August 01, 2014, 08:15:53 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 - bdunbar79

Pages: 1 ... 117 118 [119] 120 121 ... 171
1771
EOS Bodies / Re: Need Help, 1 DsIII vs 5d mark III
« on: August 05, 2012, 01:13:09 PM »
Some really great condition 1ds III's are coming out for sale about the same price of a new 5 dIII and I wanted some advice on weather its better to get the older pro camera or the newer mid range camera. Does anyone have some good advice?

I wanted to just give you an example that I had to consider.  This year I will only be doing Ashland U sports.  Period.  So I have to follow the law of specificity unfortunately.  The 1Ds3 is a very neat toy, but I can't use it.  I'll have a 1DX, 1D4, and 5D3 (for tennis and golf) in my kit.  I'd love to keep the 1Ds3 and maybe buy Canon's new megapickel camera in two years, but I can't justify it and I have no reason to do so.  The other reason, besides a queiter shutter at tennis and golf, I'm keeping the 5D3 is that I will still do weddings.  Again, unfortunately, the 1Ds3 will lose out here to the 5D3.  So really, I'd consider it's strengths and weaknessed and what you'll be using each for, and what you need, before purchasing.  I think Brian uses the 1Ds3 quite a bit indoors but he has a lot of lighting in his kit.  My combos will be 1DX/1D4 sports, 5D3 tennis/golf, 1DX/5D3 weddings.  I'd love to exploit a few other cameras but I just can't justify it.  If someone  would only pay me to shoot whatever I wanted................ ;D

1772
Lenses / Re: Another help me pick a lens yay...35L or 24-105L
« on: August 05, 2012, 01:05:14 PM »
He asks the question, should I get the 35L (which I LOVE!) or the 24-105L?  Remember, he loves the 35L on his camera, which is APS-C.  Did anyone catch that point?

So, even though we're asking an A or B question, nobody chooses A or B.

NNNNNKay, that aside, why not answer his question.  For your camera, I'd get the 24-105L instead of the 35L.  See, that was easy.

For a guy who is just beginning to build his lens kit up, no way I'd buy a 16-35L over the 24-105L.  Too much money and too specific.  You always go general first, then specific.

Hmmm... if you read his second post, he's also considering moving FF.  Why get the 24-105 outside of the kit?  That's usually a poorer value proposition.  The reason why you see so many recommendations is because you can't cover what he wants to do with one lens:  landscape, portraits and indoor events.  For indoor events, 24-105 may be too slow; for landscape 24-105 may be too long on a crop.  The 35L would be a great solution for low light, but he also already has the nifty fifty, so neither of his choices would get him very far for all three goals.

24-105L indoors is not too slow.  I've been shooting weddings and indoor events for a long time now with the 24-105L.  If you shoot wider than f/4, you have DOF issues.  Serious ones.  If he's shooting a ton of indoor stuff, then he will need a flash anyways.  The 24-105L is the most economical and best zoom lens for a beginner on a FF body.  Hands down.  If I were him I'd wait until I bought the FF camera and buy it with the kit lens.  Maybe he'll never actually end up going FF.  Then in that case of course get another lens, but we cannot all just start guessing these things and we have to hold the OP's comments and questions to face value.  Anybody who lists all the things he did regarding what he wants to shoot really has no idea what he wants to shoot.  He just wants a camera and some lenses.  My suggestion is go FF with the 24-105L kit lens, if FF is the direction he wants to go.  That's all.  Stay on APS-C, get the 17-55 no doubt.

1773
EOS Bodies / Re: Now a 5D3 owner after all !
« on: August 05, 2012, 12:42:31 PM »
Thanks guys, I quick question, I have a 60/mbs CF and a 45/mbs card in the camera, do you know what speed cards I should have in it, at the moment, I'm still getting a 10 second buffer, I don't think its that bad, will I dramatically increase the buffer amount with other cards? thanks

Try removing the sd card and see if the buffer goes away. I read a while back that the the sd slot slowed down camera write speed because the camera would sometimes default to the sd instead of the cf for some odd reason.

If you are shooting on Card 1 and take it out of the camera, let's say to put it in a card reader, and then put it back in the camera, because you took it out, it will then default to card 2 when you put it back in and start shooting.

