Messages

61

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D2 / 5D3 / 6D Which one do you use for weddings ?

« on: May 31, 2013, 11:16:54 AM »

I don't consider the 5D3 over-priced (for what I got them for) nor noisy at all. I liked the 1D series AF but It never came on cheaper camera's until the 5D3. It's AF is the best I've ever used on any camera and It's AF has helped me where the 6D/5D2/5Dc AF would have been darn difficult to pull off.

As for IQ, It's a wash between 5D3/6D and even 1DX. They're all excellent at 12,800 and with careful technique usable 25,600 shots.

62

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Advice needed: performance of 6D

« on: May 30, 2013, 10:35:22 AM »

The 6D is good as long as you use the center point.

63

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX and 5D3 RAW files

« on: May 29, 2013, 04:01:32 PM »

sorry, its not like that, you can wish or believe what you want if that is important for you

It seems your the one ignoring all the white tele's.  Its a free country.

and you live  in ?

A country where this saying may not be familiar with you.

it says more about you and your ignorance to other contrys
tell me, which contrys have more freedom that the Nordic contrys and  Germany, Holland etc  , regarding all speech about   woman's right to abort, homo marriage   and to religion freedom?
Go out and travel and discover the world
If it is US, I have lived there 1973-75. I love and hated it because of the double moral, you could not f@ck but smoke lot of pott and then  go to church every sunday , auch  not the life we are used to up here in the north Europe
are we done about "free country"

I still don't believe you grasp what that saying means. 

64

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX and 5D3 RAW files

« on: May 29, 2013, 03:38:21 PM »

sorry, its not like that, you can wish or believe what you want if that is important for you

It seems your the one ignoring all the white tele's.  Its a free country.

and you live  in ?

A country where this saying may not be familiar with you.

65

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX and 5D3 RAW files

« on: May 29, 2013, 03:29:05 PM »

lot of Canon sport shooters went to Nikon when Canons keepers went down with the AF  problems in  the 1dmk3, the D3 was much better as  a sport camera  and Nikon  followed  up with D3s , compared to 1Dmk4. At the Olympic Games in Beijing there where many Canon shooters moving directly to Nikon because of the low keepers they got with 1Dmk3.
The lens  line  14-24 , 24-70, 70-200 and  200-400 Nikon lens was also a big argument to move over to Nikon at this time.  Nikon have increased the number of users from a few up to 50/50 in some events, Canon is still Nr1.

Funny, I CAN speak from experience.  I shot the Big Ten track meet this year, and out of all of the sports photogs there, there was ONE Nikon shooter.  Everyone else had a 1D Mark IV or 1Dx and ALL of them had a 400 f/2.8 for their primary lens.

there are a world l outside the USA , depending of event there are now 50/50 % , look at the latest London Olympic Games. IF sales was the only factor to count for quality  then Zeiss, Leica etc would be inferior in all respects
Im using both Canon and Nikon and I think I have more Canon gear then most of you have and I have access to everything from Canon and Nikon. Now Im testing a light zoom , the new 80-400VR together with D800, a couple of weeks ago I was testing all new super tele from Nikon and waiting for the new 200-400 lens from Canon.
In the mean time Im longing after a high resolution camera from Canon
Have a good day all Nikon and Canon users

Dude, Nikon lost like all the sport's shooter since the 90's. They've gained a few back with the d3, but It still canon haven on the sidelines. I was watching the spurs game and it was like 80% canon on the court sidelines.

Canon make's better super-teles than nikon, especially with a tele-converted combo.

dude, they are not few. from few to  40% and depending of the event more than 40% is not few
dude

I'd say its a 1 nikon to 3 canons in sports. Not that it really matters now since nikon users are migrating back to canon for the 1Dx.

66

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX and 5D3 RAW files

« on: May 29, 2013, 03:15:05 PM »

lot of Canon sport shooters went to Nikon when Canons keepers went down with the AF  problems in  the 1dmk3, the D3 was much better as  a sport camera  and Nikon  followed  up with D3s , compared to 1Dmk4. At the Olympic Games in Beijing there where many Canon shooters moving directly to Nikon because of the low keepers they got with 1Dmk3.
The lens  line  14-24 , 24-70, 70-200 and  200-400 Nikon lens was also a big argument to move over to Nikon at this time.  Nikon have increased the number of users from a few up to 50/50 in some events, Canon is still Nr1.

