Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Urban Life & Travel 
Thread started 03 Oct 2008 (Friday) 21:49
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Official Disney Parks Thread

 
mystik610
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,811 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 11448
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Houston, TX
     
Feb 12, 2013 10:59 |  #1981

chugger93 wrote in post #15601900 (external link)
So it sounds like the 24-105 is the way to go. I just wasn't confident in the optics. I guess I'm too into primes as that is the type of shooter I am. I don't mind swapping lens, but would agree it may get old quick in the parks...

Sounds like a good excuse to by a 24-70 2.8II :)

Every minute you spend jacking around with gear is a minute taken away from enjoying the park....and things tend to happen sporadically in the park (like character sightings, parades, etc etc) Less is definitely more. I'd settle for my point and shoot if the parks weren't so fun to shoot.


focalpointsphoto.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - Instagram (external link)
α7ʀIV - α7ʀIII
Sigma 14-24 f2.8 ART - Zeiss Loxia 21 - Sigma 35 f1.2 ART - Sony 35 1.8 - Sony/Zeiss 55 1.8 - Sony 85GM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
appsyscons
Senior Member
Avatar
563 posts
Likes: 23
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Port Charlotte, FL
     
Feb 12, 2013 15:35 as a reply to  @ mystik610's post |  #1982

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8493/8412090187_47a3a57f30_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/43835830@N06/8​412090187/  (external link)
IMG_2679001 (external link) by Frank Fasulo (appsyscons) (external link), on Flickr

Gear: 7D gripped | EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS | EF-S 10-18mm | , Nikon P530, Manfrotto legs, 496RC2 Ball Head /QR
My flickr (external link)
Upgrade wish list: EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM | EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM | EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS (I or II) USM | Canon EF 1.4X (II or III)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kshark
Senior Member
441 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Oct 2009
     
Feb 12, 2013 20:33 |  #1983

chugger93 wrote in post #15598167 (external link)
Does anyone have any thoughts or opinions on what lens I should rent?

24-105L, or 17-40L

My delima is, I feel like I'll more than likely have my 50L mounted for the majority of shoots. I'm leaning more towards the 17-40, just because I already have a 24L prime, so I feel the 24-105 overlaps that, as well as my other lens in my gear lineup.

17-40 being UWA will give me everything I need and I feel I would need a UWA more than anything else, specially if I'm just outside of a ride trying to capture my 3 year old on a kiddie ride, etc. I think even a 50 may be too long for some rides.

Thoughts?

As usual, it really depends on what you want to shoot. While the 24-105mm is certainly the more versatile choice, I would feel lost at WDW without an UWA. Looking through my shots, many of my favorites were taken with the 10-22mm and now my 17-40mm. There are many small spaces in the parks (both interior and exterior) that can be made to look much grander with a wide lens. Again, the choice is very heavily dependent on your goals and style.

If I was going light with my kit, I would pack the 17-40mm and 85mm. If I was going for just one lens, I would reluctantly pack the 24-105mm, because I would really want the two lenses I just mentioned! And, that's not because the image quality of the 24-105mm, I just tend to see really wide or really tight with shallow DoF so I don't get inspired by the 24-105mm.

That being said, I always want the right tool for the job, so I gladly carry my full kit!


flickr (external link)
Brett Kiger Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SRisonS
Senior Member
Avatar
425 posts
Likes: 21
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Orlando, FL
     
Feb 12, 2013 20:36 as a reply to  @ post 15601627 |  #1984

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8525/8468881397_66fb3c5d72_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/scottrsmith/8​468881397/  (external link)
Quenched (external link) by Scott Smith (SRisonS) (external link), on Flickr

My Flickr Photostream (external link)
Follow my Disney's Human Element (external link) Photo Blog!!! :D

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DTBaan
"male gigolo"
Avatar
14,238 posts
Gallery: 51 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 1649
Joined Apr 2011
     
Feb 13, 2013 01:58 |  #1985

BirdsOfPreyDave wrote in post #15575499 (external link)
Gaston's Tavern, Maurice's Cottage, the circus, a new train station...

coolness. thanks for the info :)

here's from last weekend at disney california. lunar new year

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'


IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'


more can be seen here.
http://www.dtbphoto.co​m/p520353730 (external link)



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
chugger93
Goldmember
Avatar
1,204 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Likes: 57
Joined Nov 2009
Location: Washington MI
     
Feb 13, 2013 06:45 |  #1986

kshark wrote in post #15603899 (external link)
As usual, it really depends on what you want to shoot. While the 24-105mm is certainly the more versatile choice, I would feel lost at WDW without an UWA. Looking through my shots, many of my favorites were taken with the 10-22mm and now my 17-40mm. There are many small spaces in the parks (both interior and exterior) that can be made to look much grander with a wide lens. Again, the choice is very heavily dependent on your goals and style.

If I was going light with my kit, I would pack the 17-40mm and 85mm. If I was going for just one lens, I would reluctantly pack the 24-105mm, because I would really want the two lenses I just mentioned! And, that's not because the image quality of the 24-105mm, I just tend to see really wide or really tight with shallow DoF so I don't get inspired by the 24-105mm.

That being said, I always want the right tool for the job, so I gladly carry my full kit!

Thanks Kshark

I have no idea what to expect....I havn't been there since I was a kid (now 34yrs old). I don't mind packing a few lens because I will bring my backpack (external link)anyways as that is what I house all of my gear in.

I've been very inspired by the 17-40 thread and really wanted to try UWA anyways. Specially since I already have a 24/50/85/135, I feel the 24-105 is just a waste.

My thoughts are the 17-40 would fulfill not only my UWA but my medium telephoto range as well. Then my 135 should cover anything longer I need. So really, 17-40 and 135 to me seem like a good combo, but again its all in theory.

I'll be there for 6 days, so I guess I can try a certain combo one day, and if it doesnt work, switch it up a bit eh


Jon | JMBPhotography
-------------
5D MK II / 5D MK III --- 24L II | 50L | 135L | Canon 85 F/1.8 | 430 EX II/Yongnou 560 Speedlites | Manfrotto 055XPROB Pro Tripod

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kshark
Senior Member
441 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Oct 2009
     
Feb 13, 2013 20:43 |  #1987

Sounds like a good plan to me! I'm jealous of your primes, and excited to see what you bring back. Be sure to post some shots here. I think you might find the 135 a little long for all of the parks except Animal Kingdom, but it will perfect for capturing the fine details in all of the parks which Disney does so well!


flickr (external link)
Brett Kiger Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kshark
Senior Member
441 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Oct 2009
     
Feb 13, 2013 20:50 |  #1988

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8228/8469865061_1b9f569a07_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/brettkiger/8469​865061/  (external link)
Simply DiVine (external link) by Brett Kiger (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8524/8468124200_a6bc77a50b_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/brettkiger/8468​124200/  (external link)
Down to the Crossroads (external link) by Brett Kiger (external link), on Flickr

flickr (external link)
Brett Kiger Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
samsen
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,468 posts
Likes: 239
Joined Apr 2006
Location: LA
     
Feb 13, 2013 20:53 |  #1989

Drink are expensive at Disney.
Has any body charged this guy? Seems to have good thirst.

You did well with light.


Weak retaliates,
Strong Forgives,
Intelligent Ignores!
Samsen
Picture editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kshark
Senior Member
441 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Oct 2009
     
Feb 13, 2013 20:55 |  #1990

duane0524 wrote in post #15588656 (external link)
Well, I was happy with my pictures from the trip last year until I keep looking at yours. Now I have to go again this year, thanks a bunch.

Haha, thanks, and, well, you're welcome! I can think of worse places to *have* to go back to... :lol: Maybe I'll see you there!


flickr (external link)
Brett Kiger Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kshark
Senior Member
441 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Oct 2009
     
Feb 14, 2013 20:40 |  #1991

tempest68 wrote in post #15599690 (external link)
Lately I've been contemplating selling my 5D II and most of my Canon gear and switching to the Olympus OM-D. If I were planning to go again anytime soon, I'd get off the fence and push forward with that plan. The smaller size and less weight of OM-D for carrying around all day long at a theme park would be easier on the body. I had managed to cram the EOS 3/40mm and 5D II/24-105mm in a smaller bag that has it's own built-in rain protective cover (which is ESSENTIAL when visiting Orlando). But even with a smaller bag, the weight of the gear wears on you by the end of the day. So next time I'll go with a smaller system like the OM-D, and if I want to do film again my new-to-me Voigtlander R3M is also smaller/lighter than the EOS 3.

