Messages

31

Lenses / Re: 24-70 versus 24-105 AF performance

« on: November 28, 2012, 05:04:48 AM »

I can confirm both previous posts, I have both lenses as well, in very low light the 2.8 will be a bit more efficient, but for me the IS and extended range of the f4 make it more useful. I like the lower weight as well and prefer the general handling of the f4 24-105mm. When the extra IQ matters, I use primes. But your shooting style might require the extra stop.

32

Lenses / Re: 135L vs 70-200 IS MK II - real world opinions and experience needed

« on: November 28, 2012, 04:59:10 AM »

Don't let yourself disturb by other comments, you made the RIGHT choice. Forget about the 70-200mm f4, it's a nice lens, agreed, but it's for hobbyists and travellers. If you want to go pro, you need the f2.8 IS, period. You can afford smaller apertures on shorter lenses, or if you work on a tripod. Handheld you need 2.8 minimum on long lenses. Why do you think fashion pros go for the 200mm f2, or 300mm f2.8 ? They don't spend hard earned cash for the glory of it, it's because they NEED that extra stop for faster apertures and better background blur. In many occasions this extra stop will save your day, that's what you pay for, not for extra sharpness, contrast or whatever else. IS is helpful, but does not replace the right speed, nor the proper camera handling technique.

IMO it would make more sense to have the 50mm 1.4 and the 70-200mm 2.8 the the 50mm 1.2 and the 70-200 f4. My guess is, if you change your 70-200mm f2.8 for the f4 you will quickly regret it on one of your future assignments.

One side plus of the big lens, however stupid it might sound, is that your clients will be more impressed, since for most people pro equipment = pro photographer. People's mind is set in a way that if you show poorly dressed, come with a cheap used car, etc., you are not successful in your business, so you are not the one they should give their money to. I hate the rule, but it's how it works in a lot of businesses. So consider your new lens as an excellent business investment as well.

33

EOS Bodies / Re: First Round of EOS 7D Mark II Specs [CR1]

« on: November 27, 2012, 06:12:20 PM »

New design and battery.. WHY CANON, WHY?! But other specs looks nice, but I'll pass if I'm not getting good deal out of that one.

New batteries because too many cameras use the same battery and people have enough BP-E6 so they don't buy new ones. If you are a serious user, you want at least a spare one, that you have to buy separately. You cannot reuse the spare from your old camera anymore. A new accessory they can make money from.

34

Lenses / Re: 135L vs 70-200 IS MK II - real world opinions and experience needed

« on: November 26, 2012, 04:33:31 AM »

I think you should try to foresee your future equipment needs and financial capabilities. I have the 135 f2 and the 70-200 f2.8 IS (v1). If you don't need to work (in photography), I would tell you to buy the 135mm, it's my favourite tele by far; BUT, if you plan to start a career and have no equipment, I would rather suggest than you go with the 70-200 F2.8 IS II, it's not about the slight edge in IQ your 135mm will have, it's about productivity and the possibilities the zoom is offering. The zoom will cover every need of your future assignments, until you can buy more specialized primes.

Don't misunderstand me, I love primes, I've been working with them since I got my first camera, and I still use them today, in fact most of my work is with primes; BUT I work always with a tripod and have time to frame my compositions. The primes I use the most are my TS-Es for the flexibility they bring to MY style of pictures.

What I suggest here, is that you need to have some equipment efficiency when you start your career, as your budget is limited (like most of us). The 2 basic bread and butter lenses that you will need are IMO a standard zoom 24-70mm 2.8 (but your 24-105mm will do, I still have mine and prefer the flexibility of it to the 24-70 2.8 (v1) of my wife) and a 70-200mm f2.8 IS (here you cannot afford the f4 or the lack of IS). I would add a 50mm (it would be financially more efficient to buy the 1.4) and maybe a cheap portrait lens of your choice (either 85 f1.8 or the 100 f2); even better a 100mm Macro IS would add a lot of possibilities for close ups and details of clothing, table arrangements, rings, portraits.... Do not focus too much on the red ring on the lenses, it's not what makes the IQ or the good picture. Have a basic kit of excellent IQ, make money with it, then you'll see what you need and can afford.

Among the lenses you might need in the future, the 135mm f2 will certainly be an excellent choice.

I never saw a client ask for what equipment you use. The only exception to the rule is in the architecture business, were some clients asked for TS/PC lenses since they knew it is the tool needed for what they want.

You'll be judged by your results, not by your lenses, and IMO the flexibility and possibilities of the basic pro zoom kit will be more important than the slightly improved IQ of the primes on you first assignments. People will remember the shot you could not deliver (especially in wedding), and the nice 1.2 bokeh portrait will barely compensate for it. I agree I am not a specialist in weddings, but I had my share of reportage, and I think the flexibility of zooms means more keepers.

