Love the layout, I do have a couple of issues though.

Firstly my criticism is assuming this is a business page/portfolio and not just a way of sharing images.

Contact info without clicking any links is the norm for a business page, include your email and work tel no in the upper right above the menus if possible.

Are you a motorsport photographer? are you a wedding photographer? are you a studio/portrait tog? its nearly impossible to tell as you have all the different sections in equal measure. Your pictures are all high quality but people looking for someone to hire are generally looking for a specialist in one area, best keeping your main area you work in front and centre on the home page, by all means keep the additional sections in the top right menu so people can see you arent a one trick pony and have wide ranging skills, but if you are 99% a motorsport tog and that pays the bills keep your 10 best images for your front page dedicated to motorsport rather than the 6 category pics.

I would make your bio a little less personal and a bit more to the point, its basically a thinly veiled advert. Include your name, your age (dont include age if you are young like early 20s, some idiots mistake this for inexperience) your home country/city, your current home country/city, your work experience, your published material, what sets you apart from other togs (passion, drive, artistic experience blah blah blah), your ability to travel for work, can your driving license cover you in other countries, other languages spoken etc. You want someone to be able to glance quickly through your bio and get all the info required without having to dig for it.

Interests looks fine to me overall, maybe mention to check your blog for more personal stuff etc (assuming that you update it).

Social buttons, start a fb business page, a twitter page, instagram page, maybe a flickr and ello too if you really like social media, link at least FB/Twitter/IG via social buttons on the main page.

Your work is great, and the site is too, just needs to be a little more "focused" and to the point if its for business.

I just discovered this thread, I've decided I wanted to try my hand at photography. So I would like to ask for some advice, but I legit know close to nothing about photography.

I'm looking for something with good resolution, good for quick movements(I like to take photos of people), but relatively easy operating systems(I say relatively, I understand I'll have to learn a bit regardless).

I'm a noob at this.. so any advice/pointing me in the direction of learning more would be GREATLY appreciated. Looking to spend $500-$750 on a camera to get me started.

Thanks

Mk III all the way. Best go-to pro camera around, IMO. The 5Ds and 5Dsr are great cameras for their purposes, but I'd still go for the Mk III.
Or the Mk IV

I've recently started shooting more videos and I'm currently deciding whether to buy the Sony A7s ii or Canon 5D Mark IV - both very expensive, but great cameras. Waiting to see if I can get a deal on one somewhere.

I can tell you flat out they're aren't any deals on them. There was a $200 adorama gift card with the A7SII on black friday, that's the biggest deal you'll ever see. Why don't you buy a GH4 if you're doing video?

I currently have an a6000 w/ Sony 35mm + Rokinon 12mm.

I've been thinking long and hard about what my next camera should be.
To me, my main priority is to get something more user friendly regarding controls and menu options.
I'm more focused towards street photography, landscapes, cityscapes, architecture, and astrophotography.

I've been thinking about :
A) Fuji X-T2 if I go mirrorless along with their Fujinon lenses
B) Canon 5D Mk III due to it's value right now and getting into the Canon lens system
C) Wait for A7III, for it's compactness, likely touchscreen and 4K. But the controls and menus will likely be inferior to A and B.

What do you guys think? Pls respond, you guys never respond…

I've recently started shooting more videos and I'm currently deciding whether to buy the Sony A7s ii or Canon 5D Mark IV - both very expensive, but great cameras. Waiting to see if I can get a deal on one somewhere.

I can tell you flat out they're aren't any deals on them. There was a $200 adorama gift card with the A7SII on black friday, that's the biggest deal you'll ever see. Why don't you buy a GH4 if you're doing video?

This. A7SII is still the low light king if that is critical though.

You're looking to buy a "pro" body. The friendliness of the controls are going to be determined by your willingness to put in the work to learn them.

The Fuji is going to be far and away the best choice for street because of its small size. You don't want to be drawing attention to yourself. Fuji's support is the best in the industry. I bought a used X-E1 about a month ago to adapt M42 lenses to, and Fuji is still releasing firmware updates for the camera. The X-Trans sensor does a great job of rendering colors. The only big downside is that the camera isn't the best low light performer.

The Canon 5D mk III is in the same price range as the Nikon D810. 22.3 MP vs 36.3 MP. The D810 has better low light performance and is going to outperform the 5D in landscapes, cityscapes, architecture, and astrophotography. Plus, with how poorly the Canon 5D mk IV has been received, I'd be worried about the future of your upgrade path within the Canon system.

