michael_h4

September 26, 2013

If affordability is an issue and you're determined to go FF, I recommend investing the time to rent a 6D and a 5D Mark II and compare for yourself. That's what I did. I can honestly say that there's no better way to tell which one better suits your particular lens collection and needs. Or whether a FF "instrument" makes sense for you at all. I personally found the 6D a disappointment: I didn't like the ergonomics, the AF system, or the way the viewfinder info display affected my aging eyes. Coming from a 7D, it just wasn't for me. But that was purely my own bias. Depending on your goals, expectations, and lens collection, it may be just the camera for you. Finally, my own $.02 on the issue of affordability: Photography is strictly a hobby for me. Consequently, I didn't need a FF camera. Having one has definitely brought me plenty of joy. It has enabled me to get more low-light shots, more beautiful blurred backgrounds, and more stunning wide shots out of my existing lens collection than would have been possible otherwise. But it's definitely a luxury rather than a necessity. I could have gotten years of photographic happiness sticking with crop sensor cameras.

September 23, 2013

1. Why did you get the L?

I owned the 1.4 USM. My neighbor loaned me his 1.2L. Once I tried it, there was no going back. On my 5D Mark III, there is a noticeable difference in how the L performs in available light.

2. Did it turn out like you thought? Do you notice any difference?

The longer I shoot with it, the more it exceeds my expectations. I never need the paper-thin DOF... but the color and clarity it produces in available light can be astounding.

3. Do you regret getting the L? No way!

4. What kind of photography do you do with the 50 L? Mostly nature and environmental portraits. But it's the lens that I take on most outings when I can only carry one.

September 12, 2013

But why come here to rant about it - you could have engaged him directly and pointed out the errors of his ways to him and push him towards retracting the erroneous information.

</blockquote>

...I rant about it here because I've found the folks on this forum to generally be knowledgeable, friendly, and with good senses of humor. Ranting among friends can generate interesting insights as well as a good laugh. See Sarah's post for a great example of both. Since he doesn't allow comments or reply to emails, engaging him directly is not possible. I do read this site regularly and will continue to do so. His occasional wit and discussions about actual photography rather than gear make for a good read. It's the half truths that annoy me. They really are a form of the same cliche: Equipment doesn't matter and a skilled photographer needs nothing but an iPhone (or insert specific kit here). It's true to a very limited extent. It's also lazy.

September 11, 2013

One of the most widely-read photography bloggers just did an interesting review of the new SL1. Normally, I take his reviews with a pound of salt and don't think twice, but this latest really irritates me. He essentially claims that the image quality from an SL1 is not noticeably different from the IQ of any of Canon's full frame DSLRs. Dumber still is his claim that thanks to Canon's lens correction system, an SL1 with a kit lens equals a 5D Mark III with L glass for IQ. This is the same clown who says "your equipment doesn't matter" while dedicating his site to reviewing gear. I'm not one to normally identify with my gear, but I find this sort of disinformation maddening. I suppose that the statements are true to this limited extent: For shooting JPEGs of one's child blowing out birthday candles to post to Facebook or print 4X6, there really isn't a world of difference. But for more situations than I have space to list, I personally would take an MK II, an MK III, or a 6D with some L glass every time. No disrespect to the SL1 or any other crop sensor DSLR. They're all good and all serve different needs. I get annoyed when I read this sort of foolishness and wonder if others feel the same way. Thanks for reading my rant.

August 8, 2013

Much as I enjoy hearing about the other lenses folks love to use, the 50, 17-40, and 100 are the only ones I own. They make me very happy for about 95% of what I shoot. I'd enjoy buying more L glass, especially the 70-200. But for now, I'd rather spend my money on travel than gear acquisition. I'm probably going to take the 50 after all. This is my first trip shooting FF. So it's probably better to have and not need than to need and not have.

August 7, 2013

I'm about to travel to the Southwest US, a place I've been and photographed many times. Whenever I traveled with my 7D, I usually took my 50 mm 1.4 along-- mostly for its low-light versatility. This is my first trip with my 5D MK III. I'm planning to take my 17-40 f/4L for landscapes and my 100 f/2.8L for critter and plant closeups. Space is very limited, and I am thinking of leaving the 50 at home (even though it's not very big). These are my reasons:

<ul>

<li>I try to change lenses as little as possible</li>

<li>The difference between 40 mm and 50 mm is not all that great</li>

<li>The lens correction in the MK III minimizes the distortion at 40 mm enough for me</li>

<li>The MK III has decent IQ at insanely high ISOs, reducing the need for 1.4 low light capability </li>

</ul>

Is the 50 still worth taking? If so, any reason other than the benefit of more options? Any insights and opinions would be most appreciated.

June 24, 2013

I'm taking my 5D III kit on a trip to Iceland and my old Lowpro bag won't do. I'm looking for a way to carry my 5D III, wide zoom, telephoto, flash, and 50 mm lens. I also want room for filters and batteries. In other words, I want to take a modest full one-body kit. It's important to me to have maximum protection from the hardships of carry-on air travel and maximum stealth. I don't want to advertise that I'm carrying a camera kit. I've narrowed it down to two options: 1. Thinktank's Urban Disguise bag OR 2. Getting a Crumpler Haven XXL to put in an ordinary day backpack or shoulder bag. I use a Crumpler pouch for my Fuji X100 and have been very pleased-- and I've seen the Thinktank and am impressed. Opinions and experience from owners of both options would be appreciated. I'm especially interested in which would be better for air travel.

April 26, 2013

I used a 7D to shoot video for 2 years as well as the 5DMKII. From a pure video standpoint, I found that the 7D was much more forgiving and user-friendly than the 5DMKII (under the conditions I faced and shooting with an 85 mm 1.2L). The main advantages included: 1. Less error-prone DOF. The MKII often yielded paper-thin DOF that was hard to fully appreciate in the LCD, even with a Zaccuto rig. 2. A dedicated video/live view button. 3. Overcrank (60 fps) capability. Since Canon is about to upgrade the 7D with a new model, you should be able to get one used or refurbished at a very deep discount. I sold mine privately for $950 a few months ago, but seriously doubt I'd get more than $700 for it today. It's a great camera and worth every penny of that price.

April 16, 2013

I am very new to bird photography, but have been shooting generally for more than 30 years. I've just started to get interested in bird photography after getting some marginal results with my 5D MKIII and 100 mm 2.8 L with IS. I have an upcoming trip to an East Coast wetland area and would like to make a more serious effort at bird photography. I clearly need more reach than 100mm. These are the rental choices that I have: 1) 100-400mm 4.5-5.6L with IS 2) 70-300mm 4.5-5.6L with IS I do NOT plan to lug a tripod through the marsh, so I would like to have image stabilization. Are there any experienced birders out there who have used either of these on a 5D MKIII? If so, which would you take and why?

April 9, 2013

Rev. Hill, I also came from shooting with my 7D for the last three years. I considered the 6D. While the IQ was a big improvement over the 7D, the 6D did not feel like an upgrade to me in just about every other respect. I went with the 5D MkIII and haven't looked back. The AF is SO good that I actually started shooting birds for the first time. If you shoot with telephoto lenses, you'll love how the AF central cross-type points work focusing on distant subjects. Nothing on the 6D compares in this respect. David Stephens, I know exactly what you mean when you say that your keeper rate has more than doubled. I put my new 5D MkIII through its paces last weekend. My keeper rate on everything improved big-time thanks to the AF accuracy.

April 9, 2013

I posted a question about the 6D last week, and a<a href="/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00bVZ3"> long thread followed</a> that you may find useful. The bottom line is that the suitability of this camera or any other depends heavily on your experience, preferences, lenses, and type of shooting. Of course, you'll find some people who say the 6D is the best camera ever invented for everything. Others say that anybody who doesn't love it as much as they do is either a fool, a novice photographer, or a rich guy determined to waste money on a bigger toy. If you're looking for this sort of "insight," reading Ken Rockwell might be a fine place to start. I found that the best way to learn about the 6D is to rent or borrow one and go do some shooting. I recently compared the 6D to the 5D3 exactly this way. I tried the types of shooting I do most often (landscapes, macro and architecture). Then I stepped out of my comfort zone and shot birds and deer. Both cameras were impressive at high ISOs. I could not see any difference in image quality using the exact same lenses under the same conditions. But for me, the ergonomics, AF, and other details added up to a strong preference for the 5D3. My "keeper" rate was noticeably higher than with the 6D-- especially on the wildlife. The 6D just wasn't for me: Image quality aside, I did not find it fun or intuitive. You may find it both.

April 3, 2013

Which functions don't let you take stunning macro, portraits or landscapes with 6D?

</blockquote>

Ruslan, in English, the word "affect" does not mean prevent or don't let. I have no doubt that it's possible to take stunning macro, portraits, or just about anything else with a 6D. Or my 7D. Or a 10-year-old Rebel. I could save lots of money by keeping my 7D. I could save even more by selling it and going back to film. Or giving up photography entirely. Capability was never the point of my original post. I was curious to hear if any 7D shooters were initially underwhelmed by the 6D but ultimately came to love it. Interestingly, that particular experience was not one reported by those who commented. There are plenty of talented photographers out there for whom the 6D was love at first shot. I just don't happen to be one of them. I shoot for pure enjoyment. A camera that enhances that joy or expands my possibilities is something that I consider worth buying. For me, the MK III does it. The camera seems to have dozens of small satisfactions that add up to a shooting experience that excites me. There's always the possibility that I'll regret spending the extra money on a MK III when a 6D or my 7D would more than do. But I'm guessing that's not likely. I'm also guessing that when I do occasionally want to get shots of birds and wildlife, my keeper ratio will increase significantly.

