Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Well, anyway, as Vincent Laforet says in his blog, there is NO reason to own the 85L if you're not shooting it between 1.2 - 2.0, as you might as well own the 70-200 II for only a few hundred $ more, with the ability to have the versatility of the zoom, much faster auto-focus, IS and pretty much equal sharpness.What I understood from the video (Presidents Photographer) is that he follows the President all day long and takes 20000 photos a week, so carrying a big heavy like 70-200, all day long, would be a bit too much (especially for a 59 year old like Pete Souza) ... also in that video I saw him work mostly with a 35 f/1.4 & 85 f/1.2 lenses ... the only other lens I saw him use in that video was 24-70 (if I am not wrong it was mostly used outdoors).
If you can afford both, well, I'm jealous of you.
So don't be jealous ... be happy that you are a strong young person with the muscles and strength to carry a 70-200 all day long
I find it peculiar that Beach Camera would sell it for less on Ebay where they have to pay a fee to Ebay, than there own website. Its doesn't make sense to me. When it sounds too good to be true, it usually is.
Hand held the 100L wins hands down. The 50% premium I paid for H-IS, weather sealing and newer larger optics over an 9 yo design was worth it.
I own the L 100mm macro. It is sharp at all apertures. It focuses very quickly on my 550D, despite the aging auto-focus system. I believe it has a greater no. of aperture blades, so the bokeh is slightly better than the non-L. I get unbelievably good bokeh even on a crop sensor.
The L series also frames the subject slightly tighter than the non-L. I've compared it to my 28-135mm zoom lens and it also frames the subject tighter than at 135mm!
You are not just paying extra for the IS. The L is top quality in all areas.
I've been shooting for just over 2 years now, invested around 6K in Canon gear, and i've been waiting for the 5D3 to come out for a long time so i can finally have the Full Frame Advantage.
However after looking at the DXO ratings, and the Fred Miranda review (in regards to pulling the shadows up to par with the image) i can't help to feel betrayed by Canon. it looks like the D800 jus took a HUGE DUMP on Canon.
With all of this said, how can i justify dropping 3.5K on this camera? I've started off with 7D so i haven't seen the what seems to be the disappointment of the 5D II AF system. I have the money, i'm ready to spend. I just need the convincing that this will be a worthwhile investment.
Background: 19 Y/O, Own: 7D, 50mm 1.4, 24-70mm L. 70-200mm L 2.8 Mark II, Sigma 10mm Fisheye (ONLY COMPATIBLE WITH 1.6 sensors.), and the 530EXII. Plan on getting internship to shoot weddings to build up my portfolio this summer. This camera seems like THE WEDDING CAMERA.
So, some professionals/enthusiasts/knowledgeable people. Give me some advice, i'd really appreciate it.
Thank you for your time.
Edit: I frequent Canon Rumors daily, and have been reading forums for as long as i've been looking at this site, this is my first post however, bear that in mind. hahaha Cheers.
so you are saying I need to go out and spend a lot of money for higher mega pixel cause I need a MF camera? Which would make it so bothersom to use for my needs.
Canon can't release something like the d800?
Wow, you're logic is messed up.
I rather spend my money on my comp for faster render time. And like I stated before I'm. Not going to jump ship, I love my canon lens. I guess I will happy with my 5d mark 2 a little longer.
If you had read my response then you would have spotted TWO options
1. A MF body that gives you the high mp you asked for
2. Create a virtual high MP body by stitching several images together.
And you call us clueless
Boy oh boy many people haven't got a clue.
Not everything is a business, some people are ARTISTS, and yes we do live from selling our art, but we would continue to do so even if we couldn't afford it.
And also, while I do understand that most people here thinks that photo taken on a wedding is as good as it gets, there are simply other things out there.
MF are clunky, expensive, and you do not want to take it with you int a rainforest, or in the warzone, or in the most locations, 35mil is just so much more reliable.
Also, for me it is not economical to go MF just for the sake of the MF, I was just gathering information weather or not higher MPs are on Canon's agenda.
I tell you how to get round the issue, giving you 2 different options - and you call me clueless.
I am an amateur so I dont treat photography as a business. I guess that makes me an artist - just not the kind of artist you seem to be
No, but I do take many photos for my 3d work for textures and samples many of my photo library for many things.
I have nothing against you, but you are clueless to why people will need a high MP camera. Not every one that takes photo for prints and stills.
