Canon 24-70 MKii vs 5D mkIII choice (moved)

[privatebydesign]

Awesome shots Pookie and +1 on investing in glass and light.

I disagree, those two shots could have been taken with a 50 f1.8 and a PCB anything with a battery pack.

Not dissing the specific images, but lets be honest here you do not need a $2,000 lens and a $2,000 light to get those pictures.

Maybe not, but one sure needs some skill / talent. He's got it.

Not really, just put the camera in M mode and under expose the background by 1 to 1 1/2 stops and set the flash to give you a good exposure on the subject. With the 80cm or 100cm octabox and 15 minutes tuition anybody could shoot these, the technique has been widely used and taught for a long time now and isn't difficult or equipment intensive.

Again, not saying pookie doesn't have talent, just that these particular images don't require any particular talent, skill or equipment.

 

[Ozarker]

Awesome shots Pookie and +1 on investing in glass and light.

I disagree, those two shots could have been taken with a 50 f1.8 and a PCB anything with a battery pack.

Not dissing the specific images, but lets be honest here you do not need a $2,000 lens and a $2,000 light to get those pictures.

Maybe not, but one sure needs some skill / talent. He's got it.

Not really, just put the camera in M mode and under expose the background by 1 to 1 1/2 stops and set the flash to give you a good exposure on the subject. With the 80cm or 100cm octabox and 15 minutes tuition anybody could shoot these, the technique has been widely used and taught for a long time now and isn't difficult or equipment intensive.

Again, not saying pookie doesn't have talent, just that these particular images don't require any particular talent, skill or equipment.

Well, I'd have to respectfully disagree. These are fine photos. While I do know how he did it (and I ALWAYS shoot in manual), not everybody produces this quality even when they do follow the template. That's the skill and talent part. That's my opinion. You are welcome to yours, my friend. Just like the math you amazed me with a while back. Simple to you... not so much to everyone else. And that's been taught for thousands of years.

 

[Pookie]

Awesome shots Pookie and +1 on investing in glass and light.

I disagree, those two shots could have been taken with a 50 f1.8 and a PCB anything with a battery pack.

Not dissing the specific images, but lets be honest here you do not need a $2,000 lens and a $2,000 light to get those pictures.

Maybe not, but one sure needs some skill / talent. He's got it.

Not really, just put the camera in M mode and under expose the background by 1 to 1 1/2 stops and set the flash to give you a good exposure on the subject. With the 80cm or 100cm octabox and 15 minutes tuition anybody could shoot these, the technique has been widely used and taught for a long time now and isn't difficult or equipment intensive.

Again, not saying pookie doesn't have talent, just that these particular images don't require any particular talent, skill or equipment.

Jealous much? From the guy who's afraid to show any work... You and Dilbert are a matched set, great with "facts" but no real substance for support. I love comments like yours above, it lets me know I'm doing it right.

You should stick to numbers and forum banter, it suits your photography well ;D

 

[Pookie]

Awesome shots Pookie and +1 on investing in glass and light.

I disagree, those two shots could have been taken with a 50 f1.8 and a PCB anything with a battery pack.

Not dissing the specific images, but lets be honest here you do not need a $2,000 lens and a $2,000 light to get those pictures.

Maybe not, but one sure needs some skill / talent. He's got it.

Not really, just put the camera in M mode and under expose the background by 1 to 1 1/2 stops and set the flash to give you a good exposure on the subject. With the 80cm or 100cm octabox and 15 minutes tuition anybody could shoot these, the technique has been widely used and taught for a long time now and isn't difficult or equipment intensive.

Again, not saying pookie doesn't have talent, just that these particular images don't require any particular talent, skill or equipment.

Well, I'd have to respectfully disagree. These are fine photos. While I do know how he did it (and I ALWAYS shoot in manual), not everybody produces this quality even when they do follow the template. That's the skill and talent part. That's my opinion. You are welcome to yours, my friend. Just like the math you amazed me with a while back. Simple to you... not so much to everyone else. And that's been taught for thousands of years.

