model mayhem gallery

<p>You make a good point Lex on terms of safety for people in the park. It all comes down to who has the rights to own and operate something like this. Definitely can cover way more ground than someone on foot and gives a decent birds eye view. I kind of want one but it just seems weird to me still. Can definitely be used for both good and bad.<br>

<br /> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khgYaejtiSI</p>

<p>Good links Michael. Suck it can't be used for business purposes. No commercial use so if you get paid for the images you get, it is a FAA violation. What? $10,000 for first time offense plus possible jail time for making money with a toy. OK so I guess I won't be getting one of these for my real estate business.<br>

<strong>In discussions with staffers about FAA regulations they indicated that a first time offense minimum fine is $10,000, up to $100,000, plus carries a possible 3 to 10 years in the pen.</strong></p>

<p> </p>

<p>I've been doing some research on these also. Looks like these are now pretty common in Real Estate aerial photography with quite a few samples. I think this is a lot different than binoculars. This was actually tracking us on a trail were there was no high ground around for miles. In any case I no longer believe it was controller by parks and recreation. But, quite an interesting device none the less. I am torn between if this is something I would like to add to my real-estate photography service or not.<br>

Here are the rest of the pictures from this trip so you can see how secluded this location is: <br>

<a href="http://patrickwheaton.com/quarrylake">http://patrickwheaton.com/quarrylake</a><br>

You will see original pics of this thing flying around.</p>

 

<p>Wow! it is really hard to believe this technology is available for the average user. We had been hiking about 45 minutes so where quite deep into the park when we saw this. I looked closely and couldn't find anyone with a remote controlling this thing so was quite surprised at the RF range. Just didn't like it following me felt illegal. Why would someone want to spy on people on a hiking trail? This seems very unsafe for women who were running on the trail at sunset because someone could follow you with you having absolutely no idea they were there. <br>

Pretty expensive toy for kids. Has flight time of 25 minutes if painted blue would be almost impossible to see. I heard it way before I saw it but only because I was looking up at birds flying. Otherwise I would have never seen it. Guess I am just paranoid and I suspect these will not be legal for long.</p>

<p>Here is the original shot before enhancements. This is really strange is this legal? Was this controlled by game warden or just kids playing around? Looks like a web cam attached so this could be recording video. Also the camera could pan and tilt. I have a few other pictures and could see the camera in different angles following us as the drone moved past us. It hen took off into the clouds. It had a really far range and we never saw anyone close enough to be controlling it. Freaky..<br>

Pretty sure it was something like this..<br>

<p> </p><div>[ATTACH=full]723471[/ATTACH]</div>

<p>Today while hiking through Quarry Lakes Regional Park my friend fired up a cigarette. I warned him stating you see the signs that say "No Smoking" right? He laughed and said who the heck is going to tell their is no one around here for miles. <br>

However, shortly after I heard a strange buzzing noise and simultaneously saw a flock of Pelicans radically change their direction of flight. All except one. However, when I looked closer I noticed what I thought was a bird was hovering and then started moving sideways at the same speed we were walking.<br>

I stopped and took a couple of pictures of it with my Tamron 70-300 at max zoom. It immediately went very high straight up and I lost sight of it. However, when I got home and zoomed in I realized we were 100% being spied on by a drone.</p><div>[ATTACH=full]723470[/ATTACH]</div>

<p>I use 12 x 12 LED light panels which are calibrated at 5600K so they balance well with ambient day light. Many of the newer LED panels are now adjustable from 3200-5600K. However, they are not powerful enough to overpower the sun like strobes can but it is nice when combining them with tungsten, sun or other types of light to get colors to match.</p>

<p>I believe you can turn the LCD brightness way down. Or use something to cover the LCD like cardboard or get a hoodman.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>You haven't even started talkng about capturing audio with mic's which use XLR plugs. The Canon 5D II has absolutely horrible internal mic and no output for headphones. <br>

