andrew_espinosa

February 24, 2020

Totally even forgot to type the price.

They're listing it at $500.

I don't typically mind buying used, this is just really used, albeit being advertised as still in rather great condition.

February 24, 2020

Hi everyone, I've got a lead on a Canon 300mm EF f4 IS at an almost too good to be true price based on the condition description of excellent condition and the photos available (looks clean, original box and accessories, paperwork, but no glass pictures or closeups of the blades).

I assume the price is being offered low because the owner was forthright in mentioning the lens is almost 15 years old and estimated over 10,000 shutter clicks.

With a description like that, and if it looked good after testing it out in person, would you take a chance on the lens? The price beats anything on KEH even if they were offering a coupon.

January 31, 2015

Hi Everyone, I saw Snap-on is advertising this worklight ($30-$35 at Costco) for both video and photography and I was wondering if anyone has used it for that purpose? It is really nice and bright when you turn it on at costco, but I was wondering if anyone has any actual experience using it for photography like amazon shows with two of them on tripods.

http://www.amazon.com/Snap-Worklight-Photography-Construction-Workshops/dp/B00OJOCDJO

Costco doesn't have it linked online, but otherwise I'd have it linked rather than Amazon.

February 17, 2012

I have the 28-75mm and love it for what it is. It has missed focus on me, though, in the dark but it doesn't bother me very much because I don't do work with it professionally. That's obviously not the case with you, and having spot on focusing might trump the lower price on the tamron.

If you end up sticking with the Tamron, here are some possible work arounds:

<ol>

<li>When lighting is bad and you know the Tamron AF will struggle, shoot strictly in manual mode anyways. It will take some practice, but photographers did make do without AF for quite some time. A major effort in practicing manual focus in low light might save you the extra dollars of an upgrade.</li>

<li>For smoothing out the focus for video, there are DIY methods that many people have employed like this one here:</li>

</ol>

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?234199-my-3-99-solution-for-smooth-zooming-on-a-VG-10

You don't have to use the massive "arm" that that particular guy used, but any lever that can add fine focus adjustments and a longer/greater "moment arm" will likely pay off regardless of which lens you are using to focus with. For further reference, I've seen DIY solutions that are no more than a few inches long because the important part is the ergonomics created by the rigid arm. Since the guy above had a whole rig, it was more useful for him to have an almost foot long arm attached.

Kind of a side thought:

If you're shooting video, it might be in your best interest to get an actual video camera. The 5D has the ergonomics of a still shooter first, and the film aspect is kind of an afterthought. The 7D slightly improved on those ergonomics, but even the 60D and T3i with their swivel screens have better video ergonomics, granted you lose out on the low light capabilities of the 5D. That's just me thinking out loud, though, and you might be just fine with the 5D short of smooth zooming.

February 14, 2012

No problem, I just think it's a sham that most people think p&s are slow are those that use canon. No doubt dslrs are faster than p&s but not all p&s are the same level as the (slow) canon. Canon p&s are slower AF than average but the IQ is better than average. It's such a shame...

</blockquote>

It's funny how Canon dslr's came to be known as the faster "sports" camera but the P&S cameras don't have the same design built in.

On another side note, I remember reading about some war photographer that only used Oly P&S cameras for his work, and got amazing photos to work with because of his eye. His "trick," though was to have two Oly P&S cameras and he would alternate between them to make up for any shutter/AF/processing lag.

February 14, 2012

I'm on the Canon system myself so I'm not overly familiar with Nikon, but here is a deal on a newer Nikon model that is refurbished:

<a href="http://slickdeals.net/f/3942514-Nikon-D3100-Digital-SLR-Camera-with-Nikon-AF-S-VR-DX-18-55mm-lens-Refurbished-439-99">Nikon D3100 refurbished at $440</a>

It's a bit above your budget, but I'm pretty sure it's one of Nikon's latest offerings so it's likely to have some of the latest features. Since I'm not familiar with the D3100, anyone else can feel free to chime in on it's quality.

February 14, 2012

First off Leslie, I want to say thanks for the research you've done for me. It shows your dedication to trying to help out, and it's a big reason I come back to this site.

The thing is, though, you kind of proved my point to me. I said a camera like the S2 IS would fit the bill, but it was missing the latest large sensors and processing. Short of the G12, it's the slowest camera on the list. Second, I own the GF2 and even I consider it a slow camera, but I purchased it for the IQ that comes with such large sensors and advanced cameras. When I said the latest M43 cameras, I meant the newest Oly's and the newest Panny's that have the GF3's new focus software. In fact, the reason I didn't get my wife the GF3 was because I wanted the advanced features like the hotshoe and other connectivity options that came with the GF2.

Just know that I'm not knocking the LX5, because it's definitely an excellent camera, but IQ is the highest priority limited only by budget. I didn't mention the G12 in my first post because even I thought that might be too much camera for my friend, and while I'll list it as an option to him I don't think I'm going to give it an incredibly high priority and will explain to him why.

