Messages

1

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Best view points for Grand Canyon Photography

« on: August 02, 2012, 10:33:24 AM »

Not sure if this is the right forum but there doesnt seem to be one for places and situations arther then gear.
In a couple of weeks I'll be making my trip down to Arizona... I'll be spending a couple of nights at the Grand Canyon South Rim.
Does anybody know which viewpoints are best and at which times of day?
We are going in an RV so will be using the shuttle bus and feet to get around mainly because taking the rv to all the view points would be a pain... also the wife and kids wont want to be driving back and forth to view points at sunrise and sunet!
Any advice you guys have would be appreciated
Thanks

2

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: DX0 Mark Canon 5D MkIII Review

« on: April 19, 2012, 10:20:43 AM »

I cant seem to access DXO to get text for what I mean but I remember something about DXO's low light score being highest ISO that certain levels are still maintained at and one of those is I believe DR>9ev, so perhaps with the 5d3 sensor having lower dr it drops below their threshold figure at a lower iso than the d800 thus making the d800 appear to be better in low light by their measurement?
 
As I say I cant seem to access dxo to verify this... fanboys of both kinds will be hammering the site right now I should imagine...

3

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Recall?

« on: April 12, 2012, 07:04:55 PM »

Hi All

Maybe they discovered as some did on launch day it's missing about 12 megapixels

Do us all a favor and leave this forum. This used to a place where constructive conversations were held. Now it's filled with ignored flamers.

Oh please. Lighten up or do us all a favour and leave this forum. We are only allowed constructive comments and no humour? Truth to be told, 95% of the contributions are noise; live with it. At least this one was funny.

+1
Well you arent ignoring the "ignored flamers" are you?
It is possible to have constructive conversations with humor... well for those capable of humor anyways...
 

4

EOS Bodies / Re: I am done with B&H

« on: April 12, 2012, 05:10:08 PM »

I have to say it's kind funny that I couldn't take photos inside a Photo store.

Ha ha... I hope you don't take same attitude of trying to do "the stores type of thing" in other types of shops like gun shops or sex shops :-)

5

EOS Bodies / Re: Why do i have these horrible pixelated regions in my 5DIII images?

« on: April 09, 2012, 11:16:28 PM »

Try printing it and see if you still get the banding. I experienced similar on screen banding in the clouds on the pano stitch image below when I was editing it in CS5 and Lightroom, although the copy I have online to attach here doesnt actually seem to show it as its been reduced too much.
It vanished on printing, I chopped it into 3 parts and printed each at 20x30 inches.
I think it was due to the software reducing the size to screen and maybe monitor lacking the color depth of the image/print.

6

EOS Bodies / Re: Lloyd Chambers Review of 5d3

« on: March 31, 2012, 02:24:25 PM »

I have to say I agree with him....

Lloyd:

Conclusions

Link?

7

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Cancelled my D800 pre-order... !!!

« on: March 31, 2012, 02:23:17 PM »

Don't get me wrong, I am a Canon fans but really wish 5d3 had a D800 sensor!

Now that would be a great camera for me!

8

Video & Movie / Re: 5DMkIII film shot in SoHo, NYC

« on: March 31, 2012, 02:17:18 PM »

Nice job... Love the focus transitions.

9

Lenses / Re: Patent: A new 16-35 f/2.8 or Faster Concept?

« on: March 31, 2012, 02:10:41 PM »

A 16-35/2.8 is likely to be similar in cost, weight and issues to the current one. It would also be more expensive than the 16-35/2.8 II if it fixed sharpness/field curvature.

The cost may be more if the price increase from the 24-70mm to the 24-70mm mark II is anything to go by.

10

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon smarter than we think

« on: March 29, 2012, 09:32:19 PM »

I own a 7D, several primes, 2 L lenses, 2x583EX2's, Elinchrom 500W strobes, and now am buying the 5D3.  But you know what?  Still my coffee set up costs more than my photo gear put together.

That must be one expensive coffee machine!

Actually, for coffee what is considered most important (aside from fresh beans) is the quality of the grinder.  This isn't the same grinder I have but I have a similar:  http://www.chriscoffee.com/products/home/grinders/mazzer_super_jolly_electronic

Some of the better home espresso machines will also easily cost more than the MD3.

Those are my two hobbies.  I'm a coffeegeek and I like photography.  Some day I hope to be good at both (I'm good at neither at the time).

Perhaps if you drank less coffee you'd have steadier hands for your photography
Can't say I've ever heard someone refer to themselves as a coffeegeek before... Start the brand! Combine your two loves and start shooting shots for CoffeeGeek you could get them made into T-Shirts and iPhone cases on RedBubble!
Ah... just burst my own bubble and googled it... http://coffeegeek.com/ brand is already taken I'm afraid... Ah well... the good ones usually are taken...

11

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3

« on: March 29, 2012, 05:42:05 PM »

I think the problem with the 5D Mark III is not that its a bad camera...
if you think it is, then you are not qualified to be taking photos.

