Messages

346

Animal Kingdom / Re: Birds with attitude

« on: July 31, 2012, 02:53:14 PM »

Took my 7D with me to my regular watering hole at Skelwith Bridge

This young Robin seems to be looking for some snacks and poised to swoop

It's actually a male chaffinch and they often display that sort of behaviour in public areas, they can be quite bold, sitting on chair backs and chirping to be fed. Nicely captured.

347

Lenses / Re: Canon at the London Summer Olympics

« on: July 31, 2012, 02:42:04 PM »

The 200-400 is not as massive as I thought it would be, looks pretty hand holdable to me.

It's definitely handholdable. I had a go with one at Focus on Imaging in March (the only one in Europe at the time) and it felt to be a similar weight to my 300mm f/2.8 IS, even with a 1D MkIV attached to it. It was difficult to judge the exact weight for sure, as I think the balance was better on a 1 series camera, which always helps and I didn't have the 300 with me for a direct comparison. I probably held it to my eye for a couple of minutes without any problems at all.

348

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5DM3 is not doing all I hoped...wanting to upgrade to 1DX

« on: July 30, 2012, 05:43:21 PM »

I actually found in some quick tests, that I was able to focus in light so low, that the high ISO was pretty much too noisy to use, which is a first for any camera I've owned, usually the AF falls apart first. While it was only on stationary targets (apart from some slight wind) and darker subjects were a problem due to lack of contrast, I was impressed. It did depend on the AF selection though. I think I was using single point (as opposed to spot or point assist). Light was low enough for me to drop to ISO 25,600 and f/4 @ 1/125th handheld (420mm) and still almost a stop underexposed. It was extremely noisy (so not alot of detail left), but it seemed to be in focus, although it was so dark it was difficult to tell which point of the flowers and grasses I'd focused on. To be honest, I don't know that many (if any?) cameras would be able to focus any better in such low light and few would produce cleaner images (D3s perhaps), so I'd definitely add a voice to renting first. Another possible option would be trade-in, it's worth asking anyway.

349

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1D X ISO Shots

« on: July 30, 2012, 05:26:43 PM »

I would say there is marginally less noise in the 1D X, but nothing to really use as a reason for going with the 1D X and only visible side by side. However, to me, the colour reproduction is better in the 1D X, as the MkIII has a slight yellow tinge. Again though, that would be easy to correct and could be done with a preset to save time. Most probably wouldn't benefit from the 1D X, but those that need the features (e.g. weather sealing, speed etc.) would happily pay the extra. AF accuracy may be similar, but the reported increased AF/tracking speed of the 1D X could be the difference in getting the shot, which alone would be worth the extra to pros that have to rely on it to get the shot.

350

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5d III - Number of Shutter Actuations?

« on: July 30, 2012, 02:54:30 PM »

Looks like what I remembered seeing was actually the number of images taken with the current battery.

351

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Flash in animal eyes

« on: July 29, 2012, 05:08:50 AM »

I don't know of any post processing you can do, short of cloning from somewhere else, but using off camera flash should avoid the problem.

352

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D3 for landscapes

« on: July 29, 2012, 05:04:38 AM »

I finally got to do some landscapes.


Curving Rock Shelf by Kernuak, on Flickr

Floral Kilve Sunset by Kernuak, on Flickr

Pink Kilve Pill Sunset by Kernuak, on Flickr

Nice shots, what lens did you use?

Thanks, they were taken with the 24mm f/1.4 MkII and 2 and 3 stop Lee ND grads (the last may have had just the 3 stop).

353

Lenses / Re: Filters

« on: July 28, 2012, 05:35:22 PM »

The Singh Ray reverse grad is very useful and something that Lee can't match. It is the one filter I miss after switching from Cokin P mount to Lee. I never had any colour cast problems and pricewise, when the exchange rate between pound and dollar was good, they were on a par, although they are probably now more expensive.

354

Lenses / Re: About to jump into the canon boat!

« on: July 28, 2012, 05:30:06 PM »

Everyone has their own style, but I find 17mm too wide on full frame, although I used to use the 17-40 all the time on crop for landscapes. Also, filter use will start to be an issue, even at 24mm, if you use a second adaptor to allow combined use of CPL and ND grads, then a 100mm filter set will be visible in frame. I would therefore lean towards the 24-105 instead of the 17-40.

355

Software & Accessories / Re: Lee Filter Setup

« on: July 28, 2012, 02:29:27 PM »

Last year, I had to wait 9 months for my filter set, but a couple of days ago, someone I know got her big stopper in a couple of days, so things are obviously improving.

356

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: EOS 1D X and Lightroom 3.6

« on: July 28, 2012, 02:27:40 PM »

Thanks Kernuak.  Thats interesting.  I have not tried this, out of fear of the loss, but most of what i have read indicates that the presets are not carried over.  Maybe this was the case with LR4 and has been corrected in LR4.1.  I guess i should just save the current set and take the plunge.

It could just be that I have very few presets. The ones that are important to me are the metadata presets and they are carried over. The 7D sharpening preset also carried over. One thing to be aware of, the shadows/highlights sliders and lens correction sliders are different, so take a bit of getting used to. One option would be to download a trial to see how you get on.

357

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Post Your Summer Beach Shots here

« on: July 28, 2012, 02:03:45 PM »

Curving Rock Shelf by Kernuak, on Flickr

358

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D3 for landscapes

« on: July 28, 2012, 06:45:23 AM »

I finally got to do some landscapes.


Curving Rock Shelf by Kernuak, on Flickr

Floral Kilve Sunset by Kernuak, on Flickr

Pink Kilve Pill Sunset by Kernuak, on Flickr

359

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: question about d800 -vs- focal length "rule"

« on: July 28, 2012, 05:19:09 AM »

I've read that with the d800 you need the best lenses to really reap the rewards of all those megapickles. I guess that's probably true. I've read and seen tests showing it's very good noise performance. Cool. But I've also read that you need to go over the 1x focal length "rule". Something like 2x or i even read 3x somewhere. wow. Is this proving true? It just seems to me that if those new "rules" are correct, i would think that many times i would have to bump up my ISO settings to deal with that. So i could possibly be running a stop or 2 higher than i would using something else. like a 5dmk3 or whatever camera of less resolution. That would really change things. Now that could be wrong and everything is just peachy at 1x focal length. That's fine too. No agenda here. I'm mostly a Canon shooter and I've never thought about swapping. I'm just curious about this stuff.
  BTW- I didn't know where to post this. i hope this is a suitable place.

I can't comment on the D800 specifically, as I don't own it and am unlikely to (although a work colleaugue has one, so we may do a comparison one day). However, my experience with the 7D and its high pixel density shows that it is much less forgiving of "errors". It does emphasise motion blur that may not have been previously visible and also shows up some of the lesser lenses, so I imagine there will be similar problems with the D800, particularly if you're shooting something which requires sharp corners and the lens falls off badly in the corners. That said, the pixel density of the D800 is less than the 7D, so it probably wouldn't be emphasised as much, apart from the full frame sensor using the worst part (corners) of lenses.

360

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Lovin' my 5d Mark III

« on: July 28, 2012, 05:06:39 AM »

I have had my mark III for about two weeks now and have been shooting a lot of hummingbird and macro shots.  My previous camera was a 40d which I thought took excellent pictures.... that is until now!  While I still think it takes great pictures, the 5d is just amazing.  I was really worried about losing the crop factor for some pics, especially the birds.  However, the Mark III more than makes up for this with it's low light capability and the substantial bump in resolution.  I have been amazed at how much I can crop some of my full frame pics and they remain excellent. I am getting shots now that I never dreamed of with the 40d, and the 61 point autofocus, don't even get me started on how much I already love that!  Anyone with a crop body that has concerns about upgrading and losing the crop factor, don't worry about it if you upgrade to the Mark III.  I can't pick up my 40d anymore, it just can't compare. I was going to keep it so I would have two bodies, but I'm starting to think that it may go and I may buy another full frame, possibly a Mark II. 

Yeah hah I bet you are loving the AF, soooo much better than the 40D AF! And MFA and video and so on.

And yeah you don't really lose all that much reach since the 5D3 is like 8.7MP APS-C and the 40D is 10MP APS-C so it's not a super huge difference.

You would notice the difference compared to a 7D though:
(7D top, then 5D2, then 5D3 then 7D again)
(click image to see it 100% view)

The 7D does have a real reach advantage.

I'm not shooting studio pics of bills though. I'm usually shooting outside in varying conditions of low light and will gladly give up some reach for the III's great low light capability. The 7d does not match the III in high ISO performance. Get out and shoot "real" pictures instead of studio shots trying to nit pick every little detail.

When you're used to the reach of the 7D compared to full frame, then it is a real concern. The 7D is significantly better than the 40D in all areas, I actually went from a 40D to a 7D. The AF system is a big improvement and it gives you an extra stop in noise free images. However, the AF system on the 5D MkIII is another big step up and gives you at least another two stops and probably more (I'm still exploring the limits). I think the improved image quality would enable the use of extenders (or 2x instead of 1.4x) and still get as good or better image quality than the 7D. Not ideal, but it does offer some compromises that don't amount to getting longer lenses. The biggest problem might be reduced AF speed.