December 18, 2014, 04:53:36 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 - wsmith96

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 33
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: I took the cheap road to FF
« on: November 10, 2014, 04:16:04 PM »
Thanks for the info on the mirror. The seller said that it has been repaired by Canon, but I'll double check that anyway.   

To answer some of the other questions asked of me:
1. the camera shipped today from New York.  I expect it by Friday.
2. I mainly shoot family, sports, and wildlife - nothing serious though.   I did have my first senior portrait shoot for a friend of mine yesterday.   I think the pic's turned out okay, but I'd like to retake with the 5D to compare.   I also shoot some real estate listings for a realtor friend of mine.   Nothing worthy of a magazine - just MLS quality pictures.   

If I love the FF camera, then I'll probably go for the 16-35 F4 lens first.   I don't have a standard or wide angle zoom that is an EF lens - just EF-S.   That new 100-400 looks pretty slick too.  I interested in real world reviews on that one.

Thanks for the feedback and encouragement!


EOS Bodies - For Stills / I took the cheap road to FF
« on: November 10, 2014, 01:56:04 PM »
This weekend I purchased a used 5D off of ebay with battery grip, batteries, memory cards, etc. for $445.  I have tried a FF once before and wasn't sure that the price tag was for me at the time.  I realize this camera is old and that there are risks to purchasing a used piece of equipment, but I wanted to better analyze for myself the IQ difference between the 5D and my 60D.  Even if I don't keep the 5D, I could resell it an make most (if not all) of my money back, so this was a better option than renting right now. 

Most members here say that the IQ will be quite evident and I'm looking forward to seeing for myself.  I had been contemplating moving up from my 60D to a 7D Mk II, but I also didn't want to rule out a FF option (most likely 6D).  So why not buy an older FF and have both FF and crop for a while.   I do have a few compatible lenses - 35-80, 50 1.8, 85 1.8, 70-200 f2.8 mk II, 70-300 IS USM - to get me started.

Regarding the 5D, is there anything I should consider getting for general maintenance?   I've not cleaned a sensor before and am not sure what I need for that, or for anything else that might require more manual attention on this camera.



Lenses / Re: EF 24-70mm f/4 L IS - Discontinued?
« on: November 10, 2014, 01:39:39 PM »
How many times have we heard of a salesman telling someone that a certain product has been discontinued and offer to sell them something more expensive that just happens to be in stock.

Lenses / Re: First Image of the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Lens
« on: November 06, 2014, 03:29:23 PM »
Can't wait to see the price!  This may become my second L lens :)   I was holding off on a 400 f/5.6L to see if unicorns really existed.   It appears they do.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: November 04, 2014, 10:46:07 AM »
Thanks everyone for all of your responses!

I've worked on my kit for quite a while, and though not as impressive as other people's kits, it does the job very nicely and appears to be similar to what you are looking for.

Here's what I have:
T1i - first camera that I learned a lot on
60D - recent second camera - bought refurbished for $460 from canon.   I'm still not sure if I like it or not, was wanting increased frame rate, but it's still a tad slow for me.  It also seems to produce dark images if I follow what the meter is telling me.   I'm exposing to the right now to produce normal looking pictures.

General - 17-55 F2.8 - this lens is the second most used out of my kit.  It produces great images every time. No issues with dust.
Wildlife/sports - Telephoto - 70-200 F2.8L Mk II - this lens is the most used out of my kit.  It produces great images every time, pricey, but worth it.
Macro/Portrait - 60 2.8 - I've had a great experience with this lens, but if I were to do it over, I would have saved and gotten the 100 F2.8L - mainly for the working distance and IS.  I will replace this one.
Wide-Angle - 10-22 - this is another lens that does a great job.  I don't have experience with the new 10-18, but the 10-22 won't disappoint.
Portrait - 50 1.8, 85 1.8 - they both do a great job, though I've found the 85 to be a bit softer on my 60D.  Don't be discouraged on the 50's plasticy feel.  If you are kind to your equipment it will produce nice images for little money.
Wildlife - Teleconverter - 1.4 Mk III - I use this with my 70-200 for wildlife.  It will turn this lens into a ~157-448mm FF equivalent F4 IS lens.  The image quality doesn't suffer from what I can tell and focus speed is still quick.

Good luck on your kit building!

