November 26, 2014, 03:06:47 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 ... 114 115 [116] 117 118 ... 235
1726
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.  ???

1727
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: January 31, 2013, 04:04:41 PM »
The kid doesn't look f/2. Bokeh is harsh.

The ice-cream guy looks totally 135L. That's the look.

What I find most un-impressive is that none of those are your photos mr.privatebydesign. Lets see your photos comparing these lens.

Now here is my input. Which of these were shot with a macro and the 135L?

So far you have committed to two images from eight, I wonder if you got any right from eight, I'll tell you which of my post were which in a couple of days, Plamen will have to tell us his.

Why would you find my lack of images impressive? That is such a strange thing to say, through this entire thread I have tried to get you to post images that display that "unique look" only the 135 can give you, do you think the "compression" of my 100 is different to others? That my lenses dof is better? I have also already pointed out that I don't have the 135 in EF, only FD. You are the one who has kept saying "only the 135 can do that", "35% more compression", "twice as much light", well, show me, because so far you have failed.

As for your four images, judging by the horrible bokeh I would say images one and four are with the 135, images two and three with the 100, assuming it isn't a trick question.

Don't be dumb. When I see a 135L image, I know it and will point it out.

As for you, you have no photos with either lens thus I hold your opinion irrelevant as you haven't shown you've used the equipment.

You are very wrong, all of them are 135L images. Stick that in your lens mount and smoke it.

So which of the four I posted are the 135? You already said not the girl on the swing, so three more guesses. What difference would it make if I have used either, I am asking you to post an image that has the "unique look" of the 135, you know, the images with "35% more compression", "twice the light", "much narrower depth of field", I, and others, have posted images shot with both and you can't tell them apart, I am not the one being dumb here.

Having said that I knew that images one and four were with your 135, the 100 doesn't have harsh bokeh like that, I got two right, 50%, even though it was a trick question!

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

1728
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: January 31, 2013, 03:49:58 PM »
The kid doesn't look f/2. Bokeh is harsh.

The ice-cream guy looks totally 135L. That's the look.

What I find most un-impressive is that none of those are your photos mr.privatebydesign. Lets see your photos comparing these lens.

Now here is my input. Which of these were shot with a macro and the 135L?

So far you have committed to two images from eight, I wonder if you got any right from eight, I'll tell you which of my post were which in a couple of days, Plamen will have to tell us his.

Why would you find my lack of images impressive? That is such a strange thing to say, through this entire thread I have tried to get you to post images that display that "unique look" only the 135 can give you, do you think the "compression" of my 100 is different to others? That my lenses dof is better? I have also already pointed out that I don't have the 135 in EF, only FD. You are the one who has kept saying "only the 135 can do that", "35% more compression", "twice as much light", well, show me, because so far you have failed.

As for your four images, judging by the horrible bokeh I would say images one and four are with the 135, images two and three with the 100, assuming it isn't a trick question.

Don't be dumb. When I see a 135L image, I know it and will point it out.

As for you, you have no photos with either lens thus I hold your opinion irrelevant as you haven't shown you've used the equipment.

Horrible bokeh? hahahahaha. You are very wrong, all of them are 135L images. Stick that in your lens mount and smoke it.

1729
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: January 31, 2013, 12:53:57 PM »
and you are right, this is a Iphone 4s, and what do I meant by this?
If we are showing pictures from one or another lens they do not tell us much if there not are two identical images captured.

Great because test charts are always more useful than actual photos made with the equipment.

1730
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: January 31, 2013, 12:07:01 PM »
is this taken with a 100mm or a 135?

Might as well be shot with an iPhone. It'd look more appetizing than this.

1731
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D III or 1D IV for sports!
« on: January 31, 2013, 09:28:23 AM »
Nothing touches a 1D camera for sports. Without a doubt the 1D4 is better but the 5D3 can do AF just as good but alas, too slow FPS.

1732
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Help to make my decision.
« on: January 31, 2013, 09:12:53 AM »
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 $$$.

1733
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: January 31, 2013, 08:57:01 AM »
The kid doesn't look f/2. Bokeh is harsh.

The ice-cream guy looks totally 135L. That's the look.

What I find most un-impressive is that none of those are your photos mr.privatebydesign. Lets see your photos comparing these lens.

Now here is my input. Which of these were shot with a macro and the 135L?

1734
Lenses / Re: Please explain the need for f2.8 zooms
« on: January 30, 2013, 10:14:07 PM »
I love it when users say "it's only one stop" when comparing lenses. One stop is a lot! That's twice as good! Some users complain they couldn't tell the difference in rendering from faster glass and then complain that everyone one else can't see the difference.

1735
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: January 30, 2013, 10:04:53 PM »
No need to buy a 100L for portraits when you have a 70-200II. It just not worth it for just portraits.

The 135L give you the extra speed for a unique look neither can deliver and its small, compact and fast.

1736
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: January 30, 2013, 06:22:47 PM »
RL, people are able to create equally good portraits with either the 135L or the 100L because gear doesn't matter.


......

Exactly my point why even buy the 100L macro? Get the non-L 100 f/2 or 100mm macro non-IS.

Eye portraits are not considered to be portraits but details.

1737
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 550d vs 7d AF for Bird Photography
« on: January 30, 2013, 03:34:20 PM »
Lets put it this way. When I decided to jump into the pro-bodies from my XSI, I chose the 7D. It was the best AF camera I've ever used and wanted nothing when using this camera for action.

I only wanted one more thing from it. A FF sensor. That's it, Perfect camera. It could handle Tricky AF situations with no problems and keep the frame rate up.

1738
The 5D3 will destroy the rebels IQ at higher ISOs,

"Destroy" is an exaggeration, but it will certainly be better.

Quote
larger prints, and in sharpness from FF.

At low to mid ISO there won't be an observable difference, as our friend discovered.

Quote
In camera performance, the 5d3 can handle tricky AF situations that would make the rebel sweat. It's also sealed.


Agreed.

Quote
I wouldn't keep the rebel and you'll never need to buy another camera with the 5D3. You'll never outgrow it.

Given his trip, the Rebel makes a fine backup body on a budget.

1. A stop better ISO performance is DESTROYED in my book. The 5D3 is atleast 2 stops better.

2. haha, Thats a joke right? @ 100 ISO my 7D is like Iso 400-800 on my 5D3.

1739
The 5D3 will destroy the rebels IQ at higher ISOs, larger prints, and in sharpness from FF. In camera performance, the 5d3 can handle tricky AF situations that would make the rebel sweat. It's also sealed.

I wouldn't keep the rebel and you'll never need to buy another camera with the 5D3. You'll never outgrow it.

1740
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 6D flash sync
« on: January 29, 2013, 07:47:40 PM »
6D sync speed sucks but so does the mk3. I wish they had the 1dx shutter for 1/250th. :/

Pages: 1 ... 114 115 [116] 117 118 ... 235