I use a lot of my photos for my art stuff from my 3d work to photo manipulation, and building my library for my creative needs when i need them. Space is cheap, and I have more than enough power in my comp to edit anything in the market.
I swear people are so close minded now a day. Photography has gotten huge since it went digital. You don't need to be a pro photographer to need a high end equipment.
I never stated I'm a great photographer or can produce stunning images out of my camera. I just want a camera that can give me a lot of mega pixels I can play with because that's is my main needs. It might not be yours, but it's mine.
Sometimes I look through my library of photo and sigh that I want to use something out of photo, and realized I can't sample from them cause the mega pixel aren't enough to make a clean image.
Anyways to each there own. It's the end production that counts.
I am trying to get my head round this one - but calling someone clueless when they have a different opinions is not a good way to get consensus.
Would I be right in thinking that you want to take pictures and extract parts from them, using mp to keep the IQ up?
You see I believe that the majority do print and view the images so that is the 'normal' requirement, so the need to have large mps cameras will limited to a very small section of people. The manufacturers aim their products at the largest market segment to get the maximum profit - that is the reality of the situation.
Now it is possible to get very large mps MF bodies and I dont see why you dont use those rather than 35mm DSLRs. However if being an amateur there is a budget constraint then you may have to adopt a different approach to resolve your issues, for example, getting closer and taking many closeups, or buying longer lens, macro lens etc
I do agree with you in that more mps are useful for cropping to different paper sizes, but for that about 25mps is all that is needed for native printing on A3.
Zero I don't want to continue a debate or discussion once I see a person isn't understanding ours posts and worse than that saying I'm clueless. There isn't much a person in my position doesn't understand about picture taking. You don't know me so I'll give you a pass on that but there are other pros that speak the same language as I do and vice versa that know what I'm talking about. With the present day level equipment such as Mark ll or especially the newest Mark lll someone just like you should have the results you need if the *professional* *knowledgable* photog using that body is using it correctly... correct lens, tripod, settings, etc. Again I'll point out the data issue. If a person is using that new Nikon D800 or any future body with 36 megapixel capability we are talking about a workflow that will require dealing with files over 200+ megs. It would seem to me that the graphics folks that want that or have the time to deal with that would be using medium format as a solution and want the very best. Or on the other hand you'll have avid amateurs who will always feel the need to have the most megapixels money can buy but for all the wrong reasons.
The only thing people think they know about cameras is megapixels. "Hey that's a nice camera you have there. I have one just like it. How many megapixels does yours have" If I have a nickel for every time that happened.......
I've been a pro sports photog for over 10 years and it's rare I or my colleagues ever need files that are maxing out the bodies as far as megapixels. We all use 1D series or Nikon D series pro bodies. If we provide the clients with images that are *sharp and *in focus that is what matters and knowing your settings backwards and forwards and being able to make changes fast without having to think about it is key.
It's not about megapixels. If it is then make the jump to medium format now don't wait.
I do agree with you.
However, I'm also aware that the demands of different markets are different. I'd say that sports just doesn't need more MP. I'd also say weddings (which is my key market) doesn't need more - in fact I'm going down in res from a 5d2 to 1dx this year. Fashion and beauty ... some people need more and some don't - I've certainly not needed more in the past 3 years. Landscape photographers who print large need as much as they can get. And so on.
What concerns me is that people don't seem to understand some of the basics:
* How do I determine if I need more resolution?
* What is the real difference in resolution between 12, 22 and 36Mp?
* (for pros) How will my business be affected by having or not having more Mp?
I'll give an example. One of my friends in London said 4 years ago that, to be a fashion photographers, he needed more MP and he dropped about £25K on a MF system. It got him nowhere. Another of my friends had a 5d2 and ran it for years and years. Once he was getting noticed and was getting paid regularly, he upgraded to MF and since has been doing very well. Another of my friends in more commercial markets took a "leap of faith" and fortunately he's done OK. However, was it the MF or his business knowledge which has got this for him?
What I think annoys pros when I suggest they don't need more MP is that they think I don't understand their technical needs, but my point is that, I can see you might need it technically and you might know how to judge that *but does your business need it*. That's what you have to be really careful with.
You forget this is the digital age. You have many people that are in graphics. You have work stations that can push out 36mp like nothing.
I understand where you are coming from, but you need to see the other side of the spectrum and the possibilities that comes with it.
