346
Software & Accessories / Re: Which flash; Canon 580EX II or 430EX II
« on: March 23, 2011, 02:45:45 PM »
always go with the biggest and best 
you will be glad you did in the long run
you will be glad you did in the long run
May 20, 2013, 08:38:55 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.
347
Software & Accessories / Re: Using Canon Battery Pack in Speedlite Flashes
« on: March 23, 2011, 02:45:18 PM »
I just use AA Lithiums in my 580's They will last for 3 camera batteries or more. I generally change them every OTHER wedding.
348
EOS Bodies / Re: 1Ds4 & 5D3 Timetable [CR1]
« on: March 23, 2011, 05:16:46 AM »
I would be astonished if they didn't release a 5DIII in 2011
349
United States / Re: where do you print?
« on: March 23, 2011, 01:32:18 AM »
http://www.WHCC.com for everything. Don't bother tring to purchase your own printing equipment. Outsourcing will save you loads of money in the long run, and the end result will be better and more consistent. Do yourself a favor and calibrate your monitor using something like Spider and your prints will look exactly like your monitor!
Nothing but positive reviews for WHCC!
Nothing but positive reviews for WHCC!
350
United States / Re: Insurance policies for photographers
« on: March 23, 2011, 01:28:10 AM »
As another reminder. If you use your camera equipment to make money...YOU ARE NOT COVERED UNDER A HOMEOWNERS POLICY!!!!!!. Let me make sure you guys understand what I am saying... If you have used your camera equipment at anytime in the past to make money. IE, you took a photo and sold it OR were paid to take photos of something, then YOU ARE NOT COVERED UNDER YOUR HOMEOWNERS POLICY!!
Every homeowner policy has an exclusion for "Commercial Use." Basically the insurance company is happy to collect your premium, if there is ever an equipment claim, they will do a Google search for your name, if you have a website, and it says you charge for photos. They aren't going to cover you. They might at best return your premium payments for the rider policy. But that's it. they make A LOT of money on "commercial / professional" photographers who pay premiums and don't make claims. But if you ever make one you are in trouble. Go with a company specifically designed to cover you. I personally use MARSH as a PPA member. $100 deductible on any claim. I have over 30K of equipment insured with them.
~Preston
Every homeowner policy has an exclusion for "Commercial Use." Basically the insurance company is happy to collect your premium, if there is ever an equipment claim, they will do a Google search for your name, if you have a website, and it says you charge for photos. They aren't going to cover you. They might at best return your premium payments for the rider policy. But that's it. they make A LOT of money on "commercial / professional" photographers who pay premiums and don't make claims. But if you ever make one you are in trouble. Go with a company specifically designed to cover you. I personally use MARSH as a PPA member. $100 deductible on any claim. I have over 30K of equipment insured with them.
~Preston
351
Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: March 20, 2011, 06:01:24 PM »
This ended up spanning a 2 page album spread
352
Lenses / Re: Canon 16-35 2.8L II ir Tokina 16-28 2.8 FXPRO or What
« on: March 19, 2011, 09:40:32 PM »
Recommendation:
Stick with Canon Branded USA warranty (not gray market) lenses. They hold their value FAR longer than any off brand you will get. You will thank yourself later.
Stick with Canon Branded USA warranty (not gray market) lenses. They hold their value FAR longer than any off brand you will get. You will thank yourself later.
353
Lenses / Re: 24-70 II in April? [CR2]
« on: March 19, 2011, 09:39:27 PM »
Seriously, what is the delay on this lens? I sold my 24-70 like last year when the rumors where flying thinking I wouldn't be without one for long! Boy was I wrong!
354
Lenses / Re: List of rumored lenses
« on: March 19, 2011, 09:36:40 PM »
This should be added to the Canon Rumors site and kept updated somewhere!
