September 18, 2014, 01:50:40 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 - GMCPhotographics

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 48
Lenses / Re: 24-70mm or 70-200mm for full lenght portrait?
« on: January 21, 2014, 06:02:29 AM »
I've got a Canon 6D I'm shooting outside in the city (Urban shots)


It all depends on how close you are to your subject. If you are reasonably close, then the 24-70 will do fine. If you are further away (ie shouting distance) then you'll probably need the 70-200. If you are not sure which one to buy...ten you probably need / want both but can only afford one.

Canon UK replied to my email concerning dead pixels.
'In reference to your email I understand you were received 2 EOS 700D which had a dead pixel using a long exposure. If it is the LCD screen which has a dead pixel that could indeed be the case. Allthough the lcd monitor is precise manufactured there may be a few dead pixels.

If you have imported the images onto your computer and they are showing dead pixels then the camera needs to be send in for service.

Once again, thank you for contacting Canon. We trust this information is of use to you. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact again.'

I guess the guy was not a UK rep, as his reply was a little bit awkward. But he clearly says send in the camera if I am seeing dead pixels.

I have had 4 700d bodies. All 4 have had pixel issues. My previous 1000d and 600d were fine. So my conclusion is that canon are shipping dodgy sensors or I am very unlucky.

There's quite a lattitude for sensor QA, I've had cameras with or without dead pixels over the years. It's a little bit like lenses...try before you buy. There's always a small difference between every lens and camera.
I have apair of 5DIII's and one has a few long exposure dead's happens and it's really no biggie.

EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: January 20, 2014, 06:26:08 AM »
So in sumary....Canon doesn't need to create a 1Dxs to answer the D4s...because it's still selling very very well and hasn't stopped selling since it was introduced. The D4s was introduced to address some issues why the D4 wasn't such a big success. Even though the D4 has a slightly better shadow noise control in under exposed areas, the 1Dx is a better camera overall and less glitchy / lockup / AF issues (being a comitted Canon user, that felt nice to write).
Then the next 12 pages...were mostly written by guys who think they under stood camera sensor design, those who do understand camera sensor design and those who really don't understand what on earth the last 12 pages were about....(i'm in the latter) :D

We all know a high MP sensor based camera is coming from Canon at some point...but at the moment it's not here and is vapour ware. It will satisfy a few noisy buyers, but for most pros and serious amatures, they will be far better served with the current 1DX or 5DIII cameras....go figure.
in the mean time, some of us have been out and photographed's cold out there!

Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: January 20, 2014, 06:15:14 AM »
And some from winter 2012/2013, still no snow this year  :(.

Ah, Lake Bled, one of my favorite landscape  locations...I know the steep climb needed for that first shot. I've done it several times and my legs and lungs didn't thank me. I tried it at autum and the scene didn't realy appeal to me, but I like the snow in the foreground on your image, very nice.

Reviews / Re: Canon 6D Review: 1+ Year Hands-On [video review]
« on: January 20, 2014, 05:37:13 AM »
These are stunning pictures and I like the very practical review too. I really cant see any harsh tonal transitions, color shifts or lacking DR. The files look gorgeous to my eyes.

Apart from that I would like a smaller body with better live view implementation too...

It's a great camera. I've been using a 5DIII for sevel years and seeing simular results. I'm not a great fan of ND grads...I really don't see the point in the post digital world. They rarely can captur the correct dynamic range and some of these images illustrate my point. A 2 -3 shot merge in Photoshop with images shot at different exposures for specific parts of the scene are generally a better way to go. Using the histogram to meter for different ends of the contrast scale.

There's several highlight blow outs in some of the sky images and why is the sky darker than the land / foreground...looks like to strong grad filters too me. Nice colours, but some of the scenes look like there's false colours added from the ND grads colour casts. The scenes are nice and dramatic, but many of these would fail RPS judging (or degree level photography portfolio judging) due to the exposure issues I've just mentioned. There's bad flare in one shot and another has split boulders in the fore ground, it's important not to split any in half at the edges of the frame. These are very nice and colourfull images, i'm sure they sell well to punters. Especially to the framed print crowds, but really wouldn't impress anyone with a qualification in photography.   

Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: January 15, 2014, 09:27:50 AM »
A 16-50 f/4 IS would be just the ticket.
I like the idea of that, but would still love something really wide like the Sigma 12-24 II I used to own.  I fear that Canon considers our dreams of a super wide covered by the 8-15 f/4.  A lot of their articles have pitched it as a wide angle lens, but at least to me, I don't care for the fisheye distortion even if it can be minimized with a perfectly level shot.

