In Spain two models were commercialized 6D N (without wi-fi and without gps) and 6D WG with wi-fi and gps, evidently with different prices, but still they are not known

http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds / 9/0300009239/01/eos6d-im-es.pdf

Thanks everyone for looking and for taking the time to post a comment

+1 for the 10-22 or 17-55 f/2.8. With the 10-22/17-55 and your current 70-200, you'll have excellent coverage of focal lengths.

FF gives more flexibility, but is also a lot more expensive. The body is more expensive. The 16-35 is much more expensive than the 10-22, and a f/2.8 midrange zoom is also more expensive than the 17-55. If you can, getting refurbs from the canon store makes sense when they go on sale -- You won't lose much if you decide to sell them in the future.

I'm also not a big fan of using the 17-40 on a crop camera. The wide angle zooms are the weakest lenses in the Canon lineup, and the 17-40 has more flaws than the 16-35 for general purpose use.

Your meter is probably correcting for strong backlight on the first shot. You are right about using raw in this instance...because autowb will not perform well in this case....with this kind of incandescent light...I will usually
switch to the K WB and use the lowest number they have. Also I do not advise using auto iso...the camera is
just not smart enough to do this effectively. In candid situations like this...I usually use flash with a modifier and
shoot in daylight wb to get good color tones.

wellfedCanuck said:

I appreciate you sharing your experiences, but I think you've missed a whole segment of the population. I can't provide any sort of scientific analysis but I can tell you with some certainty that there's a whole class of people - doctors, lawyers, airline pilots, accountants, police officers, firemen- for whom it's become a cultural thing. These people have organized clubs and social groups, posted to Facebook pages and created web sites.

Nobody takes it too seriously but at the same time they're doing 2 or three halfs (halves?) per year. My professional association sponsors one each spring plus a 5K in early summer. Many of these people would buy a photo each and every time if it was only ten bucks- it's a little more personal than the medal or the teeshirt. Being in the group photo to be posted in the corporate magazine has become de rigueur. Unfortunately, in our case these company trophy shots are still being taken with iphones and pocket cameras.

Click to expand...

Nope. Have not missed your segment. I think you for one over estimate it, i.e. people really quickly fall into the bucketlisters or the enthusiast and the excitement of photos, especially PAYING for photos quickly wears off even at $10 a pop. You also over underestimate the time ans expenses to do decent shots, go through and select, process, tag, and make available. A few orgs I know that are out there GIVE their photos away... i.e. they pay the photogs just like they would pay Brightroom, but instead of having sales, they give the photos, just like the swag T-shirt or medal, etc.

Even if such a segment may be a little larger than I think, it is still vastly smaller that those in the groups I mentioned. You have 50 people come into your area at the same time, and you only have a few seconds to acquire, frame, focus and repeat. Triathlons as well tend to spread out a lot more than your average road race, so much easier to shoot the bike or the run portion.

Long and short, you have a small window to pick and choose your targets, spend 3 seconds trying to wait for the target to put on a decent face or another runner gets in the way and you have lost the opportunity to shoot another 1 or 2 runners that you will not get.

It is EASY to sit there, pick out a dozen people you want to shoot at a race, shoot them, and maybe even shoot them in multiple places or from the same place in say and out-n-back portion of a race.

It is a far different beast to have a race with a thousand people and try and shoot 950 of them to try and find the ones who MIGHT be one of the smaller segment that might want to buy photos. There will be people who are always blocked by someone else and you never get a clear shot, their face or set up looks crappy, and taking a bad picture is worse than none at all, and actually as bad as some of race photography is, a lot is discarded because of how embarrassing it is, and lastly you even have a dozen people come through, you pretty much have to pick them off as best you can and half the time after you shot someone and moved on, THEN they give you a better look that you snapped.

Forgot to mention. Most of your shooting locations, there is a small "sweet spot" where the background is appealing, you don't have a mail box, road sign, telephone pole or other crap in the way. There is also a sweet spot of angle shooting the runner or cyclist that looks good to blah, as well as once a person starts getting at an angle to you, you loose their bib number or the bibs drift to the other side of their hip, etc.

My suggestion... Find a large race... sit out there and try and shoot. Granted a lot of event photography is crap because the shooters are not athletes, and my photography in this milleu is better because I have a relationship with the athletes; I shoot them as I want to be shot as well as from feedback of what people really like. I think what you will find is that your photography may be a better than the event photography, the majority of the images drift down the scale as you start shooting volume compared to when you are able to focus on a dozen or so athletes.

Absolutely stunning. Love your work

Some things about DR of 6D and 1DX. Still way below Nikon but above the 5D3.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1170095/2#11157889

AprilForever said:

Any more?

Click to expand...

Just read the description...
BTW it's great!

Botts said:

jrista said:

A fully integrated grip allows better weather sealing, improves stability and rigidity, and can allow better placement of additional or secondary buttons and functionality than a removable grip. For those types, such as myself, that pretty much always use a grip anyway and never remove it, an integrated grip is ideal.

The real key point to having an integrated grip though is better weather sealing...you just plain and simply can't seal a removable grip the same way...and weather sealing is one of the key selling points of the 1D line.

Click to expand...

Your comment about weather sealing is very true. I was shooting during 1 inch per hour rain in Florida with my 7D gripped, after about 4 hours, the buttons on the back of the 7D died which is usually a good indication that the 7D has been liquid damaged and is dead. However, I decided to component isolate and remove the grip, turns out the grip had died but not the 7D.

Turns out that the Canon grips are not weather sealed. If the camera/grip are in the rain, the weather sealing of the body is moot. With a permanent grip, the weather sealing would be much better.

Click to expand...

Personally, I use a Zeikos grip on my 7D. It actually does have some weather sealing. During Spring in 2012, I used my 7D in rain, sleet, snow, and even hail for over eight hours (it was a hell of a day for weather!) There were times with both my 100-400mm lens and the 7D were completely soaked, but nothing died, and everything seemed to work perfectly. When I got home and popped out the batteries for a recharge, I noticed that the Zeikos grip actually had a little foam rubber sealing gasket around the battery compartment, and again around the extension that fits into the 7D's battery cavity. I figure the buttons are probably moderately sealed...can't say if they are as good as the 7D's sealing or not. Regardless, if you want a grip for the 7D that can hold up to the weather, the Zeikos is it (and cheaper to boot)! 8)

I can say that when I hold a 5DII shutter button for 2 s, I get 8 images with at best 3-4 in perfect focus. Holding a 7D shutter for 2 s gives me 16 images with 12-14 in crisp focus. Holding the 1D X shutter button for 2 s, I get 24 images with 23-24 perfectly focused. Means triage takes more time...sacrifices must be made, I suppose...

very good

bdunbar79 said:

The differences I've noticed between D4 and 1DX is the high ISO noise reduction and printing capabilities. The other issue is that I cannot compare which camera locked focus more times, because I have never had my 1DX not lock focus. If you are in such poor lighting that you need to set your shutter that low, aperture that wide, and ISO that high, then who really cares? Why would you even shoot in that situation and expect anything more? No camera in the world will AF very well, so you cannot say it's just the 1DX. The D4 misses just as much. Even in the darkest sports venues, I can easily shoot at 1/640s, f/2.8, and ISO 6400 on a 1DX, and not underexpose. The beautful thing is that if I do EC, I can raise the ISO to 10,000, apply 50% NR, and print a beautiful 8 x 10. If I have to go darker than that, I won't shoot or I'll use a flash.

When you say your D800E locked more times than your 1DX, did you have both at the same time alternating each camera? Was anyone in this thread shooting with both at the same time at the same event, one in each hand?

Why in every other thread "the camera doesn't matter" unless it's a Nikon vs. Canon issue, when there's a problem, suddenly it's the camera again? Oh you guys keep me so entertained on this site. Keep it up! Meanwhile I'm going to keep shooting with my 1DX's.

Click to expand...

I care about shooting in very low light. That is why I invest in a 1DX. I wanted the top of Canon. I do not need you to care about my type of photography. My post is about sharing to others, especially to the OP, that I have the same problem as him. I cannot use a flash, I wanted the natural lightning.

Yes, I had both cameras with the same type of lens: my 1DX(latest firmware) with the new Canon 24-70 F2.8 MkII and my D800E with a Nikon 24-70G f2.8. They were used at the same moment, with the same subject.

Look, if the 1DX delivers for you, I glad that it does. For me, I just hope that I won't have to shoot to often in very, very low light.

gjones5252 said:

Was wondering if anyone else loved using their 16-35mm on their crop cameras.

Click to expand...

Personally I didn't find a lot of use at the 16mm end because of distortion. I tried the 14mm f2.8 prime (not a fisheye) and ended up with some really great shots, way better than the 16-35 on the low end.

I wound up rolling with a 14mm for close up action and a 70-200 for normal-telephoto. I virtually ignored the inbetween range.

The combo will be f/5.6 and will AF on all Canon dSLRs.

Ever since Pro-1 was announced, I've been waiting for a 17" version with a full arsenal of 12 Lucia EX ink cartridges to update my dye-based i9950. But the latest update is only printers 24" and up. So there's only the aging ipf5100 as far as I can tell.

Is there any hope we'll get a 17" update in the foreseeable future? I don't want to go with Epson since I print only intermittently, and have heard way too many horror stories about clogging.

I went marginally tighter, so that the handrail/wall junction was closer to the bottom of the frame, although it makes little difference. LR usually does a pretty good job of removing fringing and chromatic aberration, but I have seen a problem before on LR 3, I overcame it by choosing the option to remove fringing from the highlights only and also pull back on the recovery slider to below 70-75, as that can start to cause strange effects in LR 3 when you have a lot of blown highlights. LR 4 does a better job of recovering the highlights, so it depends on which version you're using.

Any of Canon's 1.4x extenders will work with any version of the 70-200mm. The 1.4x III offers improved AF tracking with the IS II lens and slightly lower CA. If you go for the IS II, the 1.4x III would be the best choice of Canon extender. If you go for a used IS Mk I, the benefit of the 1.4x III over the 1.4x II is less clear but still the better choice, all other things being equal.

Users of the Kenko Pro 300 DGX usually report very good results.

With any teleconverter, sample variation between it, the lens and the body may be a bigger factor so a body with AFMA would be an advantage.

I've had great success using (forgive the language) Bastard Amber gels in 1/4 to 1/2 cuts under warm sunlight.

Lay an oversized piece over the opening of a stofen or omnibounce and squish the face of your head into it for a nice snug fit with no light leak. Crumples the heck out of the gel, but who cares. Tape it on for full flash.

my long lost 10-22?! :O

If you want a bit of feedback- I'd suggest trying to lighten the green in the bushes behind her so you can see her belly! You basically have black on black and you lose the most important part of the shot. A flash a little behind her could have also been used as a rim light to separate her from background.

Other than that, she looks like a beautiful, glowing, happy mother-to-be, congrats!

I like the shots, and going for rich tones is nice too, but agree about the 'in shot' frames, they go against the composition and it gets distracting. And again the black frames on the edge are fine.

Shot of the two with the bird are good, but some light on their faces would help a lot, through diffused flash or a reflector to help them stand out a little more and get rid of most of the shadow on her face. Also, would add some more catch light in their eyes.

Yes for UV the B&W MRC is the best but the Hoya HMC are a good if not better(imho) and cheaper alternative check out this link>

http://www.lenstip.com/113.4-article-UV_filters_test_Description_of_the_results_and_summary.html

Out of the gate I guessed Plover but now agreeing with others it is Black-bellied more specifically "Adult-non Breeding" (Aug-Apr) Page 162 Sibley's Guide to Birds (spot on) and whatbird.com. I sometimes post to the whatbird.com forum. I usually get a positive ID (when in doubt) within 10 minutes or so. Loads of eager experts to help out with photo ID's.

sandymandy said:

My favorite kebab seller has such horrible photos of his products in the store. They are one some kind of overhead hanging thing so u can take a look what u wanna order. Theres even something in tinfoil that looks like it has been cut out in a reaaaally bad way with the magic wand. You can see the background color (mustard yellow) shine through.
Nevertheless his business runs very well 8)

Click to expand...

How about offering him to upgrade his food photos in exchange of some free kebabs and discount? It will be a good practice for you aside from that, you get discounts and freebies. If I know him, I'll certainly get into that opportunity.

neuroanatomist said:

DoF is affected by aperture (wider = shallower), focal length (longer = shallower), and subject distance (shorter = shallower). So...50mm f/2.8 at 8' may be fine for two people, but a shot framing just their heads at 85mm f/2.8 at 6' may be too shallow. There are online DoF calculators (google DoFmaster), iPhone apps, etc., to play around with. After a while, selecting the aperture that's just narrow enough for your subject(s) becomes intuitive.

Click to expand...

Ah! there you go- I knew wider aperture affected depth of field, didn't realize subject distance changed it. Explains why I have the problem more with close up "head shots" on my 50 1.4, then on full body shots.

I will check out DoFmaster for sure... thanks for all your help!