will king

Obviously these are bogus accounts created to boost or bury images. Hopefully Josh will investigate these accounts and remove them.

Actually Daniel, the 1Ds Mark III is 21 MP not 12.

Thanks Brent. That's what I thought. Just making sure.

Yes, I know. At 21 MP, the FF 1Ds Mark III will allow more cropping than the 10 MP 1.3 crop 1D Mark III.

Essentially giving it more of a zoom, right? In other words, I take 2 shots of the same object with the same

lens at the same distance. First shot with the 1ds Mark III, the second with the 1D Mark III. I should be able

zoom/crop in closer, not going beyond 100%, with the 1Ds Mark III, right? Hope this makes sense.

Am I correct in thinking that a 1Ds Mark III has theoretically a greater zoom factor than a 1D Mark III?

Considering the crop factor and the MPs.

yes, look at the last photo I uploaded in my portfolio.

I have the 100mm macro and the 500D filter. It's a good setup. One thing to know is that with the 100mm macro lens alone, you can focus from any distance. With the 500D filter, you have to be a certain distance to be able to focus.

I'm not a "real photographer" but I play one on photo.net.

The best point and shoot cameras are $500. You won't be able to find a good DSLR + lens for $500.

<i> The Tamron 90mm

f/2.8 Di Macro is a

lovely portrait

lens. Its bokeh

can't be surpassed.

</i>

 

<br>

<br>

I beg to differ.

Both of Canon's 85mm

lenses will have

more of a buttery

bokeh.

For $2000-$2500? The 5D

<i> "Canon do not , to me at least, seem to have a great interest in making L type

quality prime focals. " </i>

<br>

<br>

What a ridiculous statement. Read Rainer's list.

 

<br>

<br>

<i> "The 80/1.8 has certainly had excellent reviews. But is it really in the same

category as an L type lens. " </i>

<br>

<br>

The only advantages you will get from the 85mm L f/1.2 are build quality and speed. If

you read the reviews on the 85mm L f/1.2 and the 1.8, image quality seem to be on

the same level.

Paint the object with whatever color you want and change the blend mode to color.

Actually, if you have CS3 the B&W tool gives even more control over tonal range than does the Channel Mixer.

Closer<div></div>

I've owned the 5D and I still have my 1D Mark III so I have been spoiled with

high ISO images with low noise. When I was considering buying the 1Ds Mark III,

my only consern was how it was going to handle noise at high ISOs. I read all

the reviews and thought I would make the plunge. I'm glad I did. I wouldn't say

that it handles noise better than the 1D Mark III but it's pretty darn close to it.

 

Here is a shot at ISO3200. No noise reduction software.<div></div>

Actually I think the lens did a decent job. The image seems sharp. You just need to know how to process your images better.<div></div>

I would get the 1D Mark III and the 24-70mmL. Still lower in price than the 1Ds Mark II.

I would suggest getting the 1D Mark III. It is by far the best low light body out there....even better than the 5D. I shoot ISO800 and 1600 with very little noise. I sold my 5D after buying the 1D Mark III because of how it handles noise. And why would you buy the 1Ds Mark II when you can spend about $1500 more for a 1Ds Mark III?

The image is definitely not HDR. Looks like just one exposure. Keep in mind that you need a very sturdy tripod and a cable release to acheieve these long exsposures.

bestbuy.com pulled the same stunt a few years ago advertising laptops with $100. Of course they never honored the price. The lens is great. Much more contrastier than the 100mm and of course it's built better. My only complaint was that it was slower to autofocus.

I used my 1D Mark III a few months ago in Hawaii w/ my 400mm f/2.8 IS for surf shots. About 90% of my shots were keepers. I really didn't experience any focusing issues. I bought the 1D Mark III with the blue dot. I wouldn't trade mine for anything.

I have both the 85 and the 135. I prefer the 135. It gives it a really nice romatic bokeh and it's tact sharp even at f/2.

<i> Juha Kivekas, Feb 21, 2008; 04:42 a.m.

<br>

Isn't this ridiculous :))))

</i>

 

<br>

<br>

Yes it is. Let's end this argument right now. Tonight, when the sun goes down, take a picture of it. Post it in this thread and also post it in the critique forum. Let's see how your theory holds up. Let's see how well it is received and rated.

Juha, first of all, I do not do HDR. Personally I do not like the look of a typical HDR image. I do however, do manual exposure blending to achieve dynamic range. You seem to think that post processing is not about photography. Well...I'm afraid you're wrong. Ansel Adams perfected his images in the darkroom. The fact of the matter is photos need to be processed. Photos are nothing more than raw clay that needs to be molded and shaped to bring out the full potential.

 

<br>

<br>

 

I guess you think sunset photos are overrated. That seems to be your arguement. Well, don't get that confused with degree of difficulty. Just like with anything else in the world, there will be the good, the bad, and the ugly. There are good sunset photos, bad sunset photos and down right ugly sunset photos. How they get rated has nothing to do with the degree of difficulty.

<br>

<br>

Not to belittle studio work, but I'll stick to my statement of sunset shots being more difficult than studio glamour shots. First of all one has to actually seek out a location worthy of shooting. Then wait for that 15 minute window when the light is just right. No room for error. The sun is not going to stop or slow down because you haven't gotten that IT shot. The weather plays a large part. There's no dial that you can change on the bright light. You can't tell your landscape to turn a certain way. You virtually have not control over your subject. In the studio, there's really no time limit. You can adjust the lights whenever you want. You can ask the model to do whatever you want. You don't have to deal with dynamic range issues. Hmmmm, you compare the two and tell me which is more difficult.

Take a look at this image from

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/5977733" >MarcAdamus</a> and tell me that you could create something remotely close to this.