September 02, 2014, 08:14:31 PM

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 - verysimplejason

Pages: 1 ... 55 56 [57] 58 59 ... 90

3. 6D is a bit smaller than 7D in my hand. It doesn't have the solid feel like 5D II, III, 7D etc...I feel like FF sensor in Rebel chassis.

It's small yes, but it's hardly a Rebel chassis.  The Rebel is all plastic, and not very good plastic at that.  It's somewhere between the 60D and 5D3/7D in build quality.  I'm quite sure it'll take more abuse than a Rebel or 60D, if not as much as a 5D3/7D.

+1.  And being small and light isn't always a bad thing.  It's entirely dependent on the user preference.  6D being small and light has its merits.  Just asked those photogs that are tasked to carry their camera from morning till night.  Even a slight weight difference feels like heaven.  I had a lot of times where I shoot at least 3-4 hours straight (with 2 ultra-light lens, 28mm and 55-250 + external flash).  Although I find the IQ of a gripped 500D sometimes lacking, it's heaven compared to an un-gripped 5D2 that I was able to carry and shoot once for 3 hours (wedding + reception) (with a 24-70mm lens + flash).

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D Mark III Frustrated Focusing problem
« on: December 10, 2012, 12:58:32 PM »
F/4 sounds like the solution to me.

Depending on how close they are and what lens they are using.  ;)

+1.  try F8 or F9 if at least 50mm.  Long lens, of course, it will still be different.

Lenses / Re: What's your dream lens
« on: December 10, 2012, 11:03:41 AM »
Why not a 15mm F4 (to reduce weight and price) non-L (to reduce price) prime rectilinear lens that can take filters?  IQ should at least be better than the current 20mm F2.8 (close to 17-40 IQ stopped down to F8).  If they price it just a little bit more expensive than the samyang 14mm, I'd take it in an instant.  It doesn't matter if it's MF or AF.  :)  The brand doesn't matter as long as those other important features are available.

I you just take pictures of people and stuff then the 6d would be fine. Anything else then the 7D kills the 6D, also people complain about the noise on the 7D far too much, generally if you take a good picture and no Photoshop then its not a problem.

I think more accurately, if you take good pictures in good light then 7D definitely is better than 6D.  But in low-light, 6D is far superior than 7D.  I've got a 500D and I think this is comparable to 7D ISO performance.  I only raise the ISO to 1600 if it's the last option.  3200, only if I really need to get the shot.  I always envy my friend who's using a 5D2 and doesn't have any trouble going to 6400.  There are also times that you want to raise your ISO for stopping the motion.  Even if you've got a great AF, if you don't stop the motion or at least pan, it's useless.  Just recently, I've shoot my daughter's theatrical concert and almost all of my shots are taken @ 1600 and 3200.  I asked the organizer why the stage is so dimly lit.  The pictures though are still usable in the internet but I hesitate to have it displayed in a 40 inches TV monitor to have my relatives view it.  I had just stored them in my IPAD for their viewing.

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D hands-on reviews by many websites..
« on: December 10, 2012, 04:53:21 AM »
Professional Sports/journalism/wildlife: 1D X
Professional Studio/portrait/landscape: 1Ds Mark III
Professional Weddings/multipurpose camera: 5D Mark III
Amateur Sports/wildlife or for a Pro instead of a TC: 7D
Amateur Portrait/Landscape: 6D

If you want to lock the focus in extreme low light:
1. choice: 1D X
2. choice: 5D Mark III
3. 6D.

The 1D X and 5D Mark III can lock the focus in low light while the 6D is giving up.

Outer focus points, yes.  Center, no.  Enough of these "amateur" categories.  A lot of professionals were shooting and still are shooting with 5D2 which we can say is beaten/on par on almost all camera features by 6D.  I'm sorry but I disagree with you when you put 6D as an amateur camera.  I can even remember when all cameras were still using MF and yet those cameras were not considered amateur by anybody.