1774
EOS Bodies / Re: Need Help, 1 DsIII vs 5d mark III
« on: August 05, 2012, 12:39:23 PM »
I'm still struggling with this myself.  I own both and am going to sell one.  I can see the advantages and disadvantages of both, in real life.  The 5D3 can shoot relatively well at all ISO's in it's reasonable range.  The 1Ds3 cannot.  I'd argue it's useless above 800 or 1000.  The 5D3 can shoot well into 6400-8000 and look just fine.  However, the 1Ds3 is the ultimate landscape camera.  You will not get the IQ on landscape shots with a 5D3 that you will with a 1Ds3.  I don't know why this is, but it is.  The distant background with the 5D3 gets fuzzy/meshy whereas the 1Ds3 is still so clear all the way to the back of the scene, even at f/22. 

Overall, well-rounded camera:  Get the 5D Mark III
Landscape, daytime, low ISO shooter only:  Get the 1Ds Mark III

The other issue many will face, is that when they purchase the 1DX, that may be able to replace the 5D Mark III's spot.  Isn't that interesting?  Then you'd have kits consisting of only the 1DX and 1Ds Mark III.  This tells me that in all reality, the 5D Mark III is sort of part of the replacement of the 1Ds III.  It's much tougher to differentiate the two, even tougher than the 1Ds3 vs. 1Ds2 debate everyone faced.  That was a bit easier due to megapickels, but this choice isn't. 

If you are NOT going to get the 1DX and you think at any time that you may need to shoot at higher ISO's, then you have to get the 5D Mark III instead.  If you know you will be shooting well-lit studio, outdoor scenes, landscape only, then you can enjoy the IQ of the 1Ds3.  If you have the buget to own both, get a 1DX.

1775
EOS Bodies / Re: Big Megapixels Coming Soon? [CR1]
« on: August 05, 2012, 12:32:30 PM »
I agree with everything you said except, The 5D Mark II actually DID steal ground from the 1Ds Mark III.  That is a well-known fact.  I even bought the 5D Mark II instead back then, because it was cheaper and had the same resolution.  Most of the pros I knew from 2008-current never owned a 1Ds3 simply because of the 5D Mark II.

A lot of 1DS3 were sold - but to a relatively small market niche

However the 5D2 filled another market and sold like hot cakes. Some pros bought it purely from a ROI point of view rather than for IQ.

Whilst the 5D2 had the same mps it lost out significantly on fps, colour rendition and AF.

There are a lot of 1DS3 on the used market now - showing that it did sell

I agree it sold.  It was too specific though, whereas the 5D2 was well rounded.  The problem with the 1Ds3 was it was much harder to shoot weddings thoroughly vs. the 5D2.  Almost every wedding photographer I knew 2008-current got the 5D2 and passed on the 1Ds3.  However, I feel that the 1Ds3 is the ultimate landscape camera.  Ultimate.

1776
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Problem with 5D III?
« on: August 05, 2012, 11:40:32 AM »
It's probably the lens, unfortunately.  That particular sigma lens is making it do something it shouldn't.
That should be the 5D3's firmware problem.  If the image is fine on computer, that means the image is really no problem.  However, when 5D3 resized the image to a 3" LCD, it just didn't compute the output right.

sovietdoc, you should let Canon know the issue, so Canon could fix it in the next version of firmware.

Turns out it's both :)

1777
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Sports and posters
« on: August 05, 2012, 10:58:04 AM »
If you are good with Photoshop you can blow up smaller pixel count images of people to live size. But you really have to be good with it then. I use special filtering and tuned sharpening. If you do not come closer than a meter/3ft to the print it works. But I would consider renting a H4D-60 if the budget allows it. The H4D also would give shallower DOF. It also will depend on the amount of available light. An how close you can get. With the Hasselblad you would have to go for the 50 ISO setting with maybe f/8. I love that because of the longer exposure times with action shots. You might have to throw away more though and change support of the camera. Maybe even rent a Kenyon gyro. And the Hasselblad only produces one image every 2 second so that might prove too little in a very dynamic environment.

Ok.  Thanks for the reply!

1778
EOS Bodies / Re: Big Megapixels Coming Soon? [CR1]
« on: August 05, 2012, 10:55:12 AM »
I'm going to have to take issue that anyone was screwed by Canon or this rumored high mp camera. I use my 5dm3 with complete satisfaction cept some niggles like focus point viewablity.
The other i take issue with is that people think the 5dm2 stole the ground from the 1dsm3, like that could happen. Canon made it for those who need the build and durability and those who did got what they wanted, they didn't buy a 5dm2 instead. Seriously, Canon isn't hurt by you not buying a 1d series. They made it for the hc pro's and anyone who wants to plop down the money.
I don't feel sympathetic to anyone in the 1dx camp, those who bought it bought it with full knowledge of what it was made of and put their money down. Theres nothing to feel remorse over, you got what you paid for. Its no slouch at that either. If you didn't buy the 1dx because it didn't help you much then you don't upgrade, if you did then you prob just had money to burn for the latest tech. No one can blame Canon if their gear is obsolete to the purchaser when you knew what you were agreeing to when you bought it. I'd say if the 5dm3 or 1dx doesn't fit your upgrade path then wait, or swtich to Nikon for the d800. I never believed Canon would only have the 1dx, i figured they had to come out with something with major resolution and it doesn't have to be called a 1d. It can have the build and size of the 1d but it doesn't have to be. When they claim to have merged the line it didn't mean they didn't have something more exotic planned.
Some will never be happy and i feel sorry for you. :D

