April 19, 2014, 06:34:31 AM

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 - bdunbar79

Pages: 1 ... 152 153 [154] 155 156 ... 162
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D mk II still a viable option?
« on: June 14, 2012, 08:46:13 PM »
I'm about to make the move to FF and thanks to this post, it will be the 5D MKII 24-105 kit over the 5D MKIII body only and still have money left over. I've been tossing it up over the last few weeks regarding which option to get but as I was reminded over and over again reading the 7 pages of this topic, I will probably not need the extra FPS and AF as my main interest is in landscape and portraits.

Thanks for convincing me to make the right choice based on what I like to shoot rather than how old the technology may or may not be  ;)

I had the camera for a long time.  You won't be disappointed.  As I mentioned many times and people are getting tired of reading, I really really regret selling that when I bought the 5D Mark III.  I really wish I had kept it now.

Lenses / Re: Canon's new 24-70 2.8L II ship date
« on: June 14, 2012, 08:41:04 PM »
Did you see in the UK some stores offer the 5D Mark III with the 24-70L II as a kit lens?  Cool!

EOS Bodies / Re: 1DX on preorder
« on: June 14, 2012, 08:39:41 PM »
Most of those who would order a 1D X are pros, and are busy earning a living.  I'm retired and can't afford one.  Unless there is a specific need for the features, or a person is able to afford it for a hobby, you can do very well with a 5D MK III series.

Yeah I make my living on photography so I'm going to pass on the 5D3 for the 1DX. The 1DX has many advantages over the 5D3 such as weather proofing, durability, two CF card slots (the SD card in my 1D MK IV slows things down for me), the higher speed will be appreciated for sports (I will even use 14 fps for golf and baseball when I want the ball moving in the frame), useable images at ISO 25k, slightly better x-sync speed, and most of all the amazing AF. A friend of mine used a 1DX and said the AF was much better than the 5D3 which is already pretty darn good.

People keep yapping about how long the camera is taking to come out but you gotta realize that they have lots of new tech in the new body including the change to a carbon fiber shutter which they want to ensure is durable enough for folks like me who shoot thousands of photos in a single weekend.

I want this camera to be perfect and I don't want to have to send it back in for repair like many have done with their 5D3. Professional quality products take more time to make and quality control is going to be much tighter on a 1DX than a rebel or even the 5D3 which is why they were able to hit the market so early. It is frustrating and I tell myself all the time that I really could have used a 1DX on this shoot or that shoot.

Canon is unleashing a lot of new tech this year and it makes me glad to be a Canon shooter. The 1DX paired with 3-4 600EX-RT's is going to be an amazing setup for weddings and photojournalism.

If I buy the 1DX, already having the 5D Mark III, would you sell your 1D Mark IV, or keep all 3?  I'll be shooting a heck of a lot more sports, only in winter and spring though.  Summer and fall probably no sports.  Too bad Canon didn't already have a 1Ds Mark IV (22mp with dual digic 4's) that was newer than the 2007 tech of the Ds Mark III, or I'd have a 1Ds Mark IV, 1DX, and a 5D Mark III in my bag :)

EOS Bodies / Re: Is the 5DIII the New 50D?
« on: June 14, 2012, 08:31:45 PM »
I want to buy a 50D anyone got one they are selling? :D

Oh shut up and just get a 7D :)

Lenses / Re: Your dream 50mm f/1.4
« on: June 14, 2012, 05:58:11 PM »
Exactly my point.  I love the lens too.  But it's only better from 1.2-2.8.  Above that it is not.  Clearly there is room for improvement, much like the 85L over the 85 non-L.  There's no comparison there at any aperture.  That's all I am saying.  I would just like a 50mm lens from Canon that can do it all.  I'll tone down my statement to sound less harmful, my apologies.

The 50mm 1.4 is already a good lens, I cant see how they could improve it much more w/o ruining the price point. Nikons 50mm's have horrendous Bokeh to my eye IMO, dunno maybe i'm just a 50mm Nut. ;D

Hey, being a 50mm nut isn't a bad thing.  That just means your as nuts as the rest of us on this forum :)

Lenses / Re: Your dream 50mm f/1.4
« on: June 14, 2012, 05:35:39 PM »
Exactly my point.  I love the lens too.  But it's only better from 1.2-2.8.  Above that it is not.  Clearly there is room for improvement, much like the 85L over the 85 non-L.  There's no comparison there at any aperture.  That's all I am saying.  I would just like a 50mm lens from Canon that can do it all.  I'll tone down my statement to sound less harmful, my apologies.

