September 23, 2014, 02:36:59 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 ... 129 130 [131] 132 133 ... 172
1951
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Next Full Frame Camera [CR2]
« on: July 25, 2012, 12:43:22 PM »
Apart from the new entry level FF camera, I would someday like to see Canon's true replacement for the 1Ds Mark III.  I don't think the 5D Mark III necessarily needs a replacement, since if you upgrade the metering, it's effectively a 1D-series in all likelihood.  How about a 3-series?  :P

1952
Lenses / Re: Refurbished Lenses from Canon
« on: July 25, 2012, 11:33:32 AM »
Bought my 50L refurbished from Canon for $1295.  Love it!  No problems at all.

1953
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Post your custom shooting settings
« on: July 25, 2012, 11:17:31 AM »
1D Mark IV
Indoor Basketball C1:  8)

Av Mode, f/6.3
ISO Safety Shift:  ON
Minimum Shutter Speed:  1/500
ISO:  Auto
Exposure Compensation:  +1
Center AF point or Center + surrounding
Spot Metering (linked to active AF point)

1954
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Lovin' my 5d Mark III
« on: July 24, 2012, 07:18:31 PM »
Yes indeed, the 5D3 is good for sports.  I had the 5D3 on AI Servo for these two shots, with an off-centre cross-type AF point, and it did very well.  These riders were heading directly into my position (~20-30km/h) and the camera did well to stay in focus.
Yes, but they are underexposed. At least appear to be looking on my tablet.

Probably not the camera.  To combat that problem, and I run into often in daytime sports, I can spot meter on the person, and use EC if need be.  It just depends.  That photo looks like evaluative or center-weighted average.  Nothing to do with the 5D Mark III.

1955
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 Light Leak Issue - Did you send yours in???
« on: July 24, 2012, 06:57:13 PM »
Added a quick poll on the topic.

Maybe could add one more, 'It doesn't affect me right now but if it does I'll take send it in".

Such as when you shoot in a dark cave with your lens cap still on?  :)

1956
EOS Bodies / Re: Just got 1DX
« on: July 24, 2012, 05:45:28 PM »
Found it in stock at Infocus Camera in orange tx 409 882 0044

I hadn't preordered one until June because I didn't think I needed it for a long time.  Turns out I got a contract I hadn't planned on, found one at Infocus Camera, bought it today, it'll be here in two days.  Awesome.

Edit:  Anyone need a lightly used 1D Mark IV?  :)

1957
EOS Bodies / Re: More Coverage of the Canon EOS M
« on: July 23, 2012, 08:03:51 PM »
If you pre-order an EOS-M today, you will get it before your April pre-ordered 1D X :)

1958
Site Information / Re: Put a link to your pictures in your footer!
« on: July 23, 2012, 07:53:56 PM »
I don't think anyone's bitching about anything.  I'm just pointing out that (NOT you by the way) that some who say, "Oh look what my 1D X can do!", or "Wow, the 5D Mark 3 is awesome!" and then post photos, those photos have some to do with the camera of course, but a good majority of it due to post-processing.  I guess personally I want to see as little-processed (my own word) photos as I can, so that I can get an accurate respresentation of the actual photography going on.  I"m personally not interested in seeing a photo that has been heavily processed in photoshop.  It's just not me, sorry.  I am in NO WAY claiming to be an artist.  I respect professionals who are great at the photography and art.  Yes, I do some HDR and ME work myself.  It's fun!  But when people share photos, especially on forums, the photos are going to be their best work, in-camera and post-processed.  The post-processing part just doesn't interest me.  I think the photos are aesthetically pleasing, sure.  But it's more impressive to me at least to see a great photo that hasn't been processed much, if at all.

If you are a pro of course, doing weddings, sports, you HAVE to do it.  I HAVE to do it.  Doesn't make it more interesting to me though. 

And yeah, sorry, guess I can't let go of the old-school film days :)  Oh Kodachrome slide film...................

Edit:  I've totally taken this thread off the original tracks.  My apologies!

1959
Site Information / Re: Put a link to your pictures in your footer!
« on: July 23, 2012, 07:12:59 PM »
The problem with this idea is that anymore, it isn't about photography.  Most of the photos posted on here I don't even look at because you can tell they are so heavily processed afterwards that it's art anymore, and not photography.  It's now how well you can work your camera and lenses, it's how well you know Lightroom and Photoshop.  Most of the people with awesome photos wouldn't have survived the film days, sorry.  I'd much rather see basic processed RAW files out of LR or Camera RAW and converted to JPEG, 60 seconds tops, not 3 hours in Photoshop.  Again, that's why since digital photography, I don't really care too much about posted photos.  Some photographers love and blend the two arts together, but me personally, that's why some days I go shoot with my EOS-3, because you CAN'T get it wrong with film, it's either right, or not.  Period.  No fancy after effects.

That's my personal opinion and my observations over the last 5 years.

1960
EOS Bodies / Re: B&H shipping of the 1DX?
« on: July 23, 2012, 05:56:20 PM »
Nope, Camera Canada.

1961
EOS Bodies / Re: B&H shipping of the 1DX?
« on: July 23, 2012, 05:41:04 PM »
Guys, why dont you look around? I did order from B&H, then I did cancel my order and I did go with Abes of Maine, they did not even get a shipment or eta as of yet, someone on Saturday posted that local dealer has 4 in stock, day later I did call (saturdat) and they had it, I got tracking number and expecting camera to arive tomorrow, no pre order or anything. I did call abes or maine and I did cancel my order as I am getting this camera tomorrow without any hassle.

I agree, the availability is better from samller store sometimes.  I long ago cancelled my B&H order unfortunately because I already got my unit from Camera Canada - great service BTW.  I even believe they have some coming this week or next and are not fully assigned yet...

According to their website they have them in stock now, or at least it doesn't say "Out of Stock."  I'd hate to think they'd make you order it before saying it's out of stock.

1962
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Lovin' my 5d Mark III
« on: July 23, 2012, 04:01:27 PM »
I was WRONG on the ISO.  It was 1000.  I am trying to upload the 12,800 right now.

1963
Lenses / Re: Keep 70-200 f4 IS or go for f2.8 IS II?
« on: July 23, 2012, 02:58:51 PM »
I may have the wrong 2.8.  The 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is sharper than the 70-200 f/4L IS.  There are other versions of the lenses and I've lost track of which ones we're doing here, but the ones I mentioned, the 2.8 is far superior.

well maybe when you do shots of testcharts.. i doubt you can show me real life pictures where the difference is visible.

NO NO NO.  I was referring to the poster who said the f/4 was sharper than the f/2.8.  Personally I don't care, because you're right, in real life there isn't any difference.

1964
The OP asked for a quck and dirty comparison.  So I did it.  Since I have a day job I don't have time to go out and specifically test the lens.  I tested sharpness.  If you have more time to do a more thorough investigation, please do so and share.  I've had it with some of you and i'm taking my post down, and don't ask for help from me again.  Thanks.

1965
The 24L at 1.4 on the 1D4 looks sharper to me than the 35L on the 5D3.  Also, the 24L is looking sharper and less flat out of the camera than the 5D3 w/35L.

Pages: 1 ... 129 130 [131] 132 133 ... 172