Messages

16

Lenses / Re: Best Value "Normal" Lens for 6d?

« on: December 02, 2012, 08:01:13 PM »

+1 for 24-105 f4 and/or 50mm 1.8

With 'value' being the keyword...  the 24-70 has marginally better IQ and larger aperture than the 24-105, but its also way more expensive and doesnt have IS.  Especially considering you get it for a fraction of the price if you're buying the kit.

the 50 1.4 is also only marginally better than the 1.8, in my opinion.  It does not warrant spending 3x as much if you're on any kind of budget.  And if you are willing to spend that high, check out the slightly more expensive but more noticeably better Sigma 50mm 1.4.  With that sigma available, and rumors of a new canon 1.4 coming soon, I wouldnt consider buying the current 1.4...

17

Abstract / Re: Goofing around could lead to $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

« on: December 02, 2012, 11:49:27 AM »

This type of photography has been and is quickly being replaced by with CG, simple abstract stuff is easy to render and there's more control over the subject and lighting blah blah. But hey, all the photographer does is carry around nice gear to location so he can click a button for the camera to make magic, right??

Very true.. 

From the POV of a stock photo shooter (and user... graphic design is my full time gig),  I think the most profitable way to judge a photo is looking at it's thumbnail and how attractive it appears alongside others... which translates to bastardizing your photos 99% of the time. 

If you're trying to sell photos, it's true that something like pretty bokeh circles probably sells better than a rare photo of a lion in the wild taken with a $20,000+ setup, 9 times out of 10.  But... HDR the S___ out of that lion and put pretty bokeh circles behind him and you might have a winner! (jk lol)

18

Canon General / Re: Is canon going to come back?

« on: November 30, 2012, 04:42:56 PM »

The 5D3 is a better overall package because of these things.

1. AF superiority
2. Better video functions and controls
3. Better ergonomics. The d800 is a step back from the d700.
4. Silent shutter is whisper quiet.
5. In-camera RAW processing which is great for photo booths.
6. Small, medium and full RAW settings
7. 6 frames per second shooting
8. Simplified menu system
9. Double exposure. (Not sure if the d800 has this)
10. Shares all the battery's from the semi-pro lineup.

These are practical things that make the 5D3 a better overall camera body.

11. Canon

19

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Inexpensive lens for Video

« on: November 30, 2012, 02:44:28 PM »

+1 for 50 1.8 using manual focus

Id use a cheaper prime with manual focus. For something wider but a lil more expensive, the samyang 14mm 2.8 is great for video.  There is also a slightly more expensive "cine" version of the samyang with a manual aperature adjustment ring.  You can de-click the aperture ring to smoothly adjust aperture without abrupt exposure change while filming

for zoom, the 24-105 is a great choice with IS... although I'm not sure Id trust that one in the hands of a clumsy holder LOL.  Lok from digitalrevTV on youtube uses a 24-105 on a 5DII hand-holding and it always looks very pro.

-1 for 50 1.8

Utterly horrible to manually focus with its tiny mf ring with minimal travel. Makes accurately focussing damn hard, especially with fast moving subjects (like kids unless they're asleep)

If you go down the prime route you would be way way better off using an old prime which was designed to be manually focussed with an adapter. Or if you can find a cheap copy the tokina 35mm f2.8 macro is a very nice lens to mf with which is reasonably cheap and gives you a standardish focal length (50mm on crop is great for close ups, but particularly indoors where distances tend to be limited it is nowhere near wide enough for gv's)

Cheap but good zoom for video look for the tamron 17-50 f2.8. Without VC is sharper, with VC will probably give you better results handheld though.

That is a valid point.  I would definitely never advocate the 50 1.8 as a go-to video lens.... but considering the conditions from the OP: cheap and potential to be dropped--I stand firm on my answer.