I agree with everything you said except, The 5D Mark II actually DID steal ground from the 1Ds Mark III.  That is a well-known fact.  I even bought the 5D Mark II instead back then, because it was cheaper and had the same resolution.  Most of the pros I knew from 2008-current never owned a 1Ds3 simply because of the 5D Mark II.

1779
It is much, much more hand-holdable than the version I.  I would say heavier than your 100-400L lens, but you could hand-hold if you needed to.  You cannot do so with version I.  It has great IS, so I'd say you can do it.  It is in my opinion the 2nd sharpest lens above 100mm, the first being the 200 f/2L.  That is Canon's greatest lens and I would argue the 300 lens is 2nd.

1780
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Post Your 4th of July Photos
« on: August 05, 2012, 12:20:59 AM »
I'm finally posting one.  This was with the 5D3 and 24mm f/1.4L II lens. 

1781
Lenses / Re: Another help me pick a lens yay...35L or 24-105L
« on: August 05, 2012, 12:07:38 AM »
He asks the question, should I get the 35L (which I LOVE!) or the 24-105L?  Remember, he loves the 35L on his camera, which is APS-C.  Did anyone catch that point?

So, even though we're asking an A or B question, nobody chooses A or B.

NNNNNKay, that aside, why not answer his question.  For your camera, I'd get the 24-105L instead of the 35L.  See, that was easy.

For a guy who is just beginning to build his lens kit up, no way I'd buy a 16-35L over the 24-105L.  Too much money and too specific.  You always go general first, then specific.

1782
EOS Bodies / Re: Big Megapixels Coming Soon? [CR1]
« on: August 05, 2012, 12:02:50 AM »
I actually know a guy who went from the D700 to the D800.  He's regretting it.  The IQ isn't any better to him on a computer screen or print, and the file sizes are insane.  The camera doesn't have time to shoot mRAW or sRAW.  So you're stuck.

1783
My cameras have all been clean upon purchase, except the 1D Mark IV. 

1784
EOS Bodies / Re: Big Megapixels Coming Soon? [CR1]
« on: August 04, 2012, 11:45:13 PM »
Yep.  The 1Ds3 sort of flopped too, but that was after the release of the 5D2.  Everybody, even pros, began buying the 5D2 instead.  I can see this turning out like the 1Ds3/1D4 pair.  Studio/sports.  1DX is really the sports camera and right now the 5D3 and 1Ds3 are still the studio cams.  The 1DX does not render like the 1Ds3 therefore I do not consider the 1DX to be the true merged 1Ds/1D lines.  It's just not quite there.  The 1DX did not do worse than the 1Ds3 with regard to detail, but it also did not improve it either.

I like the 1DX, but I'm still keeping a 5D3 because I like the 22mp.  If a higher MP cam is released, it will be well less fps and render nicely, much like the 1Ds3 I'm guessing.  Anybody guessing yet as to the model name?

1785
Lenses / Re: Another help me pick a lens yay...35L or 24-105L
« on: August 04, 2012, 08:37:51 PM »
I think in your particular case the 24-105L is the clear winner.  If you follow the suggestions of the other zoom lenses, you're stuck with APS-C and can't go FF.
Except you can always sell the EF-S lens if you upgrade...and in the mean-time (which if he can't get another L lens for year, probably means at least a year if not longer), you've got a lens that is better suited for the body he has. 17-55 on APS-C covers landscape through the early end of portraits. The 15-85 would cover the full range he'd want, but, I'm not sure its worth the sacrifice of the extra stops of light.

Get a used 17-55, they go for $750-800 on the used market, and if you switch bodies, sell it for about the exact same price. Or, just as likely, find someone with the 24-105 and trade with them.

The difference between 17mm and 24mm is pretty significant, especially for landscape work. And the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 can be significant in indoor lighting. So why pay as much, or more, for something that would limit most of your photography?

Better suited for what?  Certainly not the question he asked. 

Pages: 1 ... 117 118 [119] 120 121 ... 171