Threads
Studio light for model and products
Dear photography-enthousiasts,
I have a studio lighting question. Together with two friends I own a small clothing/lifestyle webshop. For our product and modelphotography we’ve been blessed that we can borrow a full studio set from a fellow photographer (of which I don’t the brand atm) .
Now we’ve been growing steadily, we’re looking for the option to buy our own little set. Mainly because it’s just very unpractical to use his set everytime we need to photograph something. His own set is a bit of a overkill imo, cause I usually don’t set the flash to its full potential. Want I wanted to ask here, is with what kind of budget one could arrange the following shots.
So, for the model shots, it was just 1 large (about little smaller than 5ft by 3ft) softbox and a silver reflector on the model right side.
The productshots are bit more complex, a 3 light setup (1 small softbox, a snoot and a background light) on a producttable.
I’m still pretty new to studiophotography and I find it difficult to get a good grasp on the vast array of studiosets that there out there. I think we can achieve the model and productshots with a less expensive set. I always get the feeling that it’s always a bit of an overkill like I said!
So, we need to be able to get a full body shot and perhaps to be cooled with a motor, because we take hundreds of shots with every shoot.
I know it’s a bit too much to ask if anyone could point me towards the right direction, but at what price range should we think when we want to accomplish such shots?
Much obliged!
I have a studio lighting question. Together with two friends I own a small clothing/lifestyle webshop. For our product and modelphotography we’ve been blessed that we can borrow a full studio set from a fellow photographer (of which I don’t the brand atm) .
Now we’ve been growing steadily, we’re looking for the option to buy our own little set. Mainly because it’s just very unpractical to use his set everytime we need to photograph something. His own set is a bit of a overkill imo, cause I usually don’t set the flash to its full potential. Want I wanted to ask here, is with what kind of budget one could arrange the following shots.
So, for the model shots, it was just 1 large (about little smaller than 5ft by 3ft) softbox and a silver reflector on the model right side.
The productshots are bit more complex, a 3 light setup (1 small softbox, a snoot and a background light) on a producttable.
I’m still pretty new to studiophotography and I find it difficult to get a good grasp on the vast array of studiosets that there out there. I think we can achieve the model and productshots with a less expensive set. I always get the feeling that it’s always a bit of an overkill like I said!
So, we need to be able to get a full body shot and perhaps to be cooled with a motor, because we take hundreds of shots with every shoot.
I know it’s a bit too much to ask if anyone could point me towards the right direction, but at what price range should we think when we want to accomplish such shots?
Much obliged!
Future Who needs a 1dxii or 7diii?, Why Photo Cameras could become obsolete
So a bit dreamy today and thinking about the future
Not in the near future, but it could be closer then I think ( the point where it might be worth switching(for me) has just arrived) Btw (It's meant for sports/wildlife rather than portrait shooters!!!!)
When blackmagic announced the 4k production camera I got a feeling this could be the beginning of the end.
A 1dx is one of the best sports cameras around , giving 18mpix images.
The still images of the blackmagic 4k are 8mpix, RAW, now when you keep in mind that it has a 1.7 crop factor and apply this to the original image of the 1dx you are left with a 6.2mp image.
No doubt the raw file from the 1dx will look a lot better (but we're dreaming, and not thinking about iso etc)
The black magic shoots 24 fps, 8mp RAW photos without filling the buffer.
It does not have the auto focus system, but still I have read many photographers say 8mp is more than enough for them!
Sure with increasing processing power and cheaper memory etc, one could argue that photo cameras will always have an edge in resolution over the video cameras.
But to what point will it be useful?
When we arrive at a point where the resolution will be so great that the glass cannot cope with it, or that the ''need'' is no longer there ( Imagine in 10 years, 200-300 MP photos, it's great off course, but 8k (7680×4320 = 33,177,600 pixels) @ 120 FPS ( 8.4 gigabyte/second uncompressed )
I can also live with 24 fps, which should be around 1.6-1.7 gigabyte/second
Currently read speed max out @ 500MB/s for ssd disks?
Will be much more useful to me than a 300mp camera which can do 10fps with mirror box.
(750mb/photo @ 10fps = 7.5 gigabyte/second)
Not sure how they are going to keep the cf format alive
Btw if Computer speed or storage is an issues, you can always delete 99.99999% of the footage and keep the 1 second with 24 frames which has the picture/moment located that you need
Impractical atm? yes, but in 5-10-15 years? who knows .... DSLR's need to reinvent the CF card, and Maybe lose that mirror
So why not film everything in raw ? and enjoy the photos it also takes while doing so
What do you think?
Not in the near future, but it could be closer then I think ( the point where it might be worth switching(for me) has just arrived) Btw (It's meant for sports/wildlife rather than portrait shooters!!!!)
When blackmagic announced the 4k production camera I got a feeling this could be the beginning of the end.
