Messages

166

EOS Bodies / Re: How often do you shoot video with your DSLR?

« on: December 21, 2011, 05:15:26 PM »

I shoot probably 98% stills and 2% video. 

I was just at my kids' school Christmas concert last week and I got the stills I wanted to right off the hop when my kids were on stage and then switched to video to capture the action and singing.  While I rarely use the video function, I'm happy to have it there as an option, just for such occasions.

167

Software & Accessories / Re: PC or MAC

« on: December 21, 2011, 04:20:10 PM »

Depends on your level of computer knowledge. 

If you have basic knowledge or better get a PC, if you are a technophobe or you can't figure out how to use a TV remote control, MAC is a good option. 

Another consideration is, what are your friends using, if they are using MAC, probably best to get a MAC, that way you can ask them questions get help, if they are using PCs, get a PC for the same reason. 

As far as MACs and PCs go these days they both work perfectly fine.  The horrible days of Windows and their blue screens of death are long left in the 90s.  Windows 7 works just fine and when it comes to using PS or LR on either MAC or PC, they perform the same on both machines. 

If you travel a lot, you could look at the MacBook Air they're small and sleek, or on the PC end, I've used Dell computers for 15 years and never had problems with their machines, their laptop XPS Z series (14"/15") are small and sleek as well. 

Fact is Apple's are trendy, they look nice, and all the cool kids have them, but being cool comes at a price, as other have said you will easily pay 25-35% more for the same hardware components when you buy a computer with an apple on it.  For example, I bought a new laptop a few months ago from Dell for $2200 and I looked at the comparable MacBook Pro with the same processor, hard drive, video card, and with half of the RAM of the machine I bought and it was $2900 from Apple.

Regardless if you get a PC or a MAC, don't get a 17" laptop if you travel, I have one and it is a squeeze to use on good sized planes let alone on some of the flying buses I've been on.

168

EOS Bodies / Re: Do I need a better camera or a better pair of hands?

« on: December 21, 2011, 02:10:44 PM »

I like your pictures! 

#1 I like the natural framing and the reds mixed with the white. 

#2 the colours are so rich and vibrant, with the window light and the bride looking off.  If the photo was mine I'd consider cropping the image off on the left at the window frame, as I don't think the image loses anything and it draws more attention to the bride.

#3 I like it and the DOF, there could be a little more breathing room in the image, but whatever each to their own, I'd be more than happy as is. 

#4 Yes it's over saturated, but that works well with the playfulness of the image.  Obviously, not all your pictures are going to look like that, but for a fun shot, that looks great.  Only one small critique of #4, be wary of trees and poles growing out of heads, unless done intentionally for artistic or humour effect.

Having said that there is certainly nothing wrong with the other guy's pictures, just a slightly different style, although I agree they may be a little too blue.

As for getting a full frame, I hear you.  I'm presently saving my pennies to buy a FF for the improved DOF, ISO, and tonal range it offers over my crop sensor.  Not to mention my 70-200 2.8 at the 70 end is sometimes just a little too tight on my crop sensor when I shoot hockey and having the larger FF sensor would eliminate 99% of this problem.

169

EOS Bodies / Re: any flaws in the canon 60d?

« on: December 19, 2011, 12:29:46 PM »

I have no complaints about my 60D and I've never had any focus issues with my Canon glass for it.  Unless you specifically want to shoot sports (7D), I'd save the money and go with the 60D, the money you save can be put towards good glass.

170

Lenses / Re: All round lenses

« on: December 19, 2011, 11:54:37 AM »

I have a 60D and out of the lenses you are looking at I have the 10-22, 70-200 (2.8 IS II), and a 50 1.4.  When I'm going on vacation and interested in capturing landscapes the first lens I pack is the 10-22.  It's great for landscapes and also for indoor shots of buildings/ceilings/tight spaces.  For portraits you can't go wrong with the 50 1.4, since I see you are new to dslr, make sure you practice with it before you go to make sure you get used to working with a shallow DOF, that lens wide open a couple of inches either way can make a big difference.  If you can get all three, I heard the optics of the 70-200 F4 come close to the 70-200 2.8 IS II, which is saying a lot and for a lot less $$$.  If you are mainly going to be shooting outside in good light and don't need the IS, the 70-200 F4 is a good choice.  However, I recently went on vacation in the Caribbean and I left my 70-200 behind at home and didn't miss it.  My choices in order to get for a trip would be the 10-22, then 50, then 70-200.  My comments are in respect to your second choice, as I'm assuming you'll either keep your kit lens or upgrade a 17-55 or 15-85.

171

Landscape / Re: Snow in artificial light

« on: December 16, 2011, 12:18:55 PM »

I disagree--in my eyes the 3rd photo is head and shoulders above the previous 2.

I agree completely.

172

Lenses / Re: Which telephoto lens has the fastest AF

« on: December 13, 2011, 03:20:29 PM »

I concur about the 70-200 2.8, the first thing I noticed when I bought it was it's focus speed in AI Servo.

173

Lenses / Re: 4 lens conundrum - could use some help

« on: December 13, 2011, 03:14:54 PM »

I have a 60D and love my 50 1.4 on it for taking portraits of my kids.  I tried the 1.8, but if a couple of hundred dollars isn't a big factor to you, I like the bokeh better and how it focuses with the USM vs. the 1.8.  This lens should serve you well into the future.  I also recommend the 430 or 580 flash with a diffuser and off camera cord, so not all of your pictures look like front on flash.  When you are done buying these items, start a savings account, you still have lots of time for when your child starts playing sports...that's what lead to my purchase of a 70-200 2.8. IS II....a lens I now love for everything from sports to portraits to everything.

174

Lenses / Re: EF 35 f/1.4L II & EF 24-70 f/2.8L II on January 3, 2012? [CR2]

« on: December 10, 2011, 06:37:48 PM »

I was gung ho to buy the 24-70 in October until I read the rumours about the Mk II being release soonish.  I'm not in a big rush, so I can wait, but none the less it would be nice to have the 2.8 with the IS.  I like to hand hold in marginal conditions a lot it seems and I've been very impressed with the results of my 70-200 2.8 IS.