August 29, 2014, 04:37:25 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 - Chosenbydestiny

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 16
106
Lenses / Re: Canon 24 - 105 for event photography?
« on: May 06, 2013, 06:02:19 AM »
I also have a 5DIII.  The 24-105 is a very, very good lens.  It is good at everything but it is the best at nothing.  You can find a prime that will do any task better.  Today I hauled around a bag of lenes and left this home.  I ended up with some good shots, but kept changing lenses.95% of what I took was between 24 and 105.  So I ended up cutting a photowalk short because I was tired and on top of that I got some dust on the focusing screen because I was constantly changing lenses in the wind.  I should have just taken the 24-105L.  Larger point.  If you are going for a walk about, this is your lens.  If you are going to a specific event, with a specific task, you can probably find something better.  Public speaking?  I'd go with the super sharp 135 f2L, but you will give up the IS.  Keep your 24-105L.  Leave it on your camera unless you have a specific task.

+1 But if I might add, the 24-105mm is the best single body solution there is for events. I use up to 3 bodies at some events by myself so I'm okay with my primes. But for one body, zoom range is very important. Why? Stuff happens spur of the moment at most events. If it's a birthday party or wedding of some sort... moments just happen, people who come to you wanting a group shot just happen, no one can run faster than zooming with a 24-105mm to catch the moment, and even if you somehow run faster than the fastest man in the world, it's just rude at an event. ;) So I definitely recommend the 24-105mm with an adjustable flash for pretty much any event. Especially if you're getting paid. They'll accept 100 mediocre photos of whatever needed to be taken over 5 top quality ones from a limited range, that's just how the business works. No one in the thousands of events I've taken have said wow those 5 photos are really really nice, I don't care that you missed the other 95 shots that we needed. For events, invest in utility first, and upgrade to higher quality gear from then on.

107
Lenses / Re: Best Lens for FF 6D
« on: May 05, 2013, 11:48:33 PM »
Start with a 50mm F1.4 (Sigma/Canon or a 40mm pancake though I like the F1.4 more than F2.8).  You can acquire later whatever you think you need.  You can also sell it if you find out later that you don't need it.  A 24-105 F4 L is also a good start.  You can sell it later if you don't need it also without losing much (maybe gain a little bit more if you purchase it as a kit lens).

The OP has already stated they have a 50mm 1.8 and 40mm pancake... I'm sure expect is supposed to be except as it would make more sense anyway, hehe.

108
Lenses / Re: Canon 85L II AF speed on 5D III???
« on: May 02, 2013, 02:24:48 PM »
Oddly enough, 85L II seems to focus faster on my old 1D mark III outdoors than it does on 5D mark III. However, it is more accurate on the 5D mark III. No tests to prove it but it's my gut instinct saying it's still slow as molasses no matter what body it's on, lol. The lens is just too specialized for me to justify the price, so I sold it to a friend and just borrow it on a rare occasion.

109
No offense to those who own Tamron lenses, as I've owned a couple of them (28-75 and 17-50 non VC) myself in the past... They always seem to have a yellowish hue to them, most subjects kinda looked like they had hepatitis ;) I tested the Tamron 24-70mm VC at a booth at Photoworld Asia awhile back and though I saw richer colors, the yellowish tint was still there for the portraits I took. By testing, I mean exposing properly with AWB, custom white balance, and kelvin. There's just not much of a way around it when in camera, but there is (for the most part) in post. So, if you shoot a lot of people like I do, and want minimal post, I'd avoid third party. Not saying they're bad for everyone, just bad for me. ;) My vote goes to the older Canon 24-70 because the colors that came from it were quite good. I owned the Canon 24-70 for a long time and didn't see too many people complain about it until the Mark II came out. =P The 24-105 I've never owned but I'm sure it has it's own specific place in the world. ;)

110
Sorry for your loss. If you think you'll never shoot action seriously at all the 6D isn't bad. But there are far more advantages to the 5D mark III than just AF which is already huge by itself. Example is dual card slots and the way controls are set up... IQ is about the same in terms of ISO performance with the 6D being a touch better, but I like the colors from the 5D mark III a little better. But If its worth it to you and know you'll save a a lot of money then a 6D is actually not a bad camera and I appreciate mine for what it can do.

111
Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM
« on: April 22, 2013, 11:43:53 AM »
... but what seems to to be hard for many is that it now seems that this particular third party lens is actually better than its original counterpart...

