Welcome to the GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum forums.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Post New Thread Reply

Register GFY Rules Calendar Mark Forums Read
Go Back   GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum > >
Discuss what's fucking going on, and which programs are best and worst. One-time "program" announcements from "established" webmasters are allowed.

 
Thread Tools
Old 04-20-2012, 02:51 PM   #1
baddog
So Fucking Banned
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: the beach, SoCal
Posts: 107,090
Canon 5D Mark III

Should I get just the body or pay the extra for the lens? What would you do and why?

Right now I have a couple 18-55, 55-250 and Sigma 18-200's The kit comes with a 24-105
baddog is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2012, 02:53 PM   #2
grumpy
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
grumpy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Holland
Posts: 9,870
start bidding on this one.

http://www.bva-auctions.com/auction/lot/4770/2186453

will go cheap
__________________
Don't let greediness blur your vision | You gotta let some shit slide
icq - 441-456-888
grumpy is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2012, 02:56 PM   #3
AaronM
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
AaronM's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: ┌∩┐ ◣_◢ ┌∩┐
Posts: 46,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog View Post
Should I get just the body or pay the extra for the lens? What would you do and why?

Right now I have a couple 18-55, 55-250 and Sigma 18-200's The kit comes with a 24-105


Link?678
AaronM is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2012, 02:57 PM   #4
AAB
Confirmed User
 
AAB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Alberta
Posts: 874
There's quite a bit of difference between 500D and 5D @grumpy
AAB is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2012, 03:00 PM   #5
bns666
Confirmed Fetishist
 
bns666's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Fetishland
Posts: 11,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog View Post
Should I get just the body or pay the extra for the lens? What would you do and why?

Right now I have a couple 18-55, 55-250 and Sigma 18-200's The kit comes with a 24-105
none of above lenses will work with full frame sensor.

24-105 is good tho
__________________
CAM SODASTRIPCHAT
CHATURBATESKYPE SEX CAMS
bns666 is online now   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2012, 03:00 PM   #6
grumpy
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
grumpy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Holland
Posts: 9,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by AAB View Post
There's quite a bit of difference between 500D and 5D @grumpy
noticed that later
__________________
Don't let greediness blur your vision | You gotta let some shit slide
icq - 441-456-888
grumpy is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2012, 03:01 PM   #7
AaronM
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
AaronM's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: ┌∩┐ ◣_◢ ┌∩┐
Posts: 46,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by bns666 View Post
none of above lenses will work with full frame sensor.
Obviously you're stoned.
AaronM is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2012, 03:03 PM   #8
AaronM
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
AaronM's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: ┌∩┐ ◣_◢ ┌∩┐
Posts: 46,905
baddog...

I'm about to shoot my last photo set of the day. I'll give you a call in a few minutes.
AaronM is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2012, 03:19 PM   #9
baddog
So Fucking Banned
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: the beach, SoCal
Posts: 107,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronM View Post
Link?678

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...alSe arch=yes


Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronM View Post
baddog...

I'm about to shoot my last photo set of the day. I'll give you a call in a few minutes.
I am stepping out, back in 30-45
baddog is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2012, 03:22 PM   #10
Alice22
Confirmed User
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 907
Those lenses that you have are not great at all...
Better safe for good lens.
It's really make different in quality.
I would chose 24-70 2.8 over 24-105 and to add 70-200
Alice22 is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2012, 03:53 PM   #11
Grapesoda
So Fucking Banned
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montana
Posts: 46,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog View Post
Should I get just the body or pay the extra for the lens? What would you do and why?

Right now I have a couple 18-55, 55-250 and Sigma 18-200's The kit comes with a 24-105
the 24-105 is a decent lens and constant stop f4 is a bit better than the glass you are using
Grapesoda is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2012, 03:53 PM   #12
rowan
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronM View Post
Obviously you're stoned.
I think he's right. From what I can tell:

The Sigma 18-200mm DC is for a smaller sensor and will vignette on a full frame.

The 18-55 and 55-200mm EF-S Canon lenses won't even attach to a full frame mount.
rowan is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2012, 07:43 PM   #13
Erik_
Registered User
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Denver
Posts: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog View Post
Should I get just the body or pay the extra for the lens? What would you do and why?

