September 20, 2014, 04:11:19 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 ... 96 97 [98] 99 100 ... 231
Lenses / Re: 200-400 f/4 L IS vs 100-400 vII (hypothetical)
« on: March 06, 2013, 11:17:50 AM »
$11,000 vs $3000 - That is the question.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is this true
« on: March 06, 2013, 11:06:17 AM »
The MK3 has a finer pattern noise and less banding from the MK2 + 1 Megapickel. Otherwise, the IQ is very similiar.

The MK3 major improvements are AF, general operations, and Video. Which make this a whole new class of camera compared to the mk2.

Lenses / Re: Addicted to dof
« on: March 06, 2013, 10:57:55 AM »
Hi all.

I have the canon 50mm 1.4 an the canon 85mm 1.8 using on my 5d3.

I'm constantly on a quest for shallower dof. I do a lot of street photography.

My hesitations on upgrading to the L lenses are (other than cost):

Will I actually see a noticeable difference in dof?
The 50mmL has a pronounced focus shift narrower than f2.
The 85mm 1.2. is slower af than the 1.8

My question is will I see much difference between 1.4 and 1.2 @ 50mm and 1.8 and 1.2 at 85mm?
Also, does anyone know if the sigma 85 is any good? And similarly is it worth going from 85mm 1.8 to 85mm 1.4?

Portrait / Re: First paid photo shoot - DATE: 23 March 2013
« on: March 06, 2013, 10:49:37 AM »
Please do this for yourself, and your client, and for your reputation.

1. Add a 50mm 1.8 to your kit. You have no fast glass, and you'll need fast glass at some point at a wedding. Its cheap, fast, and quality(to a Point). Ditch the 18-55mm, You already have the 18-135mm and no need for it.

2. Scout all the locations ahead of time, and get a shot list from the couple.

3. Practice basic on-camera flash technique, Fill, Bounce, AF-Assist, Etc... It will be Needed.

4. A second body would be highly recommended in case your 60D dies.

All in all, I would keep the couple's expectations low. If you turn out better work than expected, you'll impress them. If you raise they're expectations too high, you'll never meet them.

EOS Bodies / Re: replacing 7d with 5d3
« on: March 05, 2013, 02:08:29 PM »
I replaced my 7D with another MK3 after getting my first one. I doubt I'll ever go back to crop cameras...

A little late to the 1998 USM party nikon?

As a prior owner of a dust blower 100-400, I'd send tat memo to canon....and their 50s inspired push, puller.

Great tech advancements at Nikon, Like how they still make bodies with screws to AF and Manual focus lenses.  :P

Lenses / Re: What happened to DO?
« on: March 05, 2013, 12:55:44 PM »
If canon we're to revamp DO tech, I believe they'd release several major lenses at one time and ditch the older ones immediately to rid themselves of the stigma of the Old DO tech.

Personally, I'd love a 200mm F/2 IS DO the size/weight of a 135L.

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 85 f/1.2L II
« on: March 05, 2013, 12:50:04 PM »
Call me a snob but unless the glass is made by Canon, Nikon or Zeiss you're better off without it.

That's not snobbery, it's idealism.

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 85 f/1.2L II
« on: March 05, 2013, 12:43:26 PM »
I still shake my head when I see a cheap filter on a premium lens such as the photo posted with the review.

Would you shake your head if it said "Made In Germany - B&W"?

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 85 f/1.2L II
« on: March 05, 2013, 10:58:11 AM »
The 85L is a legendary level lens. Everyone shooting SLRs on any platform want or envy this lens or atleast know about it. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a use for one in my bag yet. The 135L is just as good for me.

EOS Bodies / Re: refurbished 5d III, what do you think?
« on: March 04, 2013, 08:22:14 PM »
I bought my 7D refurb and it was perfect, no issues. I got in 2010 for 1050$, which was a steal at the time. Glad I did it. :D

Lenses / Re: Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS
« on: March 04, 2013, 08:04:40 PM »
Ok, before this thread goes on any further. Lets define what DOA is and isn't.

If a 14-24L were released tomarrow, I can guarantee that lens will not be DOA. No matter the cost. It's a lens everyone wants. Orders would line up for months.

The 24-70 f/4L was released, and I haven't seen or heard much about it up to now. Many of my photogs buddies don't care and I don't see a lot of them at local rental stores or camera shops. I heard that almost nobody bought one.

That is DOA to me, but, but, it could be resurrected if its price is cut significantly. I want to like this lens but my copy of the 24-105L is just so good, why canon?

Edit: I use my 24-105 a lot for eBay shots. It's a tack.

Lenses / Re: UV filters (any difference?)
« on: March 04, 2013, 07:50:01 PM »
Proven to make your images softer but protect your lens from a tree. your call.

Noticeably softer?  I would like to see the source of that fact (unless you are referring to cheap filters).

6:30 in.

also stated in this is the earlier made point that modern chips don't pick up uv rays anyway.

proof: conclusive  8)

Lol Kai is entertaining. I'm subscribed to DRTV.

I've never liked hoyas. B&Ws are so good, you would not be able to tell the difference. Lets compare some images made and point out which had a filter.

Lenses / Re: Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS
« on: March 04, 2013, 07:40:18 PM »
Which of those options offers a high quality weather-sealed compact mid-range zoom with built-in macro?  None.  There are substitutes, perhaps better for some applications, but no one-lens equivalents.

Good reasoning but does being a unique one-lens option provide that sort of value?   One could think of it in the opposite direction too; it is only f/4, not a true macro at 0.7, and neither much (if) better than the competition optically.

After all, I guess we all agree,  it is worth for those who purchase and not worth for those who do not. If the market consists mainly of the latter, the price goes down and vice versa... This lens might become the kit lens replacing the 24-105 eventually which would be unfortunate for us who like the 24-105 and would like to see a v2 of it. I recall even calls for a f/2.8 version of it...



I've been around some other photogs in my area, and not a single one of them had any interest in this lens. It's not a bad product, its just bad @ 1499$. If it was around 649$, along with a 70-200 f/4, then yes it would make sense.

At its current price, a 100L + 24-105L is what you could get used for the same monies.

There is no ideal one lens solution, afterall that's the whole point of SLRs.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: The Next Zeiss Lenses? [CR2]
« on: March 04, 2013, 05:25:03 PM »
If Zeiss would just put AF, I'd never own any canon lenses.

I wonder why they don't make AF lenses for Canon or Nikon bodies?

Because $0ny doesn't want to.  >:(

Don't they make AF lenses for Sony DSLR systems?

Yes. If Zeiss made AF Lenses for Canon & Nikon, $0ny would lose a selling point.

Pages: 1 ... 96 97 [98] 99 100 ... 231