A Stones Throw

At last - I have my new camera - Canon 5D M3 - This is my first post using it. standard kit lens. Very bright sun almost above us. 1000th, F5, iso100, praying i had all the focus settings right. So what dyou reckon.

Meercat007 wrote in post #16768569
At last - I have my new camera - Canon 5D M3 - This is my first post using it. standard kit lens. Very bright sun almost above us. 1000th, F5, iso100, praying i had all the focus settings right. So what dyou reckon.

Canon 5D M3 and you place a kit lens on it? That's like owning a Ferrari and having the dealership place a governor on it so it won't go over 55 mph.

Its a nice shot, only that I see is the water horizon is not level and is splitting his head, but go buy you some GLASS, use that camera to it potential!!!!

The kit lens is a Canon 24-105 L Lens - is this not a good lens ?

The 5D Mark III "kit" lens is the Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS USM.... an "L" lens. Hard to tell what lens was used here since the EXIF data was stripped.

thats the lens that I used

theantiquetiger wrote in post #16768577
Its a nice shot, only that I see is the water horizon is not level and is splitting his head

Those are extremely minor issues in this instance and I'm usually obsessive about horizontals and verticals.

IMHO, This is a good effort and a very nice image.

I used a 24-105L for years and wouldn't call it a bad lens!

Woodworker wrote in post #16768625
Those are extremely minor issues in this instance and I'm usually obsessive about horizontals and verticals.

IMHO, This is a good effort and a very nice image.

I used a 24-105L for years and wouldn't call it a bad lens!

I'm pretty lenient about levels except horizons that are water. It needs to be dead level or it shows. This water level is a good few degrees off.

I don't know that kit lens, but if it is a "lens kit", it is sub-par for this camera. This is the reason I went with the 60D and a 70-200 2.8, I didn't want a $3500 camera with a $300 lens on it.

theantiquetiger wrote in post #16768655
I'm pretty lenient about levels except horizons that are water. It needs to be dead level or it shows. This water level is a good few degrees off.

I don't know that kit lens, but if it is a "lens kit", it is sub-par for this camera. This is the reason I went with the 60D and a 70-200 2.8, I didn't want a $3500 camera with a $300 lens on it.

The 24-105 L is the kit lens for the 5D3. Canon has not made a bad "kit lens" in years. Even the ef-s 18-55s are quite good.

The purpose of a "kit lens" (i hate that term) is to have a versatile walk around focal length lens for the camera you just bought. Canon does not assume that every camera purchaser has lenses waiting to go on their new camera. If this were the case you would buy body only. The reason lenses like the 70-200 L are not sold in kits is because 1)they are not wide enough to be versatile walk around lenses and 2)they would increase the "kit" by about $2000. However on your 60D Canon does provide a "kit" with the 18-55 and the 55-250. Both capable lenses.

Lastly, what camera are you talking about that is a $3500 camera with a $300 lens? Surely you can't be talking about the 60D?

Utter nonsense... the 24-105 lens is listed for $1,149 at B&H: http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …24_105mm_f_4L_I​S_USM.html

Any percieved problems in this photo is not due to the lens.

theantiquetiger wrote in post #16768655
I don't know that kit lens, but if it is a "lens kit", it is sub-par for this camera. This is the reason I went with the 60D and a 70-200 2.8, I didn't want a $3500 camera with a $300 lens on it.

Jarvis Creative Studios wrote in post #16768690
Lastly, what camera are you talking about that is a $3500 camera with a $300 lens? Surely you can't be talking about the 60D?

I was referring to the 5D (the OP has). I assume most lens kits are fairly inexpensive. I know the lit lens for my 60D is about $200. I figure the kit lens for the 5D would be $300-$500.

You don't have to have L glass on a 5DIII to get good results. I took the 28-135 kit lens from my 40D, and put it on my 5dIII for a trip to Disneyland, because I liked the focal length range. Yeah, I used a different lens at night (Sigma 35 f/1.4), but the kit lens worked wonderfully for daylight shots.

theantiquetiger wrote in post #16768712
I was referring to the 5D (the OP has). I assume most lens kits are fairly inexpensive. I know the lit lens for my 60D is about $200. I figure the kit lens for the 5D would be $300-$500.

Price does not always dictate quality. The 50mm 1.8 is super sharp and can be had for $100 new. The 85mm 1.8 is also tack sharp and is $350-375 new. Other lenses like the 28-135, 100mm macro (non L), and 70-300 are all good lenses for cheap. Spending more is not always getting more.

Looks like you are off to a good start with your new gear. That is an awesome lens, don't let anyone convince you otherwise. It was my first L glass, and I still use it on a regular basis.

theantiquetiger wrote in post #16768712
I was referring to the 5D (the OP has). I assume most lens kits are fairly inexpensive. I know the lit lens for my 60D is about $200. I figure the kit lens for the 5D would be $300-$500.

I would refrain from making these sort of "assumptions" and passing them off as advice imho...unlee of course your idea of inexpensive is $1050 "L" glass.

To the OP - your focus looks pretty good from the resolution of the pic posted - exposure looks good - some eye contact would have been a plus - you did get the horizon pretty much level though which is a common error. Keep shooting and enjoy that amazing camera - even if it does just have a "kit Lens"

I would judge a photo by the way it looks..whatever you used.
The focus is a bit short (head appears off a bit). My only disappointment is the expression on the lad.