After more thinking, I probably won't recommend a M43 camera to him either. An M43 camera would give the highest level of IQ, but will cost too much to get the right configuration of camera body and lens.

I'll have to give the XZ-1 another look though. When I checked it out it seemed to be going for about $450, and both my friend and I live in a state where Amazon charges sales tax of higher than 8%.

February 14, 2012

Well I wasn't speaking in terms of AF/shutter speeds when speaking of advanced features, lol. To me, anything below a dslr and the newest m43 is going to have "slow" AF with higher shutter lag. I meant things like a hot shoe and viewfinder aren't really necessary for casual fully automatic users and that's where you can cut those out and get a smaller camera.

Before I made the jump to larger sensor sizes I shot with a Canon S2 IS, and that's an 8 year old camera that can basically handle everything but low light and wider angle shooting, even with it's slower processing and focusing. It worked really well while traveling.

February 13, 2012

@Leslie - Yeah, I was actually aware of the battery life and was going to mention that he would likely need to shut off the GPS function and get a second battery, which would push the older S line or another camera all together.

For vacation/travel shots I didn't think AF and shutter lag speed would be such a big deal. I get that it's still a contender for an advanced photographer, but for someone who's not likely to mess with the features most of the value of the LX5 is lost.

February 13, 2012

The LX5 is certainly a great camera, but I think new technology has overtaken it. The reasons to go with the LX5 would be for the lower cost and features an advanced user could take advantage of. Because my friend isn't much of a power user and less likely to buy any additional accessories I'd probably still point him toward the S95 or S100 instead because they are substantially smaller for equal or better performance.

The XZ-1 looked interesting when i checked it out, but it looks to be a great amount over the budget.

February 13, 2012

For the P7XXX vs G12 comparison I'd still probably go with the G12 because IQ seems to universally be considered better. I get that zoom and overall handling would be better on the Nikon because of all the nobs, but I don't think my friend is really advanced enough to really mess with too many manual modes. Also, the sensors are about even in size because they both have larger dimensions depending on which one you look at:

Canon Nikon

1/1.7" 7.6x5.7mm vs 1/1.8" 7.5x5.5mm

For the 150SX vs 230SX I'd personally prefer the 230SX, but I'll let my friend decide if money will be the deciding factor. Pretty sure the 230SX has both better IQ and zoom.

Thanks for the good answers so far though. I'll have to read up on those Pannys Devon mentioned.

<tbody>

<tr>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

February 13, 2012

Hi everyone, my friend is making a trip to China and asked me to recommend some cameras to him with about a $400 limit.

My first thought was any of the Canon S line (S90, S95, S100) for best IQ, and possibly some ultrazooms (SX230 and any Sony's or Panasonics).

Aside from those, he had seen my wife's Panasonic GF2 with the 14mm prime and liked the size + IQ that it gave, and asked if that might be something he should consider.

Hands down the GF line will offer the best photos but will be harder to shoot (Even in auto mode), and I'm not sure that simply getting the 14mm lens would be best for him. It's a nice wider lens, but for your average shooter, I'd think some amount of zoom would be helpful. I know he could go with the 14-42mm, but I don't know if that's worth losing the lower f-stop of the prime (I know IQ is about the same at 14mm)

Also, I know the jpeg performance on the panny m43 is a bit ho-hum, especially with red colors. I shoot in RAW+jpeg when I use it, but I don't expect him to do any post processing at all. I've seen even the older Oly m43 cameras do jpegs pretty well, but they are a bit larger than the panasonic line which makes me wonder if I should even point him in the direction of m43 cameras at all.

Anyways, let me know what you think! Any opinions or facts will be much appreciated.

November 2, 2011

Yeah, i think that means I'll probably stick to Canon inks. If I could find an off brand that could equal Canon ink reliability I'd probably give it a go, but doesn't seem like anyone has done it yet.

October 31, 2011

Someone recently suggested to me I try some refillable inks on the pro9000, but I dismissed refillable inks long ago based on pretty universal opinion that "you get what you pay for, and then some." I was wondering if any companies have made any special improvements in quality in this arena to justify going with them over the regular Canon brand.

The brand recommended to me was Precision Colors ink, made by Image Specialists.

I'd really like to hear from anyone that has researched the idea, or anyone who has direct experience with any quality brands.

September 15, 2011

This thread seems kind of ridiculous in it's comparisons. Yeah, ok, a full frame sensor can outperform a crop in many instances, but I can also pick up a used/refurb 7D for $1100.

I think this article I read long ago on photo.net is still really relevant today. The lens you use is going to make the most difference in your images, that's why I'm still shooting with a 6 year old Rebel:

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/fullframe/

September 8, 2011

I think we all know that Andrew........

</blockquote>

I was clearing it up for the people that mentioned they were unsure if it was shot at f/1.8, while also mentioning a tool they themselves could start using.