Canon has been over taken in the sensor department by Sony/Nikon and now they're being overtaken in the lens department.
They will probably go bankrupt before the end of the year.

Yes, and massive investment into R&D for companies that don't profit as much as Canon are a way to avoid bankruptcy. I'd be even more scared of owning a Nikon or Sony in this day and age. Sony also doesn't have the best track record for releasing products that are both successful and groundbreaking ;) Uhh...Betamax anyone?

112
Bad Rumor.

1.8 + OS = dont think so!!!!

IKR!!! It's almost as ridiculous as having an f1/.8 zoom, hahaha. Oh, wait.... They did come out with an f/1.8 zoom just recently. ;)

113
Let the man enjoy his gear, I'm sure he worked hard to get them. ^_~

114
EOS Bodies / Re: 21mp Sensor in the 7D Mark II? [CR1]
« on: April 19, 2013, 04:41:19 AM »
So lets see if I understand this... The 7D2 MIGHT be 21 megapixels, or it MIGHT be 24, or it could possibly be 18. And the 70D MIGHT have one of those sensors.... or it could be something else.....

Yeah, I know... sounds like a company that knows what it is doing, doesn't it?

I love it when this site gets interpreted as if the url is canonfacts.com

ALL OF THIS STUFF IS SPECULATION PEOPLE.  HEAR SAY.  ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE.  A DUMPING GROUND FOR PROTOTYPE SPECS THAT WILL NEVER SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY.  THIS SITE IS FOR YOUR ENTERTAINMENT - THAT'S IT.  STOP BASING YOUR HAPPINESS OFF OF WHAT YOU READ HERE.


Did anyone else hear that?  :o

115
I'm really excited about this lens, and I don't even own a crop body.  I'm excited about the implications for the future.  If this lens can be produced and has good optics (which will be the real issue), it raises so many interesting implications for the future.

A 27-55mm, or even 27-50mm f/1.8 FF lens would be absolutely amazing if it had good optics.  Once the technology is out there, reverse engineering means that this advance will soon be in the hands of other manufacturers.  The very nature of putting out an APS-C only lens means that the price has got to be somewhat reasonable, as there are not (to my knowledge) many APS-C lenses over a thousand dollars US.

+1 Though this might not be the most appealing range for most, it's a game changer that will influence really good stuff in the near future. I'd be happy with something like a 24-50mm f/2 for full frame actually, seeing stuff like this being released makes me confidently look forward to more developments.

116
Lenses / Re: I have just lost confidence with Canon Rumors & B&H
« on: April 17, 2013, 01:18:09 PM »
I remember back in the day in San Francisco, there were these independent electronic stores along Market Street.  They were generally rip off stores designed to get tourists.  One of the stores had a large sign out that said...

GOING OUT for BUSINESS!

The capitalized letters would be like 3 feet tall and the for was a tiny word easily mistaken for the word "of".  They wanted to make it look like they were liquidating their merchandise when that is their everyday strategy.

Another business type that does permanent going out of business sales seems to be the Persian Rug market.   Great deals...every day!

Haha, most of them are along fisherman's wharf now right? Reminds me of my trip to HK, I'd walk around in Central with my DSLR around my neck and I'd get approached with something like "Come in, we have cheap lens... CHEAP LENS!!".

117
EOS Bodies / Re: A Bit of EOS 70D Info [CR1-CR2]
« on: April 16, 2013, 12:00:13 AM »
This sounds like a sweet upgrade from the 60D.  I bought the 50D over the 60D because of the body-design and materials. Even though it was lower-spec in some ways. Add WiFi, GPS, weather-sealing, 6.5fps and Digic 5? I'd seriously consider it if I wanted a crop-camera..

Exactly.

It is full of the latest "bling" that consumers crave - who cares if it takes good pictures or not, just as long as they're better than my iPhone.

+1 and built better than an iPhone, because one day we'll all shoot photos in the middle of a blizzard, lol. One of my cameramen dropped his 60D from a 20 foot jib over a year ago because the plate was loose, still works today. That's just another story on top of many survived situations in a "normal" setting.

