chris_cross1

<p>I would first evaluate your needs as a photographer, whether that is just family picture taking, amateur enthusiast or working pro. Do you need video? Megapixels? Better high ISO performance? How fast as in shots per second do you need? If none of these things matter to you and you will be happy with the performance of either camera then i guess it is a matter of price for you. Both are decent cameras, and as long as you </p>

 

<p>I think that with all the posts here and with your original thoughts you are on the right track. High contrast really is one thing but can be displayed in a variety of ways. Like other posts state, ask her if she has any photos that you can see for reference of what she is hoping to achieve. This will be good to develop that good level of understanding with her so that she knows you are interested in attempting to do the best work you can for the client. From that, you can either say "awesome, we can do that" or go home and find similar shots and see if you can find out how they were shot. If you are shooting outdoors you will probably find plenty of photos that mimic this. If she is high school there are countless photographers that do senior portraits, look at some of their work as well. You may need to shoot at a different time of day...find a specific location that has good separation between the subject and the surrounding background, that kind of thing. Like previous posts mentioned, she has to have an idea of what she's looking to achieve based on seeing a photo(s) that represented what she likes.</p>

 

<p>Yeah what needed to happen is one of two things. This shot needed to either be exposed correctly so that the noise would be less noticeable. OR you could easily just not shot at a constant f8.0 in this shot. this shot could have been done at half that or more depending on the focal length used and what your smallest aperture number is, all while keeping the individuals in focus. So lets just say you were shooting this shot at say f/4. You are letting a MORE light into the sensor than you were at f/8, so you can then effectively shoot the same exposure as you did above with a 1600 iso instead. <br>

As mentioned, the 7d does well with iso but you want to have an overexposed shot before having an underexposed shot. When you edit a high iso image that is underexposed and try to bring up the exposure after the fact, you are introducing more noise to the image. If it was overexposed, you can reduce the exposure some and the noise is less noticeable I have taken some usable images at 12,800 iso with that camera. Would i print them super big? probably not. But still very usable. its really about your exposure and also the use of some noise reduction. Also, high iso shots can look very nice in black and white (black and whites look great depending on the shot) as the high iso gives a film grain look and the color noise is not a factor (still produces "grain" in a black and white, but does not visually show the color pixels you see in the color shot). So you can always give a black and white conversion a try and see how the image looks.<br>

I never shoot iso auto...there is just too little control there. If shooting in Av mode which i do, alongside of manual, i set my iso based on the lighting conditions, adjust my aperture a little as needed for the type of focus (depth of field) and lighting needed and just make sure that my shutter is reasonable. All this means is that if i am indoors in similar lighting, i might get my iso to 800, 1600, 3200 if needed...and stay there until the lighting changes a lot ( i go outside, by a window, etc...) and so all i am worried about is making sure my aperture is what i want which is what you are already doing when you shoot, and making sure i have an acceptable shutter for the image i am trying to capture. This method will be a good idea to use so you don't have iso shooting thru the roof on you when you can control it by adjusting other settings.</p>

<p>As far as the prime lenses having too little depth of field past 2.8, that depends on your shot. sure, if you are working up close with a lens you can have trouble keeping to eyes at different planes in focus, or maybe the eyes are in focus but the ears fall off, but that is the situation where you stop down. I recently did a portrait session and all i used were the 85 1.2, and 50 1.4 on 5d. the 85 i had to be a bit more careful with and just had to stop down if i was close and shooting an intimate face shot, but i had almost all of the images shot with these lenses being between f/1.2-f/2.0. So you can totally utilize these lenses with these low apertures. However, to incorporate this into the OP's needs...the 85 1.8 on this camera will be closer to a FF 135mm. I think you should stick with what you have for this shot. It is a family member, they will be more forgiving if you dont have the look you were hoping to achieve. While shooting, try using your lens at specific focal lengths, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 135mm. See how these look to you and this will help you make a prime lens choice if you decide you want one after the shoot.</p>