And thanks... much appreciated. I think it's funny, his point about not needing quality gear or not showing any innovation. I guess you could also apply his critique to any photographer's work if you're green eyed. As for shooting in M... he's probably more comfortable with the soccer mom green box skill set.

PCB are good lights, I own a few of them also but he's dreadfully wrong. Try working a PCB on a boom while carrying a giant PCB battery pack in the surf, they are not up to the rigors of heavy outdoor use. Eli's and the Profoto's are a much easier on set. Don't even get me started with the 1.8, they get a little sand and you are DONE. That was the point of real world photos in regards to your post... it's easier to give shady advice when you won't (or can't ) prove what you say.

As a side note... why so many speedlites? HSS or ETTL? The Profoto's have that covered and you have easily spent more on 7 than any of the professional setups. I was joking about dumping all the speedlites... not the double A battery part though

 

[privatebydesign]

Awesome shots Pookie and +1 on investing in glass and light.

I disagree, those two shots could have been taken with a 50 f1.8 and a PCB anything with a battery pack.

Not dissing the specific images, but lets be honest here you do not need a $2,000 lens and a $2,000 light to get those pictures.

Maybe not, but one sure needs some skill / talent. He's got it.

Not really, just put the camera in M mode and under expose the background by 1 to 1 1/2 stops and set the flash to give you a good exposure on the subject. With the 80cm or 100cm octabox and 15 minutes tuition anybody could shoot these, the technique has been widely used and taught for a long time now and isn't difficult or equipment intensive.

Again, not saying pookie doesn't have talent, just that these particular images don't require any particular talent, skill or equipment.

Well, I'd have to respectfully disagree. These are fine photos. While I do know how he did it (and I ALWAYS shoot in manual), not everybody produces this quality even when they do follow the template. That's the skill and talent part. That's my opinion. You are welcome to yours, my friend. Just like the math you amazed me with a while back. Simple to you... not so much to everyone else. And that's been taught for thousands of years.

Of course we can disagree, but don't misunderstand my point, and I agree, they are fine photos. My point was not a personal one, it wasn't disrespectful either, I was merely pointing out that though the photos are fine, they do not require a $2,000 lens or a $2,000 light, nothing more; further, in my personal opinion they do not require much in the way of skill or talent, but maybe I am wrong and have an unrealistically high baseline.

 

[Pookie]

Awesome shots Pookie and +1 on investing in glass and light.

I disagree, those two shots could have been taken with a 50 f1.8 and a PCB anything with a battery pack.

Not dissing the specific images, but lets be honest here you do not need a $2,000 lens and a $2,000 light to get those pictures.

Maybe not, but one sure needs some skill / talent. He's got it.

Not really, just put the camera in M mode and under expose the background by 1 to 1 1/2 stops and set the flash to give you a good exposure on the subject. With the 80cm or 100cm octabox and 15 minutes tuition anybody could shoot these, the technique has been widely used and taught for a long time now and isn't difficult or equipment intensive.

Again, not saying pookie doesn't have talent, just that these particular images don't require any particular talent, skill or equipment.

Well, I'd have to respectfully disagree. These are fine photos. While I do know how he did it (and I ALWAYS shoot in manual), not everybody produces this quality even when they do follow the template. That's the skill and talent part. That's my opinion. You are welcome to yours, my friend. Just like the math you amazed me with a while back. Simple to you... not so much to everyone else. And that's been taught for thousands of years.

Of course we can disagree, but don't misunderstand my point, and I agree, they are fine photos. My point was not a personal one, it wasn't disrespectful either, I was merely pointing out that though the photos are fine, they do not require a $2,000 lens or a $2,000 light, nothing more; further, in my personal opinion they do not require much in the way of skill or talent, but maybe I am wrong and have an unrealistically high baseline.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggght ... you are so helpful you couldn't even offer a real opinion based on usage of the lens or camera this post was regarding. You're so special with your unrealistically high baseline. Coming from a forum member with no ability to show any work or skills with a camera having such high standards is less than credible.

