6D VS 5d3 - Hard Time Deciding

sardines wrote in post #16724149
Thanks, nice pic... so what's the shutter speed on this ? When I had a 6D for a short while, the 1/4000 was over exposed on my f1.4 on a bright day. No Iwasn't shooting at the sun...it was just a bright sunny day

Yep, that happens. I sometimes shoot at f/1.4 and even experience issues at 1/8000 (not shooting at the sun :lol. But, I wouldn't feel too limited if my camera had a 1/4000 limitation because it isn't too hard to work around. A CPL will knock a couple of stops off and, as BW mentioned, ISO 50 works great too. And if those things don't do it, then just stop down a bit. Seriously, is there really a compelling creative need for a sunny-conditions shot at f/1.4 (or wider) that f/2.8 can't adequately deliver?

sardines wrote in post #16724149
Thanks, nice pic... so what's the shutter speed on this ? When I had a 6D for a short while, the 1/4000 was over exposed on my f1.4 on a bright day. No Iwasn't shooting at the sun...it was just a bright sunny day

ISO 100 and shutter 4000...No filters of any type...ND or otherwise....

Your needs vary by the placement of the sun and content being shot. In that example there are still long shadows (very nearly 45 deg) and very dark content across the frame, put the sun overhead and take pictures of people, and the results could be much harsher. I couldn't take pics of my kids with the 85L in the middle of the day during the summer, the shots were over exposed. I would have needed a CPL or ND to bring the light level down enough to do that.

Of course you end up with alot of fringing too at those settings, lots of light, lots of dark contrasty edges wide open, and depending on the lens, bad stuff.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #16724343
Your needs vary by the placement of the sun. In that example there are still long shadows, put the sun overhead and take pictures of people, and the results will be much harsher.

Rationalization....the sun was directly into the subject..2 o'clock...so you're saying no pics between noon and 1? Grasping at straws are we? Always lower the ISO to 50.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #16724343
Your needs vary by the placement of the sun. In that example there are still long shadows, put the sun overhead and take pictures of people, and the results will be much harsher.

Yes. "Sunny conditions" encompasses a fairly wide range of exposure values.

Bakewell wrote in post #16724347
Rationalization....

It's a fact; I thought you were all about "facts". Guess not.

David Arbogast wrote in post #16724350
Yes. "Sunny conditions" encompasses a fairly wide range of exposure values.

It's a fact; I thought you were all about "facts". Guess not.

Usually those with lack of experience throw those things out. Those of us that shoot portraits under blazing sunny conditions know otherwise.

I hope I get that cantankerous when I hit my mid 60s... (I am sure Mrs. G evens him out a bit)

David Arbogast wrote in post #16724350
Yes. "Sunny conditions" encompasses a fairly wide range of exposure values.

It's a fact; I thought you were all about "facts". Guess not.

Hmmm...you remember. Good! This pic is a fact. If you choose not to believe then continue to use your 2.8 for everything. After all, the world IS truly flat...

Bakewell wrote in post #16724384
So strange! This pic is a fact. If you choose not to believe then continue to use your 2.8 for everything. After all the world IS truly flat...

I am not questioning the "fact" of your photo; why do you imagine that? The "fact" in question here is not whether it is possible to take a photo in sunny conditions at f/1.2. What we are discussing here is the "fact" that sunny conditions vary by time of day and time of year. And that there are times - quite frequently - when sunny conditions will make it impossible to capture a photo at ISO 100 / f/1.2 / 1/4000 without the aid of a ND or CPL filter.

If the photo was taken at 2PM on December 31 (just 10 days removed from the shortest day of the year in the Northern Hemisphere), then that would be like taking a photo at 5-6PM in June. Try a portrait at 2PM on June 21 in bright sun and you'll find the exposure value is different. If you contest the "fact" that sunny-conditions exposure values differ based on time of year/time of day, then it is you who are being the flat-earther here.

I am not wishing to be argumentative with you on this subject - though you seem incapable of interacting differently - because, as I stated earlier, I don't think the 1/4000 is a great limitation. There are workarounds.

David Arbogast wrote in post #16724414
If the photo was taken at 2PM on December 31 (just 10 days removed from the shortest day of the year in the Northern Hemisphere), then that would be like taking a photo at 5-6PM in June. Try a portrait at 2PM on June 21 in bright sun and you'll find the exposure value is different. If you contest the "fact" that sunny-conditions exposure values differ based on time of year/time of day, then it is you who are being the flat-earther here.

I wish our December 30 sunshine was like southern California's
I think we both agree that while it's still not summer light, there is a significant difference what we call sunshine in NW OH and what they have in Irvine, CA I don't know about Missouri though.

ISO 50, 1/5000th, f1.2 just to make sure her skin didn't completely blow out the right side.

If I used ISO 100, 1/4000 at f1.2, the photo would have been torched (1 1/3 stops over).

gabebalazs wrote in post #16724438
I wish our December 30 sunshine was like southern California's
I think we both agree that while it's still not summer light, there is a significant difference what we call sunshine in NW OH and what they have in Irvine, CA I don't know about Missouri though.

Agreed. One's latitude definitely has a lot to say on the subject. I just know from lots of experience, that even with my camera's 1/8000 limit I have to occasionally have stop down, or go to ISO 50, when I am attempting to capture an image at f/1.4 in bright sunny conditions. I don't know, maybe the smog in Irvine is like a ND filter.

David Arbogast wrote in post #16724414
I am not questioning the "fact" of your photo; why do you imagine that? The "fact" in question here is not whether it is possible to take a photo in sunny conditions at f/1.2. What we are discussing here is the "fact" that sunny conditions vary by time of day and time of year. And that there are times - quite frequently - when sunny conditions will make it impossible to capture a photo at ISO 100 / f/1.2 / 1/4000 without the aid of a ND or CPL filter.

If the photo was taken at 2PM on December 31 (just 10 days removed from the shortest day of the year in the Northern Hemisphere), then that would be like taking a photo at 5-6PM in June. Try a portrait at 2PM on June 21 in bright sun and you'll find the exposure value is different. If you contest the "fact" that sunny-conditions exposure values differ based on time of year/time of day, then it is you who are being the flat-earther here.

I am not wishing to be argumentative with you on this subject - though you seem incapable of interacting differently - because, as I stated earlier, I don't think the 1/4000 is a great limitation. There are workarounds.

My point was not aimed at you. The pic speaks for itself. I've set My calendar for June 21st. I think we both now the result. I WILL be back!

David Arbogast wrote in post #16724449
Agreed. One's latitude definitely has a lot to say on the subject. I just know from lots of experience, that even with my camera's 1/8000 limit I have to occasionally have stop down, or go to ISO 50, when I am attempting to capture an image at f/1.4 in bright sunny conditions. I don't know, maybe the smog in Irvine is like a ND filter.

Wouldn't be surprised

Well this thread just went sideways.

OuttaCtrl wrote in post #16724488
Well this thread just went sideways.

Kinda butted head first into reality...