infared said:

LOL!!!!!
It is only camera of the year if it works for you and YOUR photographic needs.

Click to expand...

+1

i could only tell the pen...

the sigma is going to be getting another update based on the rumour mill
and if its anything like the quality coming from them at the moment it will be super sweet
I'm thinking i'd love it for runway shooting I use the 70-200 at the moment but would love to try out
the new siggy for this the extra reach would be really good and for runway a good zoom is really helpfull

Hillsilly said:

You can currently pick up a Nikon D600 Digital Camera with a 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR Lens and other accessories for $1996. If you take the normal sale price of the lens ($597) and accessories ($174) away, you could say that the underlying price of the camera is $1225.

Getting very close to your $1,000 mark.

Click to expand...

Another recent example is that B&H Photo is selling the Canon Rebel T4i w/18-55 IS kit for $649 . Minus the lens ($100 already highly discounted as a kit lens. Stand alone price is $199), that make the T4i body worth $549. Add $200 for the FF sensor, another $250 for larger body, mirror, shutter etc. That will make it $999 for a cheap FF body. Granted it will not be full of features. But it is doable.

Decided to do a bit of experimenting with my new 6D and the EOS app on an iPhone 5. I set my camera up on a tripod out by the bird feeder then came inside to try to get some shots of some birds feeding.

Caveat, I'm not one for reading instructions first so I jumped in assuming I would figure it out.

It seemed to me that the live view on my phone sometimes would freeze so I had to go with what I was seeing outside vs. what was on my phone. It also seemed that when I took a picture, using the app, the camera might have spent time sending the picture back to the camera or thinking because, again, the view on the phone would freeze for a while so it was hard to tell if the camera was actually taking pictures every time I pushed the button (turns out it was). Oh, one more thing, there is no audio cue or sound to let you know that you have actually taken a picture so sometimes I would push the button multiple times trying to make sure I don't miss a shot only to find out later I took 5 pictures.

I will be playing with this feature more as time goes on. Will report back if I learn something I missed.

Chris_prophotographic said:

Works fine sharp as a tack from 2M to infinity just something is telling it to not go under 2M (switch is effectively stuck in that position even thought it moves!)

Click to expand...

Likely that a mechanical liinkage is broken, but it can be other parts as well. As long as its a mechanical part, the price should not be excessive. It involves a lot of labor to tear down a lens and reassemble it. Hopefully, they would also give it a re-alignment and adjust for any decentering or AF accuracy. Thats a time consuming process as well.

Ok thanks, guess I'll leave the wifi for now :-[

I know version 1 is known for flare, but I'm not convinced that version II is much better. One of the only reviews I can find for the II is from Ken Rockwell, and the flare picture he has for that is just as bad or worse than the version I. I'd like to see a side-by-side comparison or hear from someone with first-hand experience before I spend the extra $150 on the new one. I'm sure it's better (or they wouldn't advertise it that way), but is it noticeable or significant?

If you get the 11-16 II, let me know how it works out for you! In the mean time, I'll keep waiting to see if a used version I becomes available.

This is my favorite website for finding dark places in the US:
http://www.jshine.net/astronomy/dark_sky/

Green or darker is typically good, but it can take a lot of driving to get somewhere dark enough. Where I am right now, the nearest green zone is about 2 hours away, and that's not even spectacular. The nearest blue zone is about 3.5 hours away. Getting to light gray is 4.5 hours minimum, and there is no dark gray zone east of Nebraska!

Here's a shot of the Milky Way in a green light pollution zone on a very clear night. It was taken with my 18-55 IS II at 18mm, 30s, ISO1600 on my T3i.

IMG_3113.jpg by m8547, on Flickr
I think it's not bad, though it is pushed to the limit in terms of ISO, noise, and exposure time (rotation of the earth). I think a barn door tracker is the way to go since I can't afford a full frame camera with better noise performance and because ultra wide lenses don't get much faster.

