August 27, 2014, 01:18:51 PM

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.


Messages - infared

Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 58
541
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II is a Peerless Performer
« on: January 28, 2013, 08:22:13 AM »
I am not a fan of DxO (miss the) Mark...but after the chunk of change I drop on the II Version...all the good reviews I read make the hole in my wallet feel a little better.
It is nice to go out shooting with a midrange zoom that has much less less compromises and that instills confidence.
I am a primes guy...but this is a great lens.

542
Canon General / Re: 70-200 F2.8 mark I or mark II?!
« on: January 28, 2013, 07:46:52 AM »
It's been awhile and I saved up enough for the 70-200 mark II...so happy with the purchase.
Thanks to everyone for their input!


Yes, that is a "WOW" lens...it is a stellar performer. Totally trumps the version I. Enjoy your photo making!

543
EOS Bodies / Re: Fuji XE-1 compared to Canon 5D MK3
« on: January 24, 2013, 09:13:33 PM »



[/quote]

Interesting conclusion:
Its images come close in quality to the EOS 5D Mark III over a wide range of ISO settings.

I took a look at the pictures and i can't follow this conclusion.
- Comparison 1 on page 2: roof with trees in the background. Look, how soft these trees are with the Fuji.
- Comparison 2 on page 2: 100% showing branches. Awful color fringing and softness with the Fuji
- Comparison 3 on page 2: the neighboorhood. Again: soft trees in the background. Low contrast.
- Comparison 4 on page 2: roofs and church. Soft roofing tiles

I wonder, how Martin can come to the conclusion above. In my opinion, the Fuji never comes close to the Canon. It's a nice camera, but the Canon is on a much higher level.
[/quote]

That's what I thought also.  The Canon files clearly look better, with not just subtle differences.  Sure the Fuji 35 f/1.4 would have been better, but Canon also has better lenses, i.e. 24 T-SE II, 24-70 II, 70-200 II, 85L II, etc..
[/quote]


I agree with your outlook..
..I also think that the lenses are fairly matched...but both cameras would improve with primes....
The Fuji should have more DOF...so what is all of this foreground and background softness...could be operator error?
The 5D3 is at another level IMHO, too.

544
85L at 7.1. What a waste!!!

So an 85 f1.8 and 6D would have done? More than good enough IMHO

Right ...but if you are the White House Photographer you are going to have the top end cameras and lenses. That kind of goes without saying...What is funny is that I think a lot of people on the thread are making a case for the equipment that they own that could have taken the portrait of the President..but that they are not admitting to that point of ownership. LOL. Most of the suggestions work for this particular assignment, I must say.

545
I have been getting complaints about the off topic posts and offensive posts here all day.  This is not a political forum.

I've removed a ton of posts, and one like the Nazi post gets a automatic ban.

Thank You !!!!

546
85L at 7.1. What a waste!!!
LOL!
That was my 1st thought, too!...but it's America...you could not cream the background too much...we need to see those flags and be able to identify them!...plus f/7.1 is a nice safe aperture to get The Prez good and sharp and save the photographer's butt.
I like the shot. It is a conservative, it has to be. So it is perfect for the intended audience. Nice low angle so we get the feeling of power. (Color balance could be a tad warmer..but that is not a shot killer here). It makes The President look in-charge, but accessible (his expression conveys that). The shot is also somewhat relaxed, i.e. not stiff, so I think it captures Barrack's personality, too.  Job well done in the short, stressful time Mr. Sousa had to shoot it!
The phone isn't a prop....Barrack demanded that the phone be there in case his office went into DEFCON 5 National Emergency Mode!  8)

547
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Kenrockwell comments on Canon 6d
« on: January 19, 2013, 05:38:41 PM »
I think we have plumbed the bottom of the Ken Rockwell topic.... perhaps we can stop now? :)

...well..the topic is shallow enough that it should only have been one page..tell ya what...why don't we all use at least $10,000.00 of photo equipment to post some really bad snapshots of our kids here, in honor of Ken and then call it a day?

548
Ha! It took me a few seconds to figure out what I was looking at! Pretty neat.
[/quote]

WOW...it took me quite a bit longer than a few seconds to figure that out...I looked at it last night ...and thought (what are they talking about??????...but the thought kept niggling at me.....)......it sooooo looks like a crushed can of coke. Of course the Coca Cola Marketing Dept. has been training my mind to see the can for about 58years...so it is understandable.  Fascinating how my trained, mental bias swayed my visual perception....very interesting.
Quite marvelous!

