nicolaiecostel

<p>The 24-70 always was a flawed gem. I have heard many stories from people I know and on the internet complaining about the flawed mechanics. A lens this special should not be getting stuck at 35 mm due to bad machining of the internal elements.<br> I'm not surprised to hear bad stories about it. However, goot technique is also required from the photographer in order to get a good shot.</p>

<p>A shot from last weekend:</p><div></div>

<p>Hi, my contribution this week is a shot of a mandarin duck spreading its wings on the banks of the Bega river, in Romania. What makes it special is that normaly mandarin ducks do not live freely in this area, so I was lucky to be there and shoot it.</p><div></div>

<p>I tried a 5Dmk3 once and it drove me nuts. The sub-par feel of the camera rotating dials and the sound of the shutter made me not like to use it for an extended or any period of time. The 1D series is a different thing, however.<br> I would go to a rentals company and test them both and after that I woul clarify what I'm going to shoot and what lenses do I have.<br> If you have primes, the 1D4 doesn't make sense to me. If you have zooms, it might also not make sense, depending on the lens, I would not like to use the 70-200 2.8 on the 1D unless I was shooting sports or wildlife. At the zoo.<br> If I were to shoot macro or wildlife or sports, I would get the 1D. For portraits, landscapes, all-day general purpose shooting, I would get the 5D.</p> <p>Best of luck.</p>