December 22, 2014, 12:56:31 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 - Dylan777

Pages: 1 ... 81 82 [83] 84 85 ... 292
1231
Which is the whole point.  With the 5D3/1Dx/1D4/1Ds3 etc., you don't have to use focus/recompose.  Focus/recompose sucks hardcore.

Unless you're the mythical SuperCarl, who's X-ray vision allows him to see through facts as if they aren't even there, and who's powerful lungs can blow hot air all day long.  SuperCarl, who can bend felt with his bare hands, leap tall golfballs in a single bound, and has a 6D that defies the principles of geometry and optical physics.

Neuro, have you come up the title for this poem yet? I'm guessing "SuperCarl" ;D

1232
Sports / Re: 2014 Philippine Polo Games
« on: April 18, 2014, 09:42:36 AM »
Love the look from both lenses: 200 + 400. Awesome. Thanks for sharing dolina ;)

Here's the black & white in color.


2014 Alabang Country Club Chairman's Cup by 500px.com/dolina, on Flickr

    ƒ/2.0
    200.0 mm
    1/1000
    100
    Off, did not fire
    Aperture-priority AE

1233
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Birds in Flight tips
« on: April 18, 2014, 09:29:47 AM »

1234
Lenses / Re: What has become of the long-rumored Canon 50mm IS?
« on: April 18, 2014, 09:23:28 AM »
"IS" is great. In prime world, I prefer f1.2 or f1.4 for more creamy bokeh over 3-4stop IS. I do wish for an UWA f4 with "IS" in near future ::)

1235
I didn't even know this thing existed let alone how expensive it is.  I'm curious... how's the image quality?

You gonna need 2-3 people to lift this lens on the tripod: http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/supertelephoto/sigma-200-500mm-f2.8-ex-dg-apo-for-canon

1236
Do they have f1.4 version?  ;D


1237
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: New Samyang 12mm f2 for EOS-M
« on: April 18, 2014, 01:09:54 AM »
oh that's really cool, I didn't realize 3rd party have started to embrace the M mount!

However, I'm not sure why I would prefer this over Canon's excellent 11-22 IS zoom?

I prefer IS over fast aperture for UWA any day, and AF is just really nice to have, not to mention a convenient range of focal lengths in one lens.

Granted the OEM option likely costs 50%-100% more...

+1....16-35 III with IS would be nice ;)

1238
Lighting / Re: Benefits of a 600RT system ...
« on: April 18, 2014, 12:38:26 AM »
Standard warning here: Speedlites are gateway drugs. If you don't watch yourself, you'll wake up one morning with five 600 RTs next to you in bed and you won't remember how you got there.

 :o :o :o....Although I haven't own any speedlites yet, however, I do understand your concept in my L lens situation ;D

1239
Third Party Manufacturers / New Samyang 12mm f2 for EOS-M
« on: April 17, 2014, 09:48:53 PM »
For those interested:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/03/21/samyang-announces-12mm-1-2-0-ncs-cs-wideangle-for-mirrorless#press

Here is one review with Fuji camera: http://www.aps-photo.com/2014/04/rokinon-12mm-f2-0-for-x-mount-a-first-look/

19mm equivalent to FF, which I think is very nice focal lenght for landscape.

1240
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
« on: April 17, 2014, 05:18:53 PM »
Playing about with my daughter's 1100D. I'm surprised by how much latitude there is in the RAW data. I can pull it around much more than I thought would be possible.

This is just one exposure, no flash, shot on the 50/1.4 @ about f2.8. ISO 200
Bokeh looks good. 2008 is when I first got introduced to dslr. 40d and 50mm f1.4

1241
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS
« on: April 17, 2014, 04:44:00 PM »
I'm in if iq is good as ii or better, otherwise, I have no need for IS. Since I don't shoot slow shutter much in this range.

1242
Lenses / Re: Canon 50L - Love or Hate?
« on: April 17, 2014, 11:24:24 AM »

No comment which better, but here is one of shot I took with 300. For creamy bokeh, I like my 85L II @ 1.2

To which I refer you back to my earlier link. http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_300mm_f_2_8l_is_ii_usm

Just because a picture was taken with a $7,300 lens doesn't make it worth a cent.

That photo taken at Santa Ana Zoo.

I emailed the zoo office of Ted's photos, the train captain. He personally offered my family a VIP ticket(FREE) to the zoo for one month. We went back there couple times with our VIP ticket. My kids got free ride there as well.

