March 03, 2015, 02:34:42 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 ... 129 130 [131] 132 133 ... 245
1951
Lenses / Re: 200mm F2 IS OR 135mm F2
« on: January 24, 2013, 11:56:12 AM »
200/2L > 135L/85LII > 200/2.8L

IMO, for portraits anyway

1952
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Canon 600EX-RT review
« on: January 24, 2013, 11:30:32 AM »
Love the review and I will eventually dump my 580II's for some 600RT's in the future. It's just at the moment, I want to invest in some newer strobes.  :P

1953
Not one bit, waiting for FF-EVIL that doesn't require the sale of a kidney.

1954
EOS Bodies / Re: Where are you EOS 70D?
« on: January 24, 2013, 11:17:15 AM »
I expect the 70D to be a repackaged 7D and the 7DII to be a step-up from that.

1955
Lenses / Re: 200mm F2 IS OR 135mm F2
« on: January 24, 2013, 11:13:11 AM »
The 200 f/2 is the portrait lens. The 135L is the closest thing to it for budget users.

I think you will find that the design brief for the 200 f2 was primarily lowlight and shorter long focal length sports, that it is used very effectively for portraits by some is a complimentary use for it. Certainly if you want to see ten or fifteen 200 f2's together just go to any ATP World Tour event. Canon made the 85 1.2 as a pure no holds barred portrait lens and considered AF of secondary importance to the "look" it gives.

I remember for years the sample images for the 300 f2.8 IS are head shots portraits, though nobody would doubt that portrait shooters are not the primary market for that lens! Though there are a few that use it, for instance I do, but primarily because I have one and don't need the 200 f2.

EDIT: Obviously the 200 f2.8 is the budget version of the 200 f2.

Used the 85L II, Found it kinda meh when I already have the 135L. The 200/2 is the best portrait lens canon makes IMO, its just expensive and heavy. Sure it can be used for sports as well.  ::)

The 200/2.8 is a lens I've never been particularly fond of when the 70-200LII does the same thing. I used the 200/2 at a buddys house for about an hour, and instantly knew it was in a league of its own.

1956
Lighting / Re: Fastest Sync Speed
« on: January 24, 2013, 09:22:47 AM »
I wish my 5D3 had a 1/250 sync speed. :( perhaps canon will do this in the 5D4?

1957
Lenses / Re: 200mm F2 IS OR 135mm F2
« on: January 24, 2013, 09:14:40 AM »
The 200 f/2 is the portrait lens. The 135L is the closest thing to it for budget users.

1958
Amazing! This gives me even less reason's to buy EOS-M.

1959
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D - How bad is it? Really?
« on: January 23, 2013, 11:12:17 AM »
Another thing that factors to help NR in post is having very good lenses. When you have a sharp lens to start with, at High ISO, adding Heavy NR won't affect the sharpness of the photo too much.

But if you combine a duff lens, with high ISO, and Heavy NR... Expect ugly results.

1960
5D2 or wait until the 6D is sub 1700$. It's too expensive for what it is.

1961
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D - How bad is it? Really?
« on: January 23, 2013, 06:17:23 AM »
Had a 7D and everything is great about it except the sensor. It's usable from 100-3200 and 6400 in a pinch. As long as you know the limits before you buy, the photos downsized to 10MP look fine to me.

1962
ISO wise

Canon 10D - 100-800 useable - 1600 extreme

7D - 100-3200 usable - 6400 extreme

5Dc - 100-3200 usable.

5D3 - 100-12800 usable - 25600 extreme

Aperture is not limited for me. I use what needs to be used.

1963
Lighting / Re: My first Studio!! Einsteins or Bowens??
« on: January 22, 2013, 03:57:05 PM »
I'm planning to replace my entire studio setup for Buff Einsteins and Modifiers. They're pretty awesome.

1964
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: ISO 50
« on: January 22, 2013, 01:44:20 PM »

BTW, as an extra, i shots some crude tests with my UN-beloved 5D2 last night.
MIDTONE BANDING at iso 100 - it still has it!
  Real-world photos are where I first found the problem, specific test shots certainly replicate it.  I need to do a few more tests just to make sure this is not a glitch of my display calibration curve but I'm pretty sure it isn't as I can accentuate the pattern with a simple unsharp function in PS.
Should i start a new topic with that when I get a chance?

You keep saying this but are always unable to post a photo illustrating it, whenever you are asked for one, or the percentage of your images you loose to it, you leave the thread.

Can we see some of these real world images that you consider unusable?

Indeed, I'd like to see those as well.

1965
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: ISO 50
« on: January 22, 2013, 11:53:36 AM »
This thread just shows how much of us could really use a "True" ISO 50 in DSLR's. I'd like one canon and perhaps they will be the first with the new 1Dxs.

The problem is that there's no free lunch.  A "true" ISO 50 would mean a lower base ISO, meaning that to achieve higher ISOs, even more amplification would be needed - meaning more high ISO noise.  Usually, if ISO 100 is not low enough, one stop more is insufficient, at least in terms of shutter speed.  The waterfall example posted earlier at ISO 50 and 5 s exposure required f/18 to get there - personally, I'd have preferred to shoot that at f/9 and ISO 100 with a 3-stop ND.

The 1Dxs would be a 46mp+, pure studio camera from practical use from 50-800 ISO. IE: the S designation.

It would return back to its true roots as a studio camera.

Pages: 1 ... 129 130 [131] 132 133 ... 245