colin_james

June 2, 2009

"Hopefully, there will be more fallout from this blogger's entry. Will I boycott Canon? That would depend on if there will be positive internal changes at the company."

</blockquote>

Well you'd better boycott Nikon too.

(Photos taken by Rob Galbraith on his visit to the Nikon D3 Factory - cont the number of workers you see sitting down) ...

<a href="http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-8744-9113">http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-8744-9113</a>

January 21, 2009

The bottom line is - literally - the bottom line. I

f you've got the time (ie nothing else booked) - and want to do it - then your bottom line WILL (or WOULD HAVE) been increased by exactly the margin you would have made doing the shoot.

If that's important to you then why wouldn't you do it?

January 21, 2009

"The 1Ds2 has a couple advantages only: weather sealing and AF."

The 1D2 has a LOT more than just "a couple of advantages" over a 5D2. To name a few:

- Full weather sealing -v- improved, but still partial weather sealing

- 63 Zone metering -v- 35 zone metering

- More rugged construction

- 45 point AF -v- 15 point

- More durable shutter

- Ability to use AF with teleconverters through 1 stop more reduction in aperture

- Dual media capability

- More custom functions

January 21, 2009

"You could use the ST-E2 as a master but it can only control 2 separate units. "

There's no limit to the number of flashes that an ST-E2 can control - there is only a limitation on the number of flash groups.

January 9, 2009

In my opinion, "Positive Thinking" or PMA (Positive Mental Attitude) is a component of (or even pre-requisite to) success (If you go into business with an attitude of "I'm going to fail" then you probably will), but it's not a "just add water and hey-presto instant success" strategy.

For want of 3 better words, a "Positive Mental Attitude" needs to be followed with "Positive Meaningful ACTIONS"

January 8, 2009

First up, you'll find the answers to these questions - along with more in-depth info if you have a read of Canons paper optimising the AF performance for 1D3 and 1Ds3 camera.

The following C/P from the guide should help you ...

"AI Servo AF mode:

The camera always starts to track the subject with the center AF point. If the subject then moves away from that AF point, the camera will "pass it off" to outer AF points to continue tracking the subject. Important — when Automatic AF point selection is combined with AI Servo AF, the active AF point will not

light up red in the viewfinder. "

"

Manual AF point selection:

The photographer selects one AF point, which is the only one used to focus upon subjects. Regardless of whether the camera is set forOne-Shot AF mode, or AI Servo AF, the user-selected AF point is the only one used. "

"

Shooting subjects with little detail — change the size of an AF point:

This changing size of an AF point is similar to the EOS-1D Mark II’s C.Fn 17-1. Option #1 (below) is new to the Mark III series.

C.Fn III-8-1

— adds a single additional "assist point" to the left and right of a user’s manually-chosen AF pointC.Fn III-8-2

— adds in invisible ring of six additional "assist points" surrounding the manually-chosen AF point"

January 3, 2009

@ George Joell

"There are 2 George's here."

Thanks for that - I did get myself somewhat confused towards the end. I appreciate that at the moment you are "much higher than the rest", but don't forget that there's a good reason for that - it's because you're percieved by your market as having better value for money than the rest - they think you do a better job than the rest (probably in part because they know can charge more) - and they trust you more. Obviously you know your customers better than I do, but I still maintain that the only way to discover what renumeration the market is prepared to offer for your product and services is to test it (it might be $5 more - or $50 more - or $300 more). Old saying "If the market expects to pay more for your services then it seems a shame to disappoint them!". And I don't mean that flippantly - the more you charge, the more you can afford to do for them ... and although it's great that your present pricing structure will allow you to meet your targets, there's no rule that says you're not allowed to EXCEED your targets. How high is high? --- you booking sheet suggests to me anyway, not quite high enough :)

@ George Martinez

"I understand what you are saying in implementing incrementle increases. But where does it stop ? Every year 5%, 10%, etc."

It stops whereever you want it to stop - just because you raised prices 10% this year and it worked, doesn't mean to say you have to raise your prices 10% next year if it isn't working. It's all about whatever gets you the best return on your investment - and only the market can decide that (unless people impose lower limits on themselves - which is the reality more often than not).

@ Both

It's been an interesting discussion gentlemen - thank you for the opportunity. Looking forward to reading any further comments you might have, but I think I'll bow out of the conversation at this point.

Cheers,

Colin

January 3, 2009

"Colin, I market to a certain bride and don't aspire to go any higher. "

George,

I think you mis-understood my post - I'm not suggesting that you move into a higher price / less customers scenario - I'm simply suggesting that - based on your past performance and future bookings - that you could increase your prices and still shoot just as many weddings in exactly the same market.

