September 03, 2014, 04:00:57 AM

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 ... 59
541
thank you all for the comments!

for protection usage, is it better to just get a clear filter? instead of UV?   
(if so, can somebody recommend a good one? i'd appreciate it if you can provide links for the products.)

Thank you!

My lens has this riding on it:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/756819-REG/B_W_66_1066112_82mm_XS_Pro_NANO_Clear.html

542
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: MTF Chart for New Nikon 800mm f/5.6
« on: January 30, 2013, 01:00:52 AM »
HOLY CRAP...I did not think that was possible. ...wait.....for $18000...let me reconsider my response......
(Well it is an AMAZING MTF chart...truly).

543
Lenses / Re: Which 50mm (with AF) is best from f/1.4 - f/2.0?
« on: January 29, 2013, 11:33:25 AM »
I have a Sigma f/1.4... Love it!
I have all "L" and Zeiss lenses...but I think this is soooo much more than the Canon f/1.4...and most of what the Canon "L" is..without the bulk or cost.  The Canon can be finicky, too. I have a good copy, and in real-world shooting it is just fine. Although, I agree it would be cool if this lens was rereleased in the Art Series...bet it will be...but not for a while.

It's on sale here at a reliable retailer for $369. Can't beat that!
http://www.buydig.com/shop/basket.aspx?sku=SG50F14EOS&act=add&rmsg=&cpn=&sks=SG50F14EOS,&

I paid $450 and I am still happy!

544
Fun Idea... some of the explanations are definitely interesting.
I created my Avatar with the LEAST serious camera I have at my disposal so that I could remember to laugh at myself. I also designed it to have some visual impact in a small size, as avatars are such tiny little images many do not come across very well......(there I go getting serious again....).
My mispelled moniker, Infared,  (the proper spelling was already taken) I chose because the first images that I took that got me some notice were back in the 80's and they were shot on infrared film and then hand-colored...pre-computer, etc. (I shot on Nikon's then....so is that allowed here???? At least I am a RELUCTANT convert...not a traitor. LOL!).

545
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.

546
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!

547
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.

548
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.

549
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 !!!!

550
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)

551
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?

552
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!

553
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!

554
I thought I would post one of me working.....

555
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.... ::)

Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 59