View Full Version : Brian The Photographer?
VDfree
10-06-2005, 09:07 PM
I'm looking for brian, the photographer. We rode the shed 2 weeks ago and we talked about going to some other trails. I accidentally deleted your pm and forgot what your user name is. PM me. I also was hoping to talk to you about my 20d. I want to know how to use the f-ing thing
corey_rideDC
10-06-2005, 09:26 PM
http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/member.php?u=6672
BigMike
10-08-2005, 12:47 PM
Oh, you'll never figure out the 20D, you should give it to me instead :D
HotButterToppin
10-08-2005, 07:10 PM
Ya know the problem with those digital SLRs is they take great pics.....of people other than yourself. And who the hell wants to take pics of their friends? Not me!
I want pictures of ME riding, damnit. And no matter how much ya tell someone else how to take a good pic of ya (what's your good side, how to make you look FACTORY, how to make you look not so fat and hungover) they NEVER get it right. The terrain looks tiny, and you look bloated. :(
I should just hire a professional photographer to follow me around and be done with it.
BigMike
10-08-2005, 07:34 PM
or you could hire an up and coming photographer..... ME! :D
I'm holding out for the 5D with This (http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=7469) Lens :)
mobius
10-09-2005, 01:01 PM
he said he wants a good pic of himself.
BigMike
10-09-2005, 04:58 PM
he said he wants a good pic of himself.
Right, thats why I said he should hire me
:nuts:
Mike I am hoping I will have one of those lenses in the next couple of weeks. And also two more 20d batteries, a 16-35mm 2.8, a 50mm 1.4, some pocket wizards, a 1.4x extender, and to share with two other photographers a couple 300 f/2.8s, some pocket wizards, and an arsenal of four studio strobes and accessories, as well as some smaller things.
But alas, no good pictures of myself.
You guys could hire me, but I doubt you could afford me.
HotButterToppin
10-09-2005, 06:24 PM
How much do ya run per hour?
VDfree
10-09-2005, 07:33 PM
i was checking out some crazy 8mm and 9mm lenses yesterday...crazy effect, but i could not justify the $700-$900 price tags. I was looking for that crazy distortion. I guess I'll play a little more with photoshop!
bp , we'll have to talk about $$ I may want you to shoot Jeff Lenosky in april. He's doing a show at the shop!
Per hour is for sucker photographers. You charge for the job. Because sometimes a shoot only takes a couple of minutes and sometimes they take a lot longer. But the skills and level of creativity required are pretty much pre determened. It wouldn't be fair to the photographer or client.
Jeff Lenosky is cool btw.
HotButterToppin
10-09-2005, 08:32 PM
Yeah I hear ya on the per-job basis.
I own a small IT consulting and web development company and am asked the same question constantly. While I work up proposals based on an hourly rate I rarely disclose said figures. Unfortunate though, as it generally leads people to believe the figure is quite high or not justified in some way. Such is life I guess.
I didn't get out and film enough this season, which has me rather bummed. The plan for next season involves me getting some more lenses for my videocamera and really starting to put that overly expensive sucker to good use. Need to find a small cheapo vidcam to record helmetcam footage too. Plus getting myself a Nikon D70 and lenses.....expensive hobbies are where it's at for '06. ;)
If you aren't already tied up in one kind of camera, I would recomend Canon. They are kicking the crap out of Nikon at the moment. Though the D70 is a decent camera.
-bp
MDBullit
10-09-2005, 09:07 PM
bp , we'll have to talk about $$ I may want you to shoot Jeff Lenosky in april. He's doing a show at the shop!
Phil,
that will be awesome... are you guys setting up a trials course in the parking lot? I gotta test it out :p
Sounds like it'll be a good opportunity to showcase & sell Giant STPs.
HotButterToppin
10-10-2005, 12:59 AM
Sadly, I have vowed never to do business with Canon after several firsthand experiences with the quality of their videocameras, and not cheap videocameras at that. Their horrible service, inside and outside of warranty was the clincher though. Canon won't get a single additional dollar from me.
Ok, except the wide angle lense I'm buying for the videocamera. But after that, NOT A PENNY! Heh.
BigMike
10-10-2005, 09:05 AM
Sadly, I have vowed never to do business with Canon after several firsthand experiences with the quality of their videocameras, and not cheap videocameras at that. Their horrible service, inside and outside of warranty was the clincher though. Canon won't get a single additional dollar from me.
Ok, except the wide angle lense I'm buying for the videocamera. But after that, NOT A PENNY! Heh.
OK, so....... what happened?
If you aren't already tied up in one kind of camera, I would recomend Canon. They are kicking the crap out of Nikon at the moment. Though the D70 is a decent camera.