If you can't hand-hold a DSLR and manual focus the 50 1.8 with one finger, your skill level doesn't warrant handling anything more expensive if you ask me.  Moving up to the 1.4 is a marginal improvement for a 3x price difference... and getting into that price range, you might as well invest in a slightly more expensive Tokina 11-16

If you're spending as much as $500, I would DEFINITELY recommend the tokina 11-16 2.8.  At infinity focus, everythign a meter out or farther will stay in focus.   For filming kids, wide and already in focus should be a big plus for convenience factor.  Not missing a memory is more important than bokeh quality

20

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Inexpensive lens for Video

« on: November 30, 2012, 09:00:29 AM »

+1 for 50 1.8 using manual focus

Id use a cheaper prime with manual focus. For something wider but a lil more expensive, the samyang 14mm 2.8 is great for video.  There is also a slightly more expensive "cine" version of the samyang with a manual aperature adjustment ring.  You can de-click the aperture ring to smoothly adjust aperture without abrupt exposure change while filming

for zoom, the 24-105 is a great choice with IS... although I'm not sure Id trust that one in the hands of a clumsy holder LOL.  Lok from digitalrevTV on youtube uses a 24-105 on a 5DII hand-holding and it always looks very pro.

21

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: 4K 15 FPS

« on: November 29, 2012, 03:34:29 PM »

24 isn't choppy, its the most normal looking to the eye.  60fps viewed on a screen with a high enough refresh rate looks more fluid like a home video... almost looks worse.  That's subjective though I guess.  Most productions are filmed at double the FPS the final product will use, so that they have the freedom to do slow-mo without loss.

4K at 15 fps is pointless.  It's a spec acheived purely for marketing benefit if you ask me.  And even if it got 4K at 24fps, with the IQ of the GoPro, you'd be better off scaling up the resolution of DSLR video taken at 720p.  Id be willing to bet the IQ will still be as good or better. 

4K = 9.something megapixels by the way.

22

Animal Kingdom / Re: Zoo Pics

« on: November 29, 2012, 12:35:46 PM »

IMG_5953.jpg by gudun, on Flickr

LOL this one is epic.  This could totally become a high-def version of "O RLY" owl meme

23

Canon General / Re: Is canon going to come back?

« on: November 29, 2012, 12:22:23 PM »

"There is not a single lens that Nikon makes that tempts me to switch--Canon has a rival to match or beat everything they offer.  Am I wrong?"

Well.... 14-24....

True...  better than canon 16-35 according to reviews.  Thats one anyway.  I dont know enough to list out lens by lens.  The 3 lenses I use primarily for portraiture and some video are the 50 1.2, 85 1.2 and 70-200 2.8 IS II.  Nikon has no rival for the first 2 and I havent tried Nikon's 70-200 but general consensus based on reviews seems to be that the new canon ver. II dominates all others

24

Canon General / Re: Is canon going to come back?

« on: November 29, 2012, 11:05:40 AM »

The 5DIII is hardly comparable to the D600... other than the fact that they both have full frame sensors.  If you do stock photos and regularly sell XXXL sized copies or print wall-sized murals that will be viewed up close, maybe a D800 makes sense over the 5DIII, but highly doubt that's the case.  Considering you already own EF lenses, and the 5DIII is NOT that much mroe expensive than the D800 anymore, I think it would be stupid to take such a loss to gain in megapixels...

I'm not a Canon fanboy by any means, I just happen to prefer the Canon over comparable Nikon more often than not.  Claiming that Canon is behind anyone, much less "far" behind is a ridiculous statement.  And to say that their products aren't up to par with Nikon's is even stupider.  There is not a single lens that Nikon makes that tempts me to switch--Canon has a rival to match or beat everything they offer.  Am I wrong?

25

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM

« on: November 27, 2012, 08:30:06 PM »

no but i think you will whis you bought the new sigma...

Do you have it??  It looks pretty solid based on that one lenrentals.com review...

26

Lenses / Re: 135L vs 70-200 IS MK II - real world opinions and experience needed

« on: November 27, 2012, 08:13:14 PM »

+1 for the 70-200 2.8 IS II

I own both also, and the 5DIII.  The 135 is cheaper...  It's also lighter... I personally think the 135L is slightly overrated.  Dont get me wrong, its super sharp (arguably the sharpest)--but it's hyped purely for that.  Unless I was going to be doing so much work at about 135mm that $900-1000 is nothing and wanted a little less weight for convenience, I would easily go for the 70-200 IS II every time instead.