Right now I have a couple 18-55, 55-250 and Sigma 18-200's The kit comes with a 24-105
Skip the lens and invest in some primes.
Erik_ is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2012, 08:05 PM   #14
camgirlshide
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,558
buy the kit and ebay the lens. It's stupid to not take advantage of the lens discount with the kit.
__________________
Useful adult webmaster links -
Alphabetical list of solo models with webcam
Stats on my best converting affiliate programs - camgirlshide webmaster blog
complete list of affiliate programs I use.
camgirlshide is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2012, 09:56 PM   #15
rock-reed
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,892
Would that canon 1.4 50mm prime work well with this cam?
__________________
---
Ethnic niche? Black-Asian-Latina ?
Contact me and lets talk traffic.

rockreed@ that thing they call the google mail

When you E-mail Me, PLZZZZ make the Subject Title:

>>>>>> GFY!

So I do not lose you in Spam.
rock-reed is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2012, 10:03 PM   #16
dgraves
Confirmed User
 
dgraves's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Scottsdale
Posts: 2,283
I bought the kit with the 24-105 f4.0 and it's a nice lens but i also use the 24-70 f2.8

The 24-105 is nice when shooting video with the image stabilizer. The 70-200 is an amazing lens and that's the next thing on my list.

I also bought the 600EX Flash which does a nice job when using the Gary Fong Lightsphere.
dgraves is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2012, 10:25 PM   #17
xenigo
Confirmed User
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 8,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by rock-reed View Post
Would that canon 1.4 50mm prime work well with this cam?
Yeah, that's a decent lens. Works great on a full frame camera. It's actually the APS-C sensor cameras this lens doesn't work favorably with because it ends up being an effective 85mm which is too tight for most situations...
xenigo is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2012, 10:30 PM   #18
rock-reed
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by xenigo View Post
Yeah, that's a decent lens. Works great on a full frame camera. It's actually the APS-C sensor cameras this lens doesn't work favorably with because it ends up being an effective 85mm which is too tight for most situations...

I have this 1.4 and the cheaper 1.8... Good lenses... Has worked really well for our movie.
__________________
---
Ethnic niche? Black-Asian-Latina ?
Contact me and lets talk traffic.

rockreed@ that thing they call the google mail

When you E-mail Me, PLZZZZ make the Subject Title:

>>>>>> GFY!

So I do not lose you in Spam.
rock-reed is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2012, 10:44 PM   #19
kaori
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,569
You'll have to ditch all your other lenses...
And honestly, your existing lenses aren't anything special anyways..
Use the 24-105 for a few months until the new 24-70 II comes out (July, $2400).
The 24-105 is considered an 'adequate' lens... Nothing special, but not bad either..

Otherwise, just buy the 17-55 2.8 for your existing camera.... It to will make a significant difference..
If you're not taking professional photos, you're not gaining *too* much with the 5d III...
kaori is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2012, 11:22 PM   #20
xenigo
Confirmed User
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 8,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by rock-reed View Post
I have this 1.4 and the cheaper 1.8... Good lenses... Has worked really well for our movie.
The 1.8 is really lacking in the build quality department. I also can't stand the motor noise from it. When I upgraded to the 24-70, it became clear to me what I was missing. LOL

I've been curious about the 1.2. That's what I'd buy now if I had a need for primes, but I haven't been shooting anything in quite a while so I'm not really buying any new gear...
xenigo is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2012, 11:27 PM   #21
xenigo
Confirmed User
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 8,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaori View Post
You'll have to ditch all your other lenses...
And honestly, your existing lenses aren't anything special anyways..
Use the 24-105 for a few months until the new 24-70 II comes out (July, $2400).
The 24-105 is considered an 'adequate' lens... Nothing special, but not bad either..

Otherwise, just buy the 17-55 2.8 for your existing camera.... It to will make a significant difference..
If you're not taking professional photos, you're not gaining *too* much with the 5d III...
Exactly... Personally, if I were Baddog... I wouldn't spend the money on new bodies. These lenses get him by, but there are other aspects of shooting that need to be prioritized before a gear upgrade will lend to an improvement in quality.

Summary: Learn exposure!
xenigo is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2012, 01:35 AM   #22
Dirty F
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
Dirty F's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 59,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by AAB View Post
There's quite a bit of difference between 500D and 5D @grumpy
As we all know he is not exactly the brightest person here.
Dirty F is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2012, 01:57 AM   #23
DamianJ
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
DamianJ's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: A magical land
Posts: 15,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog View Post
Should I get just the body or pay the extra for the lens? What would you do and why?

Right now I have a couple 18-55, 55-250 and Sigma 18-200's The kit comes with a 24-105
You've got a 450D haven't you?

I'd recommend a 60D and spend the left over cash on a couple of L series lenses.

Going from consumer to pro body with cheap glass like sigma is doing it wrong.
DamianJ is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2012, 02:00 AM   #24
bns666
Confirmed Fetishist
 
bns666's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Fetishland
Posts: 11,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronM View Post
Obviously you're stoned.
aps lenses on full frame body?
__________________
CAM SODASTRIPCHAT
CHATURBATESKYPE SEX CAMS
bns666 is online now   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2012, 02:29 AM   #25
Cherry7
Confirmed User
 
Cherry7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 3,564
Interesting but...


When was the last time you saw a picture and said great except if only it had been taken with a better lens?

maybe you could post an example of a great picture ruined because it was taken with a poor quality lens.
Cherry7 is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2012, 02:38 AM   #26
DamianJ
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
DamianJ's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: A magical land
Posts: 15,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherry7 View Post
Interesting but...


When was the last time you saw a picture and said great except if only it had been taken with a better lens?

maybe you could post an example of a great picture ruined because it was taken with a poor quality lens.
No one is saying that.

The point is, if you are going to drop $3k on photography kit and currently own a $300 camera, your money would be better spent on glass than a 5D mk III.
DamianJ is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2012, 03:17 AM   #27
candyflip
Carpe Visio
 
candyflip's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 43,028
That's the last camera I'd spend my money on, but I'm more interested in video. 5D Mk3 is a huge letdown in that department.

I would invest in better glass myself.

Last edited by candyflip; 04-21-2012 at 03:21 AM..
candyflip is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2012, 04:26 AM   #28
MaDalton
I am Amazing Content!
 
MaDalton's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Cheque Republic
Posts: 39,776
if money is not an issue buy also better glass

but even we consider the 5D for what we are doing a waste, the 60D is fine
MaDalton is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2012, 04:33 AM   #29
TwinCities
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 492
I think for taking pictures of people at shows nothing more than a really nice point and shoot is necessary.
TwinCities is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2012, 05:05 AM   #30
Grapesoda
So Fucking Banned
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montana
Posts: 46,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherry7 View Post
Interesting but...


When was the last time you saw a picture and said great except if only it had been taken with a better lens?

.
2 days ago, I used the 24-120 f4 about $1300 but still considered a pro lens and then I switched to the 24-70 2.8 $2000 and shot a set in the same location whit the same model... MAJOR difference in color rendition and ambient light in the set as well as skin tone.
Grapesoda is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2012, 06:36 AM   #31
Cherry7
Confirmed User
 
Cherry7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 3,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by bm bradley View Post
2 days ago, I used the 24-120 f4 about $1300 but still considered a pro lens and then I switched to the 24-70 2.8 $2000 and shot a set in the same location whit the same model... MAJOR difference in color rendition and ambient light in the set as well as skin tone.
So why don't you SHOW us?

I have eyes and I want to see a photograph that is no good because of the lens.
Cherry7 is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2012, 06:53 AM   #32
DamianJ
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
DamianJ's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: A magical land
Posts: 15,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherry7 View Post

I have eyes and I want to see a photograph that is no good because of the lens.
Again, no one is saying that. People that own pro glass are saying it produces better results that shit cheap glass.

If you think sigma lenses are good enough for you, cool.
DamianJ is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2012, 09:41 AM   #33
Cherry7
Confirmed User
 
Cherry7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 3,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by DamianJ View Post
Again, no one is saying that. People that own pro glass are saying it produces better results that shit cheap glass.

If you think sigma lenses are good enough for you, cool.
I know what people are saying. That some lenses produce better pictures than others.
Pictures are looked at. They are visual. We do not have to rely on descriptions, we could judge for ourselves.

This would be very interesting.

A lens is always the result of compromise, a expensive f1.4 lens will be more difficult to design then a f2.8 lens, a zoom lens will have many elements and may have poorer resolution. But f2.8 lenses may be excellent.

There are so many other factors involved in a photograph that have a far bigger effect on the quality and look of the picture than the lens.

The most important is basic exposure and focus.

