September 17, 2014, 12:03:34 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 - awinphoto

Pages: 1 ... 116 117 [118] 119 120 ... 133
1756
EOS Bodies / Re: No Finalized 5D Mark III Yet [CR2]
« on: July 29, 2011, 01:31:56 PM »
...doesn't anyone's wish list include a GPS chip for geo-tagging photos or wi-fi or 3G/4G for transferring files?...

I have been waiting for a GPS for quite awhile now. Canon has included the feature in it's point and shoot line (the recent SX230), and I'd be surprised if it isn't found in the 5D mkIII or the new 1D.

To be honest as a working professional, I have never really needed to ever have GPS... I know where I shoot and dont have a need to know EXACTLY where I was... The few iphone photos I have taken have the GPS feature and Iphoto (which i use for my iphone stuff) records that data but I cant recall ever re-looking at the GPS map to find out where this or that photo was taken.  Built in wifi could be interesting if they can make it so it doesn't slow down the camera or make it hack-proof so some nerd down the corner can hack into my camera and take my photos. 

1757
Canon General / Re: Canon CPS Repair
« on: July 29, 2011, 10:24:29 AM »
Most my conversations with Canon CPS and Canon repair facilities are via email, however, the one time when I called in (using the CPS phone number), I had problems with my 7D's multi flash function and the person on the phone got a 7D on her end, went through all the settings with me over the phone so I was seeing pretty much as she was seeing and got it working together.  Usually if i had something I wasn't sure if needed repaired or called, I would email CPS and they would advise me what was best to expedite the situation.  Overall I've been pleased but I cant speak for regular call-ins or regular mail in repairs. 

1758
Canon General / Re: Canon CPS Repair
« on: July 28, 2011, 06:36:25 PM »
I have been pleased with my Canon CPS service and repairs whether it's the free clean and checks (Gold member) or warranty repairs.  I've never had them take more than a day from acceptance to shipping.  Kudo's on Canon for taking care of their CPS members.

1759
Lady, one last thing to ask your school... does their rental department rent strobes or just on camera flashes?  What about C-Stands/light stands?  Sandbags?  Light modifiers?  Diffusion?  Reflectors?  It may help to know which lenses the offer so you can plan accordingly... What about studios or studio equipment such as seamless backdrops and background muslins?  Do they offer  q-flashes and Wireless transmitters and recievers?  Umbrellas and or Softboxes?  This may all seem trivial but it's nice to know so if they dont offer any of these, you know to save up for them.  You may also want to check which flashes they offer?  Do they offer monoblock strobes (wireless) or powerpack (wired).  Stuff like this, if they dont have them, they may seem like small purchases but costs as a student add up and when an assignment pops up that requires such equipment and you need to buy said equipment and you are pinching pennies to pay for food, it is better to know about this before hand. 

1760
They said the 7D is allowed, but that we'll do so much landscape and architecture and portrait shooting that I'll be desperate for a full frame within the first year and that I should probably save up for one now. It's a very competitive school, though. Any person I've met who came out of it was phenomenal. It's a rigorous and unforgiving program and I think they're trying to deter the people who are just "trying out photography for fun" by requiring that you get top notch gear first.

Full frame is required for the 4th quarter (it's a 6 quarter program) because they start some very ultra wide angle stuff. A crop frame would not function. However, by then I would hope that I have a full frame camera.

Well Good luck with your schooling and as I mentioned in one of my first replies.. make sure your fiancee is fully on board with the costs of photography... Money and budgets could be a detriment to young marriages and it took a while to even get my wife get used to me spending thousands on camera bodies and lenses. 

Also try to get as many critiques from strangers as possible towards your portfolio.  At my school, professors (industry professionals) had no qualms on ripping you and your work to shreds if they didn't think they were up to par.  Some professors I've heard of were infamous for throwing away peoples assignments because they were displeased with the work and or passing out McDonalds applications to students.  They also would blatantly tell you if they felt you didn't belong at that school.  They basically were the Simon Cowells before Simon Cowell became popular.  Most would call them jerks or worse, they hardened us to the realities of customers expectations... Getting used to this will help you avoid the shock and awe of these critiques when you get to school. 

Dont Give Up.  I cant stress this enough.  My school during its hay-day when I was there, anyone who had high purse strings and could afford the tuition and THOUGHT they could be photographers went to my school.  It was a very expensive school and became very large quickly.  The problem was it was so tough and expensive half of incoming freshmen quit by the end of the first 2 classes and even more by the end of the first year.  By graduation of my class, probably 1/8 of the original class I started with graduated to get the full BA on time.  Others probably graduated but their graduation dates delayed for whatever reasons.  Schools like ours are meant to weed out those many hopefuls and graduating the select few.  They are good at shaking out those who cant hack it and it's easy to quit.  I went in hoping to get straight A's... that didn't happen, but I graduated, so in some perspective I feel is just fine with me. 

