January 31, 2015, 02:41:03 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 - preppyak

Pages: 1 ... 36 37 [38] 39 40 ... 56
Canon General / Re: Insurance for Camera gear
« on: August 13, 2012, 06:09:39 PM »
I've been wondering about this myself, is it possible to insure my gear if I'm not a homeowner?
I'm not a home-owner either, no problems getting the insurance. As another user mentioned, it might be why my rate was a little higher, but, it could also be that I'm in a big city and my gear is a higher risk of being stolen

Canon General / Re: Insurance for Camera gear
« on: August 13, 2012, 04:49:21 PM »
I have State Farm personal articles policy, $7.60 per year per $1000 coverage (apparently less than half the cost of 'save money in 15 minutes or less with Geico' :o ), no deductible, full replacement, worldwide coverage for loss/damage/theft/etc.
Yep, same here, though my rate was slightly higher. I think it was more like $9-10/$1000 insured, but, still dirt cheap for coverage in general. Especially taking my gear in my kayak, I know if my Pelican case leaks or if I drop it, its covered.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 6D in October? [CR1]
« on: August 13, 2012, 02:58:32 PM »
It's unlikely Canon will drop video from any of the dslr bodies - it may appear to be a step backwards to many consumers.
It also likely wouldn't drop the price of the camera, especially a true 5dII successor, since it would have a lot fewer buyers. There was a forum poll a while back, 40% of users wouldn't buy a video-less DSLR at all, and 30% would only buy it if it saved them significantly (30%+) off the price. It was a small sample, maybe 100 people, but, if the video features are even half as popular (so 1/3 of users want them), it means a video-less DSLR has to cost Canon a LOT less to make. Or, they have to charge more for it.

So yeah, I can't see video going away pretty much ever...I can just see Canon not doing much to improve it in their non-cine cameras

Lenses / Re: Landscape Question
« on: August 12, 2012, 10:33:15 PM »
Thanks.  I do notice on landscape shots where I've been f/22, it just doesn't look as sharp as f/11.  Thanks.
Yeah, though, the times where you need to go to f/22 are generally not for reasons of making elements really sharp. For example, I find I only use over f/11 or f/13 if I'm trying to blur water and the scene is kind of bright. Otherwise, it's just as easy to shoot at f/8 with a faster shutter speed and not worry about diffraction. Obviously there exceptions though (night shots, etc)

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Canon PowerShot Pro1X [CR1]
« on: August 10, 2012, 12:43:23 PM »
Canon has too many High-end compact systems already. I doubt this one will amount to anything.
My thoughts exactly. So they'd have a G1x that retails at $800 w a smaller sensor. The eos-m at $800 with the aps-c sensor, the t4i body at 849, and then this in that price range as well? Gonna confuse the hell out of consumers

Lenses / Re: Lens recommendation to replace 18-135mm IS
« on: August 09, 2012, 11:51:51 PM »
The 17-55 looks really good, they only thing really holding me back from that right now is the price. It's about $200-400 CAD more than any of the other options...The 15-85 is the cheapest, then the 17-40, 24-105, then the 17-55.
Yeah. The 15-85 is a nice lens, but, I'm not sure you'd see a big improvement over the 18-135. And since you are working in natural light, the f/2,8 over f/4 can be a big advantage.

Have you looked at the focal ranges you use the most with your current lens? There are programs that show you it, and I think you can find it in Lightroom as well if you use that. That may show that you need the wide end (so 15mm or 17mm), or that you use the middle range more, and thus the 24-105 would be fine. Or, you may find you use 2 or 3 focal length ranges a lot, and a few primes (20-28mm, 50mm) would cover you better since you already have the 100mm

Lenses / Re: EF 20mm f1.8L VS. EF 14-24 f4L
« on: August 09, 2012, 11:46:32 PM »
We definitely need a fast lens that's wider than 24mm. A 20mm f/1.4 would be even better, though I don't like the idea of that being more than $2,000, which I suspect it would be.
A 20mm f/1.8 would definitely be $2k, since the Sigma is $700 and its an optical joke through f/2.8. Generally you can double the 3rd party price, but, here I think it'd be even higher. Going to f/1.4 would be equally brutal price wise.

Lenses / Re: Lens recommendation to replace 18-135mm IS
« on: August 09, 2012, 11:26:43 PM »
Based on what you'd like to shoot, I'd say the 17-55 is a good bet. Between that and the 100L you have a decent range covered for street and people stuff. And the 17 would cover the occasional landscape, where if you really get into it, you'd find yourself wanting wider than any of the lenses mentioned anyway.

If you think you'll move to full-frame in the near future (3-6 months), then the 24-105 would do just as well as the 17-55, since it'd give you more reach, and you won't likely miss the difference between 17 and 24 for street stuff. But, if you're sticking with the 60D for a while, the f/2.8 is better off

Technical Support / Re: General Client Advise Sought
« on: August 09, 2012, 08:31:15 PM »
1. I have been shooting as many as 2100 photos and delivering 1900  photos (copyright released) to the bride. Is this normal, or should I cut it down to the top 10-20% of photos?
3-400 might be "normal", especially for a budget wedding photographer, but 1900 is probably a bit excessive. Especially if you are processing them in anyway. The general process is to deliver every shot that is unique, but to leave out the ones that are obvious duplicates of other shots. Honestly, 1900 photos will overwhelm a client and they'll delete half of them anyway.

