T3

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Jul 1, 2003

Comments

Total: 2600, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

trungtran: It seems that most complaints are coming from non Nikon and Canon full frame users.

A true professional will have no issues explaining the choice of equipment to the customer.

Does true professional discuss their equipment to the client at all? Come to think of it, a better piece of advice to give to clients is to avoid photographs who wants to talk about their equipment! Hahaha!

Link | Posted on Dec 31, 2016 at 01:20 UTC
In reply to:

WastingTime: Most likely a PROFESSIONAL wedding photographer owns either a Canon or a Nikon full frame system. That's just the truth. Even better if they have some MF gear, but that's already a minority.

Honestly it doesn't sound like a bad advice to check the photographer's gear. Granted, results can still be terrible, but chances are that he's better than the guy that only owns a Fuji X100.

I love the new tech being implemented in new cameras, but some older tech stuff just works dang fine.

"I love the new tech being implemented in new cameras, but some older tech stuff just works dang fine."

Yep, that's why you should higher the guy who's still rocking the 11mp Canon 1Ds FF DSLR from 2002. It's a Canon, it's FF...what more could you want? And unsuspecting clients don't need to know anything more than the fact that it's a Canon and it's FF! Nevermind that there's a lot of "new tech" gear, including plenty of APS-C cameras, that will easily eclipse it.

Link | Posted on Dec 30, 2016 at 04:27 UTC

The flipside of this is that there are a lot of wanna-be pro wedding photographers who go out and buy Canon or Nikon gear, and suddenly they think they are experienced pro wedding photographers, or attempt to pass themselves off as such. The same goes for "full frame". There are people who go out and buy a FF camera, and they try to pass themselves off as excellent, experienced wedding pros because, obviously, a FF camera is a great indicator of photographic talent, right? It kind of reminds me of "Stolen Valor" fakes who dress up in military uniforms, or carry certain badges or medals to garner respect and praise, even though they never earned it and are just frauds.

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2016 at 20:10 UTC as 106th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

arbux: Not sure why this is controversy - isn't is simpler to go for proven means? Do what most people do and what works for them is usually safe and sound advice. Objectively it may or may not be the best choice at a given moment, but it will be a good choice.

When buying a car one can go for exotic models, or buy a known workhorse. If you shed your own money and this is a critical for your business, you should be an expert in the area to jump into "unknown" (for an expert is now unknown but even among photographers there are not some many experts in the gear).

BTW - there is a topic on Fuji X forum that an experienced photographer was assisting another and was using his new x-t2 for that. He selected iso 100 and didn't know that when selecting that iso, camera automatically switches to jpg. Apparently this is written on page 51 of the manual. Cameras with limited professional exposure thus limited feedback may act strange. There is absolutely NOTHING controversial with safe choice.

So your justification for only hiring Canon or Nikon photographers is that some users of other brands may not know how to properly use their cameras? Hahahaha! That is a very tortured logic. If that is your logic, then a better question to ask a photographer is, "Whatever brand of camera or equipment you use, do you know how to use it well and competently?" But even that's a ridiculous question, because I know few serious professionals who would come to an event without being sufficiently familiar with their gear. And your argument doesn't even work for the Canon/Nikon bias, because what if a Canon user decides to switch over to Nikon before an event, and ends up being unfamiliar with Nikon's control layout? So as you can see, your argument is silly and tortured.

A decade or so ago, I might have agreed that Canon and Nikon were the only go-to brands to use. But that's just not the case anymore. There are a lot of other great options out there.

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2016 at 19:55 UTC
In reply to:

joe_leads: Here's what our dear friend Helmut Newton had to say about this issue:
https://youtu.be/gWmCjrTIq9E?t=13s

Yep, so true! Neophytes, amateurs, and noobs put waaaaay too much importance in the camera. Good glass and good talent are so much more important, especially for wedding photography, which is not like shooting the Olympics where you have sprinters and gymnasts moving at break-neck speeds. I've yet to see a bride doing a 100m dash in her wedding dress.

