October 20, 2014, 09:33:32 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 - BrandonKing96

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
"You don't even need that gear" (No, not my mother, actually)

2
1D X Sample Images / Re: Weddings
« on: October 17, 2013, 10:47:07 PM »
always such beautiful images!

3
Lenses / Re: Questions on EF 24-70mm II on 5D Mk3 vs EF-S 17-55mm on 7D
« on: October 14, 2013, 02:53:47 AM »
In no way it would be a bad move.  It is such an amazing combo! 5D 3 and 24-70II go together so well

4
Canon General / Re: Irritating photography advice
« on: October 11, 2013, 07:03:53 AM »


Bet it was your Mum who said 'you don't even need that lens'  ;)
 
Oddly enough, No! She'd just question why I "need" that lens.
[/quote]

what did you start off with?  I bought my daughter a used xti  and a used 18-55,  but every now and then I'll let her use some of my nice lenses. 

a 9  year old with an slr,  even  an old one  draws  attention...  I imagine at some point I might hand her down my mkiii,  but I really don't see that happening any time soon. 

I started off with a 60D when it first came out (back in the highly pretentious stage of teenage years) and just an 18-55, but slowly expanded with getting a 10-22 and I think what topped it off was the 580EX II and BG-E9.  Now I just get people complaining how heavy the 5D 3 is.

5
Canon General / Re: Irritating photography advice
« on: October 08, 2013, 07:56:44 AM »
"your photos are only good because of your camera".
"You don't even need that lens".
2 things I've heard over the years.
The rest of the BS I receive is stares because I'm a 17 year old with a 5D Mark III and 24-70 II, and supposedly I don't know anything about photography because I'm too young.

6
Lenses / Re: Lens reversal macro on canon 17-40mm
« on: October 03, 2013, 05:58:27 AM »
It's possible, but the wider the lens, the more magnification when you reverse it, and you don't really get anything in focus.  Well, you can, but the exposure would be extremely dark because you'd have to shove your subject pretty much into your lens.  Essentially, if you think of it like, the wider the lens, the smaller the image, but the bigger the lens, the larger the image, as you literally are reversing everything.

The 70-200 is a better option to use.  It's still a very small distance between the lens and subject, but a lot more practical. 

70mm is practical.  I can do so on my 24-70 II and 70-200 f/4, but 100mm reversed would be ideal (not just because it's the same focal length as Canon's actual macro lens). 

http://www.digitalrev.com/album?id=7093364

Here is some examples of what I did with my 70-200 f/4 IS and 60D.  It's a very difficult to focus.  And you can only focus by moving the camera along with the lens back and forth.

Happy shooting :)

7
My first one. I got a 70-200 f/4L IS.  Honestly it's great quality.  There's seldom a situation where I'd need f/2.8 but I'd use my 24-70 for that (in my situations, though). 
And I don't have a problem with the 70-200 f/4 not having a tripod ring doesn't bother me one bit because the f/4L IS is lighter than my 24-70 f/2.8L II.  but I think the 70-300 is a little heavier

8
Lenses / Re: Do you usually shoot your lenses wide open?
« on: October 01, 2013, 01:04:16 AM »
It depends. 
I normally use a 24-70 II.  I shoot at f/2.8 90% of the time.  The times I stop down is when I don't want such a shallow depth of field and when the light is too much to get a nice picture.

9
I don't blame the priest for blowing up at them, because of how invasive they actually were.  But then the problem arises- that's what they are being paid for and they're doing their job.  They're being paid to document the wedding (as bad as they are doing it). 
And I feel as if the priest (as worked up as he was) should have discussed it at a latter time, NOT at a crucial part of the ceremony in front of everyone, ruining the beauty of the moment. 
It's bad on either side.  The photographers were too invasive, and the priest didn't choose the correct moment to... "discuss" the issue.
However, everyone is only thinking about the priest and documenting crew.  What about the bride? A wedding is, after all, also subtitled as "the bride's (big) day".