-bp
BP could you elaborate a little on this? My next DSLR choice is between the new Nikon D70s or the Canon 20d. They seem incredibly equal and have just heard a lot of "you can't go wrong with either".. Anything to sway me to the Canon?
Both Nikon and Canon make nice cameras. At the moment Canon is head and shoulders above Nikon in digital camera technology. Just compare the statistics of Nikon's D2h and Canon's Mark II. That technology trickles down. If that doesn't convince you compare the D2x to the Mark IIs. The differene is astounding. They offer higher megapixels for the same price, as well as better image quality. Canons are especially superior at higher ISO's. I can't speak for melted butter's ;) experience, but Canon's customer service is typically regarded thruoghout the professional field as better than Nikons. This might be different for the average consumer as they have different programs for professionals.
Both make sharp lenses. Canon is typically thought to have better autofocus. I have had good luck with both.
The one thing that the D70 gets huge props for is that is has a 500th of second flash sync speed versus 250th for the Canon. That really is a big plus.
Canon is leading for now. This hasn't always been the case and probably won't always be. I am sure they will trade back and forth in the future. If you already have Nikon equipment, which will work with dSLRs (not all does) then I would just say stick with Nikon, because it can be very expensive to reinvest.
I however can name several large newspapers that have gotten rid of their Nikon equipment and reinvested in Canon in the last two years. Understand that when you have a full arsenal of professional lenses and accessories that cost thousands of dollars each, that is a pretty big undertaking. The Washington Post, has been mostly Canon (they have both) for a while, but they did last year equip many of their photographers with 20ds.
I would also keep my eye on the horizon. My gut tells me both manufacturers will soon have new cameras out. The price of the old will go down and the new one will probably be the same price.
But.....you can't go wrong with either.
-brian
Haha. Cheers man. It will be typically used for sports photography (Not just bikes either, so a variety of lighting conditions etc) and the 20d seems to be edging ahead for this purpose.
One thing i've been hearing about is the superior quality of the Nikkor AF-S 18-70 DX lense over the Canons EF-S 18-55. (which seems to be the stock lense for both cameras respectively), is this really as big a deal as people are making out?
Otherwise, looks like i'm forking out the extra for the 20d!
BigMike
10-10-2005, 01:09 PM
Haha. Cheers man. It will be typically used for sports photography (Not just bikes either, so a variety of lighting conditions etc) and the 20d seems to be edging ahead for this purpose.
One thing i've been hearing about is the superior quality of the Nikkor AF-S 18-70 DX lense over the Canons EF-S 18-55. (which seems to be the stock lense for both cameras respectively), is this really as big a deal as people are making out?
Otherwise, looks like i'm forking out the extra for the 20d!
If you are doing spots photography and wondering about lenses, do this little experiment. Next time you watch a professional sporting event, look on the sidelines. Look for the photographers, and see how many of them are holding huge white lenses with red circles on the end. These are the Canon "L" lenses, which I think are some of the best lenses available for a "resonable" price. (Keep in mind, photography is expensive and you get what you pay for, so I consider a grand for a lens "resonable")
Another thing about the EF-S lenses, they are great for the 10D and 20D, but once you get into Canon's higher end stuff, the Mark series, the new 5D, or anything else with a full size CMOS sensor, you cannot use the EF-S lenses. If you are ever looking or planning to upgrade, personally, I would steer away from the EF-S and go with the EF
Sound advice. Thanks Mike.
The expense doesn't really shock me. It's expensive, and as you say, you get what you pay for. Guess i've got pretty used to that spending so much on DH bikes and other expensive hobbies.
Upgrades will be something for the future for certain, so stick with EF lenses, check!
HotButterToppin
10-10-2005, 02:45 PM
The best comparison from an actual practical minded photographer can be found here...
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/20dd70.htm
Frankly it boils down to lenses and intended purpose of the camera. If you want to do sports photography either will work, as both cameras have suitable megapixel counts for 11x17 reproduction, or *laugh* the web. The flash sync, CCD imager (instead of cheaper CMOS), and fact that the D70 will shoot 3fps infinitely if you have a fast compact flash card is the deciding factor for me. That, and it's not Canon. Because Canon can blow me. The D70 wasn't voted camera of the year by most major mags last year for nothing. Anyways, read that review linked above for more sage advice from someone who knows wtf they're talking about (as opposed to me).
But back to why Canon can blow me (long story short)...
I bought a GL-1 camcorder a few years back. After only 14 hours of recording on the heads, they died. Sent it back to Canon who said "sorry, it's 2 weeks out of warranty....head warranty is only 90 days". After an angry letter they replaced them for free after holding my camera hostage for a few weeks first. Get camera back, record another 20 hours on the heads and they die a second time. Sent back to Canon (postage paid by...me) and this time, same thing, heads out of warranty and I'm gonna have to pay for the work to be done despite the fact that the camera basically lives in my camera bag and is only used in dry/clean conditions. Dropped $500 on new heads.
