Posts

Mar 15, 2012

LetTheRightLensIn said:
briansquibb said:

Mt Spokane Photography said:

Too bad it can't be turned down to say ISO 5 like some of the old film. That also would enable creative shooting without resorting to light reducing filters.

Click to expand...

I often use iso50 which doesn't seem to be common practise. Subjectively on the 5D2 this seems to enhance the IQ with better colours. Anyone else find this??

Click to expand...

All it does is shot ISO 100 one stop over-exposed....

By under exposing by 1 stop it means that you can get away without using a 1 stop ND filter and avoid any issues that might bring - like colour cast and fitting/removing the filter in the heat of getting shots. Less unnecessary glass = better IQ

wickidwombat · Mar 15, 2012

kimloris said:
This post triggered another question: what is happening if the lens in the kit has an issue ?
Do you have to send back the entire kit to the store (B&H for example) or just the defecting lens?

just take the lens in

Mar 14, 2012

Both cameras will be so much better than a crop camera that you'll be satisfied either way.

Mt Spokane Photography · Mar 14, 2012

aloper said:
I've known for the past year that I wanted to move to a full frame camera from my 7D so I've been slowly selling off my crop lenses and replacing them with standard lenses. So far in my kit, I have the 24-70mm 2.8 L and the 70-200mm F4 IS L...The only crop lens I still have is my trusty 17-55mm 2.8 and plan on selling that along with my 7D once my new 5D Mk3 arrives. I'm generally a landscape, street and occasional portrait shooter. When I look through my pics, most are taken at the wide end of my 17-55 and 24-70...most in the 17-35mm range. My 70-200 is rarely used but I keep it around for those times when I do need some extra reach...

One thing I want to do is add some primes for a lighter setup, say for street and night work. At first, my thinking was picking up the 16-35mm 2.8 and maybe the 50mm 1.2 or 1.4. But I'm wondering if I should just skip the 16-35mm altogether and maybe pick two primes instead. Maybe the new 24mm 2.8 IS when it becomes available along with either a 35mm, or 50mm or 85mm...Pretty sure I'm going with a 24mm to start...what I'm not sure of is either getting the 35 or 50mm but I'm leaning towards the 50mm...

Anyone have any thoughts or recommendations?

With the two FF lenses you own, the 5D MK II will go substantially wider than your 7D at 17mm, so you do not need wider until you see the results.

Remember, every lens on a FF body is going to be a lot shorter, so you will use that 70-200.

For portraits, 85mm to 135mm is a good range, The 135mmL is one I use the most.

I'd wait and see which focal lengths work for you before buying any more lenses. You may find you want to upgrade that f/4 zoom to f/2.8, or do like me and buy fast primes.

I have used the metadata search in lightroom to review my favorite focal lengths and apertures, and then prioritized buying primes using that. Now, I seldom use zooms except for walkaround outdoors, and my 100-400mm L at 400mm like it was a prime.

eosbit · Mar 14, 2012

This rep had just come back from 1DX training in Japan last week

Curmudgeon · Mar 14, 2012

sublime LightWorks said:
Does anyone really think Canon, after releasing the 1Dx which was touted as the merging of the 1D and 1Ds lines, but with performance and quality surpassing both, will turn around and hand the IQ crown to a camera body less than half it's cost?

Seriously?

Yes, the 5D3 will have "unsurpassed image quality".......AT IT'S PRICE POINT. But I'll bet the 1Dx wears the IQ crown in a head to head comparison.

I'm not sure you can draw that conclusion from the relative pricing of the two models. In the past five years Canon--and Nikon--have been all over the charts with regard to the relative price/performance ratios of their "flagship" and "prosumer" models. I think that's because both manufacturers and long-time (i.e. professional or serious amateur) customers have been making the psychological transition from film to digital in shifts and starts. Until 2002 or so, camera makers were the optical equivalent of, say, Rolex, producing precision mechanical devices in which the performance of the individual unit correlated precisely to the cost of the materials selected and the amount of highly skilled (and expensive) labor required to fabricate it. The pricing of various models naturally reflected those costs of production.