Funny, I CAN speak from experience.  I shot the Big Ten track meet this year, and out of all of the sports photogs there, there was ONE Nikon shooter.  Everyone else had a 1D Mark IV or 1Dx and ALL of them had a 400 f/2.8 for their primary lens.

there are a world l outside the USA , depending of event there are now 50/50 % , look at the latest London Olympic Games. IF sales was the only factor to count for quality  then Zeiss, Leica etc would be inferior in all respects
Im using both Canon and Nikon and I think I have more Canon gear then most of you have and I have access to everything from Canon and Nikon. Now Im testing a light zoom , the new 80-400VR together with D800, a couple of weeks ago I was testing all new super tele from Nikon and waiting for the new 200-400 lens from Canon.
In the mean time Im longing after a high resolution camera from Canon
Have a good day all Nikon and Canon users

Dude, Nikon lost like all the sport's shooter since the 90's. They've gained a few back with the d3, but It still canon haven on the sidelines. I was watching the spurs game and it was like 80% canon on the court sidelines.

Canon make's better super-teles than nikon, especially with a tele-converted combo.

67

Lenses / Re: 24-70 2.8f II or 70-200 2.8f II

« on: May 29, 2013, 03:06:20 PM »

That's a tough one. Personally I'd get a 5D3 Kit so you have a 24-105L + 70-200LII. Eventually when the time comes, sell the 24-105L and buy the 24-70LII.

I thought about that too but was turned off by not having the 2.8f option.

Seeing that you do birthday parties and weddings primarily, do you really need f/2.8 all the time? Why not get the kit lens, 70-200 II AND a fast prime?

true but its always good to have that 2.8f option right? 

and yes those 3 wouldn't be a bad option actually....maybe 70-200 + 40 2.8 and the kit lens.

Thanks now I have some ideas of what I can put together.

F/2.8 and F/4 on FF will both give nice soft background's at full zoom. When you get to the really, really low light, I found even f/2.8 isn't fast enough and that's why I still keep my primes.

The 24-105L is a great lens for flash Btw, I always use mine @ 5.6 or smaller.

68

Canon General / Re: Looking to upgrade, could use some advice [Casual/Enthusiast]

« on: May 29, 2013, 11:50:13 AM »

6D + 24-105L

5D2 + 24-105L + 50mm

5Dc + 24-105L + 70-200 F/4L + 50mm

Your carry-on space is tight so F/4 lenses should work nicely. The only issue for me is that I'd like a flash with any of these combos as none have one built in.

69

Lenses / Re: 24-70 2.8f II or 70-200 2.8f II

« on: May 29, 2013, 11:38:22 AM »

That's a tough one. Personally I'd get a 5D3 Kit so you have a 24-105L + 70-200LII. Eventually when the time comes, sell the 24-105L and buy the 24-70LII.

70

Pricewatch Deals / Re: 600EX-RT speedlite deals?

« on: May 29, 2013, 11:33:52 AM »

I used them yesterday for a product shoot and Wow, I should have bought two more...

71

Technical Support / Re: Going medium format for studio work?

« on: May 28, 2013, 09:59:48 PM »

"Don't be naive."

Hah, before you call me that go check the T1 times for your studio strobes, after that go and learn how a leaf shutter works; then reconcile the two at 1/1600. It can be done, but not at full power, just like I said.

As for tilt, the TS-E 17mm has 8º of tilt, that has crop factor to the Hasselblad of around 2. The Hasselblad HTS has 10º so 5º equivalent, the Canon has more effective tilt than the Hasselblad. Technical cameras can do extreme shifting, they also tend to have longer focal lengths so need more anyway, but few people need that and the OP showed no interest in it.

IQ, as I said, yes MF is better with the latest for sure, but first and second generation MF digital backs are not better than the D800E.

You have no common sense at all sir. A 35mm cam won't even sync period @ 1/1600th w/o losing massive amount of power. PERIOD! Done deal. To argue otherwise is to ignore that hundred of thousands of shoots have leveraged this advantage over 35mm.

A technical camera rig is a legitimate and important use of a MF system. Can't be ignored, Alex koloskov agreed and he owns a D800. It will not replace is hasselblad, but having the ability to use a system this way is a valid option 35mm can't offer.

If your considering a MF system, $$$$$ usually isn't an issue but all this above + IQ.

Dude,


I know the limitations of my various systems, that is why I own 135 up to 6x9 format systems, you are the one that keeps making spurious claims that I feel obliged to swat. I know you are wrong most of the time, I am just trying to offer more accurate information for those less well experienced and impressionable.

So onto your three latest "points".

1/ I never said any different, I said you don't get full power sync at 1/1600, guess what? You don't, but for some reason you decided to tell me I was wrong. As for getting shots now, I am seeing more and more pros ganging improbable numbers of 600EX-RT's to achieve good illumination in daylight at up to 1/8000.