So in the course of a year or two the heads had died twice after only a few dozen hours of use. The tape transports are still sketchy from time to time which is why I'm loathed to ever use the camera for fear of it breaking. Canon was really slow to respond, generally uncooperative without having to be bitched at, and ultimately made a camera that has serious design flaws they're willing to charge you many times to fix. Granted the camera is awesome when it works, but still, it's a $3000 camera that shouldn't just die.
The hell with Canon. I should have bought a Sony VX2000 but couldn't afford the $4000 pricetag. Bah.
Brunettes
10-10-2005, 04:15 PM
I'm picking up a D50 here soon...not that it matters at all :-)
Hotbutter - Yeah, i've already read that review. Damn good too, i was just hoping someone could turn that novella into one short easy to understand sentance :D
Although my conclusion after reading that, as i said, the 20d would probably be my better option.
A couple more thoughts. Though the 5fps you get with the 20d is nicer than three, you still can't count on it to get everthing in a sequence. Invariably the peak action shot you wanted will be the one between the frames.
I don't know much about the difference between CMOS and CCD sensors, but I think most of the bad things you here about CMOS being bad is based on old information. I think the CCD are faster but the images are noisier (the equivalent to grain).
I don't know much about the 18-55 lense. The one that came with my camera is still in the box. I know it will only work on a couple of bodies, like Mike said. You might want to consider just getting the body and getting a lense that may be better for you.
When it comes to upgrading, I think a 70-200 2.8 is the way to go if you are shooting sports and don't mind spending money. Look in the used market for good lenses.
And this is a must: Buy a high-speed compact flash card. robgalbraith.com (http://robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007) has a database of which cards work the best on which camera. If you have a fast card filling the buffer will likely never be an issue, unless you are shooting raw. Plus a fast card is way better when you are downloading images.
Oooh. The white balance functions on the 20 are so bad a ss
HotButterToppin
10-10-2005, 07:10 PM
It should also be pointed out that (at least in the case of Nikon) when you buy one of the pro AF-S highspeed autofocusing lenses they're still only as good as the motor driving it in the camera. At least with Nikon, the motor in the D70 is about half as powerful as the one in the D2h which is meant for sports photography. As far as I know Canon subscribe to the same concept of slower AF motors in their lower end bodies.
So really, you can invest in a fast pro lense, and indeed it will be faster, but to the best of my knowledge it'll still be limited by the body to some degree. Canon or Nikon, either way it's more an investment in lenses than bodies. I'll probably sell my D70 when the D100 replacement comes out in a couple years.
BigMike
10-10-2005, 11:02 PM
Lots of good information in this thread :thumb:
Hey HBT, if you want to sell me your GL1, I'd be glad to get it off your hands for you for $20 :)
HotButterToppin
10-11-2005, 12:18 AM
Hahaha. I thought about selling it for enough to pick up a D70 and lense or two but figure I should use it more. So instead I'm going to buy a wide angle lense and a decent microphone (because the mic on the camera blows).
Then, as usual, I'll have to figure out how to get other people to film me riding because let's face it, I only want to do a vanity project of myself. ;)
EDIT: Which is why this is my most prized mountain biking posession (taken at Mayhem up at SS)...
http://www.mphasemedia.com/extranet/cf/alec_ssdrop.jpg
BigMike
10-11-2005, 09:11 AM
aren't those the "practice" drops? :p
Oh, another quick Q..
Is the 1/500 flash sync on the Nikon an absolute necesity over the 1/250 of the 20d? This has popped up in more than one conversation between Nikon owners, and they're all making it sound like a life or death issue!
I don't know how it important it is. My biggest complaint about the 20d is knowing there is a comparable camera with a higher flash sync.
That extra stop of light will help in a lot of situations. If you are trying to balance ambient and strobe light, it will help stop fast motion better. If you are shooting strobe when it is bright out, it will basically give your flash an extra stop of light, since you won't have to drop the aperture so low to get the proper ambient exposure. That extra stop gives you more flexibility in general. If this doesn't make lot of sense I can take more time to explain. It can be quite complicated.
But the 20d leads in every other category. So, you have to weigh how much this will be an issue. Are you going to need that extra stop enough to sacrifice image quality. My guess is that it won't be an issue almost all of the time. Also the 20d will work better at higher iso's which MAY mean you won't need your flash as much.
My suggetion is don't get advice from people loyal to a brand. My opinion of them is that they don't care about taking good pictures. They care about labels. Especially now, Nikon owners are on the defensive. Basically the D70 is the only camera they have put out in last couple of years that isn't a piece of junk. I have always owned Canon gear. I have shot with both though. But I would switch to Nikon tomorrow if they had the better system.