Sony is going to be the worst choice. Full frame mirrorless doesn't provide any size benefit once you mount a lens to it. The short flange distance of the e-mount makes it impossible to design good wide angle lenses for the camera. Since you're going to be wanting wide angle lenses, I'd stay away from Sony.

http://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sony...fatal-mistake/



The Canon 5D mk IV is a terrible choice for video. Canon has been hamstringing their DSLRs after the 5D mk II to protect their video cameras. The crop factor, codec, and lack of 4k video out makes the camera completely worthless for video.

Take a look at the Panasonic Lumix cameras. The G7, GH4, and G85, are less expensive and better received by video shooters. The difference in cost can be used on mics, batteries, memory cards, tripods, external recorders, sliders, video heads, a gimbal, shoulder rig, lighting, etc. There is no getting around the fact that you have to have the correct gear to get specific types of shots.

I've seen some people using the Sony A7S ii w/ f2/28, plus converter which looks to produce some quality footage.

You're looking to buy a "pro" body. The friendliness of the controls are going to be determined by your willingness to put in the work to learn them.

The Fuji is going to be far and away the best choice for street because of its small size. You don't want to be drawing attention to yourself. Fuji's support is the best in the industry. I bought a used X-E1 about a month ago to adapt M42 lenses to, and Fuji is still releasing firmware updates for the camera. The X-Trans sensor does a great job of rendering colors. The only big downside is that the camera isn't the best low light performer.

The Canon 5D mk III is in the same price range as the Nikon D810. 22.3 MP vs 36.3 MP. The D810 has better low light performance and is going to outperform the 5D in landscapes, cityscapes, architecture, and astrophotography. Plus, with how poorly the Canon 5D mk IV has been received, I'd be worried about the future of your upgrade path within the Canon system.

Sony is going to be the worst choice. Full frame mirrorless doesn't provide any size benefit once you mount a lens to it. The short flange distance of the e-mount makes it impossible to design good wide angle lenses for the camera. Since you're going to be wanting wide angle lenses, I'd stay away from Sony.

http://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sony...fatal-mistake/



The Canon 5D mk IV is a terrible choice for video. Canon has been hamstringing their DSLRs after the 5D mk II to protect their video cameras. The crop factor, codec, and lack of 4k video out makes the camera completely worthless for video.

Take a look at the Panasonic Lumix cameras. The G7, GH4, and G85, are less expensive and better received by video shooters. The difference in cost can be used on mics, batteries, memory cards, tripods, external recorders, sliders, video heads, a gimbal, shoulder rig, lighting, etc. There is no getting around the fact that you have to have the correct gear to get specific types of shots.

They're also using an external recorder to capture s-log and color grade the footage. That's another $1.5k for an external recorder.

What kind of video are you going to be shooting? Are you going to do vlog style stuff like you have on your YouTube link?

What gear do you currently have? Do you have sliders, fluid heads, tripods, monopods, mics, lights, etc? Those are going to be significantly better to have than an expensive camera body. The camera is the least important piece of equipment.

How much video shooting do you currently do?

He wants a FF camera though. I'd say the 5D mark IV is decent and will improve with magic lantern firmware updates. For all the grief canon gets its is still leaps and bounds above nikon for video. Their sensor technology still lags behind Nikon but it is not that drastic with the 5D Mark IV.

If he wants FF and Video his only choice is Canon or Sony.

They're also using an external recorder to capture s-log and color grade the footage. That's another $1.5k for an external recorder.

What kind of video are you going to be shooting? Are you going to do vlog style stuff like you have on your YouTube link?

What gear do you currently have? Do you have sliders, fluid heads, tripods, monopods, mics, lights, etc? Those are going to be significantly better to have than an expensive camera body. The camera is the least important piece of equipment.

How much video shooting do you currently do?

Mk III all the way. Best go-to pro camera around, IMO. The 5Ds and 5Dsr are great cameras for their purposes, but I'd still go for the Mk III.
Or the Mk IV

I've recently started shooting more videos and I'm currently deciding whether to buy the Sony A7s ii or Canon 5D Mark IV - both very expensive, but great cameras. Waiting to see if I can get a deal on one somewhere.

The Canon 5D mk III is in the same price range as the Nikon D810. 22.3 MP vs 36.3 MP. The D810 has better low light performance and is going to outperform the 5D in landscapes, cityscapes, architecture, and astrophotography. Plus, with how poorly the Canon 5D mk IV has been received, I'd be worried about the future of your upgrade path within the Canon system.

Sony is going to be the worst choice. Full frame mirrorless doesn't provide any size benefit



The Canon 5D mk IV is a terrible choice for video. Canon has been hamstringing their DSLRs after the 5D mk II to protect their video cameras. The crop factor, codec, and lack of 4k video out makes the camera completely worthless for video.

Like it.
I'd prefer a tighter crop and a bit less sky though.
Just saying.

">