July 28, 2014, 01:41:02 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 - Sith Zombie

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
16
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony A7 or A7R pre-order list
« on: October 17, 2013, 06:15:05 AM »
Not on the pre-order list but I was going to purchase a 6D next year, I think A7 has replaced the this plan now. The A7 has generally better specs, more features [crop mode, swivel screen],most probably a better sensor and it'll probably be cheaper when I get it. It'll be great for a the studio and landscape/travel stuff.  Yeah, there's a lack of lenses but it's a new system, what do people expect? I can always use an adaptor to plug any holes until they get more lenses out, I'm not one for huge lens collections anyway as I don't do a wide variety of photography.
I don't see the A7 or A7R replacing pro wedding/sports togs gear anytime soon but I think they'll make great waves in the prosumer market! 

17
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: New Lens Today
« on: October 14, 2013, 02:50:47 PM »
The D7100 sounds like the way to go, it'd be a great wildlife set up with that lens. Or you could temporally move to Nikon rumours and await news of the D400   ;D

The person I bought the D300s from said his D7100 was not suitable for wildlife and was poor at tracking.  He has several Nikon bodies and uses his D800 which is good at tracking.  Do you use a D7100 to track BIF?
 
I seriously doubt if we will see a D400 soon, and certainly not for what I paid for the D300S, which I think was a very good price.
 
I'll probably sell the 200-400 eventually, but I do buy lenses locally on craigslist when the price is right, then play with them a while and keep the best ones if I find myself using them.  I have a old Nikon Film body (several actually), but none of them was really suitable for a really nice lens.
I'll keep the D300s and use it as a 2nd camera to my 5D MK III.  I might then sell my old 40D.
I'v used it for an event, and thought it was pretty snappy, good accuracy too. Didn't use it for BIF though and I guess thats the ultimate test for an af system. Congrats on the D300s tho, looks like a great camera!

18
EOS Bodies / Re: Reactions, Pros and Cons, and Results to the 70D
« on: October 13, 2013, 06:13:26 AM »

40D is still my favorite Canon, 60D is very good too, but from what I've seen of the 70D you will likely find it a very pleasing upgrade from the 40D in most ways except for a few ergonomic differences.
Good call! The 40D is my favourite too, in fact I'm having a hard time upgrading because I want a camera with the same/similar ergonomics and that only leaves the 7d and 5dmkkiii. I would love a 5dmkiii but it's too much camera for what I do and the 7D is pretty old now, awesome but old.

19
Canon General / Re: UK lens price increases
« on: October 12, 2013, 10:29:20 AM »
Rebates are still on tho. Calumet did a double rebate offer a few weeks ago, which matched the canon rebate. So for example the 100mm l 2.8 macro was about £560, the lowest I'v ever seen it! I nearly had it but didn't really want to rush in to it, didn't know how much i'd use it really. Prices on Digitalrev are still pretty good tho, they have the 70D with 18-55 for £850, thats about £350 less than UK sites.

20
Sigma.........YOU ROCK!

21
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: New Lens Today
« on: October 10, 2013, 05:47:18 AM »
The D7100 sounds like the way to go, it'd be a great wildlife set up with that lens. Or you could temporally move to Nikon rumours and await news of the D400   ;D

22
I don't think the 24-105 is a good walkaround option on crop, remember it's around 38m on crop at the widest which is not all that great for landscapes. Not used that sigma lens but I have used a Tamron 17-50 2.8 vc that was very good for the price, they do a version without VC for even cheaper I think. Theres some good write ups for both on the web.

23
Landscape / Re: First landscape submitted for critique
« on: October 03, 2013, 03:48:33 AM »
It's got a really unique moody feel to it, quite a change from the usual landscape style you see. I like it, would have been great if the rays of light would have been stronger but thats out of your control.

24
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50mm f/1.4
« on: September 13, 2013, 05:55:21 AM »
... and it's not like adding a real usm would be a large cost burden, it's just that Canon keeps making profit with this dinosaur version so why rock the boat and threaten the 50/1.2 sales?
+1
+2.  It's the AF that's only keeping it from being the best 50mm from Canon at least from the IQ perspective.
+3 I hope Sigma rocks the boat so hard, it tips over!

25
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon goes Medium Format?
« on: September 12, 2013, 06:28:22 AM »
The race is on! I doubt the MF market could support 2 new players, so it would be a question of who provides first. I'm still unsure on wether it's a good market to get into anyway, sure you can sell the gear for a premium but how many are buying? Some MF shooters might even consider 'downgrading' to FF once we start seeing 50+ mp?