1761
Someday I hope to have a 1d (or one of its future variations) as well.

It's always nice to have aspirations =)  We try not to judge when your sincere about your questions/request. 

1762
Lenses / Re: EF16-35 a best fit lens over 24-70
« on: July 27, 2011, 06:59:12 PM »
Well shoot... what do you shoot?  (couldn't resist)... seriously, do you use the 24-70?  That's a lot of range to lose... can you get by with that 1 lens than 2 lenses?  What camera are you using?  That's something only you can answer. 

1763
Could someone please explain to me the point of fisheye? I always thought it was a phase because I never really liked the way certain photos looked with fisheye lenses. Is there a valid use for it besides deceptive real estate advertising?

It's a niche effect lens... It's used often in skating magazines and other extreme sports where people are moving fast and may be out of frame in a split second so they use that to ensure they capture it when close up... Some people love it, some people dont.  I tried it a few times but not anything I would use professionally. 

1764
I already own a 17-40mm. After extensive testing and comparison I found it to do significantly better than the more expensive 17-55.

Funny how I thought the same thing about the 17-40 vs 17-55 on my original tests...

Interesting - how was it significantly better?

I tried out a 17-40mm and definitely preferred the 17-55mm from an optical standpoint - especially stopped down to f/4, the 17-55mm is sharper across the frame, and the EF-S lens, surprisingly, has less barrel distortion at 17mm than the 17-40mm, despite a broader zoom range and the 'sweet spot' effect of using an EF lens on a crop body.  The only place the L lens won was less vignetting.  From a build standpoint, the L lens is definifely better, of course.

I ended up getting the 16-35mm f/2.8L II instead of the 17-40mm for use on FF (as good or better at comparable apertures), and the 17-55mm on the 7D outperforms the 16-35mm II on the same body, from my own testing.  I shoot a fair bit of wildlife with the 7D and a telezoom, and bring a standard zoom along 'just in case' - in the rain, I bring the 16-35mm II, but otherwise I grab the 17-55mm lens, and in fact, I hung onto that lens after getting the 5DII for just that reason.

It's hard to say... when I did my testings I tested it against the sigmas and tokinas (my local store didn't sell tamrons so i couldn't test their version which has gotten good reviews) as well as each other...  I dont know... I just felt when I did my unscientific tests, the 17-40 locked focus a tad faster, felt more robust (i need my gear to keep up and be ok if it has a little bang here and there)... the L had weathersealing and  IQ i felt was close but not near enough to warrant the price difference.  The 2.8 would have been nice but that wasn't a driving factor because I was ok with my cameras ISO if needed.  For what I do and how I shoot, that's how I made my choice.  BTW, the sigma and tokina lenses tested were horrid in focusing in low light.  The 17-40 I was able to focus almost in the dark without even needing the AF lamp...  I'm sure under certain conditions the 17-55 could produce sharper images but I've been pleased with my lens. 

1765
EOS Bodies / Re: No Finalized 5D Mark III Yet [CR2]
« on: July 27, 2011, 04:43:04 PM »
How do you know that Canon does not want to do it?

Have you talked to the executives at Canon to find out?

Have you put the interview between you and them somewhere on the Internet where we can all read it?

That part's easy, even I can answer that...

gene_can_sing: "Mr. Canon exec, does Canon want to improve the video capabilities of the 5D line?"

Canon exec: "No comment."

gene_can_sing: "Will Canon address the shortcomings of the 5D Mark II in the areas of moire and rolling shutter?"

Canon exec: "No comment."

gene_can_sing: "Don't you want to keep your loyal customers by giving them what they want?"

Canon exec: "No comment."

...and so on.

Haha... it's sad but true. haha

1766
Wow... they require a full frame camera... granted when I was at school full frame digitals were rare... the original canon 1ds was your only offering... I dont recall if the nikon d1x was full frame or not... be that as it may, the 7D will definitely get your skill level up and when your in school and ready for your second class you will be more than ready for the 5D mark III =)  As i've mentioned before in other posts, from spending almost a decade with various canon digitals (10d, 1d, 30D, 50D, etc...) this was the first camera where I actually had to learn and sharpen my game a bit to fully utilize it to it's fullest potential.  You should also be able to resell it for a good chunk when your ready or keep it as a second backup camera. 

Funny how I thought the same thing about the 17-40 vs 17-55 on my original tests... I got the 17-40 because it's forward compatibility but others swear by the 17-55 but it is a personal preference.  I'd definitely look at the 70-200 F4 IS and non IS... the non is around $700 and the IS is closer to 1200... something to consider on a budget.  Good luck and let us know how it goes.  =)

1767

I wholeheartedly couldn't agree more.  Back in the day, even negative film you had some room to budge with printing and developing and contrast filters... With slides, you had little to no room to fudge... You could ask the lab to push/pull the film to over/under develop but it could only do so much and it easily looked bad if not done perfectly.  It also cost you money to do corrections such as push/pull and so screwing up exposure cost you dearly.  As a student that was food money you were wasting away by not nailing exposure.  I cant vouch for anybody but my school, but they pounded exposure in our feeble minds so much in most situations we could ballpark exposures just by looking at the scenes... Studios you 100% needed light/flash meters and with film, anyone forget the little treat of reciprocity and reciprocity charts?  =)  2 second exposure turned into 1 minute exposures depending on your meter readings and what film you used.

