santiclaws
I was in the pool!!
Why do you want to switch? What are you missing in the 50D? Are you trying to go FF or just more mpix?
***DSLR/Photography MegaThread***
- Thread starter nocturn
- Start date
Canon EOS 1D Mark III sounds great but going down in mpx to 10 is scary.
I'd like to be able to crop pics without seeing grain.
Also, with the crop-frame my 70-200 is a little too long for hockey shots and I think without the 1.6 factor it would be perfect.
I might have to wait for the Mark IV.
Yeah I guess I'll sit tight with the 50D for now.
My 30D is still taking great pics too (most of the super wide shots at the games) like this one
I'd like to be able to crop pics without seeing grain.
Also, with the crop-frame my 70-200 is a little too long for hockey shots and I think without the 1.6 factor it would be perfect.
I might have to wait for the Mark IV.
Yeah I guess I'll sit tight with the 50D for now.
My 30D is still taking great pics too (most of the super wide shots at the games) like this one
I think you would be fine with a 1dmkIII (better than fine, they are awesome cameras). The pixels are close to twice as large as the 50D, so there is going to be less noise, and 10mp isn't shabby at all, and the intangible picture quality is fantastic. It is a 1.3x crop, so I don't know if that works with the length of your 70-200 or not. Rent it, see if you like it. Be forewarned, once you pick up a 1D series, it is hard to shoot on your other bodies.
As for the mkIV, look for a possible announcement end of January (after the Olympics where supposedly it is being tested), which would mean another half a year or so before you can get your hands on one.
As for the mkIV, look for a possible announcement end of January (after the Olympics where supposedly it is being tested), which would mean another half a year or so before you can get your hands on one.
HeShootsNScores
the Power in Powerplay
Yes. You are.
Full frame, 12.1mpx, low noise to 6400 ISO, 5fps (8fps with the battery grip), etc. All at $2700 suggested.
Your Canon stuff should sell pretty well on eBay.
Seriously, though. Sports photogs are switching in droves to Nikon's full-frame cameras. There's gotta be a reason!
I know its probably not cost-effective to completely re-kit, of course.
So why not the Canon EOS 1D Mark III? 10.1 mpx and 10 fps for about $4000?
that is a nice camera. My next kit... when I can afford it.
Saw that. Some good software upgrades, but it looks as if the primary hardware difference is the size of the memory buffer (an upgrade to which is available for the standard D3).
The sensor cleaning function is a plus, though. That and the movie mode (though I'm not sure I'd use the movie mode much).
For just $200 more than the standard D3, I imagine that's a jump most people who go to a shop to buy the D3 will make. Because of that, I'll be looking to find the standard D3 discontinued shortly.
The sensor cleaning function is a plus, though. That and the movie mode (though I'm not sure I'd use the movie mode much).
For just $200 more than the standard D3, I imagine that's a jump most people who go to a shop to buy the D3 will make. Because of that, I'll be looking to find the standard D3 discontinued shortly.
HeShootsNScores
the Power in Powerplay
I could use another body.
A friend of mine gifted me a set of extension tubes as a thank your for doing some crappy stock work for him, so I gave them a whirl. Inspired by my 18 month old daughter's love of ripping up every flower in the back yard, this is my interpretation of what is going on in her head as she does it 
Tubes are a ton of fun...my prefered macro method, actually. I always have a couple with me to get really tight on small stuff. They also serve as an incredibly useful piece of equipment behind the long lenses to shorten up the minimum focusing distance.
Thanks! It was a real quick and dirty (trying to get it done during nap time). Lighting was strip boxes (10" x 3' soft box) pretty much straight left and right, low angle, with about a 2:1 ratio. I actually started with the thought that I wanted really hard lighting (like 20 degree grids) to accentuate all the little details, but was having a hard time getting decent fill, so I said "f it" and went with the rather unimaginative soft box route, which works but isn't fantastically interesting.
SmytheKing
Hit it like a baby seal
Like most things, it's a tool. And the more tools you have, the more options you have. More options, more opportunities at creating a great image.
The Luddites who p*ss and whine about digital enhancement are just as clueless as those that think anything shot in HDR equals superior imagery. The process is only interesting if the image is compelling, and if it is something that can be achieved with a Photoshop filter, than it won't be compelling for very long. The most important filter that should be applied to an image is the filter in your head. After that, who gives a **** how it was achieved.