Lenses / Re: 50mm macro vs. 60mm macro on aps-c body
« on: December 10, 2012, 04:36:32 AM »
Sell your 60mm and get the 100mm F2.8 macro USM non-L (much better than 60mm and 50mm macro lenses).  This lens will fit both your APS-C and FF bodies.  You'll be able to get this lens at almost half of the price of the L version and IQ is pretty much the same.  If you want some samples, you can go to my flickr account.  My pictures might fail to give justice on how marvelous this lens is but it will give you at least some idea of what I'm saying.  I'm currently using Canon 500D body and the 100mm macro non-L lens.  And don't worry, it's  also an excellent portrait lens.  I forgot, 60mm and 100mm price difference is only around $100.   ;)

Just some of my favorites from my collection...

Lenses / Re: Best lenses for canon 5D mark iii or 6D
« on: December 10, 2012, 04:25:43 AM »
About 8 months ago he posted that he was going to fix up and sell for $20,000 a GMC truck that his father was giving him for HS graduation. They were to split the profit. Maybe that is the $8,000 budget and the truck hasn't sold yet.

OTOH, maybe he is dreaming and posts in his sleep ;D

Let him dream...  I myself I'm dreaming I have a Nikon D800E.  Oh well, but reality is I'm stuck with Canon and I don't have the money yet to buy an FF.  So I just keep on dreaming while taking pictures with my 500D.   ;D

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D Mark III Frustrated Focusing problem
« on: December 10, 2012, 03:36:30 AM »
OP has deleted his account.  :o

Nice pics...  Though if it were me, I'd apply a little bit of EV compensation and a little bit of warmth but that's my preference.  Some would prefer it just as you had rendered it.

I think 6D will be perfect for your 70-200 especially since your preference is portraiture.  I'd suggest though to get a proper portrait lens in order to maximize 6D/FF bokehliciousness.  An 85mm F1.8 or 100mm F2 comes immediately to mind especially if you're mindful of your budget.  Otherwise, 85mm F1.2L and 135mm F2.0L are better alternatives.  Any FF body will shine in portraits and landscape.

Canon General / Re: What real Pros shoot...
« on: December 09, 2012, 10:35:57 PM »

It's my understanding that Reuters' tool of trade, supplied to and used by their staff photographers, is Canon.

How did you come to that understanding?  Can you give us some link or proof?  We want to be enlightened also.  I wonder about those photogs in Reuters that weren't using Canon.  Maybe, they are rebels...  oops... that's Canon.  :D

I thought it was common knowledge but now that you ask, I can only offer circumstantial evidence. I've seen images of various Reuters inventory over the years and as far as I recall, it has always been Canon, though I'm happy to be corrected. You may recall Reuters' 1DX motorised rigs for the Olympic swimming, and here's an inventory sample from the royal wedding.

If you search "reuters photographer" on Youtube, you'll be hard-pressed to find Reuters stickers on anything other than Canon gear. They do have a Nikon 1200-1700mm zoom but even that is converted to a Canon fit.

I'm just playing around... :)  But I've got this friend who's a field reporter for Reuters in Philippines.  She just told me that Reuters photogs prefers Canon bodies just because they already have a lot of Canon lenses collected since the time Canon first adopted AF.  They didn't mind changing to other system because of that.  Some new photogs are using Nikon but not much since they can't take advantage of some lenses that are available already to them.  I guess you can say that they don't mind the brand.  What they really mind is that there's an equipment they can use right away.

Canon General / Re: What real Pros shoot...
« on: December 09, 2012, 08:06:05 PM »
Just to play devils advocate here. The most used knives in the world of professional chefs are Victorinox, and that has not much to do with excellence in steel or sharpness. It has to do with the fact that Victorinox has been very successful in pushing out knives set (suitcases with basic, intermidiate, and advanced sets) to pretty much cooking students all over :) They can get away with a basic suitcase for the same price as two Kai Shun knives...

That is why I am wondering if the preponderance of Canon in the stats is due to a commercial arrangement between Reuters and Canon.  For instance, does Reuters have an arrangement with Canon, which gives Reuters staff access to preferential pricing from Canon?

It's my understanding that Reuters' tool of trade, supplied to and used by their staff photographers, is Canon.