The digital revolution in photography has slowly been turning that paradigm inside out. The camera body which used to be a precsion mechanical object with a life expectancy of a decade or more is now primarily an electronics commodity item. The best of them--however long they may last--no longer offer competitive performance after four or five years. The lowliest Rebel made in 2012 is probably superior to the 1Ds2 in every respect except build quality. (Let's not get hung up on this ancillary supportive statement, please.) Likewise, the bulk of camera manufacturing costs are no longer in materials or assembly, but in R&D. Once you have designed a component and acquired the ability to fabricate it, the cost of including it in an indvidual unit of production is trivial by comparison.

Removing a $10 chip from your high-volume camera to slightly "cripple" its autofocus performance in relation to your high-dollar model may differentiate your model lines internally, but it leaves you vulnerable to the competitor who decides to incorporate that chip (for little cost) in its high-volume model.

Camera companies (and even some of their customers) seem to remember and forget these facts on a regular six-month rotation. Nikon seemed to have gotten the idea when it began quickly migrating its top-of-the-line autofocus system to less expensive models--giving them a competitive advantage for very little increase in per-unit manufacturing cost. Likewise, there is no question that the D700 was all but the performance equal of the D3--and in a lighter, more compact package. And then, just when it looked as if Nikon had fully made the jump into the 21st century, the company brought out the D3x at an inflated $8000 price that had even ardent Nikon fans howling for a boycott.

With the D800 Nikon seems to have stepped back through the looking glass into the realities of digital era pricing. Compared to the D3x, it offers 50% more MP, better high-ISO performance, faster FPS (and an upgraded feature set in almost every other respect) all for $5000 less--before inflation. Technological progress over the past three years doesn't come close to accounting for this difference. It's one more indication of the blind, arbitrary, stab-in-the-dark nature of current pricing practices among the major camera manufacturers.

Canon's recent history is similarly back and forth. We can argue about the barely discernable differences in the IQ of the 5D2 and the 1Ds3. (The consensus among people who own both seems to be that 1Ds3 renders more subtlely at low ISOs while the 5D2 is better from about 1600.) But Canon itself proclaimed the 5D2 to have the superior IQ and seemed quite willing to throw the 1Ds3 under the bus in return for the massive demand for the 5D2, demand created by its 1Ds3+ feature set. Similarly, Canon's high-end 1+ MP rear LCD appeared first on a "consumer" model. More recently, the pricing of the 1DX and the 5D3 seem to be a step backward toward the old pricing model.

I would argue that the very terms "flagship"and "prosumer" no longer accurately describe any of the models introduced in the last six months by either Nikon or Canon. The day of the $6000 to $7500 (USD) camera body is over, although some folks--among both manufacturers and customers--just ain't got the news yet. The "flagship" models are now loss leaders or exclusively halo products, or both. Top dollar cameras now sell to a small market of well-heeled amateurs and the tiny minority of pros who work under the extreme conditions found in war zones, action photography at the most competitive levels, or resolution-hungry fields like fashion or architecture. And with the D800, erven those boundaries are being blurred. I suspect that nowadays the real value of the "flagship" in the overall corporate marketing strategy is to make similarly-featured but volume-priced models look like a bargain.

Considering all this, I'm not sure there is yet a coherent and internally consistent strategy in the way Canon and Nikon feature-equip and price their models. I wouldn't be at all surprised if--in spite of Canon's claims about unifying the 1D line--the 1DX and 5D3 end up as the latest versions of the 1D4 and the 5D2/1Ds3, each superior for certain purposes. And if the D800 sells well enough to force a high MP response from Canon, it will be truly fascinating to see how Canon attempts to price and position that camera.

mrmarks · Mar 14, 2012

Hi Neuro, sorry what I meant was how FEL (Flash Exposure Lock) is linked to the focussing points in the 5D3 and 1DX in manual exposure mode.

