January 27, 2015, 08:41:48 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 ... 98 99 [100] 101 102 ... 239
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!  http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10075.0
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.

Lenses / Re: Future of STM and USM
« on: March 19, 2013, 09:56:47 PM »
Ultrasonic stepper motor? O_o or USTM.

Canon General / Re: Gear upgrade: 2 primes vs new body + 1 prime??
« on: March 19, 2013, 09:54:37 PM »
Where is your fast 50mm? I couldn't think of doing a wedding without one.

As for the 14mm, its a dramatic angle but a 16-35II would be more useful combined with the 85L. In your situation, I'd dump the 5D2 for a MK3 plus a fast prime. Once you get sub-f/2.8 the 5D2 AF is horrid for focusing.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS Rebel T5i Leaks
« on: March 19, 2013, 09:46:35 PM »
So, T5i goes head to head against Nikon D5200 while EOS-b competes against the D3200. Not bad.

and they both get punched in the face... Hard... and fall over bleeding

Lenses / Re: 35L or 50L?
« on: March 19, 2013, 05:58:39 PM »
Thanks for all your inputs, it's all exactly the sort of thing I wanted.

Couple of points raised in some of your comments; I'm aware that the 16-35 @35mm pales in comparison to a dedicated 35 prime. I'm also aware that the 50L is only superior to it's smaller siblings between 1.2 and about 2.8, beyond that, the other two are arguably better.

It appears that the general consensus seems to be not to get the 35L; my options seem to boil down to get either the 50L or the Sigma 35 and the 50 1.4...

Again thank you all for your feedback, it's really great. Keep posting and I'll keep reading, though we shall just have to wait and see what I end up deciding to get. Who knows? Not me! Not yet.

Honestly, I'd get the Sigma 35mm 1.4 + Canon  50mm 1.4.

The 50L is really only for 50mm nuts who just like that focal length. Its heavy, It's expensive, It's IQ band is limited but I wouldn't trade for anything on the market currently.

There is no replacement for displacement.

I used to shoot MF film all the time in my Yashica's. It was far superior than 35mm and still hasn't changed.

Sync speeds, Larger pixels, tilt-shift bellows, Super-sharp MF lenses, and the ability to just change the back instead of always buying a new camera. Serious studio photography or location shoots will always be ruled by a larger format. It's the whole purpose of shooting MF.

I'd go for a MF system and still keep your 35mm system for smaller jobs. Investing in another 35mm system will only limit you later on, while a MF system could take you place's impossible or extremely difficult with a 35mm system.

Most Desired Vapor-Items.

1. 135mm F/1.8L IS USM
2. 14-24L F/2.8
3. New 50mm Designs.

Lenses / Re: 35L or 50L?
« on: March 19, 2013, 04:56:48 PM »
The 50L is the sharpest 50mm canon makes in the center from F1.2-2.8. If this fits your usage, I'd get one.

LOL I loved my 50L very much, and it was a lot of things, but not extraordinarily sharp.  And for the record the 50mm f/1.4 is sharper than the 1.2 in the center and MUCH sharper on the edges.  The edges on the 50L are HORRIBLE, they barely even register on the chart.  I've heard some say that they were going for that kind of soft edge effect for portraits, but either way when I got my Zeiss 50 f/2 I realized just how bad the Canon was on the edges.  When I jumped from the 50mm f/1.4 to 50mm f/1.2 I didn't notice any change in sharpness, the most noticeable differences are in the bokeh, color rendition, AF speed, and build quality.

Here is the 50mm f/1.4 compared to the 1.2:

It depends how good, bad, or ugly the copy you received was. Mine is superior to any of my previous 50mm I've owned and TDP shows how terrible the 1.4 is with CA and Veiling haze. It mirrors my experience in the center where it matters most to me.


Now most here don't care for Mr. rockwell but his experiences mirror mine with the 50L in usage. It even demonstrates the zeiss vs 50L in veiling haze.


Nailing focus is key @ f/1.2 and when it does, I'd never go back to another 50mm lens.


EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS Rebel T5i Leaks
« on: March 19, 2013, 04:19:45 PM »
Wow, the new 18-55mm kit lens doesn't have that ludicrous trapezoid shape the old on did. It actually looks more pro.  ::)

Lenses / Re: Do I need the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM?
« on: March 19, 2013, 04:16:38 PM »
I'd ask why there is no 50mm, but that's just me.

Personally, I'd buy the 100mm F/2 over the 85mm. A small prime like these can be a compact tele when you don't want to lug the 70-200.

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: First flash unit advice?
« on: March 19, 2013, 02:44:35 PM »
In the long run, flash will become your friend. Getting a higher end flash now could save alot of headaches later if you decide to expand on it. I would recommend a 430EXII to start and jump to a 600RT system later on.

I once ignorantly believed it would be possible to shoot everything natural light. How naive... I should have bought the 580II straight off the bat but got the 430II. That taught me alot about basic on-camera flash technique but I was always short on power. Maybe coming from a studio strobe, you might want to just jump straight into a 600RT for output and RT later on.

Pages: 1 ... 98 99 [100] 101 102 ... 239