Messages

721

Lenses / Re: Most requested lenses for replacement?

« on: May 31, 2012, 03:27:17 PM »

#1 35/1.4 L - Needs more sharpness under 2.0l

It is very sharp at the center. It needs more sharpness at the edges. However, when you shoot portraits the subjects are more or less at the center and anyway the problematic edges may be out of focus anyway.

However I agree with you. More sharpness is always welcome and it is my No1 criterion.

722

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: What if you started from scratch again? Total Loss...

« on: May 29, 2012, 05:23:33 PM »

I would get the following:

5DmkIII kit (w 24-105 f/4L)
TS-E 24mm II
EF70-200 f/4L IS
EF135mm f/2.0 L
EF300mm f/4L (non-IS if I could find one as mine is phenomenal) with EF1.4X III, EF2X III

723

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D mk II still a viable option?

« on: May 29, 2012, 05:16:20 PM »

* 5D3 has clean video: no aliasing/moire anymore. That's a huge advantage over the 5D2.
* It seems like the 5D3 will get Magic Lantern too (soon).

The fact that Moire is totally absent makes me afraid of a more powerful AA filter which may be the culprit for what is considered as "bug" in Lightroom: Less sharpness. I can't stop from thinking that the fix in DPP was a conditional - applied for 5DmkIII cameras - sharpening.

724

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D mk II still a viable option?

« on: May 29, 2012, 05:13:12 PM »

It is a very viable option. Of course it always depends on what you want to photograph most. For example, instead of trying to find a 5DmkIII, I ordered a TS-E17mm 

725

Lenses / Re: Most requested lenses for replacement?

« on: May 29, 2012, 04:18:24 PM »

100% price increase is unreasonable.

I agree but check the prices of the new 24mm f/2.8 and 28 f/2.8 lenses. Also compare the price of the new 24-70 f/2.8 L II and the old one. Trust me I want badly to be wrong (the more wrong the better assuming I err on the higher end...)

726

Lenses / Re: Pano question for 24TSE

« on: May 29, 2012, 04:10:42 PM »

I was thinking of the hartblei collar alot (Let me add that I learned its existence through this site a few months ago   )
but I think it is very expensive considering that it costs as a top panoramic head.

So I would like opinions. I guess that as always the answer to the question if it is worth the cost is depends on what you use it for!

But I was wondering if it would be possible to not only produce a composite image by shifting  the lens but also
by rotating the collar. Which raises the question: Have the collar creators taken into account the nodal point?

Since it supports 2 TS-E lenses I somehow doubt it. But I am not an expert on that hence this question.

727

Lenses / Re: Most requested lenses for replacement?

« on: May 28, 2012, 01:45:19 PM »

How about a new version of the 400/5.6L adding IS.  Also, now that Canon has boosted the price of the big white lenses to beyond reason, maybe a 500/5.6L with IS also...

+2
Two excellent ideas !!

728

Lenses / Re: Most requested lenses for replacement?

« on: May 28, 2012, 01:29:34 PM »

#3 - 35mm 1.4 L - sharpness, CA (very badly needs updating, 14 year old design, Nikon's is much much better)

It is rummored to be very sharp appart from the edges/corners at f/1.4 - f/2.0 . However when someone uses such an open aperture they use it to photo people who are not at the extremes. Since I haven't this lens (but I'd love to) and I would use it for astrophotography I would like an improved 35mm f/1.4. It would cost almost the double though...

#4 - 135mm f/2.0 L - aperture, image stabilization (16 year old design, there are plenty of 135mm f/1.8 lenses around, would love to see f/1.8 + IS, like a mini 200mm f/2.0 IS)

I have that lens and I believe it's close to being perfect. True, IS would help but:
There is always the danger that IS could subtract a little sharpness unless the price doubles (see 70-200 f/2.8L IS II vs. 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS)

#5 - 16-35mm f/2.8 II L - sharpness, CA - (it's a good lens but Nikon's 14-24mm gives it a run for it's money)

I agree. I do have the version I with the known problems around 16mm but the version II has problems in the longer part. So I am stuck with version I until (possibly) a very good version III...

729

EOS Bodies / Re: This should be more than a rumour

« on: May 28, 2012, 01:14:17 PM »

"Hey, a once-in-a-lifetime-shot, quick I have 2 seconds to get it ... "
BEEP: Please enter your PIN

I don't think Canon will do it either: but "Hey, a once-in-a-lifetime-shot, quick I have 2 seconds to get it ... "

WTF! I had my gear stand next to me for just a second, and now it's gone!

  The Pin was entered wrong 3 times. Camera will now self-destruct!

730

Lenses / Re: EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM vs. EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM

« on: May 25, 2012, 07:50:02 AM »

I have both. The f/4 IS is much more practical. It is much lighter and this in combination with great IS gives very good results
in low speeds. Keep in mind that others may beg to differ. Some find easier to hold still a heavier lens. I don't.
I forgot to mention that I am referring mainly to landscape use. The 2.8 is better for portraits and action though.

In addition, you can spend the difference to get the great 135mm f/2.0L.

Good luck with your choice. Anyway you can't go wrong with either...

731

EOS Bodies / Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?

« on: May 23, 2012, 12:10:13 PM »

At least they should offer a 5DmkIII version with no - just like Nikon- or at least a very weak AA filter and let us choose at own risk.

732

Lenses / Re: Would anyone consider this to be "pro-level" lens choices? Read on..

« on: May 22, 2012, 11:24:04 AM »

The f/4L zooms are excellent. I would keep the 100mm macro though...

733

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mk III vs D800/E, is the 5D3 better at anything?

« on: May 20, 2012, 09:39:13 PM »

I am very pleased with the 5D3. Just shot a nude female spread in low light this weekend and I couldn't ask for more in a camera. 

post some samples

+1  you cant leave us hanging like this haha

 

I thought about this... and I really would if it wouldn't violate the modeling agreement.  On my end, I'm only allowed to show the photos to other prospective clients I meet with as sample images of my work.  Also, are there any rules on this forums about posting age restricted content? I wouldn't want to offend those who are not interested in viewing such explicit photos and get banned from this great forum! 

Maybe I can post cropped in versions that do not reveal the model's identity and also crop out explicit areas of the photo??? Like this:

So for the sake of this being a forum for Canon Cameras:
Shot on 5D Mark III (no speedlite or studio lighting setup) w/ EF 24-70 f/2.8L @ f/5.6, 1/60 sec, ISO 8000
The available light was just three lamps with 60 watt CFL bulbs that can be commonly found in a hotel room.  FYI I did a full shoot with strobes and diffusers but I worked it out a deal with the client explaining that I wanted to do some test shots after the formal shoot with the 5D Mark III since it is a new camera lol. She... I mean IT is amazing! There was no post noise reduction performed and I just corrected white balance in the above crop, brought down some highlights, and there you have it! Also, this is a pretty small crop of the original. Anybody still need 36 megapixels? j/k lol

Nice pixels 

734

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon BG-E11 Making its Way to Retailers

« on: May 20, 2012, 09:18:24 PM »

Let me see: A battery grip for the cost of a 50mm f/1.4  !!

Hmmm, I know I compare apples to oranges here but still...

735

Lenses / Re: Tamron 200-500mm f5-6.3

« on: May 20, 2012, 02:02:47 PM »

Canon teleconverters work only with specific Canon lenses.  All other teleconverters are fine I guess (You can check with the Tamron 2X you mentioned- but don't get it back from your sister  )