September 7, 2011

I have an exif viewer plugin running on firefox and it shows that the photo was shot at f1.8

September 7, 2011

The problems I see from the Exif data - white balance = Manual - Not bad, but a warning given the bluest tint of all the images. No fill flash - sigh... 1/2000 of a second at ISO 800?

</blockquote>

I was pretty much thinking the same kind of things too, the blue WB problem in those photos was pretty obvious, along with the some overexposed lighting.

IMO -- Canon EOS knowledgeable -- the fact she used a super cheap lens (28-80, one of the EOS systems worsts) and a cheap camera -- those are not the fault of the poor photos. We know where the fault is and in this case it is the supposed "pro" photog doing very poor work -- both in exposures and in composition, obviously

</blockquote>

I agree, but it was more just in relation to what she said she typically shot with and then the results we've seen. I'm pretty sure any kit lens could've done decent work in that light, with maybe some fill flash here and there.

September 7, 2011

EDIT - I see this got answered in another thread

I'm not sure if this is what you're looking to hear ,or if it's already been said, but this is my take on your question.

Composing, metering, and focusing can all be SET independently, but performed at the same time. What Peterson is doing is setting his metering first based on a specific lighting characteristic he couldn't get by simply aiming at his INITIAL composition. The way he went about setting the metering independently was by aiming at the sky to find the lighting he wanted.

He then RECOMPOSED his shot because he had aimed his camera away from his original composition. Only this time the metering was done first (aperture of f/11 with an 8 second shutter/exposure), and not at the same time as focusing and composing.

Technically he didn't have to aim his camera at the sky. He could have maintained his composition and taken many shots but at different f-stops to get the desired effect, but since he understood lighting well enough he took a shortcut based off the lighting in the sky. Also, it would be annoying to take many shots 8 seconds long and a picture opportunity might be lost in doing many photos to find exactly what he wanted.

The recomposing is basically him just aiming at his subjects again.

September 7, 2011

I wouldn't see a problem with it. Sports Illustrated has whole departments focused on retouching photos taken by their photographers. Obviously this implies the photographers go into this knowing that fact.

Also, it doesn't sound like you're "fixing" anything, you're just adding your creative touch to the work. The web is full of photos people like to edit that they didn't take on their own. You obviously have a special "touch" that the bride is seeking out. And like others have said, even basic retouching is farmed out quite often.

It's also not like you're claiming property of the images, you're just enhancing them in your style. If someone where to ask you if you took the photo, you wouldn't say yes, you'd say you edited it.

September 7, 2011

Well this is pretty hilarious unless Lesley modified the exif herself, which I'm doubting:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/66662692@N05/6122754737/meta/in/photostream/

The exif data on flickr clearly shows Canon Rebel Xsi

Also, the lens itself doesn't fall into the "professional" range claimed. The exif shows a 28-80mm lens, which is an inexpensive normal range lens if it's the Canon EF lens. I'm not saying you can't get sharp shots in full daylight stopped down, but this lens is far from professional.

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-28-80mm-3-5-5-6-Standard/dp/B00004THCX

September 7, 2011

I haven't read anything but I'm pretty sure she can't do anything about a Yelp or Google review. One thing I would do is print out anything she has sent to you and posted online, especially the part where she claims to only use a 5dii. You can easily prove if your photos where taken by 5D with the exif data or even just the image size (if they aren't cropped a lot) as I'm assuming the XSi and 5D have different pixel counts.

If you can prove she lied about the camera used, you've certainly proven her to be a liar and that's a mark against her character. Don't bring this fact up to her until she's admitted she made those postings online (even better if you have her saying in an email that she posted those specific rebuttals about the reviews). Also, if you can have her bring her original files to court you can check the exif right there.

This would be hard for her to win because it's like suing a critic for giving your food a bad review. You'd have to lie and say you saw dead carcasses on the floor and stuff like that. The one thing she has is the 72 hour thing, but it seems you have a paper trail saying otherwise.

Also, I'm pretty sure you can say she is a terrible photographer in a review because it's your opinion, not fact.

September 4, 2011

Based on IQ alone, definitely the 100-400mm. I've heard you can get pretty up close and personal with the animals and so such an extreme zoom might not be necessary, but I imagine that focal range can create some dramatic animal portraits.

Unless you have a problem with size though, you've got a lot of focal redundancy going on.

If you're happy with the 18-270mm and find you need that versatility more often I'd consider just sticking to that one. The 100-400mm is a favorite of mine though.

August 29, 2011

I found the repair report put out by lensrentals.com here:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2009/11/lens-repair-data-3-5

A rental may see more abuse than it would if owned by one person, but to me personally it seems like an expensive risk.

August 29, 2011

I haven't owned either but I do rent from www.lensrentals.com. They keep a blog and every now and then one of their posts is in regards to which lenses are rented out the most often and which ones are going in for too many repairs.

Well the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 was dropped from their rental service because it was going into the repair shop far above average. I'm a big fan of Tamron but there appears to be some weakness in the build of the 70-200mm f2.8. I'll see if I can find the blog post they have regarding it.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by andrew_espinosa