October 24, 2014, 08:51:31 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 ... 117 118 [119] 120 121 ... 134
1771
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. 

1772
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. 

1773
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. 

1774
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. 

1775
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. 

1776
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

1777
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.  =)

1778

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. 

1779
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. 

1780
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. 

1781
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.

1782
The school I will be attending in a year or two offers rental equipment but requires that you buy your own camera. The rental equipment is for flashes, various lenses, and more expensive cameras that students couldn't possibly afford. The school I would be attending in the mean time does not provide or rent equipment because they're very small. Their main focus is work shops and fine art. They still have yet to get back to me, and I'm thinking that I should just drive over in person today to ask. Sometimes it's hard to get concrete answers by email.

As I said, I'm going with the 7D for now. I think the 5D Mk ii is better however it stretches my purse strings too much for it to be comfortable. I'm going to spend a few months to a year building up a glass collection, then purchase the 5d. I don't want the first DSLR I purchase to be used just in case, but the second I won't mind so much. With canon hinting that something big and exciting might be coming out next year anyway, I think it's wiser to not break the bank now and just hope the school means film (considering they have the only public dark room in the area, I'm going to assume this is the case).

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?

Trying to keep under $1600... I kinda want to go with the 17-55 and 70-200 F4 L..  The 17-55 wont be able to move over to the 5d when you move over to full frame but will suit the 7D just fine.  If you want to have lenses that will move over with you when you make the jump, you can get the 17-40 L and and a used 70-200 F4 IS or 70-200 F2.8 Non-IS.  I would stay away with the 70-300 unless you are getting the L version... kinda soft and will cause hair to fall out.  You can also try a sigma 70-200 2.8 which is around $900... They are good if you find a good copy (test a few at the camera store).  This could get you started until you get some more money for fast primes...

Lastly you can pick up a 24-105 or 24-70... that would chew up most your money but you could pick up a fast prime like a 50 1.4 or 85 1.8 or maybe 100 2.0  not much telephoto effect but will get your feet wet. 

1783
The school I will be attending in a year or two offers rental equipment but requires that you buy your own camera. The rental equipment is for flashes, various lenses, and more expensive cameras that students couldn't possibly afford. The school I would be attending in the mean time does not provide or rent equipment because they're very small. Their main focus is work shops and fine art. They still have yet to get back to me, and I'm thinking that I should just drive over in person today to ask. Sometimes it's hard to get concrete answers by email.

As I said, I'm going with the 7D for now. I think the 5D Mk ii is better however it stretches my purse strings too much for it to be comfortable. I'm going to spend a few months to a year building up a glass collection, then purchase the 5d. I don't want the first DSLR I purchase to be used just in case, but the second I won't mind so much. With canon hinting that something big and exciting might be coming out next year anyway, I think it's wiser to not break the bank now and just hope the school means film (considering they have the only public dark room in the area, I'm going to assume this is the case).

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 your total budget for all lenses? 

1784
With a crop camera you cut off the beauty on every side of the frame.  :'(
So take a couple of steps back...

That's exactly why a crop body delivers deeper DoF - becaiase you need to take a couple of steps back to match the framing of that lens on a FF camera, and that increased distance means deeper DoF.  Short of going out and building yourself a lens with f/0.75 for your APS-C camera, you'll never be able to achieve the shallow DoF of f/1.2 on FF.  Personally, I often get comments on portraits about the simplicity of the backgrounds - in fact, there is often a lot going on back there, it's just effectively blurred out by the wide aperture of the 85L.

Having said that, I do agree that a 7D should be as useable for photo classes as a 5DII, and you can certainly achieve thin DoF with an APS-C sensor, if not quite as thin as with FF, much less MF.

but who really shoots at f1.2.. ok perhaps sometimes...  but realisticlly no...  most of my lenses are f2.8 so the sweet spot for the lens is around f4, which is where i normally shoot....

Exactly... Even if you can shoot 1.2 on portraiture, the eyelash will be in focus but the eyeball wont or visa versa... Kinda freaks out clients when they see that cause they think in their minds it's out of focus... We as photographers can appreciate it but clients, unless they are fine art type of people wont buy them... on my 50 1.4 I shoot around 2.2 give or take... thats it's sweet spot for me on portraits... enough is in focus for the client to appreciate and a nice soft background. 

1785
This whole debate is moot if the OP comes back and says the school wants her to shoot 35mm film for the first year or so...  Please get clarification on that... then once you got that figured out, see if your school have a free rental dept and can rent both digitals as your classes get to digital.  Heck by that time the 5d mark III may be out and you can purchase that, case closed. 

Pages: 1 ... 117 118 [119] 120 121 ... 134