Credit where credit's due

5D+70-200 F2.8 IS. So sharp you could cut yourself. When you can see the blood vessels in the eye you know the image is sharp. The low res version doesn't do it justice. No processing at all.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

She has a developing cataract on her left eye.

I finally bought a 70-200... been renting one.

P.S. If Stuart is your 2nd shooter that took this it was nice of you to give him credit in the Meta data. My people never do that.

Nice shot. I wish both eyes were in sharp focus, however (her right eye seems soft), and not just her eyelashes. I love my 70-200 2.8 IS..

PhotoMatte wrote in post #9789696
I wish both eyes were in sharp focus, however (her right eye seems soft), and not just her eyelashes.

LOL! Here come the pixel peepers.

And they wonder why I never upload anything.

Lol, I did start off my post with the words 'nice shot'...good of you to leave that part out of your quote!

RT McAllister wrote in post #9788190
P.S. If Stuart is your 2nd shooter that took this it was nice of you to give him credit in the Meta data. My people never do that.

I took the photo. I take all the photos during the portrait shoot time of a wedding day, my assistant does lighting and handles gear. Olivia's my regular assistant, Stu's a friend who comes along sometimes.

tim wrote in post #9790681
I took the photo. I take all the photos during the portrait shoot time of a wedding day, my assistant does lighting and handles gear. Olivia's my regular assistant, Stu's a friend who comes along sometimes.

I was just reading the EXIF data. It says Stu was the creator so I thought he took it.

RT McAllister wrote in post #9790877
I was just reading the EXIF data. It says Stu was the creator so I thought he took it.

Oh I thought i'd saved for web which removes that data. I had Stu's camera yesterday. Actually I had almost too much gear - 7D, 5D, 3x40D, two 70-200s, two 24-105's, plus my usual gear like stands and radio triggers. I need a bigger bag!

Are you switching to a 5D now?

Try a 1Ds3 out. It resolves a lot more detail (to a painful degree) than the 5D does. It's almost ridiculous. You'll pee your pants.

But I realized that the level of detail it was giving me was really overkill for wedding work. It's great for commercial, but unnecessary for weddings and portraits. The 40D gives me all the detail I really could need for weddings. I'm gonna FREAK OUT when I lose or break my 40Ds.

I've heard very good things about the 40D on this forum, mostly from Tim, and now I wonder if I should pick one up?

I'm gonna FREAK OUT when I lose or break my 40Ds.

Lol, I've gotta say, I love that quote. It's not if I lose or break them, it's when...

I know some think I'm a FF fanboy -- but I swear I'm not. I had 3 separate 40Ds. Hated all of them. Well, I didn't hate them, but I sure didn't like them. I hated the LCD as everything shot wider than f/4 looked OOF. I hated the ISO above ISO1250. The AF was significantly better than the 5D, but the 5D's AF is sufficient for me, so that wasn't a big plus for me, practically speaking.

bnlearle wrote in post #9791350
I know some think I'm a FF fanboy -- but I swear I'm not. I had 3 separate 40Ds. Hated all of them. Well, I didn't hate them, but I sure didn't like them. I hated the LCD as everything shot wider than f/4 looked OOF. I hated the ISO above ISO1250. The AF was significantly better than the 5D, but the 5D's AF is sufficient for me, so that wasn't a big plus for me, practically speaking.

Good to know. I have two 5Ds as my primary bodies and one old 20D as a backup.

There's no reason to switch from 5D's to 40D's UNLESS you feel hindered by the AF speed. At least, that's the only real reason I can think of off the top of my head.

picturecrazy wrote in post #9791234
Are you switching to a 5D now?

Try a 1Ds3 out. It resolves a lot more detail (to a painful degree) than the 5D does. It's almost ridiculous. You'll pee your pants.

But I realized that the level of detail it was giving me was really overkill for wedding work. It's great for commercial, but unnecessary for weddings and portraits. The 40D gives me all the detail I really could need for weddings. I'm gonna FREAK OUT when I lose or break my 40Ds.

If you like your 40D you'd love a 7D. The 40D is the ugly cousin now!

I have a friend staying with me who has a 5D, my assistant uses it at the moment since my 2nd 40D broke.