I think my photo worth more than a cent ;): http://www.santaanazoo.org/visinfoa.htm

You might, and the subject, who presumably isn't a photo enthusiast, might, but that isn't and wasn't my point. My point was if you want blown out backgrounds in your portraits there are vastly better lenses for doing that than the overly hyped 50 and 85 f1.2's. Using a 300 for compelling portraits is far more difficult than using either of the other two and, in my opinion, gives a much "nicer" image, but even if you don't agree with my opinion, you cannot argue the fact that the 300 destroys backgrounds far more effectively than the two much shorter lenses.

I understand & agree. I wasn't born with photography skills or have enough times to practice getting the right shots like the pros. However, I believe taking photo in the right moment could still be able to tell story - without  thinking too much about rule of 3rd, back and front ground etc... ;)

1243
Lenses / Re: Canon 50L - Love or Hate?
« on: April 17, 2014, 11:15:01 AM »
Dylan, that's pretty cool that you were able to get a free pass just by emailing the photo.  I agree that the 300 2.8 (and 200 f/2) is probably the best lens if you want to obliterate the background, but for anything beyond headshots it is a bit tough to use in terms of communicating with the model.  The results speak for themselves when they are carefully done, however.  I'm (very) fortunate to own the 24, 50, 85, and 300 (yes, I love fast lenses) and really enjoy using each one for their own strengths.  It's really just a matter of how much background (context) you want to include in the photos, but I think the 85 is probably the most versatile of these.  I find that I can use it for 80%  or more of the portraits I shoot. 

The 50L is the lens I reach for when I want something smaller, lighter, and less conspicuous than a zoom, faster focusing and wider than the 85, and with less perspective distortion than the 24.

I didn't know I'm gonna get free pass and didn't expect any return from Ted. I just want to send Ted some photos. I forgot to mention, we got a chance to meet his wife too - who also works in the  same zoo, farm area. Just a wonderful couple ;)

1244
Lenses / Re: Canon 50L - Love or Hate?
« on: April 17, 2014, 10:34:27 AM »

No comment which better, but here is one of shot I took with 300. For creamy bokeh, I like my 85L II @ 1.2

To which I refer you back to my earlier link. http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_300mm_f_2_8l_is_ii_usm

Just because a picture was taken with a $7,300 lens doesn't make it worth a cent.

That photo taken at Santa Ana Zoo.

I emailed the zoo office of Ted's photos, the train captain. He personally offered my family a VIP ticket(FREE) to the zoo for one month. We went back there couple times with our VIP ticket. My kids got free ride there as well.

I think my photo worth more than a cent ;): http://www.santaanazoo.org/visinfoa.htm

1245
Lenses / Re: Canon 50L - Love or Hate?
« on: April 17, 2014, 09:48:33 AM »
The 300 f2.8 absolutely blows both the 1.2 50 and 85 L's away when it comes to bokeh orientated portrait imagery.

But, the distance required for 300mm kills a large amount of portrait situations.

True, nothing comes without effort.

But however difficult manipulating the situation is, if you want the results that 50 and 85 lenses are incapable of delivering, whatever their speed, then do what it takes. If super bokeh and shallow dof are the primary characteristics wanted of a session then you have to go where you can use a vastly superior lens.

"...super bokeh and shallow DoF..."

Let's consider the latter.  If you frame the subject the same, e.g. a full-body portrait at 2 m with the 50/1.2 or 12 m with the 300/2.8, the subject magnification is the same.  So, the f/1.2 aperture of the 50L will give a thinner DoF.  If the subject-to-background distance is less than ~9 m, the 50L will deliver a stronger background blur.

Obviously, that's OOF blur amount, which is distinct from bokeh.

I wondered how long it would be before somebody pointed that out. It would be interesting to know what the actual true focal length and aperture is with a 12mm tube on the 300mm f2.8.

But I digress, I, personally, prefer the combination of destroyed background, slightly deeper dof, and perspective you get from the 300, rather than the far busier background slightly shallower dof, and perspective from the short 1.2's. Though I fully understand it is all personal preference and in many cases limited by practicalities, I only ever used the 300 at one wedding but used the 50 f1.2 at lots!

P.S. The OOF blur might be more with the wider aperture, but we both know the elements of the background will be vastly bigger, and hence to the eye appear more blurred, with the 300.

No comment which better, but here is one of shot I took with 300. For creamy bokeh, I like my 85L II @ 1.2

Edit: I'm removing this photo - since I haven't ask him for permission yet

Pages: 1 ... 81 82 [83] 84 85 ... 292