September 21, 2014, 10:08:24 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 ... 111 112 [113] 114 115 ... 231
1681
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Canon 600EX-RT review
« on: January 29, 2013, 01:24:37 AM »
Hay mark, can you use second curtain sync off camera on the 600s?

1682
Lenses / Re: Which 50mm (with AF) is best from f/1.4 - f/2.0?
« on: January 29, 2013, 12:47:15 AM »
50L.

1683
Lenses / Re: Sigma 35 1.4 or Canon 50 1.4 or Canon 24-70 2.8 II
« on: January 28, 2013, 06:12:23 PM »
50mm 1.4 is cheap as chips and is decent for the $$$. I'd recommend it for is neutral perspective.




1684
HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Here comes the Sun!
« on: January 27, 2013, 11:35:59 PM »
I remember the solar eclipse last year. Ahh, it's was going to be sweet but it was cloudy. :(

1685
Abstract / Re: Beautiful bokeh! Let me see yours!
« on: January 27, 2013, 11:31:54 PM »
More.

1686
Abstract / Re: Beautiful bokeh! Let me see yours!
« on: January 27, 2013, 11:29:22 PM »
This. All these are shot on wonderful canon L primes from 24LII, 50L, 85LII, and 135L.

1687
Lenses / Re: Can You Beat it?
« on: January 27, 2013, 11:26:30 PM »
Saw a version I of this lens for 350$ with the built in hood. Didn't buy it.  :P

LOL, I know you're not a fan of this lens but you could have easily made $200-$300 flipping it.  :)

It was pretty beat up. The previous owner did some serious shooting with it and had a very good life of use. Just wasn't for me.

1688
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Recommendations for a friend
« on: January 27, 2013, 11:09:53 PM »
If she is willing to learn the art of photography, I would highly recommend a

5Dc + 50mm (1.8 or 1.4) + (Maybe) 100mm F/2 or Macro 100mm 2.8 for product shots.

Far better IQ than any of the canon crop camera's so far and cheaper now with the MK3's release.

1689
EOS Bodies / Re: 1DX - The Workhorse?
« on: January 27, 2013, 11:06:25 PM »
So I was reading the rumor on Canon's roadmap for 2013 and got me to thinking...  Is the 1DX really Canon's workhorse?

I'm a beginning fashion and beauty photographer that is working to get bigger and higher profile jobs.  I currently have a 5D Mark II which has served me quite well for many things in this arena.  However it's not as great an all-arounder that I would like for my non-fashion jobs which helps circulate my name and get me some additional income.

The 5D Mark III is a great camera.  But the lack of a user-replaceable focus-screen and no pro body is a downside.  It's fast enough and the AF is more than adequate.  But not sure if it's something I would be happy with for 4 or more years.  Which is what I expect from a pro camera.

The 1DX is what I want except that it doesn't have the higher MP of the 5D series.  Well, I was a little disappointed when it didn't have built-in WiFi...  But overall, it's pretty darn nice.  The way I look at it, as long as I have the appropriate lens, it can pretty much handle anything I throw at it.  Which would allow me to take more jobs that I know technical limitations won't be an issue.

However, I'm a little concerned about the 18MP.  For publication in large format magazines, I think 18MP would still be fine.  For fashion and beauty, is there a big advantage to go with 22MP?  The only step-up I see would be Medium Format which I don't see a need for at least a couple of years.  How much of an advantage would that be over a 1DX/5D3 in the fashion/beauty markets?

Keep your MK2 just in-case you need those extra MP but the 1Dx will be a tank for years of service and abuse.

As for the MK3, I jumped from 5Dc+EG-s precise screen to 5D3 standard screen and miss the old focus screen. The AF though, makes up for it 10 fold. I will probably not outgrow my MK3's anytime soon.

1690
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: January 27, 2013, 10:43:34 PM »
That's right, only the 135L could deliver that image on this particular cropped camera image! this even shows how good this lens is on crop cameras! No other lens could because no other lens is 135mm f/2 that melts the background like that with compression like that.

Your the one who said, blah blah blah "I could do that same shot from your crop camera on my FF camera with a 70-200II 2.8 blah blah blah" this mentality is completely wrong and stupid. You simply cannot accept that the 135L is a better portrait lens than the 100L, which BTW I never stated was bad but just not as good.