<p>I personally love prime lenses, i do almost all of my portrait work with them, except i swap out for a zoom if i don't have the focal length i need in a prime. I only have two thus far, 85 1.2 and 50 1.4. One thing that i didn't notice people mention was bokeh. Having the blur behind the individual while they are tack sharp is one of the reasons why i love these primes. I too had a similar camera, and i bumped up to a 5d and i am very very pleased with the image quality. A good amount better than a 40-50d and the bokeh on your lenses is even better on full frame. It all depends on how you wanna shoot. Don't give up your zooms or anything, as they are pretty good. if i can shoot still subjects then primes are all i want, but if i'm shooting a birthday party for a little girl and i need shots while she's running around the playground or something, i'll be doing a lot of chasing with a lens that doesn't zoom. But thats my personal preference. </p>

<p>my sincere opinion is that you did a decent job with the images. Post processing would be the only thing really that i could say i would have done a bit different, but then again, maybe that is a look the clients were asking for or that you happen to like? So i can't really say. You have soft light in a lot of these, so that helps keep the images from looking harsh. Many look pretty clear in terms of the subjects and those done with a telephoto look decently blurred to make the subject stand out. Some images follow a "rule of thirds" guideline, others are in the middle. Heres my thoughts. Take the critique's here and learn from them. Take the 3 very happy members of the family and appreciate their satisfaction and build on that. Maybe find out what they like about them? What they would have seen differently? As far as the mother. I'd ask what she's looking for. Depending on a contract (if any) i'd say offer to re-do some of the poses or images she was in to obtain a look she was hoping for. Maybe its the way they are edited, could be a bunch of things really. Just try to find a way to build from it. NO use in getting down on yourself if she's simply unhappy with the way she looks in pictures...or something goofy like that, as you know people can be that way. And if there is something you can do, offer to help get her satisfied with the images, otherwise move on to the next shoot.<br>

Good Luck!</p>

<p>Chris</p>

<p>I am curious what might cause this or what i am seeing happening...<br>

I am noticing when shooting on the wider end of my zoom and trying to focus on a subject that is a bit far away and small in the frame...say like a walkway leading to a person at the end. Though i can easily focus on the person and lock on, it is always quite out of focus after looking at the image. It is way soft. But if i do a standard portrait with the lens where i try to make the subject fill up most of the frame the lenses are sharp. I was thinking maybe i need to increase my aperture but on the few occassions i have i didn't notice much if any difference. The image looks "alright" when looking at the whole thing but upon zooming in to 50-100% it is painfully clear how soft and fuzzy the subject is.<br>

This happens on both lenses i have tried a shot like this with, my 24-105 f/4L and my 50 1.4, both shot on a 50d. Is this normal? It seems that depending on how far from the subject i am depends on how in focus it will be. The only thing i've seen that seems to compensate some of the loss of clarity is using a microadjustment.<br>

I would like to know what people think about this because i would think it would be fairly common, especially for group shots or wider landscape shots to be focusing on an object/subject that is not terribly close to the lens.</p>

<p>Thanks<br>

Chris</p>

<p>Hello all,<br>

Thanks in advance for reading. I am not trying to re-post a tired question of what lenses should i get for this or that. I am looking for specific recommendations/advice on the best path to take in upgrading my equipment. I am currently shoooting most images of people in the form of portraits, occasional events, and have some wedding opportunities coming up. I currently use a 50d and own a 50 1.4, 70-200L 2.8 IS, 24-105L f4. I am looking to probably sell my 24-105 to purchase the 24-70 as i am looking for a faster zoom. I am familiar with my lens choice options as i have had them in my hands, researched them, etc.. <br>

There are two things i want. I want a second body, and i want prime lenses. I have looked into a second 50d, a 7d, and even 5d. I have looked at the 24mm 1.4L, 28mm 1.8, 35mm 1.4L, 50mm 1.2L, the 85 1.8/1.2L, 135mm 2.0L etc...<br>

Though i am familiar with them i am having trouble deciding what i will be happy with when i throw in the body choice as well. If i stick with two 50d's freeing up some extra money for a few of these lenses to start and more to come, will i be just as happy with the primes when i eventually go full frame due to field of view difference? If i go with a 5d with the 50d i have am i going to have trouble making efficient use of two different body types (APS-C vs Full frame). I've heard some like having both, some don't.<br>