Having high mp in the right censor will give you so many real estate to play with. Makes editing images a lot easier to modify. Also it will make sampling images a lot cleaners. There are so many possibilities if you open your mind and willing to learn to utilize what's out there.
So you're saying you are in the business of graphic design and that is your area of expertise? .... and you also are saying you need photographers to submit files (enormous RAW files of course) from a 30+ megapixel DSLR as a preference? Or would you rather have files submitted from a medium format camera more typical in high-end graphics. If I was in that position and my workflow allowed for those type of file sizes I'd seek out the medium format highest end 5-star photogs.
The bodies such as what I use (Mark IV's) at 16.1 megapixels should work for anything. I had to check how many megapixels I have just now since it is so much more than what I need. It's the other features that I care about not megapixels. I quite caring once it got over 10. No matter how many megapixels a camera has people somewhere will always have an argument for why they (or somebody else) could need more.
Re-read Phil's post. It is right on the mark. Do pros really need to investment in a newer 30+ megapixel body? Do they know how to effectively use the technology they already own?
In that vain right now I'm wrestling with having to maybe replace my Mark IV bodies with the newer Mark X at over $6600 a piece. Canon has priced me out of doing this at least on the short term. How about a 200-400 for $11,000? Nope.
IMO these new high megapixel bodies such as the Nikon D800 will be mostly purchased by avid amateur's but they won't use it at "full power" once they see how much time it takes to deal with those file sizes... unless they have a personal assistant that doubles as a photo assistant/photo editor ;-)
I've been a pro sports photog for over 10 years and it's rare I or my colleagues ever need files that are maxing out the bodies as far as megapixels. We all use 1D series or Nikon D series pro bodies. If we provide the clients with images that are *sharp and *in focus that is what matters and knowing your settings backwards and forwards and being able to make changes fast without having to think about it is key.
It's not about megapixels. If it is then make the jump to medium format now don't wait.
I do agree with you.
However, I'm also aware that the demands of different markets are different. I'd say that sports just doesn't need more MP. I'd also say weddings (which is my key market) doesn't need more - in fact I'm going down in res from a 5d2 to 1dx this year. Fashion and beauty ... some people need more and some don't - I've certainly not needed more in the past 3 years. Landscape photographers who print large need as much as they can get. And so on.
What concerns me is that people don't seem to understand some of the basics:
* How do I determine if I need more resolution?
* What is the real difference in resolution between 12, 22 and 36Mp?
* (for pros) How will my business be affected by having or not having more Mp?
I'll give an example. One of my friends in London said 4 years ago that, to be a fashion photographers, he needed more MP and he dropped about £25K on a MF system. It got him nowhere. Another of my friends had a 5d2 and ran it for years and years. Once he was getting noticed and was getting paid regularly, he upgraded to MF and since has been doing very well. Another of my friends in more commercial markets took a "leap of faith" and fortunately he's done OK. However, was it the MF or his business knowledge which has got this for him?
What I think annoys pros when I suggest they don't need more MP is that they think I don't understand their technical needs, but my point is that, I can see you might need it technically and you might know how to judge that *but does your business need it*. That's what you have to be really careful with.
And IMO the lens possibilities for the Canon system are unsurpassed and offer more possibilities.
Yes - I think this is the key point for me. The only (pro) lens that Nikon has which is clearly better than the Canon equivalent is the 14-24 (that I know of). The "holy primes" (35, 85, 135) are unmatched. The 100 macro is amazing for studio. The new 24-70 MTF graphs show it to be the best by some way (although it's not cheap! And it's only MTF graphs so far). The 70-200 2.8 II is just better than the Nikon. The f4 zooms are a fantastic option - in fact Nikon stole the idea with their recent 24-120.
And why would you want to have more resolution with the Nikon 105mm macro (compared to the Canon)? http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=107&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=645&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4
Lenses will make a much bigger difference to my photography than 1/3rd more resolution. Trying to get people to actually understand that is really really hard.
Let's face it, many peoples work never even sees an A3 printer, never mind anything larger. I know mine rarely does and I make money from photography. I've even seen amazing large prints from 8mp cameras.
People keep saying they want more resolution .... but few people are actually saying what they need it for?
I wouldn't even consider switching brands unless Nikon picked their lens game up quite considerably. The 5d3 might be £500 too expensive, but I wouldn't choose to make my photographs worse just to save £500.
