Is this thread opposed to DISHONEST users of Canon Bodies who earn their living with photography?
Upvote
0
- Status
Just look at the subject's eyes and you'll see the answerQuasimodo said:... Apart from brilliant compositions and creativity on your shots, I am particularly impressed with your lighting (and particurlarly in your akt/seminude shots), and I would love to see you open a thread on lighting, or even a youtube video for us other to learn from
Upvote
0
nightbreath said:Just look at the subject's eyes and you'll see the answerQuasimodo said:... Apart from brilliant compositions and creativity on your shots, I am particularly impressed with your lighting (and particurlarly in your akt/seminude shots), and I would love to see you open a thread on lighting, or even a youtube video for us other to learn from
You have some beautiful pictures on your site
I am not sure if I follow your thought? Look at the eyes? The photos I was referring to (akt) on his page are many where you can't even see the eyes, but the lighting is beautiful.
Upvote
0
Thank you for the comment on my photosQuasimodo said:You have some beautiful pictures on your site
I am not sure if I follow your thought? Look at the eyes? The photos I was referring to (akt) on his page are many where you can't even see the eyes, but the lighting is beautiful.
If you can't tell how one picture was made, look at another one of the same author. You'll see lighting setup (softboxes, umbrellas, reflectors) if they were used. The next step is to try it out by yourself, to feel the difference by viewing your own pictures and to continue researching. I believe that understanding photography is tightly bound to research and practice.
Upvote
0
Z
Zlatko
Guest
I use Canon (mainly 5DIII and 5DII) and earn my living with photography. The problems of the 24-70 f/2.8L version 1 have been debated by photographers for years now. I believe that many have found that the AF is just not reliable for photographing a group of people with a detailed background, regardless of the camera used. The AF will too often choose the background. Moreover, the original 24-70 tends to go out of adjustment more easily than other zoom lenses. For a while, I had switched to the 24-105 f/4L for such photos and found it to be more reliable. More recently, I have usually done group photos with the 35 f/1.4L or the 50 f/1.2L, and have found both to be more reliable than the original 24-70.mingulay said:
Generally speaking, the autofocus of the 5DIII is more accurate and reliable than that of the 5DII, but I'm still not sure I would trust it with the original 24-70. I'm hoping the new 24-70 II is much more reliable.
Upvote
0
I shot a wedding last weekend with a 5D mark ii and a 5D mkiii. I used the center focus point and recomposed every time. No problems. Forgive me if this sounds rude (I'm really not trying to be rude... promise) but if you're getting paid for your work, wouldn't you check a critical shot to make sure it was nailed with a quick preview. I understand this might take a second or two and those seconds add up but if they were all setup and you shot it 6 times, I'm assuming it was an important shot and that you would have a half second to quickly make sure... again, not trying to be rude. I know the pace of a wedding and how you've got to keep moving. It's hectic. but for that shot... hmmm. I would say it was the photographer's responsibility to check.
as far as quality control, no company is perfect with that one. you might need to have your body checked at a repair center
as far as quality control, no company is perfect with that one. you might need to have your body checked at a repair center
Upvote
0
Maybe some of you haven't heard the joke I've read recently:
- How to make money having a good photo gear?
- Sell it
- How to make money having a good photo gear?
- Sell it
Upvote
0
mingulay said:
I shoot professionally using a variety of Canon cameras, including the 7D, 1D3, 1Ds3, and 1DX. I am more than a little familiar with traveling several thousand miles to do a photoshoot which can not be shot a second time.
The 1D3 and 1Ds3 were good bodies for me until it came to a shallow DOF. I could not rely on them to be tack sharp where I needed, and it was not a matter of front or back focusing. However, in my case it was a matter of inches at worst, never of several feet as you describe. Thankfully much of my work is at higher Fstops, so the issues were typically not of concern.
When I received my 1DX, it was like I had found a new style of photography. I must have been simply used to working with the older AF systems, because the 1DX locks on in low light, and hits with ALL lenses at ALL apertures. My glass suddenly seems new, and I am more than a little impressed with how well the AF works.
I could be bitter at the AF of previous generation bodies, but it worked well enough for what I needed. The newer AF system is simply stunning. While I didn't enjoy the price of the 1DX, it is all part of business, and at the end of the day it is making me money and allowing me to shoot in conditions I would not have been able to previously.
I debated heavily getting rid of my other bodies and picking up a 5D3 to go with the 1Dx. I'm keeping my 1Ds3 for studio work and product photography, and the 1D3 is being kept because there is little value in it. The 7D is a "beater" camera, and is taken up into or under the mountains and in other conditions where I need a light camera and top notch images are less important (though still able to be sold). Being able to keep a supply of similar batteries on hand is another big plus.
I've never owned or used a 1D4, so I can't help you with a comparison, but the 1Dx does everything Canon claims in my opinion.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
