December 22, 2014, 10:12:25 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 - dryanparker

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
1
Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 II or 100 2.8L and 135 2 and 200 2.8
« on: November 02, 2014, 07:11:03 AM »
The decision does have something to do with how you prefer to shoot, but the simple fact is the 70-200 is one of the best lenses available on any platform. Hard to go wrong!

2
This may have been covered in a previous post, but...

Does anyone know if a lens this size can have an internal zoom movement like the 70-200? If extends like the 70-300, any concerns about weather sealing?

BTW, I realize the 200-400 is internal, so I guess I'm referring to the possibility of a 100-400 with internal zoom that won't cost $5000. Hand-holdable form factor similar to the 70-200...?

3
This may have been covered in a previous post, but...

Does anyone know if a lens this size can have an internal zoom movement like the 70-200? If extends like the 70-300, any concerns about weather sealing?

4
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 14, 2014, 09:35:22 PM »
The person holding it.
And making money with it.

Yes to Neuro's point, but not necessarily yes to RL's.

Not every professional makes a living (or any money at all) using their camera. Think of all the fantastically talented hobbyists out there, or perhaps fine art photographers. These are "professionals" in terms of their knowledge, capacity and portfolio quality, but it's not necessarily about money.

That said, I'll concede to RL that "professionals" are often described by some associations (ASMP, for instance) as those making a living with their camera.

5
Perhaps a sign of confidence that Canon will issue a camera body that maximizes the resolving power of these kinds of optics?

+1  I've used Schneider and Rodenstock lenses on large format.  Beautiful lenses and wickedly expensive new.

I would imagine that these new lenses will carry a hefty price tag.

No question about it...they'll be costly! :)

6
Perhaps a sign of confidence that Canon will issue a camera body that maximizes the resolving power of these kinds of optics?

7
Lenses / Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site
« on: September 16, 2014, 09:54:07 AM »
Very interesting. Any chance of it being rectilinear?

8
EOS Bodies / Re: 7DII full frame?
« on: September 08, 2014, 10:02:56 AM »
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22588.0

Already a thread on this.

And no... I doubt it will be full frame.  If it is... it won't be called the 7D Mark II

+1

A new full-frame offering would not continue under the 7D line.

9
Lenses / Re: wide angle needed
« on: September 06, 2014, 01:17:40 PM »
I'm in love with the Zeiss 15/2.8, but it comes at a steep price. I wanted the very best UWA lens for landscape and architecture, and its quality is undeniable.

That said, I've heard amazing things about the new 16-35/4. I'm sure it's fantastic, and far more versatile than the Zeiss 15.

Good luck!

10
Street & City / Re: Your best street shots of any kind.
« on: August 13, 2014, 09:10:49 PM »
I once came across a parkour group in downtown Jacksonville. One of them was falling from the sky.

Mamiya RZ67, 75mm Shift Lens, Tri-X 400

11
Canon General / Re: Another Canon Medium Format Mention
« on: August 11, 2014, 11:20:44 AM »
Would Canon benefit from offering some kind of product similar to the Leica S? Not a "full-blown" MF system to compete with Phase One or Hasselblad, but still something larger than 35mm?

I'm just not sure of the benefit given 35mm sensors now boast amazingly high resolution. The quality of the pixels is what Leica sells in their S body, given its comparatively modest resolution for a MF system. The leap in quality undoubtedly exists in the lenses.

Interesting play on Canon's part...

12
Canon General / Re: Who's on Instagram?
« on: August 08, 2014, 10:55:40 AM »
I use LinkedIn and Instagram quite heavily, and to a lesser extent Twitter.

Instagram has a lot of garbage on the platform, but a ton of really great stuff too. Much of the clutter is a result of people trying to monetize it. Indeed, a lot of "social media celebrities" have somehow amassed enormous followings (usually for alarmingly superficial reasons) and sell posts with product placement, brand mentions, etc.

I have a modest following, mostly friends and other photographers, and I use Instagram to share a mix of my "real photography" and everyday iPhone photos. I love the platform.

www.instagram.com/dryanparker
A fellow Floridian - I have followed you as well, and I agree with your thoughts on the platform.  I like your mix of photos and I love that custom case you kept your RZ kit in - I hope you got some decent cash for the set.

Thanks! Followed you too, Ian. Lovely nature photos, and I see a lot of familiar North Florida scenes!

I loved the RZ, but it was time to go back to digital. I'll eventually get back into medium format, too. It taught me a huge amount, and I have a binder of killer negatives that I'm proud to have made.

Unfortunately, the RZ gear was sold at a pretty substantial loss, but I got great enjoyment from it, and that goes a long way with me.

13
Canon General / Re: Who's on Instagram?
« on: August 08, 2014, 10:38:28 AM »
I use LinkedIn and Instagram quite heavily, and to a lesser extent Twitter.

Instagram has a lot of garbage on the platform, but a ton of really great stuff too. Much of the clutter is a result of people trying to monetize it. Indeed, a lot of "social media celebrities" have somehow amassed enormous followings (usually for alarmingly superficial reasons) and sell posts with product placement, brand mentions, etc.

I have a modest following, mostly friends and other photographers, and I use Instagram to share a mix of my "real photography" and everyday iPhone photos. I love the platform.

www.instagram.com/dryanparker

14
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: July 21, 2014, 05:06:16 PM »
5D2 + 24-105L

Admittedly, it's not really a portrait. I've just always enjoyed these two.

15
I just was looking in my 5DmkIII manual to see where it says you can't print larger than 32x48. Can anyone direct me to the page that says that? I can't find it. Thanks for the help in advance.

+1

I love when people complain about not being able to print "larger than AxB". How often are we really printing anything larger than 36x24? I've printed that size with amazing detail from the 7D. I'm sure you could print 40x60 from a 5D3 with fantastic results. Larger artwork, just like larger TVs, are really meant to be viewed from greater distance.

Obviously, there are limits. You definitely don't want to be printing posters from iPhone photos...which I've seen...IN GALLERIES!!

But, these late model cameras are more than capable of beautiful prints at most reasonable sizes.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8