Marcus Ian

As WW illustrates, with such a limited budget, you must prioritize. Frankly, your sentiment about a 'forever camera' has no place when building a kit to shoot professionally - ie. when someone is paying you to rely on you to provide them with professional imagery of their un-repeatable (in practical terms) event. In your shoes (with such a limited budget), I would seriously consider a 5D3 or two (since you could get , and combine that w/ a Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC (or equivalently a 24-105/4), and a Sigma or Tamron 70-200/2.8. If you can afford a 5D4 and a 24-70/2.8L II or 70-200/2.8L IS, then you could alternatively afford 2 used 5D3s and Tamron/Sigma fast zooms. That still doesn't provide complete redundancy, but it provides a LOT of redundancy - and also allows you to shoot a dual camera setup (heavy, but makes for an incredibly effective, complimentary, and even redundant, kit). I (frankly) don't see a way to provide complete redundancy within your budget though. Not unless you are willing to stick w/ a crop setup for the time being. I, personally, have shot weddings with two cheap lenses and one cheap camera before, and I got lucky. But that's what it was - luck. OTOH, I've shot weddings with 5s and a full set of redundant zooms. On one particular day (when not so lucky ;) ) a bench w/ a faulty leg collapsed under me while I was standing on it, shooting from the back of a ceremony. The 5D w/ the 24-70/2.8 and a 580 hit the ground hard enough to crack the lens in half and smash the 580 to useless debris. What did I do? pulled the remains of the lens, and the flash off, pulled the 24-105/4 out of the bag, mounted it, got up on another bench and resumed shooting. If you can't do that, you aren't properly equipped to bill for the service.

IMO, this was always a fundamental weakness with the Rebel line. As w/ james_elwing, using these w/ MF lenses is an exercise in frustration... But... it's par for the course when the size of the body starts to approach 'miniscule' ;)

I've always been a fan of ultra wide primes for portraiture, but a couple of rentals of the 50/1.2L was enough to convince me that, in this day and age, it's a waste. IMO, both times f2.2 -> f2.5 was the widest I could shoot with it to get usable IQ (IMO) - even after MFA. The EF 50/1.4 at least crisped up by f2.0-2.2. Maybe when the 50/1.2L II comes out, it may be worth revisiting, but the Sig 50/1.4 A blows it out of the water, and even it's predecessor (The much cheaper Sig 50/1.4 EX DG HSM) outperformed it (in the center and mid - which for 50/80mm portraiture is the critical zone typically) as well as, obviously, the EF 1.4.

I typically send two sets of JPEGs. One is full resolution (whatever that is - as it varies with any cropping you do), and the other is long side 1000 pixels (for convenient and fast emailing/FBing, etc.). Both should be exported at whatever the maximum quality setting your software supports is. IMO, the DPI setting is largely a moot point (so not something I worry my pretty little head with), as any decent printer (print shop) is going to resize as required for whatever the print size selected is and their printer's capability is. Since I no longer do that in-house, simply making sure they have the maximum quality/resolution to work with yields the best (and simplest) results IME. While the full sized JPEG images can easily be 10+ MB, the downsized ones are typically 2-400k each, although obviously there is a considerable amount of variance with any residual noise, style choice (B&W in particular), etc. Assuming that you deliver them on physical media, the storage requirement can be significant if you are sending them something that is of archival grade. However, I've never had all the images fail to fit (with ease) on an archival grade DVD-R. That said, you should do what works with your business's plan. Handing off all the JPEGs certainly simplifies your deliverables, but will negatively impact any potential profit you make from prints, which may affect your bottom line. As michaelchadwickphotography says though. Do NOT plan on handing off RAWs. IMO that is a huge error, one that can lead to unforeseen and almost universally bad consequences.

I am curious. (and playing devil's advocate here) Aside from the lack of/questionable contact, has he actually violated any of the terms of the contract you signed? While he offered to do the engagement photos for free, is there any mention of them or reference to them in the contract? Is there a requirement in the contract for contact, and/or a specified manner to discuss or plan for changes in plan? Is there any mention of shooting requirements/preferences for the day of? (as in something like 'he will be in charge/ the only photographer') The reason I ask these is because they relate to your options at this point. From the post, it sounds like you are still obligated to hold up your end of the contract. While he may not have been in appropriate contact, if he is not contractually obligated to it, he can blow you off until the day of the wedding. Same goes for the engagement pics. If they are not mentioned in the contract, you have no agreement with him that he has violated. Unfortunately, unless he violated the terms of the contract, you need to be prepared for him to a) show up on the wedding day, b) shoot on the wedding day, c) demand payment per the contract's specifications. I mean, obv. at this point you do NOT want that, but while some texts and/or emails can be used in court as supporting documentation, and, in some cases, a contract, in this case, the contract itself will be the primary 'agreement' referred to by any court you seek remedy from - IT will be the decider - not ambiguous texts or an 'ill get back to you' email/voicemail. The last question is because if a), b), and c) occur and his contract specifies his priority on the big day, even if you hired another photog, he could still effectively ruin your pictures from the other photog (it would obv. be incredibly unprofessional, but yeah, hypothetically possible). The thing is, if he hasn't violated any of the terms of your agreement, and YOU do, he can legitimately sue you for damages. Do I think he'd be successful? meh, probably not so much, but you'd likely at a minimum, end up owing him the remainder.