2. I know I should be charging more - mother's of the bride have told me so. How does one go about setting pricing vs. quality?
I will strongly suggest doing a lot of reading and lurking here: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/48

Some things to consider. If you are in it for the long run, your pricing is critical. You get more bookings by getting referrals, and moving up in pricing is very, very difficult...especially when you start so low. If you shoot 10 weddings at $399, your next 50 bookings will come from that, and they aren't gonna want to pay $1000 when their friend paid $399. Which means you either become the $399 photographer, or you start from scratch again. It's ok to start cheap to get experience, but, recognize that the longer you shoot in the range, the more you lock yourself into it

Likewise, if you're getting into it for the long haul, don't quit your day job. Full time wedding photography is exceptionally hard to maintain, and there are plenty of photographers, like yourself, who will offer services dirt cheap and undercut you. Here is a great post on that aspect of it. But, you seem like you know its a side thing.

If you enjoy shooting weddings as a side gig, then my suggestion would be to sit down and think finances. If you are shooting 2000+ pictures a wedding, you'll wear out your camera fast, so budget for that. Likewise with lenses, of which you need multiple in case one fails. You need insurance, because if a bride sues you you are screwed...and that's not cheap. Also, you have to be able to store all those images so they are backed up...and have a back-up for that back-up if it fails. Do you have a contract that explains what you offer and controls your clients expectations? Also, you have to actually bring in a little cash for your time, so decide what is truly worth your time in terms of income. You might have all those things accounted for already, but, if not, they add up fast.

What you can charge will depend on your market (big city v small town) and what you are willing to offer. I'd start searching your area for what others are charging, what they offer, and decide from there which market you want to fit.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 6D in October? [CR1]
« on: August 09, 2012, 08:13:22 PM »
I really don't see how you could make a full frame "starter" camera. Remove AF adjustments? Instead of releasing a new camera, why not just sell the 5D MK II for cheap?

Have to agree, the tooling are already in place, perhaps just update the AF?
Thing is, there is a point of diminishing returns there. Canon set up the 5dII to retail at $2700 originally, and then dropped it to $2499 for a while. Now its basically going for $2000 every place, what price would they have to drop it to to compete with a D600? If that price is $1750 or $1500, you have to imagine there is a point where the margins get so thin that they aren't making money. Plus, there's the theory of "newer is better" in the camera world. A 5-yr old design competing with Nikon's newest is not the way to snag new customers.

Plus, if the change the body to more plastic, it can make it cheaper. Likewise, making use of the 5dIII or 1dX sensor condenses that part of production. Right now, they have to actually produce 5dIIs as none of their current line uses any of its features. A frankenstein of current pieces is probably more cost effective.

Basically, they can't sell the 5dII at $2000 for the next 3 years...but a 6D they probably could, even if its only the minor upgrades mentioned

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D: Buy now or wait?
« on: August 09, 2012, 12:55:25 PM »
What about the people that held out for a year or more waiting for a 5d3 and then couldn't afford it, or decided at that price they'd rather invest it other ways like lenses etc.

There are many downsides to waiting for the unknown.
How are those downsides? Those people still could get a 5dII (and $500 cheaper than they would have a year earlier), or, they had a bunch of money saved for great lenses. And they were able to wait because they didn't need the camera. If it affects your business and income, then the decision is easy.

I'd say wait for a few reasons. The first is that something new could be announced that you'll want (6D, 70D, etc). The second is because the 7D is gonna be around for a while, so, its not like you are gonna miss out on it by waiting. Third, the best deals on cameras come in the holiday season. Last year, Canon was doing body/lens combos that were HUGE savings, so waiting til November for the 7D might save you a few hundred bucks.

If you look at the price chart from last year, the body price dropped $200+ from Sept to Dec: http://www.canonpricewatch.com/product/02849/Canon-EOS-7D-price.html

Sports / Re: Olympic Tennis 2012 at Wimbledon
« on: August 08, 2012, 03:23:01 PM »
What kind of shutter speeds were these? doesnt look to sharp from the motion blur :s
The original post says: 1/125 to 1/640. That said, my guess was more that they were cropped, based on the lens and distance. But it could be motion blur.

Either way, cool to get so close to the court and be able to watch. I would have loved to be at the Olympics

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 35 f/1.4L II [CR2]
« on: August 08, 2012, 03:17:43 PM »
I wonder if the price of the new lens will increase the value of mine, or if I should consider selling it before it loses too much value
Well, a few things.

1. The new lens doesn't actually exist. Canon's history for the past year would indicate that by the time they announce the lens, you have a 6ish month waiting period for it to actually arrive at your door, and the possibly return it because something is wrong to get fixed. Even if you avoid the latter part, it's 2013 before you can get it. Which leads to 2:

2. You can use the current 35L and take pictures. That has monetary value, especially if you are a pro who makes money from your camera. Even if you are not, the ability to take quality photos at 35mm doesn't go away cause Canon might release a new version.

3. All lens prices are doubling, not just Canon's. The original 35L is retailing at $1479, which means the new one is probably $2k+. If it's like the 24-70 market, it'll only increase the value of your lens. For example, you paid as much used as what someone would have paid for a new 35L on its release: http://www.canonpricewatch.com/product/00026/Canon-EF-35mm-f1.4L-USM-price.html

All those combine to say that, unless you never use your 35L, you should keep it. And if they end up releasing the new 35L at $1500 and it hurts the value of your current lens, well, consider it a blessing that Canon released the lens you want at a reasonable price

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Product Advisory
« on: August 08, 2012, 12:05:58 PM »
So...putting your lens cap on might cause it to not be able to AF without taking the lens off and on?

Yeah, that's something that shouldn't have made it past QC testing.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to announce medium format dslr?
« on: August 08, 2012, 12:39:09 AM »
However, we'll have four mount - EFs, EF, M and MF. That's a lot of investment in production lines but if Canon can pull off MF it will certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons i.e. Nikon & Sony  :)
Actually, 5 lines as Canon is also making their cine lenses in PL mount...though, it's really a whole production line just to produce those in EF mount anyway.

Pages: 1 ... 36 37 [38] 39 40 ... 56