October 25, 2014, 03:52:40 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 ... 111 112 [113] 114 115 ... 234
1681
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Confirms 70D; Future of Semi-Pro DSLR is FF
« on: February 04, 2013, 10:22:15 AM »
There is always that chance that maybe an APS-H 10fps 7DII with EF-s compatability is coming. I think it would be a fantastic idea If it plays out.

I think this is physically impossible. The image circle of a EF-s lens is too small to 'expose' the whole APS-H sensor.

A crop mode like Nikon?

Makes sense, buy (and pay)an APS-H senosr, and then run it in a crop mode...

The other problem is the mirror. EF-S lenses use the space that was freed by the smaller mirror for APS-C. I think there also would not be enough space for an APS-H mirror. But, you are free to use third-party APS-C lenses (Sigma, Tamron) even on a FF Canon Body, and crop it on your own.

If they could do it right as not to alienate current efs lens owners and give the extra reach/IQ when using FF glass. I'd buy one.

1682
I loved my 5Dc a lot. It still better than any crop camera canon makes and your can find them for as low as 450$ in decent shape. If you care more about lenses, I'd get a 5Dc with a set of lenses over just getting a 5D2.

To be honest, the 5D2, performance wise, is no better than the 5Dc. It's IQ is far superior but if you have duff glass, what's the point?

After you get a 5Dc, save up for the mk3. You can use the 5Dc and then sell it for exactly what you paid for it. The MK3 around holidays could be as low as 2499$, which is what I paid.

It's like a temp camera until you get the MK3. If you don't like the AF performance of the 5Dc, you won't like the MK2. If you don't mind it, the MK2 is an option. If your patient, the MK3 won't limit you later on.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=11758.0

1683
Yep. I have no appetite to shoot Crop again but I do miss the reach sometimes.

1684
Lenses / Re: How much would you pay for Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L IS
« on: February 04, 2013, 09:03:15 AM »
1999$

1685
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Confirms 70D; Future of Semi-Pro DSLR is FF
« on: February 04, 2013, 09:01:39 AM »
There is always that chance that maybe an APS-H 10fps 7DII with EF-s compatability is coming. I think it would be a fantastic idea If it plays out.

I think this is physically impossible. The image circle of a EF-s lens is too small to 'expose' the whole APS-H sensor.

A crop mode like Nikon?

1686
Portrait / Re: Portrait suggestions needed
« on: February 04, 2013, 12:00:27 AM »
Get the boy to take two large steps from the backdrop and set your flash to 24mm. Depending on ceiling height, bounce the speedlite slightly behind you and add + flash expo comp until you get something like this. You can add a reflector under to kick a bit more light under the chin.

5D3+ 135L

f/2.2 - ISO 100 - 1/200th


1687
Lenses / Re: Resistance to Larger Filter Size, Kills Great Lenses?
« on: February 03, 2013, 09:39:28 AM »
If they put a filter that size, I'd just give me another reason to buy a tamron 24-70Vc.

1688
Lenses / Re: What's the best deal you've ever gotten on a lens?
« on: February 03, 2013, 09:37:38 AM »
5D3 - 2499$ brand new USA warranty unopened box. Fantastic.

1689
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Help to make my decision.
« on: February 03, 2013, 09:35:43 AM »
I rented a 6D for a weekend. I'd probably only trust the center AF point which was the whole problem with the previous 5D cameras.

1690
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: February 02, 2013, 11:10:07 PM »


Why not just try and tell me which of the four images I posted many pages ago are shot with which lens, surely that should be easy seeing as how the 135 has a "unique look"? And that is my point, yet again, it is not about comparisons, it is about the FACT that nobody can RELIABLY tell what image was shot with which lens, nobody who alludes to this "unique look" can reliably identify it, if you can't reliably identify it it isn't "unique".

I answered that already, several times. It is not hard to use a lens with a unique look in a way that nobody can tell the difference with a f/4 zoom. It has unique look when you use it in a unique way.

I have comparisons of the 24-105 with the 50L, the 85LII, the 35L. You would not be able to tell a difference, and even under 100% it will be hard to say which is which. I can post them if you insist. So what now, since nobody can tell the difference in those shots, those three primes are useless?

Don't waste your time with PBD.  You've showed your photos to prove your point and explained yourself. He has nothing to show to support his views. He's just too stubborn to realize whats plainly in front of him.

1691
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: February 02, 2013, 08:45:24 PM »
Privatebydesign - number of unique images made. - 0

I don't believe you have a relevant opinion in determining character in comparing unique lenses.

1692
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: February 02, 2013, 07:34:09 PM »
Wow - tough crowd! We have 12+ pages of posts and this is the first direct comparison, if I am not mistaken. And I am been hammered for 10% or so difference in framing, and for wasting bandwidth!

I didn't want to cause undue alarm or attack you, and the surgar-coated version is also available  ... I just tried pointing out that some tiny headroom for even further future improvement exists, but your input is very much appreciated and even at the current state great and very helpful  :-)

Maybe I'm a bit over-critical, but I often observe researchers that for some matter discover exactly what they went out to find and knew before - it was a bit like that with your comparison shots: We know the 135L has better bokeh, so why bother with a real comparison to prove it :-p ?

Good you said that it was obvious. Now turn around and tell that to people who are hammering everyone who tries to tell this 'obvious' mathematical fact (as far as subject isolation is concerned; bokeh cant be quantified). They claim that difference is so subtle that most people cant pick it up in blind tests. Then, they either show crappy examples or 135 used at f/8 to match the DOF (dah, its going to be equal because you matched it) to make a point. Plamen shows first direct and relevant comparison and gets hammered by you for showing the 'obvious'. Fair world......

Or some simply just can't accept that "I told you so."

1693
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: February 02, 2013, 03:03:10 PM »
The 135L looks better. No surprise.

1694
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Confirms 70D; Future of Semi-Pro DSLR is FF
« on: February 02, 2013, 04:35:50 AM »
There is always that chance that maybe an APS-H 10fps 7DII with EF-s compatability is coming. I think it would be a fantastic idea If it plays out.

1695
Lenses / Re: Please explain the need for f2.8 zooms
« on: February 02, 2013, 04:19:26 AM »
When I post a comment that's been simplified, it tends to bend some users out of shape but there is always experience behind it. I also know the math behind a particular subject in photography but I don't key on it, it's boring as heck.

Pages: 1 ... 111 112 [113] 114 115 ... 234