549
I thought I would post one of me working.....
Question: What camera is that?

Ahhhhh....RPT..I see by your avatar that you have interest in such things.. If the print I posted was large enough you could see the hammer-&-sickle pin that is over the jacket pocket, by the snap and that would have given you a hint. The camera is a Russian Lubitel 166 Twin-Lens Reflex Camera.  Only the best!!! LOL!

550
I thought I would post one of me working.....

551
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Kenrockwell comments on Canon 6d
« on: January 18, 2013, 01:49:23 AM »
Why....Magnardo.......you make Ken sound like a sociopath.... ::)

552
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Kenrockwell comments on Canon 6d
« on: January 18, 2013, 01:34:42 AM »
I always learn something from Ken's reviews...I would be lying if I said that I did not...but he is still a Canon Kiss-Ass, and a hoser. ;D. (Ken uses no tact...so I won't use any either).
...oh...and I still prefer my 5DIII. Duh.

553
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II
« on: January 16, 2013, 12:10:14 PM »
Do you care about IQ?
70-200 II is not able to replace 85/135/200Ls in many situations...

IQ?  The 70-200 II is equal to or better than most of the primes in it's focal range in terms of IQ - basically, the differences are so minor as to be marginal in rigorous testing (charts/Imatest) and practically irrelevant in real-world shots.  The reason for the fast primes used to be IQ, shallower DoF, more light, and smaller/lighter (for a single lens, not the set).  At this point, for all practical purposes, it's down to shallower DoF, more light (debatable with a newer FF body and the excellent high-ISO performance) and smaller/lighter.

+100...these new zooms are amazingingly sharp with great contrast!!!

554
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II
« on: January 15, 2013, 10:39:26 PM »
I have the first version of this lens and am very happy with it. One knock I've seen commented on about the mkII is the bokeh is a bit more 'nervous' as compared to the first version. Not to say it's bad, but just not as 'creamy' as the original version. Aside from the cost to upgrade, this one quality is of concern to me in contemplating an upgrade. Can anyone comment on this comparison, is it fair to say the mkII isn't quite as nice in this one respect as compared to the original 70-200/2.8 IS?

I owned version I of the lens...when I saw the sharpness of the II version...I gulped at the price...but made the leap, selling my version I to help finance my lens mania, LOL. Every time  I shoot with the lens I now get to gulp at the images...the sharpness ALWAYS wows me! Every time. ...but yes as usual in photography...it comes with a trade off..the bokeh is more "nervous"...but for me the sharpness is so astounding thru the zoom range that I accept the trade off.
If I really need to get serious about bokeh I pick up my 85mm f/1.2...and I am considering picking up a 135mm f/2.0 so that I can have fast AF AND creamy backgrounds when needed, as the 85L does not lend itself to fast AF....Seems that you just cannot have it all!!!

555
Depends entirely on what you shoot and what your needs are...  If you shoot mainly landscapes from a tripod, I'd just keep the 5DII.  If you shoot moving subjects, or would significantly benefit by a bit less high-ISO noise, the 5DIII is a significant upgrade.  IMO, the 5DII produced excellent IQ, and the 5DIII offers only a marginal improvement on that.  It was the other attributes of the 5DII that I found lacking - autofocus speed and accuracy, in particular, and fps to a lesser extent - and the 5DIII is a major upgrade in those areas.
I agree with everything that neuro has to say regarding the upgrade. I sold my 5DII and bought a 5DIII..so I have personal. experience with the upgrade and my main reason was that I do a lot of HDR imaging and the 5DII had ONLY 3-stop bracketing... It was so lacking in that dept. (we are talking $10 worth of software that some point-and-shoots best it on???), that I decided to buy the 5DIII which has 7-stop bracketing. The 5DII is still a great camera...and had I known about Magic Lantern firmware (which has extended bracketing), I may have kept it...but I think that the III is a really decent upgrade..when you consider all of the points mentioned by Neuro, the locking program wheel, accepting two memory cards, 2 silent-shutter settings, the fact that the camera is much more customizable and it just handles and feels lot a lot more camera in my hand and that gives me confidence, which is something, for me that makes it really a worthwhile step forward especially now that it can be had at or below~$2900!!! (I paid full price 6 months back but was able to command $2000 for my 5DII back then so it evens out).

Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 58