Messages

166

Site Information / Re: Love or Hate Canon Rumors Forum

« on: April 05, 2013, 06:22:23 AM »

I followed CR for some time as a rumour site, and found it interesting. Began to read some of the forum posts and found that unlike other forum 'discussions' that I had come across CR seemed to be populated, on the whole, by intelligent, courteous people who either knew their stuff or were a sponge to receive the information.

Also many of the photos posted were ( and are ) superb. So I joined and it's the only forum I have ever been involved in.

Inevitably you get a few of the aggressive 'forum speak' posters who can be insulting whilst hiding behind anonymity, but they are generally few and far between.

With regard to the continual resurfacing of topics such as ( the dreaded ) DR, despite the often inane postings by troubled souls, there is some really good information that can be gleaned, such as the fact that Canon sensors respond better to over exposing slightly if the EV range allows. So even the latest rant on the subject was not totally in vain.

The more aggressively a poster puts his view across the less likely it is to hold any substance, so it's often easy to avoid following Red Herrings.

I also enjoy the truly global scope of the forum - it's not so much it's a small world, it's just we move in small circles 

167

Lenses / Re: Any difference bw used and new 24-105mm lens?

« on: April 05, 2013, 03:03:04 AM »

Sell both and get 24-70 f2.8 II

The OP's question was 'any difference between used and new 24-105'. 


(so we do have the same sense of humour !  )

168

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery

« on: April 04, 2013, 05:13:20 PM »

The scene is irrelevant; it's all about the light. Great light in a junkyard will make for awesome art. Bad light in formal gardens will generally make for bad art, unless you work with it to paint a picture of contrasts. And trying to shoot anything in bad light but make it look like good light?

Ok. Define "bad light" then.

Why do people put diffusers on flash guns ? After all it's just light.

169

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Finally a DXOMark win for Canon

« on: April 04, 2013, 03:32:46 PM »

Yes you can see why Canon hasn't rushed out a 40 mp body.

Anyone who has really maximised their 18 or 22 mp know how remarkable that degree of resolution can be.

170

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery

« on: April 04, 2013, 02:42:14 PM »

Oooooh, art_d, that last paragraph of yours is sooooooo wrong.

From a picture point of view, not just photography, the lighting is a fundamental part of the picture, irrespective of how you might expose it in photography.

Go and look at some paintings produced by really great artist and then tell me they are not all about the light.

And by the way, your eyes don't see, your brain does.

171

Canon General / Re: European travel?

« on: April 04, 2013, 03:28:28 AM »

I am just back from prague wonderful place you will love it :-) i didn't get out too much with the camera as i was there with friends but heres one shot i grabbed.


Great street shot of 'beautiful blonde'. Shot into street lights at night of people in dark clothing. Please send this to ankorwat / mikeal risdal or what ever he calls himself....

Prague by Lseriesglass, on Flickr
a night scene

prague beautiful blonde night scene by Lseriesglass, on Flickr

172

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Dynamic range, high lights information D800 vs 5dmk2

« on: April 04, 2013, 01:40:42 AM »

You and others do not seems to understand the difference of what we are discussing, moreover, many photos was taken with  my 5dmk2.
and in several cases it is better to use Nikon , as here, where the contrast is high in the scene and there are pattern noise in the woman's shirt from 5dmk2

You are absolutely correct. The 5D series has such poor dynamic range that it is utterly useless, particularly as a landscape camera (where the D800 shines), as can be clearly seen by my enclosed photo, taken with a 5Diii...

That's a beautiful picture of Glen Affric. It would look stunning printed as a metre wide canvas.

173

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Dynamic range, high lights information D800 vs 5dmk2

« on: April 03, 2013, 04:38:59 PM »

ishdakuteb's point is rapier swift and sharp on the mark.........

Oooops, that should now read: his earlier point.......

174

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Dynamic range, high lights information D800 vs 5dmk2

« on: April 03, 2013, 04:30:41 PM »

ishdakuteb's point is rapier swift and sharp on the mark.........

175

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Dynamic range, high lights information D800 vs 5dmk2

« on: April 03, 2013, 04:05:00 PM »

As suppose really as Canon users we should take all this DR troll crap as a compliment. It seems no one can find anything else to criticise about the system.