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2016 at 09:31 UTC
In reply to:

NowHearThis: Lighting, composition, and skill of the photographer are far more important than camera brand will ever be. 21 1/2 years ago my wedding photographer used a Pentax PZ-70 35mm film camera with outstanding results.

The reality is that even a current Rebel performs incredibly well! Stick some good glass in front of it, and put a talented photographer behind the camera, and that's all you need. Good talent and good glass. When people hire a photographer, you really want to hire their talent. That's really what you're paying for. You can hire a photographer with the most expensive Canon or Nikon gear, and they can still produce bland, forgettable images. Neophytes and amateurs out waaaaay to much emphasis on the camera being used. Its really about the talent and the glass.

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2016 at 09:25 UTC
In reply to:

Sports Shooter: If I am going to fork out 3-5K for my daughter's wedding the photographer better be using Canon or Nikon bodies and L or the L equivalent Nikon lenses.

I don't shoot weddings anymore, but I can see plenty of advantages that Sony offers over Canon or Nikon. I love Sony's face tracking and eye tracking AF! Also, Sony G Master lenses are fantastic. Plus, Sony offers FF IBIS, which gives a big advantage in low light shooting, especially when combined with a fast prime. Another advantage is the Sony had silent electronic shutter which gives you soundless shooting. No annoying shutter sounds during the wedding ceremony! Plus, Sony's 42mp sensor is awesome. Amazing quality. So given the combination of things that Sony offers, I think people in the know would be fine hiring a Sony shooter. Times are changing.

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2016 at 09:15 UTC

Apple or PC?

Obviously, you should always hire a wedding photographer that uses Apple computers because Apple users are more creative, more artistic, and they care more about style and quality. That's why Apple is more popular with serious photographers, right? Yeah, you should really avoid photographers that use PC's because those photographers clearly aren't serious and don't know what they are doing! Only hire wedding photographers that use Apple computers!

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2016 at 08:50 UTC as 175th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Sports Shooter: If I am going to fork out 3-5K for my daughter's wedding the photographer better be using Canon or Nikon bodies and L or the L equivalent Nikon lenses.

@Bob A L- That's just ignorant, narrow-minded thinking. And I say this as a long-time Canon DSLR shooter. I've seen superb photographers who shoot with a wide variety of equipment. Plus, camera equipment is so good these days that I think the particular brand of equipment, or even model of equipment, is less important than ever in the history of photography! Ultimately, the most important factors are the photographer's past work(his or her portfolio), and how well you get along with the photographer. Those two factors are WAAAAAAY more important than what equipment they use. Inter-personal skills (personality) are really valuable. And their portfolio shows their inter-equipment skills (what they can do with their equipment). You get those two factors covered, and everything else is just superficial, tangential brand-worship.

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2016 at 02:20 UTC
In reply to:

iamatrix: They probably recommend VHS for video recording as well.

Actually, they probably recommend that videographers shoot on IMAX, because that's the only way to get decent image quality!

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2016 at 01:42 UTC
In reply to:

zzzxtreme: "What lenses do you use?" might be a better question

How about: "What kind of images do you produce? May I see your portfolio?" That's the better question. Because at the end of the day, it's all about the images. A photographer can use the best, most expensive lenses that money can buy, and still produce crap images! Oh, and how well you get along with the photographer is worth taking into account, too. If the photographer and the client clash, it can make for a rather unpleasant day.

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2016 at 01:38 UTC

I still remember the old film days some oldsters used to think that wedding photography had to be done on medium format film, not 35mm film. Heck, there was a time when that applied to photography in general: "real" photographers shot on medium format film, and 35mm was looked down upon. Of course, those were ignorant beliefs, because many of the greatest images in the world were shot on 35mm film, and 35mm film went on to dominate the photography world, including wedding photography. But there still remained a few out-dated people who clung to the belief that wedding photography should only be done with medium format.

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2016 at 01:20 UTC as 221st comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

T3: Garbage advice from a garbage magazine that knows absolutely nothing about camera equipment. They are doing a disservice to their readers. Maybe they should also advise that wedding food should be eaten with a certain brand of silverware because it will make the food taste better!

