October 25, 2014, 03:22:09 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 - Promature

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7
61
Landscape / Re: Help Me Get Better - Crashing Waves
« on: November 17, 2012, 04:47:49 AM »
How'd I do?  Tried to modify the original in Lightroom like the previous post.

62
Landscape / Re: Help Me Get Better - Crashing Waves
« on: November 17, 2012, 01:11:24 AM »
slik is an outright terrible brand. i would not spend money on their tripods. avoid promaster as well. total ripoffs.

manfrotto is by far the best in terms of cost for performance. they produce high quality products for reasonable prices. i would also not get a ball head if the intention is to shoot landscapes. i would recommend a geared 3 way pan head. i own the manfrotto 410 geared head and it is a great performer and built to last a very long time. B&H has them listed at 225.00. one of the absolute best purchases i have ever made in photography!

there is a tremendous variety of tripod legs to mount the head to and it depends greatly upon what your needs are as to which set of legs is best suited for you. the variables you want to consider when purchasing a set of legs are min height, max height, center column extension, locking mechanisms, and whether the legs move independent of the center column. i currently own an older manfrotto that does not have independently moving legs and i really wish they weren't attached to the center column as it restricts my ability to squeeze the tripod into creative positions. i also like tripods that are capable of a very low minimum height yet still allow for a reasonable max height. independently moving legs will allow for this as opposed to legs that are attached to the center column. a set of legs can run anywhere from $150 to over $500.

a tripod and head is not something you want to cheap out on as a bad tripod will totally defeat the purpose of getting a tripod in the first place. buy manfrotto and it will last for decades. buy cheap and you will find that it will not function as it should and you will be shopping for another tripod soon.

if you have deep pockets....go gitzo.

The geared head is a little much for my blood.  What about this combo:
http://www.amazon.com/Manfrotto-055XPROB-Tripod-Legs-Black/dp/B000UMX7FI/ref=pd_sim_e_1
http://www.amazon.com/Manfrotto-498RC2-Release-Replaces-488RC2/dp/B002UOCWUK/ref=pd_bxgy_p_text_y

63
Landscape / Re: Help Me Get Better - Crashing Waves
« on: November 16, 2012, 11:14:30 PM »
How much do you all think I should spend on a Tripod?  I feel like I've read a lot of different articles, some of which say you should spend $800-$1,200, which seems like I'd be better off just getting a 5DIII and cranking up the ISO.  Would I be disappointed with a tripod w/ ballhead that costs $150-$200?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/131427-REG/Slik_615_315_Pro_700DX_Tripod_with.html

64
Abstract / This is why I love LensRentals - Hostess Photoshoot
« on: November 16, 2012, 06:52:43 PM »

65
EOS Bodies / Re: A Brief 2013 Canon Roadmap [CR1]
« on: November 16, 2012, 05:54:43 PM »
Wow, the quality of the 1Dx, and the IQ of a prime, really improves the image.  Both great compositions, although I personally like the first one the best, but even before the 100% crop you can tell the detail just isn't there with the high ISO on the 5DII.

66
Landscape / Re: Help Me Get Better - Crashing Waves
« on: November 16, 2012, 05:47:57 PM »
A quick twiddle of the sliders in Lightroom (I couldn't resist):

Wow, that looks fantastic.  I obviously need to learn how to use Lightroom.  I have it, but obviously not using it to its full potential.

Thank you everyone for the feedback.  I agree that they all seem a little under exposed.  It was pretty dark out, which I was trying to convey, but they still seem too dark.

As for a tripod, I am going to wait for Black Friday/Cyber Monday to see if I can find a decent deal on a Monfrotto tripod and ballhead; my current tripod cost $20 and it couldn't even support the weight of my T2i with the 18-55 2.8 (the plate and locking mechanism were pathetically overloaded).

67
Landscape / Re: Help Me Get Better - Crashing Waves
« on: November 16, 2012, 07:23:20 AM »
and two more...

68
Landscape / Re: Help Me Get Better - Crashing Waves
« on: November 16, 2012, 07:22:57 AM »
More....

69
Landscape / Help Me Get Better - Crashing Waves
« on: November 16, 2012, 07:22:10 AM »
The clouds didn't cooperate for a nice colorful shoot, but I figured it would give me good experience on shutter speed and aperture to get the affect I wanted.  Overall, I'm not that impressed and I was hoping to get some advice so that when the clouds and my schedule do cooperate, I can take better pictures.  Thank you in advance.

