Messages

796

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 5D Classic/Mark 1 - Still worth the buy now?

« on: January 15, 2012, 01:47:52 PM »

Question: does anyone know if Canon still replaces shutters for the 5D Classic? Just wondering.

Yes they do. I just had the mirror fix performed on my 5DC for free last summer.

IMHO, for $750 to $850 used, the 5DC is an outstanding value. I still use mine on professional gigs all the time. Sure the AF is pathetic, the LCD screen is a joke, and the FPS is slow, but the 5DC's image quality crushes any of the current 1.6:1 bodies by a large margin. Considering that the OP's intended use is for landscapes and low-light photography, I'd highly recommend a 5DC over anything else in its price range.

From my experience, in terms of dynamic range and overall image quality (color, contrast, DR, ISO), Canon's best 1.6:1 body, the 7D, lags far behind the 5DC.

797

Canon General / Re: Professional Photography Marketing

« on: December 21, 2011, 05:07:56 PM »

A few more thoughts:

As with many products or services on the market, word of mouth advertising reigns supreme. No one wants to hear you tell everyone how great you are. Potential clients want to hear other people tell them how great you are. I've never even met many of the clients I work with on a regular basis, and others I've only met face-to-face once or twice. Nevertheless, I've been able to earn their business based on references from other people that I've worked for.

Also, personality plays a big part in being successful in this business. Even if you're a great photographer, no one's going to want to hire you if you can't hit your deadlines, complain about how long it takes them to process your invoices, and need your client to hold your hand when setting up a shoot. Most of the time, when someone calls me up with a job, the next time they hear from me is when I deliver the product. I try my best to isolate my client from any hoops I have to jump through to get a job done. That's my problem, not theirs.

798

Canon General / Re: Professional Photography Marketing

« on: December 21, 2011, 04:58:28 PM »

How do you make the sell and push your brand as a more desirable service than those who can offer the same job for a fraction of the cost?

You don't. If someone else can offer the same caliber of service for a fraction of the cost, of course they're going to get hired over more expensive photographers. Generally speaking, however, I have found that you get what you pay for. Editors and art directors know this, and even in tough economic times, they're willing to pay a premium for top-notch work. I don't worry about the two-cent hacks. I just concentrate on working my ass off and providing the highest-quality product possible.

Every now and then, you'll get someone willing to work for next to nothing that shoots just as well as an established veteran in their field. The downside to this strategy is you've set the expectation that you're willing to work for peanuts right off the bat. So unless you're so good that you can eventually raise your rate, you might one day realize that the money  you're making isn't enough to pay the bills, and hence your pricing strategy isn't sustainable long-term. Basically, a lot of these guys work for nothing just to get their foot in the door, which eventually puts them out of business.

A lot of it also depends on who you shoot for, as quality is in the eye of the beholder. The average bride's mommy doesn't have a professionally trained eye, so I can see why it would be tough for wedding photographers to convince clients to pay a premium for their services. Surprisingly, there are many editors and art directors that are clueless in this regard as well. That said, from my experience it tends to even out in the end, and the cream always rises to the top.

799

EOS Bodies / Re: Rumored D800 specs look mighty impressive

« on: December 16, 2011, 10:58:22 PM »

If it materialize (not the first time the nikon rumor site post these 99% certain spec!) it will be interesting to see if the ISO 6400 of a 36MP D800 is as clean (relatively speaking if we can call this clean) as ISO 6400 of the current 21MP 5D mkII.  I find it hard to beleive it will be better then the current 5D with so many more MP...

After witnessing the impressive noise suppression Canon was able to accomplish on a crop sensor body like the 7D, I no longer doubt the ability of manufacturers to produce cameras capable of both high megapixels and low noise.  I hope the rumored D800 specs do pan out, since it will force Canon to counter with a product that can compete with it.

800

EOS Bodies / Re: Rumored D800 specs look mighty impressive

« on: December 16, 2011, 08:15:29 PM »

I'm a bit suprised to see such a turn around in the Nikon Attitude, one of the executives said of the D700 a few years back, that it was a mistake to concentrate solely on high ISO, and that they would not be doing that in the future.

