December 21, 2014, 02:16:45 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 ... 237
1726
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.

1727
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.

1728
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.

1729
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."

1730
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.

1731
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.

1732
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.

1733
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.

1734
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.

1735
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.

1736
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. ::)

1737
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.

1738
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.

1739
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

1740
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.

Pages: 1 ... 114 115 [116] 117 118 ... 237