And what is that supposed to mean?

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2016 at 01:12 UTC
In reply to:

NowHearThis: Lighting, composition, and skill of the photographer are far more important than camera brand will ever be. 21 1/2 years ago my wedding photographer used a Pentax PZ-70 35mm film camera with outstanding results.

Yep. Some of the greatest images in the world were shot on equipment that is "inferior" to even the basic entry-level cameras of today. I used to shoot wedding photography on film. Then went I went digital, I was shooting with a 6mp DSLR! Those images still look great. So, too, do the film images. And they all printed up beautifully. It's really the content and composition of the image that matters, not seeing every single pore on the bride's face that matters.

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2016 at 01:11 UTC
In reply to:

Sports Shooter: If I am going to fork out 3-5K for my daughter's wedding the photographer better be using Canon or Nikon bodies and L or the L equivalent Nikon lenses.

Seriously? Only Canon and Nikon make good lenses? So does that also mean that the Canon and Nikon shooter shouldn't be using Sigma Art lenses? And are you going to be pixel peeping all the images? That's not what wedding photography is about. Wedding photography is about artistry, emotion, atmosphere, ambience, mood. It's not about test charts and pixel peeping. And there is plenty of fantastic equipment out there that is not Canon or Nikon.

People are terribly ignorant if they think that a photographer has to use a particular brand of equipment to deliver great results. Furthermore, people are terribly ignorant if they think that using a particular brand of equipment will ensure great results. A photographer should use any brand or piece of equipment they damned well choose to use. It's what they do with the equipment that matters, not the label on the equipment that matters. People should really educated themselves on this matter, and educate others on this matter as well.

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2016 at 01:06 UTC
In reply to:

T3: Garbage advice from a garbage magazine that knows absolutely nothing about camera equipment. They are doing a disservice to their readers. Maybe they should also advise that wedding food should be eaten with a certain brand of silverware because it will make the food taste better!

@HowaboutRAW-
I think you're not understanding what I wrote. I spoke about eating silverware of "a certain brand". I wasn't implying that people don't eat with any utensils at all!?! Yes, we all know silverware has a purpose. Thanks, Captain Obvious. But one brand of silverware (Onieda, Farberware, Lenox, etc.) isn't going to make food taste better than another brand.

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2016 at 00:54 UTC

Garbage advice from a garbage magazine that knows absolutely nothing about camera equipment. They are doing a disservice to their readers. Maybe they should also advise that wedding food should be eaten with a certain brand of silverware because it will make the food taste better!

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2016 at 00:12 UTC as 232nd comment | 4 replies

I can't imagine this ever working. Aperture blades in a lens slide over one another in an overlapping fashion. That's what allows the aperture iris to change in size. This wrench doesn't do that, and even if it did do that, the aperture "blades" would never be strong enough to handle the torque demands of a wrench. It's a cute idea, but it'll never work in real life. It might work as an art piece, though.

Link | Posted on Dec 24, 2016 at 07:35 UTC as 36th comment | 2 replies
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1599 comments in total)
In reply to:

JLim22: I don't understand why they decided to flip the screen below the camera...
And crippled auto iso?

Because they are still trying to preserve their DSLR sales.

Link | Posted on Dec 22, 2016 at 22:15 UTC
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1599 comments in total)
In reply to:

Absolutic: Sounds like Canon is almost there with mirrorless and M6 is going to be the camera to get (once they fix the Af and EVF blackout issues, add 4K video....maybe IBIS???)..... I assume Canon will release M6 around 2017 with some more lenses and the Canon will finally join the mirrorless world.

I think an M6 in 2017 is a bit optimistic. Canon's last M was the M3 introduced in February 2015. Canon's shortest update cycles are typically around 18 months. So I wouldn't expect an M6 until mid-2018 at the earliest. Canon does not move very fast.

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2016 at 16:48 UTC
Total: 2600, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »