Posts

SJTstudios · Sep 28, 2012

Thanks guys, I'm thinking of going for option 1

bdunbar79 · Sep 28, 2012

You did great!!

bdunbar79 · Sep 28, 2012

well_dunno said:
bdunbar79 said:

Um, the 1Ds line is GONE and is no more (hint: The 1D X).

Click to expand...

I was referring to a 1D type body by 1Ds line, perhaps 1Dxs as NL suggests? (I know Keith is discredited for the inaccurate 1Ds mk 4 rumors but anyway)

Either case, my guess is 5D type high MP body to sit between 1 and 5 lines...

Cheers!

We can probably both agree that it will be a 1Ds Mark IV hidden in another name

cayenne · Sep 28, 2012

I am in New Orleans...i was driving to work along Lakeshore drive...heard a roar...and looked up and saw the shuttle on the back of its just doing a banking turn just over my head.

Wow..what a cool thing to see...unfortunately, I was on the road driving and couldn't even get my iphone of my pocket while on the road...but I did slow down, and watch it as I could, since traffic was low where I was....

I wish I'd have known a bit better the timing and path...I found out later, if I'd stayed home a bit longer, it would have come over my house and I could have gotten some really good shots with my 5D3.....

Oh well...no pics from me, but it was quite thrilling. 2nd time I'd seen it on the back of a jet..first time was in Tucson, AZ about 1984 or so...saw it being transported between CA and FL...but back then, the shuttle was a bit newer.

;D

cayenne

AJ · Sep 28, 2012

Indeed, a brightness of "1000 times brighter than Venus" is a bast-case scenario. This comet may very well fizzle out before it becomes visible to the naked eye. It may very well be a new comet fresh out of the Oort cloud, composed mainly of volatile compounds that easily dissipate.

However if the comet does indeed reach those optimistic predictions then it'll be visible for more than a month. Plenty of time for photography. Let's hope for the best!

Mt Spokane Photography · Sep 28, 2012

Nikon tends to stockpile a camera body before announcing it. This is part of the reason for so many leaks, since printers are printing manuals and other documents to stuff in the boxes, and someone always leaks information.
Actually, I think it works to Nikon's benefit, since they get free advance advertising, and interest builds up. If only they had good lenses for FF at reasonable prices. They had optimized many of their older FF lenses for crop as well as continuing to spend resources turning out new crop lenses such that they find themselves with fine FF cameras, but a limited selection of high quality FF lenses.
Its becoming pretty obvious that FF cameras are rapidly moving to mainstream for photo enthusiasts and they find themselves in a hole.

Sep 28, 2012

tks

Do you know where to get them online and what price ?
Specially a site that sends worldwide, do you you know any China site that sells them too ?
I am from Brazil and mostly Us sellers don´t ship to other places, or the shipping costs more than the product it self

That af confirm ring I sold my client for R$ 40 (+- U$ 20)

tks

rumorzmonger · Sep 28, 2012

Aden Camera in Toronto has some great prices on Zeiss lenses right now - they are by far the cheapest I've seen anywhere.

http://www.adencamera.com/default.asp?Category=7&Manufacturer=186

You'll need to add the lenses to your shopping cart to see the price.

Secretariat · Sep 28, 2012

For those of you out there who has any experiences with the Tink Tank Sling-O-Matic 10 camera bag,would you know if a pro body camera like a 1DX with a 70-200 F2.8L MKII lens attached fit into it?

Thanks.

tron · Sep 28, 2012

RLPhoto said:
Underexpose and try to recover whats left. ;D

I hope you do not suggest anything from the dark side... ;D

distant.star said:
Simplest basic strategy -- short of bringing a pellet guns and shooting out the offending lights!

Interesting and cheap (for the photographer only) way to fix it ;D

Mt Spokane Photography · Sep 28, 2012

This topic has been moved to Third Party Manufacturers.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9809.0

JPlendPhoto · Sep 28, 2012

Pensador_Axadrezado said:
I'm in the same boat as you.
(I think it's best to wait for a full review on the 6D IQ and AF system before jumping to a new camera)

Interesting. Yes, I guess we will have to wait and see.

Chris_prophotographic · Sep 28, 2012

7D is a massive amount of features for the price and with the 70 - 200 its a real win ,truly.

If money is no object get a big body you will be very happy if you can afford a mk IV or a MK III

its all GOOD gear but you know what your shooting and how it will be accomplished best.

ecka · Sep 28, 2012

hjulenissen said:
ecka said:

I suggest you start reading more carefully. I never said that I care more about the cow than the milk. I care about both actually.

Click to expand...

My initial critique was that you seemed to care most about per-pixel performance. That may be ok if you are an engineer. If you are a photographer, one would expect you to care more about the final image than the individual pixels.

Often the two will be correlated, sometimes they are not.

The thing is - if "cows" are fine then the "milk" is fine automatically, but not 'vice versa'.

Click to expand...

If you care about milk, then it is the milk you should care about. The cows health may affect the quality of the milk, but other factors may as well. If the shop is leaving the milk for too long outside, it may be sour. No amount of checking of the cows well-being will reveal that the super-market has a lazy milk handler.

For your reference (removed irrelevant parts):

hjulenissen said:

ecka said:

...For me it's all about camera's per-pixel color reproduction performance.

Click to expand...

I care about images, not pixels. People that obsess with per-pixel image quality seems to be less interested in images that I am.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Like I said earlier, a 3 MP camera might have fantastic per-pixel performance - and poor image quality. A 36 MP camera might have mediocre per-pixel performance and fantastic image quality. If you purchase a camera in order to obsess with 1:1 displays on your screen, then by all means use per-pixel quality as a guide. If you are interested in photography for the images, I suggest using images as a guide.

-h

3mp camera with fantastic per-pixel performance won't produce poor quality images. It will produce fantastic 3mp images. Why it is so hard to understand? :-\
If 36mp camera has mediocre per-pixel performance and fantastic image quality, then perhaps it means that you don't need 36mp for what you do. 20mp camera may be just as good and even better in term of high ISO, fps, file size, etc. Why do you need those useless, false, made-up bits of information?

Patrick · Sep 28, 2012

Thanks to everyone who took the time to respond. Just waiting for a cheque (check) to arrive and it's time for shopping!

Menace · Sep 28, 2012

I think it's highly unlikely Canon will release a 35 1.8 IMHO

Cheers

Menace · Sep 28, 2012

Welcome to CR

Sep 28, 2012

Gear: EOS 600d
Lens: Sigma 50 1.4 / Sigma 10-20mm / Tamron 17-55 2.8

mrsfotografie · Sep 28, 2012

dhofmann said:
Brymills said:

Nothing interests me less than another average zoom lens that doesn't have a constant aperture..... If you're spending that much on a body, why compromise on a crappy lens?

Click to expand...

Why would the lack of constant aperture make a lens crappy? Are the 100-400 and 70-300L lenses crappy?

I'll chime in here, I guess it's convenience when shooting with a constant (stopped down) aperture and need some light. I don't mind an aperture range from f/3.5-4.5. You can stop that down to f/5.6 for the entire range for instance and still have a reasonably wide aperture. I usually do the same with an f/4 lens. A short zoom that ends in f/5.6 is not fun when struggling for light as that would result in f/8 to or so to get optimum sharpness especially with a cheapie.

Of course this all assumes that you need to stop down some for best sharpness as is the case with most zoom lenses. and there are a very few exceptions.

I love my 100-400 but almost always use it with apertures stopped down to f/6.3 at least.

Sep 28, 2012

compupix said:
It's a lot of work:
1. selecting the worthwhile images
2. cleaning
3. scanning
4. touching up

Other than the scanning step, I don't see how that process is any different from digital photographs captured on a digital camera.

Oh, perhaps you forgot to include the biggest issue

which is the developing, and the ~$10-$15 per roll it costs to purchase the film and develop it after. Probably more now with the increased prices of film.

Sep 27, 2012

I suspect Canon will update the new 6D line more frequently the say the 5D line so you might want to wait. I doubt it will be major updates for mark II though. Canon will not let it cannibalize 5D3.

Sep 27, 2012

EDIT: Nevermind, I figured out what happened. Sounds like the lighting was the issue and not the camera...so weird because I've NEVER seen it before...(but that's a relief)

original post below
_______________________

Played with a 5D3 in the store today and noticed something very weird...just wondering if 5D3 owners have run across this one:

Shooting in fluorescent lighting (what the store had), seemed to occur at higher ISOs (3200+) there was a weird yellowish cast across over part of the photo. It was usually across the bottom ~1/4 but it's occasionally in other parts of the photo as well. Very odd...was wondering if it was the white balance or something...even in RAW can't seem to fix the color cast since it's only in 1/4 to 1/3 of the pic... maybe it's isolated to the store model or something, but I've NEVER seen this before on either the T2i or my 60D (or any other camera I've shot with)