Messages

31

Lenses / Re: UV filters (any difference?)

« on: March 04, 2013, 02:14:30 PM »

Proven to make your images softer but protect your lens from a tree. your call.

Noticeably softer?  I would like to see the source of that fact (unless you are referring to cheap filters).

32

Lenses / Re: UV filters (any difference?)

« on: March 04, 2013, 09:48:27 AM »

  Seems to me based on casual observation that snapshooters use them and serious photographers (especially pros) do not.  I suspect this is because the snapshooters are told by the salesperson at the camera shop that they have to have one.

Wow, did you really think about this before you typed it?  Rienzphotoz already responded with a perfect reply to your statements, but I just had to add to it.  Statements like yours make you sound like the inexperienced snapshooter.  Of course I have not clue as to your actual experience and quality of work, but your comments can often give the inexperienced photographers the wrong idea.  Please don't make grand assumptions based on casual observations. 

My opinion based on decades of experience:

*  Cheap filter is worse than no filter
*  No filter is sometimes preferable in certain situations
*  Quality filter is often needed for protection (sand, salt or fresh water (splash or rain), ice, dirt/mud, photojournalism...)

33

Lenses / Re: your goto everyday lens and why?

« on: March 04, 2013, 09:01:13 AM »

200 f/2. 

When in doubt, this lens will hit the mark!

My second choice is the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II but I usually put it back down and pick up the 200 f/2.  This past weekend we went out of town for four days and I only took the 1DX and 200 f/2.  My wife was impressed with my light camera load (normally want to take at least 3 lenses and a backup body when going out of town). 

34

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Finnish wearing on my 5D Mark III

« on: February 28, 2013, 08:53:26 AM »

Wow, that does not look good for that young of a camera.  I have used my 1DX for about 1 year and have 150K+ actuations on it and it doesn't have a single mark on the body.  I am not overly careful with my equipment either as the shot is more important to me than insured equipment but I still don't have wear like that. 

Even my well abused Lumedyne battery packs don't look that bad and they get the crap beat out of them swinging wildly on straps, banging on everything and tossed to the ground on every shoot.

35

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1D X - Few Questions

« on: February 28, 2013, 08:43:10 AM »

I shoot sports in RAW and have to change the battery in the middle of the day (~20K+ per weekend of shooting) since it slows down (below 12 fps) after the 1/2 point of a charge.  Not a big deal though.

I use the Lexar 1000x cards and yes, they do make a big difference when shooting RAW bursts.

36

Lenses / Re: 70-400/ f4.0-5.6 Zoom ... Canon, where are you?

« on: February 25, 2013, 04:58:21 PM »

I've been shooting subjects like that (close and then far) for years.  The solution is to use two bodies with two different lenses on them.  Photographers have been using this standard setup for ages for close and then far subject matters such as field sports.  I would rather shoot with a great prime and then a great zoom on two bodies rather than use a mega zoom with lower quality. 

My personal preference is having to buy and carry only ONE camera at a time.

This won't apply to everyone, but professionals such as myself would rather shoot with two bodies and two lenses so that a backup body is already with you.  No time to run back to the car for that spare body when the action is happening right there in front of you at that moment.  Shooting with one body is just not an option for some situations so using two lenses on two bodies just makes sense.

Just providing a view of a professional and why mega zooms are often not practical since you might already need two bodies anyways.  Many wedding photographers do this as well since having that second body on you allows you to not miss that important, non-repeatable, moment in the event that a body breaks (easy enough to swaps lenses from each body at that point).  One body with one mega zoom won't work for you in that case.

(Again, depending on what you are shooting this may not apply to you.)

37

Lenses / Re: 70-400/ f4.0-5.6 Zoom ... Canon, where are you?

« on: February 25, 2013, 09:09:19 AM »

Personally, I don't understand the desire for such large range zooms.  The more range you add, the less likely it is to be a clean lens.  At some point you just need to change lenses.  That is the whole point of an SLR; you can change lenses.  What is next, a 10-800mm? 

