Messages

1

Landscape / Re: My Personal Best Landscape Shots - Advice/Critizism accecpted

« on: April 01, 2013, 08:08:29 PM »

why f8? Could use f5.6
why ISO 200? using f5.6, you can use iso100
light is a bit on the harsh side, due to time of day and altitude (guessing).  Consider a circular polarizer or a variable nd filter or ideally own both.

Why not use f/8?  I shoot a lot of landscapes and rarely use a larger aperture than f/8 - am usually between f/8 and f/16. 

You have to be careful which VND you use as many of them leave colour casts.  yes these can be removed, but you will remove not just the cast, but also other colours at the same time. 

2

Reviews / Re: My full street photography kit and why my 5dmk3 is perfect for street shooting.

« on: March 31, 2013, 08:59:04 AM »

You can do street photography with a DSLR.  Sometimes you might have to stay in one spot for a while so people adjust to you being there, and you fade in to the background in people's eyes.  I find that the thing that makes me stand out more is when I have a hood on a 24 - 70 lens.  The hood marks you out as 'pro'.  Canon's longer lenses being white don't help you fade into the background though!

3

Reviews / Re: My full street photography kit and why my 5dmk3 is perfect for street shooting.

« on: March 28, 2013, 08:57:14 AM »

I'll agree that in street photography, standard lengths are better as I always see street photography as including the environment the person is in.  It's not a simple photograph, a street photograph is in the street so its about the person's relationship with the background at least as much as it is about the person. 

4

EOS Bodies / Re: Big Megapixel Development Announcement in the Fall? [CR2]

« on: March 25, 2013, 08:38:55 AM »

I have both the 5D mk III and the Nikon D800.  The Canon is great at low light, and is a perfect camera for gigs with its real silent shutter.  The Nikon has great DR. End of.  I shoot mainly landscapes, so I want good low ISO performance.  The mk III forces me to use noise reduction at ISO 100 - 400.  This is a terminal disease for me, so I don't use the mmiii for very much at all now.  The mk III is dead in the water as far as I am concerned because of the noise banding in shadows.

You must have a bad 5DIII, for my landscapes it's been quite amazing and the appalling Nikon Live view effort puts me off any Nikon DSLR for landscape work. The D800 might have less banding and slightly more DR, but bracketing and digital blending is still required for high contrast imagery. If you are using NR on your 5DIII, then I would suggest your camera is out of spec, are using poor metering technique or you are rushing your landscape work. If you are pulling so much out of the shadows, then there is obviously a meeting issue or you are cutting courners with your bracketing and blending.
This image below, I combined the foreground and sky exposures into one image, I had to wait for the sun to kiss the foreground but the sun position was then wrong. So taking the two images created a better photo and one which looks balanced for exposure and has a stong visual feel. The difference between 30+ and 20+ mp is mute here and I get to utilise the camera's low 100 iso virtues because the 2 source images were taken using the camera's optimal performance.

I rarely have to use multiple shots with the D800 whereas I often had to with the mk III.  In my experience I can also get more detail from the shadows without getting the noise banding.  I agree that the Live View is far better on the Canon than on the D800, but then I very rarely use Live View in any case as I still prefer to use the viewfinder.  I'll often shoot handheld which is something I do with my medium format 645D also.

My experience:

                                        Canon   5D mkIII                Nikon  D800       

Live view                                 better                                           worse

Silent shooting                        much better                                  hardly much quieter than normal shooting

Dynamic Range                       worse                                            Much better

Low ISO noise                         much worse                                   Much better

Shadow recovery                     much worse                                   Much better


I'm no fanboi.  I judge from my images.  The Mk III can take some great images, but the pattern noise killed it for me.  That being said, I haven't yet sold all my L glass, so I am keeping my head in.  I operate a two camera set up: D800 and the 40 mp Pentax 645D.  The resolution isn't the be all and end all.  BUt is good to have the ability to print to about the same size with both.  The D800 is the best of all three for dynamic range in my experience, but the 645D gives a different feeling.  It also doesn't give me the pattern noise that the Canon does.  And I'm not the only one reporting that.

5

EOS Bodies / Re: Big Megapixel Development Announcement in the Fall? [CR2]

« on: March 25, 2013, 05:52:58 AM »

Nikon suffered from that until some younger blood finally got to the top.  The trouble is, they also need to make a profit.  Innovative ideas do not keep a company in business if they don't turn a profit.
 
Nikon is building a giant plant in Laos to open this fall, apparently hoping to ultimately get their costs down.  They also (I think) understand that the warmer weather means more floods and they need to have plan(t) B.  I hope it works out for them, lower prices are certainly welcome, and Canon is in the drivers seat right now as far as cost of production is concerned.  They drop prices and still make a nice profit.

Great analysis. One reason Nikon has problems with profits is they tried too hard to displace Canon as market leader. But Nikon must also improve their quality control. Obviously, their standard has taken quite a hit recently with the D800 left side misfocus and D600 sensor debris problems...

