chad_hoelzel1

<p>I second the choice of radio popper. It's in the 900mhz range so doesn't have the interference problem that the PW does. I would probably get a few strobes off camera (two) and get some stands. You'll have to do lost of playing around first so you can figure out what works. If you want to save some money just get 3 canon flashes and use the limited range canon wireless first then get the radio poppers.</p>

<p>it actually lines up to the small round lens above your focus assist window. It has nothing to do with your flash tube I think. If you watch the installation videos and read the product manual it will give you a better idea.</p>

<p>I originally had the 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS from nature photography before I started weddings. It's been pressed into service at least once every wedding (about a total of 6 or so now). I've gotten really nice sharp photos with it. Definitely isn't the best choice for indoor photos although at between 300-400mm you have little depth of field at f4.5-5.6. I've really enjoyed it outdoors for the formals. I don't know the words to describe it but it really separated the bride and groom from the background in the 300-400mm range. Probably for all intensive purposes I'd second the 70-200 range. You've got a few lenses to choose from there. Just remember you are going to have little to no depth of field at f2.8 so you might want to save money and get the f4 instead.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I just like the idea of having a wide or semi wide angle lens to slap on the camera for formals so I don't accidentally go wider then 24mm. It wasn't often that I didn't have the room, I was just staying close enough to make sure everyones clothes and positioning looked good (not through the lens) and that I was close enough for fill flash. Unfortunately I live in the foothills of the Rockies so not much shade from trees and not many cloudy days (last wedding was a killer). Not trying to per say justify another purchase just find ways of improving my photography (although I do like buying new equipment).</p>

<p>sorry my mistake... yes people looked shorter and wider.... it's been a few months since I edited the last wedding</p>

<p>I try to shoot groups in shade, subdued light or with their backs to the sun to avoid squinting. I have two 550 EX and one 580 II EX flash that in a pinch if faces are to shaded can be used for fill. If I don't use wide angle then all fill lighting needs to get moved back so as not to appear in the picture thus rendering it useless on a bright day. If I used my 50mm with a 40D for group shots then I'd be a mile back. I also pose while looking over the camera, so if I move back to far I might miss posing problems (crooked ties, etc.) that I would have caught closer up. I guess another option would be a 35mm f1.4 L. </p>

<p>I'm trying to stay away from zooms. My current lens selection is 17-40 f4L, 50 f1.8 II, 85 f1.8, 100 f2.8 macro, and 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS. The 24 f1.4 II was sort of my next logical choice seeing as I'll be using it mainly for formals. I was debating full frame but the 5DII isn't where I would like it to be for that kind of money. When I go full frame I'll probably by going to the 24-70 f2.8 as my primary wedding zoom. Until a full frame comes out with the focusing and metering upgrades that the 7D (in the $3000 +/- range) has I'll just keep on working on getting good glass.</p>

<p> Long story short.. I shoot about a wedding a year for family and friends. Each time I shoot one I use the money to upgrade my gear. Over the last two weddings I've been really disliking my 17-40 F4L (on 40D) for group shots on the wide side. I've been trying to force myself to shoot no wider then 20-24mm but am still finding more distortion (color also) then I like for the people at the edge of the pose. People appear long and skinny and the color tends to look off a little too for those standing at the edge. If I use DPP settings to correct the distortion it tends to make the photo softer. I've been able to save most pictures in Adobe.</p>

<p> I've tried not putting people as close to the edge of the frame as well but still find I don't like the results. Suppose I'm a little picky but I just feel like giving people what they pay for. I could have a bad lens but am finding the lens to be really good for everything else. I'm guessing it is just the nature of a wide angle zoom. For the next wedding I'm considering getting a 24mm f1.4 II. This will not only take care of this distortion issue but will also give me sharper group shots. Has anyone been able to use this new 24mm f1.4 II in wedding or group photo applications to give me some feedback? Just wanting to spend my money wisely.</p>

<p>Chad</p>

 