Oh totally! They need something in that ultra wide range other than the costly 14L. Their foolin no one with the 8-15 fisheye! I opted for the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 instead as I got fed up waiting. It's a pity I can't use filters with it though. Blasted bulbous ends! Haha!

What is the widest you can get without going bulbous end? Is it 16mm? I imagine a 12-24 or 14-24 would be quite expensive anyway and wouldn't take filters.

I may get rid of my 17-40l because I use my Sigma 15mm fisheye instead.  To me, it's a better solution in almost all circumstances.
I can understand, but I'm not just not a fan of the fisheye look.  I borrowed the 14 2.8II from Canon and I found it to be kind of blah.  The IQ is very good, but it just didn't excite me to shoot with it.  I think a zoom is much more useful at these wide focal lengths and I really loved the range of the Sigma 12-24II, but it just wasn't terribly sharp, even when used at optimal settings.

I still have a Sigma 12-24mm mkI and it's really a f11-16 lens. There's still nothing which can challenge it's angle view on full frame. Sure it's not very sharp but it's angle of view is unique. I just kind of wish that Canon would take their new hyper wide lens to the same spec but make it 12-24mm f4, fully rectilinear corrected (like the Sigma) and as such sits as a companion to the 16-35IIL.

Lenses / Re: 17-40/4 L DxO Tested
« on: January 15, 2014, 09:24:02 AM »
Get your brooms, boys and girls…I declare shenanigans!!"

I was under the impression that the 16-35mm has a slightly curved plane of focus on the wide end, and that this is why when shooting a flat test chart, it shows soft corners. If the plane of focus is indeed curved, when shooting a test chart (from close up) then closing the aperture might not necessarily give enough depth of field to improve corner sharpness.

In real world shooting (smaller than f/5.6) I haven't found the 16-35mm-II any better than 17-40mm. In this case I'd say my experience mirrors the findings of their measurements.

I remember when th 17-40L was released, most of Canon's DSLR's were 1.6 or 1.3x crop sensors and this lens was intended to bridge the gap for a moderatly priced mid range zoom. At that point Canon had no dedicated 1.6x crop lenses and the ef-s mount hadn't been introduced. It performed so many roles that it became a huge hit. It started the f4 lens range, provided a really good quality ultra wide to the full frame film users (and later full frame DSLR users) and offered an approx 28-70mm lens for 1.6x users. no wonder it's sold so well.
When the 16-35IIL was launched it was to bring the f2.8 wide up to the f4 wide lens' optical capabilities.

Photography Technique / Re: Question for Wedding Professionals
« on: January 15, 2014, 03:45:04 AM »
I'm an amateur photographer whose son just recently got married.  I brought my camera (a new 6D) to the wedding and reception and took pictures, carefully trying not to interfere with the professional photographing the events. While I was pleased with many of my photos, my biggest mistake was bringing only one lens, a 50mm f1.4. I woefully lacked sufficient depth of field in several shots (even with flash and ISO 3200) as both venues were dimly lit and the reception venue was extremely tight and crowded. Since I'm mainly an outdoor/nature photographer, I'm curious what you wedding pros consider your best and most reliable lenses to use at events with similar shooting conditions to what I mentioned. Thanks!   

Applying fast primes at a wedding needs a lot of compositional skill and experiance. Space and light are often limited and one has to act fast and make quick shooting desicions. Often one needs to go longer or wider than 50mm to work in the space provided. Thin depth of field works best when you have control over a group and can arrange a flat plane of focus. Either that or selective focus is needed. Perserverence and experiance are needed by the bucket don't expect to glean all of your photographic answers in one shoot. I've been shooting pro weddings for 8 years, last year I shot 30+ weddings and at each wedding I still learnt something.

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Post your favorite camera gear here
« on: January 14, 2014, 09:22:25 AM »
I'm not too fussed with rangefinders and Digicams. The output just isn't in the same league.
My current kit of choice is a pair of 5DIII's, a 35L and 85IIL...sweet image and lots of DOF lushness :D

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images
« on: January 14, 2014, 09:18:59 AM »
How long have I been on these forums and been one of the early adopters of the 5DIII and I've only just seen this!
Ok, here's a few recent images from me, all 5DIII goodness and exif intact for your perusing pleasure:

This last image is a re-process of an earlier image to pull back the dark details on the horizon.
Lenses used here are 8-15 L fisheye, 16-35IIL, TSe-17L, 24-70IIL, 70-200 f2.8 L IS II

Great shots GMC....where was that 4th image taken?
Gold hill in Shaftesbury, Wiltshire, UK. It was made famous by Ridley Scott. He used it in a Hovis Bread advert and fooled everyone into thinking it was somewhere in Yorkshire!