70
EOS Bodies / Re: A Brief 2013 Canon Roadmap [CR1]
« on: November 16, 2012, 12:28:29 AM »
Quote
While I personally don't mind carrying the 28-300L around for a day at an amusement park (and have done so, in fact),  that's a Canon-centric viewpoint (not misplaced here, just saying) and Roger doesn't seem to have that mindset. 

While the IQ is not as good as the Canon L-series lens, Nikon's 28-300mm FX-format lens is cheaper than both Canon's and Nikon's 17-55mm f/2.8 IS/VC offerings, and it's about the same weight and (retracted) size as those 17-55/2.8 lenses.  True, it's about $400 more than the APS-C superzooms, but a FF camera is more costly, so that's not unreasonable at all, IMO, and doesn't make the 'one lens solution' club very exclusive for (Nikon) FF shooters.

Admittedly I don't know much about Nikon, so good to know someone out there has a reasonably priced superzoon for FF.  Since you mention that you actually carried the 28-300L at an amusement park all day, what are your impressions of the lens (from a father's viewpoint)?  I'm curious because I'd use it for pretty much the same thing.  I'm guess it doesn't do so well indoors, but that's not what it's made for.

71
PowerShot Cameras / Re: G15 or G1X for my mom???
« on: November 16, 2012, 12:22:51 AM »
P&S rarely have the AF chops if your mom is trying to capture good photos with kids and pets.  In fact, it's pretty much the reason I stepped up to a T2i and the lenses I choose (the 70-200 is obviously for outdoors). 

If she MUST have a P&S, then either of the ones you mentioned would work, and so would the S110, S100, and S95 (S95 currently 35% off in canon refurbished store).  The S series has the advantage of being smaller, which will fit in her purse better like you mentioned.

However, don't expect miracles from the AF on any P&S.

72
Lenses / Re: Best Lens for photographing children
« on: November 15, 2012, 01:29:17 AM »
FF 5D3 is the camera. ... I am trying for tight shots of their face or at most them interacting with an object or another kid.

Have to say...I read that, and I immediately think 135mm f/2L.  It's just about the perfect lens for tight portraits on FF. 

You might have the issue with people stepping in front, but even awareness of your presence won't prevent that.

If you are taking inside shots though, the 85 1.8 might be a good choice too.  Depends on the house layout, but I'd be afraid that the 135 might not let me get enough in the frame.  At least with the 85 you can always crop down.

73
Portrait / Re: Shooting a soccer portrait for a friend
« on: November 14, 2012, 02:44:35 AM »
I think it would help the image if the background was less distracting.  I like the pose and what you were going for though.

74
EOS Bodies / Re: A Brief 2013 Canon Roadmap [CR1]
« on: November 14, 2012, 02:31:46 AM »
Quote
Nikon's 28-300 costs around $1k, while its 18-200 is $850 (new prices), so the gap in price is closing. I predict that the performance gulf between these two lenses will also be nullified whenever the next 28-300 comes out, considering how much of both Canon and Nikon's attention is going to developing new full frame lenses. I wouldn't be surprised if Canon developed a similar non-L lens considering the popularity of Nikon's 28-300.

Tamron 18-270 currently $550.
http://www.adorama.com/TM18270PEOS.html

75
EOS Bodies / Re: A Brief 2013 Canon Roadmap [CR1]
« on: November 13, 2012, 10:54:19 PM »
Quote
18-200mm is equivalent to 29-320mm on FF, and both Nikon and Canon offer 28-300mm full frame lenses.  My 28-300L does very well as a 'one lens solution'.
Neuro, problem is that the 28-300 is $3k.  The 18-200 and 270 can be had for $500-$600.  Big difference for a dad wanting to take decent pictures on vacation.  Also, I don't think I'd want to carry the L-series glass around my neck all day at Disney World.  I think on technicallity Roger is incorrect, but on intent he is spot on.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7