355
Lenses / Re: 24 f1.4L II or 16-35 f2.8L II
« on: March 19, 2011, 09:35:18 PM »
@waksfly, scalesusa makes a great point. Your camera has a 1.6x crop factor which means the Canon 16-35 will function exactly as a lens with a focal length of 25mm-56mm. This is still better than the fixed 38mm you would get using the 24mm f/1.4L. In order to really demonstrate this effect you would need to put a 10-22 on your camera, looking through that lens at 10mm is exactly what we see through the 5DMKII's Full frame at 16mm.
Any of this making sense or did I loose you? HA! Feel free to ask questions, lots of guys around here including me can help you with the technical stuff.
I still highly recommend the 16-35 for where you are and what you are doing. The 16-35 works FANTASTIC on a cropped sensor and is actually a bit easier to use this way than on a Full Frame. Any time the majority of light passs through the center of the lens rather than the edges (where the troublesome distortion and light loss starts) you get a better result. If you do plan on going to a Full Frame at some point avoid ANY EF-S lenses as they are not compatible with a full frame body. Keep in mind, lenses are an investment and they do hold their value!
@scalesusa, Thanks for the welcome!
Any of this making sense or did I loose you? HA! Feel free to ask questions, lots of guys around here including me can help you with the technical stuff.
I still highly recommend the 16-35 for where you are and what you are doing. The 16-35 works FANTASTIC on a cropped sensor and is actually a bit easier to use this way than on a Full Frame. Any time the majority of light passs through the center of the lens rather than the edges (where the troublesome distortion and light loss starts) you get a better result. If you do plan on going to a Full Frame at some point avoid ANY EF-S lenses as they are not compatible with a full frame body. Keep in mind, lenses are an investment and they do hold their value!
@scalesusa, Thanks for the welcome!
356
Lenses / Re: 24 f1.4L II or 16-35 f2.8L II
« on: March 19, 2011, 06:06:36 PM »
5D MK II
As he is planning on upgrading to a full frame my recommendation still stands
As he is planning on upgrading to a full frame my recommendation still stands
357
Lenses / Re: 24 f1.4L II or 16-35 f2.8L II
« on: March 19, 2011, 04:52:56 PM »
Waksfly,
I have both these lenses. To give you a idea of how I use them I quickly selected the past few weddings I've shot. 13,400 images selected. Of these 13,400 photos, the 16-35 f/2.8L II was used 5264 times. The Canon 24mm f/1.4 II was used only 726 times. The other photos spread between many different lenses. I've shot half a million wedding photos to date, and when I reach in my camera bag the 16-35 usually comes out first. Its a little more versatile and really fantastic in most situations. If I was forced to take only one of these lenses with me on a shoot of any kind it would be the 16-35. I would recommend you get the 16-35 for now until you can afford both. If you don't plan on being in very low light frequently then the 16-35 will serve you well! I of course LOVE my 24mm 1.4 and it really comes in handy for that low light stuff! For example taking advantage of that full moon last night with my bride and groom! This is OFF camera with the 24mm 1.4 ii, no flash, no modeling lights, just moonlight and my flip flop as a mini tri-pod, unedited.
I have both these lenses. To give you a idea of how I use them I quickly selected the past few weddings I've shot. 13,400 images selected. Of these 13,400 photos, the 16-35 f/2.8L II was used 5264 times. The Canon 24mm f/1.4 II was used only 726 times. The other photos spread between many different lenses. I've shot half a million wedding photos to date, and when I reach in my camera bag the 16-35 usually comes out first. Its a little more versatile and really fantastic in most situations. If I was forced to take only one of these lenses with me on a shoot of any kind it would be the 16-35. I would recommend you get the 16-35 for now until you can afford both. If you don't plan on being in very low light frequently then the 16-35 will serve you well! I of course LOVE my 24mm 1.4 and it really comes in handy for that low light stuff! For example taking advantage of that full moon last night with my bride and groom!
This is OFF camera with the 24mm 1.4 ii, no flash, no modeling lights, just moonlight and my flip flop as a mini tri-pod, unedited.