Lenses / Re: Your dream 50mm f/1.4
« on: June 14, 2012, 05:23:56 PM »
Its pretty heavy, and made a couple years back. It has a fabulous Red ring on it, and can be made to F/1.4 if you'd like.

Any idea what it is?

Yes I own all 3 50mm lenses and the 50 f/1.2L isn't worth $1699 what it was when new.  Stopped down and I can assure you it performs no better.  Now, apertures wider than 2.0, yes I agree it is superb.  IQ isn't WORSE than the 1.4 or 1.8 stopped down, but it isn't better.  It's the ONLY L lens that has this characteristic.  And with today's RAW processing, I have duplicated IQ at f/1.4 between both lenses on the same subject.  Would I sell my 1.2L?  No, I love the bokeh it produces below f/2.  But I'm not going to pretend that it was worth the premium over the 1.4 for a second.  You can't deny that the L version needs updated and secondly, that there is room for an update.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Should wait for a new EOS body?
« on: June 14, 2012, 04:58:53 PM »
Glass > Body.







EOS Bodies / Re: Is the 5DIII the New 50D?
« on: June 14, 2012, 04:30:50 PM »
What differentiates the 5DIII from the 50D is the target market. 

I went from a 50D to the 5D3.  Did the market change or the target?  :S

Well I'm guessing by the glass you have that you changed as a photographer.  You obviously wanted to step it up and go where a 50D can't go.  I'm not putting words in your mouth, that's just the way I'd read that :)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: right time to turn pro...?
« on: June 14, 2012, 04:27:59 PM »
Thank you.  At least now I know you have the perspective that I was looking for.  Thank you for being honest, that is respctable.  This is what happened to me.  I thought I'd go "pro" and have a part-time job and shoot weddings.  I was making about $3000/wedding in central Ohio.  Some socieconomic/geographic areas are probably markedly different from one another.  My clients as you might guess, were very picky.  It's their wedding, so why not?  The problem I ran into is that no couple in the world wanted me to print and put the photo book together; they wanted the photos sent out and printed by a commercial company and then have me give them the book AND a CD that I made.  This cost money.  I was not able to build in enough cost because if I would charge, say $3500, I wouldn't get the business.  I love photography deeply as a hobby and I'm glad you share this as well.  I began hating weddings so bad that I began despising my hobby and wouldn't go out and shoot for fun anymore because I didn't even want to look at my camera.  Granted, I did not go into the senior pictures market either, why I didn't I don't know, but I just didn't.  I was able to pick up some high school sports for some minor money, maybe $80-$200/game with a CD.  But the time it took me to post-process and effort to put the photo books together got me hating my hobby once again.  I was and am still not a good enough photographer such that I don't have to do some medium post processing at least.  So I quit for awhile. 

I came back refreshed and with a new attitude.  I got a good job in my profession (analytical chemistry) and began doing it for fun again and if I felt like it, would shoot events.  The thing I learned the hard way was that there was no such thing as a true professional photographer.  There is no education required, no board exams, no mentor, no third party to critque.  Clients who critique isn't the way to go.  Mess up and word of mouth gets around and your business is hurt.  It's a really tough way to go. 

I guess I was just cautioning the OP because you can really get burned if you don't ease into it.  $3000 for a wedding is ok but I had to shoot around 1500 pictures and then go home and sort through everything and they had to be perfect.  The sports I did for $80-$200/game was more laxed, but I had to buy an expensive camera (back then the 1D Mark III) as a tool to fit that style of photography.  In a year I highly doubt I could have grossed more than $30,000 and that would have been lucky.  I just didn't have the heart to do it.  I'm much happier now with a full time job and doing what I'm doing.  I make enough to justify high-end L lenses and high-end cameras, but I'm not bogged down in the business stuff that made me hate the hobby. 

My true only costs were a high-end computer and a great photo printer, which turned out I couldn't use much because most clients wanted the work sent out.  I also always kept two pro camera bodies and most of the latest L lenses, which if you want a dollar amount there, total costs upwards of $50,000.  For sports I printed my own stuff.  So I don't have much to share on business expenses because I did it from home.  I didn't have a studio downtown, so I guess I'm not a big business photographer, which by the way I hope someone who IS will reply here.  Health insurance is a concern so had I gone 100% photography, I would have had to get into a much bigger market.

Thanks for reading.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: right time to turn pro...?
« on: June 14, 2012, 03:01:32 PM »
Ok, this thread went rapidly downhill.  You all quickly and quietly jumped into a pile of well thought out, nice sound rhetoric with a new popular logic of, oh just take it step by step and slowly, don't quit your day slavery.....  which leads exactly to gung-ho know it all amateurs who feel beginner's enthusiasm doing just the exact opposite, and the only people actually listening to you are those that have no other choice, and feel good after having listened to this...