I have no issues with critics or even with the fact photos like this have been done before. If that was a determining factor in photography... no one would be taking photos. It's the posers that really make me smile though. You do it so well I'd love to take your photo ;D

You said anyone could take a photo like that with a PCB and 50 1.8... ok, let's see it... I'd love to see a photograph from an individual like yourself with such a "unrealistically high baseline".

 

[Ozarker]

Awesome shots Pookie and +1 on investing in glass and light.

I disagree, those two shots could have been taken with a 50 f1.8 and a PCB anything with a battery pack.

Not dissing the specific images, but lets be honest here you do not need a $2,000 lens and a $2,000 light to get those pictures.

Maybe not, but one sure needs some skill / talent. He's got it.

Not really, just put the camera in M mode and under expose the background by 1 to 1 1/2 stops and set the flash to give you a good exposure on the subject. With the 80cm or 100cm octabox and 15 minutes tuition anybody could shoot these, the technique has been widely used and taught for a long time now and isn't difficult or equipment intensive.

Again, not saying pookie doesn't have talent, just that these particular images don't require any particular talent, skill or equipment.

Well, I'd have to respectfully disagree. These are fine photos. While I do know how he did it (and I ALWAYS shoot in manual), not everybody produces this quality even when they do follow the template. That's the skill and talent part. That's my opinion. You are welcome to yours, my friend. Just like the math you amazed me with a while back. Simple to you... not so much to everyone else. And that's been taught for thousands of years.

As a side note... why so many speedlites? HSS or ETTL? The Profoto's have that covered and you have easily spent more on 7 than any of the professional setups. I was joking about dumping all the speedlites... not the double A battery part though

Yes, I use HSS quite often. I like the speedlites because I can put them all over the place and they fit into some very tight spaces. There is nothing I have done that I would post here. I'm not proficient enough or good enough yet. I have posted some bird shots, but that is about it I think. One is supposed to be able to control up to 15 speedlites at once. I like that and may get there one day. So far I've used four at most. Three are still in their boxes and on the shelf. Not because I cannot find a use for them, but because I'm recovering from injuries from an accident.

Profotos are on my list of things to get, but I'll need to do a few other things first (FF camera, EF 11-24 f/4L, EF 200 f/2L, EF 400 f/2.8L mkII, EF 600 f/4L mkII). I'm just a truck driver so it is going to take a while (years) to get around to everything.

I actually need to get back to your area and reshoot some things I did when I had a Canon XSi and kit lenses. I've got a pro friend (magazines, etc.) that refuses to share technique and methods with me. He calls it job security. I call it insecurity, but he's a great friend otherwise. I need to find some photographers I can assist and learn from during my vacation times.

This website has been a great help to me. Seeing the work of great photographers and trying to figure out how they did what they did is a lot of fun.

I took this skyline of San Francisco several years ago with a Canon XSi and I believe a EFS 55-250 lens or something like that. It is a long exposure. Not near as good as what some people post, but considering I'd only been shooting for a couple of months at the time... I was happy with it. Taken from across the bay at about 4am I think. Lots of banding in the sky.

 

[Pookie]

Awesome shots Pookie and +1 on investing in glass and light.

I disagree, those two shots could have been taken with a 50 f1.8 and a PCB anything with a battery pack.

Not dissing the specific images, but lets be honest here you do not need a $2,000 lens and a $2,000 light to get those pictures.

Maybe not, but one sure needs some skill / talent. He's got it.

Not really, just put the camera in M mode and under expose the background by 1 to 1 1/2 stops and set the flash to give you a good exposure on the subject. With the 80cm or 100cm octabox and 15 minutes tuition anybody could shoot these, the technique has been widely used and taught for a long time now and isn't difficult or equipment intensive.

Again, not saying pookie doesn't have talent, just that these particular images don't require any particular talent, skill or equipment.

