August 29, 2014, 02:25:03 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.


Topics - brought1

Pages: [1]
1
EOS Bodies - For Stills / 2nd camera body with a twist -
« on: February 05, 2013, 12:29:38 PM »
Hey everyone...I think what i'm after is people's real life experience with what I'm about to ask.  So, please spare me purchasing a particular camera based on just specs.  Only because I've spent the last few days comparing specs and other stuff.  So here goes...

I'm looking for a second FF body - going to be used for weddings, seniors, studio, engagements....typical photo-shoots.

I have a 5D MK II with plenty of incredible lenses to go around.  2 40d bodies I purchased back in 2007 that I use for going on vacation and any sports related job ( or where I don't want to burn the 5D shutter).

So here's what I'm looking at....and then why -

I've been looking on ebay at the Canon 1ds Mark III.  It ranges from anywhere from 1,900 to 3,000.  I know it's an older camera, however, here's what I like about it. 

It too is a 21 mp camera, which means I will spend less time re-sizing images ( to match my 5D) as the 5D mark II is 21/22.  Full Frame, great focusing system, completely weather sealed. 

There are a lot of other awesome things about it, however, I would like people who have/had had/used their perspective as to whether or not it's worth the purchase vs. buying a 6d or even 5d mk III.

I'm only ever going to use it for stills.  If I need a video camera, i'll use my 5d mk II or buy a small video camera.  It's sole purpose is for stills. 

For the price, I could buy a 6d or 5d MK III, however, I'm not really needing all of the bells and whistles the 5d MK III and 6D have.  However, I will be moving to an area that has quite a bit more precipitation and would like a fully sealed camera, but am just not quite sure at the moment.   

I have found 5D MK II's for half of the cost, however, I'm starting to feel what people have said about it's slow focusing and inconsistent autofocus.  I've put up with it so far...and actually have gotten used to it...so I wouldn't mind another one.....

Like I mentioned, spare me the "buy a 5d MKII and spend the rest on lenses" bit.  I have several L lenses and awesome primes that cover the gaumet of what I shoot.  I'm just after a camera body.  The 1dx is out of the question, but everything else is on the table. 

I almost always get great responses, so I thought I would come here first before any other thread.

Thanks.

Jendrick

2
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Once you go "L" you'll never go back....
« on: October 04, 2012, 02:56:43 AM »
Ok...This is more of a rant than anything....so here goes!

NEVER EVER...EVER...EVER have an amateur, shooting with a different camera brand and very poor quality lenses shoot a wedding with you  ( you had sympathy for this person and wanted to help them grow as a photographer and allowed them to assist you, photographing)

Holy smokes!!!  I'm using L glass plus a 5D MK II  and in order to get the quality of their picture to something half decent and that looks like a hint of my pictures, talk about POST POST POST...Geesh!

They were using a Pentax K-X and a Tamron AF-70-300.  Now before everyone jumps on my case, I did provide a canon 40D with Canon Lenses ( NON-L) for him to use, however, it was sooo different than his own camera, he couldn't figure it out within the few hours he was there.

This is not a rip on the photographer, he actually has a great eye for composition....he just needs a better system....sorry..

Short of great canon (non-L primes) 85 1.8, heck the 50 mm 1.8 Mark 1....I don't know I'll ever buy poor quality lenses...

sorry....more of a rant...lol

Have a good night.

3
Lenses / Canon 14-24 2.8 - With our powers combined....
« on: August 31, 2012, 05:46:31 PM »
With our powers combined, "We" the loyal and (for the most part...satisfied) customers of Canon command you (with a pretty pretty please....and cherry on top) to release your secret weapon - The 14-24 2.8L upon us to smite thee Nikon. 

Let it be known, this day of 31st (it just so happens to be my birthday - the "Big" 30) of Augusta, of 2012, that "We" ( I'm really just speaking for myself) will gather groupies to petition everyday, if we must, for you to release it  ASAP.


Just trying to have a little fun here...

But seriously, why make us wait? Is it because you haven't quite released the 24-70 II and are afraid this will trump the profits of the 24-70?  Some of you may think i'm crazy, but i've really considered purchasing the Nikon 14-24 2.8 (and all of the other verbage (SP) along with an Nikon mount to EF adapter just to use their lens MANUALLY....

From reading some of the other forums, it looks like Canon will be releasing a slew of other lenses before they even touch this one.  And before the Die-Hard "Primers" respond, I have tons of primes that I love using, however, it would be nice not having to take a few of them...but rather having this bad girl. 

So everyone, don't take this posting too serious, it was meant to lighten the mood. 

I would appreciate any insightful commentary.

Have a GREAT Labor-day weekend.  I'm photographing at a blues festival...a wedding...and a bunch of other stuff this weekend. 

J

4
Hello everyone - To get right to the point....

Auto focus points - Is it me or does it seem that canon has jumped on the bandwagon with an overwhelming amount of auto focus points? 

Honestly, when i'm photographing anything from Seniors to Weddings...engagements...the whole sha-bang, I can't stand using just the center point as many photographers do, but rather I am constantly dialing between all points re-positioning my camera to get the shot. 

(a quick note before low-light photographers jump in on the conversation...When I photograph in low-light situations, the primes come out and I use the AF on the back of the camera (center focus) and hold my focal length in order to focus and re-position)

So, here's my beef...what good is it to have 61 auto focus points when you shoot like me...and use them all the time.  Would I have to dial all through them just to get the focus area and then miss the shot?  Is this a gimmick? Similarly to the Megapixel wars? Just to entice those on the fence?

Before landscapers join in, too... most successful landscape photographers are usually shooting in manual, so please don't bother commenting on how they use all their AF points...because that's BS. 

So, let me recap - landscape photogs shoot in manual or set a "Range" to focus on...low light can focus using the center focus and recompose their shot...weddings photogs either use a focus/Recompose or selective AF points...

Is the 61 AF points really just for those who were suckered into purchasing an expensive camera and can only set it to Automatic? 

One last thing....Please don't mistake my humorous demeanor for the need to respond with erroneous and illegitimate information...I am honestly curious how other photographers feel about useless AF Points.

Thx.

J

Pages: [1]