Can any of you guys recommend a good duffle bag or case to haul a lot of photography/videography gear? My equipment is piling up (mostly videography/filmmaking stuff but also photo stuff) and my rucksack and canon gadget bag aren't cutting it anymore. Figured this is the best place to ask.
What kind of hauling are we talking about? Airport travel bag? Something you would work out of? Do you need it to be low profile/theft deterrent? Street bag?
If its just hauling lot of gear from point A to point B, I highly recommend either ThinkTank airport bags or a Pelican case.
Not sure if I originally saw this mentioned in here or elsewhere, but I just watched the documentary Bill Cunningham New York last night. It was pretty awesome IMO. The level of dedication and passion required to get where he has is just amazing.
Not sure if I originally saw this mentioned in here or elsewhere, but I just watched the documentary Bill Cunningham New York last night. It was pretty awesome IMO. The level of dedication and passion required to get where he has is just amazing.
I'll have to check that out. Wonder if its on amazon prime. *EDIT* it's on there, but looks like I'll have to fork over a few bucks (not free to watch with prime), happy to do that though.
Not sure if I originally saw this mentioned in here or elsewhere, but I just watched the documentary Bill Cunningham New York last night. It was pretty awesome IMO. The level of dedication and passion required to get where he has is just amazing.
I'll have to check that out. Wonder if its on amazon prime. *EDIT* it's on there, but looks like I'll have to fork over a few bucks (not free to watch with prime), happy to do that though.
That's fantastic. Great choice to go B&W - the framing, composition and light sell the piece.
Haven't taken any photos in so long and it's beginning to get to me. Started a new job sort-of (same company, different work three days a week) and the hours mean I don't get as many chances to get out, and I also don't get any weekdays off anymore which kind of sucks for solo shooting. Oh well! I fit in what I can. Hope to post some more work soon.
The light and my position was pretty spot on. Where I'm shooting from is actually a more interesting feature. I was right under the Jacob Hamlin Arch, which is a stunning rock feature in Grand Staircase-Escalante NM:
A panorama my girlfriend took with me in it. RIP your vscroll.
so i developed my first roll of portra. it's nice film and probably deserves fresh chems and a more patient photographer. a lot of it i'm not happy with.
so i developed my first roll of portra. it's nice film and probably deserves fresh chems and a more patient photographer. a lot of it i'm not happy with.
I love that first shot, and Shrine is also really nice. I don't know what happened with Enshroud, though -- overexposure, missed focus? Portra has a certain feel to it that's coming through nicely in a lot of your shots.
Finally got a chance to head out earlier this week, and went to Mt Dandenong National Park for its (in)famous thousand-step walk. The sense of accomplishment one gets from reaching the top is somewhat dampened when you're immediately followed by about a hundred schoolkids. At least the weather was perfect for shooting -- overcast with occasional bursts of sunlight. Here's the first of two colour shots, B&W still waiting to be scanned.
(Not so happy with the composition on this one. I think I should have show from lower down to get less foreground and more of those trees in the background. Oh well!)
Does anyone else have a 580 EX II? I know this isn't a tech support forum but I am having so much trouble with it and I was wondering if anyone else experiences the same difficulties - like the flash thinking the target is a mile away despite being on ETTL and rather close, overexposing the crap out of things, or just not even going into ETTL at all? I've read about others having issues and I feel like I have to trick the flash to get it working properly.
Also I'll be in the market for a new lens soon. I have a Canon 7D (Mk I - original body). I'd like to futureproof myself to some degree in case I ever go with a full frame Canon. Any really fast, low-light capable zoom lenses you guys would recommend for portraiture (and more) in the few-thousands-or-less price range?
edit: Right now I use this, which doesn't cut it: EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM. I have a 50mm too but it's a bit bleh.
Does anyone else have a 580 EX II? I know this isn't a tech support forum but I am having so much trouble with it and I was wondering if anyone else experiences the same difficulties - like the flash thinking the target is a mile away despite being on ETTL and rather close, overexposing the crap out of things, or just not even going into ETTL at all? I've read about others having issues and I feel like I have to trick the flash to get it working properly.
Also I'll be in the market for a new lens soon. I have a Canon 7D (Mk I - original body). I'd like to futureproof myself to some degree in case I ever go with a full frame Canon. Any really fast, low-light capable zoom lenses you guys would recommend for portraiture (and more) in the few-thousands-or-less price range?
edit: Right now I use this, which doesn't cut it: EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM. I have a 50mm too but it's a bit bleh.