35

Lenses / Re: Nikon Convert Seeking Some Advice.

« on: November 25, 2012, 04:52:58 AM »

I would pass on the 20mm f2.8, it's a very old lens, with very average IQ; it's one of the lenses Canon should upgrade soon. IQ difference between the 16-35 and 17-40 is not so big, it's mainly about the extra F stop. By choosing the 17-40mm over the 20mm f2.8, you get a better built quality, better IQ at 20mmm and the extended zooming range. The only thing you loose is the extra stop. The 20mm 2.8 is not at all a small lens, it weights only 95g (about 3 ounces) less than the 17-40mm. You can have an idea here :

20mm vs 17-40mm

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=244&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=100&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=3

16-35mm vs 17-40mm :

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=4&LensComp=100&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=3

The 17-40, is one of Canon's best bargains (with the 200 f2.8 II), but if you need 2.8, then I would spend the extra money on the 16-35mm instead of the 20mm f.2.8.

The 85mm f1.8 and 100mm f2 are excellent as well, you cannot go wrong with them.

The 85mm f1.2 is a no go for me, despite the stellar optics, the size, weight, slow AF and manual focus by wire make it a too specialized lens (not even talking about the price difference).

36

EOS Bodies / Re: What will be the issue with the 6D

« on: November 23, 2012, 03:53:51 PM »

Indeed it will be the perfect match

37

EOS Bodies / Re: What will be the issue with the 6D

« on: November 23, 2012, 11:41:33 AM »

I think they changed the chassis material from magnesium to uranium 235, a bit heavier, but it doubles as a hand warmer in winter.

38

EOS Bodies / Re: What will be the issue with the 6D

« on: November 23, 2012, 04:50:34 AM »

A related topic, is there any moderation of the canonrumors forum? There is so much anti-canon stuff that is allowed to proliferate and seems mainly aimed at making canon owners think they make poor decisions and should be filled with regret. Instead, this forum could be a pleasant haven for Canon users where people share, solve and support one another. All it would take is some decent moderation of the anti-Canon crap from either bitter people or blatant trolls.

As long as they don't resort to personal attacks, name calling, or profanity; they shouldn't be moderated.  My job isn't to judge peoples personal opinions, they're entitled to them, and I would refuse the job if given it.  As long as things are kept civil, most things will work themselves out, and most dedicated trolls will leave out of boredom or banned because of bad behavior.  There are some forum members that started off with very trollish behavior and ended up becoming good helpful forum members.

Amen.  Very well said, and it speaks very well of the integrity of this entire site!

+1

 A bit of humour and self-mockery never killed anyone. Let's keep it fun and light, it's just a camera after all....

39

Lenses / Re: Lenses for Ice Cream Photography

« on: November 22, 2012, 04:48:40 PM »

+1

On the other hand, good pictures are very important for the success of your business, especially in the food department. You can try on your own, but food styling requires experience, do not underestimate the task. It seems you have some time to make up your own mind, but IMO you should consider the possibility of hiring a good professional food photographer. That could be a real plus for the success of your advertising.

40

Lenses / Re: Lenses for Ice Cream Photography

« on: November 22, 2012, 02:03:30 PM »

Do we get some ice cream samples for all these advices ?   

41

Lenses / Re: Lenses for Ice Cream Photography

« on: November 22, 2012, 11:05:32 AM »

If you have the budget, one could think as well about the 90mm f2.8 TS-E that will offer even more possibilities for food pictures on a tripod. It's the lens I use the most (by far) for studio pictures of small items.

42

Lenses / Re: 24-70 or 70-200??

« on: November 21, 2012, 05:41:30 PM »

24-70 + 70-200 is a convenient setting, but is not the only possible one. IMO, you cover more subjects with a 24-70mm (real wide angle to short tele) than with a 70-200 (short tele to long tele).

You could as well consider other (cheaper) combinations :

- 24-70mm f2.8 (or f4 IS) + 135 f2 (keep your 50mm)

- 24-105mm f4 IS + 200mm f2.8 (keep you 50mm)

- 16-35mm f2.8 (or 17-40mm f4) + your 50mm + 70-200mm f2.8

All these lenses are good, but you must define what focal range will be the most useful for you. If you do not know yet, try by any mean to rent or borrow these lenses or some equivalent ones to make up your mind before you spend $2000+.

Have fun with your new toy(s)

43

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Photos of film's demise

« on: November 16, 2012, 06:25:27 PM »

+1 on the fuji 680, but quite heavy/bulky, more for studio use, the fuji 6x9 rangefinders are fun to use, kind of rollfilm Leica M; Fujinon lenses are truly first class.