I did a series of shorter exposures that night hoping to stack them, but that didn't really work the way I expected. For some reason I was thinking they would add and make a brighter picture with less noise, but most of the faint detail in the shorter exposures was just lost in the noise. Maybe I'm just not doing the stacking right.

Overture said:

Thank you all for the help so far!
I think getting I'll be getting a Cokin ND kit someday due to the cheaper price compared to Lee's..
How have your experiences been with these?

Click to expand...

While the Cokin holders are fine, I would recommend the Hi-Tec filters, rather than Cokin, as they don't have the same issues with colour cast aren't much more expensive.

No! Don't flash it back yet! pm'd

I understand that the lens always focuses with the aperture wide open, so when you use a f/2.8 lens and shoot a picture at f/5.6 the aperture is open at f/2.8 for focusing and then closes to f/5.6 when the picture is taken.

The 6d centre point is cross type at f/5.6 and vertical line sensitive at f/2.8.

I think in the dark room there are several scenarios...

You can shoot with a f/5.6 lens and AF can lock on to features using the cross type centre point.
You can shoot with a f/4.0 lens and it uses the same centre point, but more light means it can lock onto less distinct features.
You can shoot with a f/2.8 lens and the centre point also has higher precision if there are vertical line features... you'll get more accurate focusing.
You can shoot with a f/2.0 lens and there is even more light, so it can lock onto even less distinct features.

I think there are two factors at work. The maximum aperture of the lens determines how much light is available to the AF system and more light helps it to lock on to harder targets. It can also allow some AF systems to achieve higher precision, as neuro explained.

[dh] said:

I'm considering getting the recently released Canon 24mm 2.8 IS prime, and was wondering if anyone has experience with this lens that they can share. I'm mostly planning on using this lens for landscapes, so the IS doesn't seem super-compelling but I'm not ready to make the jump in price to the 24L or the T/S.

Click to expand...

I love it, and I'm thrilled that Canon is updating their small primes. High quality in a small lens. Easy to carry and fun to use. The old version was very unappealing due to its noisy AF motor. The 24L is too big to carry except when f/1.4 and f/2 are needed. Likewise, the 24TS-E is too bulky to carry unless you need the tilt-shift functions. If you shoot landscape at f/4 and smaller, this lens is perfect. At f/2.8 there is some vignetting, but it's easy to fix (or leave as is if you like it). The IS lets you choose a smaller aperture (if desired) than you otherwise might. And the IS makes for smoother video. Finally, the price of this lens has come down to where it is more reasonable.

I also come from a similar background (mainly a wildlife photographer but recently shooting models as well). I agree with others that the second and third images stand out and draw the viewers attention to the right spot.

my advice will be to invest in a small flash and either a wireless transmitter or long wired cable. My reason behind this is to find a way to put catch-lights on the model's eyes. Even when I shoot wildlife, I try to use the sun for that. but a small off-camera flash will work wonders for fill light

It might be the mug version for a single expresso

hi all,

Dpreview posted their roundup for enthusiast zoom compact cameras today, in case anyone would like to take a look:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2367736880/roundup-enthusiast-zoom-compact-cameras

Cheers!

[Sorry, just realized I posted in the wrong area... moving to Gear Talk]

bdunbar79 said:

LOALTD said:

Mt Spokane Photography said:

Its fine, but not as useful or as sharp as my 24-105mmL for all around use. Where it comes in handy is in low light, or for a shallow depth of field.
If you a new 5D MK III user, give it a while with the 24-105, you will get used to the weight. Good lenses are heavier due to the large amount of glass in them. The 24-105 is on the light side compared to the 24-70 f/2.8 or some of the other popular "L" lenses.

Click to expand...

More versatile: yes
Sharper:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=115&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5

No.

I use the 50/1.4 for about 90% of my work, it's an oustanding lens. So many people on here have drank the "L" koolaid. I've borrowed the 50/1.2 from CPS and I found it quite soft.

Click to expand...

