Canon 5D MKIII official owners/users thread, anything related to the 5D MKIII

Dark Knight said:
Yep I have been caught with that, I have been out chimping shots on full zoom and they look spot on, convinced I have 'the shot' I want, only to find out when on my PC that it is still not quite there :(

There again I think it was the same with my 7d and 40d .... Maybe I just need new contacts/glasses :thinking:
Click to expand...

I always tend to have my LCD turned down quite low, with the neutral picture style. This helps keep things a bit truer and with less surprises when i import the files in to LR.
My mate has his at 100% brightness and his images look fantastic on the camera, but as we know, the LCD can be deceiving. I suppose if showing them to someone else its better to have the camera presenting them at their best, but for me i prefer a truer representation.
 
I have the screen quite bright but only to check focus. In the same way I have the zoom button set to magnify fully with one press. I rely on the histogram to tell me if the shot if ok.
 
dave_bass5 said:
I always tend to have my LCD turned down quite low, with the neutral picture style. This helps keep things a bit truer and with less surprises when i import the files in to LR.
Click to expand...
The alternative to this, if you're happy with how it looks on the LCD, is to have Adobe respect the camera settings as you import (default is to change it to Adobe Standard if memory serves). You'll still have differences obviously, because of the different screens, but it should be closer to what you see in camera.
 
I'm definitely making the 50mm 1.4 my next lens purchase. I found on holiday that I preferred shooting with the 100mm over the 24-105, so a good fast prime is next on the list.
 
Number45 said:
I'm definitely making the 50mm 1.4 my next lens purchase. I found on holiday that I preferred shooting with the 100mm over the 24-105, so a good fast prime is next on the list.
Click to expand...

I think wide will be my next purchase, probably a 17-40mm, as it's a bit more in budget. Also liking the look of the 135mm f2.
 
JakeT1992 said:
I think wide will be my next purchase, probably a 17-40mm, as it's a bit more in budget. Also liking the look of the 135mm f2.
Click to expand...
Yeah, a wider lens was on my list as well. The problem being I like the idea of landscape, but seldom find much time (or location) to shoot it. Still finding myself as a photographer really.
 
Number45 said:
Yeah, a wider lens was on my list as well. The problem being I like the idea of landscape, but seldom find much time (or location) to shoot it. Still finding myself as a photographer really.
Click to expand...

I mainly shoot landscapes, it's what I enjoy, but like you, I shoot a mixed bag of all things.
 
JakeT1992 said:
I think wide will be my next purchase, probably a 17-40mm, as it's a bit more in budget. Also liking the look of the 135mm f2.
Click to expand...

As I'm sure you already know without me saying. The 135 is a stunning lens.
I've had mine nearly 3 months and all but 2 of my photos since then have been with the lens.

I've got the 17-40 too. Very good value for money ;)
 
James Thomas 75 said:
As I'm sure you already know without me saying. The 135 is a stunning lens.
I've had mine nearly 3 months and all but 2 of my photos since then have been with the lens.

I've got the 17-40 too. Very good value for money ;)
Click to expand...

I've never used the 135, but seeing what is produced with one is enough to make me long for one. The 17-40 is kind of my cheaper alternative to the 16-35mm, although I would love one of those.
 
JakeT1992 said:
I think wide will be my next purchase, probably a 17-40mm, as it's a bit more in budget. Also liking the look of the 135mm f2.
Click to expand...

The 17-40 is great for the money. I upgraded to the 16-35mk2. I needed f2.8 for some studio light table close up stuff that needed really shallow depth of field. Apart from that, most of the time, it has been used at f8 to f16. In that range, there is hardly anything in it so you are better off with the 17-40.
It's much smaller, lighter and a third of the price. Had some really nice shots with it.
 
vinnyburns said:
The 17-40 is great for the money. I upgraded to the 16-35mk2. I needed f2.8 for some studio light table close up stuff that needed really shallow depth of field. Apart from that, most of the time, it has been used at f8 to f16. In that range, there is hardly anything in it so you are better off with the 17-40.
It's much smaller, lighter and a third of the price. Had some really nice shots with it.
Click to expand...

Interesting.. I'm debating which lens to go for, I'd be using it for wedding groups and bride and groom portraits to include the landscape. Maybe worth me looking into the 17-40, as I can't imagine I'd be 'missing' the extra 1mm reach at 16mm..
 
vinnyburns said:
The 17-40 is great for the money. I upgraded to the 16-35mk2. I needed f2.8 for some studio light table close up stuff that needed really shallow depth of field. Apart from that, most of the time, it has been used at f8 to f16. In that range, there is hardly anything in it so you are better off with the 17-40.
It's much smaller, lighter and a third of the price. Had some really nice shots with it.
Click to expand...

The f2.8 is not usually going to be an issue, for landscape photography, only things like the milky way/nothern lights, where that low f stop is essential. I think the 17-40mm will be my choice, I can't afford the extra money for the 16-35mm.

edz said:
Interesting.. I'm debating which lens to go for, I'd be using it for wedding groups and bride and groom portraits to include the landscape. Maybe worth me looking into the 17-40, as I can't imagine I'd be 'missing' the extra 1mm reach at 16mm..
Click to expand...

You might miss the fact the 16-35mm is f2.8 however, another thing to consider.
 
JakeT1992 said:
The f2.8 is not usually going to be an issue, for landscape photography, only things like the milky way/nothern lights, where that low f stop is essential. I think the 17-40mm will be my choice, I can't afford the extra money for the 16-35mm.



You might miss the fact the 16-35mm is f2.8 however, another thing to consider.
Click to expand...

Well, if its for group shots with landscape in the background, it won't be shot at f2.8 anyway :)
 
I have some 3rd party batteries left over from my 7D. When I put them in my 5DIII they came up with a message saying that connection was intermittent but they seem ok otherwise. Are they OK to use? I have 2 genuine canon ones too.
 
Thankfully the neighbor signed for it and has just handed it over. The batteries are on charge, I will have to go for a run whilst I wait. I'm thinking the first shot should be special, not something lying around on the work top.
 
Blasted said:
Thankfully the neighbor signed for it and has just handed it over. The batteries are on charge, I will have to go for a run whilst I wait. I'm thinking the first shot should be special, not something lying around on the work top.
Click to expand...

Went for run and bloody typical, saw an amazing sky whilst the sun set, then a buzzard flew right in front of me. If only I had a camera to hand.
 
Only in my head so far. I need to save up for more (70-200 2.8 is top of the list) but the only EF-S lens I own is my old kit lens that I never use.

I'd like something a bit wider than my 50mm and a macro lens but I don't know how much use they'd actually get.
 
spike241 said:
I'd like something a bit wider than my 50mm and a macro lens but I don't know how much use they'd actually get.
Click to expand...
The macro doubles up nicely as a portrait lens, if that's any help. In fact, I've used it a lot more for portrait than for macro, purely because I've had more opportunities to do so.
 
Thanks, I think it would be useful for close ups of pets or details like paws and noses :)
I won't be able to get one for a little while but I'll have a look around
 
No problem. Ive wanted to get in to macro for years but cant justify a dedicated lens, and i have the other focal lengths already covered. The tubes seem like a good idea for the occasional shooter.
The Polaroid's are half the price of the Kenko ones, and while im sure there are differences, i cant see many that would mean id want to pay more than £60ish.
 
Not exactly 5D3 specific but more of a general question.

I noticed one of my older LP-E6 batteries was only showing one bar (red) recharge quality the other day.
Has anyone got experience as to how much longer it's likely to last and what noticeable difference it will make?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top