March 03, 2015, 07:11:55 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 - RLPhoto

Pages: 1 ... 93 94 [95] 96 97 ... 245
1411
Lenses / Re: Do you still love 24-105L?
« on: April 26, 2013, 12:27:07 PM »
I use mine for non-critical stuff, Like ebay photos, vacation photos and personal stuff. When I do use it for clients it's usually at F/8 so no-one could tell. It's a great lens if your using flash...


f8 - that's the key to optimising results from this lens.

All our Building Panoramics pictures that have been shot with this lens are at f8.
Even so, it still has to be king of versatility.

I viewed your website. Great work! It seems DR is not limiting your creativity.  ;)

1412
Lenses / Re: Do you still love 24-105L?
« on: April 26, 2013, 11:51:46 AM »
I use mine for non-critical stuff, Like ebay photos, vacation photos and personal stuff. When I do use it for clients it's usually at F/8 so no-one could tell. It's a great lens if your using flash...

1413
.
Why would a professional photographer use a point & shoot as a backup? If I'm shooting a wedding with a 5D3 as primary equipment, what would a point & shoot do for me if I have a problem with the DSLR?

If I'm a photojournalist with a DSLR and a 16-35 or 70-200, what would I do with a point & shoot?

Well, I use my G15 for very specific scenarios where I need 1/2000th sync speed with flash. It good to have options and If I'm using both my MK3's, the g15 does nice video with Deep DOF.

1414
EOS Bodies / Re: Download Firmware 1.2.1 link for 5DIII
« on: April 26, 2013, 11:38:59 AM »
Updated both my Mk3's.

1415
Other than the OS (Canon IS), I don't see the sigma being a challenger of any sort.
Who knows, though?

The Canon design is an ancient design with blurry corners and a blurry mid-frame. It's not a top of the line lens. It also has severe issues with purple fringing that's very poorly controlled, and as a long lens , lacking image stabilization means if you're just shooting an event or  you're wasting 1-2 stops of light just to counteract camera shake without making your subject any sharper.

Here's a comparison between the 135mm f/2.0 and a much sharper lens:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=108&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

f/1.8 also makes a difference is subject isolation, and also reduces noise too.

Everyone was saying that you couldn't improve on the 35mm f/1.4 before and look what happened. The problem is that people assume a "good" lens can't be replaced by something that is earth shatteringly better.

Right because comparing a 7000$ dollar White-tele to a Sub-1000$ lens is a fair comparison.  ::)

Wow really? Ok. Here's a $750 Sigma 105mm Macro lens compared to the $1200 135mm L. That's 2/3rds the price of the Canon 135mm L, it's a cheaper lens that blows the Canon lens out of the water with no hint of blurry corners or a blurry mid frame. And it has Image Stabilization. I think that's more than a fair comparison.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=790&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=108&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

All these incessant arguments about "IQ", when most people here will never approach the limits of the lenses they have!

Before anybody is allowed to post a lens IQ, colour, rendering, etc comment they should be forced to go see the conditions they are tested in. Bench tests are so far removed from real world use now most of this stuff is irrelevant. If you are using AF then that will have a far greater affect on the sharpness of your images than pretty much anything, assuming you are using two or three times the focal length as a shutter speed, you are on a very heavy tripod, working at one optimal aperture etc etc.

If you are not printing above 20" regularly, if you are using AF, if you are not using a tripod, if you are shooting in anything less than good contrasty light, if you are not shooting wide open, or stopped down, forget bench test resolution figures, they mean nothing.

Oh, and if you want a real dose of reality, ask yourself how this lady does most of this work with a 5D MkII and a 50 f1.8! http://tamarlevine.com/

P.S. After the debacle of Sigma's incompatibility issues, and more importantly, their refusal to stand behind their products and re-chip every single affected lens, I for one, will never buy a Sigma lens regardless of price, features or perceived value. I had a good friend who laughed at me when I got my 16-35 and 24-70, he said his six Sigma lenses cost less, I still use mine and they are worth pretty much what I paid for them ten years ago, his stopped working on his digital bodies and were scrap.