5D3 24-70/2.8 - ISO200 70mm f/11 10s - I sat us in an unfortunate spot for an unfamiliar fireworks display... I have LOTS of pictures of a tree exploding... over, and over, and over again ;)

Canon XTi 10-24mm/3.5-4.5 - ISO800 14mm f/11 1/20s (handheld) - I should have dropped the ISO to 200 to lengthen the shudder a bit more methinks

Canon XTi - 10-24mm/3.5-4.5 ISO400 10mm F6.3 1/8s (handheld)

The problem is clearly not the plane of focus, as the center is relatively sharp throughout the image, despite the increasing distance from the camera. IMO you pretty clearly have a lens out of whack inside, because even though the fault is apparent on both sides, the left side is much worse, and it is apparent along the entirety of the left side. You'll need to send it in to Canon unless you've an optical bench handy, and some skill w/ both a JIS0, and a disassembled lens ;) ...that, or you can sell it on ebay as 'used, seems to function fine - don't like the optical quality though' ;)

The difference in production cost between a "plastic with aluminum alloy frame" and a "magnesium alloy body" is not immensely huge and is completely irrelevant in 99.9% of actual performance - it as also not worth a $700-800 reduction in price. I don't understand the complaint though. A plastic body is going to affect your photography exactly zero. The composition of the body has nothing to do with the weatherproofing. As you say, your Pentax is plastic and it seems to work just fine. This isn't a car (which is a salient point if you plan to leave your camera in the driveway for a decade - though it didn't seem to bother saturn drivers ;) ), and if you toss it off a mountain, regardless of the composition of the body, it's still going to be broken at the bottom. As far as the popularity of the camera? The 6D is/was a pretty popular camera and had aprox the same $2k price tag when it first came out. It also has/had a plastic body. OTOH I did once use one of my 5D2s as a hammer and it worked pretty well...

So then it is chipped properly, and will behave identically to actual OEM batteries. My STK batts can be registered in camera, and display info properly, just like my OEM LP-E6s, and, in actual use, I am unable to tell the difference... Once I pull them out of course the sticker is a good indicator ;) That said, yours is a convincing fake, probably cast and built in the same facility as OEM units, and don't forget that the external appearance of LP-E6s have changed slightly over the years and markets, even the actual OEM batts. They've been on the market for almost a decade (I believe the first camera equipped was 5D2 in '08), so appearance may be slightly different. Additionally, a grey market genuine OEM unit will NOT have the same writing on the sticker.

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of this. The 6D (mark 1) was released in 2012. Just in case there was some confusion, that was nearly 5 years (!!!) ago. While I can certainly agree with some of the criticisms of the features of both the 6D and the 6D2, for the price, and specific niche the 6D was designed for, it's a pretty darn good option (esp. now). Obv. we'll see about how good the mk2 is, but I've got to admit, if it's even half decent in actual performance, it's specs make it pretty hard to justify a 5D4 w/ a 6D2 on the market, unless you are a dedicated pro... especially w/ the improved AF system (although it's coverage is... ridiculous), and 6.5 FPS. When my 5D3s get replaced, I'll be seriously considering stepping down to a 6D2... although that'll obv. be years from now.

If you want to to work outside the OEM system for manual lenses, I do not understand the objection to replacing the focusing screen. I mean, I understand the appeal, but frankly, if you are committed to the course, I would think that even if you feel uncomfortable doing it yourself, you could pay a local shop to DIFY. How easy it is depends (of course) on what model of camera you have. The size and brightness (aka usability) of the VF are, of course, going to vary widely with model. It would be helpful to know which you are referring to.

??? Why the heck would you use Adobe DNC if you already have a LR5 license?

IDK if these were shot in jpeg or not, nor do you. They are Jpegs now of course, but it's pretty easy to do w/ a computer. If they were processed from a raw via LR or DPP, or whatever, the output appearance of the skin tones would likely have been specifically tailored to the photogs intent - within limitations of the lighting, and actual skin tones. Personally, I'd never post a picture without approving it's appearance after completing post on it. That said, if processed in camera, it was done via the built in converter, set to the setting chosen by the photog. That has far far more impact on color and tone than most any lens. While a few lenses add some slight casts, those few are barely perceptible - and then, usually only in very specific shooting circumstances under controlled conditions. For the most part, many new lenses (especially primes) are so sharp that w/n their DOF the skin can appear very rough and unflattering. Some of those images are certainly de-sharpened to give smoother skin appearance - I have no idea what they did with the color of the light.

