mark from thailand

<p>I agree with Puppy Face. My 6D battery lasts less than a day with the GPS (or Wifi) on. I tend to switch it on during a shoot, for one or two shots and then turn it off again.</p>

<p>I have the 70-300 f/4-5.6 and the 70-200 f/4. I find the 70-200 a little sharper and it suffers far less from vignetting than the 70-300 on a FF camera. The 70-300 is also bulky.</p>

<p>Both have their place but, if I do not need the reach, I always use the 70-200.</p>

<p>150,000</p>

<p>"The shutter of the EOS 5D Mark III is more 50% more durable than the shutter seen in its predecessor, with 150,000 actuations, and also offers a significantly reduced shutter lag of down to 59ms"</p>

<p>http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/inside_canon_eos_5d_mark_iii.do</p>

<p>This is a pretty well documented problem with on camera mounted units and wide angle lenses (< 24mm).</p>

<p>For example, in the 270Ex manual "Do not use the 270EX II in the extended position with lenses that have a focal length of 30mm or less, otherwise the edges of the frame will be noticeably darker than the center. "</p>

<p>Seems to be some pretty poloarised views here.</p>

<p>I, too, have both bodies, married with the same lenses as the OP, with the 6D as my back-up.</p>

<p>Both are great. I have had no issues with dynamic range or muddied shadows in either. However, I do not have a Nikon or Sony to compare against.</p>

<p>The AF and build quality is significantly better in the MK III. The Wifi, GPS and lighter body better in the 6D.</p>

<p>I think, unless you have specialist, high end needs, you will be happy with either.</p>

<p>I thought 'Native ISO' is the range the sensor is designed to cope with (eg 100 - 25600), EXCLUDING the extended range you sometimes get.</p>

<p>I think "Base ISO" is the increments the sensor naturally increases sensitivity in. These are typically increments of 160 or 100. Anything in-between these increments is delivered through digital under or over-exposure. I guess this is why a Canon sensor, with Base ISO of 100, 'over-exposing' to get from ISO 100 to ISO 160 can look worse than one with a Base ISO of 160. However, the Canon sensor at ISO 200, will probably look better than the ISO 160 based sensor 'over-exposed' to ISO 200.</p>

<p>However, I suspect most of this is theoretical and, for the majority of us that do not pixel peep, we will get the best DR and lowest noise by sticking to the lowest ISO possible.</p>

<p>Apologies for such an obvious question but I recently re-installed Photoshop CS6 and now, whenever I save, Photoshop defaults to TIFF file format.</p>

<p>I thought the Save As format was a 'sticky' one and it would default to my last choice.</p>

<p>However, I can change to Photoshop format, save and, when I try to save my next file, it is back to TIFF !</p>

<p>I know I am not doing something really obvious but have checked Preferences, checked here and can't see a solution.</p>

<p>Any thoughts?</p>

<p>and another</p><div></div>

<p>Some examples</p><div></div>

<p>I have been using the 16-35 for a few years now. It is great for travelling in cities and I have been very pleased with the results. I especially like the f/2.8 wide aperture for indoor shots.</p>

<p>If, by 'best image quality', you mean least noise; that is usually by using the lowest ISO setting.</p>

<p>This is assuming you use the appropriate ISO to get the right Aperture and Shutter Speed needed for depth of field and exposure.</p>

<p>Should be no problems at all to drain the battery and then re-charge it.</p>

<p>My 6D drains VERY fast if the WiFi or GPS is switched on. I keep it off until I really need it.</p>

<p>I agree with William.</p>

<p>In most studios, I would take my 50mm, 24-70 and the 70-200 and use whichever works the best, based on distance to the model and the shot I wanted. For full body length, I think the 50mm will end up being the most useful.</p>

<p>We all know anything < 50mm will introduce some form of image distortion, which may or may not be desired. As far as I know, 85mm (ish) or longer is pretty flattering for most circumstances for portraits/head shots.</p>

<p>Seeing as you seem to have limitless funds, I would suggest the 70-200 f/4.0 L for the 'street' and 'dogs'. It is relatively small, light and awesome quality.</p>

<p>I love my 16-35 and have rarely been disappointed. Here is a sample.</p><div></div>

<p>I've used the 24-70 Mk1 and Mk2 extensively.</p>

<p>I think the Mk2 shines in terms of lighter weight and better contrast. Slightly better sharpness and zooms in the 'correct' direction. If I was using a 'crop' sensor, I would seriously reconsider if I needed the Mk2.</p>

<p>For decent bokeh in this range, I would never go smaller than f/2.8.</p>

<p>I do not know about Tamron or Sigma as I got infected with the "L" bug some time ago.</p>

<p>I agree with Mark. I upgraded from the 24-70 Mk I and, despite the huge price, it is worth it. Very sharp, love the zoom, lighter and, generally worth it.</p>

<p>Go for it!</p>

<p>I have used the 16-35 f/2.8 for a number of years and have been very happy with it and have not seen</p>

<p>"the 16-35mm 2.8l (which on paper seems ideal) suffers from ghosting, vignetting and distortion"<br>

<br>

the OP refers to. There is definitely vignetting, as you can see from the attached. But, hopefully, you can see a simple, one-click adjustment in Lightroom improves it significantly (RHS images).<br>

<br>

The Top photo is at 5/5.6 and the bottom at f/2.8.</p>

<p>I have used the 16-35 f/2.8 for a number of years and have been very happy with it and have not seen</p>

<p>"the 16-35mm 2.8l (which on paper seems ideal) suffers from ghosting, vignetting and distortion"<br>

<br>

the OP refers to. There is definitely vignetting, as you can see from the attached. But, hopefully, you can see a simple, one-click adjustment in Lightroom improves it significantly (RHS images).<br>

<br>

The Top photo is at 5/5.6 and the bottom at f/2.8.</p><div></div>

<p>Not that I'm an expert but I do agree with Matt above. Distortion for portraits/nudes is a real concern.</p>

<p>I would be very careful about using anything less than 70mm in a small space on a crop sensor. I always thought 50mm on a FF sensor is the min focal length you can use without distortion?</p>

<p>One option is to stick with the 85mm and invest in a FF 5D?</p>

<p>JDM,</p>

<p>The website is Canon Singapore's Facebook page.</p>

<p>I'm with Monika:</p>

<p>24-70 f/2.8L and 70-200 f/4L are what I took when I was there and I did not feel I needed anything else.</p>

<p>I had no security concerns or worries. I guess it depends on how rural your hiking is likely to be. We were mostly surrounded by people with camera equipment and never felt in any danger. However, as in any country, if you are around less fortunate people and on your own, be careful.</p>

<p>Canon 200-400 f/4 L IS is about to be shown, finally, after all the rumours and (alleged) re-design after the Olympics trials.</p>

<p>Expensive but I am looking forward to this baby.</p>

<p>Anyone else?</p>

<p>Any serious alternatives for sports photography on a full frame camera?</p>

<p>https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151216535287883&set=a.289075002882.144120.286731937882&type=1&theater</p>

<p>Colin,<br>

I use the 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 L to supplement my 70-200 f/4 when I need the reach. I use it almost exclusively for football shots and as I am addicted to L glass! It has great contrast and clarity (some examples as follows). However, yours look good to me!</p><div></div>

<p>I have NEVER heard of anyone complaining about scratches on their LCD, so I can only assume screen guards for LCDs are more for people who treat their cameras VERY badly and/or believe marketing hype.</p>