danny_lee2

Hi the other day I dropped the camera and broke the 50 1.8.

 

I mainly been using it for portrature, headshots and the such.

 

I use a 1.6x camera

 

I got a 70-200 4

 

I am looking to take portraits and I cant seem to decide what lens to get?

 

24-70 2.8 expensive, but do able

 

17-40 4 kinda short with F4 ?

 

50 1.4 300 bucks ! why not pay more and get the 17 40 or even more for 24-

70 ?

 

 

Just get another 50 1.8. .. ?

 

suggestions ?

 

www.dannyleephoto.com

here is the 100% crop<div></div>

Here is another frame from the session, also jpeg, also 100,<div></div>

sorry, I meant the pic that is attached is like 1600, taken in room light, and is very bad.

 

the framed picture was taken at 100, with studio strobe, and is 1/3rd of a frame of a digital rebel jpeg.

there is no price on happimess. if the 70-200 2.8 IS makes you happy, go for it.

 

if you are happy with your sigma consumer zoom, use that, whatever makes you happy.

 

there is NO CHEAP 70-200 2.8. they are expensive for a very good reason. very GOOD reason.

note, the print is under glass with reflections of things on the other wall, taken in room lighting at what 1600 iso ? bad bad pic, but trust me, the print is excellent.

Here is the pic on the wall, it exists. I just like jpegs, I work well with them. I shoot both raw and jpeg, and saw no advantage in MY style of shooting... nothing wrong if you like raw, its an indiviual preference.<div></div>

that is a weird dot, I used digital rebels for years for more than hundred thousand exposures, never saw a dot like that.

sean gibson, seeing is believing, if you ever come to ny, email me and I'll show you the print.

Hi there.

 

the way some people make it sound like... shooting RAW gives you a lot more Dynamic Range, tons of more colors, and is BETTER.

 

it may be better, but I can say it isnt alot better. maybe if Jpeg is 98% , RAW is 98.3 %.

 

I like Jpegs, the details and quality are top notch to 16x20 prints, and that is from a 1/3 crop of the frame.

 

I have no clue how much more you can drag out of a digital sensor, RAW vs JPEG ? black groom and white bride ? I dont think anything can capture details in both, I dont think there is a sensor or an emulsion that can do that ! no way.

 

So I shoot everything in Jpegs. EVERYTHING. and I photoshop those Jpegs too, with great results.

 

Its easy, quick, compact, and the human eye cant see that many colors anyway.

I dont think there is a camera nor lens that can do what you described. but to be sure, get a light meter, and meter the light in the situation. figure you need at least 1/200 shutter to freeze a 20 mph dog, and perhaps a faster ball ?

 

thats really tough. there just isnt going to be enough light as you described it.

buy insurance. also I seen many photogs with the usual good stuff, usually around film sets. they got the 1's the 2.8's and all that goodness.

 

Thing is though, they look like dirty scum, unwashed, unclean. I dont know if that helps but thats what they look like.

there is no way you can look like a pro with the rebel xt. grip or no grip, but if you attach it to a big white red ringed lens, then you look like a pro.

 

I got my grip because the camera is just too darn small to use with no grip ! and I am too poor to get the 20D. or at least the price difference over performance didnt justify it.

 

but keep the grip, unless you have very small hands.

also if you have a laptop, bring that and a scanner.

you blinked ?

whatever it is, I pray it wont get any smaller.

thats not fair, canon has a point and shoot with a L lens ! a mini L lens with red ring and everything !

dont buy it, you just missed the huge rebate promotion that was going on. hold out for the next one that is due out soon.

my analogy: dynamic range is lacking in bootleg videos, dvds. where you cant see detail in the black, and the lights are blown out to nothing, that is why I never buy bootleg movies.

I owned one, sold it. why ? because I couldnt deal with the build quality. the images are great, but the construction, the fact that in autofocus the ring turns and etc... I am planning on the canon 17-40 soon, also the 28 on my rebel just isnt wide enough you know ?

you need the 17 of the 17-40 for your landscapes, as for portraits, use the 40 end, but stand further back, and then crop in post. there are plenty of pixels. I cropped a digital rebel image in half, and printed a 16x20 and it was still sharp and stunning.

Ugly or not, it is still just a sometimes camera, SO I say go with the cheapest lightest one you can ever find, and put it in a ziplock bag.

thanks for the headsup I cant wait to hit the barnes and nobles. ( not that I can afford the 5d anyway )

Although I dont see the relevance of this question, being the huge price difference and the 1.6x vs FF Chip formats would be the main deciding factors between the two, I have read many many posts about this very same question, and there are scores that argue that the 5D has a bigger range, and scores others who insists there isnt a difference. Noise on the other hand the 5D is better.

Does she have a 'north light window' in her factory?

 

Err, no, she works out of the basement apartment, so she will be shooting in room-light, I guess she can take her stuff to the backyard or something. Funny thing, I used to own an Oly E10. It was pretty good at iso 80, but man, that thing is so slow that it would make a buddhist monk out of anyone. ( learning patience ).