A regular HD video camera already has most of this built in for way less money.</p>

<p>Looks like a nice App. Too bad I am an Android user.</p>

<p>Clearly you have done your research and ultimately you are the one who it has to make happy. Sigma makes very good lenses. I have had the original Sigma 70-200 F2.8 DX which in its day got great reviews. Years later it is now showing its age and if I had it to do over again I would have ceratinly purchased the Canon 70-200 F2.8L. But, you live and you learn and it comes down to what can you afford and which will do the job required.</p>

<p>I am also getting into the real estate photography business.</p>

<ol>

<li>I find the main way I make money is when clients need it NOW. As in Right Now!. Speed is your friend in Real Estate photography. I generally only get deals when the agent can't make it to a property themselves and they have a potential buyer who wants to see photos. So they generally need them the same day and online.</li>

<li>Also, HD video is a great addition to the agents. When I shoot I do both video and still photos. every additional service I can provide helps.</li>

<li>Being able to change ISO from room to room. I may go from a bright living room to a dark bathroom or basement but still want to shoot at F8. So being able to crank up the ISO and crank down the shutter speed using an IS lens or tripod is vital.</li>

</ol>

<p>In other words. I just don't think film is a good place for this type of photography. Cost wise, speed wise and lacks flexibility i.e "stitching or panoramas". Yes, possibly better image quality but this can all be done with Lightroom HDR, or Enfuse. </p>

<p>I have been using Zenfolio for years and it works perfectly. I really love the integration with Lightroom which makes it very easy for me to upload and track orders and what I have local or up in Zenfolio. Cheap, integrates well with my website.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I can't say I sell digital copies. I charge for the photo-shoot or event photography up front. Then the client goes to my Zenfolio site to download their pictures. If they want prints then they can order them from the site. Or just download them and print them at home or use for their Facebook sites.<br>

Again, I am not charging for individual pictures / prints. I charge upfront an hourly rate for events and a flat rate for photo shoots and weddings. Zenfolio is just how I deliver my products once they are paid for.</p>

<p>I use and love Zenfolio. The annual fee is minimal and they do all my prints for me. Plus it is unlimited storage so it also servers as a backup for all my wedding videos and photos. This is a perfect deal at a greast price. Plus, I hav eno branding so when people go to my site it all looks seemless.</p>

<p>I don't know what kind of shooting you do but for me speed at the 24-70 ranger was very important because this is a range I shoot at most often. Because I also shoot video with my Canon 5D Mark II IS was also very important. I personally did not like the 24-105 as it has too much vignetting and it really distorts vertical and horizontal lines which is unacceptable for architectural type photography. <br>

I went with the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC which is about the same price as the Canon 24-105 F4 IS. However, the image quality is pretty much equal to the Canon 24-70L F2.8 I. When I compare the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC to my Canon 17-40 F4L, I absolutely can not tell them apart. With both on a tripod the Canon 17-40 F4L may be a little sharper. However, when shooting them both handheld with VC on the Tamron beats the Canon 17-40 F4L quite substantially.</p>

<p>Too me the F2.8 and IS, is more important than the extra reach as I also have a Sigma 70-200 F2.8 and Tamron 70-300 VC lenses. Sigma just seems a step behind Tamron and Canon L-series to me.</p>

 

<p>I have been using Lightroom for a couple of years now and prefer it because I change camera vendors ever few years. I started with Sony, now I am with Canon but looking to pickup a Nikon soon. So, Lightroom works with all the types of files I may ever use not just Canon files like DPP.</p>

<p>I have used this lens and honestly don't think it is much better than the Canon 85 1.8 other than being slightly faster. I also shoot with the 85 1.2L which just has a look no other lens has. The only lens I would say competes and may be slightly better than the Canon L-series primes is the Carl Zeiss 85 1.4 Planar T* <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=583976&is=REG&Q=&A=details">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=583976&is=REG&Q=&A=details</a><br>