Yes, I find the shifts in strategies for both Canon and Nikon a bit surprising. With the 1Dx, Canon jumped in the high ISO bandwagon, megapixels be damned. With the D800, if the specs are real, Nikon will have tripled the resolution over the D700.

If the 5DIII prioritizes high ISO over megapixels, IMHO, there won't be enough of a difference to distinguish it from the 1Dx. Yeah, the 1Dx will be way faster, AF and FPS wise, and boast superior build quality, but ultimately it will be another high-ISO, low-megapixels body like the 1Dx. At least with how the D4 and D800 are aligned, you can choose from a high-ISO body, or a high megapixel body. I'd have to say that the Nikon strategy makes more sense. For all we know, maybe Canon will stun everyone and release a 30-plus-megapixel 5DIII.

801

EOS Bodies / Re: Rumored D800 specs look mighty impressive

« on: December 16, 2011, 07:52:13 PM »

One more thing, before I get bashed as a sell-out and a megapixel lover, my shooting needs prioritize low-light/high-ISO performance over megapixel count, as the editorial outlets I work for rarely publish images much larger than 16x20. If I'm forced to choose between megapixels or ISO and dynamic range, I'll take the latter every time. However, I'd be lying if I said that I didn't notice a distinct difference between the detail captured by my 5DI vs. my 1DsIII, even when the 5D's files aren't stretched beyond 300 dpi in print. This might have something to do with the low-quality paper that many of my clients use to print their magazines, but it is what it is.  I have no control over that and have to make the best of the situation. The 1DsIII's extra 9 megapixels, and the higher dpi that results in print from that higher resolution, is always a welcome plus.

I'm not talking about 200% enlargements, either. At 300 dpi, the 5D's files are 14.5 x 9.7 inches. If the 1DsIII's files are printed at the same 14.5 x 9.7, the extra detail is very noticeable. I suppose that's a long-winded way of saying that as much of a stickler as I am for high-ISO performance and dynamic range, megapixels do matter.

Like lots of people on here, I'm heavily invested in the Canon system, and very reluctant to consider switching over to the dark side. I've been keeping up with all the 5DIII rumors mainly because I think my backup body (5D classic) is in need of an update. Interestingly, it's looking like the D800 might actually end up being a nice upgrade over my 1DsIII, especially since I don't feel inclined to dish out the big bucks for a 1Dx.

802

EOS Bodies / Rumored D800 specs look mighty impressive

« on: December 16, 2011, 07:27:23 PM »

In recent days, we've read rumors that the 5DIII will get the 1Dx's sensor, or some other chip that prioritizes low-light/high ISO performance at the expense of megapixels. In the meantime, Nikon Rumors posted this spec list of the D800, which the site administrator feels is 99% accurate:

- 36 megapixel sensor
- 51-point AF system
- ISO 100-6400, expandable to 25,600
- 3-inch-plus screen
- 4 fps in standard mode, 6 fps in DX mode with battery grip
- 1080 video, of course

Link: www.nikonrumors.com

If those specs are legit, that's one impressive body to say the least. Who knows, maybe Canon will surprise everyone and announce a 30 mp-plus 5DIII, but even if it does, I doubt the AF system or FPS will come anywhere close. The 1Dx and D4 seem to line up nicely on paper, but I'm not so sure if Canon will come up with a 5DIII that can go head-to-head with this rumored D800.

I realize the verdict won't be determined until real working models of the D800 and 5DIII are in production and have been tested head-to-head, but I can see lots of people cutting their losses and jumping to Nikon if the rumors in the Nikon and Canon camps actually pan out. Hell, I'd consider the D800 an upgrade over my 1DsIII. 

803

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D + 10-22mm or 5D III + 16-35mm L II?