A 1dx is one of the best sports cameras around , giving 18mpix images.
The still images of the blackmagic 4k are 8mpix, RAW, now when you keep in mind that it has a 1.7 crop factor and apply this to the original image of the 1dx you are left with a 6.2mp image.
No doubt the raw file from the 1dx will look a lot better (but we're dreaming, and not thinking about iso etc)
The black magic shoots 24 fps, 8mp RAW photos without filling the buffer.
It does not have the auto focus system, but still I have read many photographers say 8mp is more than enough for them!
Sure with increasing processing power and cheaper memory etc, one could argue that photo cameras will always have an edge in resolution over the video cameras.
But to what point will it be useful?
When we arrive at a point where the resolution will be so great that the glass cannot cope with it, or that the ''need'' is no longer there ( Imagine in 10 years, 200-300 MP photos, it's great off course, but 8k (7680×4320 = 33,177,600 pixels) @ 120 FPS ( 8.4 gigabyte/second uncompressed )
I can also live with 24 fps, which should be around 1.6-1.7 gigabyte/second
Currently read speed max out @ 500MB/s for ssd disks?
Will be much more useful to me than a 300mp camera which can do 10fps with mirror box.
(750mb/photo @ 10fps = 7.5 gigabyte/second)
Not sure how they are going to keep the cf format alive
Btw if Computer speed or storage is an issues, you can always delete 99.99999% of the footage and keep the 1 second with 24 frames which has the picture/moment located that you need
Impractical atm? yes, but in 5-10-15 years? who knows .... DSLR's need to reinvent the CF card, and Maybe lose that mirror
So why not film everything in raw ? and enjoy the photos it also takes while doing so
What do you think?
300 f/2.8 -a big problem
- By JPAZ
- Canon Lenses
- 22 Replies
I just made the mistake of renting the EF 300 f/2.8 this weekend for a trip to Bosque del Apache. The problem......I LOVE this lens! The speed, focus lock, clarity and contrast were amazing with and without the 2x TC and even in the very low light of sunrise. No surprise but this lens blew away my 100-400. My trusty 70-200 f/4 never came out of the bag. I even got a few decent keepers doing BIF pics with the 300 + 2x TC handheld (yeah, my left arm is tired 
).
So what am I to do? No way my budget allows me to get this lens. I am trying to tell myself that not using a zoom at this range created some issues and that swapping lenses and TCs was a pain and that the lens was too heavy. But, I found myself putting it back on the camera every time I tried an alternative. If I need a good zoom, I guess I could always look at the 200-400 (yeah, right $$$$$).
So here I sit. I know I'll be renting this or another beauty again. Some consolation, there.....
Seriously, does anyone think a 70-200 f/2.8 (another beauty, no doubt but at a much better price point) with a TC and some cropping can come close to the IQ of the effective 600 f/5.6 I was using?
Oh well.
).So what am I to do? No way my budget allows me to get this lens. I am trying to tell myself that not using a zoom at this range created some issues and that swapping lenses and TCs was a pain and that the lens was too heavy. But, I found myself putting it back on the camera every time I tried an alternative. If I need a good zoom, I guess I could always look at the 200-400 (yeah, right $$$$$).
So here I sit. I know I'll be renting this or another beauty again. Some consolation, there.....
Seriously, does anyone think a 70-200 f/2.8 (another beauty, no doubt but at a much better price point) with a TC and some cropping can come close to the IQ of the effective 600 f/5.6 I was using?
Oh well.
6D autofocus capabilites: let's bust some myths about it
- By gigabellone
- EOS DSLR
- 344 Replies
I'm about to spend a significant (for my finances) amount of money on a new Canon full frame body, it is going to be either a 6D or a 5D3. The plan is to get the camera body and 2 very fast primes: Sigma 35/1.4 and Canon 85/1.2. The 6D has got what i want and costs about 1000€ less than the 5D3, but given the fact that the DoF with fast primes is going to be tiny to say the least, how is the supposedly "simplistic" 6D AF system going to perform? The main fields of application will be travel and street photography, family portraits, some landscapes, the occasional event, and everything will happen just for the sake of it, i'm not trying to make a living out of my hobby (or else i wouldn't have such quantity of money to squander on gear 
). I just don't want to spend a significant amount of money and be disappointed by a quirky AF behavior. I would like to hear from owners of these cameras and lenses, lots of online researches and reading still aren't enough to make up my mind.
). I just don't want to spend a significant amount of money and be disappointed by a quirky AF behavior. I would like to hear from owners of these cameras and lenses, lots of online researches and reading still aren't enough to make up my mind.Filter
Forum statistics
Gallery statistics
- Categories
- 1
- Albums
- 29
- Uploaded media
- 372
- Embedded media
- 1
- Comments
- 25
- Disk usage
- 1 GB