Like you have heard before, you can't go wrong with either in the end.
btw. I hate technical talk. I would be much happier telling people how to make good pictures.
BigMike
10-11-2005, 11:46 AM
btw. I hate technical talk. I would be much happier telling people how to make good pictures.
Then to humor you, how do you take a good picture?
Ok fellas (And especially thanks BP for that! I totally know what you mean about brand loyalty, it seems to be clouding nearly everyones reccomendations!), seems my friend has been hiding his EOS300V, with 28-90 and more importantly, a 90-300mm 4.5-5.6 EF lense.
Seen as i need a cheap 35mm camera for experimental, but also academic purposes, i'm going to take it off his hands. Naturally i'm getting it for a special "friend" price, which basically gets me a muchos cheap 90-300mm Canon lense. (Please don't tell me this is the part where y'all tell me it wont fit..)
Think it's the 20d then!
Two tips for good photos.
1. Make all technical decisions second nature (shoot on manual)
2. Every element of the frame adds to the final frame. So if there is something in your frame that detracts from the final product (BACKGROUNDS; BACKGROUNDS; BACKGROUNDS), find a way to eliminate it from the frame. Including changing your position (up, down, left, right), changing the aperture, lenses, etc.
Bp could you elaborate a little on your second point?
Really gratefull for the advice too, i'm writing it all down!
whale
10-11-2005, 02:32 PM
hey brian...
maybe you need to open up your own school? _bp's school of riding and taking photos. get paid for this stuff... :think:
i sure know i wouldn't have progressed in DJing as much as i have in the last year w/out your suggestions and peer pressure.
That second tip covers a huge amount, from lens choice to exposure to vantage point.
The biggest problem with amateur photographers that I see is that they seem to far from their subjects and their frames are cluttered and messy. I tend to pick my backgrounds first and then let my subjects come into the frame.
I put together a little photoshop gallery to help illustrate some points.
http://members.cox.net/jbrianprice/photo%20class/index.htm
Here is a trick: Cover the subject of a photo with your hand or something. Look at what is left. How much of it belongs there?
p.s. I have noticed my grammar is attrocious. Please forgive me.
That's brilliant! I totally understand what you mean. The Road racers on the black background really illustrates the point very well indeed.
Brunettes
10-11-2005, 04:43 PM
Yeah all this tech talk is for the birds, a better camera isn't going to make the shots look much better if you suck :-)
VDfree
10-11-2005, 09:37 PM
This thread is addicting, I can't stop checking it! Thanks _bp, you've given us all some new motivation to try new things.
One question though...Since you do this for a living, do you still get excited about it? I'm a chef and it has gotten to the point that it's work to me. There are some days that I get really excited about the creativity of it all, but those days are getting farther apart.
BTW--anyone know how we can get a spell check put on this web site? I find myself changing sentences because I can't think of how to spell things!
HotButterToppin
10-11-2005, 10:39 PM
Of course they're the practice drops. Being ridden on a rental bike, with a rental helmet and body armor. The shins are mine though. I only got into this FR/DH business a few months ago. But we all start somewhere.
Plus, just after that pic was taken I busted a SICK triple tailwhip corked-out and inverted. IT WAS SICK!! This is why I need a better photographer to follow me around. ;)
Yeah the 1/500th flash sync is pretty important. Why? Because someone smarter than me said so. Heh heh. Ok I really don't know.
BigMike
10-11-2005, 10:42 PM
type it in word, paste it into the quick reply box :D
Brian, that little site you made is awesome! maybe you should look into teaching this sh!t
BigMike
10-11-2005, 10:48 PM
Of course they're the practice drops. Being ridden on a rental bike, with a rental helmet and body armor. The shins are mine though. I only got into this FR/DH business a few months ago. But we all start somewhere.
Plus, just after that pic was taken I busted a SICK triple tailwhip corked-out and inverted. IT WAS SICK!! This is why I need a better photographer to follow me around. ;)
Yeah the 1/500th flash sync is pretty important. Why? Because someone smarter than me said so. Heh heh. Ok I really don't know.
Yeah, I know what you mean, I actually did a backflip truckdriver off one of those drops when I was up there.
Did it on my HT with hookworms, no pads or helmet, and a busted PCL.
To bad no one else saw it :(
HotButterToppin
10-12-2005, 01:22 AM
Best advice any photographer has ever given me was to get closer. Get real close. Get as close as possible. I've noticed for most amateur riding pics where the scenery is, frankly, something far short of The Collective awe-inspiring, most pics look pretty bad because they're too far away and poorly composed. I can ramble all day about composition, flow, golden section, and all sorts of other boring sh*t that I'll spare you guys from.