Actually, the point of a lens like that is that the things you shoot with it (birds, wildlife, outdoor sports) contain subjects that move a lot and might be 10ft from you one minute and 50ft from you the next. Changing lenses doesn't solve the issue, and for some of them (let's say on a Safari or shooting a mother bear and her cubs) getting closer is perhaps not the best idea.

Pretty much all zooms, except those on the very extreme ends (ultra-wides and fast super-tele), make a 3-4x zoom. Your 70-200's, 70-300's, 24-70, etc. Don't see too many people complaining about the tradeoffs of a 3x zoom in their new 24-70 or 70-200. And even the current 100-400 is pretty good optically, it just uses a different style zoom and could probably stand for some weight-saving technology that Canon has updated their other lenses with.

I've been shooting subjects like that (close and then far) for years.  The solution is to use two bodies with two different lenses on them.  Photographers have been using this standard setup for ages for close and then far subject matters such as field sports.  I would rather shoot with a great prime and then a great zoom on two bodies rather than use a mega zoom with lower quality. 

Again, that is my personal preference and the quality of the mega zooms is getting better all of the time (just not enough to entice me right now). 

38

Lenses / Re: 70-400/ f4.0-5.6 Zoom ... Canon, where are you?

« on: February 20, 2013, 08:38:25 AM »

Personally, I don't understand the desire for such large range zooms.  The more range you add, the less likely it is to be a clean lens.  At some point you just need to change lenses.  That is the whole point of an SLR; you can change lenses.  What is next, a 10-800mm? 

39

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Engagement shoot

« on: February 18, 2013, 04:24:04 PM »

Nicely done...5D III + 70-200 f2.8 IS II = Gift from heaven.

Except for the fact that he has a version I of the 70-200.   (Still nice combo - no flames please.)

40

Software & Accessories / Re: Which cloud storage solution?

« on: February 07, 2013, 01:54:26 PM »

Yeah, I think the OP needs to further define what they are talking about.  Cloud storage for permanent backups of your data or just to transfer some files to someone else temporarily? 

I have my own servers for transferring temp files to customers as needed and I also use a hosted solution.  For backups I have nightly copies that go to a different set of drives on a different server and once a week another copy is brought back, synced and taken back to a safety deposit box at the bank.  That gives me 3 copies of my data (a minimum of two).  Memory cards are not erased until the local copy is backed up to the second server (same day).  I have several TB of data (forget the count).

41

Canon General / Re: Canon to Update Firmware for 5D MK III and 1D X AF with Speedlight Assist Lamp

« on: February 06, 2013, 12:26:03 PM »

Did they really just say what I think they said?

 It may take slightly longer for the EOS-1D X digital SLR cameras to acquire focus when using the Speedlite’s AF Assist Beam, compared with that of the 1dx digital SLR cameras using the Speedlite’s AF Assist Beam.   

Hmmm, so I bought a 1DX not a 1D X or 1dx so am I okay? 

42

Lenses / Re: What lenses are good enough for the 18mp APS-C sensor? 1000$ limit :)

« on: February 06, 2013, 12:18:42 PM »

Most of these are good. 

https://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup

43

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 Focus Assist Beam Fix On The Way!!!

« on: February 06, 2013, 12:11:43 PM »

Great news for us indoor event shooters...

And outdoor night shooters (although I usually use bigger lights and a spot flashlight for focus)

44

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Emergency wedding, of sorts.

« on: February 06, 2013, 10:26:02 AM »

do you think that it went so bad that the dude got killed???

 

Hahahahahaha, "sorry, old friend.... these photos won't do"  BANG

   Great sense of humor.

45

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Emergency wedding, of sorts.

« on: February 06, 2013, 09:17:05 AM »

For future amateurs who are asked to shoot a wedding for a friend and to just have fun, you only need to rent one thing...

a professional photographer!

Some people have given some great advice, but advice is not experience.  Be a second shooter before you decide to accept the job of being the only shooter. If you are lucky then you might get away with shooting your first wedding by yourself but most people will not be that lucky and more crappy $150 wedding albums will be created.