Also, last question, i like shooting wide open (or at least being able to) and getting good results (understanding that its tough to expect super duper sharp images). Am i going to be having to stop down these cheaper primes to get a decent image with them for the type of work i want to do and thus will be better off with the higher end primes? Hard for me to tell this part without extended use and various conditions. <br>

Hopefully someone has or is in the same spot and can just shed some light to help a fellow photog make a good decision.<br>

Thanks!<br>

Chris</p>

<p>Hello,<br /><br />I am looking for any recommendations here on printing. At this time photography is my side gig as i build up experience and equipment and everything. I shoot portraits, an occasional wedding, sports and landscapes (these last two are mostly for my personal enjoyment). I've done some printing through a standard printer at home and some through labs such as mpix. I carry a day job from home that does require occasional printing. <br /><br />I will soon be moving out of my current residence and don't own my own printer. I will need one to do minimal scanning and an occasional print for my day job anyway, so I was wondering if i should by a quality printer for photos and use it for these occasional day job needs.<br /><br />My questions now are as follows.<br /><br />1. Are many of you printing from home these days or are you using labs mostly? Which makes the most sense for client and personal use (ie..hanging on my walls).<br />2. If printing from home , do any of you have recommendations on a quality printer for photos (any price range will do till i understand what the ranges are).<br />3. If printing from labs, any recommendations? I had pretty good success with Mpix.<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />Chris</p>

<p>That depends a little bit on your price range. Also, when using the 50 are you increasing your aperture to say f8 or f11 or even higher sometimes? You'll need a higher aperture to get all the people in focus unless they are all standing at the same distance. Make sure you experiment with this, as you state you are a beginner, i'm assuming you may not have and i apologize if i am incorrect ;). As far as other lens choices, i'd first try your 18-55 at a higher aperture and see what happens for your group shots. If those aren't cutting it by your standards then you are looking at probably another fixed lens like maybe a 28mm f/1.8 or a 35mm f/2. But if this lens is ultimately going to be used for groups or landscapes you might look into the 17-40mm f/4L lens. Its one of the cheapest L lenses and is quite sharp. However, this lens isn't as capable in low lighting situations so again, depends on your needs. But make sure you increase your aperture on the lenses you've got when you are shooting a group as you will typically have to do this with most groups on any lens to maintain good focus for all the individuals.</p>

<p>I agree with david and neil. I think that the 70-xxx range zoom is going to be used on a limited basis for this type of shooting. However, i think if you can afford to have it it would be a good addition to your kit. But to go back to what neil said, i think the question is "what do you have for other lenses?!" If you are looking to get into wedding photography do you have some fast primes or a fast zoom around f2.8 in the 17-100mm range? I think as neil mentioned it would be good to go for one of these before the 70-xxx. But if you already have one already, you may find that having the zoom for the occasional use from back behind or from a farther off location would be handy.</p>

<p>With that said. If you decide you need a zoom. Between the two i'd have to recommend the 70-200mm as it most likely comes in a fixed f2.8 across the whole zoom range. If they have a 70-300 fixed at f2.8 as well go for it as i'm not too familiar with nikon but im gonna guess the 70-200 is what will come with that and you will definitely want the lower aperture for shooting wedding type material.</p>

<p>Melanie,</p>

<p>I have the same kit you do, but have expanded my lens selection. I too own the 50d with a 28-135 but no longer use the 28-135. I don't know your budget so i will start lower scale. The best bang for your buck is probably going to be a good prime lens. the 50mm 1.4 (i own) and the 85mm 1.8 (i've used) are great for portraits. Also depends on the types of portraits you want? Groups? Couples? Individuals? Tight upper body/head shots? Full body shots? these will sway your decisions. These lenses offer you great control of your background (due to telephoto length and low aperture) as well as great low light capability and sharp images. Though i have a couple of "L" zooms, my favorite lens right now is my 50mm 1.4 costing much less. I am now in the market for more low light primes as i cannot get enough my 50mm. I recommend going to a local store and trying these out or put on your 28-135 and zoom it to these lengths and see what will be a good field of view for your preference. Hope this helps some. </p>