How did you come to that understanding?  Can you give us some link or proof?  We want to be enlightened also.  I wonder about those photogs in Reuters that weren't using Canon.  Maybe, they are rebels...  oops... that's Canon.  :D

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Upgrade from 7D to 6D or MK3?
« on: December 09, 2012, 05:05:28 AM »
If you need superior AF, 5D3 will do it.  6D if you don't need the extra superior AF performance.  For studio, street and landscape, definitely, 6D.  Macro, it depends on what you are shooting.  If sports 5D3 or 1DX.   For bird shots, you might want to wait for 7D2.

...I will have a 60D and 6D tomorrow for some rough analysis.

Let me know what you think of the way 6D renders colors and lighting dynamics. Now that I've moved on from testing to actual pictures, I am not liking what I am seeing in this respect. I'm shooting RAW and the the 6D files have a very different character than do 5D2 files imo, and not in a good way.

Can you please expound on this?  We want to know what's the difference...  And try using the updated DPP if possible when converting the 6D and 5D2 files.  The jpeg rendering of other software might not be as updated.


I'll try to explain using subjective terms and maybe a technical measurement or two.

To my eyes, everything is underexposed a significant amount and this is verified when looking at the RGB histogram in Capture One. Left side is towards the top and then a smooth slope to zero on the right for typical outdoor shots. Equivalent shots with 5D2 are exposed the way I'd expect and hisotgram is more level with some peaks, as expected.

Color renditions are flat and lifeless to my eyes. This is true just comparing equivalent shots from 5D2 and 6D and looking at the RAWs. Same holds true after working with them in Capture One. Let me put it this way: in adequate light, I'd take my 50D over the 6D in a heartbeat for exposure, color rendition and DR (as lacking as 50D was in DR)...the equvalent shots just look a lot better to my eyes.

I know there is a bunch of chatter about how 6D has better DR, but when shooting it seems the exact opposite and shadows are going black with no detail in the RAWs.

It's hard to quantify this sort of thing, but when I first got my 5D2 I was pleasantly stunned how good any shot looked. It's just the opposite with 6D for me and I'm stunned how un-Canon like all of my shots were. Yes, were. As in its boxed up to go back in exchange for a 5D3.

And I suppose that sums it up for me. As you can see in my earlier posts, I was happy as could be with the AF and low light when I tested it. But then when I started shooting it, it became quickly apparent I'd be sending it back and just spending the extra $ for a 5D3. And for me anyway, I'll spend $400 extra over the eBay price to buy it from B&H so I have no doubt it will have a warranty and I can send it back if I have an issue like I did with the 6D I bought from them...

Of course this is all just my opinion and YMMV. Maybe I got a dud, but bottom line is I'm going 5D3 instead.

Have you tried using DPP?  I don't think Capture One is updated already to handle raw files from 6D.  Just like Lightroom needs an update or a new profile just to handle other new bodies.  WTH, even DPP needs an update to correctly render raw files from new bodies.  Agreed, maybe you got a bum copy because, I have never seen anyone complain about the DR/IQ of 6D except for underexposing which could be easily adjusted by Canon Support if needed. 

Anyway, good choice.  I'd always say, if you think you've got the money to afford a 5D3, then go for it.  Granted it's more expensive but it's more versatile.  However, for some, I think it will be 6D.  I've got a friend who just got a 6D yesterday.  Hopefully, he brings it to office tomorrow so I can see it and maybe compare it with some cameras from our group.

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D or 5D3 (or wait for 7d2?)
« on: December 08, 2012, 02:49:13 AM »
Go for 6D if IQ is more important than reach and your budget can't reach the 5D3.  6D + lens + AF = 5D3 + AF.  You decide what's more important and what you really need.  7D2 only if you need the extra reach and FPS.

Lenses / Re: 17-40L vs 24-105L
« on: December 08, 2012, 02:36:52 AM »
In my humble opinion, for landscapes, go for 17-40L.  24-105L is used mainly as an all-purpose lens.  Since you have a 50mm, just use it as your normal lens but you will have to "zoom" with your feet.  It really depends on your style of shooting.  I myself, I'm shooting with 500D.  I have a 28mm (comparable to 50mm for FF) and it's my travel lens.  I have a 100mm macro and 55-250 as my primary "long" lens if needed.  I'm planning to get the 17-40 and the 70-300L later with the 6D as I plan to move to FF.

Pages: 1 ... 55 56 [57] 58 59 ... 90