Yes, certainly since Nikon adopted Sony sensors, they have been comparing favorably to Canon's sensors in DXO mark results. However, they do certainly seem to love Sony sensors in Sony units even more... Have you considered a Sony? In real life though? meh. Not really any significantly perceptible difference. Lenses make a s__load more difference than the difference in sensors. If you've got a stable of crappy lenses and want to sell them all and buy equiv Nikon lenses I suspect you'll not see a tangible difference. If you've got a stable full of quality glass, and exchange for similar? likely the same result. If, however, you sell your crappy glass, spend $10+k, and buy good glass... then you'll see a HUGE difference ;) .

Yes. Your 6D RAWs require v4.3, and your 70D requires v5.2. Your license for LR5 will (even if it is 5.0) allow you to update it to 5.7.1. If your copy is a later copy, it's likely already is 5.7.1. Here's a link to a page which answers this question for ALL RAWs supported by LR over the years. Cameras supported by Camera Raw

There is no source of reliable data that answers the OP's question. I have been party to one catastrophic battery failure. It was an OEM Nikon battery. While certainly I've heard of many battery (normal) failures, and had numerous (both OEM and 3rd party) over the years. I have never heard of a catastrophic 3rd party battery failure (ie, one that actually damaged a camera) - much less seen the results of one. Personally, I have moved to purchasing all 3rd party batteries as I can usually get 3 or 4 for the same price as a Canon. It's not rocket science if you shoot a lot, but of course it's your money.

These rumors always fascinate me... not the rumors themselves mind you, but the reaction and speculation based on them! We frequently see the advice "There's a new version coming soon, you should probably wait to make a purchase until it's been announced/been released/been built" - even when the product won't hit the street for months or even years (how long, for example, having we been seeing 6D2 rumors?)... smh. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it'll be a great camera, but I wouldn't expect 6Ds to start selling for pennies the minute the mk2 hits the street... new units will get clearanced out at a couple hundred (at most) off after the supply of the new units has stabilized, but it'll likely take months and months before there is a significant impact on the used market.

By default, I left my 5D2s on +2/3 - that was from a week after I bought them. This kind of variance is normal for all the 5D s I have ever owned (mk1 +1/3, mk3 +1/3, mk4 n/a) Never had a 700D, but it looks a little dark too. But then it's all subjective anyways right ;)

Late again...as usual ;) 5D3 70-200/2.8 @ ISO400 200mm f8 1/1600 5D3 70-200/2.8 @ ISO400 200mm f8 1/1000

I was gonna say, my 70-200/2.8 w/ a 2x TC gives me a 140-400/5.6 (w/ miserable WO quality of course ;) ) with pretty decently functional AF on a 5D3

The difference in price isn't worth it IMO. The optical performance is not as good (especially near WO - which is where you need it to perform - for a portraiture lens), and the AF is... not ideal... The EF 85/1.8 USM wasn't ever perfect WO, but by f2.8 it's darn near perfect. To sacrifice another stop to sub-par optical performance when I'm shooting portraits is to much to ask for such little benefit in reduced cost. Then there is the AF. It's been a long time since I've endured loud annoying DC AF - but the loss of FTM focus is a further hit. For the $100 diff, it's just not worth it...

Another thing to remember is that only partially discharging the Li-Ion battery will dramatically increase the number of cycles you will get out of it. 3-500 Full discharges is a typical manufacturer specified lifespan of a LiIon battery pack (which is usually very conservative). However, is you average discharges to 40-50% of capacity (ie swap batteries when discharge indicator indicates 50-60% remaining), and you can easily multiple that expected lifespan by 5-6x. The best way to extend the service life of Li-Ion batteries (regardless of manufacturer) is to charge them up more frequently, and long before they are fully discharged. If you make this a habit (and depending on use), you could easily get a decade of use out of any particular battery pack. I have some el-cheapo 3rd party batts that are about that old (NB-2LHs). that still can do 3-400 exposures on the old XTI...

That doesn't quite make sense to me. The DOF at f16/400mm/20m for your 7D2 is ~1.5m. @f8, the DOF is ~0.75m. The total DOF doubles, so a change of 2cm for 'peak' focus should be utterly in-perceptable. If you can perceive the transitional zone (which you imply you are), then the difference is WAY more than 2cm...for practical purposes, you should expect at least a foot on either side of peak focus to be perfectly sharp at f16. In your shoes, I'd send Canon the lens and camera to calibrate the two together, and see if that resolves the problem (of course I would provide them with details on the 'fault')