michaelschrag

<div></div>

<div></div>

I think that the Mark III is aimed at the professional/serious armature sports photographer: fast frame rates, fast auto focus and good performance at high ISO settings. As noted in Galbraith's review, the Nikon D2Xs in it 6.9 mp mode is most comparable. I?m not sure how useful it is to discuss the 5D, D80 and D40x in sports shooting context. It is also interesting that the preproduction unit that they tested did not have good autofocus. Assuming that Canon can iron this out the pressure is on Nikon now. Hopefully, this will get Nikon to pay a little more attention to its professional models.

This comparison may be of interest for sports

shooters:http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8738-8908-8909

 

Full sized images can be downloaded and examined - noise levels from the Mark

III are very impressive.

The only difference that I have seen between Canon and Nikon is that Canon has better noise at higher ISO. On the other hand many people swear by Fuji's ability to render good skin tones. I think Fuji may have a look, but I have no experience with that.

I second Joseph's comment. Its one thing to post a very basic question like this (which is fine), but its another when you add "I am starting a photography studio". What does that mean? Are you starting a business? If so hopefully you will be taking a class or reading some books to get a basic understanding. The quick answer to your question is approx 80mm lens for film and 50mm for 1.5X digital. Regardless of what camera you have I would get both lenses. For indoor use you will be using a flash, most likely. Taking portraits is a combination of understanding depth of field and using the correct lighting and post processing (if shooting digital). Use the search function above and you will find all the info you need from this website as this type of question has been asked many, many times. Also try fredmiranda.com for a wealth of information. There are threads at that website where people show their studio setup and I have found that to be quite interesting and educational. Good luck.

With the settings that you indicate above, there will be a total depth of field of about 8 inches, which may or may not be enough to get the head in focus if the lens focused on the feathers in the foreground. Try shooting a flat subject and see what happens. Another point is that when shooting with long lenses one of the most critical pieces of equipment is a good solid tripod and ball head (or Gimbal type head with a heavy lens). If you are using a cheapo tripod/head chances are that is a problem - it may not be the problem but certainly a contributing factor.

There is no Canon look. I shoot with both Canon and Nikon equipment (D200, 20D and 5D). After I have run raw files from either my D200 or 20D through Photoshop it all looks the same. Now if you are talking about Jpegs, these are affected by in camera settings which can be altered to suit one's taste. Default settings from camera to camera vary - even within brands. I guess if you never post process raw files and only use the default in camera settings for jpegs there might be some "look" but even then I doubt it.

<div></div>

Very nice. Thanks for pointing this out.

Mikael,

 

Just in case nobody posts experience with both lenses, check out http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html. Klaus tested both these lenses on a Canon mount, but at least the tests are under similar conditions. I have the 12-24mm f/4 and I am very pleased with it - like many people. Also note his latest review of the Sigma 12-24mm, which looks like a nice lens.

 

I had a similar quandary and bought the zoom. Good luck.

<div></div>

My appologies for manipulating your picture. Try a little post processing and/or some of the camra settings suggested above. I bumped up your saturation and added a little contrast in photoshop. You can use photoshop or elements. Good luck<div></div>

There is also a review with pics on pixel peeper but that link is currently being block by pnet (it seems).

>>>Sigma made very good underpriced lenses in the 60's, but their recent efforts are not as good as the Nikon lenses (which in turn are not as good as the Leica lenses). Bottom line I guess.

 

Broad generalizations like this are false and misleading - and do nothing to answer the question. Sigma's recent EX line has some excellent lenses, particularly the macros.

 

With regard to the question, here is review with pics (page down):

 

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&message=13375559&changemode=1

 

and a pop photo test, for what its worth

 

http://www.popphoto.com/pdfs/2002/1102/1102_sigmalensesf.pdf

 

good luck

<div></div>

I rented this lens for a "test drive". Its a very sharp lens with excellent build. However, I did not purchase it because I found that it was no sharper than the Sigma 105mm that I already had. In addition, at magnifications that approach 1:1 the VR is useless. The ineffectiveness of its VR at close range has been fairly well established, ans is even stated in the Nkon owner's manual. I?m not sure what you expected but I don?t think you will do much better than the Lester Dine that you sold. However, for non-macro work the VR should be a great help.

Angela,

 

Every manufacturer has a lens or particular lenses in their lineup that really stand out in terms of performance. The new Sigma 150mm macro is one of these lenses (http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html) - this lens is very sharp and gets excellent reviews. Here are some user reviews: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=280&sort=7&cat=38&page=1

 

In this focal length region (150-200mm) I would definitely consider this lens ($600 at B and H).

<div></div>

<div></div>

Sounds like a question best answered by a call to a Nikon repair center. Good luck, that's a nice camera.

<div></div>

>>>i'm sorry, i dont mean rubbing alcohol, but ethanol, (though i could really use some alcohol myself after all this!) - i keep hearing that the methanol in eclipse is bad for 5D sensors or their coating.

 

CW - I wouldn't worry about methanol. If methanol is bad for the sensor, ethanol will also be bad (and neither is). Methanol will evaporate faster and good quality (high purity) methanol will leave no smudges, unless some oil is picked up on the sensor, fingers or swab. I use methanol all the time for cleaning, it works fine. Both methanol and ethanol are harmless to glass and plastic.

I hope owners of the 24L can chime in here. The link that Bruce supplied is one of my favorite review sites, yet the results presented there are substantially better than results found elsewhere (such as the links that Lester provided). Its puzzling.

<div></div>