If you like I will post pictures taken with Sigma and Nikon lenses and you can tell me which is which?
Cherry7 is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2012, 10:21 AM   #34
Alice22
Confirmed User
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherry7 View Post
I know what people are saying. That some lenses produce better pictures than others.
Pictures are looked at. They are visual. We do not have to rely on descriptions, we could judge for ourselves.
When i just started, i had a nikon d70, and tamron lens, when i tried Nikon 17-55 2.8 my quality improved a LOT.
I sold this tamron lens, and never looked back on those...

Not everybody see the different.
For example, there is a canon 85mm 1.2, it's a prime, cost around 2000$ and it's very slow and heavy.
I heard many say: " this is bulshit to pay that much for that lens, when you can get a cheap 85mm 1.8)
But, i can see such a huge different in image quality, this why i will pay way $$$ for more slow and more heavy lens.
Alice22 is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2012, 10:26 AM   #35
baddog
So Fucking Banned
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: the beach, SoCal
Posts: 107,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by DamianJ View Post
You've got a 450D haven't you?

I'd recommend a 60D and spend the left over cash on a couple of L series lenses.

Going from consumer to pro body with cheap glass like sigma is doing it wrong.
It is a T1i and you are the only person I recall saying anything negative about Sigma glass.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherry7 View Post
Interesting but...


When was the last time you saw a picture and said great except if only it had been taken with a better lens?
I have but as I do not own the glass I can not show examples. But after storm chasing with my uncle that had some really nice glass I was quite disappointed when he bailed before I got a Chance to play with his stuff.
baddog is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2012, 10:29 AM   #36
baddog
So Fucking Banned
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: the beach, SoCal
Posts: 107,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by candyflip View Post
That's the last camera I'd spend my money on, but I'm more interested in video. 5D Mk3 is a huge letdown in that department.

I would invest in better glass myself.
I will have to find a video I saw that compared the Mark II vs the III. After watching it I have to wonder what you did not like. The III works great in low light which is why I was considering it.
baddog is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2012, 10:31 AM   #37
Socks
Confirmed User
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 8,478
I think it's like horsepower in a sense, that the higher you go up the more you need to spend for only a 2-3% performance increase. ie: Adding 50hp to a 130hp car is a huge difference, but 100hp added to a 500hp car wouldn't be nearly as noticeable. So it's just deciding what's good enough for your own application and finances. If you feel you're really going to use that extra few % for a few thousand dollars, then by all means enjoy it. Or, you may decide that saving your money and living with 97% of the possible performance is a better choice.
Socks is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2012, 10:47 AM   #38
DamianJ
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
DamianJ's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: A magical land
Posts: 15,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherry7 View Post
I know what people are saying. That some lenses produce better pictures than others.
Pictures are looked at. They are visual. We do not have to rely on descriptions, we could judge for ourselves.

This would be very interesting.

A lens is always the result of compromise, a expensive f1.4 lens will be more difficult to design then a f2.8 lens, a zoom lens will have many elements and may have poorer resolution. But f2.8 lenses may be excellent.

There are so many other factors involved in a photograph that have a far bigger effect on the quality and look of the picture than the lens.

The most important is basic exposure and focus.

If you like I will post pictures taken with Sigma and Nikon lenses and you can tell me which is which?
You can find loads of sites with comparisons of the results of lenses. Nt sure what the Nikon equiv of lseries is, but if you have that the we would all be able to tell the difference that and a sigma.
DamianJ is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2012, 10:59 AM   #39
DamianJ
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
DamianJ's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: A magical land
Posts: 15,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog View Post
It is a T1i
Oh right, the year later than I guessed. Not bad memory!

Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog View Post
and you are the only person I recall saying anything negative about Sigma glass.
It's really good, for budget glass.

But the point everyone is making is that to go from a $300 to a $3000 body is a hell of a jump and you might find if you spend that same money on one good l series lens and a 60D body instead you'd get more bang for your buck. You could also then still use your cheaper lenses if you wanted.
DamianJ is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2012, 11:02 AM   #40
Cherry7
Confirmed User
 
Cherry7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 3,564
The point is that a 3% increase in quality is not notice if poor exposure knocked off 20% of quality.

Back in the day all my friends were keen photographers and had Nikons and Pentaxs when I went to Eastern Europe and met professional photographers who had to work with Zeniths and Zorkis, also with East German black and white and colour stocks.