Ok, so that's been repeated like 10+ times now, so without simply refreshing the rhetoric, post more facts about your current salary, what level you are at and how many hours you work and where all the 'extra' unforeseen hours that you don't get paid for come from, etc., etc.,

Talk figures, numbers, hours, realities.  The rest of this is fantastical rhetoric, no offense.

Can you please share with the group how much money you make as a professional photographer and how much time it takes you per week?  Be specific.  Then I'll share with you all of the financial business on my end.  Thanks.

Lenses / Re: Which lens lineup for 5D3?
« on: June 14, 2012, 02:01:51 PM »
I honestly believe that if the 24-70L II lens is as good as it is hyped up to be, there would be absolutely no reason to buy a 35 or 50 prime lens IMO.  Unless you need 35 and 50 at very low lighting conditions, it would be redundant.  That's why I'm not buying the 24-70L II lens right now; I have the 35L and 50L already.  If money were no object and I were staring out, I'd of course have the 16-35L II, 24-70L II, and the 70-200L II.  And that's all I'd shoot with for a very long time.  When I first got into digital photography, I only had a 24-105L zoom lens and that's all I used for about a year.  It was a great learning experience.  I agree with the poster who said to then purchase a prime at a focal length that you shoot a lot but you must also consider lighting and type of photography you do.  If you find yourself shooting a lot of indoor basketball for instance, get an 85 f/1.8 and the 135 f/2L and also bring your 70-200L zoom lens along.  Of course, most recent cameras have such high ISO quality performance that maybe f/2.8 is wide enough even for that.  Things have come a long way since my first 1D Mark III :)

EOS Bodies / Re: Is the 5DIII the New 50D?
« on: June 14, 2012, 01:10:41 PM »
I see what you're saying.  For any 50D owner, an upgrade to the 7D was hard to justify I suppose.  But that's within Canon.  You're talking Nikon vs. Canon.  It's hard to switch over once you're invested.  I really think Canon was simply trying to upgrade the 5D Mark II more than compete with Nikon, which yes, is unfortunate.  But yes, the 5D Mark III is a very nice upgrade to the 5D Mark II.  I've shot with both a lot and I can say that the upgrade is certainly there.  I'm not sure this condition existed with the 50D vs. 7D.  Yes the 7D was an upgrade, but was it enough of an upgrade if you already had one or two 50D's?  However, if you have the means to switch to Nikon, it's like the old 1D Mark IV vs. Nikon D3s argument. 

Personally I think these comparisons are simply tech and marketing comparisons.  What did all 5D owners do when there was only a 5D?  Everyone was happy and shooting high quality.  But then Canon would get bashed upon release of the 5D Mark II because of nitpicking tech issues, even though it is clearly a better camera than the 5D. 

I think a better question would be is the 5D Mark II the new 50D?  Is it worth upgrading to the Mark III, much like 50D owners were asking about the 7D.  I don't have the answer but it's an interesting question.

During my tests with the 50 1.2 for portrait uses, I found the AF for the 50, terrible.  Sometimes, maybe 20% it would lock on and be awesome, sometimes, it would be close, but just off, and sometimes, the camera would show focus confirmation, but image would be blurry as heck.  Plus the MA was so off I had it on the max MA to get it in focus for the few shots it got focus.  When i tested the 35 1.4, on the same body as the 50 test, I got a lot more in focus in more demanding situations.  The only time the 35 was OOF was when shutters were too slow because it was too dark, which isn't a lens issue, but a camera/operator issue.  Dont get me wrong, I wanted to love the 50, but for the sample I tested, it's too unreliable.

I'm starting to think Canon has added a new layer of "skill" in using this lens:  Whether they sold you a good copy or not :)

The 50 1.2 wont focus right wih the outer AF sensors on the 5D.

The 50mm f/1.2 L won't focus right with any AF sensor on any 5D. I've tried it on 5Dc, 5DII and 5DIII (and 7D for that matter). My lens, even at the best AF adjustment setting (-20) it misses more often than it hits (stationary high-contrast target from tripod). I wouldn't exclude the possibility of my sample being sub-par, but if you decide to get one of these, make sure the shop has a good return policy. I'd actually recommend getting the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 instead.

Having said that, both the 35mm and 50mm focal lengths are useful for weddings, and the 35L is excellent.

Really?? I just used it all day yesterday on a 5D Mark III and it worked great, except it was admittendly frustrating in AI Servo Mode.

Pages: 1 ... 152 153 [154] 155 156 ... 162