I recall getting some pretty dark or washed out slides with that old ASA-10 slide film, but the ASA25 Kodachrome II was a huge improvement.  Still, I have a few that were not perfect exposures from the 1960's, and I really cannot fix them, the detail is gone.  In contrast, I inherited some 1930's and 1940's B&W negatives from my father, and the exposure latitude is wonderful.  The scan to make beautiful prints even today, and were from a relatively simple camera.

However, when I look at my old 35mm negatives from the 1950's and 1960's, its amazing what a simple point and shoot digital camera does by comparison.  and my old polaroid color prints are nearly faded away.  I need to get them all scanned, I should have scanned them 15 years ago.

At school we made and kept charts just for reciprocity and used them for almost every studio shoot...  tmax 400, meter 2 seconds, reality 45 seconds, meter 4 seconds, reality 1.25 minutes... etc... depending on the film we were using it would get brutal... set the camera on bulb, start the stopwatch, and go get a drink haha. God forbid you were bracketing exposures.  One time using ultraviolet woods filtered strobes I burned out my strobes multi popping my exposure trying to build up the exposure... set off the school fire alarms, fire dept, haha.  God bless film. 

1768
Software & Accessories / Re: To HDR or Not To HDR
« on: July 27, 2011, 01:15:30 PM »
Coming from a film background, I always loved the zone affect... So to that extent, I view HDR as a way to achieve zone photography... but I like it to a very fine point... I like it when it's getting towards the zone affect... Just a kiss above what the camera can naturally pump out... when you start getting halo's and extreme HDR then i draw the line.  On my homepage on my website, the castle picture was used with HDR... Not overdone in my opinion (no halos) and just enough to bring out additional detail that couldn't be drawn out otherwise... That's as far as i go with HDR. 

1769
There's so much latitude with digital images, especially RAW files, that it's easy to become overly dependent on post production to correct simple mistakes that could have been avoided in the field in the first place...

I suppose the extreme example of those would be learning how to shoot on color slides. I thought it was rather barbaric how one of my instructors made us do this, but in retrospect, it helped immensely in learning the very basics of photography. There's zero margin for error with color slides, and in that regard, it makes 1.6:1 digital cameras look like medium format Hasselblads.

I wholeheartedly couldn't agree more.  Back in the day, even negative film you had some room to budge with printing and developing and contrast filters... With slides, you had little to no room to fudge... You could ask the lab to push/pull the film to over/under develop but it could only do so much and it easily looked bad if not done perfectly.  It also cost you money to do corrections such as push/pull and so screwing up exposure cost you dearly.  As a student that was food money you were wasting away by not nailing exposure.  I cant vouch for anybody but my school, but they pounded exposure in our feeble minds so much in most situations we could ballpark exposures just by looking at the scenes... Studios you 100% needed light/flash meters and with film, anyone forget the little treat of reciprocity and reciprocity charts?  =)  2 second exposure turned into 1 minute exposures depending on your meter readings and what film you used. 

1770
On the subject of glass collection, I do need some advice. I'm looking for something that's fast, good for portraits, but has telephoto zoom (such as the 70-200mm f/2.8 [or 4] USM or 75-300mm) and is good for moving horse photography if I find I need to do it. IS is irrelevant to me. Are the ones I mentioned good options, or is there a better one I can get in the <$1600 price range?

Is $1600 the budget just for this lens, or for all your lenses?

You might want to consider a Canon 70-200 f/4L (around $500?) and a fast prime for portraits (i.e. Canon 85 f/1.8 or Canon 135 f/2L). At least with the 85 you would still be under budget and able to either save money or pick up another lens. If you really need the extra stop of the 70-200 f/2.8L it's worth it, no question about that. But it's also pretty heavy and expensive. The 70-200 f/4L's are feathers by comparison, and the non IS version is cheap (relatively speaking). While the 70-200 f/2.8 does make a good portrait lens, a fast prime makes an even better portrait lens while the 70-200 f/4L gives you a zoom for covering horses and other fast moving events.

That said, I find myself using my Sigma 50 f/1.4 a lot for portraits. It equates to about 80mm on crop and it seems to be a natural FoV, plus that lens has incredible bokeh. Something to consider.

The 70-200 F4 is closer in the $650-700 range after the latest price increases but you can probably find a used one for cheaper on the used market... It's probably not a good general purpose lens so you will want either a fast prime or a 17-55 or 17-40 or look at the 24-105/24-70 plus maybe a 200mm 2.8 or other fast primes i listed in a prior thread.

Pages: 1 ... 116 117 [118] 119 120 ... 133