Yep. I dismissed the "L" bug myself when I sold my 50L and got the 50 f/1.4. The 1.4 is very sharp and I have not noticed any of the problems that some have mentioned. I typically shoot f/2 and narrower and the lens is very sharp and I don't miss the 50L. I also have the 24-70L II lens, which is just as sharp at f/2.8 at 50mm as the 50L, or even slightly sharper, but it's not much of a difference. I just do not understand the 50L's high price tag. It's the only L prime of Canon's that I dislike.

Click to expand...

+10, I am so happy that I disregarded the opinion on this forum and bought 50 f/1.4 and 28 f/1.8. Please try and compare with 'L' counterpart yourself before making decision.They are not perfect (neither are some L for that matter) but very good (and perfectly usable under most conditions) esp. at that price. IMO,CR crowd opinion has been wrong on these lens. I wonder if its because most people who flock here has the bigger/L/more expensive the better bug. Some people flaunt it rather obscenely. I am sure when they look at great paintings, they pay more attention to quality and graininess of canvass......

+1. Take it to an expert from Canon. They'll know what to do. Don't take apart the camera on your own unless you've already set your mind that it's fine for you whatever happens.

.
As much as I love my 135, I got my 70-200 first.

I'd do it the same way if I had to do it again.

Food photography is not easy and specialized equipment is needed to make things truly look professional. But with that being said, you can produce good, usable images if your client/friend is not looking for 1st rate images and just needs something decent to show.

Here are some shots I did for a local restaurant. I don't consider these anywhere near top rate shots, but they worked for their needs. I used a tilt shift lens and two large (30x60") softboxes, two 1300 ws mono lights and a slew of flags and grids. Trying different shadow angles helped produce the depth needed and kept the images from looking too flat. Each type of food was different as far as lighting needs.

Good luck.

One vote for the Plustek OptiFilm 7400. I purchased mine a couple of months ago. It shipped with SilverFast SE+ 6.6 but had a free upgrade to SilverFast SE+ 8. I find the scratch and dust removal in SilverFast to be heavy handed and prefer to do that in Lr and Ps but the film profiles, Multiple Exposure and other technologies are nice.

The first shot is a scan from some 110 film from 1983, the other is a 100% crop from 35mm film circa 2000. (The lens was the not so great EF 25-105 f3.5/4.5.)

Thanks all.

Must admit its now a case of 100mm f2 usm or 70-200mm f4l usm. 100mm would actually fit in my Billingham small, whilst I don't think the zoom will. Though a little concerned if the 100 is zoomed in enough for some nice tele landscapes.

HeavenHell said:

What happened to the enforcement of MAP? Seems like there have been Canon lens sales everywhere you look the past few days. Our retailers allowed to skirt the rules by forcing you to add it to your cart before showing you the price. NOT that I'm complaining.

Click to expand...

Leading to an e-cological disaster, as cookie directories, web caches and servers are littered with millions of abandoned shopping carts! Shame, Canon, Shame!



(This message posted using 100% recycled electrons)

rpt said:

Try another with him crossing his hands across his chest and taken at a bit of an angle say 30 degrees from the current position and head turned to look straight at the camera. That will give a bit of a perspective view. You could vary the angle and see what works best. And the lights - like everybody has said. The facial expression is good.

Click to expand...

+1.

It needs more dimension/angle. Turn him. Bob and weave yourself, go lower, go higher. Also, try several poses and facial expressions/moods. Some fun/playful, some mean/determined/tough, some clever, some smart-ass, etc.

You're off to a great start!

Yep I agree with Dylan. Take care of that baby first and get yourself a good point and shoot you can live with. Think of it this way, if you sell all your gear now while it is still working you will get the most cash, if that camera breaks it is worthless as well as the lenses and they all will go at some point..focus motor, shutter, etc.

Best to get as much cash as you can while it all functions properly. Don't worry about all that gear - it will be available when you get things squared away its not going anywhere. You could always rent for a day or have a friend with decent gear perhaps assist with shots. There's alternatives for you. All the best to you and your family for the holidays.