April 17, 2014, 06:57:47 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 - preppyak

Pages: 1 ... 42 43 [44] 45 46 ... 49
Apple might think it can tell me how I'm going to edit, but it can't tell my clients.
Yeah...they're going to lose the higher end pro market. But, that seems to be the way Apple was going; especially with rumors the Mac Pro may not continue on

Any particular reasons why?

From what I read, FCPX now has all the features people were complaining it didn't have upon release.
Get FCP X. It's basically designed just for the prosumer market, though they have finally gotten in some of the key components (multi-cam, etc). The interfaces are nice, and unless you have specific experience in FCP 7 or Adobe, you won't notice anything that throws you.

FCP X was a huge marketing mistake for Apple; they pulled the rug out of a lot of users whose lives depended on FCP7 features. Had they done from the start what they eventually decided on (allowing new FCP7 licenses while improving X to its level), you'd have a lot less people angry with it.

I was one of the people that swore off X and said I'd go to Adobe once I had to...just because Apple handled it so poorly. This past week at work, we bought 3 licenses of X for the price of one Adobe license, and I have no regrets with it so far.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Leica M10 HD video @ photokina...
« on: May 11, 2012, 03:25:17 PM »
It's definitely not necessary, but on the other hand: It's just a software feature, so why not?
As long as they don't compromise on the typical Leica qualities, I would be okay with it.
Well, cause once you start, you keep going down that path. People are going to want it improved, which means more R&D time not spent on the camera and stills. Look at what Canon found out with the 5dII; now they are making a whole line of Cine cameras they probably never imagined 5 years ago. Can you imagine Canon ever selling a camera without video? Or for that matter, the video not having any upgrades between models? Look at how much stills guys bitch about video upgrades in their $3k camera...can you imagine a line where you have $15k+ invested in it?

If I was investing that much in a system, I'd probably be mad if they started spending time working on a half-cooked video solution. And I'd be madder if they spent a lot of time working on a good one. Especially since video isn't gonna drop the price of the camera significantly

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Leica M10 HD video @ photokina...
« on: May 11, 2012, 12:51:31 PM »
All this could make for some interesting video functionality.
Except the people who could afford that package would just put their PL mount cine lenses on a Canon C-EOS body and get actual video features (focus peaking, ND filters, etc). At that price point, you're pulling focus and working with rigs anyway, so camera size isn't a big issue when the form factor is already smaller than film cameras.

If it was competing with the 5DIII, it might be an interesting alternative. But it's not, it's competing with actual video cameras (FS700, Red Scarlett, etc); video alone isn't gonna bring them more buyers.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: New camera...shooting macros
« on: May 10, 2012, 09:48:26 PM »
The flower pic posted by neuroanatomist is the type of shot that my wife likes taking.  Bear in mind that we're upgrading from an old SX100 point and shoot, so I imagine that pretty much anything is going to be a huge upgrade.
Cool, then you'll be fine with pretty much whatever you get for yourself. Actually, she may find herself liking the 50mm lens the most, because she'll be able to blur the non-flower parts out for cool shots.

As for the lens stuff, consider this comparison between 15mm and 24mm. One allows you to include a lot more in the frame.

That said, you'd potentially find the 15-85 frustrating for portraits, since it can only do f/5.6 in the long end where you'd use it. You'd have to decide if its worth losing the wide angle to get some light back and a little more reach (24-105), or if you'd sacrifice some reach for better low-light and depth of field (17-55).

If you're just coming from a point-and-shoot, another option is the 18-135...cheaper investment and very flexible while you learn the camera. Then when you realize you shoot certain focal lengths, you can invest in those zooms or primes. But, it's definitely not as nice a lens as the other 3 options.

Hope that helps

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: New camera...shooting macros
« on: May 10, 2012, 04:56:21 PM »
A potential thought. Rather than getting the 24-105 (though an excellent lens), it would seem that something like the 15-85 lens would suit what you do better than the 24-105 (gives you a MUCH wider field of view for landscapes), and the money you save could go towards a macro lens. The added benefit would be that a macro lens (Tamron 90mm, Canon 100mm USM, EF-S 60mm, etc) could also become your 2nd prime for portraits along with the 50mm lens.

Having gone the macro tube route, and now owning a macro lens, there's no substitute for the real thing. Id imagine you could find a lens combo that fits both your needs, and I'm not sure the 24-105 is that.

edit: It also depends on what you mean by "likes taking pictures of flowers". If you mean she likes taking snapshots of them, then a lens with .25x magnification will be fine. Some cropping and you'll get a bunch of good photos. If she's committed to flowers like birders are to birds or bug people are to bugs, then anything less than a macro lens would disappoint, because it won't capture the important details that make it cool

Canon General / Re: I have a question about wedding photography
« on: May 10, 2012, 10:10:43 AM »
Ordinarily they don't do this however it seems a tactful way of saying they don't like their photos
At the moment they're just too plastic-looking for my tastes.
I agree with these sentiments, and I'd venture a guess that either one of them has some photo knowledge, or they have a friend that does, thus why they'd want the RAW files (to process their own way).
I'd offer to give them the RAW files. Highly unusual but so is your work.
The other option, if you're comfortable with it, is to take the meeting and see what they are looking for specifically. Maybe it's a few simple changes (backing off the highlights, less brushing, etc), and then offering to re-do them in that style. Don't let them sit their for the entire editing, but, give them a few other options for how the photos might be processed.

It could avoid a messy situation, while also not dealing with the awkwardness that would be them sitting in on your entire edit (which would take significantly longer).