 So you're saying that nobody will notice 3.5 stops of noise? Because that's what the addition of image stabilization wil give you when shooting an event. You know those indoor things with very low light where especially with a 135mm you have tons of unessesary shutter speed to compensate for camera shake. I guess everyone should just be shooting at iso 4800 instead of 400, because that's what you're saying doesn't matter. There's no difference after all. Yep. None. /sarcasm

If your way of thinking is that skewed, consider the 60mm macro is as sharp as the 135L but you missing the whole reason someone buys the 135L, razor-sharpness @ f/2.

So yes, comparing a 900$ 135L to a 7000$ 200 f/2L is ludicrous, just as comparing the 135L to a macro, two whole different worlds.

1416
6D Sample Images / Re: for those who snub the 6D AF...
« on: April 23, 2013, 05:16:14 PM »
How about subjects moving towards the camera, off-center, shooting sub f/2.8 and that will make the 5d2/6D sweat.

+1 ... Try shooting a two year old kid running about ... The shots in focus will be great, but they'll be a minor percentage of the total shots made.

Yeah, I do that all the time.
I found that percentage of fails was very high with 5d mark III.
Of course 6D is a bit worse, but for all practical purposes I could use either one and expect similar low percentage of in focus pics, and few keepers per each session...

Then you must be using the MK3 wrong, Its been atleast 70% hit rate with the 50L in the situation I mentioned. You'd be lucky to get a 30% hit rate with a 6D/5D2.

1417
EOS Bodies / Re: Bye Canon?
« on: April 23, 2013, 04:40:45 PM »
1. Better Prime Selection
2. Better Flash.
3. Better ergos and a common sense Menu system
4. Better AF
5. Its Red.  :P

1418
Other than the OS (Canon IS), I don't see the sigma being a challenger of any sort.
Who knows, though?

The Canon design is an ancient design with blurry corners and a blurry mid-frame. It's not a top of the line lens. It also has severe issues with purple fringing that's very poorly controlled, and as a long lens , lacking image stabilization means if you're just shooting an event or  you're wasting 1-2 stops of light just to counteract camera shake without making your subject any sharper.

Here's a comparison between the 135mm f/2.0 and a much sharper lens:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=108&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

f/1.8 also makes a difference is subject isolation, and also reduces noise too.

Everyone was saying that you couldn't improve on the 35mm f/1.4 before and look what happened. The problem is that people assume a "good" lens can't be replaced by something that is earth shatteringly better.

Right because comparing a 7000$ dollar White-tele to a Sub-1000$ lens is a fair comparison.  ::)

1419
Green tinge with this gen of nikon cameras. Makes my 5Dc's green screen look up to date on nikon bodies.

1420
EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« on: April 22, 2013, 12:25:55 AM »
See.  Nobody cares.

Yup, especially when no photography is in the posts.

1421
Oh my...  If it as good as the 35mm 1.4, I could end up replacing all my primes with sigmas. Never in a million years would I imagine that.

HAHA Ramon, your wish came true... chances are, this won't even cost $2700.

Ha, yeah... First thing I thought of when I saw 135mm f/1.8 OS was Ramon.  :-)

+1. Lol. It looks like Ramon will keep his kidney!

For me, stabilization is always welcome in a lens beyond 50mm. That said, this would need to be priced competitively with the 135mm L for me to switch over anytime soon. But WOW... f/1.8 would be like having an "affordable" 200mm f/2 L!

I rather like the idea of this 135mm AND keeping both kidneys. ;)

1422
If they make the rumored 135 f/1.8, a 50mm 1.2, and a 24 1.4, with the quality of the 35mm 1.4. Bam, I'm dumping all my canon primes and switching to sigma. 8)

1423
Lenses / Re: Canon 50mm f1.2 worth?
« on: April 21, 2013, 09:29:12 AM »
If you shoot sub/2.8 all the time, yes it's worth every penny. Or if your shooting in the rain a lot.

1424
Oh my...  If it as good as the 35mm 1.4, I could end up replacing all my primes with sigmas. Never in a million years would I imagine that.

1425
Lenses / Re: Why aren't zoom lenses faster than 2.8?
« on: April 18, 2013, 10:02:43 PM »
Muhahaha, If this is possible, I believe uber-fast zooms are possible.

http://www.43rumors.com/the-need-for-speed-zoomatar-75mm-180mm-and-250mm-all-f1-3/

Pages: 1 ... 93 94 [95] 96 97 ... 245