10
Lenses / Re: W/A zoom for 5D MkIII
« on: September 07, 2013, 09:48:41 PM »
If filters are NOT a complete necessity for you, there is the option of the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8.
Reading that you don't really need anything over the 24mm mark but you want 17mm or wider, the 16-28 f/2.8 is a great option as it's wider than 17 (16 does make a bit of a difference) and it's constant f/2.8.  It's got GREAT image quality, and is so much cheaper than the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 II.  It retails for just under $900 US. Like i said though, the difficulty is it doesn't take filters.
The next option would be the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II, which is of course Canon's flagship UWA zoom.  Great quality overall and DOES take filters (82mm filter thread).
Moving up, the 17-40 f/4 does come to mind.  It's not as wide as the other two I've mentioned and is constant f/4 rather than f/2.8. I've also read that corners aren't that good up until f/8.
And another lens I've heard very mixed reviews about- the Sigma 12-24 mark II (I know the mark I is definitely terrible). I don't have much to comment on it as I don't know too much about it, but being a full frame UWA zoom, it's the lens that is the widest.

Also, if you like fisheye, the 8-15 is a great sharp f/4 lens.

11
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Micro Four Thirds to EF
« on: September 01, 2013, 08:55:25 AM »
Thank you both for your replies!
@luoto- don't worry, I had to double check I wrote it in the right order!

12
Third Party Manufacturers / Micro Four Thirds to EF
« on: September 01, 2013, 04:10:19 AM »
I was wondering if there were any MFT to EF adapters around.  I see a lot of EF to MFT when I search, but never an MFT to EF (or I'm just blind).  Reason being is I really like the 17mm f/0.95 and 25 f/0.95  (that large aperture for so much less than the Noctilux 50 f/0.95!!!!)

Thank you in advanced for your help.

13
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 or 1Dx
« on: September 01, 2013, 03:49:02 AM »
I'm very confused by this post, and not sure about it because of the username "forumMuppet",  but here's me trying to attempt to give some sort of serious answer:
An advantage of the 1Dx is most definitely the FPS and AF speed, but also the dual CF card slot comes into play, too (rather than the CF and SD slots in the 5D III).  Unless you're going to print very largely, I would not worry about the 4.2 megapixel difference.  With the kit you have, I would not worry too much about performance differences as they would not be significant enough to make you wish you had bought the other (aside from that 10FPS), but if you have the option, I don't see why not.  And I don't understand why a gripped 5D mark III would be any better than a 1Dx.  The battery grip does not improve performance (and only offers the dual battery slot).  If you choose the 5D III, you can afford to get another lens just for the fun of it.  If you go with the 1Dx, congratulations, you basically have the king of full frame photography in the Canon world.

If I had a 1Dx and 5D mark III, I'd only ever take the 5D Mark III (gripped) when needed as a second body.  If I was lazy like I normally am, I'd just take the 5D III without a grip.  Basically 1Dx > 5D mark III

14
Lenses / Re: Which L Lens to start with?
« on: August 26, 2013, 03:45:41 AM »
perhaps a basic 24-105L? maybe coupled with a 70-300L or 100-400L?

15
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
« on: August 25, 2013, 04:15:02 AM »
I am using 5d iii with this lenses. I want to take more close pictures with this lense, but I don't know how to. too much close makes the picture blurry. check these photos, these are the closest I could take. If anybody could help me ....
Check your settings. Working so closely with a low shutter speed isn't going to really get you greater results unless you're using a tripod.  The blur in the third photo looks like it's from motion blur.  You need a higher shutter speed and working with a 100mm f/2.8L that close, I'd say you need 1/100 or faster.
And the amount of noise in the photos! Surely there wasn't too much of a need to use such high ISOs? And being a 5D III you had to have been extremely high to achieve that much noise.
Also, don't forget the more that you increase the f stop number (aperture), the more you will get in focus.
Watch how close you are to the subject.  just because it's a macro lens doesn't mean it isn't limited.
Happy photographing :)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10