2/ A technical camera despite its uses, can very easily be ignored by the vast majority of MF shooters, and the OP didn't mention the speciality in the post. We could just as easily speculate on panoramic cameras with scanning lenses, which he also didn't ask about......

3/ The OP specifically stated taking out a loan to buy a camera, obviously if you had read that then it would have become apparent that "$$$$$$" absolutely are an issue.

Other than that I agree with everything you said 

1. M00t because your missing the point again. 35MM can't sync up to that point. Thus a advantage for MF, and not for 35mm. You say" well, @ 1/1600th you don't get full power on a leaf shutter, while you forget that a FP shutter won't sync at all unless aided.

2. It relevent because it add another tool that 35mm doesn't do. Its very dumb to assume he'll never end up doing this. Panoramic cameras? lol what are you smoking? he's discussing MF cams.

3. If your considering a MF system you should be at the point where $$$$$ isn't an issue but all of the above is.

You read yet do not get understanding.

72

Technical Support / Re: Going medium format for studio work?

« on: May 28, 2013, 05:11:04 PM »

"Don't be naive."

Hah, before you call me that go check the T1 times for your studio strobes, after that go and learn how a leaf shutter works; then reconcile the two at 1/1600. It can be done, but not at full power, just like I said.

As for tilt, the TS-E 17mm has 8º of tilt, that has crop factor to the Hasselblad of around 2. The Hasselblad HTS has 10º so 5º equivalent, the Canon has more effective tilt than the Hasselblad. Technical cameras can do extreme shifting, they also tend to have longer focal lengths so need more anyway, but few people need that and the OP showed no interest in it.

IQ, as I said, yes MF is better with the latest for sure, but first and second generation MF digital backs are not better than the D800E.

You have no common sense at all sir. A 35mm cam won't even sync period @ 1/1600th w/o losing massive amount of power. PERIOD! Done deal. To argue otherwise is to ignore that hundred of thousands of shoots have leveraged this advantage over 35mm.

A technical camera rig is a legitimate and important use of a MF system. Can't be ignored, Alex koloskov agreed and he owns a D800. It will not replace is hasselblad, but having the ability to use a system this way is a valid option 35mm can't offer.

If your considering a MF system, $$$$$ usually isn't an issue but all this above + IQ.

73

Lenses / Re: 24mm f/2.8 IS - is it worth it?

« on: May 28, 2013, 04:47:31 PM »

There isn't a whole lot of options for wide angle primes that are inexpensive. I've used the 28mm 1.8 with decent results but how much benefit would be gained over the 17-55mm you already own?

74

EOS Bodies / Re: Digitalrev speculates on D7100 vs. 7D2

« on: May 28, 2013, 04:27:11 PM »

The 7DII is going to be an evolution of a near perfect camera.

Yes,  one that won't matter!   

To many people.

75

Technical Support / Re: Going medium format for studio work?

« on: May 28, 2013, 04:20:21 PM »

Except true flash sync a 1/1000th, get great movement's with bellow's not having the sensor deep in a body, EZ sensor cleaning, superior IQ, and a sense of seriousness with clientele.

Now is it worth 40,000$? Sure, if you got the cash. if not, 35mm is ok.

Well a leaf shutter might sync at 1/1000, but you don't get full power there.

Tilt angles are dependent on focal length, a MF body needs more tilt for the same effect, having said that anybody really serious about tilt isn't using either, they are using backs on monorails and technical cameras.

I have never had an issue cleaning a 135 format sensor. Apparently some people have issues though I can't imagine why.

The first couple of generations on MF digital backs (as I keep saying) do not have an IQ advantage over a D800E. Indeed many early MF digital backs  had sensors little bigger than the 135 format anyway.

As for seriousness, I don't believe that is an genuine reason, if it is it is just showing an insecurity in the photographer. Do Vanity Fair not take Annie Leibovitz seriously because she uses a 1Ds MkIII most of the time? Hi end pros are judged on style and output, just look at Terry Richardson.

Don't be naive.

http://www.phaseone.com/en/Camera-Systems/Leaf-Shutter-Lenses.aspx - Sync up to actually 1/1600th. That alone is simply a reason for shooting MF.

MF sensor is way, way easier to clean. It's just like right there.

Extreme Tilt shift movement's can be done that a 35mm cam could only dream of. King of product photography. (well maybe LF could do better.) The sensor isn't buried deep in a body.

And yes, the IQ is better on MF.

Done. End of story, this is why people shoot MF.