barmijo

<p>Given how many people loved Type55, I'm surprised how few people have committed to New55. Doesn't look like it's going to make it to the goal by next Monday.</p>

<p>Just checked the kickstarter page and we're only 1/3 of the way to the goal with just 19 days left. Given how popular Type 55 film was and how devoted the users were, I'm very surprised and just a little sad that enough people aren't stepping up to support this project.</p>

<p>I found the New55 project a couple days ago and just had to back it!!!<br>

I've got my fingers crossed he gets funded and gets product out so pull my Wista out again . . .</p>

<p>I've had my Luigi case with the grip for years and would highly recommend it. He's a Leica enthusiast himself and works hard to keep the feel natural.<br>

On the other hand I've seen several of the knock offs and all of them had a clumsy feel to them by comparison.<br>

Just one man's opinion . . .</p>

<p>I've had my M9 for 18 months, and it's my go to camera for family, travel, etc.<br>

I also had an M8 for a couple years before upgrading, and still have a 5DmkII, a 1DmkII and a slew of point and shoots for the wife and kids.<br>

Why a rangefinder? I got the M8 years ago to focus on photography after getting caught up far too often in the plethora of options and settings on my DSLRs. One day I couldn't find the manual and got fed up and visited a local dealer, used the camera for a few hours and ordered it the same day. I've since bought a new DSLR as well as upgraded to the M9. Why? Because they're for different uses.<br>

The pros of the M9 - great image quality, spectacular glass, extremely compact (camera and four lenses in a bag that won't fit my 5DmkII with my 85/1.2 all by itself), doesn't attract attention from most folks which makes for great people shots, wonderful in low light, lenses in every vintage and price range available (some good, some great, some crap), fewer buttons dials and menus.<br>

The cons - you won't develop your biceps carrying your camera around, you also won't develop biceps carrying your wallet around, supposed photo experts often won't stop giving you their opinion, if you like auto-focus don't bother, forget about zoom, forget about sports action shots, forget about macro, they're hard to get with long lead times for cameras and new lenses, and finally - there are some really quirky accessories.<br>

Best of luck!</p>

 

There's no substitute for great glass, especially on a camera as capable as the 5D mk II. Go with the 24-70mm f/2.8L.

If you weren't interested in taking better photographs you wouldn't be on photo.net asking this question. So save up and

buy one L series lens instead of three or four poor ones.

I own and enjoy a 1D mk ii and a 5D mk II plus a stable of great Canon lenses, However I too find them to be heavy to

carry around constantly. In my case it's the result of 30 years hauling luggage over my shoulder through airports. My

solution was to buy a Leica M8 a couple years ago which i just upgraded to an M9 a few months ago. The camera is

lighter. The lenses are MUCH lighter. Many of the lenses are two stops faster as well. My M9 and four lenses fit in the

same space as my 1D with my 28-70 lens.

 

Yes, they're expensive but since you're already buying 1 series cameras and L glass it doesn't seem like saving money is

your concern.

 

If you've been shooting for 23 years then you remember the days before auto-everything. The Leica is a throwback to

those times. Some people enjoy the experience, others don't so find a local dealer and try it out. Some smaller dealers

may even loan you one for a day to try it out.

 

Of course, that's just one old guy's opinion so take it for what it's worth.

<p>I've had good luck with OC camera in Mission Viejo, http://www.occamera.com/</p>

<p>I routinely use images I acquire through iStockphoto for my marketing work, but have never contributed any images. Also, although I'm not a lawyer, my work routinely requires me to work on contracts. So here's my rather humble input:</p>

<p>First, the cost of jury trials is huge. Even if you wanted to take them to court, you likely couldn't afford it. On their side, since they make very little money from each artist, they can't risk the cost of legal action. This concern for the cost of action is common in business these days and for this reason most contracts now call for binding arbitration. Exactly how arbitrators are chosen, the venue, appeals rights and other details can get very complicated so these are areas you should read up on or consult an attorney about.</p>

<p>As for the attorney, unless you're expecting to make a lot of money from this (and few of the artists on this site that I know of do) I'd suggest simply starting with some images that you don't mind giving up the rights to and seeing how the system works. If I were signing up I'd even purchase a few of my own images under another account name to ensure the transactions show up. That's a relatively cheap investment compared to an hour with a good attorney.</p>

<p>I hope you find iStock is as valuable a tool for you as it has been for me.</p>

<p>I routinely use a tripod head on my monopod for sports. I keep the head loose, so I can move the camera more freely than if I had mounted the camera directly to the monopod.</p>

<p>Of course, the obvious answer is whatever is the lowest ISO that gets the shot. However, I always seem to end up at either end of the spectrum.<br>

If I'm outdoors or using studio lights I'll go with 50 or 100. When I'm shooting sports I start at 800 and often end up at 1600. For hockey, even 1600 isn't enough. For indoor ambient light I'll try 400, but often have to bump it up to 800.</p>

<p>Pretty cool! I know not everyone needs this capability, but I've run into a couple situations where it would have been handy. WiFi covers most of the occassions when the Pocket Wizard's range isn't enough, but I don't think that would've had the range you needed either.</p>

<p>I collect old cameras, from glass plate box cameras of the 1800's to 35mm to polaroids. In use, however, I have just about 5; a 1DmkII, an M8, and three digital point and shoots.</p>

I'd like to get a portable storage/viewer like the Epson P-3000 or Jobo Giga

Vu, but finding one that supports Leica's DNG is tough.