I think Nikon has far worse issues than a few tech bugs. Their last generation of DSLR's all robbed each other's sales and divided their own markets...a sure sign of a panic with their pro cameras. The D700 totally divided the D3 sales. Who would buy a D3 after a D700 was launched? Practically the same specs for half the size and cost...lol. Nikon was so desperate to grab market share they lost their long term perspective. When the next batch of cameras came out, the D4 wasn't properly shaken down and has had loads of tech issues. The D800 isn't the same genre/spec division of the D700 which has really peaved off a lot of Nikon shooters. Many Pro photographers (whom Nikon were courting) ditch Canon, sold a lot of kit and re-invested in Nikon glass...only to find that the next round Nikon wanted them to buy D4's at a huge price increase over the D800. Most of those pros looked at the D800 and considered it to have inappropriate specs. The very reason for them to consider Nikon (low mp, hish iso and the best AF in the business) were no longer valid and many have quietly gone back to Canon. While the D800 is a very innovative camera, it's not right for the buying market it's in. Nikon needed a true D700 replacement and hasn't delivered. The 5DIII is easily the most versatile DSLR ever made and the new ex 600 rt flash is simply the best flash gun ever made. Nikon have seriously upset their user base and handed the game back to Canon. If I was a Canon to Nikon switcher...I certainly wouldn't trust Nikon again.

I have both the 5D mk III and the Nikon D800.  The Canon is great at low light, and is a perfect camera for gigs with its real silent shutter.  The Nikon has great DR. End of.  I shoot mainly landscapes, so I want good low ISO performance.  The mk III forces me to use noise reduction at ISO 100 - 400.  This is a terminal disease for me, so I don't use the mmiii for very much at all now.  The mk III is dead in the water as far as I am concerned because of the noise banding in shadows. 

6

United Kingdom & Ireland / Re: Jessops close to administration?

« on: January 09, 2013, 03:46:23 PM »

I'm only 23 and I wasn't around 20 years when people tell me Jessops for more for the professional photographer as well as enthusiasts. Currently it is easy to tell from looking in their shops their market is now the enthusiast. Their sales assistants are of a similar breed to those found in large technology stores such as PC World, Comet and now in administration Curries and Dixons.

The same process has happened to the outdoor leisure shops - their main focus is the middle section of the market - it is more profitable to sell 500x £250 cameras a year than 50x £2000 products.

I must say London Camera Exchange is very different and a much better place to buy as even their sales assistants have a genuine interest in photography.

I think also the presence of online shops drive the higher margins found in places like Jessops to pay for unit rent and staff salaries which in turn puts off professional photographers due to markup on products. It's a shame but something that is only going to continue into the future.

I'm now told that jessops are looking into home printing solutions - canvas etc a way to keep turning profit.

Not only do online stores not have to pay store rent, many of them like Amazon fiddle their books so they don't pay UK tax. 

7

Lenses / Re: Quick decision help: canon 24 vs zeiss 21

« on: December 07, 2012, 12:50:01 PM »

Thanks for all your thoughts.

Whilst I was very excited by the zeiss i went with the canon. It was a lens I have wanted for a long time, and I haven't even looked into the zeiss very much because I just always assumed Id never have one. So i went with what i had researched most. Plus i got the guy to know an extra £20 off, chuck in postage. And it has filters, and its weathersealed. So im happy. I think :s lol.

The best thing about both lens' is that they both hold their value so well. So if I practise manual focus on this, if i decide i prefer the colour or the slightly wider feel of the zeiss I can always sell it and buy a zeiss if the opportunity comes up again i guess!

Thanks again. I love that I can always count on this forumn for some input.

For the sake of completeness, the Zeiss lenses are shielded - they have a gasket at the back. 

8

EOS Bodies / Re: Is 22Mpx Really Enough?!!!

« on: October 26, 2012, 07:09:10 AM »

I think people get so obsessed with technology that they often forget another word starting with tech - technique.  It's not just about sharpness.  There is so much more to it than that.  I have been at exhibitions of the main photographer for Mohammad Ali and an exhibition of Cartier-Bresson's work in Seoul.  Sharpness is not the most important thing in either of their work.  Capturing the moment through technique is.

9

EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon EOS-1S the Name? [CR1]

« on: October 08, 2012, 11:26:47 PM »

i can't see it having a sensor any bigger than the present FF sensors.  The lenses won't have a big enough image circle otherwise.

10

EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon EOS-1S the Name? [CR1]

« on: October 08, 2012, 11:58:08 AM »

Three amazing camera bodies came out of Canon this past year and folks are acting like they have their heads in the sand. With all the problems Nikon has had with their flagship models, I for one am not surprised Canon hasn't had a nee jerk response to high MP frenzy. Big picture ladies. In the meantime I am going to enjoy shooting with my 5D3 for a long time to come.

If you think it's just about megapixels, you'd be sadly mistaken.  I have the D800, and I still have the 5DC 5D2 and 3.  I've sold some of my canon glass, namely my 14L II, 70 - 200 2.8 IS L I, 50 1.4 and the lens I will miss the most Zeiss 35 ZE f/2.  I used the £2500 I got to get quality Nikon glass.  It's not about the megapixels, although with my 645D I now have 2 cameras that I can print big with. It's about DR too.  I got sick and tired of having to look at chroma noise banding when shooting at 400 ISO and having to undermine the IQ of my shots with noise reduction.  For me the 5D3 was a waste of money.  Yes it's great at low light, so ideal for gig photographers and wedding photographers and the new AF performance is great.  As a predominantly landscape shooter however, I will generally shoot at low ISO and want the best DR I can get.

Would I buy a 46mp Canon?  Not sure.  I am going to hold on to the rest of my Canon gear for now and watch from the sidelines.  If Canon doesn't sort its sh1t out as far as the noise banding is concerned then all 46mp will do is make it even worse.  Yes I was disappointed at 'only' 22mp, but it wasn't the biggest disappointment for me.  DR and low ISO noise performance ruined for me what was a great camera. 

Canon needs to stop making jack of all trades cameras.  For me the 5D3 is a wedding/gig photographer's camera.  They need to have a serious look at their sensor technology and sort out low ISO performance if they want to get the best performance for low ISO landscape shooters.

11

EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon EOS-1S the Name? [CR1]

« on: October 06, 2012, 07:50:48 PM »

9000$? Why not just get a MF system then? 

How many lenses are available for MF systems?

Plenty for the Pentax medium format 645D:

I have these:

33 - 55 f/4.5

35 f/3.5
55 AW f/2.8
45 f/2.8
45 - 85 f/4.5
75 f/2.8
55 - 110 f/4.5
80 - 160 f/4.5
200 f/4
120 f/4 macro
400 f/5.6.

There are others too....

Does Pentax offer tethered shooting with the 645D?  That was the biggest problem with that camera.

Pentax has been late to the party on this one, but apparently it is now offered:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-medium-format-645-6x7-645d/195346-first-look-pentax-official-tethering-software-645d.html

Personally I bought it for landscape which was largely how it was marketed from the beginning as a medium format camera for landscape photographers.

12

EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon EOS-1S the Name? [CR1]

« on: October 06, 2012, 11:01:15 AM »

9000$? Why not just get a MF system then? 

How many lenses are available for MF systems?

Plenty for the Pentax medium format 645D:

I have these:

33 - 55 f/4.5

35 f/3.5
55 AW f/2.8
45 f/2.8
45 - 85 f/4.5
75 f/2.8
55 - 110 f/4.5
80 - 160 f/4.5
200 f/4
120 f/4 macro
400 f/5.6.

There are others too....

13

EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon EOS-1S the Name? [CR1]

« on: October 06, 2012, 10:57:31 AM »

9000$? Why not just get a MF system then? 

My thoughts exactly, that Pentax 645D looks even more tempting after this rumor.

The 645D is a fantastic camera and has just had a 30% price reduction in the UK.  has been weather tested to below -10C. 

14

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D3 vs. Nikon D600

« on: October 02, 2012, 07:58:21 AM »

I've got both the Canon 5D mk lll and the Nikon D600. Without the analysing between them, for me I bought the Nikon D600 to use while travelling, being ideal for lighter, smaller and reduced the lens weight.

My Canon lens 17-40 4L, 24-70 2.8L, 100-400 4/5.6L (also used to take the 70-200 2.8L IS, but stopped this lens a while ago due to the weight) to the Nikon lens setup of 16-35 F4 VR and 28-300 VR.

I've got a Virgin flight coming up with just 6KG handle luggage allowance and one bag only. I've been checked at the check-in and caught a couple of times, over the limit. Then having to quickly spread the weight between the hold suite cases, which I don't like letting my expensive Canon white lens going in the hold.

So for me its fit for purpose. 

Tip for travelling on airlines.  Take your camera out of your bag and wear it on the shoulder straps.  Pack it when you get on the plane (you can repack it after security if you like and then unpack it again if they check at the gate).  I fly a lot i.e. 80 flights a year mix of short and long haul and I'm often carrying a lot of gear in carryon although I pick airlines like BA who have a 23kg carryon limit (provided you can lift it yourself with no assistance).  I've never been asked to add the camera to the pack at check in.

15

EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon

« on: September 20, 2012, 09:32:05 PM »

If you folks are concerned with DR then just go back to film because film is still the king.
Dedicated 35mm scanners are quite cheap these days, you know?

Anyone who claims his gear limitations is what is holding him back from producing stunning images is a liar.

Depends on  the film.  Velvia 50 for example has very low DR.  I use various film in Medium format bodies.  Dynamic Range can be very important or not important at all.  Images from mkIII often have blocked shadows.  You end up with the choice of blowing highlights or using HDR or pushing detail from the shadows.  I prefer the latter if I must because there is only so much detail that you can get from a blown out highlight and I always shoot RAW.  HDR is hit and miss and you can lose too much contrast. 

banding chroma noise isn't acceptable to me, so I have t take action.  The mkIII is capable of taking great images but if there are shadows you want to lift, forget it.  If I had to pixel peep to see it, it wouldn't be an issue.  But I have had had it visible at web size dimensions.  For £3200 it isn't acceptable.