Yes she is gorgeous, great capture! However am I the only one in thinking the focus is sharper on the front of the camera she is holding rather than her eyes (maybe it is intentionally done like that... ) ?
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I would be interested in knowing which will happen first
1) 1D-X begins shipping
2) 5D3 is announced
My suspicion (and hope) is that the 5D3 will be a D800 competitor and will therefore be around 30 MP. I just can't see Canon letting the D800 go essentially unchallenged. Unless they cripple the AF, a 5D3 with the same sensor as the 1D-X and the AF of the 7D would cause a lot of people to seriously consider whether the 1D-X is worth twice the price. I know I would be one of them.
Hmm. Sounds like it could work. Would it make sense to try and pick up a 1d mk ii (n or not) as well in the near future? They go for next to nothing, unlike the 1ds which still fetches a grand.
Thanks so much guys for your help, that was really quick Yeah, I'm talking about the mk 1 versions of each cameras. The consensus seems to be the 5d, but there is a lot of mention of AF issues. How bad are they, will I be able to shoot sports at all? (mainly soccer, skiing, snowboarding, plus the occasional hockey, waterpolo. By occasional I mean once or twice a year, the others pretty much everyweek. And can it autofocus quick enough to take good candid shots of people, especially small children in low light?
Thanks heaps guys,
For portrait isolation consider a 135 f2 L. There are few lenses that do what the 135 can for that application at that price range. The amount of OOF Blur goes up with a longer lens for the same framing/F stop value.
Thanks for the suggestion, but I am focussing on zoom lenses as I will be using it in the same manner as the Sigma 17-50 - main travel lens. Now the Sigma definitely did not reduce the background to a total blur (even at F2., I am just trying to find out if the F4 with the longer focal length (70mm+) and full frame combination will at least match that???
I ALMOST bought a 5D Mk II today, but now I'm undecided again! For the sake of a few weeks or months, should I hold out for the Mk III (at least until the specs are confirmed, in which case I could at least make an informed decision as to which suits my needs best)? There's no doubting the Mk II is a nice camera. I handled one for the first time today, in a camera store and I have to admit I was surprised by just how solid it feels. Having grown accustomed to using a 1 series over the last six years, I thought the 5D Mk II would feel 'plasticky' and a lot lighter but that was far from the case. It felt good - a LOT better than I thought it would. If the image quality is as good as it's reputed to be, no wonder people fall in love with it (especially given the relatively low price point). The three preset buttons C1, C2, C3 also appeal to me what a good idea! Not a camera for serious sports photographers or twitchers I suspect, but for studio work or landscapes it seems like unbeatable value for money, especially at current record low prices. I'm not usually this indecisive ... but there again ... help me someone ... PLEASE!
As so many of you seem to be recommending the 70-200mm options, I've gone and a had a good look at the Canon lens lineup as a result.
You can probably tell by now that I'm not really into the idea of a big heavy tele lens, mainly due to size. I have however noticed that the 70-300 L is physically a lot shorter than the 70-200mm options. This would be one to consider in my books. What are people's thoughts on this lens?
As mentioned before - I very rarely find myself needing anything longer than 50mm (I went through my flickr stream last night and about 98% of my shots are at 50mm or less on a crop body), but I do see the appeal of longer glass, so was wondering what people have to say about the 70-300L as it's probably as large (physically) as I would ever want to go... well for now anyways...