The OM-D is an amazing camera for Disney. The body and lenses are so small, and the image quality is still VERY good. I've done two trips with just the OM-D and a few lenses in a small Domke bag. If the goal is to travel light and still bring back quality photos, this is the way to go. That being said, I still like the option to shoot the big camera (5D3) for ultimate quality and shallow DoF on occasion. In fact, it's nice to alternate through the day even, and that's what lockers are for! :)

Here's another OM-D sample (I've snuck a few in to this thread already, and my photostream on Flickr has many more):

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8532/8472490303_bae54a8acc_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/brettkiger/8472​490303/  (external link)
Dinner and a Sci-Fi Movie (external link) by Brett Kiger (external link), on Flickr

flickr (external link)
Brett Kiger Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tempest68
Senior Member
Avatar
980 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 4
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Manchester, PA
     
Feb 14, 2013 22:15 |  #1992

kshark wrote in post #15611380 (external link)
The OM-D is an amazing camera for Disney. The body and lenses are so small, and the image quality is still VERY good. I've done two trips with just the OM-D and a few lenses in a small Domke bag. If the goal is to travel light and still bring back quality photos, this is the way to go. That being said, I still like the option to shoot the big camera (5D3) for ultimate quality and shallow DoF on occasion. In fact, it's nice to alternate through the day even, and that's what lockers are for! :)

Here's another OM-D sample (I've snuck a few in to this thread already, and my photostream on Flickr has many more):

QUOTED IMAGE
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/brettkiger/8472​490303/  (external link)
Dinner and a Sci-Fi Movie (external link) by Brett Kiger (external link), on Flickr

Glad to hear from someone that has done it that it does work well. I'm just an enthusiast, not a paid pro. But I've even been reading from some pros that have started using (if not switching entirely) to m4/3 for their work (portrait and event photographers [non-sports]). Back when I first jumped on the DSLR bandwagon with a Rebel XT, you needed a DSLR and fast glass to handle low light. Since then it's amazing how good the high ISO handling is on both DSLRs, recent mirrorless cameras, and even some fixed lens cameras. If I could just get someone to buy my Sigma 70-200mm OS for the right price, I'd have what I need to jump in to the mirrorless world.


Jim
Canon: EOS 3, 40mm f2.8 STM, 85mm f1.8 USM. Voigtlander: R3A, 28mm F2.8 SL II, Nokton 40mm f1.4, 50mm f2 Heliar.
Nikon: SB-25. Yongnuo: YN565EX, YN-622C transceiver (x2)
Sony: A7S, a6000, 24-240mm f3.5-6.3 G, Nissin i40.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
I ­ am ­ mikey
Member
Avatar
95 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Redding,CA
     
Feb 15, 2013 15:11 |  #1993

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8371/8473792847_ee6bf8fa84_o.jpg



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
chugger93
Goldmember
Avatar
1,204 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Likes: 57
Joined Nov 2009
Location: Washington MI
     
Feb 15, 2013 15:21 as a reply to  @ I am mikey's post |  #1994

that looks like a long line....is that recent? I'm going there next weekend.


Jon | JMBPhotography
-------------
5D MK II / 5D MK III --- 24L II | 50L | 135L | Canon 85 F/1.8 | 430 EX II/Yongnou 560 Speedlites | Manfrotto 055XPROB Pro Tripod

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KCmike
Goldmember
Avatar
2,371 posts
Gallery: 624 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 4646
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Kansas City
     
Feb 15, 2013 15:34 |  #1995

Great capture here.


Sony A7riii / Canon 6D, 16-35L f/4, 24-105L f4, 85 f/1.8, 50 f/1.8, EF70-300ISii

Flickr (external link)
Instagram (external link)
Mike Day Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,024,593 views & 1,210 likes for this thread
Official Disney Parks Thread
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Urban Life & Travel 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is umeiri
859 guests, 196 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.