September 30, 2014, 07:22:09 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 ... 112 113 [114] 115 116 ... 231
1696
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.

1697
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.

1698
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.

1699
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.

1700
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.

1701
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.

1702
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?

1703
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.

1704
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.

1705
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.

1706
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: January 27, 2013, 08:56:09 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.

1707
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: January 27, 2013, 08:37:28 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.

1708
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Emergency wedding, of sorts.
« on: January 26, 2013, 11:12:13 PM »
Scout your locations. It's more important than any gear your going to rent.

1709
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: January 26, 2013, 11:04:35 PM »

They're not suppose to privatebydesign. That's why they hire us photographers because we can discern these differences for them and to give them our vision.

I know, that is exactly why they do!

You can try and hide behind veiled superiority, I have worked for some pretty discerning clients too, I know definitively none of them know the difference between a 100 shot at 8 feet and f2.8 and a 135 shot at 11 feet and f2, they know lighting, posing, framing, they demand on time results of a high enough quality to do the job, they don't give a damn how I achieve that.

But we are getting off point, as I keep saying, both lenses are very good lenses, however for me, and I would suggest the majority of users, the functionality that the 100 IS Macro L has that the 135 f2L doesn't have are more useful than the functionality that the 135 has that the 100 doesn't have.

I can well understand people buying either lens without considering the other, but if people are considering both I believe in a toss up between the two most people will get more out of the 100.

And that's your decision. I like the f/2 look and my clients don't know what exactly that is but they like it as well.

In the end, there is nothing the 100mm macro can do for portraits that the 70-200LII cannot do. I'd wouldn't buy the macro solely based on this fact. The 135L may not have IS, but it gives a unique look at f/2 that neither of these lenses can give.

1710
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: January 26, 2013, 10:32:42 PM »

If you have that mentality, go shoot the 70-200 f4L IS. No one will be able to tell the difference between the 2.8.

Most people couldn't tell the difference between f 2.8 and f4. Getting to the difference between f2 and f4 then we are getting into an area where I would hope most on here could, so no, if narrow dof is what you are trying to achieve then f4 is not particularly effective.

You seem to take offense not at the content, which is well backed up with maths, but at the contrary message. This is a forum, a place for ideas, nothing you have put forward supports your opinion, you can't point to an image, anywhere, that is unmistakeably shot with a 135 f2, that is not confrontational, it is just the truth. Don't forget I have a 135 f2 and used it for years, though all on film, I now have the 100 IS macro and know I couldn't tell the difference.

The 85 f1.2 does the narrow dof field well for two reasons, it is fast, obviously, but because it is a medium focal length you automatically move closer for the same framing, this also narrows your dof even more, however when comparing the 135 f2 and the 100 f2.8 the tables turn, you stand closer to frame the same for the slower lens, because you are closer your dof is less, seriously, we are talking 1" difference in dof on a wide open portrait from the two lenses.

If your buisness model is based on ultra narrow dof and you are getting lots of buisness then obviously the $5,000 more expensive 200 f2 makes sense, if you are anybody else the difference between a 135mm image shot at f2 and a same framed 100mm image shot at f2.8, well, that 1" dof difference is marginal at best.

Thank you for illustrating my point, people will know which image they prefer, but they can't accurately and consistently tell the focal length or dof used for each image.

They're not suppose to privatebydesign. That's why they hire us photographers because we can discern these differences for them and to give them our vision.

Pages: 1 ... 112 113 [114] 115 116 ... 231