Do you have your webpage? Are these a departure from your normal style? Cause that will matter too. If all your other stuff looks the same, I'd be less inclined to change the photos, but, if they aren't what you feature on your site, then they'd have a point.

Lenses / Re: Just out of curiosity
« on: May 09, 2012, 04:36:30 PM »
When a thief finds a camera, does he/she really look closely to see if it has a red ring?
This is a fair point. Walking around with a camera with a big lens on will draw enough attention that a thief will target you regardless of how it looks.

But, it is a good idea potentially for concert/event photography. Security guards know to look for the white lenses and red rings; they might overlook something a little less shiny looking.

Lenses / Re: Canon Refurb Store ... Not Such A Good Deal
« on: May 07, 2012, 04:03:17 PM »
What's really not a good deal is Ebay most of the time. Stupid people don't do their research and then ruin it for the rest of us.  People are always buying used lenses for as much as brand new lenses and with no guarantee of anything. Especially when there is a rebate going on. Drives me crazy! You really have to hunt, and you really have to get lucky to actually get a deal there.
Yeah, Ive taken to marking all the items I want in my watch list, and enter the max price I'm willing to go to with about 10 seconds left to go in the auction. Keeps the other bidders from topping it if you beat their price...and it keeps people away the idiots who bid just above the current high bid like 10 times in a row in small increments, rather than just entering what they'd be willing to pay from the start.

Lenses / Re: Canon Refurb Store ... Not Such A Good Deal
« on: May 07, 2012, 03:59:41 PM »
I too have bought many items thru the refurb store. I did not say the store sucked, or make any negative comments about the store itself.  But to get hammered for pointing out this seemingly isolated issue of interest certainly does not warrant these responses.
Might want to check your title again. It comes off as saying the whole store is not a good deal...not just the one particular item. At least that's how I (and I imagine a few of the others) took it.

The reality is that all the EF-S lenses are overpriced there, and some of the non-L primes are barely deals with 20% off. Same was true of some of the Rebel bodies when they dropped their prices around Xmas.

Lenses / Re: Lesson learnt on flare.
« on: May 07, 2012, 01:41:24 PM »
I think your photos look pretty badass. Would they be better without flare? Maybe, but who knows.
If they were in video form you'd have cinematographers drooling...that's perfect video flare. Personally I like the flare, adds a nice element to the grittiness.
he answer is to just spell it differently - your pictures don't have "flare," they have "flair." ;-)
ha, nice.

Lenses / Re: Canon Refurb Store ... Not Such A Good Deal
« on: May 07, 2012, 01:38:47 PM »
Well, the refurb store is great when they have coupons or if you are doing Canon Loyalty. Within the last month, they have had 15% off and 20% off deals on all those lenses, which has made some of them really great prices. And Canon Loyalty knocks 20% off all the camera bodies, and now you can apparently also get 20% off a lens if you are buying a body.

It's not usually a good deal if you need the lens instantly, but, if you're deal hunting, they are great. Just got my 430ex for <$200 shipped a few weeks back, when its $250+ everywhere else

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Shutter speed during video???
« on: May 07, 2012, 09:00:59 AM »
2. I'd probably start with my 135 lense, and aim for f4.5-5.6. You really want the ISO to be below 1600 for the best look, but i'd go as high as 5200 if I planned on down scaling to 720p. If you find that you can get a lower ISO than 1600, I'd close down to f8 first, then drop ISO as far as it will go. [/url]
I agree with most of this except the ISO part. In video, you want to be working in multiples of 160, as that is the native ISO of the video DSLR's from Canon. So, ISO 160/320/640/800/1600 are your go-to's, and skip every other option. ISO 800 has less noise than ISO 125, for example.


If you need to go lower to get a shot, it seems that all the ones below 1600 are just noisy in general, so go with whatever works. But, for the 100-1000 range, stick in the multiples of 160 for best results.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The 5D Mark III Fix
« on: May 02, 2012, 02:00:01 PM »
My Mark 5DIII is in the mail on the way and you are telling me that I also get two FREE pieces of tape with IT!!! I so have to get ready for this.
They've actually raised the price to 3499.99 to offset the price

And what about the long term as the glue from the tape begins to dissolve and to spill at the electronics? The repair is short-term, but in the the warranty period should not be anything wrong with that, and after the warranty is no longer a problem of the manufacturer, but a buyer.  >:(
You do realize that this tape already exists in other parts of your camera. And that the computer or phone you typed this message on also has a similar type of tape. Especially if it's a Mac. God help you if you try to take apart the newer ones, they have tape everywhere. Oh, and your house/apt. That thing has tape ALL over its wires.

LensRental took about a D7000. Multiple times they mention tape, including parts where the tape shields things


EOS Bodies / Re: Evolution towards video - away from stills?
« on: May 01, 2012, 02:07:03 PM »
Are you serious?  I feel like it's the exact opposite with the 5DIII, the video was only slightly improved but the stills side was improved tremendously.  It really is an amazing still camera, world's better than the 5DII.
I was gonna say the same. The "video improvements" on the 5DIII are basically you have a choice of codecs, and some better low-light handling, but, that is also a stills improvement anyway. On the stills side, you got better everything; AF, fps, low-light, the list goes on. Image quality isn't just a function of the sensor. The camera and lens can be as sharp as they want, with a crap AF system, your IQ sucks cause they are blurry. Likewise with the bump in fps.

And until we actually see the T4i, it's hard to say its just a "video update". Especially since the T3i was basically just a screen update compared to the T1i to T2i shift.

Pages: 1 ... 42 43 [44] 45 46 ... 49