« on: December 11, 2011, 03:38:50 PM »

I recently purchased a 7D, which I'm quite happy with so far. I do a lot of nature work, landscapes when I have the time to get out and find them, wildlife and birds most of the time, with a variety of other macro, still life, and even portrait work at times. I've been holding out for a 5D III, however it seems that its release is still quite some way off into the future. I also currently own the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II lens, which I've used with my 450D for a while, however it does limit me on the wide end...essentially capturing an FoV similar to that of the 24-70 on FF.

My question is, should I grab the EF-S 10-22mm lens for the 7D, and use that for landscapes? I've heard that lens is optically really great, but I've also heard it has a fair amount of distortion at the wide end. Should I save my money bank it for the 5D III and use my 16-35mm for that kind of work?

I used both the 10-22 and 16-35 on a 10D and 20D for many years before upgrading to FF bodies. Since then, I've used the 16-35 and 17-40 on both the 7D and 5D.

IMHO, the 10-22 is an outstanding lens. Optically, it's pretty darn close to the L-series lenses. Distortion wise, from my experience the 16-35, both the MKI and MKII, is the worst of the bunch on the wide end. Dollar per dollar, I think the 17-40 offers the best bang-for-the-buck performance in terms of optics and build quality. I can't, in good conscience, recommended to anyone that spending twice as much for a 16-35 is worth it.

If you stick with a crop body, IMHO, you'll be giving up very little in image quality with a 10-22 vs. a 16-35 or 17-40.

804

EOS Bodies / Re: A Bit About the 5D Mark III? [CR1]

« on: December 08, 2011, 12:53:50 PM »

Besides, new bodies make good tax writeoffs.

True dat... =)  I wish I had your disposable income for a new camera... Even though I shoot professionally, every camera purchase for me has to be debated for by my boss (aka wife) =)

I'd hardly call my equipment budget sizable. The IDsIII is like 200 years old now  Trust me, every equipment purchase is a big deal. It certainly requires cutbacks in other areas!

805

EOS Bodies / Re: A Bit About the 5D Mark III? [CR1]

« on: December 08, 2011, 12:12:51 PM »

Hopefully you don't give a rat's ass about cost.

Not really. Cost is a secondary issue. Besides, new bodies make good tax writeoffs.

you're just described the behavior of the AF system in a 1-series camera.

Not really. The 7D's AF system trounces the 5D's. No one is dumb enough to expect a 1D-caliber AF system in a 5D. Many people would be content with an AF system at least on par with the 7D.

So...problem solved - get a 1DsIII, 1D IV, or a 1D X when it comes out.  I can almost guarantee that, given the requirements you outline, you're not going to be happy with the AF of the 5DIII.

I appreciate your generosity in trying to solve my problem for me, but I've already got it handled. I already own a 1DsIII. I'd just like to pick up a 5DIII as a backup, and for situations where it's smaller form factor is advantageous. There are many instances during a shoot when I have to rig my gear off a moving car. Fortunately, I haven't lost a body yet, but I'd much rather sacrifice a 5D than a 1D. The 5DII is great for this, since it's smaller size and lighter weight make it easier to rig, and it's IQ is outstanding. Unfortunately, whenever the subject moves just a bit, it struggles to readjust focus, which is a big problem when you're  triggering it with PocketWizards since you can't actually look through the viewfinder.

806

EOS Bodies / Re: A Bit About the 5D Mark III? [CR1]

« on: December 05, 2011, 10:32:48 PM »

For all you people who want better AF in the 5D3, what do you mean by better?

- More points, no matter how they perform?
- More f/2.8 and cross-type points? (regardless of how much light and how many total points there are)
- Points that work in less light? (regardless of how many there are and what aperture they are sensitive to)

I don't give a $h!t how many AF points, cross-type points, blah, blah, blah that the 5D3 will have. All I want is an AF system that locks focus quickly, accurately and consistently, especially with moving subjects. Low light AF performance needs to be upgraded substantially as well. In other words, I just want an AF system that doesn't get in my way. I couldn't care less how many AF points, cross-type points, or processors it takes to make it happen. As long as something works well for my shooting needs, I don't give a rat's ass what the specs may be. 