K-amps · Mar 14, 2012

Good idea for those who want it ASAP .. not many people will go for it so there will be stock... the reason might end up being the extra 6-15% in sales tax they will pay depending on where you live. Canon will Charge it, Adorama/Amazon/BH will not.

TexPhoto · Mar 14, 2012

The 5DII dropped $200 14 month after it first shipped. Not worth waiting in my opinion.

fotoray · Mar 14, 2012

tt said:
Is there a way to bracket aperture? I'd be interested, to learn to use the depth of field force, and become more than a 5D MkIII padowan by innately learning what the DoF will be (esp. since lacking focus screen) - till there, could you hack the 5D II/III to bracket aperture by somehow fixing shutter speed and ISO to force the camera to use f stop to bracket?

You can manually adjust shutter speed (SS) and ISO to determine f/stop that gives correct exposure. However, the resulting DoF will be different for each SS+ISO combination. The bracketing features of the 5D3 won't do this automatically.

Bracketing shutter speed for a fixed f/stop and ISO can be done automatically by the 5D3. These images can then be combined using HDR techniques - either in the camera or in post. You cannot do HDR with a set of images taken at different f/stops - the pixel matching needed is lost by the differences in DoF in each image.

If all you want is to better predict the DoF you will get, then use the DoF preview button before you shoot and adjust the SS and ISO combination until you get the DoF effect you like.

Mar 14, 2012

iaind said:
In the UK 1D4 Is £100 dearer than 5D3 + grip and has 2yr warranty.

Used 1D4 are going for £2500 to £2800. It is a hard call between the 5DIII and the 1D4.

Mt Spokane Photography · Mar 14, 2012

Hopefully, no one in the military uses one. As soon as they upload a photo to facebook, their coordinates are there for someone to sight in on.

Same for those concerned about stalkers.

Its neat technology, but the implications of making your location available online are not well understood by some users.

Halfrack · Mar 14, 2012

Unless you're shooting an event that's got Nikon written anywhere - don't change anything. Knowing your gear is more important than the details of it.

If you're shooting an event / wedding / etc where the check will say Nikon, add on an equipment rental fee and hire a second shooter who does Nikon for a living. Ditto for Hasselblad, Pentax, Leica...

bohaiboy · Mar 14, 2012

Does your comment on the 100-400 lens reflect on the L series as well? Why would they not make an L Series weather proof? And one more ???? How can you tell if you ahve water damage inside?

Thanks

grahamsz · Mar 14, 2012

V8Beast said:
I know the DR on this camera is supposed to suck, but I find it quite impressive in these samples

Yeah, the one with the vertical liquor store sign - even at 12800 you can pick out orion in the sky and there's still a bit of detail in the lit windows. I'm struggling to see what more range you really need, though I understand the technical pursuit for low sensor read noise.

Mar 14, 2012

I have a set of 10x30 IS - best buy we have made. Give a very clear, 3D type image

birdman · Mar 14, 2012

poker_jake85 said:
XanuFoto said:

Up to you. I don't think the board can make that decision for your. You might need to spend some money on the extra disk, memory and computing power to handle the files.

Click to expand...

I built my own pc a few months back, 2 ATI 6950s, 8 gb RAM, Intel 2500k at 4.5 ghz, 2 TB hdd space, and 3 24" LG monitors.

--I did the same. Core i7 2600, 8GB Ram, Geforce 470; 2TB 6GB/s HDD; Gigabyte Z68 UD4 with USB 3.0 ports.
I think this mates very, very, very well with D800 (which I have on preorder). I currently own the 5d2 and some decent glass (2 L lenses); I also own some Nikon primes and the Tokina 28-70/2.6-2.8 in Nikon mount.