Well, I'd have to respectfully disagree. These are fine photos. While I do know how he did it (and I ALWAYS shoot in manual), not everybody produces this quality even when they do follow the template. That's the skill and talent part. That's my opinion. You are welcome to yours, my friend. Just like the math you amazed me with a while back. Simple to you... not so much to everyone else. And that's been taught for thousands of years.

As a side note... why so many speedlites? HSS or ETTL? The Profoto's have that covered and you have easily spent more on 7 than any of the professional setups. I was joking about dumping all the speedlites... not the double A battery part though

Yes, I use HSS quite often. I like the speedlites because I can put them all over the place and they fit into some very tight spaces. There is nothing I have done that I would post here. I'm not proficient enough or good enough yet. I have posted some bird shots, but that is about it I think. One is supposed to be able to control up to 15 speedlites at once. I like that and may get there one day. So far I've used four at most. Three are still in their boxes and on the shelf. Not because I cannot find a use for them, but because I'm recovering from injuries from an accident.

Profotos are on my list of things to get, but I'll need to do a few other things first (FF camera, EF 11-24 f/4L, EF 200 f/2L, EF 400 f/2.8L mkII, EF 600 f/4L mkII). I'm just a truck driver so it is going to take a while (years) to get around to everything.

I actually need to get back to your area and reshoot some things I did when I had a Canon XSi and kit lenses. I've got a pro friend (magazines, etc.) that refuses to share technique and methods with me. He calls it job security. I call it insecurity, but he's a great friend otherwise. I need to find some photographers I can assist and learn from during my vacation times.

This website has been a great help to me. Seeing the work of great photographers and trying to figure out how they did what they did is a lot of fun.

I took this skyline of San Francisco several years ago with a Canon XSi and I believe a EFS 55-250 lens or something like that. It is a long exposure. Not near as good as what some people post, but considering I'd only been shooting for a couple of months at the time... I was happy with it. Taken from across the bay at about 4am I think. Lots of banding in the sky.

Wow, 3 speedlites still in the box. I have four that rarely get used except for event work where having an assistant in tow is difficult. You've invested loads into that rig... you've essentially bought a two set-up Elinchrom Quadra or 1 Profoto B1. The Eli's system is equivalent to about 5-6 speedlites. Both come wireless also, with the Profotos you get ETTL but honestly I stopped shooting ETTL years ago.

I've been in the business for about 15 years... tons of family, corporate and wedding work. Which after a few years kind of takes the wind out of your sails photography-wise. Lately I do lots of model work, like above, which is a lot more fun that stuffy business/computer tech work. Corporate accounts pays the bills though. The best part of new models is that you get published quite often as they are "on-it" trying to get exposure. I have a spread (and hopefully a cover) for iKon mag coming up in the next couple of months from a shoot recently.

You're lens list is good. I have the 11-24 and the 200 f/2. Honestly I think the new 16-35 f/4 is a better lens in utility but if you're a landscape guy the"want" is understandable. I have had to buy 2 16-35 f/4 of them as mine keep disappearing out of my Pelican due to my wife using it so often. I actually bought one from McGyvver here on this site when he picked up his 11-24. The 200, stellar lens but the 70-200 ain't no slouch either and less than half the cost. The long teles I have not much use for but I've rented the 400 about 5-6 times over the years, it's a very nice lens.

Be careful of this site as often you get some real winners here. Dilbert is high on that list. PBD is another one with loads of good info but no real substance and is deathly afraid of showing any portfolio. I know I am by no means "the best" out there but I pay the bills with my business and have a large client list in the bay area (google, apple, and tons of family/weddings). I'm associated with ASMP which is for professionals in the business and a great resource you could also benefit from by joining for seminars and workshops. In all my years as a working professional photographer I've never run across pro's that 1, won't show any work and 2, won't divulge the "hows". That's really the litmus test here. It's actually the other way around 99.99% of the time. Joe M is a classic example of that. On this site I've only run across 1 or 2 members that can back up their advice with a sweet port, Zlatko come first and foremost there.

