Messages

16

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D Mark III Spot Meter

« on: April 22, 2012, 05:08:59 PM »

I cant believe it cant do this, considering the cost of the camera.

As I and others have stated, Canon needs to differentiate their lines.  The 1D X has AF point-linked spot metering (as did previous 1-series bodies).  Unfortunately, Canon isn't likely to put all of the 1-series features in a lesser body, despite the fact that everyone seems to think they should.  Honestly, I was really surprised that Canon put the 1D X's AF sensor into the 5DIII, something I'm sure you can appreciate having shot with the 5DII.

and here you should please explain me why nikon offer this function even on their $600 entry level dslr if it's something so special that has to be available only on canon's flagship (and maybe we even have to thank for it...)

17

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 and things that could be improved just a little.

« on: April 04, 2012, 05:07:56 PM »

I'd also like spot metering to be linked to selected AF point.

That's the only huge miss to me... nikon offers it on 600$ cameras and canon cannot afford to put it on a $3500 one... shame on them

18

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Defective 5D MK III.....

« on: March 22, 2012, 02:56:21 PM »

Here's a good example: (100%)

If this is a 100% crop, I'm not seeing a problem with sharpness.  Maybe I'm looking at something different than you but it looks great to me. 

If you are comparing this to the performance of another DSLR like a 5D2, it might be helpful to actually set up a shot, shoot the same shot with the same lens and settings on both camera bodies and then post identical crops to illustrate the difference.

If you don't see anything wrong with he quality of that image then perhaps some glasses would do you good. I just met up with Borrow Lens and did multiple tests with their cameras and there is indeed something wrong with my MK3 body. The difference in image quality side by side with their MK3 was night and day.

hi, i'm only an amateur and i've never shot with a full frame so sorry in advance for the stupid question... can you please enlighten me (and the other that are not seeing any problem) on what's wrong with that image?
it just seems slightly out of focus to me, it would be nice to see a side by side compare with the other MK3 and same lens/composition to see this night and day difference.

19

Macro / Re: Bee in the sun

« on: March 16, 2012, 02:39:02 AM »

nice pictures! what aperture have you used in these shots?

20

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon is just stupid (still no usable auto iso in 5D III)

« on: March 15, 2012, 09:55:49 PM »

But I don't know anyone who requires auto ISO to shoot motocross.  That's bloody ridiculous.

Sorry, have to completely disagree there.  There are many situations where you need a fixed aperture for the proper DoF and a fixed shutter speed to stop action, but light levels can vary greatly during shooting.  Birds in flight, where the subject flies with open sky vs. dark trees in the background.  Motocross where half of the arena is sunlit and half is in shadow.  For those situations, a functional Auto ISO in M mode is very, very convenient, especially one where you can set an upper limit for the ISO.

Convenient, but not required, which was my point.  Disagree if you must, completely if necessary, but the second a camera manufacturer comes out with a feature or function that does not meet the expectations of everyone, suddenly the camera is useless?  Um...no.  Switch to nikon if you want that kind of auto ISO functionality.  Canon hasn't had it, hasn't needed it, and people still shoot motocross with canon bodies without it.  It isn't a deal-breaker for 99% of people considering this camera for that kind of photography.  Well, the people that matter anyway.  I don't shoot that kind of photography, but I have shot nature, extensively, without the convenience.  I just push the button with the pip on it and spin the dial on the back when I need more shutter speed.  It's not that big a deal.

nothing is required, according to your thoughts we should also thank Canon that offers Tv/Av modes when all we require is M.
I don't really understand why every time Canon is short of a feature (e.g. auto-iso, af-linked-point spot metering, etc.) the answer is "yeah switch to nikon if you don't like it", what kind of answer is that? Maybe we (as complaining people) have other reasons for sticking with Canon?
if everyone would settle down with what we currently have without complaining they simply wouldn't update their cameras, they won't make better products that no one is asking for.

is it missing a features? yes
is it really important for "you"? no
is it really important for others? yes

why can't some people simply accept that Canon can (and should) make better products offering basic features that the competition offers with cameras at a lower price?

(waiting for the first smite on the forum...)

21

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mk III vs D800/E, is the 5D3 better at anything?

« on: March 14, 2012, 01:19:48 AM »

Some Facts:

AF point-linked spot metering:
D800: Yes
5D3: No

i didn't know that, it's crazy! is it something fixable with a firmware update?
I'm looking forward to buy a 5d3 later in the summer... canon for life for me, i just can't like the nikon "usability"

I don't think it can be fixed by firmware, Canon only offer this in 1D, Nikon offer this through their entire range

yeah i knew that, that's why i was finally expecting canon to follow nikon at least with the 5d line... damn canon

22

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mk III vs D800/E, is the 5D3 better at anything?