<p>I have a 85 1.8, 50 1.8, and the older 100 2.8 macro. I shoot with a 40D so my working distance is somewhat further then you would have with the 5D. Some of my best pictures have been with my 100 2.8. Framing the face closely is much easier then any of the other lenses. The detail is so high you almost see the pores in the skin. Working distance is a bit tough but heck its a prime so you need to get used to moving the camera to get the framing you want. The 100 2.8 just inspires confidence for me anyway.</p>

<p>You're going to need more then one flash for this kind of strobe flash look. Also your going to need a flash softbox like what was used in this picture (but for ext. flash). The flash output of an external flash is way lower then your strobe. Also the surface area (ie. flash tube) is way smaller compaired to your studio strobe. Best comparison I can make is a cars signal light compared to a head light. Smaller bulb and smaller reflector behind bulb, etc. By the time you set up multible wireless external flashes you'll end up getting better resualts with your studio strobe anyway.</p>

<p>what does your manual say? Usually a list of compatible flashes somewhere in the back of manual.</p>

<p>For the 100mm you might also want to consider the 100mm f2.8 macro with IS. I have the old non IS and really like it for portraits. You can really focus close and catch face detail. You would also have the added benifit of the IS. Sure wish I new the IS was coming soon when I purchased the macro last year.....</p>

<p>I would definately get a second flash that can be used wirelessly. Also look at some method of light defussion with both flashes to give soft/even lighting. As practicle as zooms are you I would prabably go for a prime. You already have the prime lens bug so you know what quality and shallow depth of field you can get with them. Maybe test the 17-55 just to see if you can get the best of both worlds. </p>

<p>Correct me if I'm wrong but don't you also need UDMA cards if you plan on shooting videos? This is due to the constant transfer rate of a high quality video.</p>

<p>Finally a DSLR that has some of the weather seal, speed of focusing, and fps that my 1V has at a comparable price. I'm really looking forward to some real life experience to see how this camera performs. I really missed some of the focussing capabilities of my 1v and just don't plan on spending the money for the Pro DSLR equivalent. It seems Canon is doing what they have all along.... trying out their new technology on a lower priced model and then refining it for a pro model. This is exactly what they did with the EOS 3 and then they released the 1V. Still wish they hadn't given up on the eye controlled focussing though. It worked really well when I had the EOS 3.</p>

<p>I think it is a good idea that you are upgrading in the focal lenght you shoot the most. It's also good that you've been asking yourself questions about what you want to photograph, etc. Personally I wouldn't spend the extra money on the 70-200 f2.8 but instead get the 4L with IS. If your subject is anywhere near you the shallow depth of field f2.8 gives you will render most everything out of focus. If you tend to shoot low light and your subject is far away then it might be useful. The money you save I'd instead reinvest into a good 17-40L. Then fill the middle gave with the best bang for the buck 50 1.8 lens. At some point if you like taking portraits you might want to then get an 85 f1.8 lens which would be lighter then your 70-200.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>This is a very good choice of lens to replace the kit lens. For the price and quality you can't go wrong. It is a very popular lens that wedding and portrait photographers use. At some point in time you might want to get the 85mm f1.8 for when you want a more telephoto lens for portraits but don't want to carry the large 70-200 4L.</p>

<p>Your EXIF is the information inbeded by your camera into your photo file. It can be viewed by the free Digital Photo Professional software that came with your camera body. The information includes: Shutter speed, Aperture, ISO, what lens you were using and at what focal length, and lots of other usefull information. Why don't you get the 85mm 2.8 and a cheap 50mm 1.8 ($100 range). Image quality of the 50 1.8 is still sharper then a zoom and for it's low price who cares if it gets dropped, etc. You've probably noticed it mentioned on PN that the 50mm 1.8 lens is the best bang for the buck lens.</p>

<p>I'd definately leave the wheel chair out of the pictures and make things more personal. You want to capture the memories of how things were normally as best as possible. Find out about some of the interests she had and try and work that into the pictures. Capture some things that defined her. I also agree with possing her propped on a couch or on mom or dad's lap. Make it more personal.</p>

<p>I think you will injoy the challenges of taking pictures of the baby. If you want tightly cropped photos of just the baby then your 80-200 2.8 is perfect. This will give you room to let "mommy" help pose the baby while your at the ready to take the photo. You might not want to rule out the 105 f2.8 which I'm assuming is a macro lens. That will give you really tight head shots since you can get closer. It will also allow you to take pictures of just the hands and feet of the baby for black and white photos. I'd also consider buying some kind of light defusser for your external flash to provide a softer light and eliminate shadows. The catch light in the eyes of a person and the elimination of shadows around the eyes that ambient light alone sometimes causes might be more desirable. The fill flash will also allow you to use a faster shutter speed and a lower ISO for a sharper photo free of movement. </p>

<p>For family pictures you might want to use the 28 f2.8 so you have some working room. If you were planning on getting a 50mm lens anyway that would definately be a good option for family pictures but due to the focal length on a crop body you might need some working room to get everyone in the picture.</p>

<p>For posing just the baby you are going to want to consider using the couch or a table with a nice baby blanket put down. Just use pillows to help prop the baby in a sitting picture. Once the baby can kind of hold up his or her head then lay it on his or her stomach (arms underneath) sort of on a pillow and shoot up. You'll have lots of fun being creative. Learning the art of photographing people is very rewarding.</p><div></div>

<p>I would like to suggest another thing to keep in mind. By wanting a f2.8 lens are you wanting to use just ambient indoor light? If not and you were using your pop up flash you might want to reconsider your options. Large opening lenses like the 17-55 2.8 and even the 17-40 f4 (which I own) cast shadows with the pop up flash at the wider focal lengths of the lens. You might want to consider a less expensive lens like the 17-40 f4 and also invest in an external flash. You'll find white ballance for indoor pictures a little easier to adjust with fill flash because it's a whiter light. Sort of depends on your shooting style.<br>

Just to give you some ideas of what can be done with the 85mm 1.8 and 100mm f2.8 posted some pictures</p><div></div>

<p>I second the 85mm 1.8 but would suggest the 100 2.8. Not only does the 100 2.8 allow for closer head shots but you can take closeups of feet and hands, etc. I find that I get my best pictures when I'm not in my 17month olds face with my 17-40 4L. I get better pictures backed way up with my 85mm or 100mm. That way she doesn't really notice me as much when she's playing. A lot of these pictures are close ups with not much in the picture of things around her. The quality and bokeh created by either of these lenses is just unreal compared to my 17-40L. I'd rent some of these lenses first if I were you. You might want to opt for a less expensive zoom and start collecting some primes for the real good pictures that you might want to enlarge.</p>

<p>I suppose you need to ask yourself a few questions first. Do you shoot your portraits more on the wide angle side? Do you like closely cropped head shots? What distance do you want to be away from your subject to take these photos (closer you'll need wide angle/Further you'll need telephoto). Is your subject moving or stationary (posed or playing)? Are you needing practicality or quality (Zoom lens or fixed)? As mentioned when choosing a lens keep in mind possible future upgrading to a full frame camera body if that is a consideration (not EF-S lenses). Over my last 13 or so years of shooting Canon auto focus I've owned at some point in time around 10 lenses in total. I've found you don't really need "L" lenses to get good photos although for zooms they do give you the best bang for the $ in quality of picture (ie. 17-40 F4). A lens is an investment in a tool (albeit hobby tool for most) so take the time to consider some of the questions mentioned above.</p>

<p>I've been recently moving away from zooms and have been concentrating using prime lenses for my portraits. It has been somewhat a day and night difference in image quality and background bokey. Good choices are 50mm 1.8/1.4, 85mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8 (macro useful for closeups of face, hands and feet).</p>

<p>Definitely agree with the radio control. As for a stronger flash hot shoe I don't think you can beat the 580EX II's hot shoe for strength seeing as it is metal. Maybe a more accurate flash system that also provides a whiter light.</p>

<p>You must really trust you camera's strength to be hanging a 400mm on the end of it and using a kneck strap. Just be forewarned I've seen the metal lens mounts pulled out of the body before due to a heavy lens hanging off of it (when working photo retail I was in charge of sending out repairs). That's assuming you're not using a 1 series body.</p>