December 21, 2014, 04:29:12 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 - RLPhoto

Pages: 1 ... 95 96 [97] 98 99 ... 237
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 70D, DIGIC 6 & 18mp Sensors
« on: March 20, 2013, 06:34:21 PM »
Ah the EF 200-400 f/4L IS... The worst kept secret and will be the most un-exciting announcement ever.

Canon General / Re: Other websites?
« on: March 20, 2013, 05:59:15 PM »


The digital picture.

Nikon rumors.


That's about it.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Crazy... go Nikon?
« on: March 20, 2013, 05:12:31 PM »
I think that next time when someone starts a new thread how inadequate Canon is for his needs, he should also post an image where he will point what exactly he finds inadequate. Otherwise, how can one be convinced that 22 megapixels isn't enough for someone's but 36 megapixels is? So, I'd suggest do the following:
1. Start a new thread and post an image you took with your Canon gear.
2. Indicate what exactly you don't like in it. Is it the lack of your photographic skills which doesn't let you get great images, or it's a camera/lens inability to produce what you'd like to see?
3. Answer your own question, does a possible negligible difference in IQ justify investing into a new system?

A while ago, I myself was considering buying a Sony FF DSLR in addition to my Canon, just because of the Zeiss 135 1.8. But every time I had these thoughts, I was always thinking that Canon's 135 2.0, 85 1.2ii, 70-200 2.8, 50 1.2, Zeiss 100 2.0 makro and my favorite 200 2.0 are at least as good as 135 1.8.

Guys, I really think we should stop this thread. As I've said before, it's a personal decision to invest his own money into something or not, same as with cars, computers, smartphones, girls :) Some of us can see the logic in it, some cannot. If having an additional system makes you happy, go for it and enjoy your photographs! Although sometimes we're getting upset with Canon, I'm sure we'll be proud of its new products soon (but probably not this week) :)

I've seen other posters (esp. RLPhoto and PBD) who've been asking for much of the same - example of a shot where the Canon system screwed up as compared to Nikon ... the result ... none, nada.

Yes DR is important and I'd take 14 stops any day ... but to say it greatly limits shooting is just plain wrong.

None, nada?

There are several comparisons showing the benefits of great DR.
You can start to look at this video Nikon DX vs Canon APS-C: Dynamic Range (Part 2/3)
then you maybe understand

Highlights exposing so no clipping occurs=high contrast scene
Then you have a lot of examples at Dpreview, Luminous Landscape etc etc etc and even here by Mikael Risedal

If you have trouble to understand the benefits of great DR and no visible banding/pattern noise , look at the video again.

No one would  say no to a good lens compared to a inferior one, likewise with a sensor
But you can offcourse always argue that you can  not se any difference in a small picture.

Read carefully this. Nikon has better DR than canon, Everyone here knows that. Anyone who argues otherwise is out of their minds.

The real point is this, in actual shooting could you, not DXO, not camera labs or anyone else show in your photos that a canon cameras DR has failed you. If so, then make your point to switch immediately to nikon because canon is limiting your creativity. If you can't show so, don't complain here. We're talking real, solid photos not induced under-exposed crap but real photos.

Lenses / Re: What next?
« on: March 20, 2013, 10:51:20 AM »
More speedlites and an ultra wide.

With 4000$, you could build a ludicrous win7 machine. Far, far more powerful than any apple machine for that price.

I'm still running an e6600 c2D machine I built in 2006! It runs great.

I've been waiting for one and they seem to get shipments monthly at BHphoto. It's always too late by the time I get to the site. :/

Portraits and sports are the top uses for the 200L2. I'd get it over a 300 f/2.8 because its a more useful focal length for me. It's a whole stop faster than the 70-200 and a stop is a lot! That's like from 1/250 to 1/500th.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS Rebel T5i Leaks
« on: March 20, 2013, 10:25:11 AM »

How is that people continually fail to understand that a "camera" is not a metal/plastic box with a sensor inside,

Neuro, you just failed Photography 101.  :)
We just had our last lecture before the final exam and the instructor took pains to point out that
   "A camera is a light tight box with a sensor inside and a mechanism for letting light in."
I'm pretty sure thats going to be one of the answers required on the final exam.

Just  an observation, of the fifteen students in the class,  2 have crop Nikons, 1 has a Sony Nex and the other  12 have crop Canons ranging from the XTi to the 7D.   
Canon must be doing something right with their "crappy" sensors.

No. You didn't discern what he was saying. I could simply give the answer, but just reread your answer and neuro statement and you'll discern the simple comment.

135L @ f/4 or smaller, high shutter speed and low ISO. That is my definition of tack sharp.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Crazy... go Nikon?
« on: March 20, 2013, 10:16:20 AM »
If I had the money, I'd probably own nikon, canon, Olympus, Sony, and possibly a phase one. Owning two brands is irrelevant, but is it good business? That is the question.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 100D Detailed Specs Appear
« on: March 20, 2013, 10:01:10 AM »

I give an example of how DR is used and this is all you can come up with.