26
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: New iPhone: Final Nail in the Coffin
« on: September 12, 2013, 04:52:29 AM »
It seems like pretty much everyone agrees that smartphones will eventually replace p&s. I think DSLR's have stood the test of time and will continue to do so until some RADICAL sensor/lens tech comes along. Although I do think that the market may shrink a bit as more photographers/people decide the iq is good enough for them

27
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony's new little cameras
« on: September 07, 2013, 07:42:56 AM »
While I don't even have a smart phone, its always good to see innovation.  The problem is that 90% of Sony's new ideas just don't fly.  They do seem to be out of touch.  Once in a great while, they hit a home run.

Yeah, they're definitely doing the most interesting stuff with regards to photography gear: slt's, xr1, possibly ff mirror less, but they do seem to trying to create markets out of nowhere and this tactic seems a bit desperate at times.

28
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Mark II news
« on: September 02, 2013, 05:16:17 AM »
For me the specs sounds possible because the price gap between the 6D and 70D is not very big. But is it really possible that Canon introduce a product that is more popular and is reducing the sales of the 70D?

Possibly, the 70D pretty much matches the 7D and replaces the 60D. Anybody looking for a 60D upgrade or a 7D type camera is covered by the 70D, the 7D mkii will appeal to 7D up-graders and those looking for the best crop camera. I don't think the 7Dmkii will take too many sales from the 70D, think of it like the difference between the 6D and 5Dmkiii.

As for the specs... sounds reasonable but a lot of people will be pissed if it uses the same sensor. I'm not knocking the 70D's sensor, it looks to be the best canon crop sensor for awhile and it's good to see them improving the banding but I think people will be expecting/wanting better ISO performance from the 7Dmkii

29
Canon General / Re: Should I get into this industry?
« on: August 18, 2013, 09:04:47 AM »
Hi, sorry you lost your job.
First off, I would say that if you really want to make a living off photography, now is the best time because you don't have the 9-5 to sap your time and energy. I know a few people who have been in your situation and they ended up being better off, so try to turn a negative in to a positive.

Secondly, Unfortunately the style of photography you do will probably not make you much money, unless perhaps you live in a 'touristy' area and can sell images of the area or portraits of tourists next to landmarks etc and even then you might not make much.

The way I see the industry now is that with film, photographers could make a lot of money because nobody knew how cameras worked or how to develop film etc, so a photographer would have a skills that people were willing to pay for.
Now with digital, the skill set was diminished. People can figure out how the camera works more easily because they can see the results instantly, they no longer need people to process film or print images as they can view on computer screens etc.
Also because digital has made photography more accessible, the market has become over saturated, further lowering the perceived value of photography.

You can still make some good money from stock sites but you have to have a huge catalogue and be constantly adding to it. You also can't just put up loads of landscapes and expect money, you have to do you kinda things blog sites etc will be looking for. So for example a cooking site might be looking for things like heaps of spices or some fresh vegetables to go with an article.

If your good with people, I would suggest wedding photography as people are always going to be getting married for the foreseeable future.

Money can be made with product photography but a lot of small business/ebay/websites do their own nowadays because cameras are so cheap and get them instant results. Sure most are really bad at it but then they'll pay someone a few bucks to spruce them up in photoshop, or again, do it themselves because the tech is cheap and accessible.

but like others have said, if you are good at what you do and work HARD, you can still make it. Just consider that making money from photography is more about being a businessman than it is being a photographer. If you think you can do that, then go for it.

If I were you however, I would start my own design company because that is your real skill, take some business courses or research on the internet.

Anyway, best of luck.

30
Landscape / Re: Pricing of landscape photos?
« on: August 18, 2013, 08:01:11 AM »
Thanks for the input dr croubie.  I use a local company http://www.posterjack.ca for all my printing and they seem to do a real good job.  They offer a 20x30 print on glossy photo paper for $19.99.  So by that logic asking for something in the $40 to $60 range would be fair.

I should really look into getting a decent quality photo printer for quality test prints, but for now i suppose this is a viable option.

I think pearl or lustre would suit your image though, while glossy would kill it.


+1 I have a large format epson too and I find lustre to work well with a lot of images, especially when people have seen the image on a computer screen. Matt images can sometime seem a bit dull if your used to looking at images from a screen all day, whilst glossy can be too far the other way.
I'm not knocking the other papers at all, as different images work better with different paper types [one of my fav prints is on matt paper] but just stating lustre/semi gloss is probably going to be the safest bet for you.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10