I think the standard answer for the lens question would probably be the 70-200 f/2.8 IS $2,200, the f/4 IS version which is $1,300, or 24-70 f/2.8 for $2,000. Really anything in the fast + zoom category is going to be really expensive. Most of the time for fast/low light people go for prime lenses because they are quite a bit cheaper. The canon 85/1.8 is generally considered a good portrait lens and is only $370.
I don't know anything about the 580EX problem. If you can't find any answers from googling for a while I'm betting you would have to send it back to canon for repair.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
If you want a zoom for portraits, you pretty much have to get one of the F2.8 optically stabilized zooms, either Sigma, Tamron, or Canon.
The cheapest options are definitely the 17-50mm models meant for APS-C sensors, used at the 50mm range.
My brother bought the Sigma 17-50/F2.8 OS for about $525 and pretty much swears by it.
You have to spend double or triple that price to get one of the 24-70mm models, meant for full frame sensors.
But I'd suggest ignoring the 24-70mm range, until you get a full frame camera, as that's a bad range for an APS-C camera.
On an APS-C, 24mm is really 38mm, which is just not wide enough for what's typically your most commonly used lens.
Plus for that price, you could get one of the 70-200mm lenses, which work great on both full frame and APS-C, used at 70mm for portraits.
If you want a zoom for portraits, you pretty much have to get one of the F2.8 optically stabilized zooms, either Sigma, Tamron, or Canon.
The cheapest options are definitely the 17-50mm models meant for APS-C sensors, used at the 50mm range.
My brother bought the Sigma 17-50/F2.8 OS for about $525 and pretty much swears by it.
You have to spend double or triple that price to get one of the 24-70mm models, meant for full frame sensors.
But I'd suggest ignoring the 24-70mm range, until you get a full frame camera, as that's a bad range for an APS-C camera.
On an APS-C, 24mm is really 38mm, which is just not wide enough for what's typically your most commonly used lens.
Plus for that price, you could get one of the 70-200mm lenses, which work great on both full frame and APS-C, used at 70mm for portraits.
Edit: if you're shooting portraits, you should know how the millimeters translates into working distances.
...youtube snip...
50mm on a full frame still has a bit of barrel distortion and while I do use my 50/1.4 a lot for portraiture, it isn't the ideal lens for it. Somewhere in the 70-135 range is, from I've read, considered the sweet spot for portraiture on FF cameras.
Any really fast, low-light capable zoom lenses you guys would recommend for portraiture (and more)
"and more" is really ambiguous in this case. If you wanted to be able to do wide shots of room and portraiture the 24-70 would be idea on a FF but not so much on a APS-C. If you wanted to do portraiture and moderate telephoto work for wildlife or shooting from the back of a wedding, then the 70-200 is the way to go. I'm going to assume you didn't mean "and more" to be on the wide angle side of things.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
If you wanted to be able to do wide shots of room and portraiture the 24-70 would be idea on a FF but not so much on a APS-C.
The 17-50/F2.8 lenses are the APS-C equivalents of the 24-70/F2.8 lenses for full frame cameras. Yeah, they have a slightly different range, about 27-80mm when converted to full frame, but for some reason, this is the focal length all the major lenses makers used for their APS-C specific F2.8 wide to short telephoto zooms. Plus these lenses tend to be at least half the price of their full frame counterparts.
Sharpest lens I've ever shot with is the canon 100mm 2.8L lens. If you've got the money by all means the 70-200L is a really diverse/sharp lens though. When I did portraits with that lens I usually zoomed in at about 85-100mm. This is a photo taken using the 70-200 and this is a shot using the 100prime (like I said, both great lenses).
I agree with @CommunistCow -- it's hard to give suggestions when we don't know what "and more" is really going to encompass. Personally, I'd go for the suggested Canon 85/1.8, or a Sigma (which are, apparently, often both cheaper and sharper than their first-party counterparts).
I wouldn't buy into 17–50 lenses if you're ever considering a jump to full-frame. It might be cheaper now, but it's false economy.
I also don't see how 24–70 is a "bad range" for APS-C, but 70–200 is good. You can't make these kind of judgement calls without knowing what they'll be used for. A 70–200 isn't going to be any better for shooting interiors than a 24–70, and if @Drez has no interest in shooting weddings or wildebeest the extra glass will only be a hindrance.
I generally shoot single* models, usually outdoors, sometimes indoors, looking to shoot more indoors. I also shoot events from time to time, sometimes in really dark places (clubs), sometimes in relatively well-lit locations.
No landscapes except on rare hobby-type occasions/vacations. No wide-angle needed.
Drez, I'm not sure the 200 end of the range on the 70-200 would be that useful in those sorts of situations. It just depends how many event shots you are doing from halfway across the room.
I also don't see how 24–70 is a "bad range" for APS-C, but 70–200 is good.
On the 70-200 I could see the high end of the range being used for some telephoto sort of work on a FF camera. The 24-70 on an APS-C is 38-112ish. It isn't very wide and it isn't very telephoto. So to me it seems like it is in the good portrait range, but doesn't really go high or low enough to do much else. Of course this is just an opinion and I generally have two modes wide angle and portrait. So you guys should take that bias into account.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
yeah, I think it's my own personal bias coming through, too -- I could quote happily shoot with nothing but 35, 50 and 90 equivalents, and the 24–70 on APS-C would almost get there. So I don't agree it's a bad range, necessarily, though perhaps not the most exciting.
Anyway, probably the best course of action is renting a few different lenses over a weekend or something, to get a feel for whether a prime or a zoom would suit you best.
In all honesty, I don't feel that comfortable with a prime lens. I have a 50mm which is inexpensive but fairly well rated and I find myself relying more on my 18-135 only because it feels more comfortable to me. The 50mm is faster, but I'm not a fan of being locked in.
I think I'll wait and see how much my bonus actually amounts to an go from there, but I'm leaning toward the 70-200mm even if I don't get that much utility from the 200mm range.
Thanks @Prospicience, and @Drez I feel you but I can never get the sharpness and cinematic look I get from my 50mm f/1.4 on my zooms, though I only have the 17-40 f/4 and 24-105 f/4. I've heard the ridiculously expensive f/2.8 Canon zooms can get near-prime lens performance as mentioned earlier in the thread but I haven't used them yet. I'm primarily a videographer so for the amount I'd spend on one zoom I feel like getting 2 or 3 prime's would be a better investment, though I think a really good wide prime lens is nearly as expensive as the 16-35 f/2.8 II and shooting wide is probably my favorite focal length.
I'm considering selling my 17-40 and getting a 16-35 off ebay, they go for around $1.5k I think.
Is that the 17-40L? I use that lens everyday for work and love it.... can't go wrong with the 16-35 though. With the 17-40 it seems the sweet spot is right around 7-9 aperture though, definitely not a low light hand held kinda lens.
Is that the 17-40L? I use that lens everyday for work and love it.... can't go wrong with the 16-35 though. With the 17-40 it seems the sweet spot is right around 7-9 aperture though, definitely not a low light hand held kinda lens.
Yeah, the 17-40L. I've owned it for like 6 years now, I figured the 16-35L II would get some better sharpness and depth of field at f/2.8 along with better video performance.
Posts
If its just hauling lot of gear from point A to point B, I highly recommend either ThinkTank airport bags or a Pelican case.
Circuitland by jeremy-o, on Flickr
CITY AMUSEMENTS by jeremy-o, on Flickr
Y2K S U ◘ E R ◘ A F ◘ by jeremy-o, on Flickr
Bones of Thai Town by jeremy-o, on Flickr
Still Life with Curtain by jeremy-o, on Flickr
Dreams in Glass by jeremy-o, on Flickr
I'll have to check that out. Wonder if its on amazon prime. *EDIT* it's on there, but looks like I'll have to fork over a few bucks (not free to watch with prime), happy to do that though.
My Portfolio Site
last two from this roll, but the last photo is a teaser for things to come...
A Watermelon Life by jeremy-o, on Flickr
A Much Anticipated Delivery by jeremy-o, on Flickr
@Prospicience
It is on netflix instant.
@munnin don't think I ever mentioned how incredible those colors are on that desert-roadside-landscape you've got going there.
I've been wicked busy these last few weeks, but here's another work photo, but made B&W.
My Portfolio Site
Haven't taken any photos in so long and it's beginning to get to me. Started a new job sort-of (same company, different work three days a week) and the hours mean I don't get as many chances to get out, and I also don't get any weekdays off anymore which kind of sucks for solo shooting. Oh well! I fit in what I can. Hope to post some more work soon.
A panorama my girlfriend took with me in it. RIP your vscroll.
Summer Sis' by jeremy-o, on Flickr
Lines of Approach by jeremy-o, on Flickr
Clarence nr. Market Lane by jeremy-o, on Flickr
Shrine by jeremy-o, on Flickr
@bsjezz dig that candid, girl in sunglasses, photo.
I saw a barn.
Might try to revisit this one in the spring.
My Portfolio Site
Finally got a chance to head out earlier this week, and went to Mt Dandenong National Park for its (in)famous thousand-step walk. The sense of accomplishment one gets from reaching the top is somewhat dampened when you're immediately followed by about a hundred schoolkids. At least the weather was perfect for shooting -- overcast with occasional bursts of sunlight. Here's the first of two colour shots, B&W still waiting to be scanned.
BBQ by rstop bstop, on Flickr
(Not so happy with the composition on this one. I think I should have show from lower down to get less foreground and more of those trees in the background. Oh well!)