The problem is that currently Canon no longer have a high megapixel offering.
What most of the replies here do not realize is that there are print sizes between
12x18 and billboards... such as 24x36 and 36x48, that 22mp simply is not enough for.

Theres also the problem that most photographers do not come from a print
background and don't really understand that there is a huge difference between 300ppi
and 400ppi printing. Its not so much about whether or not your clients can see it, or
whether the general viewer can see it. It is about striving for more than "just okay."

Just because they do not consciously see it, does not mean that no points are
added unconsciously to their first impression of your work. Go out and find a print sample
book that has 300ppi vs 400ppi photos and then tell me if you don't see a difference.
400ppi looks like a USM sharpened photo on paper as if it were a screen.
Its really something else.

A 12x18 print at 400ppi is around 34.5mp. That size is pretty common to see in
photos that run an entire spread... including the bleed.

Keep in mind that the typical commercial printers you have at home, or your local
print house printers are not able to create something of this quality. Not all 400ppi prints
are equal, I'm talking about commercial, large scale presses.

Interpolation really isnt a solution as much as its just a temporary fix. If you
cannot tell the difference between high res photo and an interpolated photo, then
your attention to detail is lacking... I really question the quality of your photos as well.
Sure you can make a ton of money being "just okay," but we're talking about
achieve more than that.

Resolution does not make a photo better, but bad resolution really takes away
from a photo. That argument that people are not going to look at a poster up close
is really, really false. Every time I put a poster up, the first thing anyone does
is look at it up close... as long as they can get to it.

Sometimes photographers also forget that there is typography set on the posters
as well. These are vectors so naturally they are super sharp and high resolution. Put
that together photo and all of a sudden the photo doesnt look quite as good.

Don't get me wrong, almost all of the people complaining about resolution have
no idea what I'm talking about, nor do they have access to print such large and high
resolution prints. I'm just saying, don't write resolution off for the rest of us that
actually want to be perfectionists.

Canon sure went crazy on fixing AF on the 5D Mark III, but I fear that
they've forgotten what made the original 5D2 so popular... I see the 5D3 as
more of a logical next step to the 7D... not the 5D2.

Very much +1

12

EOS Bodies / Re: This web site is making me question why I lurk here

« on: March 29, 2012, 05:38:22 PM »

Why do I need another look? Isnt that what I was saying?

What you were writing, as I recall, is that the 5DIII was more expensive than you expected yet it came with less-than-you-expected improvements.

So, pray tell,

I didnt say it was more expensive than I expected or that I expected more improvements.
I was looking at the reasons why people may have been disappointed with the 5d3 and its price in response to the OP's question. Its called looking at things from another persons point of view... it is possible to do that without ridiculing their position or talking about unicorns...

So, pray tell,

This is where I stopped reading... I dont see any point in talking to people like you. I dont know why I am even bothering to reply this much to be honest

13

EOS Bodies / Re: This web site is making me question why I lurk here

« on: March 29, 2012, 05:04:53 PM »

See how easy it is to get pulled into the flow... 

14

EOS Bodies / Re: This web site is making me question why I lurk here

« on: March 29, 2012, 04:59:02 PM »

I think the 5d3 would have got a better reception from a lot of people if it was cheaper. When the price comes in at more than you expected you expect to get more than you expected.

For many people it seems the much awaited 5d3 being an much improved 5d2 not a revolutionary camera was a disappointment enough. The increased price didnt help them with that feeling at all.

You might want to step back and take another look.
The 5DII already had superlative image quality and low light capabilities. The 5DIII improves on them, but (of course!) it doesn't turn it into a medium format camera.

Why do I need another look? Isnt that what I was saying? Improvement from 5d2 to 5d3 rather than a revolutionary leap?
The fervent over defending of the 5d3 on this site is as bad a the 5d3 bashers...

You do realize, don't you, that the celebrated 1N and 3 (film) cameras ``only'' did 6 FPS, and only with a battery booster / grip? And they had 24 (or 36) image buffers, after which you had to swap out the film canister in order to clear the buffer? And that the 1DsIII only does 5 FPS? And none of them had the 5DIII's autofocus system. Or high ISO performance, or megapickle count, or or or or....
I mean, really. What more could a photographer want? A flying unicorn pony to carry your 12-1200 f/1.0L IV IS?

Cheers,

b&

Are you really releasing this pent up tirade about film cameras and unicorns because I said that as a new version of the 5d2's line the 5d3 was improvement not revolutionary? The 5d2 was a game changer the 5d3 improves on its weaknesses... what is so provacative about that?

Of course I must be deluded and dumb because I dared say anything other than the 5d3 is the most amazingest ever possible camera. I didnt even say anything negative about it.
Do you want to use this as an excuse to brag about your wonderful printer again? You must be soooo superior to those of us who only sell our prints at 20x30 inch.
This forum really is getting screwed up...
 

15

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon smarter than we think

« on: March 29, 2012, 04:32:01 PM »

I own a 7D, several primes, 2 L lenses, 2x583EX2's, Elinchrom 500W strobes, and now am buying the 5D3.  But you know what?  Still my coffee set up costs more than my photo gear put together.

That must be one expensive coffee machine!