<p>Chris</p>

<p>I am a 50d owner as well but i opted for the 2.8 is version. Though you are right you will save a substantial amount of money, you need to decide what whether you will utilize that extra stop. If you are a frequent low light shooter (gyms, churches, indoors, weddings, etc..) you will find the extra stop to be very handy. IS is big too as this is a heavy lens and the shutter speeds normally required wont cut it in low light. My recommendation is 2.8 if you can afford it/need it for your purposes. Otherwise the f/4 will do fine if you bump up the iso a stop but if you are already shooting in higher iso's to freeze motion then the f4 will be more problematic.</p>

<p>alright well it first of all depends on your lens. Here's how it works in a GENERAL sense. If you have a lens with an the lowest aperture being ohh say f/2.8 for an example. This is a low, WIDE aperture which lets in more light. (think of it as a cats eye, if you've ever seen one during the night in contrast to during the day. during the day not so wide because there is plenty of light, extra wide open when there is not much available light. Same applies here). The other thing is the aperture controls what is in focus. If you use that wide f2.8 aperture as noted above as an example, it will really creates more of a blurry background against your subject, and multiple subjects at different distances may or may not be in focus. On the contrary a Large number, NARROW aperture, say f16 is going to have much more of the scene in focus, but lets in a lot less light. This is important regarding your shutter speed. If you are in a low lit building, you will not want f16. You will want the smallest, WIDEST aperture you can snag on your lens. on top of that, if the shutter speed to match it is still not high enough in the given situation to get a clear picture (no subject movement, or camera shake), then you will need to increase your ISO rating. A low ISO captures less light but also captures the clearest, grain free image. a high iso of 800 or more is much more sensitive to light, allowing you to obtain a higher shutter speed, however you will start to see noise in the pictures. Each camera model is different on how well it does with high ISO's. Ultimately all 3 of these settings work together to get you a picture. If you are outside, you may be able to leave your iso down low and use a mid range aperture and still get a great shutter speed. It's indoors where these settings become more tricky, and where fast lenses are invaluable!</p>

<p>Hope this helps you out a bit</p>

<p>Chris</p>

<p>I agree with the mentioning here of Lightroom. Gives you a great workflow program (importing, storing, and editing photos). You can also look at aperture as well (mac only, also workflow program). It also depends on what you will be doing with these photos and what your budget is as mentioned above.</p>

<p>I agree with some statements here. I think you should play with what you've got, learn the settings, learn some composition. In terms of next lens? I'm having a blast with my Canon EF 50 f1.4 lens. Under 400 bucks and you've got a super fast prime lens that is good for portraits. The canon ef 85mm 1.8 is also excellent, but will require a bit more room to work with, or just head shots. These are cheap, but excellent quality lenses that will get you some excellent pictures, and you'll have a great low aperture to work with all that light you are learning about to boot ;). Will give you a chance to play with depth of field as well.</p>

<p>Basically, an ef-s lens is meant to fit on a 1.6x camera. However, as steve mentioned it doesn't actually change the zoom. if the lens says it's a 17-55 you need to multiply that by 1.6 and you'll have the lengths you'll see through your camera. The example you give above will show two different zoom sizes. Go on down to the local camera store and see for yourself, they will be different lengths.</p>

<p>Well it's hard to say exactly. Judging by the fact that you have a nikon body as backup i'm assuming you have nikon lenses? In that case i'd stay down the nikon track (i'm a canon user myself). A good friend of mine is an EXCELLENT wedding photographer and they use nikon d300's now, but started with the cheaper nikon bodies. A wedding is important to have a backup body for. If something happens to your main body and it stops, you're done, out of luck...and may no longer have that good friend ;). So i might stick down the nikon route for the sake of assuming you already have a couple of lenses, and since you have backup nikon body (keeps things familiar in case you A) use it as a second body while shooting, or B) have to use it because your main body failed). Since money is tight, you could also consider renting some equipment for the job as well to keep costs down. Just make sure you can be familiar with it come wedding day. Sorry i can't really help you choose which Nikon to purchase if that's what you want, because i don't shoot nikon so i'm not as familiar with them. Someone else ought to happily provide you with better info on that though :D<br>

hope i helped in someway!<br>

Chris</p>

<p>Hey Jason,<br>

Looks like all you need is a way to re-size your images. Do you have a windows computer or a mac? they may have software installed that you can use to simply resize your images. Or if you have any photo software you've purchased or if you have any software that came with your camera, you ought to be able to use those to resize images as well. Sorry to be somewhat vague, but just not sure what you have at your disposal to use. I'd first check your computer for any available software or check your camera box to see if it came with any software to install! </p>