Great photo of the bay, my home base Sorry to hear about the injury... I destroyed my shoulder years ago surfing just south of that jump shot above and it was a long road back.Since there is a possibility of you being in the area...shoot me a message if you're ever in the area you can come by the studio and maybe I can show you a few good sites from a local's standpoint. Maybe even shoot with a model if that is something you're in to.

Oh, BTW... PDB with all his "I know how it done and it's no talent". Actually doesn't know how it's done as he missed a huge gap in the how with a critical piece of gear. I'm still waiting for him to come across with his entry. Posers be posers for life.

 

[Pookie]

Oh, BTW... PDB with all his "I know how it done and it's no talent". Actually doesn't know how it's done as he missed a huge gap in the how with a critical piece of gear. I'm still waiting for him to come across with his entry. Posers be posers for life.

A lot of unreasonable hate for private's post surely !

All he said was that you don't need expensive equipment and vast natural talent to produce that effect ! And come on Guys, he's right about that. No need to take it so personally.

I'm shooting some pictures for a budding professional dancer soon, and would like to do one or two with that technique, so I thought I should have a quick practice on the exposure balances. In this instance I just used an old £27 lens, an old 550 flash on camera but bounced into a gold lasolite. Having the flash on camera restricts both the modelling light and the available distance, but it gives some idea of the effect you can get with the most basic of equipment, and I don't consider it is skilful especially now that we can check lighting balance on the fly, so there is no excise for actually getting it wrong.

Here I played about with different lighting ratios between ambient and fill.

OK, so the model has seen better days, but hey ! so has the photographer and his equipment. These pictures are nothing like as good as Pookie's, but take 25 years off the model and 90% of her clothes and it makes the picture much better anyway

Many people will look at Pookie's picture and think 'I wish I could take pictures like that'. Well you can. Digital has short circuited the learning curve. I think private is right to point this out.

Unreasonable... Let me make a few points about your comments above; "All he said was that you don't need expensive equipment and vast natural talent to produce that effect ! And come on Guys, he's right about that." Sporgon, you did prove my point perfectly and contradicted at the same time your point with the images above. You have the gear right? a speedlite and a camera...

I really appreciate that you show some work but PBD said anyone could do it. Is he anybody or nobody? So far, I still haven't seen his entry. It's easy to say, another thing to do. I've seen how Formula 1 drivers drive the course... doesn't mean I can enter the race. I watch lots of college basketball, I know how the game is played... doesn't mean I can pull it off. I've been to the ER, seen doctors work and people recover... I'm game, let me pull you appendix. You need some type of proof I can do this, whaaa... You'll take my word I can do it right?

The steep learning curve has been so reduced so that anyone can do it.... I do agree to some extent but I haven't seen it yet. Probably why so many here are here. To try and do, rather than sit by the sidelines and comment. He also said you don't need all that gear... so you could pull off a shot like that in the surf with a Buff light? I'd dearly love to see that. Let's try that with 5-6 speedlites? Where you goona set up the gang lighting stand... just to the left where 4 foot surge is coming or to the right where the cliff wall lands? And why is everyone interested in using weather sealing L glass? Couldn't be because if you do this for a living, get hammered by surf occasionally and your 1.8 might not survive one shoot? Do you think your photos above might look professional with, wait for it... professional lighting? They don't just give you professional lighting for free, there is a reason they actually cost more.

How about the easiest parts of this whole venture, getting this "effect" and a little natural talent? Let's start with the getting clients that want to take these photos... paying clients. Not your wife or your neighbor. And the even "easier" part, working with clients while on the set to get them to do this for you while on camera? And the easiest part, a month of client back and forth... followed by building an almost instant rapport on set so they are comfortable giving you their best. Did I mention they pay you for this?

All that... 15 years experience, and 15 years of client work to pay for all that gear, 15 years of client lists to get a rep, so someone like the model above comes to you? Again, tell me how you pulled that off and show me some photos... you know, since it's so easy. Show me how easy it is and prove to me "anyone" can do it.