I have used this lens for shooting video with my Canon 5D II and it is just excellent lens. It is so sharp and clear it is just breath taking. The 85 1.2L is a softer almost like oil painting look with real creamy bokeh the Zeiss is more crystal clear but also with a very beautiful but different bokeh. I would not put Sigma or Tamron in the same class as either Canon L or Carl Zeiss.</p>

 

<p>The hottest low priced lenses for Canon are the Tamron lenses. The Tamron 18-270 VC and the Tamron 70-300 VC are both excellent lenses for the money. I shoot with the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC and Tamron 70-300 VC and they are close to being L-series lens quality in both build and IQ.<br>

When I first started shooting I tried the Canon 55-250 and it really is a toy compared to Tamron VC lenses at about the same price.</p>

<p>There is always that situation where you just can't backup far enough and risj cutting out something important otherwise. Also, i prefer to have IS. it will give you better IQ in certatin circumstances over and L-series lens without it.<br>

I chose Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VR because I need speed, IQ and IS the Tamron also has great build quality. However, I shoot full frame with a 5D3.</p>

<p>I really like my Canon ELAN 7NE. I can't believe Canon doesn't use the eye focusing on any of it's digital camera's. With the ElAN 7NE al I hav eto do is look at the focusing dot I want to be active and that is where the camera will focus even if it is off centered of the focusing point.<br>

It is also very fast quite and light. Everything I need to shoot plus-X or fuji neopan.</p>

<p>I shot with a crop sensor camera for a while and hated both the 85 1.2L and the 50 1.8. Too hard to frame subject in small studio's. <br>

I definetely prefere a zoom for portrait on full frame I use teh Tamron 24-70 2.8 Vr on my 7D my goto lens is the Canon 17-40 F4L. However, the 17-55 F2.8 IS also sounds good here.<br>

a zoom lens allows you to crop in camera not in post....</p>

<p>35 f2.0 Carl Zeiss lens. You need something more exotic and actually less expensive than the Canon L-series primes. Try the Ziess. Has a very unique look and wil lstand out from all the other lenses you already have. No need to add more of the same flavor...</p>

<p>I shoot weddings pretty often and find I am quite happy with my Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VR and Tamron 70-200 F2.8 VR. I also have a could of Canon primes including the 85 1.2L, 50 1.8 and 28 1.8. Between the Canon 85 1.2 and Tamron 70-200 F2.8 both at F2.8 I really can't tell much of a difference at 85 f2.8. But, the VR really stands out for handheld work. However, none of it competes with work done on a tripod. Too many people now days forget how great a good tripod is and how much better it will make your work.<br>

If you must use Canon L-series lenses go with the 70-200 F2.8 I Non-IS and a goor tripod or monopod. They only look stupid to people who don't know how to use them or how much better they make the photography. The new carbon fiber ones are pretty light. <br>

So either consider third party lenses with IS I.E. Tamron or Sigma or invest in a good mono or tripod.<br>

I also shoot with a 5D mark II, and just have never been able to justify the extra cost for L-series lenses when all my customers just want decent pics at a goor price. No one has ever complained about the quality of the pict I take with Tamron or non L-series primes.</p>

<p>I use AB800's, AB1600's WhiteLightnings X1600's and love them. I've been shooting for 10 years and have never used anything other than PCB stuff. I have looked at Caluments Travelites and photogenics photofles strobes. But, have never had any reason to upgrade AB stuff. The new Einstiens are the way to go if buying in 2013. </p>

<p>My backup small carry with me all the time camera is my Samsung Gallaxy S4 or my IPHONE 4S which both take excellent photos and video when I just need something small and now. When I need to take serious pics I get my 5D2. Why play with toys when I hav real cameras. But, I really think most people who want a small camera are not going to put large zooms or primes on it. If I am going to get my other lenses I would just get my other camera too. Otherwise, my cell phone will do just fine. Believe it or not the cell phones now actually do pretty good.</p>