Here you have few. I know waterfalls are well photographed but I really like them. Two are from Highschool football game and one of my son.
First four were taken with 70-200 L2.8 MKII and the last one with 85mm 1.8
niktnowy wrote:
Here you have few. I know waterfalls are well photographed but I really like them. Two are from Highschool football game and one of my son.
First four were taken with 70-200 L2.8 MKII and the last one with 85mm 1.8
Mallory seems to be a great model. I like her and would love to see more.
But imo this pic could have been done with any camera and it laks in composition to make it more interesting.
Ralph Conway wrote:
Mallory seems to be a great model. I like her and would love to see more.
But imo this pic could have been done with any camera and it laks in composition to make it more interesting.
Ralphi
That Sigma does produce some nice bokeh though. I'm shopping for a 50/1.4, will have to compare the Sigma to the Canon. Sadly the new Zeiss Otus is out of my price range.
Ralph Conway wrote:
Mallory seems to be a great model. I like her and would love to see more.
But imo this pic could have been done with any camera and it laks in composition to make it more interesting.
Ralphi
Any of these photos could have been done with any camera
Recently I have been using my 6D for wildlife with the EF300 2.8. My normal body is the 1DMkIII. This past weekend I tried the 6D with the 300 on some bull Elk. C&C welcome.
asiafish wrote:
That Sigma does produce some nice bokeh though. I'm shopping for a 50/1.4, will have to compare the Sigma to the Canon. Sadly the new Zeiss Otus is out of my price range.
I have both and I found myself stop using Sigma 50/1.4. For some reason I was not satisfied. It is not as fast at night as canon and I really like quality I got from Canon lenses.
I am using Canon 6D with 16-35 L2.8 MKII 24-70 L2.8 MKII, 70-200 L.2.8 MKII and 85/1.8. Sigma did not get me same quality - It might be a bad copy but it was my first prime lens for very affordable price.
weezintrumpete wrote:
Any of these photos could have been done with any camera
+1, true enough
Well, if we want to get really picky, I couldn't duplicate Mallory's shot with my new E-M1 -- I'd have a little more DOF That said, I should really get out more with the 6D, as I think it's getting a bit jealous of my newfound friend!
The 6D will allow you to get images in low light that can only be acheived by some modern cameras but certainly not all due to higher shutter speeds and cleaner files at higher iso's
asiafish wrote:
That Sigma does produce some nice bokeh though. I'm shopping for a 50/1.4, will have to compare the Sigma to the Canon. Sadly the new Zeiss Otus is out of my price range.
Not to derail the topic but...
FWIW, I LOVE my Sigma 50/1.4. Very sharp, super nice bokeh. I'm not sure why anyone would need "more" of a lens than this. I know there seems to be some quality problems that I've heard about (AF problems, etc), but mine has been fantastic. And for the price (compared to the 50L) you can't beat it. 1.2 really doesn't give you that much more light than 1.4.
I'll only get rid of my Sigma 50/1.4 if the Canon's price is cut in half, or Sigma comes out with an even better ART version of this lens
That said, I sometimes use other lenses for their inherent character (like my Nikkor 5.8cm f1.4) but not because any of them are "better".
Character is important sometimes. My DSLR is mainly for travel, for portraits or abstract work, where I care most about the character of a lens, I usually shoot a Vintage 5cm f/1.5 Sonnar on the Leica M Monochrom. My current Sonnar is a 1963 Russian Jupiter 3, but I just ordered a 1937 Carl Zeiss Jena, shimmed for Leica and matched to the rangefinder of my Monochrom.
niktnowy wrote:
I would like to share few pictures I took last week at Chicot State Park in Louisiana
Canon 6D with 16-35 L2.8 MKII
Very cool, I saw these shots and I thought to myself "wow this looks a lot like the lakes at Barksdale AFB, LA" and then I saw your text that it's from LA Nice work.
cputeq wrote:
Very cool, I saw these shots and I thought to myself "wow this looks a lot like the lakes at Barksdale AFB, LA" and then I saw your text that it's from LA Nice work.
I just picked up a 6D and am totally happy. I'm definitely impressed by photos above 6400. Here's one at 8000 with no NR shot in RAW and converted in LR. So far, I find the AF very accurate and fast.
Ralph Conway wrote:
Based on that pic. Where is the DR limitation? Imo D600,D800 doent do better.
when you get to post you can bring back WAY more highlights or shadows on a D600/D800 then a 6d or any canon for that matter. I sold my 6d only thing I really liked about the 6d was high iso performance and cheaper lenses. If you ever shoot with a D800 or D600 you'll see that a 6d is a compromise