807

EOS Bodies / Re: More New Full Frame Rumors [CR1]

« on: September 20, 2011, 03:02:03 PM »

Also on V8Beast's post below, personally I don't see a significant difference in "big picture" like for like comparisons between crop and FF. Yes, the differences are there at pixel level, but who looks at pixels?

It really depends what you shoot and what purpose you shoot it for. For editorial work, how the photographer envisions a story layout while looking through the viewfinder - and therefore how he composes a shot - and how the art director actually lays out the image, are often very different. As such, it's not uncommon for an image to be cropped substantially. For instance, I might compose an image to be used as a two-page spread, and leave lots of dead space around the subject for text. If the art director chooses not to use the image how I envisioned, and heavily crops into the image, then the limitations of the file become much more exaggerated.

Even so, this isn't something most people stepping up from a point-and-shoot to a Rebel/xxD need to worry about, so why pay a premium for a FF sensor? Furthermore, certain forms of photography are more demanding than others in terms of dynamic range and high ISO requirements, so it's impossible to make blanket statements like "FF sensors are always superior to 1.6:1 sensors." Most images people take these days just sit on a hard drive, and only geeks like us pixel peep, so again, Canon would have it's work cut out for it to convince people to sacrifice megapixels for sensor size.

808

EOS Bodies / Re: More New Full Frame Rumors [CR1]

« on: September 20, 2011, 02:46:19 PM »

If you keep your lowly12.8 MP 5DC as back up, would you like to have a New 12.8MP FF (with all the new Technology from the 7D snsor) to give you better DR, lower noise, even if it is a low priced body as your back up???

Absolutely, but I already decided long ago that a FF sensor is better suited for what I shoot. It's not people like me Canon needs to convince. It's the people shopping for a Rebel, xxD or 7D that need to be convinced that it's worth it to pay a premium for a FF sensor. This rumored entry-level FF camera might be "low priced" compared to what photo enthusiasts are accustomed to, but if it's priced between the 7D and 5DII, it will be considered very pricy for people in the market for a Rebel or xxD.

809

EOS Bodies / Re: More New Full Frame Rumors [CR1]

« on: September 20, 2011, 12:48:39 PM »

Also most of people can tell the picture from a P &S from a APS_C, let alone FF.We should not assume that they are that naive. Also Canon can always educate people in their advertisement  and literatures.

I beg to differ. IMHO, people that have owned both FF and crop sensor bodies can easily spot the difference in image quality between the two. However, there are at least a half-dozen posts made here daily that claim their 7D or xxD body produces images on par with a FF body. They even post the indisputable evidence (links to some yahoo's blog "testing" FF and crop sensor bodies back-to-back by taking photos of bookshelves and their girlfriend's hairy arm pits) to back up their claims

When I'm on assignment, people are shocked to find out that I keep a lowly 12.8 mp 5DC as a backup body. They're stunned that a working pro has a body with fewer megapixels than their Rebel or 7D. You're kidding yourself if these kind of consumers have any idea of the different sensor sizes manufacturers offer. They just put their cameras in full Auto mode, and fire away.

If you can't distinguish the difference in image quality between a 1.6:1 and full-frame body, why spend the premium for a FF body? It's the same reason why I talk people out of buying DSLRs and suggest that they stick with point-and-shoots, on countless occasions. If this rumored entry-level, "lower mp" camera is real, that's the question Canon's marketing department is going to have to answer.

810

EOS Bodies / Re: More New Full Frame Rumors [CR1]

« on: September 19, 2011, 11:58:35 PM »

An entry-level, lower megapixel (whatever that means) camera sounds interesting, but how would you market such a machine? With many, if not most, people looking to step up from a point-and-shoot to an SLR, all they care about is megapixels. To them, image quality and megapixel count is one in the same. You have to be somewhat committed to techno geekery to even know or care about stuff like ISO and dynamic range. I can't see how you'd convince people like that to spend substantially more money than a Rebel on this rumored full-frame, "lower mp" body when they don't even know the difference between crop sensors and FF sensors.