Their photography was better, because they were photographers and not consumers.
Cherry7 is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2012, 11:07 AM   #41
icymelon
Confirmed User
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,220
I would never buy a kit with a lens. My person opinion.
__________________
Network Of Adult Blogs With Hardlink Rentals Available
icymelon is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2012, 11:10 AM   #42
DamianJ
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
DamianJ's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: A magical land
Posts: 15,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherry7 View Post
The point is that a 3% increase in quality is not notice if poor exposure knocked off 20% of quality.
And no one is arguing against that, no matter how hard you try to pretend they are.
DamianJ is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2012, 11:17 AM   #43
Cherry7
Confirmed User
 
Cherry7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 3,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by DamianJ View Post
And no one is arguing against that, no matter how hard you try to pretend they are.
Then logic would say, improve the quality of your photography and say thousands of pounds on unnecessary equipment.

It is a shame that people want to talk about photography and not show it...
Cherry7 is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2012, 11:25 AM   #44
baddog
So Fucking Banned
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: the beach, SoCal
Posts: 107,090
Aforementioned video

baddog is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2012, 11:28 AM   #45
MaDalton
I am Amazing Content!
 
MaDalton's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Cheque Republic
Posts: 39,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog View Post
The III works great in low light which is why I was considering it.
i am not a photographer, but doesnt that also depend a lot on the lens?
MaDalton is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2012, 12:20 PM   #46
DamianJ
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
DamianJ's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: A magical land
Posts: 15,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherry7 View Post
Then logic would say, improve the quality of your photography and save thousands of pounds on unnecessary equipment.
Yes.

Same as anything really.

But it is easier to get good results with better kit.

As the OP wanted to invest in his camera kit, I - and everyone else - is suggesting he spend some money on a lens and a better body, rather than drop it all on an amazing body, and fit it with budget glass.
DamianJ is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2012, 01:23 PM   #47
Barefootsies
Choice is an Illusion
 
Barefootsies's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Land of Obama
Posts: 42,635
:2cents

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinCities View Post
I think for taking pictures of people at shows nothing more than a really nice point and shoot is necessary.
__________________
Should You Email Your Members?

Link1 | Link2 | Link3

Enough Said.

"Would you rather live like a king for a year or like a prince forever?"
Barefootsies is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2012, 01:57 PM   #48
Robbie
Leaner, Meaner, Faster
 
Robbie's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Vegas
Posts: 20,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by bm bradley View Post
2 days ago, I used the 24-120 f4 about $1300 but still considered a pro lens and then I switched to the 24-70 2.8 $2000 and shot a set in the same location whit the same model... MAJOR difference in color rendition and ambient light in the set as well as skin tone.
The 24-70 2.8 is the lens I've been using for almost 5 years now. My Canon 5D came with the 24-120 f4 but I didn't like it. Obviously it wasn't good for low lighting situations. But the 24-70 2.8 is great for low and good lighting.

I've had my new 5D Mark III on order for a few weeks now, and I'm gonna use my 24-70 2.8 lens on it.
I got my 5D back in 2007 so I guess it's time to finally move on up! Plus I can shoot some of that "art" footage. lol
__________________
-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.Com
Robbie is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2012, 02:29 PM   #49
Cherry7
Confirmed User
 
Cherry7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 3,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by DamianJ View Post
Yes.

Same as anything really.

But it is easier to get good results with better kit.

As the OP wanted to invest in his camera kit, I - and everyone else - is suggesting he spend some money on a lens and a better body, rather than drop it all on an amazing body, and fit it with budget glass.
If you want easy go amateur.

These cameras are only needed with good knowledge of photography.

I don't think anyone could tell the difference between budget glass and not. A cheaper lens may well be better quality because it is darker. If as most here use flash it would be a much better option.

The is a massive disconnect between the level of the cameras and lenses talked about here and the photography produced.
Cherry7 is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2012, 03:13 PM   #50
tony286
lurker
 
tony286's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: atlanta
Posts: 57,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by DamianJ View Post
You've got a 450D haven't you?

I'd recommend a 60D and spend the left over cash on a couple of L series lenses.

Going from consumer to pro body with cheap glass like sigma is doing it wrong.
I agree and the 60d is a pretty amazing camera
tony286 is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Post New Thread Reply
Go Back   GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum > >

Bookmarks
Thread Tools



Advertising inquiries - marketing at gfy dot com

Contact Admin - Advertise - GFY Rules - Top

©2000-, AI Media Network Inc



Powered by vBulletin
Copyright © 2000- Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.