The other tip was to use the flash, a lot more than you think. I think portrait mode is too often overlookd as well. But that stuff's for a different discussion.
Though there's truth that the camera doesn't make you a better photographer, there's also plenty of truth that if you simply can't capture a certain style of photograph with your equipment you're not going to shine a turd into something special. Especially in sports photography. A lot can be done with extra megapixels and cropping, but if your camera can't get a crisply focused subject because of a lack of AF speed, or lack of lense quality, or bad metering, etc etc, you can't dress it up that much in post production.
There's still a great great deal of skill involved in picking angles, setting up shots, lighting the shots, and everything these that goes into the composition and execution of a shot, but you can't wholesale discount the equipment from the equation. There's a line obviously. Which is why my feeling is that, Nikon, Canon, you can't really go wrong because the equipment won't likely be the bottleneck at that point. Your crappy ability as a photographer will be.
http://hbt.fotopic.net <- That's my crappy photo site. There's maybe 2 or 3 pics I like, the rest are mostly crap. A few more than that have some potential but were ruined by lack of camera. I'm no expert. Mock freely, I can take it!
Well i've finally stopped reading about the two cameras and brought one. The 20d. Should be here early next week :D
HotButterToppin
10-12-2005, 10:45 PM
A fairly random thought here...
One thing that annoys me about the D70 is the lack of compatible portrait grip. The D100 had this as an accessory which would tag the pics for auto-rotation and also add another battery to your camera for extra long shoots. But the D100 isn't as nice as the D70 is most respects now. But a bummer regardless, since I love to shoot portrait shots.
Dunno about the 20D.
So BP, you are of the opinion that an external strobe/flash is pretty essential to this mountain biking photography?
BigMike
10-12-2005, 11:01 PM
A fairly random thought here...
One thing that annoys me about the D70 is the lack of compatible portrait grip. The D100 had this as an accessory which would tag the pics for auto-rotation and also add another battery to your camera for extra long shoots. But the D100 isn't as nice as the D70 is most respects now. But a bummer regardless, since I love to shoot portrait shots.
Dunno about the 20D.
So BP, you are of the opinion that an external strobe/flash is pretty essential to this mountain biking photography?
The 20D has one, and yes, external flashes are important, I learned that at Snowshoe..........
HotButterToppin
10-13-2005, 12:08 AM
Well, you were also shooting into the sun which is why the subjects in those pics were a bit underexposed. Ah the joys of metering systems trying to properly expose the sky but nothing else. Doh! Since I was further down the slope and not shooting into the sun mine had slightly better exposure I think.
Another question....
If I were looking at the 20D, which of those ugly white telephoto zooms is the best one for sports photography? Do they all focus the same speed? Would be a hard choice between the 100-400 or the 70-200 IS lenses if they do focus equally fast.
I would splurge on the telephoto since I really only have a need for a wide zoom and a tele zoom. With the 10-22 and 100-400 (or 70-200) there's really no need for a midrange. If I was hard up I'd pick up the 50 f1.4 though since I actually own one currently on my 1978 vintage Canon.
Equipment is chosen based on what you are trying to accomplish (duh). But it can get very expensive to buy all the equipment you might want. So you have to prioritize (duh).
A pop-up flash is only good for abut 10 feet or so, less if you are trying to shoot on a bright day. So if you need more light than that, or want the huge flexibility an external flash will offer, buy one. If you buy one make sure the flash head swivels and tilts, so you don't have to shoot everthing with direct strobe, which creates harsh lighting. This will allow you to bounce the light and create different lighting effects. This is a bit advanced, but a super cool tutorial: http://www.sportsshooter.com/special_feature/2003_luau_video/5_min_light/index.html
Here is the answer to your splurge question:
But first I must go on a little rant about wide angle lenses. First they are WAY overused, esecially in the *cough* extreme-sports industry. Second they are WAY overused, esecially in the *cough* extreme-sports industry. They can be used very effectively, but with most of the shots I see, by pros and amatuers, the subjects are to far away and blend with the background. I think strobes are often used as a crutch to overcome this. The 28-70mm, though difficult to use effectively, is my favorite lens.
So, I would stay as far away from the 10-22 lense as I could. I don't even know if I would go into the next to a store that actually carries one (I am exagerating some).
There is a misconception that the 1.5x magnification of focal length, which most DSLRs have, makes the focal length 1.5 times more, (a 20 mm becomes a 30mm). This is only half true. The lens is still a 20, but because the image sensor is smaller than 35mm film, it basically crops the 20mm lens leaving you with somethig similar to what you would see with a 30mm lens. But the angle of view is the same as the 20, so there is a difference. But because of this apparent zoom effect, camera manufacturers are now making super wide lenses. The drawback of all of this is not really easy to explain. Try these two links to help:
http://www.cybercollege.com/tvp011.htm
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dslr-mag.shtml
On the long end of the lens spectrum I would merge your two options. I assume the 70-200 and 100-400 both have the same auto focus motors, but the 70-200 will focus better in low light for sure (probably all the time) because the 2.8 aperture lets in 2-4 times as much light versus the f/4-5.6 1--400 lens. The smaller aperture is a huge plus. You can focus and compose better, but you can shoot at lower isos and/or higher shutter speeds and also create a shallower depth of field (clean you backgronds). Notice that the f/2.8 version of this lense is $1000 more than f/4 version. So the 100-400 lense will be a pretty big compromise in these regards over the 70-200. But you double the focal length with the other lense. What would I do. I would buy the non "IS" version of the 70-200, which is the same except for the image stabilization, and the $300 2x teleconverter. You will lose 2 stops of light with the extender, and lose some of the autofocus speed. But you basically have both lenses for the price of one. You actually stiff come out ahead is you bought the "IS" lense. I might even buy the 1.4x exender with the left over money.
FYI: The lense setup my paper is about to buy is a 16-35mm L, a 50 f1.4, the 70-200mm IS, and for the photographers to share two 14 f/2.8s, two 300mm f/2.8s and two 1.4x teleconvertors.
You know I always plan on keeping these responses short.
BigMike
10-13-2005, 12:38 PM
I want that 70-200 2.8 soooooo bad!
So, Brian, how good is your company's insurance policy? If you were to have a lens or two stolen from you, would they cover it? :sneaky:
I've been providing my own equipment the whole time. This will be the first time they have ever bought equipment. My company sucks.
Maybe I could sell you my 70-200. Hah! That thing is so beat. I can't believe it still works.
BigMike
10-13-2005, 12:45 PM
Woah! I was just looking at the Canon site, and it says the 70-200 has a constant maximum aperature is 2.8?!? so at 200, you can have an aperature of 2.8?! I NEED this lens to shoot in the theatre!
BigMike
10-13-2005, 12:54 PM
I've been providing my own equipment the whole time. This will be the first time they have ever bought equipment. My company sucks.
Maybe I could sell you my 70-200. Hah! That thing is so beat. I can't believe it still works.
If you are serious, I am serious..........
If it still works, there is hope. I'm sure it wouldnt be to hard to get cleaned up and working like a champ :D
I don't know if I would be serious or not about selling my stuff. I know a lot of shooters that don't even have equipment because the company provides it. That scares me.
But if you are serious about buying some equipment used is a good option. Check sportsshooter.com's classified. The stuff there, if any, will probably be pretty well used, but may be cheaper. You could also consider an aftermarket brand like sigma or tamron. The lenses won't be as nice, but will be a lot cheaper.
HotButterToppin
10-13-2005, 02:04 PM
I understand the value of f2.8 glass, I just wonder if it's worth it for an amateur. My understanding of IS is that it saves you a stop or two when trying to freeze motion when shooting handheld, which is always a plus from a practical standpoint. Hence why I was thinking the f4 100-400 would shoot better than the aperture specs would suggest.
The non-IS 70-200 is $600 cheaper. Looks like you need to get into telephoto primes before you can get f2.8 glass longer than 200mm. And the f2.8 300 is $4000. Bit of a drag.
Think if I were looking at the 20D I would go with the kit that includes body and 17-85 f4-5.6 ($2000), 70-200 f2.8 ($1200), and the 28mm f1.8 ($400) because for years I shot with a 50mm f1.4 and thought it was a great lense for many ocassions. Oh and the Speedlite 580EX for ($400) would probably be in there too. And a decent tripod.
And then I would be broke as hell and not have enough to actually buy a big bike. Damn.
I think your 20d kit sounds pretty good. I don't think the typical amateur, unless you are some rich bastard from Fairfax County, needs a full set of 2.8 lenses. And if you had to buy one, the 70-200 is usually the first people buy.
I don't know if I understand your logic on the 100-400. But here is something to ponder. Lenses are usually sharpest at the aperture two or three stops down from wide open. So with a 2.8 you are getting max sharpness at about f/5.6 or 8. With a 5.6 you need to go to f/11 or 16. If you look at landscape photographers, who want to get as much depth of field as possible, they will look for lenses with narrower apertures.
Oh, sorry if I am telling you stuff you already know. That can be hard to judge sometimes.
Here's one. I've heard mixed stuff about it, but still pretty cool.
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3274&navigator=3
HotButterToppin
10-13-2005, 08:35 PM
Sorry. Just realized I meant shutter speed and not aperture. So revised that should read....
The 100-400 IS would get you a couple steps slower shutter speed without camera shake and blur. Because you can slow the shutter speed and still get some decent frozen action handheld, you can run a larger aperture by a stop or two to get enough light.
Now I forgot where I heard that, or read it, but it seemed reasonable. I'm probably just not articulating it correctly though. Hehe.
I'm pretty familiar with how depth of field, aperture, depth of focus, and motion blur tie together. So yeah, a littlte bit of a rehash of stuff I already know but that's no problem at all as I always pick up something new. It's good to get input from someone who actually knows wtf they're doing.
One thing I happen to really like with my Canon GL1 camcorder is the IS, which works extremely well at longer zooms. The camera has a 20x (400mm-ish?) lense before it even gets into digital zooming, and it's all but worthless when zoomed if you turn off the IS. So Canon definitely gets good points for their ability to build IS (assuming it's equally good on the slr lenses).
For anyone still following this thread re: 20D vs D70, I've been doing some looking and Nikon is a bit cheaper by comparison. The body is a couple hundred cheaper. The equivalent 70-200 f2.8 lense is a couple hundred cheaper for the IS model, and generally the Canon lenses are a couple hundred bucks more all around. With fewer offerings in high speed long lenses obviously.
HotButterToppin
10-13-2005, 08:55 PM
Oh and I'm currently holding a 1978 vintage Canon TX w/50mm f1.4. The camera lent to me by my father and that taught me the basics of how to work a camera in full manual mode, shutter, aperture, focus, and iso. Good stuff.
Ya know, the real problem in all of this is that camera feel like such cheap pieces of crap nowadays. No metal until you get to the top end. Light as plasticy. No heft of quality. Canon lenses are all plastic even for those $4000 telephotos. That really depresses me when I'm spending so much. Fact of life though I guess.
HotButterToppin
10-13-2005, 08:58 PM
And a decent focusing screen!!
I dunno what all this little [ ] nonsense is all about on new cameras. You can't focus that way. I need a nice zigzag pattern in the middle center. I think some of them are replaceable, but again, only on pricey camera bodies.
BigMike
10-13-2005, 09:47 PM
So, for me, an amateur photographer, am I really going to notice a difference between the Canon Lens and the Sigma lens? (besides the :drool: factor?)
The way I figure, unless I am going to be using a bajillion megapixle camera and cropping to a 1/90000000 of an inch, It wont make a huuuge difference, especially for $600 instead of $1800
punkassean
10-13-2005, 09:55 PM
Sadly, I have vowed never to do business with Canon after several firsthand experiences with the quality of their videocameras, and not cheap videocameras at that. Their horrible service, inside and outside of warranty was the clincher though. Canon won't get a single additional dollar from me.
Ok, except the wide angle lense I'm buying for the videocamera. But after that, NOT A PENNY! Heh.
I beat the crap out of my GL-1 for about 5 years now and it's working tits. It did crap on me once right after the manufacturer warranty ended but everybody knows to get an extended warranty on camcorders, there are just too many moving parts NOT to fail at some point. Whether it's a Canon, Sony, Panasonic or whatever....
Canon rules! :thumb:
BigMike
10-13-2005, 10:09 PM
Wow, I just found an interesting review on the sigma 70-200 f/2.8
http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/lenses/35mm-zoom/sigma/PRD_83598_3128crx.aspx#reviews
So, for me, an amateur photographer, am I really going to notice a difference between the Canon Lens and the Sigma lens? (besides the :drool: factor?)
The way I figure, unless I am going to be using a bajillion megapixle camera and cropping to a 1/90000000 of an inch, It wont make a huuuge difference, especially for $600 instead of $1800
Yeah i'm thinking a similar thing. As much as i'de love the Canon lense, i probabaly coudln't notice much differance between that and the Sigma?
Somewhere in all of this camera madness i may actually get round to buying another bike! Hurrah for insurance money!
The 100-400 IS would get you a couple steps slower shutter speed without camera shake and blur. Because you can slow the shutter speed and still get some decent frozen action handheld, you can run a larger aperture by a stop or two to get enough light.
The IS will help eliminate some camera shake, but will not affect the ability to stop a moving subject.
Really bringing back a thread from the dead here.. but i got my 20D a week or so ago.. here are some results for ya!
http://adrianrogers.deviantart.com
mobius
10-26-2005, 03:41 PM
BP i'm trying to get back into photo after my N80 nikon was jacked with about 1500 of lenses last summer in vancouer.
Simple question
D70 or Rebel XT? I've always been a nikon user but i think this might be the time to switch.
BigMike
10-27-2005, 10:56 AM
BP i'm trying to get back into photo after my N80 nikon was jacked with about 1500 of lenses last summer in vancouer.
Simple question
D70 or Rebel XT? I've always been a nikon user but i think this might be the time to switch.
