September 30, 2014, 07:59:50 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 - Dylan777

Pages: 1 ... 90 91 [92] 93 94 ... 274
1366
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Post your favorite camera gear here
« on: January 14, 2014, 03:22:34 PM »
My favorite gear is what's in my hand at that moment, whatever that may be.

Too Much Information!!!!!

 ;D ;D ;D

1367
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Post your favorite camera gear here
« on: January 14, 2014, 03:21:08 PM »
My favorite gear changes from time-to-time, mainly depending on what I shoot.  The 5DIII has been a mainstay since I bought it, though, so that's probably the best answer.  If we're talking about gear love, though, my 300 f/2.8 IS II holds that title and has since I bought it several months ago.  My body is still a wreck (major neck/shoulder/arm problems) but what little shooting I've done lately has been with this lens.  I love the way it makes even mundane photos look amazing and I've been shooting portraits with it lately and love the results.  I know you sold yours for the 400, but the 300 has found a happy home with me :)

Hope you get better soon mackguyver.

300 is an AWESOME lens - period.

1369
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: January 12, 2014, 11:47:31 PM »
American White Pelicans, 5d3, 135L

I'm not a big fan of B&W photo, but this photo is quite amazing. cool

1370
Technical Support / Re: SPORTS WITH 6D AND FLASH
« on: January 12, 2014, 11:44:15 PM »
Add one of these, maybe both: 85mm f1.8 and/or 135L. Don't forget to remove the flash from the camera ;)

1371
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Just got 5D MK III. What do I check?
« on: January 12, 2014, 11:34:05 PM »
If you bought it from an authorized dealer, then you should be fine. Just go out take pictures and have fun with it

1372
Lenses / Re: canon 70-200f2.8L is USM ii vs tamron 70-200 2.8 VR
« on: January 12, 2014, 10:40:50 AM »
@ OP - to save you time and money from switching between brands, get the Canon, PERIOD

1373
Animal Kingdom / Re: Your best animal shots!
« on: January 11, 2014, 11:00:12 AM »
These images are from our 2 hour cruise, off the Phillip Island Coast (on the very friendly Wildlife Cost Cruises), Vic, Australia ... we are told that this little island is home to around 14000 Fur Seals ... it was quite an awesome experience to see so many seals in their natural habitat ... although these images may not stand up to some of the awesome images posted by other members, it is one of my truly best memorable experience for  me.

-1....your photos tell the story.
Thanks for sharing Rienzphotoz ;)

1374
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images
« on: January 10, 2014, 08:16:32 PM »
Lunch time~

Great capture there dcren123 ;)

1375
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images
« on: January 10, 2014, 08:15:51 PM »
EF24-70 f2.8 II.

ISO200, 1/160, f5.6

Beautiful photo Menace ;)

Thanks for sharing

1376
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: January 10, 2014, 10:54:03 AM »
I'm sure you guys still remember this ::)

To be honest, I'm one of those thought Canon going to have something in vintage as well. Last time I check, Df didn't do welllllllll

I think it didn't do well because of the borked controls, not because it was "vintage". I'd welcome a Canon vintage body design, so long as it did not include the hideous stacked dial controls and...well, basically kept the phenomenal electronic controls and button placement that is now standard on Canon pro bodies, just in a nostalgic retro body design. And, yes, with out any video features...at all... ;o)

+1

1377
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Will vintage lenses help me find the way?
« on: January 10, 2014, 10:44:57 AM »
In the end i have decided to drop the idea of getting vintage lenses. Good ones are as expensive as EF lenses, plus the cost of adapters. I'll be picking up a used Canon EF 28-135 next week for 200€. It covers almost all the focal lengths i'm interested in (except 24mm), and i'll be able to sell it with few (if any) loss. Thanks everyone for the advice. :)

I think you made the right decision.

+1...if you not in hurry, wait for x-mas holidays. BH has great deals on EF and L lenses.

1378
I mean to say that double gauss f/1.4 or faster lenses have image quality that is so incredibly bad that it's off the scale.

Compared to 85mm or 35mm primes @ f/1.4 double gauss normal lenses have:

10 times less spacial resolution
5 times more chromatic aberration
4 times more purple fringing
4 times as much hazing

Nevertheless, ...

  • As of 2012, the 50/1.2L tested better for resolution than any 50mm from Nikon, Zeiss or Sigma on LensRentals' shootout.  That's a success. 
  • The 50/1.2L stopped down delivers a wonderful look that is not accounted for in those tests but that is known to photographers.  The advantage of the lens is not the slight extra bit of light going from f/1.4 to f/1.2 — this is less important than ever in the digital era.  And it's not the bokeh at f/1.2 — that's not a useful aperture for a lot of what a 50mm is used for.  Instead, the advantage is the overall look, especially for portraits, and especially stopped down 1, 2 or 3 stops.  That look is why some photographers describe it as their favorite lens.  In that regard too, it's a success. 

Even though you say it's a fact that 50mm lenses are "horrible", it's also fact that many photographers buy, use, enjoy and often prefer 50mm lenses.  That says the photograph is what matters, not the metrics.

Even though a lens may be "just right" for some photographers, it won't & can't please everyone.  A manufacturer can't make a lens that pleases everyone, or the variety of lenses that would be needed to please everyone.  So whatever they make, someone will be unhappy that their personal goals for a new lens weren't met.

It appears that Nikon designed their new 58/1.4 with similar goals — it offers a very nice look, similar to the 50/1.2L based on what I've seen online.  It's not surprising that Ming Thein recently wrote about the Nikon 58/1.4:  "No intention of buying one since the demos I tried in Japan a couple of weeks ago were pretty soft and ‘glowy’ at f1.4 ..."  It's not his kind of lens — so he bought the Otus instead.

With the 50/1.2L Canon delivered a lens that some photographers very much wanted and that measured very well in the 50mm ecosystem of its time.  It doesn't please everyone, but it pleases some photographers very much.  The fact that the Otus raises the bar is great, but not so relevant for the many photographers who are simply not interested in a $4k manual focus non-weather-sealed lens, even one as good as that. 

Now we eagerly wait to see what Sigma brings to the table ...

You do have a meaningful point here, basically:

Canon 50mm f/1.2 @ f/1.2

Center Resolution: 4/10 
Average Resolution: 0/10
Lack of Chromatic Aberration: 3/10
Lack of Purple Fringing: 3/10
Lack of Glowiness/Hazing: 2/10
Bokeh Transition Quality: 8/10
Lack of Bokeh Artifacts: 10/10
Contrast & Color: 10/10
Lack of Onion Bokeh: 8/10
Lack of Ugly Distortion: 8/10

The Canon f/1.2 L is one of the worst lenses in a few categories, and one of the best in others. Personally I like a well balanced lens.

I actually switched from using a Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L II, to a Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC because of this idea of balance band has much better color and ecause it has much better bokeh transitions, lacks bokeh artifacts, contrast than the Canon II, which is 3 times more expensive. Which to most people would be a hugely sacrilegious switch, considering the advantages in resolution and the fact that the Canon is an APO lens, which is mind blowing. But after using both the Canon 24-70mm 2.8 I, and II, and the Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 vc, I stuck with the Tamron. The Canon 24-70mm II just has a look that is way too clinical, it makes things look ugly and lacks color and contrast, and the bokeh of the Canon 24-70mm 2.8 I just looks  busy. I also tried the Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G and it was actually between the Tamron and the Canon I 24-70mm in almost every way. The Nikon had some business in the background but was a little better controlled than the Canon.

Simply put the Tamron 24-70mm VC takes the best all around photos out of any of the Canon or Nikon compatible 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses (You can also adapt Nikon lenses to Canon and manual focus). Go figure, though I still keep a spare in case I run into onion bokeh issues, which is the lenses only major flaw.

I also don't like the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 because it takes too much away from other categories to achieve it's resolution. After owning the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 (the best one I found out of several copies) I sold it and went back to the Canon 35mm f/1.4, because it has much less purple fringing, lacks that weird mustache distortion, and has slightly nicer bokeh.

I used to be very obsessed with resolution, but experience has taught me that a well balanced lens takes better photos.

The Canon 50mm f/1.2 is not a well balanced lens though. At resolutions above 1024 pixels on the short side, it really shows a lack of detail, and even at resolutions below that you have to basically walk on eggshells to get it to create a sharp image wide open. There is no room for error. It also has a painfully high level of purple fringing.

At f/1.4 I like the Canon 1.2 over the 1.4 though because the 1.4 has very busy bokeh which is very noticeable at that aperture, even though the 1.4 has more resolution at that aperture. However I think that the Sigma 1.4 is better than either Canon at 1.4. It basically combines the strengths of both Canon lenses into one, and you can't beat that. The Nikon 58mm is basically a lot like the Sigma 1.4 wide open, except the Nikon is super sharp. It's a shame then that the other main difference is that it has so much purple fringing.

In conclusion, excluding the Otus due to price:

Canon 1.4 @ f/2.0 = best
Sigma 1.4 @ f/1.4 = best
Nikon 58mm 1.4 @ f/1.4 = too much purple fringing
Canon 1.2 @ f/1.4 (or f/1.2) = Capable of great images in the right hands but only up to web sized wide open, due to extreme softness.

Also @ f/1.4 Zeiss 50mm Sumi = Sigma 50mm = Nikon 50mm G f/1.4 (for the most part they deliver basically the same images)

I wouldn't shoot with any 50mm other than the Otus wide open though as the image quality of the double gauss design wide open is just really unacceptable.

If Sigma is releasing a new 50mm though that means that they have probably made huge improvements in image quality. Lets just hope there are no downsides.

LOL-LOL-LOL

There is nothing wrong shooting with TAMMY. However, the number #1 reason many photographers settle with TAMMY is due to tighter budget - not for better IQ, not better in AF speed, or VC feature etc...

If we have a choice to pick one FREE lens between Canon 24-70 II and Tammy 24-70 f2.8 VC, you think people going to take TAMMY over Canon?

You can love me or hate me by saying that, but that is the TRUE in many cases.


1379
PowerShot / Re: Canon PowerShot SX50 Replacement in the Spring [CR2]
« on: January 09, 2014, 09:34:01 PM »
100x zoom :o :o :o

 wildlife shooters, are you already for this? This will be perfect camera to shoot 100yrs old turtle running from miles away ;D


1380
Lenses / Re: Headed to Hawaii -- let's talk gear / locations
« on: January 09, 2014, 07:44:14 PM »
If you want your photo looks like the one below, then get disposable film underwater camera :-\

Maybe rent a decent UW camera - with insurance just in case.

Hmmm... if I ship an LR rental right to my hotel:
    • Canon Powershot D20 --> $50 incl. shipping
    [/color]

    • Nikon 1 AW + 10mm lens --> $78 incl. shipping

    That's expensive for just one day of shooting.  I'll have to think about it.

    - A

    Get a used one ebay: http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_sacat=0&_from=R40&_nkw=Canon+Powershot+D20&_dcat=31388&rt=nc&LH_ItemCondition=4

    Sell it back on ebay after your trip - can you really lose $ that much ::)[/list]

    Pages: 1 ... 90 91 [92] 93 94 ... 274