January 25, 2015, 03:40:25 PM

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 ... 239
1951
PowerShot / Re: Canon Announces The PowerShot N
« on: January 07, 2013, 10:04:35 AM »
If its ultra tiny, like razr thin and square, with decent IQ I would buy one.

1952
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Thinking of downgrading my 5d3 system
« on: January 07, 2013, 09:58:48 AM »
The mk3 is not the problem, the problem is those heavy 2.8 zooms which the 70-200L weights about 4LBs.

That's one reason I've come to love small, light primes. 24L + 50 1.4 + 135L are fantastic to carry. If you want mobility and lens speed, try some small primes.

Not a solution for everything, unless you carry at least 2 bodies around. Again, not for family photos.

I've taken plenty of family photos with just a Minolta maxxum AF and a 50mm 1.8. Just takes a different approach.

How do you approach this type of situation, when you are 1.5ft away from your subject? No room to go back or forward: http://albums.phanfare.com/isolated/0TKGEcfb/1/5903138

Find a different approach.

1953
Lenses / Re: Your "precious" lord of the red rings is?
« on: January 07, 2013, 12:31:49 AM »
Let it burn, insurance has that covered.

1954
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Thinking of downgrading my 5d3 system
« on: January 06, 2013, 09:56:15 PM »
The mk3 is not the problem, the problem is those heavy 2.8 zooms which the 70-200L weights about 4LBs.

That's one reason I've come to love small, light primes. 24L + 50 1.4 + 135L are fantastic to carry. If you want mobility and lens speed, try some small primes.

Not a solution for everything, unless you carry at least 2 bodies around. Again, not for family photos.

I've taken plenty of family photos with just a Minolta maxxum AF and a 50mm 1.8. Just takes a different approach.

1955
Lenses / Re: 24-70 or 24-105
« on: January 06, 2013, 02:56:14 PM »
You have everything covered in my book. Wide, normal and tele. If you want all three in a lens, only the 24-105L truly does that well for less $$$.

1956
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1 ds mark3 vs 5d mark 3 image quality
« on: January 06, 2013, 02:52:28 PM »
5D3 > 1DS3

1957
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Anyone still using a 20D?
« on: January 06, 2013, 11:52:19 AM »
Was there any 10D users? I feel alone with saying how the 20D was the best thing since sliced bread.

1958
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Thinking of downgrading my 5d3 system
« on: January 06, 2013, 11:44:25 AM »
86 oz for 24-70 2.8 + 70-200 2.8 zooms vs 56 oz for 24L + 50mm 1.4 + 135L

The speed gain vs weight & versatility. That almost two pounds shed in weight.


1959
Lenses / Re: Lens mount play
« on: January 06, 2013, 11:10:11 AM »
There is alittle wiggle on my 5D3s. All my EF cameras are like that.

1960
Lenses / Re: 135mm + 1.4 extender _VS_ 70-200mm f/2.8 IS mkI
« on: January 06, 2013, 11:05:05 AM »
I've been wanting a 70-200II for awhile now and every time I pick one up I realize why I've been waiting so long. It's just heavy to lug around, white and 2000$.

Unless you do a lot of action photos, get the 70-200 but you will always have to lug it around. With the 135L, you just take a tiny little tele converter.


1961
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Thinking of downgrading my 5d3 system
« on: January 06, 2013, 10:52:48 AM »
The mk3 is not the problem, the problem is those heavy 2.8 zooms which the 70-200L weights about 4LBs.

That's one reason I've come to love small, light primes. 24L + 50 1.4 + 135L are fantastic to carry. If you want mobility and lens speed, try some small primes.

1962
Sell it and save the cash for another MK3. That's how my 7D went.

1963
A upper body workout might help. :|

1964
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: BLOWN away.
« on: January 06, 2013, 10:44:26 AM »
#not impressed @ 2800$.

Pages: 1 ... 129 130 [131] 132 133 ... 239