118
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 6D or 5D MKII - Which is Better for Video?
« on: April 15, 2013, 08:53:50 AM »
I've shot video with both, and the moire is about the same. It just "feels" like there's a slight bit more on the 6D but even then I ask normal people if they notice or care about it and they really just don't. So I wouldn't throw a temper tantrum over moire just yet, if you want pro results then you gotta pay pro money. There are more advantages on the 6D for video over the 5D mark II, very important advantages at that. Most noticeable practical differences are the amount of video modes, and the visible audio meter while recording. Overall audio features (like the headphone jack) not as great as the 5D mark III, but definitely better than the 5D mark II. That's why we always use the 5D mark III as a main camera, and close ups for lapel mic'd shots. And of course, the primary yet somehow not as practical reason of getting the 6D over the 5D mark II.... Better noise performance at high ISO. It performs quite well in that department. (Just remember that quality of light will always determine better IQ over high ISO performance.) All in all, yes, 6D is better for video.

119
Lenses / Re: Which Lens Canon 85mm 1.8 or 135 L
« on: April 13, 2013, 12:16:19 PM »
I kinda want to build up an L collection so you guys haven't made this easy on my pockets  :P

An L prime won't help you much in terms of sharpness and color for a studio shoot. In fact, you may want to consider a zoom like 70-200 f4 which is fairly cheap somewhere between the 85mm 1.8 and 135mm f2 and is also an L. A lot of my photographer friends who shoot for big magazines like Playboy use just a 70-200 f4 with their FF on a tripod for studio work. For near the price of a 135L you could buy the 85mm 1.8 and 70-200 F4 and have the best of both range, low light capability, and you'll have an L. For studio, everything else really is just bragging rights. ;) Think about it.


One of my friends used to shoot for Playgirl magazine, and he found that if he need to use his (then) 80-200mm the pictures were never popular  ::)

Well, the original post clearly asks for two focal lengths that actually fall into your friend's unpopular range, if you were listening. ;) He seems smart enough to know what he wants, I'm sure you're aware that distortion from wider lenses aren't normally welcome for studio portraits, editorials, product shoots, etc. I was merely adding the idea of a complete solution that would give him everything for the price of the largest stretch of his budget. The 85mm gives creamy bokeh from the correct distance, is more compact than the 135mm and is just as good for portraits. It gets the job done. The difference in focal length is also not as big as most may think. Very similar characteristics despite the somewhat better color saturation on the 135L. But you can blur someone's ears away with both portrait lenses. ;) With the 70-200, he'll have that L glass he craves, for industry standard studio work in the most popular studio lengths and the utility for wherever else he might need it. I own, or have owned all of the above. The 135L is a wonderful lens, but you really have to make sure you always have the shooting room from that range on up. It is why professionals designate it as a headshot lens, and a good candid lens for events. With enough room and an unlimited choice of spots to shoot from, it can do everything. Unfortunately that's not how the real world works, so having something somewhat wider around can save you. Also, keep in mind that there is a focus limiter. There's a chance you'll forget about it when shooting a full body shot and coming in for close ups, a mistake that can cost you a good shot. If bokeh is all the OP is really after, the 85mm 1.8 bokeh is quite good on full frame, the 135mm is better, but not 3x the price better. Remember that bokeh isn't everything, lights and reflectors separate you from the typical bokeh look. Any lazy amateur can shoot bokeh all day long. A master of light manipulation will not rely solely on bokeh shots, be versatile. When shooting portraits in most cases, It's easier to move forward than it is to back away. 85mm is a better distance to direct and pose someone from without yelling or getting someone else to do it for you. There is a reason why these focal lengths are commonly designated to specific jobs, they just do those jobs so much better than other focal lengths. Eventually, you'll look for them all.

120
Lenses / Re: Which Lens Canon 85mm 1.8 or 135 L
« on: April 13, 2013, 07:36:30 AM »
I kinda want to build up an L collection so you guys haven't made this easy on my pockets  :P

An L prime won't help you much in terms of sharpness and color for a studio shoot. In fact, you may want to consider a zoom like 70-200 f4 which is fairly cheap somewhere between the 85mm 1.8 and 135mm f2 and is also an L. A lot of my photographer friends who shoot for big magazines like Playboy use just a 70-200 f4 with their FF on a tripod for studio work. For near the price of a 135L you could buy the 85mm 1.8 and 70-200 F4 and have the best of both range, low light capability, and you'll have an L. For studio, everything else really is just bragging rights. ;) Think about it.

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 16