April 3, 2013

try the MK II and MK III and see which rings your chimes. It will be the MK III probably.

</blockquote>

I've shot with the MKII before, but had not tried the MK III until yesterday. I did not want it to "ring my chimes" because I've always believed in putting money into lenses. The MK III costs more than my entire modest collection of L glass. But ring it did! Loud and clear. It has everything I love about the 7D and oh so much more. The viewfinder and LCD are noticeably easier on my aging eyes. That, combined with the user interface, 3 instant customizations, and amazing AF add up to a very significant difference. The occasion that's pushing me to go full-frame is an upcoming trip to Iceland. I'm convinced that the MK III will enable me to get more "keepers" than either of the other full frame options I was considering. All of the insights on this forum are greatly appreciated. While no post or review can replace actually shooting with a camera, the experiences of others did help me sort out my priorities. Or at least rationalize a purchase!

April 2, 2013

I would just enjoy the 6D and avoid delving to deeply in the Tech Reviews. Compared to the 5D the 6D offers more features.

</blockquote>

I'm only interested in features that I actually use, not in numbers. Features like wi-fi and GPS are of zero value to me. Nor do I give a hoot about whether a camera is marketed as "pro" or "consumer." My post was not a reaction to tech reviews. It was a reaction to actually shooting with the 6D. The image quality of the 6D is undoubtedly superior to what I get with my 7D. But the other functions (or lack of them) affect my ability to get the shots I want in the first place. I appreciate many of the insights that people have posted here-- especially from people who've enjoyed their 7Ds and also have gone full frame. The 6D may be wonderful for photojournalism, shooting one-handed from a helicopter, boudoir shots of Russian women, and thousands of other things I don't do. For my own preferences, I'm now convinced that three possibilities world work best. Either: 1) Buy a used 5D mark ii 2) Buy an unused 5D Mark ii while I can still find one, or 3) swallow very hard and buy a 5D mark iii.

April 1, 2013

The 6D has amazing capabilities and is limited only by the skill of the person using it.

</blockquote>

The same could be said of any current Canon or Nikon DSLR. My post was not about how a camera is marketed or whether it's possible to take good photos with a 6D. Coming from three years of a 7D, I personally find the 6D underwhelming in terms of the user experience and features that I actually use. I was hoping to hear from other 7D and former 7D owners who either found the same, or went with the 6D and learned to love it. So far, I've heard the former. These posts have been very helpful. They've given me things to think about. As a result, I'm probably going with a used Mark ii, although that Mark iii is mighty tempting.

April 1, 2013

But in good hands 6D is capable of PJ work.

</blockquote>

True. But I don't use my DSLR for street photography or travel. I have a Fuji X100, which is an amazing camera for both. After reading this thread and giving it some thought, I've decided that a used or NOS 5D Mark ii is probably the best compromise for me. I'm not quite comfortable parting with between $3,000 and $3,500 for a mark iii (the price fluctuations are downright maddening: Canon seems to run and instant rebate programs randomly). The Mark ii may not shine at ISOs above 12,000 like the 6D, but I find the user experience and capabilities more pleasing. When prices on the Mark iii stabilize a year from now, the upgrade may be worth revisiting. By then, I'll have enough full frame experience under my belt to know if the difference is worth it to me. And my loss on selling a Mark ii that I bought used won't be as great.

March 31, 2013

But we old folks who had a few decades in film know the difference.

</blockquote>

Started with a Nikkormat FT in the 70's and worked my way up to an N90 and ultimately an F5. From also shooting film with my Rolleiflex back in the day, I learned the advantages of a bigger "sensor" (aka format). I'd say I've reached a point where I know the difference after shooting for more than 30 years. I guess I'm either going to buy a 5D ii or save up the princely sum to buy a 5D iii.

March 31, 2013

I'm an enthusiast, not a pro. I've been shooting with a 7D for about three years and have decided to upgrade to full frame this year. My favorite things to shoot are landscapes, portraits, and macro. My lenses are the 17-40 4.0 L, the 100 2.8 L IS and macro, and the 50 USM. I tried out the 6D yesterday and wanted to love it. I've read so many rave reviews about how much of an improvement the 6D is over the 5D Mark II. I hate to admit it, but I found the 6D underwhelming after my years with the 7D. The AF system and lack of joy stick felt like a downgrade from the 7D. So did the lack of an M-Fn button by the shutter of that third memory function (C3)-- things I actually use. I know that all of these things and ergonomics are minor. Nevertheless, I found the 6D to feel more like an upgraded Rebel than a FF step up from the 7D. It just doesn't feel like a $2,000 camera to me. I also have no use whatsoever for wi-fi or GPS. My question here is for others who may have upgraded from a 7D to full frame: Are the shortcomings of the 6D something you soon forget thanks to the 6D's great image quality? Or is it worth it to save up longer (a lot longer) for the 5D Mark III? It's a matter of personal preference, I know. But I'd really like to hear the preferences and perspectives of other 7D owners who've upgraded to FF.

March 25, 2013

Thanks-- like I said, Photoshop 6 version works fine. My best guess is that Color Efex is a major RAM hog and that it just takes my computer a good long time to open it, even with 16 GB RAM.

March 25, 2013

I have the latest version of Lightroom and just downloaded a trial version of Color Efex. To get Color Efex to open, I have to select "edit with" and Color Efex at least three times, creating at least 3 different tiff copies. Sometimes Color Efex opens. Sometimes it doesn't. I've scoured the Web for solutions, only to find that neither Nik nor Adobe have answers and each blames the other. The Photoshop version seems to work just fine.

March 22, 2013

My niece is having her bat mitzvah in a few months. Her mother, my sister, wants to hire a photographer. Unfortunately, my sister plans to hire a true MWAC: a local mom with a Rebel, a kit lens, an iMac, and no insurance. Ms. MWAC seems to have dazzled my sis with a few beautifully printed albums (from iPhoto) and references from happy neighbors. She has also priced herself to undercut everybody else.

I'm just a hobbyist, but I believe that hiring this woman to capture a once-in-a-lifetime event would be a HUGE mistake. I've explained the insurance issue and I've shown her websites from some of the actual professionals in our area. Nevertheless, sis thinks that their photos are not enough of an improvement over the MWAC's albums to justify the difference in price.

I know this may be a lost cause. But I am posting here in the hope that some of the professionals on this forum can suggest other points that may get through to her. How do you pros differentiate yourselves to customers who lack an eye for good photography and focus on cost & personality?

March 11, 2013

As things warm up and we head into thunderstorm season, I want to photograph lightning over expansive mountain landscapes. I currently own a 7D and plan to use it with my 17-40 f4L lens. I've had some success using this combo to shoot lightning. The 8 fps burst on the 7D comes in mighty handy. I am also planning to add a 6D to my arsenal. When it comes to shooting mountain landscapes with my 17-40 f4L, the 6D and its full frame goodness are my preference hands-down. At least when I'm not after lightning. But I'm wondering if the slower frame rate will compromise my ability to capture the bolts. I do not want to fool with multiple bodies and lens swapping as a thunderstorm approaches. So which body would those of you experienced in this prefer?

February 28, 2013

There is no right or wrong, just rent some lenses and check them out.

</blockquote>

Ian's advice worth trying while you still have time. You probably will use plenty of different cameras and lenses as your child grows up. I personally believe that the key to capturing those memorable moments is having equipment that you're comfortable using. Gear that's cumbersome to set up or a pain to carry has a habit of not being around when you most want it. The perfect camera & lens stay out of your way and let you compose. Check out Ian's photos of children: They show that composition and a sense of the moment make all the difference. (They're great shots!)

January 17, 2013

As others have said, lenses are a better investment than bodies.

</blockquote>

Yes, "others have said" it. Again and again. How about throwing in... "the best camera is the one that's with you" and "it's the photographer not the camera." All of this is true, but I posted a question about one body vs. another (and got plenty of valuable answers that I appreciate). I've spent plenty of money on glass. My three go-to lenses are my 17-40 4.0 L, my 50 1.4 USM, and my 100-400 4.5-5.6 L. I recently added the 100 2.8L macro which I love for portraits and beginner macro.

Bodies may be less significant than lenses or skill, but they are a necessity nevertheless. I have borrowed a 5D Mark II enough times to know that full frame can make a major difference in the results I can get with my existing lenses. I appreciate all of the insights about the pros and cons of each of the two options I'm weighing.

January 15, 2013

I consider myself a serious hobbyist, and this is the year I'm stepping up to full frame. I've been loving my 7D for nearly three years ever since I gave up my 20-year Nikon habit. Specifically, I love the fast frame rate (8FPS) for shooting wildlife and the many AF points. Those are both things that the 6D lacks. I also have a decent investment in high performance/high capacity CF cards. So I've decided that the only way I'd buy a 6D is if I were going to keep the 7D as my action/telephoto camera.

For roughly the same amount of money, I could sell the 7D and step up to the 5D Mark III. I really like the build quality of the Mark III: The LCD is beautiful compared to the 6D. It has 6FPS and many more AF points-- essentially giving it all of the wildlife action capability of my 7D.

Neither camera is going to make me a better photographer. The question is: Would you rather have two excellent camera bodies that serve different purposes or one absolutely awesome one that can do everything well? I'm especially interested in hearing from 7D owners and former 7D owners who have stepped up to one or both of these full frame cameras.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by michael_h4