 

<p>If you want to shoot something different, get the 50mm 1.4 or 1.2 on the FF like Erwin Said. If you get the 85L on the FF it will be similar to the 50mm on the crop. I have a 50mm 1.4 on my crop sensor body and have really enjoyed it. What kind of shooting you do also dictates your decision probably. Both of these focal lengths and lenses are amazing so its really a win win situation either way. I'd go play with those lenses at a store if at all possible. They are big, they are sort of slow, but they are excellent quality. </p>

<p>if you will be using it mainly in a studio setting you will want the 70-200 f/4 of the above choices. constant aperture throughout the whole zoom and very sharp lens. I own the 70-200L f/2.8 IS lens and could not be happier with it. Will you be handholding the lens? using a tripod? I am very glad personally i spent the money and got the IS version. I've been able to handhold at 200mm at 1/15th of a second and get reasonably sharp images which would be unheard of without the IS.</p>

<p>I bet you could get a good setup from either one. I went with the 28-135 package on the 50d and lets face it, i don't use it anymore. I have upgraded to some "L" glass and i prefer it. If not for sharpness and superior image quality, its built better. My 28-135 felt like a vacuum and after holding and zooming "L" zooms, you really see the quality difference. If budget is not a problem, you might consider waiving the "package" idea and getting the 50d body and chose your own first lens, maybe a 24-70L, a 24-105L, an EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS. However depending on your needs are and what you shoot, you might be satisfied with either package to begin with. Just know that as you progress (if that is your plan with photography), you will want to get a bit better glass down the road i will assume (happened for me that way, and if money was no issue i'd have ditched the package and not have wasted the extra couple hundred bucks on the lens). Thats another thing. I dunno where to sell my kit lens. I don't use it, and right now i only have it as a backup lens really because no one really wants it or wants to pay much for it. Something to consider as well. Just my thoughts as a fellow 50d "kit" owner. :D Happy shooting regardless of decision, you will be happy as the 50d is a nice rig!<br>

Thanks,<br>

Chris</p>

<p>Let me put it this way. I have the 24-105L f/4 lens which is a very sharp lens let me say. I've only tested at f/4, because as you go higher it gets pretty close and i just haven't taken the time. However, my 50 1.4 is sharper at f/4 than the 24-105L glass valued at $1000+. However, you should learn to expect this as primes only have to be good at one thing...that focal length. so a 50mm prime only has to be good at 50mm whereas a zoom has to try to be adequate across the whole focal range. Check it out, you will be impressed. </p>

<p>Thanks for all your responses guys! I appreciate the input. To help any further posters or to answer some of your above mentioning of lenses. I currently own a 70-200L 2.8 IS, the 24-70L 2.8L and a 50 1.4 (and 28-135 kit lens i am not using at the moment). So no EF-S specific lenses. Ben is recommending to have good lenses to backup with. So does that mean investing in some EF-S lenses to duplicate some of the lens setups i have on FF like he mentioned 10-22 and i'm sure something like EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS would also be similar recommendation maybe? Not sure if i wanna upgrade in both places...but is that recommended if i go 5d and 50d?<br>

Thanks<br>

Chris</p>

<p>Hey Guys!<br>

I am currently a 50d owner with battery grip, and a couple of L lenses, speedlights, pocketwizards, and all that jazz. I am really getting into portraits and will also be shooting in a wedding in the next couple of months. I have been looking into getting a second body to work with (for having a two camera setup in certain occasions and having a backup in case one messed up). I'm having a hard time deciding and i thought i'd come see what you guys think. Again, this is mainly for portraits, some weddings (these things will probably grow in numbers as time progresses) some sports (but not priority and 50d does well for that with fps) and some landscape stuff on the side. I have considered the 5d mark 2 or possibly another 50d. Should i dive in on a 5d mark 2? Will the results really be worth the extra cash(I know a lot about its features and performance but haven't tested it)? Or should i snag another 50d and save the extra cash? <br>

Thanks Guys!<br>

Chris</p>