T3

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

Comments

Total: 2616, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
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 177th 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 223rd 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 234th 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 37th 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
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1599 comments in total)
In reply to:

PRohmer: What's the bloody hump for? And why bother with a built-in flash?

Oh, that hump? It's totally empty. It's just for looks.

Or it could house the EVF and offer a place for the pop-up flash, as well as a perch for your hotshot flash. And yes, built-in flashes are very handy. Great for a touch of fill light, or casual shooting when you don't want to drag along a strobe.

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2016 at 16:44 UTC
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1599 comments in total)

Meanwhile, Sony A6000's are currently selling for $400 new, $550 in a kit. Or you can pick up a Fuji X-T10 kit for $800. I might pick up an M5 when it drops down to $500. But at its current price, there are more attractive options out there.

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2016 at 16:40 UTC as 85th comment | 3 replies
On article Sigma releases price and availability for sd Quattro H (369 comments in total)
In reply to:

Peiasdf: Hipster cam for the hipster crowd. Just read the comments; not-boring SLR, film-like, tonal range, autonomous customers. Those women's jeans must be cutting off blood flow to the head if they are arguing SA-mount is more useful than F/EF-mount.

People who throw the word "hipster" at anything and everything they don't like are simply buffoons. "Hey, I don't like this camera. It's for hipsters!" "Hey, I don't like this toaster. It's for hipsters!" "Hey, I don't like these pancakes. It's for hipsters!"

Some people just don't like any diversity in the world, whether it be in cameras or in types of people. Anything that deviates from their status-quo, conformity-at-all-cost, conservative world view is a dirty "hipster".

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2016 at 06:45 UTC
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1599 comments in total)
In reply to:

marianco: The Canon M5 essentially is a miniaturized version of the Canon 80D.
The biggest problem is the flip screen. Canon should have copied the full articulating screen of the 80D. But instead it did a flip down screen. How exactly will you use this with a tripod? That was a stupid design move - particularly for self videos such as for vlogging.

They probably did it to protect 80D sales. Clearly, they would have known that the flip-down screen is impractical for self videos.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2016 at 21:42 UTC
Total: 2616, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »