Lol no the filters where correct way.. Will give it another play tomorrow see what results I can get

With 70-200 f/2.8 II and 2x TC MkIII, it's truly "Set to f/8 and go." f/8 seems to be the setting with TC III that gives you tremendous sharpness and contrast still.

bbasiaga said:

What's wrong with just letting the sun be blown out? When you look at the sun with your eye (which you shouldn't do, so let's say when you look NEAR the sun with your eye) the pupil can't dial down enough anyway, so what you see is 'blown out'.

You can HDR the rest of the image as you like and it'll look fine, IMO.

-Brian

Click to expand...

Thanks for the answer, I finally got around to trying some options on this, and here is one of the results.
Sun is blown out, as nothing could be rescued there at all anyway. I guess I thought that shooting differently might have helped.

>>Mind you, the JPG looks terribly noisy, the TIFF seems to be OK.
Recreated the JPG directly out of PS instead of LR. I hope that looks better.
Cheers Brian

Looking back at my purchases, IF (and that's a big if) I wasn't doing any video at all, I would've opted for the 16-35L over my 35L. But i absolutely LOVE the 35 L when I shoot videos. Yes, I use it at f/1.4-2.0 for video and it looks gorgeous. As a walk around, on the rare occasion when I switch out my 24-105 for the 35L, I use it at f/1.8-2.0 without flash and it does a decent job, but I'm realizing more and more that primes, awesome as they are, aren't really well suited for my style of shooting. It's a pain to have to switch between my 35 and my 50 when I'm walking around so 90% of the time, I just keep the 24-105 on. This might change as I just got my 70-200 yesterday and have fallen in love with it.

to sum up: I like primes for video shoots when I have time to set up one lens and one shot. Lots of fun playing with manual focus. I'd prefer an f/2.8 zoom for photography and it seems like you're lacking in the wide angle area so I 2nd that notion.

Hi what about downloading the trial version of LR 4.2. This handles. NEF files. Michael

wickidwombat said:

the statement is true to an extent however there are only a handfull of L lenses better than the sigma 85 f1.4
regardless of cost and focal length and they are all the seriously expensive massive and heavy ones.

also IMO the new sigma 50mm f1.4 is better than all the canon 50mm lenses

the 40mm pancake is sharper and better accross the frame than the 24-70 f2.8L mk1 at 40mm the center is similar but edges and corners the 40mm dominates heavily.

Click to expand...

+1

So I'm a pretty big guy WITH ripply muscles... and I just have to say... OH MY! It's heavy and I can see why people complain about the size... but I really kinda like how big it is.

I purchased the SX50HS with a 30 day money back guarantee and I just finished my first day with it. The AF is pretty fast and image stabilization and auto frame assist works very well on the long end. I've been shooting in auto mode to get a feel for handling the camera. I've been shooting exclusively with DSLRs with grips since my 20D and BG-E2. The smaller, lighter feel and zooming via a lever takes some getting used to. I'll get into the creative modes and settings next week when I pop into NYC.

Promature said:

Roger Cicala on shooting air shows:
"One effective technique to get some room when you’re at a crowded airshow: set the 600 vertically with the hood end on the ground, get a serious look on your face, and announce loudly 'you folks should step back from the blast area before we launch this.'"

Click to expand...

Must be a large closet

1D mk III, isn't that the one with a APS-H sensor and 8 frames per second? Do you need speed in a wedding? and do you need the crop for anything that a 70-200 cannot cover? Given your list, I would actually opt for a used 1Ds MK III. It is an awsome camera, and was the flagship camera for full frame until the 1Dx was released.

pwp said:

rpt said:

Forget all that! White plastic bag and a rubberband works for me when I can't bounce the flash!

Click to expand...

That's a great idea, particularly if you're getting good results. It could save the day! I'll put a white plastic bag and rubberband in my camera bag.

If you're shooting for a client, there is the often overlooked matter of perception. Photographers are expensive people to hire. Regardless of the results you can achieve with a white plastic bag, clients don't want to see that. They want to see you with a camera and lens combination that they either can't afford or justify, and accessories that suggest innovation and professionalism.

Assuming you have the required personal, ethical, business, creative and technical abilities, the way to make money from photography is to be reassuringly expensive, and that means turning up with shiny new equipment, nicely dressed and in a decent car. On one level it's total BS, but on another it's complete reality.

-PW

Click to expand...

I don't shoot for money so it works for me. If I were shooting for a client I'd buy one of those diffusers described above. Even if it were a non paying kind of shoot. You are right, perception is everything...

jaayres20 said:

I switched from the pocket wizard system to 3 600ex-rt flashes.

Click to expand...

I did exactly the same thing, and get rid of the PW. I'm very happy with that system. It's working fine up to 170 m.

You can try the in-camera raw processing to be able to have more control over image quality. If you want the best, avoid jpeg. Its fine for ebay and craigslist photos, but for archival work, they won't stand the test of time.
Raw images I took several years ago and processed with Lightroom 2 can be reprocessed with the latest version, and do look much better. You can't do that to in camera jpegs, they are frozen in time, and best used for cases where time is more important than quality.

This is just awesome

Christmas today in October!! Woohoo!

Santa just came in the disguise of a UPS man!

NewEgg came through with my 24-70 ll, AND Amazon with my new 1DX. Fun this weekend!!!


OK OK.. crappy pics, but taken quickly with my iPhone5!

Happy days!

Richard8971 said:

I know this question has been asked over and over and several reviews on the web have put both cameras through their paces, but after my own use of both cameras, here is my 2 cents.

First off, let it be said that a FF 7D is the 5D3. This is not about comparing the these two bodies. The 5D2 is basically a FF rebel (in terms of speed/raw features), with a far SUPERIOR color processor and sensor! (No offense anyone)

I own both cameras. It comes down to this, if you are shooting mainly stills, weddings and "canned" shots, the 5D2 cannot be beat in areas of image quality and low light handling.

However, for wildlife? The 7D is a workhorse and I love using mine. The more I shoot with it, the more I love it. I have been getting amazing images from it and it is far easier to use than I first gave it credit for. It is very fast and a "NOW" camera. It does what you want exactly when you want it done!

I am simply suggesting that a camera that can cost well over a grand less than the 5D3, and upwards of $600 less than the 5D2 and twice as fast as the 5D2, one has to stand up and take notice. When Canon does decide to make a "7D Mark II" they have their work cut out for them. For an APS-C camera, the 7D is as close to perfect as it can be and I for one cannot wait to see what they consider a "replacement" for the 7D! Yes, crop sensors have limits, just as FF bodies do... but the image quality and advantages (speed) of the 7D outweigh the 5D2 in real world shooting!

If you buy one, you will not be disappointed. I haven't been... (shots taken with the 7D, pics sized down for posting, full size rez photos are much, much nicer!)

Click to expand...

Richard, you have summed up my thoughts, feelings and experience of owning the 7D very closely with your post. I bought my 7D soon after it came out... and it's been a workhorse of a camera - very much a 'NOW' camera and capable of great image quality in the right hands, with good lenses (& technique).

Sure a FF has some noted advantages, but often we're talking at pixel peeping level. Even great photographers can not often distinguish an unlabelled crop photo from a FF in many instances.

Enjoy your photography everyone!!

Paul

Thanks Neuro... you have answered all my questions SO clearly and well. I now understand.

You're a legend! Again, your contribution on this forum is so much appreciated.

Paul

I've only just had my 50 1.4 back from repair, so not tried it with the 5d3 yet. On the 7D, i found that i could get keepers wide open, but they were difficult in situations outside my control. Stopping it down a bit is easier

In my (limited) experience, it's the drummer's arms that're the first thing to go, then guitar arms and such.

rcarca said:

nightbreath said:

They look too flat and too sharp to me. I believe you can easily fix this in your editing software.

Click to expand...

I am interested in the "too sharp" part of what you said. I have done nothing to sharpen them. That is straight out of the can. Are you suggseting that I might soften them?

As to the flat bit... does this look any less flat:

...

Unfortunately, you can see more signs of the building work hidden amongst the trees! I really appreciate all of this feedback because it helps me get these looking better!

I will also be back there on a better light day... but perhaps not now until next spring!

Cheers

Richard

Click to expand...

It seems CR forum makes something with sharpness when you add your pictures from Flickr here. When I said "flat" I was referring to main point of attention in the photo, nothing could "catch" my eye. And please don't use shadows push so much

I'm betting it's going to be a long wait for that high MP rumored camera. If you already own some good glass then why not invest in some strobes? That will help with image quality.

IN the STUDIO they just work 1 2 3 easy, OUT doors wow random, if you get them working thats it teh whole day SHOULD run smooth , but if you don't it takes precious minutes,

I suggest marry a TT5 to its FLASH seems if they like each other they work fine he he goofy i know but i have had wonderful results with PW and other times i felt like a rank amature

I just wish they would work better than any Cheapies cause we sure are paying the money for them.

You are on the right path. If you are going to get the 70-200 mkii then you wont need the 100-400. The 200 plus 2xiii extender is all as good as the 100-400. After using the 70-200 mkII with the 2XIII for a while. I picked up the 100-400. Decided to return it as it did not offer me anything I didn't already have. Plus the AF was more accurate on the 70-200 with 2xiii.. More keepers shooting birds in flight. the 100-400 seemed to hunt more for focus and I lost a lot of shots because of it.

NJK said:

I'm pondering the same decision right now.

I don't own either lens yet, but I will be getting the 70-200 2.8 IS mk II soon. I have the non-L 70-300 IS right now, and I routinely shoot at 300mm. I would not object to having even more range. 200mm won't cut it for what I do - so I'll either go with the extender 2x mk III or the 100-400. Obviously, the former solution is cheaper, but if I have to save up a bit longer to get the 100-400 in addition to the 70-200 2.8 IS mk II, then I will.

I understand that the speed of the focus drive is cut by 75% when the extender 2x is used (and by 50% when the 1.4x is used). I don't do a lot of sports or fast-action shooting (at least not in the 300mm + range), so I can probably live with this. It sounds like with the (mk II) lens + (mk III) extender at 400mm, IQ is on par with what you get from the 100-400 lens at 400mm. Yes, you lose 2 stops of light with the extender 2x, which means that either way you go, you will have a maximum aperture of f/5.6 at 400mm. So, this is really looking like a true "toss up" here.

I firmly believe in buying lenses with the native focal lengths that you really need, and as I've said, I'm not opposed to saving up a little longer to get the 100-400mm. BUT, here is what has me leaning in the direction of the 70-200 2.8 IS mk II + the extender 2x mk III, instead of the 100-400:

(1) The "drawbacks" in terms of sharpness, IQ, contrast, etc... inherent with any extender are offset by the fact that you're starting with a MUCH higher quality lens (the 70-200 2.8 IS mk II);

(2) Any issues with contrast can certainly be corrected in PP and the images can also be sharpened a bit in PP, if necessary. I’m willing to do this work, if lens + extender ends up being the better way to go;

(3) The 100-400 isn’t (fully) weather sealed, while the 70-200 2.8 IS mk II is weather sealed (as is the extender 2x mk III). I don't deliberately subject my gear to adverse conditions, but it is nice to know that my investment is protected, if the elements catch me off guard; and

(4) The 100-400 only has 2 stops of correction via its IS system, vs. 4 stops of correction via the newer implementation of IS on the 70-200 2.8 IS mk II.

Point # 4 above is what REALLY has me leaning in this direction. I don't lug a tripod around with me everywhere. 99% of my shots are hand-held. DOUBLE the correction (from a more updated IS system) has me thinking that the 70-200 2.8 IS mk II + extender 2x mk III might actually be "better" than buying the 100-400.

Am I crazy for thinking this?!? As you can see, I'm aware of the slower focus speed, IQ issues, etc. of going the lens + extender route here. I didn't see the issue of a much better IS system being discussed in this thread and I just wanted to bring it up. I'd love to hear your thoughts about this and anyone's actual experience as it relates to the two IS systems here. Thanks!

Click to expand...

I don't think the EF-S lens line-up was a BAD idea... Canon needed to do SOMETHING to give users of crop-sensor bodies good wide-angle performance at a reasonable price.

Can you imagine how expensive and complex the optics would be to create an EF lens that matches the wide-angle performance of the EF-S 10-22mm on a crop-sensor body?!? It would need to be the FF equiv. of roughly 6-14mm. That's well into fisheye territory. Trying to correct for the distortion in that focal length range (if it is even possible) would result in one heavy (lots of glass), costly lens! So the EF-S lens line-up does serve a purpose.

With a couple of exceptions, the EF-S line-up is filled with moderately priced, consumer-grade lenses. These lenses tend to be "good enough" for people with crop-sensor Rebels, who just want something better than compact / point & shoot digial cameras.

A consumer-grade crop-sensor body and an EF-S lens or two is also often the "starting point" for many beginners, who might later aspire to take their photography to the next level. If/when they're ready to move up to a professional-grade (FF) body, this is usually the time they upgrade their lens(es) too. A professional-grade body deserves professional-grade glass to really get the best performance out of it; your rig is only as good as its weakest link. Very few beginners purchase lenses that are of high enough quality to later be used with a professional-grade body anyway. So, even if you COULD use your EF-S lenses on a 5D III or 1DX body, would you really want to?? I see the EF-S lenses as the first step in (Canon) DSLR photography.

I have a 60D. The day I bought it, I knew that I would eventually upgrade to FF, so I was careful not to invest too much in EF-S lenses.

My 60D came with the EF-S 18-135mm IS lens. Right away, I found that 18mm wasn't wide enough on my crop-sensor body, so I bought an EF-S 10-22mm lens a few months later. BRAND NEW, the 10-22 is nearly L-series money, and I refused to invest that kind of dough in something that wouldn't work on FF later. I found a great price on a used one, which was in mint condition. When I move up to FF, I will be able to resell my 10-22 and get every penny back out of it, or maybe even make a few bucks on it.

A couple of months ago, I finally got rid of my EF-S 18-135, and replaced it with the 24-105 L. I really LOVE the 24-105, but with my crop-sensor body, I'm glad I have the EF-S 10-22. When I move up to a FF body, I'll sell off the 10-22 and replace it with the 16-35mm L.

Without EF-S lenses, I simply wouldn't have a viable option for wide / ultra-wide angle shooting.

This topic has been moved to Third Party Manufacturers.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9942.0

ashmadux said:

Toploader Pro AW 75

this can handle a small or large body (with out without a grip, and a 70-200 with hood reversed. works extremely well, i use it for street style an for events. the weather guard is a plus. with no body attached, it works well as a case, with all its great padding.


cheers!

Click to expand...

Handles my 5D with the 100-400, but won't quite take it with the extender on there. Well, it kind of will, but you're forcing the zipper up around the camera body at that point.