The green-eyed spiteful comments by PBD lack any logic. Never said I was the most talented... but PBD thought to chime in with a unrelated comment to this thread. A post about the 24-70 II and the 5D3 specifically. I supported my approval of the 24-70 to the OP with actual, real world photos. Mine. All I ask is some work to prove his unrelated point... since he decided to chime in with "no talent" and everyone can do this there is no innovation. So he doesn't think the photos are good and show no talent, could have walked on by but green eyed he had to comment.

I have much respect for those that at least participate with some images to back up a point. 20 years ago I was fooling around with film and learning the ropes. From the beginning I've never been afraid of critics or wouldn't want to show my work... its how you learn. I also know if you're going to offer a critique/comment be prepared to back up what you say. This is a website about camera gear and photography or am I horribly mistaken. Hot air dissipates quickly doesn't it PBD? Then your comments have no substance beyond bad breath and heat. I do have to apologize though... I lumped PBD into the same pool as Dilbert. At least Dilbert has shown some images from time to time. Sorry Dilbert. PBD flouts that he's a pro and doesn't need to show his work because of privacy... show me... I'll say it again, you should stick to numbers and your dissertations on "compression", it suits your photography well.

Or is it possible not everyone can do it even if you went down to Costco and got a perfectly good DSLR. Maybe you can't take a photo like this with an iPhone. Maybe it does take a little more than internet banter to really pull this off.

PBD, your silence is deafening.

 

[Don Haines]

Don't even get me started with the 1.8, they get a little sand and you are DONE.

yeah.... everyone thinks about water when they talk about weather sealing.... sand is horrible stuff and destroys gear....

 

[Pookie]

Don't even get me started with the 1.8, they get a little sand and you are DONE.

yeah.... everyone thinks about water when they talk about weather sealing.... sand is horrible stuff and destroys gear....

Indeed... sounds like you've experienced this first hand. Sometime you do need gear that can survive the rigors of daily abuse. Especially on the beach.

I love flip flopping fight that it's all gear or it's all photographer... as if life was simply black or white. Maybe, just maybe, it's a mix of many things that allow someone to excel in this field... talent included.

I'm still waiting to see if PBD can produce some high quality images to back up his mouth and allow me to learn from his wealth of "real world" experience. I'm not afraid to admit he can do better, if he can show me. If not... his opinion is worth about, well... let's be nice... not a plug nickel.

 

[Pookie]

Awesome shots Pookie and +1 on investing in glass and light.

I disagree, those two shots could have been taken with a 50 f1.8 and a PCB anything with a battery pack.

Not dissing the specific images, but lets be honest here you do not need a $2,000 lens and a $2,000 light to get those pictures.

Prove it... With at least one example. I know it can be done by highly qualified, talented individuals using quality equipment. Realistically, and consistently... something I can demonstrate, you show me using a 50 1.8 and PCB on a boom with a huge pack do this.

Sometimes you do need $4000 in higher end lights (by far some of the cheaper alternatives), and sweet, lite, tight and sharper lens overall to provides you just a little more confidence it will survive the job... and yes, the help of 2 or 3 other people to play along. I put my arse on the line every time I go out there to not fail in front of everyone... And yes, to get paid. So, show me, teach.

No malice but I do take exception to your statements... especially from the time I've seen here on this forum. Even before my current profile. You show nothing and only talk. I'd really like to see your port. If you blast me down with a KILLA portfolio... hell yeah I'll admit it and learn from what you say and do. I've always found your opinion rather good in this forum but man... Put your money where your mouth is.

 

[Dick]

Well, I thought I would be ordering a 5D Mark III this week. While that would have been great, I think I'd have been getting the cart before the horse. Recently I sold all my EFS lenses (Except for my 1 STM lens) and my T5i to help fund this purchase. This sort of left me with a hole in the shorter focal length range. While having a 5D Mark III will be wonderful later on, I decided instead to get the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L Mark II today. It will be here from Adorama tomorrow.

It just makes more sense for me to round out the lens kit more before the jump to Full Frame bliss. That is something I can keep looking forward to. That and a Canon EF 11-24mm f/4 late next year.

