March 01, 2015, 07:47:32 AM

Show Posts

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.

Messages - davidbellissima

Pages: 1 [2] 3
Wow, thanks for all the comments guys!

To answer a few questions that came up:

Marsu42 - I use the 85mm F1.8, the 24-105 and 70-200mm F2.8L IS mostly. The 70-200 gets used most of the day and exclusively for the couple portraits.

te4o - lighting for indoor shots is 98% on-camera flash. Always bounced, never direct. I did a few with an assistant holding an OCF to the side.

param - shots of shoes definitely. They spent time and money selecting them and want to remember them, as for all the other little details of the day. That's my take on it anyway.

felipey - re the DOF, I agree absolutely!

nameless - do I shoot wedding in Switzerland. No problem at all with that, as long as costs are covered from my base in London.  ;)

wockawocka - 98% ETTL. All the on-camera flash shots are in ETTL. All the night time couple shots where flash was used (not all of them) is also ETTL, including the very final shots which was nailed in one exposure. I use a little bit of manual flash for say group shots or in a very controlled setting.

Thanks again for all the lovely comments everyone!  ;D

Thanks Tammy. It sounds like you really impressed your lot with those very high ISO images. Good stuff!

Hi all,

I've just posted a blog of highlights of a recent wedding I shot at the Old Royal Naval College in London. Toward the end of the series are a collection of low light couple portraits all shot (bar the last one) at ISO 12800, some with backlighting and some with just the available light. The very last one is shot at ISO 1600 on a 5D Mk ii.

Here is the link:

I found the focussing to be on the edge for the night time couple shots and although it was fine, my life could have been made a little easier if I had used a torch as a focus assist tool! Anyway, I am chuffed with the results.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D mk II still a viable option?
« on: May 22, 2012, 06:16:39 AM »
I own the 5D Mk I, ii & iii camera bodies. The Mk I will be going to a new loving home shortly. They are all extremely capable cameras and while each have their well documented individual benefits, they all offer value. Especially the Mk i which is now dirt cheap on the used market. In the UK the cost of new Mk ii bodies is holding firm meaning used bodies are also still holding firm. The price differential between the Mk ii and Mk iii is too large for the release of the Mk iii to impact Mk ii prices, in my opinion.

Yesterday I was reminded of the fantastic quality of the Mk ii. I hadn't blogged a shoot I did last year with the Mk ii, and having been using the Mk iii for a couple of months now, these images just made me realise how fantastic the Mk ii is and I am more than happy for this to be my backup camera to the Mk iii. Here are some images:

I do agree that for sport or any sort of photography that places more demands on the focus system, I would seriously consider the 7D over the 5D Mk ii.

« on: May 16, 2012, 05:09:57 AM »
Check this out - possibly the best resource for newbie wedding photographers out there:

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 Battery Issue?
« on: May 16, 2012, 05:06:29 AM »
Very interesting. I estimate I could get around 4000 shots on my 5D Mk ii with to fresh batteries in the grip. I haven't yet used my 5D Mk iii enough to see if I experience the issue being described. Hopefully not.

Lighting / Re: Wireless flash setup. Need advice!
« on: May 13, 2012, 05:54:47 AM »
There are a number of cheap options available if you only want manual flash control. If you want manual and TTL control the options are reduced and the cost is higher. That said, some triggers offer the ability to control the manual flash power from the camera.

Here is a blog post discussing some options, with reference to the 5D Mk iii as well.....

EOS Bodies / Re: Cost of 5DMk3 internationally
« on: May 03, 2012, 09:03:10 AM »
Regarding selling stuff "overseas" for jacked up rates.... "overseas" for the 5D Mk iii is anywhere outside of Japan, as we probably all know.

We are fleeced here in the UK and I paid £3000 for my Mk iii, which translates to $4800!

I wrote a blog post discussing this:

I list all sorts of advanatges and disadvantages of PW Mini/Flex versus Phottix Odin versus Radio Poppers.

I am today buying the Phottix Odin triggers and selling my Pocket Wizards...

EOS Bodies / Re: Shoot JPEG again with 5D3
« on: April 26, 2012, 01:23:03 PM »
I shoot weddings. RAW files go into the CF card and JPEGs into the SD card as a backup only. Why throw away the flexibility of RAW files when you have the choice...? Memory is cheap.

EOS Bodies / 5D Mk iii RAW size at high ISO quality comparison
« on: April 26, 2012, 11:59:42 AM »
Well I have been scratching me head lately wondering if there is an advantage shooting at the medium RAW size when going to really high ISOs. I ran a test last night and got time to summarise my findings, with images, today. The full report is here:

I think I'll switch to medium RAW when I go above ISO 12800...

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50mm f1.4
« on: April 26, 2012, 11:53:46 AM »
When I was in the market for a 50mm F1.4 I did a lot of research and finally settled on the Sigma 50mm F1.4. By most accounts it gets better reviews and in my experience it is brilliant! Highly recommended.

As others have mentioned, I too would highly recommend a UV filter on the front element of the lens. The last time I took photos on rock outcrop by the ocean, my 17-40mm lens was caked in gunk from all the salt spray. Thankfully I had a UV filter screwed onto the lens so I just had to clean that. I also used a slightly damp cloth to wipe the lens and camera body.

Thanks for posting, but I think I'll avoid DPP after the multiple blue screens I experienced in the few days it was loaded onto my W7 machine after receiving it along with my 5D Mk iii.

ACR is working just fine.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5DIII same ISO performance as 5DII
« on: April 15, 2012, 04:23:39 AM »
I think the Mk iii is definitely better. I did a test comparing the Mk ii to the Mk iii a day or two after receiving it last month. The files were processed in DPP which doesn't handle the Mk iii files well at all (softens the images at ALL ISOs). Far better results can be achieved in ACR. I need to update the post, but here it is for what it's worth:

Pages: 1 [2] 3