Another point to consider.. the 135L is actually NOT weather proofed.  The IS versions of the 70-200s are.  That might be make or break depending on what you're using it for?

27

Canon General / Re: Portraits

« on: November 26, 2012, 10:38:58 PM »

Id say concentrate on coming up with the best photos you can... posted on flickr, a blog--anything searchable with tags.  Have some source online (whether it's your own website, or a flickr account), where someone could search "photography [insert your hometown]", and your work and contact information will come up.

If I could give 3 tips to someone starting out:

1. I'm a big fan of branding.  An attractive, meaningful, simple logo tied to a professional brand is bigger than most people think.  If in doubt, copy techniques and styles from pros who are successful and who you admire yourself.

2. Don't "watermark" your photos you post online.  If you believe a photo is so likely to be stolen and profited from that it requires a watermark, it doesn't belong online.  A clean, greyscale logo tucked neatly to a corner can work.  It should not distract from the photo. 

3. Only show your best work.

28

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Where is this new flash?

« on: November 26, 2012, 09:39:18 AM »

I'd Skip the PW.  Too many issues with a third party unit.  With the Canon 580EXII, for example, it has a range of 40 ft max, unless you put the weird RF sock on it or pay to have the flash modified.

If you've heard of an issue with PW transceivers, especially one that outweighs the AF assist problems that Canon's top-of-the-line, ridiculously overpriced system has... Id like to know.

But... assuming both work perfectly as they should, and price is not a variable, I would still choose PW Plus III's over the canon radio system.  For me, the features are more useful.  Mainly these two:

1.  PW Plus iii has a pressure sensitive shutter trigger that can remotely trigger the shutter AND autofocus before doing so (I love that). Sure there are other alternatives to remote shutter release... but if you're considering the 600-series, I'm going under the assumption that you appreciate packing lightweight.

2.  Can be used with any off-camera strobe

Of course those are just my preferences though.  Is there any reason why the Canon radio trigger is better than a PW plus iii setup?  Other than saving on the few PWs that have to attach to the lights? 

29

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: AA Battery Charger and Batteries

« on: November 26, 2012, 09:03:06 AM »

http://www.amazon.com/Plano-Count-Handgun-Ammo-Case/dp/B0042WIBA8/ref=pd_sim_sg_5

Just an example...

Ammo cases are a cheap/good alternative to 12-battery holders, especially if you need to hold a lot.  It's more convenient (to me) than having to pull out each battery with individual tabs over them.  The important part is that you don't have the  negatives touching the positives.  And make sure you get one made for larger diameter rounds like .45, 50 cal, etc.

30

Lenses / Re: 24-70 or 70-200??

« on: November 21, 2012, 08:58:34 AM »

The best option is to have the 16-35 II , 24-70 II and the 70-200 2.8 II. With this three lenses you can do 90 percent of all jobs.

... and you have to have a lot of jobs to pay for these :->

Btw the "best" is a difficult term, maybe the best 3-lens combination, but certainly not the best size, weight, stealth or open aperture.

90% of all jobs, theoretically, assuming you are standing in one place in the middle of an event and cant move and want as many photo opportunities as possible...?  I'll take the 70-200, but give me a 50 1.2 and canon 14mm instead of the other 2 (slightly cheaper, lighter, faster).  That's just me though.. I think you can do 90% of all jobs with just the 50 if you're not lazy though

To Cmercado: I would vote for the 70-200 2.8 IS ii.  Assuming everything else is constant, and that you're working to build a range.  I think I would personally rather add a faster prime to my 50 1.2 as opposed to replacing with a 24-70 ii.  The only reason I'd get the 24-70 ii is if I needed the convenience of going from semi-wide to medium framing fast (for weddings , that might be invaluable, but not for portraiture).  The 70-200 is ii is a more valuable investment for portraits and sports, and there are less primes within it's range that could come close to replacing it as there are to replace a 24-70.  The downside is that its heavy for some people to carry around for long periods of time...