 

Anyone using one of these for their M8?

 

If it supports Canon RAW as well, that'd be even better.

M8

I've had my M8 for more than 8 weeks now and I love it. I also own a couple Canon DSLRs and a lot of L glass, but I got the M8 because there are times when lugging a DSLR with lenses around and trying to remember which combination of buttons to push was simply too much work. In addition, Canon's fast glass is huge in comparison to Leica lenses, and often intimidates people whereas the Leica is seen as "quaint."

 

I have my IR filters and they seem to solve the magenta issue. Personally, I saw the problem on almost 25% of shots taken indoors and found it impossible to correct in PS. Outdoor shots never exhibited the problem for me, but that may just be my choice of subjects.

 

There are a couple things about the camera that bug me. First, the battery and SD card are inserted from the bottom by removing the entire lower plate. This is a bow to the traditional film loading method of the M, but forces you to remove the camera from any case or tripod. Second, I'd have preferred a manual shutter. I don't know if either was really possible given all the other design choices, but that's my two cents.

 

In all, the M8 is a great camera if you're looking for a traditional RF experience without the film.

Yup, I just got the email over the weekend asking me to ship my M8 to NJ.

It's jut my opinion, but most wedding photography marketing is bland. They have pretty photos on their materials and a name like Mike Smith Photography. Something with a little personality would stand out.

 

However, Mooselight still wouldn't be my first choice.

 

Just my two cents.

Not sure what the IR responsiveness of the 30D is. I've had four Canon bodies, and all have had a pretty strong IR filter over the sensor. Not that it's impossible, but your exposure times may be long and you'll need a filter that let's through no visible light at all. Despite all that, I managed to get a few shots that I liked with my 1DmkII, so keep at it.

Bob's correct that up-sizing isn't likelty to result in an image the agency will promote. However, different agencies have have clients so you may be able to find an agency with an online focus that doesn't need the 48MB file.

 

btw: I'd look at this as an opportunity to by your wife a new camera ;-)

Perhaps I'm very sensitive to the lag of the IS servo spin-up or some folks that have posted have a newer version of the 70-200/2.8L IS with a shorter lag than mine. Admittedly, mine is over two years old.

 

However, with my lens if I'm idle for a minute or two the servo shuts off to conserve battery. When I then put the camera to my eye and depress the shutter release part way I can notice a lag time while the servo spins back up and the image steadies. For my needs that lag gets in the way more often than IS helps so I keep it shut off unless I need it. When it is on, I've gotten into the habit periodically depressing the shutter even when the camera is hanging by my side so I don't have to wait.

 

Take this with a grain of salt, because my usage may not mirror yours. When I use this lens I'll typically shoot between 500 and 1000 frames in a day.

I didn't mean to suggest it's all shallow depth of field. However, I don't agree that a great deal of DOF contributes to the effect.

 

What you're trying to do is create contrast between subject and background so that the former looks like it's floating above the latter. To do that the eye needs to be able to "find" the background, it can't be a complete blur. However, it also can't be as sharp as the subject or the mind will belive they're on the same plane.

 

I'm no pro, but IMHO one way to accomplish this is to control the DOF so that the subject is tack sharp but the background is just beyond the DOF scale on the lens (if it exists, as many mfg unfortunately don't include it anymore). This requires a lens that's sharp wide open because you won't often be able to step down much unless there's a large space behind the subject or you're using a long lens like the 300/4 you describe.

Bob's already listed the two best Canon lenses for this - the 85/1.2 (my fav) and the 200/1.8 (many folks were heartbroken when they discontinued this lens). These lenses are sharp wide open providing a tremendous definition of the subject from the background. Most other lenses, even L, are relatively soft wide open by comparison making it difficult to achieve what you want. Be aware, though, that these lenses are big pieces of glass and often intimidate folks when you aim them in their direction.

 

A small amount of well diffused fill flash can add dimension to your subject. My favorite diffuser is the Gary Fong Lightshpere. Put the flash on manual, keep the output to minimum, and bounce the main output off a neutral surface - you're not lighting the subject with this but just providing a little extra vibrance to colors and sparkle to the eyes.

 

Last, choose your background carefully. You need separation between the subject and background, but the background should have some shape and texture. If you're using a fill flash, you want it to fall off greatly before reaching the background, at least two stops (remember, light falls off as the square of the distance so every 1.4x in distance is 1 stop).

I've had the 70-200/2.8 IS for a couple years. It's a great lens, exceptionaly sharp throughout the range and focuses quick. However, it's a beast - big and heavy.

 

Also, I can count the number of times I've used IS on one hand, so as the previous poster noted be sure you realy need it. Don't get me wrong, when you need it Canon's IS works well. On the flip side though it adds some lag to taking each shot because the servo has to spin up so it isn't something you just leave on all the time.