of "Pro"?
« on: February 07, 2013, 11:11:11 PM »
So many good and thoughtful replies! Thank you.
It's really not such a straightforward question, huh? The responses have given me a lot to think about.

Generally, I don't like the question when asked. I have ideas how I think about the term 'professional', but I can never be sure what people mean when they ask.

As for the answers you all have given, is that generally how you respond to others when asked? I mean, I don't imagine most people who ask are looking for a dissertation or our life stories on what it means to be a "pro". What are your default answers when asked?

I don't remember what I say, but it's probably something along the lines of: 'I do some paid jobs, but mostly photography is my hobby.' That's probably as succinctly as I'm willing to put it, short of "No".

Canon General / What's your definition of "Pro"?
« on: February 06, 2013, 11:48:14 PM »
I'm curious. What does it mean to be a professional photographer?

I don't exactly consider myself a pro, but I'm not a fan of referring to photography as just my "hobby".
I've invested quite a bit of money (for me) in photography equipment- bodies, lenses, strobes and other studio equipment. But I know the gear I have doesn't make me a professional.

I'm not super technical in my photography, but I consider myself knowing more than just the basics. I spent 5 years working as an assistant at a photography studio. I learned a lot and got some great experience. I also spent those 5 years in the back room retouching and post-producing photos. I consider myself technically intermediate and enjoy learning and trying new techniques from others.

I don't make my living off of my photography, but occasionally I will do small paid jobs.

I consider myself an amateur- not in the sense that I'm new or inexperienced, but in the sense that for now, I do photography because I love it.

So what exactly does it mean to be professional in your opinion? We know it's not the gear alone. Is it the making money off of your skill? Paid jobs? Making a living? Is it simply having skill and experience? What do you all think?

Lenses / Re: Tokina AT-X 16-28mm F2.8 vs. Canon EF 17-40mm F4
« on: February 06, 2013, 09:01:23 PM »
I bought the Tokina 16-28mm about a month ago and I love it!
I'm no expert on UWA photography, but I'm having fun trying to get the hang of it.
My first impressions have been that it's very sharp, good color, low distortion, and affordable. A fantastic lens!

There were instances where I had some flare when the light source was directly in the picture, but it didn't strike me as a major issue or big detractor from the overall quality of this lens.

Here are a couple I took recently.

Canon General / Re: Canon Experience Stores Coming Soon [CR3]
« on: January 11, 2013, 08:39:14 AM »
This is cool to hear, since we have these already in Japan, albeit Nagoya and Tokyo are the only ones I know of.  It's pretty cool that they have classes there and it is a great chance to try out all their lenses to get a feel for something you are about to plop down $2000 on. 

The one near me offers free intro classes on how to use the 650D, Macro, Portraits (need to bring a girl with you), and kids photography (must supply own child).

I don't think you can buy anything at the one we have in Nagoya.  I don't think I've even seen a cash register.

Here in Osaka too! Just opposite the experience store is the Canon repair center.  Pretty nice setup.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: The 5D Mark II & 5D Mark III Get Cheaper
« on: October 29, 2012, 04:33:02 AM »
I'll add my 2 cents:

I'm glad the price is dropping, but it sucks for me and sucks for Canon. I bought a 5D2 for 160,000 yen (let's just call it $1800) a couple months ago.

It's a great camera I'm sure, but it hasn't blown me away. Admittedly, I haven't fully adjusted to full-frame yet and really broken this camera in. While I got a good deal on the camera, had the 5D3 been priced then what it is now, Canon would've made almost twice as much money off me. Too late now. Their loss. My loss. >:(

I don't really care who wants to defend it- $3500 was a ridiculous asking price.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5DIII custom file names ?
« on: July 24, 2012, 11:43:01 PM »
Dunno if it's different in 5D3, but I believe that first _ is an indication that you're using Adobe RGB for your color space. sRGB keeps the first letter as is. At least with my cameras...

I have a T2i and I'm pondering going 7D or FF all the way to a 5Dmk3. The one thing I've been enjoying on my crop 1.6x is the extra reach in my lenses and I haven't seen that brought up at all here (unless I missed a post?). That is something that I will lose on the long end, but then I will gain wide angle on the short. I have a 24-70L and love it, but its not wide enough...however I have that extra reach at 112mm. Anyone that has converted from crop to FF, do you miss that extra reach?

Newly converted (as of yesterday), so a bit too early to say. But my first impressions are that I do miss the extra reach just a bit. I'm not quite sure why. But it is nice not having to multiply by 1.6 to figure out what the equivalent range is. A Canon full frame with a crop mode would be nice.

I have a 60D and I just got a 5D Mark II yesterday.  With only 15 minutes of shots of birds and flowers with the 5D, I can immediately tell a difference in the images.  With the 5D, the light rolloff is smoother, the depth of field is more isolating and almost three-dimensional, and the shots are more enticing to look at.  This probably sounds excessively flowery, but it's difficult to describe the differences unless you shoot with both full-frame and crop.  If the 60D shots look good, the 5D shots look great. 

