Close to Home with my 5D mkIII

[thereyougo!4]

Everybody is always hung up on the 'High ISO' but what I find impressive when looking at these photos, assuming these are not HDR or composites, is the Dynamic Range.

+1 the 3rd shot on top of the mountain the could look like hdr

It's not HDR. I've identified the photographs that have combined images.

 

[thereyougo!4]

perhaps the mark3 is good, but:- the 3 fird images are overexposed- there for all the photograps few contrastmay you reedit the entire serie??? so mark 3 is perhaps a not so good investment! what is the optic?

Is your monitor calibrated? Mine certainly is and I don't believe they are overexposed. Please read the posts for optics I rarely omit exif information

 

[thereyougo!4]

ok : 70-200... results are better with a fix-200, or 300mm,but why have you choose f/6.5 opening?

I chose to shoot at f/5.6 to keep shutter speed up without upping ISO unnecessarily as the subject was at infinity in any case. On a f/2.8 lens this is a pretty sharp aperture.

Oh and as I have said to someone else, Perhaps you would like to share your images? I would never dream of passing comment on someone else's work before I'd posted some of mine. It's difficult to get a view of whether someone has any credibility unless they are prepared to put themselves on the parapet themselves.

 

[thereyougo!4]

Cycled again from Swansea's new SA1 development to Mumbles and back on another fine evening.


This is the lifeboat station again slightly different light and a different lens:


Canon 5D mk III EF 28 - 300L at 300mm and f/8 1/250 ISO 100



Mumbles-Lifeboat-station by singingsnapper, on Flickr


On the way back I knew I would like to take a picture of the new bridge linking one part of the waterfront to the other over the river Tawe:


Canon 5D Mk III EF 28 - 300L at 28mm f/11 1/40 ISO 100



bridge-over-the-Tawe by singingsnapper, on Flickr

 

[GeorgieGirl]

These look good!

 

[thereyougo!4]

These look good!

There's lots of noise on Canon rumours that images aren't sharp SOOC. But there is too much pixel peeping going on and people saying that they have to sharpen images. Most digital images have to be sharpened because of the way digital imaging works and because of the anti aliasing filter. It's a great camera. Ok it doesn't have 36 mp, but I have great L glass from 14 - 300mm (14L II, 16 - 35 L II 24 - 70 L 70 - 200 IS 2.8 L and 28 - 300L- got that one for a trip to Colombia where I didn't want to carry the full set with me - I turned out to have full blown flu and didn't leave my room until I left for Lima). I do think you can have too much of a good thing as far as megapixels are concerned and although on paper the figures are good for the D800 I'm hppy with the images I am getting from the mk III. Low light is drastically better and AF is better and quicker, though I usually use single point in any case. My Pentax 645D is being picked up to be repaired tomorrow so I probably won't see that for 6 - 8 weeks so got the mkIII as an excellent back up camera.

 

[Mygixxer]

You got some fantastic photo's there! Love the "looking down the taff" and "night time at taibach"

 

[OpticMemory]

wow .. the 5d mark III is awesome!!

 

[GeorgieGirl]

These look good!

There's lots of noise on Canon rumours that images aren't sharp SOOC. But there is too much pixel peeping going on and people saying that they have to sharpen images. Most digital images have to be sharpened because of the way digital imaging works and because of the anti aliasing filter. It's a great camera. Ok it doesn't have 36 mp, but I have great L glass from 14 - 300mm (14L II, 16 - 35 L II 24 - 70 L 70 - 200 IS 2.8 L and 28 - 300L- got that one for a trip to Colombia where I didn't want to carry the full set with me - I turned out to have full blown flu and didn't leave my room until I left for Lima). I do think you can have too much of a good thing as far as megapixels are concerned and although on paper the figures are good for the D800 I'm hppy with the images I am getting from the mk III. Low light is drastically better and AF is better and quicker, though I usually use single point in any case. My Pentax 645D is being picked up to be repaired tomorrow so I probably won't see that for 6 - 8 weeks so got the mkIII as an excellent back up camera.

I just got mine...have not done much with it yet but snap around the inside of the house to see what it does on P, I'm good with it! I'll be away in a week and its going to be fun to have it with me.

 

[thereyougo!4]

Went to a lower part of the mountain to get a slightly different perspective of things this evening around sunset.


This is five shots merged in HDR Efex Pro.


Canon 5D mk III EF 28 - 300 L @ f/16 and 40mm



Swansea-Bay-just-after-sunset by singingsnapper, on Flickr


And another traffic movement shot over the M4


Canon 5D MK III 28 - 300L at f/16 and 105mm 30 secs exposure



Another-M4-light-show by singingsnapper, on Flickr

 

[thereyougo!4]

Popped into Cardiff today to my usual salon for a much needed haircut as I headed back to teh train station I took a stroll through Royal Arcade which like all the other arcades in Cardiff has a nice feel to them:


Canon 5D mk III EF 24 - 70L @ 27mm and f/16 4 seconds ISO 100



Royal-Arcade-Cardiff by singingsnapper, on Flickr


After getting off the train, I wondered what the subway I walk through on my way home would look like as a photo, and I quite like the result. I have processed the same photo in slightly different ways in Silver Efex one a fairly straight B&W conversion the other useing an Ilford Pan 50 profile


Canon 5D mk III 24 - 70L @ 35mm and f/5 1/15 ISO 1250



Port-Talbot-Subway by singingsnapper, on Flickr


and the Ilford profile:



Port-Talbot-subway-Pan-50 by singingsnapper, on Flickr

 

[o hey tyler]

perhaps the mark3 is good, but:
- the 3 fird images are overexposed
- there for all the photograps few contrast

may you reedit the entire serie??? so mark 3 is perhaps a not so good investment! what is the optic?

The MarkIII is a great investment. It's not the CAMERA that is to blame for overexposure, it's the photographer... And neither of the photos that you listed are overexposed.

Lrn2photography

 

[thereyougo!4]

perhaps the mark3 is good, but:- the 3 fird images are overexposed- there for all the photograps few contrastmay you reedit the entire serie??? so mark 3 is perhaps a not so good investment! what is the optic?

The MarkIII is a great investment. It's not the CAMERA that is to blame for overexposure, it's the photographer... And neither of the photos that you listed are overexposed. Lrn2photography

Thanks Tyler. You're right of course. Camera meters can sometimes be fooled but it's up to the photographer to interpret what the camera's saying. I shoot in a mixture of aperture priority and manual and the meter is the guide not the decision maker that's the photographer's job