Based on what you've said I doubt that you'd lose any sales following a small increase. In most cases, the ONLY thing that happens in situations like yours (where other KPI are all solid) is ... you make more money.

Many times in business I've seen people "knee cap" themselves by undervaluing their product when they assume that price is the most important consideration in the eyes of the client, when in reality it only ranks 4th - and you're obviously doing a great job with the first 3.

The classic example from my experience is an associate of mine who was literally laughed at by his client because his bill was so low - when the customer gave him repeat business he even instructed him to "charge him something substantial next time" (like, hello - is this a hint or what???) - but did he ever raise them? Not as far as I know.

January 2, 2009

"Colin. pricing is one strategy that we use to corner our share of the market; however, are prices are very competitive in our area and we are on the expensive side for many brides."

George,

I hear what your saying - and clearly you're no fool when it comes to your marketing, however, to me, your booking sheet still suggests to me that (ironically) you're not losing enough because of price - it looks to me like you're not getting enough price resistance.

In most marketing surveys I've studied, in terms of decision making factors, price nearly always comes in at number 4 - behind such things as percieved value for money, trust etc. Judging by your apparent lack of trouble signing clients you're clearly doing something very very right - and that I believe has a potentially higher price tage attached to it.

Of the 24 weddings that you have boked for 2009, I'm willing to bet that if your prices were $10 higher, you'd still have 24 bookings. I'm willing to be if they were only $50 higher you'd still have 24 weddings - probably the only difference is you'd have close to $1000 extra on the BOTTOM line.

Just my thoughts.

Cheers,

Colin

January 2, 2009

Mac Moss wrote:

:you should leave sharpening till the end of the process, just before you print"

No no no no no no no no no. PRINT sharpen (on a copy of the image) is done just prior to print, but CAPTURE sharpening (to counter softening due to anti-aliasing filter and demosaicing process) needs to be done as one of the very first steps (unless you enjoy working on a fuzzy image when you're working at high magnifications). CONTENT or CREATIVE sharpening is typically done mid-workflow.

January 2, 2009

"I have just finished up my 40th wedding for 2008 and I have 24 weddings booked for 2009 and 1 wedding booked for 2010."

I would suggest - clearly - that you're undervaluing your product & service.

January 1, 2009

"Canon is famous for its poor quality control."

What a load of rubbish. It's no better or worse than ANY of the other players out there.

One of the "side-effects" of help sites like this is that - as a rule - people only post when they need help, so you tend to get the 3 who have had issues rather than the 49,997 who didn't.

December 31, 2008

"Then there is the Canon's white paper about configuring 1Ds and 1Ds3 and migrating from Mk. II."

All of these are included in the set available from the above link. The only one I didn't send was the PDF Manual which can be downloaded easily enough anyway.

Cheers,

Colin

December 31, 2008

"When asked to shoot freinds weddings I always take two bodies - one with the 24-70 and the other for either the 16-35 or 70-200. "

Hi Philip,

Please don't think I was aiming anything at you - I just thought that that portion of your original post presented a good opportunity to raise the dual-card issue.

Whilst on the subject though, I do have to say that often people think that they're mitigating the need for a dual media camera by virtue of the fact that they carry 2 cameras, but it really doesn't help that much for 2 reasons (1) it's impossible to capture many wedding shots on 2 cameras (eg are you going to change cameras for each and every formal shot?), and (2) if you're happily blazing away with one camera feeling safe and secure in the knowledge that you have a spare close at hand it does NOT mean that the images are able to be safely written to the card (even if you can see the small embedded version on the screen) - nor does it give you any protection against the card failing when it comes time to transfer the images (which is often when the issues are first noticed).

Personally, I don't have a problem with folks taking the risk so long as they spell out to the client (client, not customer - a client being "one that is under your care") that this the equipment that you choose to use then this is the small risk assocuated with it - and if they're happy to proceed on that basis then "fill yer boots" as the expression goes.

In my opinion it's a risk management exercise - sure it's a small risk, but the consequences can be huge - and like it or not it DOES happen far too often. In some ways I like to parallel it to having surgery in an operating theatre that's not equipped with a defibrillator; the chances of arresting during surgery are small - but many would have died regardless had not those in charge chosen to adopt best practice and have all appropriate equipment at hand.

For some reason people don't accept surgery without the theatre being fully equiped to handle any complication - and they'd refuse to accept transcontinental air travel on aircraft with only a single engine - and we still wear our seatbelts even though we've been driving for 40 years and never had a serious accident - and yet we call ourselves professionals, but feel at ease putting all our eggs in one basket when it comes to our clients once-in-a lifetime never to be repeated moments.

Personally, I just don't get it.

December 30, 2008

"I would chose the 5D for general use, landscapes, weddings and portraits / indoors"

Philip,

Regardless of whether or not card failure has happened to you yet, it HAS happened to a LOT of photographers (myself included) - and it can happen to anyone at any time, no matter what precaution they may take to lessen the odds). One may argue that the chances of failure are small (and they'd of course be correct) - but the consequences if/when it does happen are darn serious. In light of this I would suggest that using a dual media camera - such as the 1D3 or 1Ds3 - is now "best practice" for these failure-is-not-an-option type events. For this reason alone I would suggest that anybody using a single-media camera - like a 5D2 - for weddings is playing russian roulette with their clients day and their reputation.

On another note, the AF for the 1D3 / 1Ds3 series is in a different league to that of the 5D2; 45 point -v- 15 point, not to mention that the 1D series actually have no less than 2 processors dedicated to autofocus (one to do the calculations and one to do the lens drive). The processors on the 1D3 series process 3 times as much information as the 1D2 series, and the 1D2 series is still streets ahead of the 5D2. What this means in low-light situations (eg most church weddings) is that the 1D3 series will probably be on it's 3rd accurately focused shot whilst the 5D2 is still trying to lock on to it's first.

I'm not trying to run down the 5D2, but people have to understand it's position in the Canon lineup. It's currently the undisputed king of the pro-sumer / advanced amateur line up - it's NOT a "superior replacement for the 1Ds3" - far from it.

December 29, 2008

I think that a lot of people misunderstand what L-Series lenses are all about; there seems to be a popular misconception that "since they cost 10 times as much then (conceptually) they should deliver an image that's 10 times as good", but since comparitive image quality is impossible to quantify, it just doesn't work that way.

So what are the advantages of L-Series lenses? As a general rule ...

<ul>

<li>They may contain different types of glass (eg flourite) that can give you a higher quality image, especially under severe conditions.</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>They're constructedly far more robustly - built for everyday use by working professionals. Solid construction that's not unduly bothered by rough handling.</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>Most new L-Series lenses are fully weather sealed.</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>There is a tendency for them to have wider apertures over many non-L series counterparts.</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>As a rule, image quality will be better than many non-L series counterparts (many, not all - although (and some will debate this)), there are no non-L series lenses that produce significantly higher quality images than their L-Series counterparts.</li>

</ul>

I'm trying to think of a real-world comparison - parhaps it's a bit like a 4 wheel drive Suzuki verses a V8 twin turbo Toyota Landcruiser; both are 4 wheel drives, but the latter is "bigger / better / stronger / faster" (someone will now invariably now chip in and challenge the "better" bit).

Best thing I can suggest is try one out for yourself. Poor lens quality has been the cause of much heartbreak for me, so now I use only L-Series lenses, and have no regrets what-so-ever.

Hope this helps,

Cheers,

Colin

December 28, 2008

In my opinion it's practiacally a no-brainer. IQ and MP count from both is more than adequate, but the vastly superior AF (45 point with 2 dedicated processors, -v-15 point), vastly superior metering (63 zone -v- 35 zone), superior metering display (up to 8 spot measurements -v- 1), superior sealing, superior robustness, dual media, superior battery life, superior speed, superior shutter life make the 1D3 the clear winner, by a considerable margin.

The FF of the 5D2 may be significant, depending on your lens selection - don't forget that the 1D3 is a 1.3x crop factor, not a 1.6x, so you can't compare it with the likes of 1.6x crop-factor camera - in terms of FoV using a 1D3 simply means that you zoom out a little more or take a couple of steps backwards. In terms of DoF, the difference is very small (around 1/2 a stop).

December 27, 2008

"Is it only used once or twice at the beginning of the filming and the end?"

Yes.

December 27, 2008

"Can somebody once and for all described how to use the 1D Mark III AF correctly maybe it will help other users that feel it doesn't work as they have thought ?."

Madza, it's not quite that simple as the AF system has many options that can be set for a wide variety of situations. Probably the single biggest mistake when operating in Servo AF mode is failing to acquire initial focus using the center AF point first before expecting the camera to track the correct object - it's something you HAVE to do.

With regards to official documentation, Canon have produced about 6 or 7 PDFs (covering everything from AF to custom functions to user manual), plus a couple of articles by shooters like Arthur Morris & Les Zigurski.

If you'd like me to send them to you, drop me an email.

Cheers,

Colin

December 27, 2008

Canon's Chuck Westfall outlines Canon's unofficial micro-adjustment guide here ...

<a href="http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0812/tech-tips.html">http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0812/tech-tips.html</a>

December 27, 2008

"its a touchy situation to even comment on as causes a lot of friction between photographers who don't even know each other"

Oh brother, ain't that the truth. And to make matters worse, one or two of those have even used one themselves!

Libby, without wishing to get involved in "the great debate", my suggestion is to only listen to those who have actually owned (or used the camera on a regular basis), and thus are the only ones qualified to speak from first-hand experience.

As such a user - who owned the 1D Mk. 3 throughout the entire fiasco - I can tell you that mine never missed a beat - so much so that I didn't even bother sending it in for the sub-mirror upgrade (it was supposedly one of the affacted units). It had by far the best performing AF of any Canon camera I've ever owned (and I've owned a few). In my opinion the 1D Mk3 / 1Ds Mk3 AF is one of it's greatest strengths, not a weakness.

December 24, 2008

"Colin- the reason why some of us are reluctant to accept dual-card as the final solution is that the only redundancy in that system is in the cards. Other parts of the image chain are subject to failure, and a 2nd camera is the only way to protect against that."

Steve, I'm not offering dual media as a final solution - I am however offering it as an almost foolproof solution to by far the most common failure - thus I have a couple of issues with your line of thinking ...

1. Yes - there are many many many things that can go wrong - BUT - of those many many many things, some are far more likely to happen than others - and card failure (for whatever reason) is right at the very top of that list, and by a considerable margin. Of all the tears shed that we read about here, how many are camera failures? How many are photographers struck by lightening? How many are card failures? With a dual media camera, if it looked OK on the screen then the overwelming odds are that you're safe.

2. The dual camera approach only works as far as the number of shots you can get on both - and it could be argued that for the other shots you run TWICE the chance of a failure, but cut the potential damage by 1/2. I'm not saying that it's doesn't help - it's certainly better than nothing - if you want to reduce the odds even further then shoot with 2 dual media cameras.

I'm not getting at you - my biggest concern is with those who offer a professional service - take unnecessary risks with someone elses day - and yet feel safe because (a) it's never happened to them, and (b) they swap cards regularly (tell me again which portion it's OK to miss if one of those cards goes down? Is it the formals? the service? the reception?

My point is that card failure can happen to any one, at any time - REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY YEARS YOU'VE BEEN SHOOTING AND HAVEN'T HAD IT HAPPEN YET. With dual media now being best practice, a professional can NEVER use card failure as an excuse for losing ANY portion of an unrepeatable event. As I said before, many many many things can and do go wrong - but card failure is waaay out front, and it's one of the easiest to prevent.

December 24, 2008

The best advice of all - bar none - is to USE A DUAL MEDIA CAMERA. End of story.

Yes they're expensive - SO WHAT? Professional equipment isn't cheap - but you do get what you pay for. Percentage wise, the cost of a dual media camera -v- a single media camera is miniscule when you consider all of the other equipment that you need anyway (lenses - tripods - flashes - computers - software etc) . It doesn't have to be (from a Canon perspective) a 1D3 or a 1Ds3 - any 1D2 series camera is more than adequate for weddings if you can't afford bleeding-edge technology.

I wouldn't go so far to say that using a single-media camera for weddings is unprofessional (although my personal belief is that these days it's getting pretty close to it), but it's certainly not best practice. Chances are - if you shoot weddings with a single-media camera long enough - eventually you'll lose irreplaceable data.

December 20, 2008

In my opinion, it's all about the zoom range; I'd suggest the 24-105.

December 20, 2008

"Agreed, they really need to get their QC sorted out before Nikon makes a real laughing stock out of them."

Nobody likes to ship faulty product, and you can bet your last dollar that they've already put considerable effort into ensuring that it doesn't happen often - but - lower failure rates can only be achieved by more design - more inspection & testing of RAW materials - tighter manufacturing tolerances - more rigourous testing etc etc etc. All of this comes at a cost - and - it conforms to the law of diminishing returns; I'm sure you'd probably be the first to complain if the camera cost a lot more to cover this, especially if 999 people out of 1000 weren't having issues with the "old way of doing things".

Unfortunately failures happen - even space shuttles aren't immune despite having extensive QC at every turn - yes, it's annoying if you're the one who gets the lemon - but that's what warranties are for.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by colin_james