Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 10, 2005, 1:12 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

Advice revoked; due to ultra high bs levels thread has attained.
I refuse to continue to participate in threads that exhibit brand bigotry, or just expound on plain bad advice.


PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2005, 1:15 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 155
Default

I have both the Sto-fen diffusers (for the 580EX and 420EX) and a Lumiquest Softbox--the big one, not the Mini softbox. I find the shadow control to be comparable but the light loss lower with the Lumiquest. However, it will depend upon the environment. A high ceiling favors the softbox, because the light goes mostly forward. The Sto-fen, on the other hand, sends light closer to 150-180 degrees, and so a low ceiling is beneficial and can provide better results.

No wonder Flash is called the Dark Art in photography.

Bill

wburychka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2005, 10:37 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

Advice revoked; due to ultra high bs levels thread has attained.
I refuse to continue to participate in threads that exhibit brand bigotry, or just expound on plain bad advice.



PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2005, 10:39 PM   #14
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2
Default

Thanks Chris,
Those were GREAT suggestions and ideas, I do have a Canon 550 flash which seems to work out very well.
Marc
Marc10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 11, 2005, 5:25 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 175
Default

Thank you Marc. Take care.

Marc10 wrote:
Quote:
Thanks Chris,
Those were GREAT suggestions and ideas, I do have a Canon 550 flash which seems to work out very well.
Marc
ChrisDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2005, 1:38 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 229
Default

I haven't done any weddings but have done a couple of 15 year old parties. Mainly for friends and relatives who can't really afford an extra $800-$1000 for a Pro. In Hispanic culture this is a big event for girls when they reach 15. It has all the expense and celebration of a wedding. Church ceremony,formal white dresses (no veil), reception, dance etc.

Anyway, with my 20D I found thatfast lenses saved my day. My 17-40L too slow. Tried my Tamron 28-75 2.8 but switched to 50mm 1.8 wishing I had a 28mm 1.8 or at leasta 35mm 1.8 or 1.4. Unable to bounce flash due to high ceilings in church and reception hall. Used 550ex with diffuser but still not adequate. For posed individual and group shots I used the 17-40L w/flash but used tripod and slow shutter speed to get even lighting. For posed group and indivdiual pics I asked everyone to remain still after flash to avoid blurred pictures. That worked well.

Once in the reception/Dance hall Iexclusively used the 50mm 1.8 and my 85mm 1.8 set at 400 ISO. Fortunately I could step back to get the shot and didn't need the flash much. Again for presentation shots I used tripod with the 50mm wide open. I reserved the85 mm for taking candids. This worked well and got many great pics. If you use this method focus point becomes critical because of the shallow DOF.

Advice, use fast lens,shoot RAW, and take multiple shots.You'd be surprised what you can salvage in Photoshop.

Oh yeah, take something to calm the nerves, like weddings, this is high stress!!! One more event to do and then I plan to retire, I can't take the pressure.


Ctrack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2005, 3:02 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 155
Default

Ctrack wrote:
Quote:
Anyway, with my 20D I found thatfast lenses saved my day. My 17-40L too slow. Tried my Tamron 28-75 2.8 but switched to 50mm 1.8 wishing I had a 28mm 1.8 or at leasta 35mm 1.8 or 1.4. Again for presentation shots I used tripod with the 50mm wide open. I reserved the85 mm for taking candids. This worked well and got many great pics. If you use this method focus point becomes critical because of the shallow DOF.
Relevant point. The 20D, with lenses of F2.8 or faster and using the center focus point, has three times the focus accuracy of slower lenses or any lens on a 10D, 350D, or 300D. Normal AF is one DOF for those three camera. With the 20D and F2.8 or faster lens, the center focus point improves to 1/3 DOF.

FWIW.

Bill

wburychka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2005, 6:55 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,539
Default

I wouldnt shoot a wedding for any level of serious money with a 20D.

Better to use a Canon EOS 1D or 1DS.

And stick with Canon "L" lenses.

I'm assuming that if someone is going to pay you $1,000 US or more for a wedding, the least you can do is show up with 5 grand worth of equipment.

The 20D is a serious amateur or semi-pro camera. A pro would only use it as a second or backup body.

-- Terry




terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2005, 8:33 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 229
Default

Thank goodness I wasn't getting paid!! Can't afford a 1D or 1Ds. Would like to have a 5D though.
Ctrack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2005, 11:26 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 175
Default

The 20D is a perfectly capable body for weddings. Fast autofocus and low noise result in images that are so close to a 1 series body, that I doubt anyone could tell the difference, especially the client. I have shot many weddings with my 20D, and not one single bride or groom has ever approached me and said, "Wait, that isn't a 1 series!". In fact, they are quite impressed with the look of my 20D with battery grip attached, but MUCH more importantly, they are impressed with the images I deliver.

The images you produce are not dependent on which camera or which lens you have, but on your skill as a photographer. Granted, you should have the right tools for the job (fast lenses for low-light movement, etc), but it is you who will make the photograph, not a $4000 camera. For example, one of the best wedding photographers I shoot with uses a Nikon D70 (6MP, $800) as her primary camera. Her minimum fee for a wedding is $3500 and the stunning images she delivers are worth every penny. And no-one cares that she is shooting with this camera, or knows the difference, frankly.

And yes, L lenses are superior, and you should shoot with them if you can afford it. However, there are alternatives to some L lenses that make the extra expense hard to justify. For example, I would love to have the 24-70, but my $350 Tamron 28-75 produces beautiful, contrasty images that are hard to beat. I can't justify the expense of the upgrade in this case. For my telephoto wedding work, however, there is no competition to my 70-200 IS. Just keep in mind that there are alternatives out there. Good luck!

[email protected] wrote:
Quote:
I wouldnt shoot a wedding for any level of serious money with a 20D.

Better to use a Canon EOS 1D or 1DS.

And stick with Canon "L" lenses.

I'm assuming that if someone is going to pay you $1,000 US or more for a wedding, the least you can do is show up with 5 grand worth of equipment.

The 20D is a serious amateur or semi-pro camera. A pro would only use it as a second or backup body.

-- Terry



ChrisDM is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:51 PM.