Thanks for your impressions. Actually, your description sounds spot on. I actually went ahead and picked up a 5D Mark II last night as well. Since it was already dark by the time I got back home, I didn't get much of a chance to test it out, but what you say about smoother light roll-off, and what others have said about the brightness of the viewfinder I've found to be true.

Actually, I feel I got a pretty good deal here in Japan. A brand new Mark II is selling for 162,000 yen (at today's exchange rate it works out to about $2000 USD; but I still prefer thinking of it as a 1:100 ratio, ie. $1620). The 5D Mark III just isn't what I want for the price I want. So to answer the question posed in the title of this thread: Nope, not for me.

I don't know if I will go back to APS-C and get the Rebel T4i at this point. But with the rumors of 4 more DSLRs on the way this year, maybe there will be a genuine successor to the Mark II, both in capabilities and price. But for now, I'll try to get the hang of my new camera and find out it's limits for myself. Hopefully, by the time I do, I'll have more options to upgrade to.

Thanks again for all your helpful thoughts and insights!

If you would like to see the 5D3 performance in low light look at this gallery. It was shot at a Nissan Launch under very poor lighting (basically street lighting) most of the pictures are shot at ISO5000 and up. While they are less than optimal for Weddings and more discerning uses, they are OK for photo journalism etc. There were 5 other photographers there and all of them were using flash, none of these pictures used a flash.

Wow, I have to say I'm pretty impressed! They look really good for ISO5000 and no flash, albeit I'm looking at downsized photos.

AF on 5D2 is really NOT good.  The new AF on T4i is even better than AF on 5D2.  I think T2i might be even better than 5D2.  However, what's the subject you shoot most?  Do you need a good AF system?
You buy 5D2 for benefits from FF.
You buy 5D3 for better AF system.

my 2 cents

Your 2 cents is much appreciated.  I mostly shoot landscapes and portaits, but I have been doing the odd wedding here and there. I'm sure improved autofocus would be very useful in wedding photography, but I'm not sure I'm at that point yet.

Although they're both dated cameras now, I would be curious to find out how the autofocus of the Mark II compares to that of the Rebel XTi. I can tell the XTi's isn't great, but for what I shoot, I haven't really had any complaints. I think if the Mark II was even marginally better than the XTi I might be okay with it.

I think what I was looking forward to most in the release of the Mark III was improved video capabilities and improved autofocus. Autofocus is said to be greatly improved, but since I haven't used a Mark II extensively, I have no real frame of reference on its improvement. My biggest worry in getting the  5D Mark II is that I might soon come to understand why so many people complained about it's autofocus. But I'm hopeful that since I'm coming from a Rebel XTi, that even the Mark II will be a significant improvement.

With video, while I don't use it very much, I think I was most looking forward to RAW video output and video autofocus in the release of the Mark III. While I've read that there were some improvements, neither of the specific ones I was looking for were incorporated, so the right decision for me still isn't so clear cut.

I'm wondering if the autofocus of the Mark II is really as bad as I've heard. And even if it is, it's still a big step up from my Rebel, right?

These are some really good and useful replies! Thanks so much.

I'm starting to form my conclusions and am leaning towards the 5D Mark II + Rebel 4Ti combo. There's a good chance I'll take the full frame plunge before the end of this week. I'm still eager to hear more input. Thanks for all the good input so far!

When he still used Canons, Ole Liodden once wrote on his blog about people using different cameras on some of his Arctic/Antarctic trips. He didn't mention Rebels, but he did say that he'd had a number of clients using 40D's and 5D MkII's, that had failed due to the weather conditions, yet the 7D (and of course the 1D's) kept on working. The build quality and sealing of the 5D MkIII is supposed to be the same as the 7D, so if you are in less than prime weather conditions, then it could be the cost of getting the shot or not. If you're a hobbyist, then it may not matter, unless you're on the trip of a lifetime, but you can imagine the cost to a pro who is trying to earn a living. Reputations are easily lost and difficult to regain. So basically, whether it is worth four times the cost is as much down to your circumstances as the needs for the type of photography.

I mostly use my camera for travel photography. The most extreme climate I've taken it through was a glacier hike in Argentina where it was freezing cold, and lots of drizzle and light rain. It held up pretty well for a camera that's not weather-sealed or anything. Other than that though, I use it for studio portraits, weddings or in moderate outdoor climates. Nothing too extreme.

I am contemplating a trip to a few African countries by the end of the year, but weather-sealing is not a major concern for me. I've missed shots before, but not so much because of climate as much as autofocus and ISO limitations. That's something for me to think about. Thanks for your thoughts!

Pages: 1 [2] 3