Messages

1

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon beats Nikon in accidental damage tests

« on: Today at 01:24:16 AM »

It's a comparison not a scientific test... it would need to be repeated many more times...  I think the message you can take back is that the cameras can take a beating...  more than a lot of people realise!

Well the cameras may be able to take a beating in the sense they still function, but the AF units seem to be the weakest link. Drop a modern dslr onto anything but a soft surface and there's every chance your AF accuracy will suffer.

2

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 5D Mk3 Reliability

« on: May 23, 2013, 02:50:21 PM »

To be fair, I've had to remove the battery on my 5D2 at least once.
I'm sold. Thanks chaps
Do you think £1000 for a near mint body with about 6000 actuations is fair? Thinking of just doing a 'Buy It Now' and seeing what happens. A lot of the auctions seem to topping out at that, so it might be a nice easy buy for someone.


I'm in London if anybody on here is interested too. Comes with an aftermarket grip. 

Harry: you're right with the value on e bay UK. Mint mk2's with box are going for between £1020 and £1100. But my experience with e bay is things like this tend not to sell at 'top book price' if that's the price they are initially set at. I'd go for auction with plenty of close up photos of it.

3

Lenses / Re: Downgrading my equipment - looking for advice

« on: May 23, 2013, 02:14:59 PM »

Try a 6D, keep the 24-105, add 70-300L.  Simplified, lower weight, less to carry,change,etc

OK, hold my hand up; quirky humour humor often just doesn't come across as intended on the forum.

+1 to the 6D. It's a little gem, especially when not using large lenses. For shooting social events, concerts etc I'd choose one of those over a 1D Mkiii any day. It's light years ahead in low light, assuming you are referring to the APS, not the s version. Trouble is a 6D will be around twice as expensive as a used 1D Mkiii but cheaper than a 1Ds Mkiii.

All the Canon non L primes are pretty good optically. You'll generally get more chromatic aberration, inferior manual focus. Personally I would go for the 200 f2.8L over the 135L. It's much cheaper used and has more useful reach.

4

6D Sample Images / Re: Anything shot with a 6D

« on: May 23, 2013, 02:01:46 AM »

Here's another.

6D 300 X2 1600th F7.1 ISO 1000

I set speed high for motion and chose ISO 1000 so that my aperatures weren't just wide open.  So much to keep track of, I'm always messing something up.

Jack

Those are starting to look much better ! Dof on the second shot is spot on. Keep shooting like that and you're gonna make me want a 300 f2.8 

5

Lenses / Re: Downgrading my equipment - looking for advice

« on: May 22, 2013, 08:55:44 AM »

The OP said he knows nothing about Canon non-L lenses.

I do agree it is a very strange post lacking info on why he wants to change equipment. 

Fair point - he did say non-L lenses. I'm still sure it's a deliberately 'confused' post by someone who's 'banged' his head

6

Lenses / Re: Downgrading my equipment - looking for advice

« on: May 22, 2013, 07:26:51 AM »

i fell down and bumped my head, that trigged a weird event in my head saying i NEED to downgrade all my gear for no apparent reason, but nevertheless, that bump must have been a godsend which i have been waiting for a whole eternity.

troll?

This is the only reply that makes any sense.

I'm amazed at the responses the op has been given. Read his post: he fell down and banged his head; now he writes a confussed and contradictory post.

"I know nothing of Canon L lenses"
"I've sold my 16-36, 70-200 etc etc etc"

He's taking the ...............out of CR members

7

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 21, 2013, 02:32:23 PM »

You have to look at the intent.

The aspect of altering photos that gets to me is when a photo is faked to be misleading. It can be done with or without photoshop.... like a news story about a car accident where children are hurt and someone throws a big stuffed animal into the scene to try to make it a tear-jerker.

If the altered picture is so silly as to be unbelievable, I can accept that it is in good fun, but not the sneaky ones that attempt to deceive.

For example, big storm and flooding hits New York... Photos start to appear like the shark swimming in the subway and on flooded streets.... those are attempts to deceive. The one of the Statue of Liberty hiding behind the pedestal as a huge wave crashes against it or the ones of Godzilla are obvious fakes with no intention to deceive.

If I took a moonlanding picture, added something to the image like a wire, and started to claim that it was proof that the moon landing was faked in a studio, that would be an attempt to deceive..... while Lucky the cat in the picture is obviously not.

OMG!@!!!!! I knew it...Cats do live on the moon...... 

Yea, and that particular cat doesn't 'arf get around - last week it was on safari 

8

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 21, 2013, 11:21:48 AM »

yawn... this thread is boring... I swear... worrying about altering an image?  For the love of god, anyone who thinks national geographic doesn't alter their images, anyone who doesn't think photographs in some way shape or form was altered at print competitions and fairs, anyone who things a simple head shot hasn't been smoothed, blemishes cloned out, filters applied, double chin and loose skin warped and removed... You are just fooling yourself...  I can almost guarantee you that the only images that haven't been manipulated in some way are those who have no access to photoshop, but then it can be argued even posing someone can be "altering" a natural photograph... get over it, it's not worth 12 pages on canon rumors discussing the "ETHICS"... my lord.... (then again i'd rather talk about this than some pixel peeping nerd debating the file quality of a 7d or 5d or such...)

i agree completely with this notion, as i tried to state before. i understand people who have not considered this topic before trying to hash out their position on this but it has been a longstanding discussion in photography going back to the late 1800's.

the fact is that photography is incapable of depicting "truth". it can only depict a singular viewpoint and "manipulation" begins the moment a photographer looks through the viewfinder and "chooses" what will be shown in the frame and what will not be shown in the frame. nevermind any post that occurs after the fact.

it brings to mind the images that came out of the aftermath of Katrina, in particular there was an instance where news outlets ran a photo of a white family "scavenging" for supplies while an almost identical photo of a black family doing the same thing had headlines attached stating they were "looting". truth in photography is a myth. it is simply a means of communicating an idea, story, or feeling and in the end it falls upon the viewer to determine what truths a photograph holds for them.

so if you want to subscribe to contrived notions of what makes a photograph real or true or whatever...you are welcome to it. i personally don't want to limit my own ability to tell a story how i want to tell it by applying a set of rules that don't make a whole lot of sense considering that manipulation has been inherent throughout the history of photography since its inception.

oh, an National Geographic is far from being the standard bearer for for what "real" photography is. on the contrary, it is a very narrow slice of what photography is and can be.

What is "truth"?  If you can answer that, then what is the meaning of life?

We've been here before Carl - The answer's 42 

9

Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes

« on: May 21, 2013, 11:14:21 AM »

I have posted the Haystacks picture in the lens gallery, but thought I'd pop it into the Landscape gallery along with another picture. They are both taken in the English Lakes District National Park, the first from a small mountain known as 'Haystacks", looking towards Crummock Water and Ennerdale Water, with High Stile in the middle, at 2,643 feet. I know many around the world will laugh at that height being a mountain ( not those in the Netherlands     ) but to us Brits it's a mountain.

Second picture is taken in Borrowdale by the River Derwent, looking towards Maiden Moor, a paltry 1,887 feet.

All on the 24-105 at f11, at which aperture this lens is as good as anything else really, especially after pp.

Lovely Images Sporgon, I seemed to have missed all these lovely places
when I visited the area, seemed to rain an inordinate amount of time, but your shots show just what I missed.

Many thanks eml and quasimodo for your comments.

eml - you and nearly everyone else unfortunately     When I lived up there as a lad we used to call it the Rain District   

10

Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes

« on: May 21, 2013, 11:08:07 AM »

I have posted the Haystacks picture in the lens gallery, but thought I'd pop it into the Landscape gallery along with another picture. They are both taken in the English Lakes District National Park, the first from a small mountain known as 'Haystacks", looking towards Crummock Water and Ennerdale Water, with High Stile in the middle, at 2,643 feet. I know many around the world will laugh at that height being a mountain ( not those in the Netherlands     ) but to us Brits it's a mountain.

Second picture is taken in Borrowdale by the River Derwent, looking towards Maiden Moor, a paltry 1,887 feet.

All on the 24-105 at f11, at which aperture this lens is as good as anything else really, especially after pp.

Gorgeous shots and scenery! One day, I would love to visit the Lakes district.

many thanks serendipidy. Get yourself over to England, visit the Lakes and be sure to look me up !

11

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF24-105mm f/4L IS USM

« on: May 21, 2013, 11:05:57 AM »

Here's our latest picture, shot with the 5D mkii and 24-105 f4.

Taken from a small mountain in the English Lake District National Park called Haystacks, looking north west, late evening.

Did someone on CR once call this lens 'garbage" ? 

Lovely! The lighting, clouds, the green and blue just all come together.

And whoever called it "garbage", I am very willing to relieve that person of the "garbage"

Many thanks Guys.

 @rpt, I'm pleased you like the balance of colours colors because when we first produced this picture it disappointed, until we de saturated and gave a much more realistic saturation to the colour, and 'ping' - it worked. I think it looks like Ektachrome shot on 5x4 !

The particular 24-105 that we used for this shot is a very good copy. It holds more resolution in the centre of the frame at f8 than our 50mm f1.4 does at the same aperture

12

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Am I crazy to sell my Canon gear?

« on: May 20, 2013, 09:01:27 AM »

Not per se, but announcing it on CR means you probably are........

 

13

HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Post your HDR images:

« on: May 20, 2013, 03:19:13 AM »

Here is one of mine. Nothing spectacular (except that I myself am amazed at the richness of it, given that the lightconditions were un-ideal and very high contrast). I stack them in Merge to HDR Pro.. in Photoshop CS 6. Taking the pictures and stacking them is fine, my problem is what to do in the window that pop's up. Do any of you have any good links to tutorials for this tool in CS 6?

Thanks,

G.

A good example of achieving an accurate rendition of the scene using HDR

14

Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes

« on: May 19, 2013, 06:38:55 AM »

I have posted the Haystacks picture in the lens gallery, but thought I'd pop it into the Landscape gallery along with another picture. They are both taken in the English Lakes District National Park, the first from a small mountain known as 'Haystacks", looking towards Crummock Water and Ennerdale Water, with High Stile in the middle, at 2,643 feet. I know many around the world will laugh at that height being a mountain ( not those in the Netherlands     ) but to us Brits it's a mountain.

Second picture is taken in Borrowdale by the River Derwent, looking towards Maiden Moor, a paltry 1,887 feet.

All on the 24-105 at f11, at which aperture this lens is as good as anything else really, especially after pp.

15

6D Sample Images / Re: Anything shot with a 6D

« on: May 19, 2013, 03:17:41 AM »

@Jack, IMO you're over doing the open aperture on many of your shots, DOF is just too shallow.


Note that Renegade's picture of the bat is at f5