 I first switched to digital to replace the small format film, but I ended missing it, I used a Canon F-1 new, but I realized it was a bit stupid not to use all that modern EF glass I have and ended buying an EOS 1v. I have a lot of fun to use it, and will likely sell the F-1 and FD glass. 35mm film is more like a fun stuff to do for me, it hardly competes with digital for IQ, but still, I make different pictures with it.

4x5 is something else, it forces to carefully think the shot before you pull the trigger, but IMO it's worth it and competes still very well with digital IQ (I have a bunch of excellent Schneider lenses). It is simply a different kind of photography, opposite of the computerized imaging of digital work. I sometimes use 6x7 and 6x9 rollfilm backs on my linhof, since it allows me to use my enlarger (limited to 6x9) for B/W work, though I admit I got very lazy with enlargements the last 2 years, plus when I take the view camera outside, I feel it's a kind of wasted energy to make "only" rollfilms with it.

I really miss the Hasselblad, rollfilm is a kind of good compromise, and 120 films seem to be the easiest to find. Your are badly tempting me with the Fuji 680

I'll try to post some 4x5 negative as soon as I get some, but I do not have too much time for 4x5 pics these days.

44

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Photos of film's demise

« on: November 16, 2012, 06:05:50 AM »

Thanks DigitalDivide for the tip, I've tried almost every slide film available, I am not a huge fan of Fuji chrome in general. I like very neutral colours; Astia was not too bad, but they stopped it I think. The thing with Kodak is they had a very good line of slides for every taste : warm, saturated, cold, neutral. In the good old times they had like ten different chromes to suit everyone needs. Kodak main advantage over Fuji, IMO was colour fidelity and choice. For me, nothing ever matched the colour balance of the EPP, even the E100G though close is not as subtle.
Fuji's good, but their colour style is not my taste too much, agreed this is highly subjective. The Velvia 100 or Provias are very good film though, slightly finer grain and better resolution than Kodak, but in 4x5 format, the sharpness advantage is marginal. I guess i'll get used to it anyway. My favourite Fuji is still the Velvia 50, though the very saturated colours do not fit everything. Agreed, with digital post processing it's not such an issue. Problem with the Velvia 50, it's more like 40 iso actually, and the shades turn purple. It's some time I did not look for it, since I still have like 200 sheets of EPP and E100G in my freezer, but it won't last forever.... Rollfilm and 4x5 are still relatively easy to find, but 135 film has become a bit more problematic.


Hillsilly, thanks as well for the negative film input, believe it or not, I never used a colour negative in 4x5 format. I recently thought about it, mainly because of the increasing cost of slides, the extended latitude, and exposure flexibility. I have very little experience with the Ektar though. Until now I liked the Portra 160, but I admit my experience with colour negative is much less than E6 and B&W. I know the C41 films are extremely flexible and their IQ is fantastic, but I have bad memory from my photo school in the late 80's, when we had to print out of colour negative, it was very difficult to get a proper colour balance. Plus IMO nothing replaces a chrome on a light box. But you are right, I'll give the C41 a try for my 4x5, I'll buy a box of Ektar as well as a Portra 160 to compare. My fear is with Kodak on the bad slope, these films will likely disappear as well.

45

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Photos of film's demise

« on: November 15, 2012, 03:43:36 PM »

I don't think film will disappear so quickly. It's sure done for the mass market, but my guess is some companies will still produce at least B&W film for a while. Agfa was claimed dead, their film and chemical products (at least some of them) were resurrected by another company. Still you can find Ilford, Agfa, Fuji, Fomapan, Rollei, plus a few Chinese films. B&W is a fairly simple product to manufacture, and obviously there is still a market for it.

Colour is another problem, film are more complex to produce, as are the necessary chemicals to process them, and the best quality (especially with E6) can only be achieved with expensive and well controlled processing environments.

I started photography in the 80's when digital was not even a dream, I made the switch ten years ago. I work with digital, but for me digital cameras are just imaging computers, they nowadays produce good results, but the magic has gone.

As soon as I can picture for my pleasure, I use my Linhof 4x5 Technika 2000, or even the EOS 1v I bought a couple of years ago for 350 euros (I shot film Nikons since ever until the D200 and its disgusting sensor made me switch to Canon).

My guess is like the vinyl in music, film will stay as a niche market, my problem is I was a big fan of Kodak products, and although I will find some substitute for B&W (I will miss the Plus-X and Tri-X though), the choice for chrome is non existent any more. Now the EPP (for the 4x5) and the E100G for small format has gone, there's not much left for me. I can deal with the Velvia 50, but it's a bit over-saturated for my taste.

Fact is I still process and print B&W, kept my Leica Pradovit P600 projector, my Nikon Coolscan 4000 as well as my Epson v750 for for the 4x5. I regret I sold my Hasselblad 503CW a few years ago, but I needed the money then.

Film never had so much value to me, and I know I am not the only one...