Software & Accessories / Re: DxO OpticsPro 10 released
« on: October 29, 2014, 04:03:40 PM »
good catch -- very sneaky

I'd have to pass.  In a year it would be worth $5000, then the next year $2500, then the next year $1800.  I'm not necessarily an early adopter of large priced items.  Besides, they'll obsolete the model with a rebel that has wifi, cellular data and quad pixel AF.  Then the complaints will start right back up.

* disclaimer - of course, if it were making me significantly more money than what my previous camera would, that may change my mind.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 15, 2014, 07:42:22 PM »
Neuroanatomist, here's a "pro" microscope for you:
Image the full thickness of a live mouse's cortex! But you must have seen this - I put it up here for the entertainment of other geeks.

Cool stuff!

Kinda my point, though...where is it called 'pro'?  I have scopes costing from $1,000 to $800,000 – none of them are called 'pro microscopes'.   ;)

Must be time to trade-up Dr Neuro...


I was wrong, it seems...

I had no idea pro microscopes were so cheap compared to my systems!!   ;D

Remember what we said earlier about equipment with Pro in the name :)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 15, 2014, 05:35:46 PM »
I thought it had to say "Leica" somewhere on it?

or either NASA or Air Force

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 15, 2014, 09:26:20 AM »
Generally speaking, a manufacturers top of the range product is aimed at pros. Take knives, pans, laptops (the business lines), and I presume microscopes etc.

My Calphalon Commercial cookware was bought at Macy's, and my Wusthof pro knives came from Williams-Sonoma...not a restaurant supplier.  I've never seen a 'pro' microscope.  General Motors ran a marketing campaign for their Professional Grade trucks...I know a few people who use them to commute to their professional office jobs.

The top end is aimed at people who are willing and able to pay the higher price.  "Pro" is purely a marketing distinction.

If you are able to go into the kitchen at a restaurant, I bet you won't find calphalon or wusthof knives either.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 15, 2014, 09:23:35 AM »
I think manufacturers decide which are the pro models, whether it be a set of knives, a camera or laptop (though in the latter they are called business models rather than pro).
Errm, being pedantic for just a moment...I have a Macbook Pro laptop. Must make me a pro! Whoo-hoo!
This is an entertaining thread!  8)   I hope the OP has got something out of it.


The word "pro" used in a product name is often used to entice people to buy up - especially in compute equipment.  As an example, I don't remember the models, but one of the series of macbook pro's was pretty much identical to a lower range HP business laptop. A friend of mine was able to run a bios hack and run OSX from 2 ~$2000 macbook on a ~$450 HP laptop.  Of course, the HP didn't have the all metal body, but that was the primary difference.

Yes, I did get something out of this thread.  I had read in another thread that having a better auto focus system on the 6D would make it more professional.   To me that didn't make sense as there are many others out there that use the 6D that find the camera fine.  What I believe the person was saying was that the 6D's capabilities didn't meet their needs, but that doesn't necessarily make the 6D less of a professional camera - it just wasn't the right one for them.

I found that most are struggling to provide a definitive list of attributes that make a camera a professional camera.   I also found that comments kept shifting to the person behind the camera, rather than focusing on the camera itself - which comes back to the difficulty answering the question.  The one attribute that has been repeated, and that I also agree with, is build durability to maintain the operation of the camera through daily use.  Beyond that, I think it's up to the owner and their needs.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 15, 2014, 09:01:20 AM »
You're all wrong.  Only the D810 is a pro camera and you all know it!

No! GoPro! The name says it all.... Go Pro.....

Nobody would mount 29 D810's to their car, but they would (and did) with GoPro :)
To me it sounds like a recommendation  ;D ;D ;D

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 14, 2014, 05:45:07 PM »
Put it this way: among current wedding/event photogs, how seriously would you take someone who is using a Rebel XS (1000D) as his/her only camera?  What about a sports photog using a 60D?  I'd feel more confident that the "pro" was serious about his/her work if they were using 7D (sports/wildlife), 5D or 1D series bodies.

So, it is then the perception given to the client?  Does that go back to the notion that a camera is more professional based upon the amount of money it is, or because, in the example provided above, they are physically bigger?   I do agree that a 1D is very impressive looking on the sidelines.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 14, 2014, 05:39:12 PM »
This is a question for the underpants gnomes.

:)  actually, it was meant to make people think.   Cheers, and what are gnomes doing in your underpants?

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 33