I will test out for a week or so, compare with my 5d2, and see which I think is the better overall system. I will NOT get the 5d3, but will simply upgrade glass with money I was going to spend switching systems. I don't care for the fact that Nikon has such a gaping hole in their 70-200 lens lineup, and that their 300/4 is not offered in VR form. Sad, really. But I am a landscape guy and although 70-200 range is useful, it is my least used range in pictures.

Why not the 5d3? I think it's a marginal upgrade in low ISO (100-400) and overall IQ. The 5d2 is still very capable and I have not mastered it yet. If the D800 blows me away in all areas, Nikon it is. I love Canon, but I also want and demand the very best for MY DOLLAR!!

Enthusiast · Mar 14, 2012

Before we discuss how fast the lenses needs to be, we need to discuss what you want to do?
My kids are to fast for a slow 2.8 lens! My wife is joking about my "mans handbag" but she likes the pics from my 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.4 Sigmas on my old 40D. The 5d M3 is preordered the crop is even not blury enough and I want FF just for that. If you shoot dinosaurs in the museum than f=8 is enough!You will get the bones in the back razor sharp. 8)

3kramd5 · Mar 14, 2012

While I'd love a 4X5 sensor format (my most common print aspect ratio), for web viewing I like the added length of 2X3.

Mt Spokane Photography · Mar 14, 2012

Random Orbits said:
Mt Spokane Photography said:

oops, caught me!

+1

Click to expand...

No harm caused. I do have a question though: for which combinations of TCs and lenses were you able to achieve AF when it was not designed to (i.e. smaller than f/5.6)?

I have tried it on a number of bodies and lenses over the years, and don't remember which combinations worked.

I recall my 1D MK III working with a 70-200mm f/4 and two TC's(1.4 and 2X), which made it a f/11 combination.

I also recall my 40D working with a Canon 400mm f/5.6L plus a non reporting TC, both 1.4X and 2X worked. I tried it on a XTi and it didn't.

I tried some combinations on my 5D MK II as well, but don't remember the results. Its hard to find from EXIF, since only the 1.4X TC shows up, so I named some of the files with both TC's so I could find them.

Here is the 1D MK III image with two TC's (F/11). Remember, its mostly a experiment, its not a practical image capturing situation, you can only do it with very good light.

Mar 14, 2012

Love that touch sensitive control dial

Mar 14, 2012

Thanks for all the info!
unfocused - Ive been looking at the refurbished store from Canon and although the price may seem apealing to some I can get new for the same price locally here in Calgary via The Camera Store http://www.thecamerastore.com/products/cameras/digital-cameras/digital-slr-cameras/canon-eos-7d-body.

Nick Gombinsky · Mar 14, 2012

Not long ago the 5D mkII was 5800 USD, body only, here in Argentina... on sale.

I didn't even dare to ask how much it was with the kit lens.

squarebox · Mar 14, 2012

D.Sim said:
DJL329 said:

The Canon Extenders are not compatible with the 17-40mm. From Canon's specifications page for the 2x Extender:

"... is only compatible with fixed focal length L-series lenses 135mm and over, as well as the EF 70-200/2.8L, EF 70-200/2.8L IS, EF 70-200/4L, and EF 100-400/4.5-5.6L."

Same goes for the 1.4x Extender. They both have a protrusion that prevent them from being mounted on other lenses.

Click to expand...

Thought so... although, that wording implies it can be used on the 1200mm monster?

Just read a review today that says you can use the 1.4 and 2x on the 1200mm.

jrista · Mar 14, 2012

The old design is, in the grand timeframe of Canon lenses, very new. Less than 5 years old. There are far older lenses that could use updating and replacement, such as the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6, which is a great lens, just with very dated IS technology (to name just one of many.) I'd be very surprised if the 50/1.2 was replaced even in the next 5 years unless the competition produces something vastly superior.

Posts

Posts

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics