October 01, 2014, 10:54:29 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 - robbymack

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28
376
Portrait / Re: Semi-candid portrait
« on: July 14, 2012, 09:56:18 PM »
well the second one is "different" to say the least.  First one not bad, you did a good job getting the eyes to pop, but like others have said the yellow teeth take away from the otherwise pretty eyes, that being said it's an easy fix.  I'm a big fan of the skin smoothing brush, just be careful not to go overboard and turn someone in a plastic barbie.  That being said if you have a mother in law like mine that technique has worked wonders for the relationship. 

I know a guy locally who does a lot of work with selective color in his photos, but it's mostly cityscape/walk around type stuff and it works really well for him and his subjects, granted he's been at it a long time.  It's not something I'm terribly keen to try as I think you have to be very careful what subjects you chose. 

377
Lenses / Re: Canon 28 1.8
« on: July 12, 2012, 03:21:31 PM »
no it's not that bad.  I pulled the same manuver, bought the 28 1.8 on an impluse.  The most important question isn't what others think of it, but what you think of it and what images you create with it?  I generally don't put a lot of stock in review sites who spend hours looking at pictures at pixel level, shooting brick walls, or flat grey panels.  No "real" person does that, and if they do they are missing all of the great shooting opportunities happening around them.  I assume you wanted a Canon brand lens at around the "normal" fov on crop with USM and decent build quality.  As such this was pretty much your only choice. 

378
Site Information / Re: Are you guys crazy?
« on: July 12, 2012, 03:08:21 PM »
96.4% of what you read in internet forms is BS, take it all with a grain of salt. 

100% of all statistics are also made up  ;D

379
Lenses / Re: dilemma
« on: July 10, 2012, 03:37:48 PM »
I wondered if I'd care about FF vs. crop after adding the 5DII to the 7D.  It turned out after getting the 5DII, my 7D was relegated only to those times when I was focal length limited (birds/wildlife with the 100-400mm).  For everything in the wide to short tele range, the 5DII delivers much better IQ, especially if you need higher ISO (indoors).

If you're ever considering the 24-105mm, the best time to buy is in the kit.

That's pretty much just what I needed to hear, thank you for the help. 

380
Lenses / Re: dilemma
« on: July 10, 2012, 11:29:48 AM »
Tough call.  I really like the 135L on FF for portraits (I, too, started with an 85/1.8 on APS-C, then the 85L II, then when I got a 5DII, the 135L as well). 

The 70-200/2.8 IS II is a great lens, does wonderfully for portraits, and 135mm f/2.8 on FF will give you the same framing and DoF as 85mm f/1.8 on APS-C. However, it's big and heavy so that may be a factor for routine use (that said, it doesn't bother me to carry it all day on a Blackrapid strap).  But likewise, the 70-200/4 on FF will give you the DoF of f/2.8 on APS-C.

Are you keeping your 7D?  If you'll continue shooting daytime sports, you should - the AF of the 5DII isn't really up to the task.  That means you'll also still have the 17-55 as a general purpose zoom, but not have one for your 5DII.

Having said all of that, the 24-105L is a great walkaround lens for FF (better than the 17-55mm, since the FF-equivalent of that lens is a hypothetical 27-88mm f/4.5).   

My recommendation - get the 5DII+24-105 kit, use the 85/1.8 (move closer) and the 70-200/4 for your portraits, and add the 135L when budget permits.

Thanks for the advice.  definately keeping the 7D for the reasons you stated.  I passed on the 70-200 2.8 before due to weight and lack of a real need for the extra stop as it was, so I don't think my feelings on the bulk of the lens will have changed.  I really think that option is out because I do love the weight and balance of the 70-200 f4. 

I was sort of thinking I may not worry too much about a "normal zoom" on FF for now.  Generally when I take the 17-55 out on the 7d it's all for personal consumption and enjoyment anyway, so I really don't care if I'm shooting FF or crop or care at all about ultimate image quality. 

My thinking was on portrait shoots to just keep the 7d and 17-55 in the bag and close by if I need to go relatively wide for a shot.  Granted I give up some of the FF goodness, but if it means not getting the shot otherwise it's not a bad solution.  Decisions, decisions...

381
Lenses / dilemma
« on: July 10, 2012, 12:30:52 AM »
wondering if some of you with portrait experience can chime in on my dilemma.  Up until now the majority of my work has been day time sporting events so I've ended up with a 7d, the 17-55 2.8, 70-200 f4 is, 28 1.8 (impulse buy I rarely use), 85 1.8 used mainly for family and kid portraits, and the nifty fifty 1.8.  In any case I've been able to parlay my pictures of kids playing soccer, baseball, tennis, etc into a fairly steady family and children portrait side business.  Now that side of the business has generated enough income to make a little investment in it.  I'm considering a 5d mark ii and am having trouble deciding if I want the 24-105 that comes with the kit as it's such a screaming deal, or do I want a 135L, or sell the 70-200 f4is and pick up the 70-200 2.8ii is.  Budget is $3000-3500.  Right now I'm leaning towards the 135L as I'm a portrait bokeh addict.  so far I've been able to get away with the 85 for older kids and families and the 70-200 when dealing with multiple active kids giving up bokeh on the zoom for versatility.  I'm thinking I'm going to miss the 85 FOV on crop and will want the 135 to replace it on FF.  Then again I am just overlapping focal lengths on the 70-200 so maybe the 2.8 version solves all the problems.  Any suggestions/comments would be appreciated. 