« on: March 14, 2012, 01:13:02 AM »

Some Facts:

AF point-linked spot metering:
D800: Yes
5D3: No

i didn't know that, it's crazy! is it something fixable with a firmware update?
I'm looking forward to buy a 5d3 later in the summer... canon for life for me, i just can't like the nikon "usability"

23

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: D4 vs 5D mk III: Raw file comparison at iso 25600......... Amazing!

« on: March 07, 2012, 01:15:44 AM »

to me it looks like the d4 has A LOT more details, especially in the greens

24

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Mark - III Preorder and Delivery

« on: March 05, 2012, 05:57:33 PM »

By the way, anyone ordered on Amazon?

For preorders do they charge you immeditely or do they wait until the order is ready to ship?

I did, they wait until they have the product

25

EOS Bodies / Re: KuaDDro.com says they confirm the rumored 5D successor is called 5D X

« on: February 24, 2012, 02:03:57 AM »

has anyone noticed that their rumored price for the 27/28 announcement date news is $2700 and not $3500?

I looked through the various posts and didn't see a price listed.  I always figured the $3500 was closer to what the kit price would be, it's endlessly amusing watching people in the other thread fume about that number.

it's in this news here, it also says available in April...

http://www.kuaddro.com/the-new-canon-eos-5d-mk-iii-wil-be-announced-on-february-28/

26

EOS Bodies / Re: How do body prices change over time?

« on: February 24, 2012, 01:51:59 AM »

what about body quality?
are they like any other hardwares where the first models could be defectives?

27

EOS Bodies / Re: KuaDDro.com says they confirm the rumored 5D successor is called 5D X

« on: February 24, 2012, 01:40:17 AM »

has anyone noticed that their rumored price for the 27/28 announcement date news is $2700 and not $3500?

28

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Does FF make your photos pop?

« on: February 11, 2012, 09:07:18 PM »

Could someone post a picture taken with an APS-C similar to the portrait in my last post?
The reindeers look good but don't have that "pop out of the frame" feel.
For me the cropped girl's head doesn't come close to it.

I am affraid I might have become too pedantic about the three-dimensional feel.
I will sleep on it for a night.

my tries with a 500D and a "crappy" EF-S 55-250


_MG_0518.jpg di ocangelo, su Flickr


_MG_1975.jpg di ocangelo, su Flickr

29

Lenses / Re: EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro vs. EF-S 60 f/2.8 Macro ?

« on: February 09, 2012, 02:29:04 AM »

ps. sorry i don't know what you mean with "Which t did you do this shot with"...

Well, what t (time) did you use? The images on Flickr don't have the exif data.

I'm usually shooting macro subjects w/ 1/250 second (fastest flash sync), very seldom 1/60 second if I really need the background lighter. My experience is: with 1/250 there is no shake, and I can use the lens' sharpest f (both L and non-L: 6.3 and 7.1) aperture. This is the reason I said I doubt IS would help. On the other hand, with a large aperture like f20+ or focus stacking, you need a tripod anyway, so again no use for IS.

But of course, since the IS version is as light as the non-IS version, the L is the one to get if one can afford it. But I would be hesitant to buy a used IS lens, e.g. I heard about the 17-55 "weak is" that the motor does wear down more over time then the aperture.

uhm it's weird i can visualize the exif on that picture...
anyway on that specific one is 1/800, is not a really good sample of the IS, was an outdoor shot in a really sunny day...

the IS on this lens is really good, you can easily go down to 1/50 and lower (in reviews you can read of photographers shooting macro at 1/8 with that lens... my hands are not that still unluckly), that let you use smaller ISO values on handled shooting (on my camera i rarely shoot @ iso >= 800) and I have to say that i'm really happy with my handled shots and I'm not looking into spending other $500 on a macro flash.

But then again, if you plan (like in this case) to shoot some specific macros for a specific job you'll have all your gear with you (tripod flashes etc.) and the IS will be useless, but if you like me enjoy walking around with that lens in your bag and just want to take it out for a quick macro shoot on a subject that you just noticed without spending time setting up tripod, flash etc... well the IS is really helpful.

My advice to the OP is:

if you are looking to buy a macro in future rent the 100L and play with it handled too otherwise get the 180 if the price difference with the 100 Non-L isn't too big / you can afford it; I haven't tried the 60 but it just sounds too short, but this depends of course on your subjects

30

Lenses / Re: EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro vs. EF-S 60 f/2.8 Macro ?

« on: February 09, 2012, 12:27:47 AM »

if he only has to rent it once for a job I would go with the 180L f/3.5 honestly if the price difference isn't too much...