December 18, 2014, 09:26:02 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 ... 37 38 [39] 40 41 ... 54
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: FF advise (mainly stills)
« on: July 05, 2012, 02:57:27 PM »
Looks like someone just discovered memes

Lenses / Re: Owning the Canon 200-400 f/4L Vs 400 f/2.8L II
« on: July 05, 2012, 02:51:01 PM »
Obviously it'll be impossible to say until it gets released (or at least spec'd in full), but the advantages the 200-400 have probably don't counter the 400 2.8. The big advantage of the 200-400 is obviously convenience, you can go from 200 to 560 without changing lenses, and likely with little optical compromise. But, the 400 prime allows you to create an 800 f/5.6 with the extenders you already have.

Both are probably gonna be around the same weight, relatively speaking (8ish lbs). Both are gonna cost about the same. If you're not gonna use the <300 end, then it seems like the 400 prime is the way to go. Especially since you could have it today, rather than wait who knows how long

Lenses / Re: Good, inexpensive zoom lens? Beginner here.
« on: July 03, 2012, 03:40:07 PM »
That's a sharp lens and a third the cost of the 1.4.
Normally I'd agree with that advice, except, we are talking video here. The 50mm f/1.8 is practically useless when it comes to video focusing, unless you are setting focus for interviews and not changing it. The focus ring is awful.

The 40mm will probably be equally annoying, so I agree with the above poster when he mentions getting a lens that has a convenient ring for AF. Whether its primes or a zoom, you'll regret not getting a lens that makes that aspect convenient

get a flash but dont go flashing away over the primary tog you will kill some of his shots, let him shoot then shoot some when hes done
If you read the OP again, sounds like he's shooting solo for the morning, and then the pro is taking over for the ceremony and reception

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Mirrorless Information [CR1]
« on: July 02, 2012, 02:42:37 PM »
True. But, except for body size, my proposal also solves each and every one of the problems mirrorless cameras have, and it solves them in spades.
Right, but size is one of, if not THE, main reason to go mirror less. An NEX and a 17mm pancake weight like 1/3 of your combo, and are < 1/2 the size. If you're lugging that long distances, or have limited space, it becomes a big deal.

It's like someone asking for recommendations for a wide-angle lens and you telling them to get the 85mm f/1.2. Sure, it's a beautiful lens, but, it doesn't meet the needs in any way.

Technical Support / Re: EF-S lens & Mirror Lock-up Questions
« on: July 02, 2012, 02:32:40 PM »
1)   If you buy a EF-S lens… say the EF-S 15-85 lens;  Does the 15-85 mm focal length designation refer to a full frame sensor (so I would really have a wide angle lens of 24-136mm)  or to a cropped sensor thereby having a true 15-85mm lens?
In a way it's both. The focal length of your lens is 15-85mm...if you were to mount it on a full-frame camera, it would have that field of view (though there would be a black area because the image circle isn't large enough). But, when mounted on an APS-C camera, it adds the crop factor, which makes it perform like a 24mm-135mm lens on full-frame.

The focal length of a lens is universal, it's how the camera's sensor handles it that impacts the field of view

there is a good chance you will be taking pictures in a tight space so think about the 17-40 or 16-35. Make sure you have a flash to bounce off the ceiling - and use windows for the catchlight. A dreamy gaze out of a windows is a classic pose that always works
Yep, the most important thing to get would be a flash, as that will do more for you than any lens upgrade. The 430EX will be fine, especially indoors...since you won't be triggering multiple flashes or anything.

Beyond that, it'll depend on the space. In a normal sized room, I found the 50mm to be pretty tight (on APS-C, so that's 80mm on your 5D), useful for only limited shots. It was great for getting tight shots of just the bride, but, that's only a small part of the preparation. You also want shots of the bridesmaids helping, etc, and 50mm was too tight for that

I used my 11-16 and 28mm lenses more (so for you, a 16-35 or even the 24mm primes perhaps). I think a 24mm and 50mm would probably be solid, along with a flash, and then if you need more reach for a specific shot, you use your 24-105L.

Lenses / Re: Good, inexpensive zoom lens? Beginner here.
« on: July 02, 2012, 02:18:56 PM »
I'm going to school for video, so keep that in mind.  Sadly, I can only spend about $500 tops on a lens, since I spent the rest on camera gear.  I wish I could get a 70-200mm  :'(
If you're going to school for video, and you plan on using the camera to shoot your stuff, then I'd spend your money on a few primes rather than on a tele zoom. You'll want something to cover the wider range, and probably something in the more traditional portrait range.

I guess a 17-55 zoom would cover your wide needs; something like the Tamron non-VC, or that Sigma lens. As for the portrait side, something like Canon's 85mm f/1.8, or the Samyang 85mm f/1.4 would cover you. The Samyang lenses are a great value for video use, since you'll be manually focusing anyways. Another option is to use some older lenses (Nikon AI, older Contax/Zeiss, etc) with adapters.