382
EOS Bodies / Re: Should I get 7D now or wait for MKII?
« on: July 09, 2012, 02:44:39 PM »
get the camera/lens that fits your need and budget today and don't worry about a future "what if".  Since you are going to have an APS C go ahead and take advantage of the lower prices on EFS lenses vs L, both the 10-22 and 17-55 2.8 are great choices.  Both will hold their value very well so if you happen to go FF in a few years you can sell them for what essentially amounts to a long term rental fee.  Personally I have held onto my 17-55 because it's just that good and when paired with a t3i it is a great lightweight travel option and full time camera for my better half. 

383
Sports / Re: Post Your Panning Shots!
« on: July 09, 2012, 01:00:20 PM »
what are some tips on doing panning shot? with AF on or off?



IS or a tripod definately help, set AF to AI servo, camera to manual or Tv depending on your flavor (adjust as needed to get the look you are going for).  other than that take lots of shots as the keeper rate is generally low

384
Lenses / Re: Patent - Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS
« on: July 08, 2012, 11:12:42 PM »
I know others would like a stabilized version of this but I cannot see the use in this focal range for what I shoot. That is just my $0.02. I am sure others would so I'd be fine with two versions of this lens at two price points.

385
Lenses / Re: Advice for trip to Hawaii
« on: July 08, 2012, 11:05:26 PM »
Exciting, a topic i can consider myself an expert on. Born and raised on oahu so like Obama I am not a citizen if you ask some people. In any case my only suggestion is travel light you don't want to be bogged down with a bunch of gear. You have quite the gear list just go ultra wide with the 16-35 and pick which ever of the primes you like and maybe consider the 70-200. If it was me I'd just take the 16-38 and the 85 prime. That being said couple of suggestions, hanauma bay is cool, but only go early, 530am before the tour buses get there. North shore is a must, stop by haleiwa joes for lunch and ask for David. Best shave ice is island snow in Kailua, also the best beach in the world (I'm biased). Definitely try several "plate lunch" spots. The ubiquitous is LL drive inn, but it's not the best. Costoc (no less) has the best and freshest poke on the island.  Hike to the top of diamond head like the other tourists then also check out the Pali look out. The drive on h3 from windward to leeward is maybe the prettiest stretch of road on the planet, but no good spots to stop and take it in unfortunately. Other than that enjoy, I'm heading back to see my folks in a few weeks and can't wait for my little one to get his first taste of sand and surf.

386
Lenses / Re: 50mm 1.2L + 24mm 1.4L on crop body?
« on: July 06, 2012, 06:49:31 PM »
If you got the money to burn on these two pieces of glass then more power to you.  I am sure you will love them regardless of the crop vs ff debate.  That being said I'd echo a few other comments regarding the need for the 50L when you already have the 1.8.  Yes the 1.8 is plastic and cheap, but if you drop it and crack it, no worries, $100 gets you a new one.  And the 50L does not IMHO produce 15 times better images than the 1.8 as price should dictate.  The 24L is a different animal, there really isn't competition in the canon prime line up in this general focal range, the 28 1.8 is probably the closest option, but at $500 it's 3 times less expensive and I actually think the 24L is probably worth the price difference here and is close to 3 times better.  So maybe keep the 1.8, get the 24L and look to a prime in the telephoto range, the 85 1.8 is excellent for the price or the 135L which may be the best canon prime made today.  In fact you could get the 24L, 135L, 85 1.8, and throw in a 50 1.4 (if you feel the need to upgrade from the plastic) for about what you'd spend on the 24L and 50L combined. 

387
Japan / Re: Hello from Okinawa Japan
« on: July 06, 2012, 01:37:29 PM »
welcome and thank you for your service

388
Lenses / Re: Owning the Canon 200-400 f/4L Vs 400 f/2.8L II
« on: July 05, 2012, 03:07:54 PM »
you lose light over the 200, 300, and 400 primes, but the 200-400 adds versatility to a fairly broad range from 200-560 which is really interesting and certainly the cause for strife to anyone who can afford it's price tag. 

389
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 redefining lens choices?
« on: July 02, 2012, 07:32:05 PM »
interesting question here.  Nothing will really ever replace faster glass for effect and DOF, however as the photographer continues to get improved ISO performance it will certainly make one consider whether the extra $ for the faster lens is worth it especially if you are nothing more than a enthusiast.  Personally I've always been a "f4 zoom trinity" man, I never saw the usefulness of the 2.8 zooms for their respective costs when F4 worked for what I needed and when I needed fast I grabbed a prime or a flash.  So I applaud the high ISO performance of today's cameras, if nothing else it means less stuff to pack.

390
Lenses / Re: Need sharp wide-open
« on: June 29, 2012, 11:50:28 AM »
Does the 60d have focus adjustment?  If not then you will have to deal with the inheirent manufactuing limitations of lens and camera.  Some will be good and others not so much.  If you demand pixel level sharpness in a $200 lens, all I can really say is good luck.  It's rarely a case of "this lens is soft, therefore all others of this lens are also soft".  Read the outstanding "This Lens is Soft" article at Lens Rental.  The other option would be to send both lens and camera to Cannon for calibration.  However keep in mind all that does is get the camera in line with that particular lens.  If you have other lenses that are currently acceptable don't be surprised when you get the body back that those are now OOF. 

My recommendation for what it is worth, buy the lens that fits the budget from a good retailer with a good return policy and try one till it fits. 

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28