Messages

46

EOS Bodies / Re: Zoo Photos with 5D MIII

« on: March 15, 2013, 11:09:06 AM »

The shot of the female lion nd the kid is fantastic.  Perfect moment!

To your dilemma, unless you need the af performance of the 5diii then IMHO the 6d is just as good, cheaper, and adds wifi and GPS (fwiw). For the record I own a 5diii and love it, but if I wasn't shooting sports on the weekends then I'd probably just as soon opt for a 6d.

47

Sports / Re: Trying to get noticed...

« on: March 15, 2013, 09:44:47 AM »

Alex I don't see anything necessarily wrong with them. Obviously volume is your friend so 7 pictures probably won't do it. I'm also not necessarily sure Flickr is the best way to go about getting "noticed" but its certainly a start. Ideally what would you like to happen?  Just sell a few images and keep up the hobby, or do you really want to give it a go as a pro?

48

Landscape / Re: Decaying Nature close up...

« on: March 14, 2013, 12:21:01 PM »

I don't "get it" either (just my opinion dont flame me for it). I don't see any real intention here other than to photograph "something". Which, for the record, is totally fine. I don't think every image needs to have some kind of artistic intent or weight dispite what others may tell you.  I also guess from the title of the blog, "the lazy travel photographer" this is just a hobby, and you enjoy taking photographs. As such keep it up. Some of your subjects are interesting, ie the impoverished folks a few posts down on your blog. I think those photos could have been improved by a little bit of composition or staging but if your intent is simply to create a record then they are perfectly fine.

49

Software & Accessories / Re: Help on interpreting FoCal results

« on: March 13, 2013, 11:20:15 PM »

Well your 70-200 I'd pick either +3 or 4. You're really splitting hairs at that point, either will be fine. The 100L, dunno, can you return it?  I sort of figure any Afma adjustment that needs to be over 10 in either direction probably means I'm better off with another lens if I can get one. That however doesn't mean that the same lens is crap, just that your body and the lenses manufacturing tolerances multiply, in other cases they could cancel and give you a perfect result needing no adjustment.

50

Lenses / Re: best NON L long lens

« on: March 12, 2013, 07:41:03 PM »

Are you shooting crop or ff?  I assume crop, so the 55-250 gets knocked by gear heads but for the price it's pretty good. If you can stretch the 70-200 f4L is very good and can be picked up used for not too much cash if you can live without IS.

51

Lenses / Re: 24-70mm f/2.8L II or EF 24-70mm f/4L IS or EF 24-105mm f/4L IS at F9

« on: March 12, 2013, 06:53:37 PM »

 Little to no perceptible difference at that aperture would be my guess.  Are you printing very large?  I'd say maybe beyond 12x18 you may be able to tell but it's still likely going to be slight at best.

52

Canon General / Re: Should I upgrade to FF or invest in lenses instead?

« on: March 12, 2013, 10:34:12 AM »

Lenses are always a better investment than a new body. I think with the amount of extra light you have you won't see much of a IQ difference in your macro shots especially at the size you are printing. Your macro kits looks pretty well endowed, I'd focus on a mid range walk around zoom to replace the 18-135, I like the 17-55 2.8, but the 15-85 is also very good. Is your 70-300 the "L"?  If so keep it and don't worry about one of the 70-200 offerings, if not then any one of the four 70-200 offerings would be great as would the 70-300L.

53

Portrait / Re: First paid photo shoot - DATE: 23 March 2013

« on: March 10, 2013, 12:13:10 AM »

For the crop sensor seriously consider the Efs 17-55 before either of the two you listed.

54

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Sell canon 5d3 and return new macbook pro retina to buy the 1d x

« on: March 09, 2013, 11:58:18 PM »

Dude not less than 2 months ago you were ready to trade it all for a micro 4/3 or nex or something lighter. My advice, be happy, and keep shooting.

55

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Mark III manual mode-changing ISO speed, its not changing the exposure meter bar

« on: March 08, 2013, 01:15:14 AM »

When I click the ISO button, mine is just locked in the middle. So I have to adjust ISO seperately,

I'm confused, are you saying you are shooting in Manual mode and changing the ISO does not change the exposure you see in the viewfinder?

Not to be an ass (ok probably) but didn't you just ask the same question

56

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Mark III manual mode-changing ISO speed, its not changing the exposure meter bar

« on: March 08, 2013, 01:00:19 AM »

I think I understand what you are saying. Essentially when looking through the viewfinder and changing exposure whether it be shutter, aperture, or iso you aren't seeing real time metering difference on the metering bar in the viewfinder?  As such you need to half press the shutter to see the metering difference? 

57

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Information [CR1]

« on: March 07, 2013, 10:02:15 AM »

I think this would be a game changer IF it comes in under $2.5k.

It almost certainly will not be that cheap.  I'd expect a camera that's billed as a 'mini 1D X' to be priced in the $3500-$4000 range.

Absolutely. The thing that caught my eye was "mini 1dx" that to me should read, "it's going to be expensive". I think the price point of the 70d when released should tell us where the 7dii will slot in.

58

Lenses / Re: Full Frame Lens Choice to Match 7D and 17-55 2.8 IS.

« on: March 06, 2013, 06:43:02 PM »

Well if you must have 2.8 and IS in a FF compatible mid range zoom you have only one choice, it's the tamron. I own it, is it perfect?  No, but what lens is?  For what you spend its fantastic.  You can spend an awful lot more for maybe a 10% iq improvement with the canon 24-70ii but you lose IS and a cool grand in the process. considering what you posted you shoot I don't see your clients really caring too much. After all anything you give them is a thousand times better than the millions of (insert any modern smartphone here) pictures they have been taking and adding crappy Instagram filters to.

59

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is this true

« on: March 06, 2013, 01:46:52 PM »

.
I don't trust anyone who doesn't know how to say "ISO."

Beyond that, this is just a lot of picking flypoop out of pepper for me.

HAHAHA

60

Portrait / Re: First paid photo shoot - DATE: 23 March 2013

« on: March 06, 2013, 12:55:16 PM »

 
Millions of weddings have been shot just fine with lesser equipment.  I have photos that are well over 100 years old, and they look fine, and they used equipment with maybe 1% of the capability you have. 
 

+ 1 true words


To the OP please do report back after the event and post some images.  I am sure you will do just fine.  It's always important to remember that if they turned to you they likely weren't going to be spending a bunch of money for a really experienced photographer (not that pricing in any way dictates quality), so they were going to probably get someone to do it on the cheap and not someone with considerably more experience than you.  I can guarantee you that you will not only care more than this person, but produce finer images than who they may have hired.