March 02, 2015, 10:10:24 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 - JBeckwith

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
Canon General / Re: How ready is your camera gear usually?
« on: June 24, 2013, 10:15:28 PM »
I would say <5 minutes.  Everything I have is in one location but I have to corral everything together, pack it in the bag, and make sure batteries are charged and everything.  Although with only a few lenses and accessories to gather it's not terribly difficult.

Lenses / Re: A wise lens upgrade?
« on: June 22, 2013, 10:14:40 AM »
After thinking it over and considering all of your advice I think I am going to go with just the 70-200 f/4 IS.  It's about the price of both the 17-40 and 70-200 f/4 non IS combined, but I think it will be worth it.

I have always considered myself a WA shooter but when I really go back and look through the pictures, yeah I take a lot from 24-70mm, but almost all of the keepers are beyond 70mm.  I think this will give me the best bang for my buck.

The refurbished version is currently out of stock but they said they will give me a call when it is available.  I've never had a company do that so I think that's pretty cool.

Lenses / Re: A wise lens upgrade?
« on: June 21, 2013, 08:14:38 PM »
I agree with kennephoto, you will miss IS at the long end!
Yeah I hadn't really thought about that.  I was more thinking range and image quality.  From The digital picture it looks like the 70-200 f/4 (non-IS) has better IQ than any of the other 70-200 versions except the 2.8 II. 

Lenses / A wise lens upgrade?
« on: June 20, 2013, 10:26:43 PM »
My current lens lineup only consists of the 24-105 f/4L and 50 1.8.

I have an offer on the table to sell my 24-105 for about $720.  I love this lens but I have been looking to go a little wider for landscapes and also a little longer for portrait work.  With Canon's current refurbished pricing I could get both the 17-40 f/4L and 70-200 (non-IS) f/4L for about $900.

This means I would achieve all my goals of having a wider lens, longer lens, and I would still have the 50 to fill the difference all for only about $200 out of pocket.  I am curious if anybody has enough experience with any of these lenses to confirm that it would be a worthwhile deal for me or if I should hang onto the 24-105 and stick with my current setup.

Street & City / Re: 5DIII and 1DSIII does Kashmir and Rajasthan
« on: June 01, 2013, 11:09:10 AM »
All of your images are outstanding.  They are processed perfectly: enough to convey the message, but not too much as to appear overdone.

This may not be the answer you were looking for, but post them here.

From the short time I've been around this site I've seen that most people here are honest and knowledgeable and can give you some decent critiques.

Animal Kingdom / Re: Backyard Birding
« on: May 27, 2013, 09:59:53 AM »
Even though the last picture had the ISO cranked too high, it's still a nice shot.  Blue jays are just so beautiful that it's almost hard to get a bad shot of them.  The noise is almost unnoticeable if the picture isn't blown up too much.

Animal Kingdom / Re: Your best animal shots!
« on: May 27, 2013, 09:56:22 AM »
Since I upgraded to FF the longest lens I have is the 24-105.  Good animal shots can be hard to come by with that lens.

Afternoon Snack by Joe Beckwith, on Flickr

With my older 55-250 on the T2i

IMG_3789 by Joe Beckwith, on Flickr

IMG_3917 by Joe Beckwith, on Flickr

For some reason I enjoy this picture and it was taken with an iPhone.

skyscraper2 by Joe Beckwith, on Flickr

Black & White / Re: First Post! My Black and Whites :D
« on: May 15, 2013, 09:34:35 AM »
Second image is my favorite.  B&W can be tough but I think you picked the right images and did the right PP to make it work.

Black & White / Re: Street shot C&C please
« on: May 15, 2013, 09:31:39 AM »
He looks like an interesting person and I like the picture overall.

My critique would be that be background isn't really adding anything to the image (either presence of or absence of a background) so I would have either got in closer to him or cropped it tighter to show more of the expression in his face.  As it stands right now (to me) it seems like just a man sitting in an empty frame, whereas a closer shot might show a bit more about the actual personality of the man.

The issue that makes me upset is in both pictures the phone is supposed to be showing off its camera function using these fake images.  It's not so much misleading as it is blatantly false advertising. 

It would be equivalent to test driving a Honda Civic that the dealership secretly installed a Corvette engine in, then sending you home in a regular one without letting you know.

Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: May 13, 2013, 09:07:00 AM »
Landscapes are my favorite to photograph but I can never really capture the true beauty that I see with my eyes.  The view from the top of this mountain was incredible but the picture is mediocre at best.

Summit by Joe Beckwith, on Flickr

Landscape / Re: Sunset landscape
« on: May 13, 2013, 09:01:25 AM »

Would've looked really great with a longer exposure.

Beautiful day and the 1st hike of the year.

Summit by Joe Beckwith, on Flickr

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4