You have to be some sorta measuabator who has yet to post any real photos on this thread. You forget that the artist chooses his tool because the artist can tell between them. I can see a visual difference in the shots I've made with the 100L and the 135L both wide open. The 135L I found superior for portraits.

You say you can't tell the difference well good for you. I'm sure your happy with f2.8 and could argue that you wouldn't see a difference between 2.8 and f/4. Then you will say there is and I will say they're isn't. It's after all! Only one stop. :)

I've gave my experiences and opinions based on using both the 100L and 135L and I've even added some examples lying around my hard drive. Why you yourself have done little for the original OP except waste your time preaching to the choir who's shot on crop and FF cameras both lenses.

1691
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: January 27, 2013, 09:46:23 PM »
You know, you get to a point where either the person you talk to doesn't get it or just to stubborn to accept something.

It's stupid to compare one lens on crop to another on FF. I repeat STUPID!!!

The 100L vs 135L on crop. 135L looks better.

The 100L vs 135L on FF. 135L looks better.

Don't compare two lenses on two formats. Compare two lenses on the same format.

Once again, if 135L it looks this good on crop, it will look even better on FF.

1692
Canon General / Re: Why did you choose Canon?
« on: January 27, 2013, 05:12:45 PM »
Geez aglet. Why u no shoot all nikon already?

1693
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: January 27, 2013, 04:46:49 PM »
The EXIF just exposes "the look" for the self delusional nonsense that it so often is!

A 1.6 crop shot at 135 and f2 @ 100 iso is virtually identical in every respect, including dof and perspective, to a ff image shot from the same place with a 200 at f2.8 and 200iso. The dog shot could be done identically with any of the 70-200 f2.8 lenses. In that instance "the look" is entirely repeatable, maybe there is a good reason my customers don't care how I achieve my results, I know how to achieve them without thinking, or self delusion.

I hope that we don't have to beat another dead horse on the FF vs crop debate on DOF.

Do you have the basic common sense to realize that if I used the macro on the same crop body, the DOF would have been greater than the 135L @ f/2? The macro won't look as good as the 135L on either crop or FF bodies.

Also to mention that you could achieve the same look on FF yet, I pulled it off with a 80$ crop body and a lens half the price of said 70-200II, all thanks to that extra stop of light you continue to reject.

1694
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: January 27, 2013, 09:53:27 AM »
Maybe just provide the EXIF like everybody else does?

I wasn't aware that posts from Iphones stripped the EXIF data. It apparently does just that.

Edit: It appears that CR forums strips the Exif Data. :\

http://images.us.viewbook.com/e387c6c2e81335c04d65622d2b31853d.jpg

Edit 2: I don't know why this particular image is causing issues for you to understand. The 135L is mearly compressing the dogs nose to make it seem closer to the eyes. Thats where the 135L also shines better than the 100L, 35% more compression.

1695
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: January 27, 2013, 09:12:01 AM »
BUT, can you definitively give the focal length and aperture of RLPhotos' three images?

Assuming little or no cropping, I'm guessing the dog was shot with a 85@4.0 or something along those lines, maybe shorter. The ratio of very large nose to tiny eyes means it was a relatively short lens to get that perspective. The apeture had to be smaller to create enough DOF to keep the nose and eyes both in focus since the dog has a long snout. It will be interesting to see what the actual setup was.

Nope all these images are shot @ f/2. The trick is proper technique to get what you want in focus.
If you can't tell between f/2.8 and f/2, bah you might as well shoot f/4 lenses because you won't be able to tell the difference either.

Then by all means educate us. Tell us how you were able to so distort the face of the dog and make such a massive nose and such small eyes so close together and yet maintain that DOF. We people you can't tell the difference and don't know proper technique want to know how to create these beady eyes and a huge nose peering thru a fog of blurred fur!  :)

It's called a higher angle in which you tilt the camera down slight to move the plane of focus just enough to get both eyes in focus @ f/2.

Geez, do you guys actually go out and shoot? Its feels like I'm talking to some test chart shooter here.

That doesn't explain the distorted perspective of the huge nose and small close together eyes. To my knowlege, only a relatively short lens and close subject distance creates this "peep hole" type of perspective.

On such a dog, the nose to eyes distance is prabably 6 inches. So I for one would like to know which focal length and subject distance can create the DOF needed to keep both eyes and nose relatively in focus while at the same time skewing the proportions of the dogs face that way.

Pages: 1 ... 111 112 [113] 114 115 ... 231