October 20, 2014, 10:08:28 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 ... 234
1696
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: February 02, 2013, 04:03:48 AM »
Privatebydesign's opinion is becoming more and more irrelevant by every post because he has yet to show a single photo to show he's used both the 135L and the 100L in portrait work. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. In PBD hands the 100L can't shoot anymore unique images than a lab rat, none at all.

How can anyone take him seriously? lol.

1697
Lenses / Re: A second look at the 24-70 F/4L IS's place in my bag...
« on: February 01, 2013, 10:05:15 PM »
This lens was DOA. It really needs to be around 749$ for me to ditch my 24-105L.

1698
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: February 01, 2013, 09:55:00 PM »

Here's a comparison at an identical focal length and aperture.

Might be more valid if they were samples of the same area! It is not difficult to make the 135 look pretty bad in the background too, just see the image I posted earlier for an example, even RLP said there was no way that was his precious 135........

As far as I know, your portfolio/photos are too precious for anyone to see. ::)

Is that the best you have got? Don't forget Radiating didn't shoot those images so you should say they don't count! Pathetic.........

Lol your the pathetic one here with no photos. So called photographer in his own mind.

1699
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: February 01, 2013, 06:22:10 PM »

Here's a comparison at an identical focal length and aperture.

Might be more valid if they were samples of the same area! It is not difficult to make the 135 look pretty bad in the background too, just see the image I posted earlier for an example, even RLP said there was no way that was his precious 135........

As far as I know, your portfolio/photos are too precious for anyone to see. ::)

1700
Lighting / Re: When do _you_ use a bare bulb diffusor?
« on: January 31, 2013, 10:07:43 PM »
To bounce light everywhere in a room but I tend to do real bare bulb on strobes and less on speedlites.

1701
6D Sample Images / Re: for those who snub the 6D AF...
« on: January 31, 2013, 10:06:09 PM »
How about subjects moving towards the camera, off-center, shooting sub f/2.8 and that will make the 5d2/6D sweat.

1702
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Help to make my decision.
« on: January 31, 2013, 09:59:35 PM »
You have no FF lenses, which mean's you might as well just sell everything and start new with FF.

1. Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC.
2. Canon 100mm F/2
3. 5D2 or 5D3.

Skip 6D, Not good value for $$$.

I WOULDN'T do that - I would skip 5D II and take 6D for these reasons.

1. Newer camera - with extra features, wifi etc
2. True Auto ISO in "M" mode, 5D II has fixed auto ISO at 400
3. Better AF - more accurate then 5D II

In actual use, the 6D will fail in everything the 5D2 will performance wise and no better than the 5D2 in getting the shot. Same FPS, nearly identical terrible AF, and 98% viewfinder. The 5D3 will have none of these limits.

So why waste those extra 500$? Get another lens. Don't waste it on the fluff from the 6D and that's why I consider it bad value for $$$.

In which way? 6D AF center point is way MUCH BETTER 5D II, so what is your point?

 your still stuck only using the center point. That's the issue.

Are you saying 5D II has better outer AF points then 6D? Both of these cameras should be considered as 1 point AF system. 6D center AF would kick 5D II in the rear in lower light.

I'm saying that the outer AF points on either camera are awful but I've never had a problem with the center AF on the 5Dc or 5D2. What I'm saying is the 6D outer points are still rubbish and virtually no improvement over the 5Dc/5D2

1703
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: January 31, 2013, 07:57:30 PM »
Meet the man with facts,  and stop throwing pies at each other

- 35% more compression. = a unique rendering physically because of focal length.
- 1 stop advantage = a unique rendering physically because of aperture.

I don't know how much clearer I can demonstrate this, explain this, and many others agreed on this. PBD has shown no photos or portraits to prove that he's used the gear in question to the OP. Not a single photo. None. Zip. Zero. Nada.

1704
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: January 31, 2013, 07:39:34 PM »
I've showed my proof, where's yours!?!

Oh I am sorry, I have made a silly mistake, for the last nine pages I mistook you for a knowledgeable photographer that knew his equipment and came to forums like this to spread the deep understanding you have for your craft, all the while giving unbiased opinions and astute insight to the technical aspects that allude and confuse the less experienced. I was wrong.

I took you as a photographer. I was deeply mistaken.

1705
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Help to make my decision.
« on: January 31, 2013, 07:25:52 PM »
You have no FF lenses, which mean's you might as well just sell everything and start new with FF.

1. Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC.
2. Canon 100mm F/2
3. 5D2 or 5D3.

Skip 6D, Not good value for $$$.

I WOULDN'T do that - I would skip 5D II and take 6D for these reasons.

1. Newer camera - with extra features, wifi etc
2. True Auto ISO in "M" mode, 5D II has fixed auto ISO at 400
3. Better AF - more accurate then 5D II

In actual use, the 6D will fail in everything the 5D2 will performance wise and no better than the 5D2 in getting the shot. Same FPS, nearly identical terrible AF, and 98% viewfinder. The 5D3 will have none of these limits.

So why waste those extra 500$? Get another lens. Don't waste it on the fluff from the 6D and that's why I consider it bad value for $$$.

In which way? 6D AF center point is way MUCH BETTER 5D II, so what is your point?

 your still stuck only using the center point. That's the issue.

1706
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: January 31, 2013, 06:52:08 PM »
If you cannot display a single photo PBD, I continue to lol at you because since I cannot take you seriously. XD

You can't take me seriously? Really? You are the one who claims a "unique look", but can't actually show it. I have displayed four images, the only one you commented on as not being the 135, was from the 135, others have also displayed images. What difference does it make where the images come from? I think the only person who hasn't now got the point by now is you. You can continue with the personal attacks, like I said, it doesn't worry me in the slightest, but you are showing yourself and your opinions up for the pointless fallacies they are.

4 images, that aren't yours lol.

I've showed my proof, where's yours!?!

1707
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: January 31, 2013, 05:55:21 PM »
was that a answer to me?
if it was, it is time for you to understand perspective and  also define what you mean with a better  portrait lens, that the ears is moving forward? flatter ?

No it wasn't.

But you do want to know, re-read my posts. I don't feel like wasting more time defining this. 

1708
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: January 31, 2013, 05:37:13 PM »
If you cannot display a single photo PBD, I continue to lol at you because since I cannot take you seriously. XD


1709
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: January 31, 2013, 04:34:01 PM »

Your opinion = irrelevant until I see some of your portraits from these lenses.

It's would be equal to me recommending a Ferrari or Zonda while I only used a ford. If you shot many portraits, you would likely also agree with the 135L being better for just portraits. :P

So you can't tell the difference, but then I knew that. Your only defense is to resort to insults and insinuations. I shot the 135 on film for years, now I find the 100 macro a much more versatile lens with much nicer bokeh and vastly greater functionality.

After calling me dumb, do you want to know how dumb you are?
"The kid doesn't look f/2. Bokeh is harsh."
"When I see a 135L image, I know it ...."
That was shot with the 135 at f2.2, you might still be fooling yourself, but I doubt if anybody else is impressed with your avoidance, insults and insinuations.

You haven't shown an image with "a unique look, 35% more compression, twice the light, and much less dof" that you purport the 135 gives you, because you can't, there is not enough to distinguish between the two.

I have little respect for measuabators in photography. I've already displayed work with both lenses and I chose the 135L for already said reasons. If my conclusion is that the 135L is better and that's too much for you to handle, go ahead and waste your time. Preaching to the choir. I simply cannot respect you as a photographer until I've seen photographs with your work with BOTH lenses. Then atleast I could respect your opinions on this topic.

The 100L is a good portrait lens but the 135L, now that's a great portrait lens.

1710
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Help to make my decision.
« on: January 31, 2013, 04:19:18 PM »
So why waste those extra 500$?
Well, some things come to mind... (from http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=1130)

  • higher iso capability
  • less banding
  • higher dynamic range
  • center-point af up to -3lv
  • silent shutter
  • faster fps
  • longer battery life
  • shorter release time
  • better metering & auto-wb
  • hi-res lcd
  • small & light but good grip
  • top wheel lock
  • gps built-in
  • wifi built-in
  • newer firmware:
    • full support for rt flashes,
    • in-camera multishot/hdr
    • in-camera ca correction
    • 7x bracketing
    • dual afma for zooms
    • servo af customization
    • flexible min/max auto-iso
    • min shutter speed setting
    • orientation-linked af point

+1 ... And also remote shooting with a smartphone and better weather sealing 8)

Or $500 in depreciation I suppose rather than invest in another lens.  ???

Pages: 1 ... 112 113 [114] 115 116 ... 234