The 18-135 (either the older one or the new STM) would cover general needs, but, you'll find it limiting for video use if you want shallow depth of field. I would avoid impulse buying, you already have one good lens that is useful for getting to know the camera (which is the most important part); you can find out once classes are going what you'll need more of in terms of focal length

EOS Bodies / Re: How much will the 5d3 cost at the end of 2012?
« on: July 02, 2012, 12:09:53 PM »
I said $3,500, as I think that will remain the list price. But, I do expect Canon to offer a rebate of $150-$200 for the holidays. Maybe double the rebate if you buy a lens. So, street price could be a little lower.
Yeah, I have the same feeling, which is why I put $3300. It will still have the technical retail price of $3499, but, you'll see it on Amazon/B+H/etc at $3300ish during the holiday sales.

Definitely don't see it doing a major drop to anything like $3000

Lenses / Re: Patent: Canon EF 35 f/1.4L II
« on: July 02, 2012, 11:43:49 AM »
There isn't much room for improvement on the current version of this lens. Although Canon has been coming out with some lenses lately that are close optical perfection. I would be interested in trying this new lens out!
They might add weather sealing to it, which is one thing its missing in relation to the newer L lenses. But yeah, aside from that and some new coatings, I'm not sure they can drastically improve it in any way.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Mirrorless Information [CR1]
« on: July 02, 2012, 11:33:09 AM »
Not sure I understand the point of having the pancake be larger (with adapter) on a mirrorless than it is on a 5D. But then, I'm sure the aim is to sell the lenses with the new mount.
Well, remember that a 5D would still be twice the size of a likely mirrorless camera, so even if the lens sticks out a little more, its still more portable on the mirrorless camera.

EOS Bodies / Re: Why so many different camera bodies?
« on: June 30, 2012, 08:23:53 PM »
So in your confusion you do not understand that the only current production models are the 1D X, 5D III, 7D (again differ5ent price points / markets), 60D, T4i / 650D and T3/ 1100D; the rest are onsolete / out of production just like a 1964 Mustang
Well, according to the dealer logs, the T2i, T3i, and 5dII are not out of production/discontinued. While you are correct that there are newer models, Canon keeps some old models in production, and as such you'd have to consider them part of their active line.

The T4i clarifies the Rebel line some...the T2i/T3i being active at the same time definitely confused the hell out of a lot of people. Most of their other products differentiate from each other enough to not cause that same confusion. I think a 70D that returns to its 50D like form could create confusion with the 7D (since they'd likely be pretty similar).

EOS Bodies / Re: Is SLR dead?
« on: June 30, 2012, 08:12:52 PM »
The DSLR market as it is today really doesnt depend on the average Joe if you ask me, the average Joe was happy with his compact and is now probabley happy with his camera phone so never bothered with a DSLR in the first place.
Go to any major vacation destination and it will blow your mind how wrong you are. There are usually as many, if not more, users with a DSLR than there are with a compact camera. And its only going to be more true as people aren't gonna supplement their iPhone with a P+S camera, they'll supplement it with a m4/3 camera or a DSLR. Now, many of them are wasting the potential of a DSLR, by putting a super-zoom on the front, never learning settings, and using it like a P+S; but without those users, DSLR's would cost 2-3x what they do.

Canon would never had considered things like a touch-screen if they didn't care what the average joe was used to.
Canon should also make a 30mm f2.8 EF-S for the Rebel. That will really make the Rebel close to the size of some  "interchangeable lens mirrorless".  Both will have much better Ergonomics than any mirrorless.
Even then, the body of those mirrorless cameras are still half the size of a rebel. An NEX with a pancake lens can fit in your jacket pocket; a T4i with the 40mm probably can't, at least not conveniently.

It makes it smaller, which is nice, but the very nature of the EF mount means that Canon's DSLRs aren't gonna match the small size of a mirrorless. But, as you pointed out, ergonomics are the trade-off for having a small camera

That was one of the known complaints with Tamron's VC. I think it was the 17-50 lens of theirs where it was the worst; to the point that it would make most of your images soft because the VC would take too long to kick in. My 70-300 had the issue a little bit, but I never expected to instantly snap pictures if my camera had been at my side for a while anyway.

I'd definitely return it and get another copy; it might be less of an issue then

The other thing I'd say on those photos is that a flash would help to keep their faces from being in the shadows. More specifically in shot 3, because she's already in the shade, a flash would brighten up her face and make it the focal point of the image. It would also make her stand apart more from the background, giving the image a more 3-dimensional feel. Image 4 is tougher to tell if it would help, but it might.

Pages: 1 ... 37 38 [39] 40 41 ... 54