And I just can't take seriously someone who uses both Canon and Nikon but just keeps on knocking the former continually. A second hand 5D has a value in Finland - surely

176

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Autofocus not impressive

« on: April 03, 2013, 12:33:07 PM »

2000$ for 6D or 2375$ for a Refurbed MK3? You all are quibbling for the 500$ difference from the 5D2 to the 6D, which is minimal gains, while from the 6D to the 5D3 is day-night difference. 

Seriously man, I know you're completely prejudice against the 6D and too stubborn to admit you're wrong, but you're posts might hold more merit if you didn't shuffle around the numbers to try to support your points.

It's an opinion based on a 6D rental and the numbers I've already posted. Here's a snap from CL for that lens price.

If a friend said, "I'm going FF soon and ill be needing some glass too" I wouldn't recommend a 6D at the moment, perhaps if it was 1500$ body only brand new, but that make the excellent 5d2 around 1000-1200 at that point.

It should have had all the points cross type. Even the rebel has that now.

What I love about this is that you tell us not to quibble over $500 (for your fabled is available anywhere refurb 5d3 deal), while a 6d can be had for just shy of $1800.  Back in january, not to far in the past, $1900 was considered a good price for a 5d2!!!!  So with that said, how could you NOT recommend the 6d?

Because a 6D is a rebranded 5D2 with fluff performance wise. Why pay more for what essentially is a 5D2? Bad value.

Just out of curiosity RLPhoto old chap, and asking without any sarcasm - I appreciate your work - how would you have spec'd a cheaper FF camera that was to sit below the 5D mk3 ?

177

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Dynamic range, high lights information D800 vs 5dmk2

« on: April 03, 2013, 10:15:10 AM »

Ankortwat: these repeated and persistent comparisons that you make between the D800 and 5D are simply announcing to everyone here on CR that you are not convinced enough about your D800 to ditch your 5D.

Please, please go and post this stuff on a Nikon forum

178

EOS Bodies / Re: Question regarding ISO 50 on 5D III

« on: April 03, 2013, 07:55:00 AM »

Fully understood and agreed.
By "non native ISO" I was however also referring to ISO values such as 160 and 320, as these are pulled (similar to 50?) in contrast to eg. 125 which is claimed to be pushed.
I am trying to figure out if the inclusion of pulled ISO values make ETTR less useful

Sorry, I read your response as just relating to 'L' and 'H'; perhaps that's because I know about those !

I am not so sure of my facts with intermediate ISOs, but from what I do know, again you raise a very valid point.

If ISO 160 is pulled from 200, ie it is just ISO 200 over exposed by one third of a stop and reduced back to 'correct' exposure in camera, then the same principle will apply. Conversely if 125 is pushed one third from 100 the principle applies in reverse: you'd be already under exposing by one third so ETTR would have to be increased to compensate.

By the same principle ISO 160 would then have one third less EV latitude ( the dreaded DR ) than 200, but the test graphs don't show this.

But I am not sure of my facts on these 'non native' ISOs. I've read that people claim there is less noise at ISO 160 than 100, but I have not found this to be the case. However I have found that ISO 50 (L) can give smoother data than 100.

179

EOS Bodies / Re: Question regarding ISO 50 on 5D III

« on: April 03, 2013, 06:33:50 AM »

Well as I understand it ISO 50 (L) is ISO 100 over exposed by 1 stop and then processed back down to correct exposure.

So, if you're  in the 'ETTR' camp it's helping you out.

ahh ofc, that would explain why I only saw a benefit on a specific scene. This would also mean that native vs non-native iso is relevant to consider if practicing ETTR?

Good point.

The answer is yes, because if you exposed to the right by say two thirds whilst in (L) you would actually be over exposing by one and two thirds EV.

Some have suggested that if you're shooting in RAW then ISO 50 (L) is pointless because you can just shoot ISO 100 and over expose by one full EV (stop), and then post process down. I disagree as if you do this you are lumbered with all your files showing one EV over exposure. IMO much better to shoot in L, gain from the benefit of ETTR, and allow the camera program to bring files back to 'correct' exposure, but you have within there the better info for darker areas.

The caveat of course is that just as when practicing ETTR, when shooting in (L) the photographer must judge the strength of highlights because you will be further over exposing them.

180

Animal Kingdom / Re: Your best animal shots!

« on: April 02, 2013, 04:35:39 PM »

Etosha Sunset

What a great shot !