I wouldn't go for the rebel. Save up for a 10D or 20D. As far as my experiance with them goes, the rebel just doesn't have the features and speed you are going to want.
my 2c
Plus, if you have even remotely large hands, you'll need a battery grip on the Rebel XT for it to be comftable.
The size is handy if you need something compact, but my hands (which are rather large) just don't fit the camera.
VDfree
10-27-2005, 07:57 PM
I know most of you are probably using photoshop, like me. I have been thinking about picking up the new "Aperture" software for MAC. Has anyone used it or have any feedback? It supposed to be incredible, especially for shooting in RAW.
I know most of you are probably using photoshop, like me. I have been thinking about picking up the new "Aperture" software for MAC. Has anyone used it or have any feedback? It supposed to be incredible, especially for shooting in RAW.
I here it is pretty dope. Expensive, but dope. I imagine you need a pretty bad computer to get the full effect.
HotButterToppin
10-29-2005, 03:44 AM
Five hundred smacks for catalogging software means it better be the best damn workflow software ever made (in my book). It better integrate with databases (SQL, Oracle, MySQL, etc) and it better be everything the camera company software is and way more. Then again, if it's anything like Apple's video prost production software (the ones that aren't Final Cut Pro) then it's probably really good because they bought it from someone else.
In other news... I was about 15 minutes away from pulling the trigger on a 20D w/17-85 IS USM but just in the nick of time Nikon looks like they'll be releasing the D200 in time for Christmas. The 20D had me convinced when I read about the autofocus, vertical grip the D70 lacks, heavier metal body, and 5fps for 23 shots. I had convinced myself I could live without 1/500th flash sync, and had checked the bank account to see if I could swing $2000.
But that crisis of conscience was averted when I read over on Kenrockwell.com that Nikon UK leaked some info. The D100 was the camera I was planning to get years ago when I was broke and dreaming, and it's not a Canon so I can purchase without going back on my vow to never buy Canon again. ;)
mobius
10-29-2005, 01:01 PM
I here it is pretty dope. Expensive, but dope. I imagine you need a pretty bad computer to get the full effect.
Minimum System Requirements
One of the following Macintosh computers:
Power Mac G5 with a 1.8 gigahertz (GHz) or faster PowerPC G5 processor
17- or 20-inch iMac G5 with a 1.8 GHz or faster PowerPC G5 processor
15- or 17-inch PowerBook G4 with a 1.25 GHz or faster PowerPC G4 processor
1GB of RAM
One of the following graphics cards:
ATI Radeon x600 Pro or x600 XT
ATI Radeon X800 XT Mac Edition
ATI Radeon X850 XT
ATI Radeon 9800 XT or 9800 Pro
ATI Radeon 9700 Pro
ATI Radeon 9600, 9600 XT, 9600 Pro, or 9650
ATI Mobility Radeon 9700 or 9600
NVIDIA GeForce 6600 LE or 6600
NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra DDL or 6800 GT DDL
NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT
NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500
5GB of disk space for application, templates, and tutorial
DVD drive for installation
Recommended System
Dual 2GHz Power Mac G5 or faster
2GB of RAM
One of the following graphics cards:
ATI Radeon X800 XT Mac Edition
ATI Radeon 9800 XT or 9800 Pro
NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra DDL or 6800 GT DDL
NVIDIA GeForce 6600 LE or 6600
NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT
NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500
5GB of disk space for application, templates, and tutorial
DVD drive for installation
Someone mentioned Canons 'L' range earlier.. Quick Q..
Canon 70-200 f4 L OR Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX DG?
I'm thinking the extra stop would be more usefull than the faster AF, but anyone care to shed some more light?
HotButterToppin
10-30-2005, 08:18 PM
I know this isn't the best place to ask this...but on the off chance anyone has played with them both, has anyone tried the Canon and Nikon f2.8 70-200mm lenses side by side for AF speed comparisons?
Had a pretty good day at the office Friday.
http://members.cox.net/jbrianprice/gear.jpg
mobius
10-31-2005, 09:05 PM
So uhh bp i hate you can i borrow something?
HotButterToppin
11-02-2005, 10:32 PM
Couldn't have been that good....you underexposed the picture! I can't even see cameras and my gamma is at 1.85. Take that, Canon user! Nyuck nyuck ;)
I just preordered a D200 w/18-70 f3.5-5, battery grip and 2 1GB cards. Going to hold off on any other lenses until I figure out what these newfangled zoom lenses are all about. I say newfangled of course because my only real SLR experience is with very nice f1.4 manual focus Canon primes from the 70's. So I'm really quite tempted to just get a couple of those, say the hell with wide or mid zooms, and save up for a big 2.8 tele. But we'll see. Seems everyone loves zooms. Seems to me that 80% of my time is either spent full wide or full long though.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.