Pavilion by rstop bstop, on Flickr
Signage by rstop bstop, on Flickr
Also I'll be in the market for a new lens soon. I have a Canon 7D (Mk I - original body). I'd like to futureproof myself to some degree in case I ever go with a full frame Canon. Any really fast, low-light capable zoom lenses you guys would recommend for portraiture (and more) in the few-thousands-or-less price range?
edit: Right now I use this, which doesn't cut it: EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM. I have a 50mm too but it's a bit bleh.
I think the standard answer for the lens question would probably be the 70-200 f/2.8 IS $2,200, the f/4 IS version which is $1,300, or 24-70 f/2.8 for $2,000. Really anything in the fast + zoom category is going to be really expensive. Most of the time for fast/low light people go for prime lenses because they are quite a bit cheaper. The canon 85/1.8 is generally considered a good portrait lens and is only $370.
I don't know anything about the 580EX problem. If you can't find any answers from googling for a while I'm betting you would have to send it back to canon for repair.
The cheapest options are definitely the 17-50mm models meant for APS-C sensors, used at the 50mm range.
My brother bought the Sigma 17-50/F2.8 OS for about $525 and pretty much swears by it.
You have to spend double or triple that price to get one of the 24-70mm models, meant for full frame sensors.
But I'd suggest ignoring the 24-70mm range, until you get a full frame camera, as that's a bad range for an APS-C camera.
On an APS-C, 24mm is really 38mm, which is just not wide enough for what's typically your most commonly used lens.
Plus for that price, you could get one of the 70-200mm lenses, which work great on both full frame and APS-C, used at 70mm for portraits.
Edit: if you're shooting portraits, you should know how the millimeters translates into working distances.
I will watch that video after I grab breakfast.
I was looking at the 70-200mm yesterday actually, the $2200 lens.
50mm on a full frame still has a bit of barrel distortion and while I do use my 50/1.4 a lot for portraiture, it isn't the ideal lens for it. Somewhere in the 70-135 range is, from I've read, considered the sweet spot for portraiture on FF cameras.
"and more" is really ambiguous in this case. If you wanted to be able to do wide shots of room and portraiture the 24-70 would be idea on a FF but not so much on a APS-C. If you wanted to do portraiture and moderate telephoto work for wildlife or shooting from the back of a wedding, then the 70-200 is the way to go. I'm going to assume you didn't mean "and more" to be on the wide angle side of things.
My Portfolio Site
I wouldn't buy into 17–50 lenses if you're ever considering a jump to full-frame. It might be cheaper now, but it's false economy.
I also don't see how 24–70 is a "bad range" for APS-C, but 70–200 is good. You can't make these kind of judgement calls without knowing what they'll be used for. A 70–200 isn't going to be any better for shooting interiors than a 24–70, and if @Drez has no interest in shooting weddings or wildebeest the extra glass will only be a hindrance.
A picture:
Trees by rstop bstop, on Flickr
I generally shoot single* models, usually outdoors, sometimes indoors, looking to shoot more indoors. I also shoot events from time to time, sometimes in really dark places (clubs), sometimes in relatively well-lit locations.
No landscapes except on rare hobby-type occasions/vacations. No wide-angle needed.
*or married**
**joke
On the 70-200 I could see the high end of the range being used for some telephoto sort of work on a FF camera. The 24-70 on an APS-C is 38-112ish. It isn't very wide and it isn't very telephoto. So to me it seems like it is in the good portrait range, but doesn't really go high or low enough to do much else. Of course this is just an opinion and I generally have two modes wide angle and portrait. So you guys should take that bias into account.
Anyway, probably the best course of action is renting a few different lenses over a weekend or something, to get a feel for whether a prime or a zoom would suit you best.
2I4B7642-2 by SinjunB, on Flickr
2I4B7633 by SinjunB, on Flickr
2I4B7499-5 by SinjunB, on Flickr
Lots of snow lately.
Will I ever learn that flickr just kills saturation...?
My Portfolio Site
I think I'll wait and see how much my bonus actually amounts to an go from there, but I'm leaning toward the 70-200mm even if I don't get that much utility from the 200mm range.
You guys are talking about this one, right?
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0033PRWSW/ref=psdc_499248_t1_B000I1X3W8#customerReviews
I'm considering selling my 17-40 and getting a 16-35 off ebay, they go for around $1.5k I think.
My Portfolio Site
Yep that is the one.
Yeah, the 17-40L. I've owned it for like 6 years now, I figured the 16-35L II would get some better sharpness and depth of field at f/2.8 along with better video performance.
Going through some old photos from this fall.
My Portfolio Site