landscape_shooter

<p>If anyone could use some help as a 2nd shooter, I would love to help. I would shoot for free if it's possible to keep my images to build my portfolio. I have a lot of great gear and have done around 50 weddings in the past. Thanks!</p>

<p>What paper/finish do you find best for printing B&W's, metallic, true black and white Ilford etc? I know this isn't a Canon question but hardly anyone responds to me on Digital Darkroom:) </p>

<p>Pretty good here in Mid Maryland, but I agree with Matthew, alot of rain and one day all the leaves were about gone. Very windy with rain. Last year was better.</p>

<p>Just curious what you folks use for your final prints. I had some made up of true black and white through Miller's and they are more flat looking than the Endura. The prints don't seem to have any shine to them. I like the Metallic but I'm not sure if it's the best for framing-very shiny. What type of paper do you use and do you use any lustre coating, etc?</p>

<p>David, I know what you are saying. Best wishes to everyone here.</p>

<p>All I'm saying about the article is it is nothing more than whining really. Putting photojournalism style down is nothing more than a painter saying a potter can't use a brush. Or a singer saying a guitarist can't sing. People like the style and pay good money for it, what is wrong with that? "Photojournalism style is de-valuing our "professional photography"! And then we need to whine about the part-timers, Oh my! The brides can't tell a difference from their work and ours! It's just not fair! Let's blame the part-timers! They don't even have studios! Seriously, this person should re-educate the entire population. A "professional" photographer must have a studio(1), do posed traditional style only(2), and charge 5,000 and up(3). Unless you are happy with all 3 of these things including having $5,000, then don't bother to hire one! You may think you are happy, but your not!</p>

<p>WELL, according to the article, if you give a random guest a point and shoot they will produce the same level of work of someone like Neil Ambrose?<br>

---- "The first trend that has led to the devaluing of professional photography is wedding photojournalism."-----<br>

-----"That part-time wedding photographer in your neighborhood no longer has to learn proper posing or lighting in order to be considered a professional wedding photographer. Just take a bunch of pictures and let them all be ‘natural’. <strong>I can give literally ANYONE a camera and get this type of wedding photography.</strong> How can we be respected as professional photographers if anybody can do the same thing that we are doing? I am sorry but wedding photojournalism looks like wedding photojournalism. You will get some great photos once in a while so long as you have a good camera and your finger glued to the shutter."-----<br>

To make an all encompassing statement about photojournalism wedding photography is just rude . Also, the author might as well call every bride-to-be and tell them exactly what they want for their wedding photos and what price they are going to pay(even if they don't have it) since apparantly there's only 1 answer. Oh, and they will have to meet at his studio. </p>

<p>I just bought one with 30,000 clicks for around 1050 used. </p>

<p>I agree with Mike. Lenses are the same as film. Plus you gain less depth of field for portraits. I have thought all along that the 7D is Canon's answer to the 5D. If the 50D was the best thing they offered except the 5D II, most people would buy a used 5D. This doesn't make money for Canon! I'm not putting down the 7D either, I'm sure it's one great camera. But the 5D is hard to beat for the price.</p>

<p>How much do you want to spend? Would you be happy with a set of primes or do you want a zoom now? Do you like using the fixed 50mm prime? What aperture are your shots with missed focus? If shooting at 1.8 or 2 it can be really thin depth of field. You would need to focus on the eye and not recompose or a little movement and you would loose focus.</p>

<p>I would look for a 5D and get a 35L before I kept with crop and bought a 24L. </p>

<p>I agree with you Yakim in that some instances I have gotten good shots at 1/3 second hand held at 2.8. But, the number of shots I couldn't use a tripod for is pretty low. I might as well look for a zoom that will work on the 5D since I use that most. I think the 24-70 is the better one for me between the 24-70 and 24-105. If only they made a 24-90 2.8, I might take a little getting used to only going to 70mm. A 24-70 IS would be great, but imagine the price tag. </p>

<p>I would go for the 5D. I have the 40D and 5D and the 5D has lower noise and less depth of field. If you are seriously getting into wedding photography you wont want to use a kit lens anyway unless you want darker backgrounds and most things in focus. Lots of pros have stood by the 5D for years and it will always be a hall of fame camera.</p>

<p>The 18-55 IS and 50 1.8 are both really great for the price. I don't have any suggestions in what to do other than a 17-85 or 28-135. If you never want to change lenses you might as well get a zoom like that. You will probably give up some image quality and low light abilities. If you don't want to change lenses at all, there really isn't any one lens does all. Maybe you would happier with the 17-85-typically around 300 used and the 50 1.8. I don't see selling the 50 as nothing else is going to help in low light, moving subject instances. Best wishes.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the responses. The 17-55 has been a really great lens with super fast focusing and always sharp results. I think I will really enjoy a 2.8 zoom on full frame as I see how 2.8 is on 5D compared to crop cameras. The extra wide 24mm will be nice also. I've been really happy with the 17-55 but I've been using the 5D most the time now unless I want the IS on the 17-55. I think I would get more use out of a lens that could work on the 5D. I guess I wanted to make sure the focusing and color are about the same between the two. I will miss the IS but I guess it's not a deal breaker for me. Thanks again</p>

<p>Thanks for taking the time to help others out. This was very interesting and changes the way I look at weddings now. Is this the way you started out shooting weddings? How do you deal with harsh outdoor lighting with bright sun or sun and harsh shadows, will you resort to flash often? Thanks again!</p>

<p>Tom- that's the BBQ button</p>

<p>Isn't the new Q button to ask your camera questions:)</p>

<p>How does the 17-55 IS on 40D compare to 24-70 on a 5D? Right now I have the 17-55, 40D and 5D. Should I trade the 17-55 for a 24-70? I know the 17-55 is a fantastic lens. Does the 24-70 on 5D still beat it? I know the depth of field will be less with the 5D combo. Any other differences from those who have owned similar set-ups? Thanks again.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the help. I just bought a 17-40 from BH Photo, I'll let you know how I like it. It didn't make any sense to buy another wide prime if the image quality isn't better. The price of two primes equals the 17-40. Canon should update some of these older primes. Thanks again.</p>

<p>I have the 17-55 and it is a really great lens if you are going to commit to crop for a while.  The IS makes it possible to get photos of children sleeping at 1/3 or 1/4 of a second, something nothing else will really do without a tripod.  Sure, the 50 1.4 is 2 stops faster but about 1/40 is about as low as I can hand-hold.  That would equal 1/10 at 2.8, so the zoom is nice in that regard plus you have much more useable depth of field than shooting at 1.4.   No tripod needed or flash to wake them up.  Also you can blur the background a little with motion, such as on a train ride or amusemet ride, you can hand hold the lens and get some motion blur in the background.  The zoom might be handy when you want a one lens walk around or when your child is starting to walk.<br>

The prime might be nice too, it is faster for indoor shooting to freeze motion.  You will get more bokeh too.  The 17-55 needs to be closer to the subject at the long range of the zoom to get great bokeh.  Try using your 50 1.8 at 2.8 and you will get the picture of what it may be like as far as backgroung blur.  The size of the 30mm (I have no idea what size it is-never seen one) may be smaller and make a nice kit of primes to carry in a small bag.<br>

The 50mm 1.4 is another option to upgrade to.  I used to have the 50 1.8 and wasn't as impressed with it as others.  I find the 1.4 to nail the focus much better and the bokeh and colors I like much more also.  A 50 prime may be you most used lens.  I have taken great baby photos with the 85 1.8 also, you just need to back up more.<br>

You could always add the 35mm f2 later as it is not too bad of a price and is reviewed well ( I don't own it)</p>

<p>Hi, I have the 24mm EF 2.8 prime. I recently bought a 5D and am looking for something wider. I am

looking at either selling the 24mm and buying a 17-40 OR adding a used 20mm prime. Has anyone used

these and know how they compare to each other? I would mostly be using them for landscapes, but I might

use them a little at a wedding/event. The 17-40 is appealing in that it is a zoom and I could mainly leave it on

the 5D with tripod for hiking and not have to switch lenses as much. The primes are 2.8 though. The

main thing I am wondering is which (if any) will produce better prints when stopped down on a

tripod. Thanks like always for helping so many people out on this site.</p>�

<p>Hi everyone,<br>

I am looking to find someone to second shoot with. I have shot about 50 weddings now so far and have great equipment. I'm located in Maryland but I am close to PA. Thanks for any help!</p>

<p>What do you want in a camera that your XS isn't providing? What do you dis-like about the XS? Does the 20D do all this and what your XS does?</p>

<p>The 85 is my favorite lens. You will probably regret selling it. The 17-55 IS is great as well. Maybe sell the 24 toward that. The 17-55 and 85 is a great kit for weddings, portraits, landscapes on crop. I really like the 50 1.4 more than the 1.8 version also. Do you think you will go to a full frame soon?</p>