You have yet to demonstrate to us where the DR of a canon camera has limited you in real world shooting.

Lenses / Re: Upgrade my 28-70 EF/L to 24-70 EF II/L?
« on: March 19, 2013, 11:33:22 PM »
About this much...

*spreads arms out of sockets*

EOS Bodies / Re: $2,800.00 budget
« on: March 19, 2013, 11:29:29 PM »
Well. I'd do this.

Sell t3i
Sell sigma 17-50


Buy 5D3 refurb - from 2400$
Buy Tamron 24-70 VC. - 1200$

Or possibly this.

5D2 - from 1400$
Tamron 24-70 VC - 1200$
Sigma 35mm 1.4 - 900$

Or even this (all used)

5Dc - 600$
24L II - 1200$
50L - 1000$
135L - 800$

Myself being a wide aperture nut, would choose the last option. The sane options are 1 & 2.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 100D Detailed Specs Appear
« on: March 19, 2013, 11:17:24 PM »
OK, at the time of it's introduction the D800 had already been announced. The D800 was announced Feb 7th, 2012, the 5DIII March 2nd. The 1DX was announced on Oct 18, 2011 and released in March. So, it was never actually surpassed by the 1DX, it never was as good. I'm not slamming the 5DIII AF, as it is awesome, i'm just showing that your facts aren't facts at all.

Physician, kettle, mote, etc.

I and thousands others had thousands of exposures on our 5DIIIs long before you could even officially pre-order a 1Dx. And the D800 is many wonderful things, but it only surpasses the 5DIII in megapickle count and dynamic range -- its autofocus is far shy of the 5DIII's -- as are almost all of its other features. That you should suggest it's got better autofocus than the 5DIII...and then start whipping the dead dynamic range horse and claiming the D800 has better high ISO performance....

...yeah. Troll.

Even if you're not intentionally trolling, which I rather doubt by now, you're still trolling.


Neuro, are you ready to stop standing on the sidelines while people argue against my FACTS with their OPINIONS. I have been killed on this board for using my opinion to make arguments many times. I presented factual numbers from DXOMARK. I explained that I don't think they are the best numbers, but they are at least numbers by a lab. What have you used for your argument, 100% opinion.
The D800 was measured as having better high ISO performance than the 5DIII.
I'm not saying it's a better camera, i'm simply saying that YOU ARE USING OPINION.
Are you even reading my posts? I never said the D800 has better AF. I said the 1DX has better AF and that it was announced before the 5DIII. Whether it was available or not at the time, there was never any doubt in my mind that the AF of the 1DX would be superior.
You guys just spent a page killing our newcomer for not agreeing with you, all the while you have ignored that I presented numbers showing the D800 has better high ISO performance. I never mentioned DR in any earlier posts as I agree it is has been overblown(pardon the pun), however I don't discount it's importance. It's obviously better to have good DR than not to.
How did you rebuke the high ISO dxomark scores? by yeling, "Troll" "Troll" "troll"
TrumpetPower, please show me numbers, not opinions, but factual evidence from anywhere showing that the 5DIII is better at high ISO? I'm curious to see why you are so positive that the 5DIII is better.

As I said in earlier posts, I don't really care all that much for DXOMark, but I don't know where else to turn for lab measured numbers on cameras.
Also, people on this board can bash DXOmark scores all they want, but when Admin posted this thread with false 1DX scores, people were thrilled to gloat about the superior scores of the 1DX.... until they found out the numbers were false, when they went back to hating DXO. lol!
You can disagree with me all you want, it's fine. But please don't call me a troll when i'm at least trying to give evidence. All you have given us is your opinion.
Once again, please show me where any 3rd party has definitively said the 5DIII has better high ISO.
What are you trying to achieve?
To show that my opinions based on facts are being lambasted by simple opinions with no facts?

DR comparison ;)

How's those photos coming along?

Lenses / Re: 35L or 50L?
« on: March 19, 2013, 11:13:18 PM »
Honestly, I'd get the Sigma 35mm 1.4 + Canon  50mm 1.4.

For a little extra money I really see no reason to get the Canon 50/1.4 instead of the Sigma 50/1.4. I've already said how I prefer Sigma's 50/1.4 to Canon's 50/1.2, which some people may disagree with, but honestly the Sigma produces so much more pleasing images than the Canon 50/1.4, the bokeh is a lot smoother and the colours and micro contrast better, plus the Canon 50/1.4 just feels cheap. The Canon 50/1.4 is not a lens I'd ever bother with and the only friend I have that has, traded it in for the Sigma 50/1.4 pretty quickly.

I could never recommend the sigma 50mm because of its irratic AF behavior. It's IQ was good when it hit but I couldn't trust it. Maybe when they update it to an art series lens, I'll revisit it.

Pages: 1 ... 95 96 [97] 98 99 ... 237