This is a wonderful forum to be a part of. The information to be had here has really helped me make better decisions, more informed decisions.

Thanks to all of you!

I'm not sure if that approach makes much sense. The focal lengths on FF are different and you will learn to love totally different lenses than what you do on a crop body. Buying the lenses beforehand might not really be possible. I for one mainly use the 24LII and the 85LII on a FF body. On a crop body those two would have been quite weird lens choices. The 24mm lens is already quite wide on FF and taking photos of people with it is not all that simple. On crop it would be a totally different lens and the wide end would be missing from the kit if that'd be the widest lens. I'm not too sure why you want so many zooms either. The shallow DOF that people want comes with different kinds of lenses. That would once again be a FF specialty.

 

[Pookie]

Continuing in the theme of very simple equipment and lighting, this was shot again with just 55/1.8, on camera flash + reflector and a 5DII. Pretty simple stuff but I think it has produced a pleasing effect.

It's pretty funny that this is the "theme" for you when the OP was asking about the 24-70 II and 5D3. Something that I responded too and nothing to do with your theme...

I'd also say pleasing to your eye is highly subjective. An on-axis speedlite image, nice one... I prefer off axis and enough power to light the scene... the entire scene. With nice soft directional light. You could do with the right equipment, not super expensive but you'd have to know what you're doing.

So let's have a go at your theme... girl with dog. Can you see any differences in the sample below compared to yours... I know my clients can, do and pay for it every time. What you posted above is what my clients can do in their very own back yard with their very own equipment... when they realize that and have issues coming up with a quality photos for a special occasion, they come to me. That is the point, that is the reason why sometimes you do have to spend some money to buy pro-quality gear and/or hire a professional. If it were "just that easy" nobody would ever hire another photographer. Think of how cheap every wedding could be if you could get the same results photographically with a 1.8 and speedlite or maybe just an iPhone.



And as I suspected... PBD is all talk and no substance. It's easy to have high baseline standards when you have no personal frame of reference... aka The arm-chair quarterback.

 

[Sporgon]

So let's have a go at your theme... girl with dog.





And as I suspected... PBD is all talk and no substance. It's easy to have high baseline standards when you have no personal frame of reference... aka The arm-chair quarterback.

I accept your challenge ! Semi naked girl + dog.

It'll take me a little time to fit that in but I'll produce a budget version ;D

Also, I wouldn't write PBD off so quickly, maybe he's at sea

 

[Pookie]

I'd love to see it... it's not the semi naked girl that is my point and probably why you can't understand... Your responses to date haven't addressed the point that your trying to make. Quality gear isn't important and you can get the same results with less equipment or talent.

And how about the point PBD tried so desperately to make... you could do that with a 50 1.8 and a PCB. Shoot wide open and with just a PCB to get these results... let's see it. And when you fail, tell me again how you don't need ETTL or HSS. Or a handful of ND filters? Something that PBD failed to mention. I gave you that as part of a "missing" from his comment. Then tell me what else your missing from that "list" of all you need to get that result. And while your producing something to respond to my latest... remember, don't shoot that in a backyard or dry land... or you won't even come close to this challenge Sporgon.

Write off PBD, I did that a while ago. PBD hasn't EVER produced a portfolio in his time here, not before this thread or since... He always invokes the "privacy" excuse. His expertise is in forum banter and "compression" semantics.

*** Wait a minute Sporgon, why did you remove all but one of your images? Shoot me a private message when your ready to show your example, I'd really love to see it. Same goes for PBD.

Here ya go, dressed girl... maybe that will help you with your lighting set-up and get you past the skin "issue".

 

[Sporgon]

*** Wait a minute Sporgon, why did you remove all but one of your images? Shoot me a private message when your ready to show your example, I'd really love to see it. Same goes for PBD.

Here ya go, dressed girl... maybe that will help you with your lighting set-up and get you past the skin "issue".

Isn't one of each was enough ?