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Mark II on Cameraegg
« on: January 14, 2014, 09:14:58 AM »
I am hoping the 7D2 is to the 7D, as the 5D3 was to the 5D2 and is compelling enough to make me want to upgrade. I am specifically looking and hoping for a sizable improvements in DN, High ISO Performance and the 5D3 AF system or similar.

I am so disappointed with the 7d by today's standards that any improvement will be worth the upgrade.  Just show me where to sign...

The problem Canon has with the 7DII is that it will certainly rob sales from the 1Dx. If 10 fps @ 18mp with 61 point AF is true then it really will be a 1.6x cropped 1Dx. I suspect that Canon will leave the IQ much the same as the 70D, it's got to hold back on something for this camera.
Naturally we all want a camera with less video compromises (the 7D has a really strong AA filter), far better noise handling threashold and a DR to match the current Sony Exmore CMOS sensors. But I seriously doubt that Canon will invest in sensor tech for this camera and I think they will brin in the new tech for the 1Dx replacement or it's high MP cousin.

Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: January 14, 2014, 05:16:44 AM »
Very interested in a 14-24 style lens - fingers crossed!

Don't be fooled by the Nikon trolls....many wedding photographers who migrated over to the D700 a few years back, rushed out to get the Nikkor version...only the be very disapointed with the results for groups. Many then sold their and swapped to a 16-35 equivelent. The angle of view is very wide and very distored for groups...and the lack of focal range at the long end is limiting. Sure it's sharp, but that is it's only saving grace. If you need to go wider, get a 8-15L fisheye :D

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: MSRP for 32 is ~ $450 USD
« on: January 14, 2014, 05:12:02 AM »
$45,000 worth of gear (give or take).

That's a lot of eggs in one basket.   :o

I took a look at their website, and noted the MSRP of $450 USD ... that's more than I'm willing to pay. However, for a person with $45,000+ worth of gear, then I suppose the cost/benefit equation becomes different.

It's not just about protection of gear which makes these lenses so's the fact that they are less obvious as being a camera bag, fits in the over heads on a plane but most importantly....they weigh about half of the competition's bags of the same size.
If a photographer uses mkII white teles and one of these bags, he is literally halving his luggage weight and that makes it carry on hand luggage weight. Which then negates the need for peli cases and the like.

EOS Bodies / Re: Where are Canons innovation?
« on: January 14, 2014, 05:07:18 AM »
Auto Micro adjust patent....sound like innovation to me :D

Lol yeah! I saw this announcement earlier and thought, there it is!
Good to see they have taken a pretty basic function, and tries to improve on it as well. Hopefully they will implement focus adjustment in more models, not just 70D and upwards. I really really miss it in my little 550D.
I remember when the 40D came out with live view, I was showing a friend of mine who is a professional landscape first he was sceptical but pretty soon he saw the benefit. It's a shame it too Canon so long to bring out a 5DII with that feature. At the time a lot of Nikon fanboys were running the feature down. But the ability to compose, meter, check DOF and lens flare so easily is a serious benefit to landscape work. Nikon's implementation of Live view has been patchy and not a fully though out as Canon's...which always makes me laugh when I hear people say the 8D00 is better than the 5DIII for landscape work. Sure, more resolution...but what of the rest of the camera?
Canon's live view now has dual pixel AF, a built in spirit level and has been improved over a number of years. I looked over a D7000 a few months back and it looks like Nikon have gone backwards with theirs.

Then there's the micro adjustment, again it's getting better over time. My 5DII allowed me to adjust each lens, but my 5DIII allows me to adjust zoom lenses at each end of their focal scales...nice. It's looking like a 5D4 might do all this automatically! Very nice!

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images
« on: January 14, 2014, 04:54:13 AM »
How long have I been on these forums and been one of the early adopters of the 5DIII and I've only just seen this!
Ok, here's a few recent images from me, all 5DIII goodness and exif intact for your perusing pleasure:

Great series. Well done Sir.

Thank you :D

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 48