Dressed girl ? Hmmm, I think the semi naked ones are better ;D

 

[Pookie]

*** Wait a minute Sporgon, why did you remove all but one of your images? Shoot me a private message when your ready to show your example, I'd really love to see it. Same goes for PBD.

Here ya go, dressed girl... maybe that will help you with your lighting set-up and get you past the skin "issue".

Isn't one of each was enough ?

Dressed girl ? Hmmm, I think the semi naked ones are better ;D

One would be enough if it addressed the point you're trying to make. Look, I have no problem with "you could do this with simple equipment". I know it can be done but not by everyone, not even a minority... a select few with talent, skill and yes, some gear. It's the talent and equipment issue that get me... especially coming from someone that can't produce a even modest attempt.

What this really bakes down to is this... show me if you're so good and this is so easy, prove it. I say it isn't that easy and it does take some skill, talent and gear. I didn't say I was the most talented, greatest photographer in the world. I do say it takes a lot more than the arm-chair quarterback thinks. It's isn't all camera gear or all photographer... it is both. And sometimes you can't get the results you want with just a PCB and 1.8.

I can appreciate that you actually post some images but honestly... you can't say they are in anyway supporting the claim you and PBD make. A point that had nothing to do with this OP about the 24-70II. If anything you've proven my point perfectly.

 

[Sporgon]

*** Wait a minute Sporgon, why did you remove all but one of your images? Shoot me a private message when your ready to show your example, I'd really love to see it. Same goes for PBD.

Here ya go, dressed girl... maybe that will help you with your lighting set-up and get you past the skin "issue".

Isn't one of each was enough ?

Dressed girl ? Hmmm, I think the semi naked ones are better ;D

One would be enough if it addressed the point you're trying to make. Look, I have no problem with "you could do this with simple equipment". I know it can be done but not by everyone, not even a minority... a select few with talent, skill and yes, some gear. It's the talent and equipment issue that get me... especially coming from someone that can't produce a even modest attempt.

What this really bakes down to is this... show me if you're so good and this is so easy, prove it. I say it isn't that easy and it does take some skill, talent and gear. I didn't say I was the most talented, greatest photographer in the world. I do say it takes a lot more than the arm-chair quarterback thinks. It's isn't all camera gear or all photographer... it is both. And sometimes you can't get the results you want with just a PCB and 1.8.

I can appreciate that you actually post some images but honestly... you can't say they are in anyway supporting the claim you and PBD make. A point that had nothing to do with this OP about the 24-70II. If anything you've proven my point perfectly.

Be patient ! It's night here now, the beach is two hours away and all the nude models are tucked up in bed getting their beauty sleep.

 

[Pookie]

*** Wait a minute Sporgon, why did you remove all but one of your images? Shoot me a private message when your ready to show your example, I'd really love to see it. Same goes for PBD.

Here ya go, dressed girl... maybe that will help you with your lighting set-up and get you past the skin "issue".

Isn't one of each was enough ?

Dressed girl ? Hmmm, I think the semi naked ones are better ;D

One would be enough if it addressed the point you're trying to make. Look, I have no problem with "you could do this with simple equipment". I know it can be done but not by everyone, not even a minority... a select few with talent, skill and yes, some gear. It's the talent and equipment issue that get me... especially coming from someone that can't produce a even modest attempt.

What this really bakes down to is this... show me if you're so good and this is so easy, prove it. I say it isn't that easy and it does take some skill, talent and gear. I didn't say I was the most talented, greatest photographer in the world. I do say it takes a lot more than the arm-chair quarterback thinks. It's isn't all camera gear or all photographer... it is both. And sometimes you can't get the results you want with just a PCB and 1.8.

I can appreciate that you actually post some images but honestly... you can't say they are in anyway supporting the claim you and PBD make. A point that had nothing to do with this OP about the 24-70II. If anything you've proven my point perfectly.

Be patient ! It's night here now, the beach is two hours away and all the nude models are tucked up in bed getting their beauty sleep.

So you are going with nudes... careful there, I have loads of those in my port too but you're not going to be able to post them here.