November 26, 2014, 06:12:46 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 ... 132 133 [134] 135 136 ... 235
1996
Reviews / Re: Canon G10 Review
« on: December 17, 2012, 11:11:14 AM »
Can this camera sync w/flash at 1/2000th or 1/4000th?

1997
Lenses / Re: Best landscape lenses
« on: December 15, 2012, 07:12:56 PM »
What is this Velvia, of which you speak so reverently?   ;)

A transparent sheet of magic coated in pixie dust... DXOMark gave it a one billion.

(Of course they wouldn't; it has four stops of DR and is super grainy in the shadows at ISO 50 with terrible color accuracy.)

I wouldn't argue with the four stops and terrible colour accuracy, I would argue with the grain in the blacks, don't forget the base is solid black, mind you I always shoot it at iso 40 anyway.

With regards longevity, stick it in the freezer, it will not deteriorate and can be used years past its date, if you can find somebody to actually develop it.  :)

Velvia was the bomb until they discontinued it. :(

1998
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Crop vs FF for landscape photography
« on: December 15, 2012, 09:35:40 AM »
Generally, bigger is better with landscape photography. The bigger piece of film/ sensor will always resolve more detail than a smaller format.

But yes, I've shot some fantastic landscapes with my 7D+10-22mm when I had them.

1999
EOS-M / Re: To buy M or not to buy M?
« on: December 15, 2012, 09:31:57 AM »
I generally don't adopt first generation electronic products.

2000
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D: 'I need a Must Have's List'
« on: December 15, 2012, 09:26:18 AM »
If you love your 7D, You will hate the 6D. After owning the 7D, I wouldn't want anything less than its AF and the 5D3 is that camera for me IMO. You will have to ditch the Kit lens from the 60D with either camera.

+1 million

+1 million if you are into tracking fast moving objects subjects mostly.

But if you AF and recompose like I do... the 6D AF might even be better.

It will boil down to what you value more... The 6D will give you less noisy images across the ISO spectrum, and probably better IQ overall. Nice interface with a Tablet.

The 7D is noisier, but better AF points across the frame, it has faster burst.

Consumers/enthusiasts might prefer the improvement of images with the 6D, but pros might give a higher rating to getting a high % of keepers and fast action... might prefer the 7D.

If you DO end up keeping the 7D, then Mt. Spokane's lens list is a very good one. For me the 6D seems very enticing for non-pros, especially with the -3EV center AF point and high ISO performance that not only matches the 5diii, but sneaks past it.

You also forgot DR.  It's very important for someone who's doing landscape photography and thus 6D seems a near perfect match for me.  But if I have money, I won't hesitate going to 5D3 straight.  Though IQ-wise 6D is better (almost negligible), 5D3's AF makes the camera more versatile.  Having said that, I don't think 6D's AF will hinder me from getting professional quality photos.

Then get a 5D2 and save the 600$ for a 17-40.

2001
Lenses / Re: Zoom vs Primes?
« on: December 15, 2012, 01:43:56 AM »
RLPhoto, sorry if it was taken out of context. My response was to risc32 though, not you, so I didn't mean to imply that however you are doing things is wrong. Just that I personally prefer to be overpacked rather than underpacked and agree with his post.

I agree, I'll have a set of strobes in a roller case and extra accessories. My OP was that I wouldn't want all that extra weight of 2.8 zooms in my camera bag all day during a wedding when I'll still have to carry my primes anyway.

2002
Lenses / Re: New Sigma 35mm f/1.4 for Canon getting awesome reviews
« on: December 14, 2012, 02:59:49 PM »
This sigma destroys the 35L, until the 35L II is released.  ::)

2003
Lenses / Re: Vignetting on 24-70 F/2.8L II USM
« on: December 14, 2012, 12:51:24 PM »
Wide open, f/2.8 at 24mm I expect a lens this expensive to have abolutly no vignetting.

The 600mm f/4L IS II costs $13,000 and has about 1.5 stops of vignetting wide open.   ::)

The 24L II is $1500 and it has 3 stops of vignette.  O_o

This is typical of a board with "Rumors" in its name.
We start by talking about the 24-70mm f/2.8 L II shot at 24mm, jump to the 600mm II and then it somehow turns in to the 24mm f/1.4L II  ???

The New Rumored 24-70 2.8L III will have Zero vignette at all focal lengths and perfect IQ. It will weight in at a reasonable 500 Grams and a MSRP of 1299$ including canons all new 7th generation Image Stablizer providing 8-stops of compensation.

This could be a "rumor" right?

Might be
Can I pre-order now?

Sure, If you've got a spare billion dollars for the R&D.  ;D
No, no, no, NOOOO this will be 24-70 2.8L IV not III. You are too optimistic  ;D ;D ;D

And we will still complain that the nikon 24-85 F/2.8 IS has more reach and we should jump system.   ::)

2004
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D: 'I need a Must Have's List'
« on: December 14, 2012, 12:44:46 PM »
If you love your 7D, You will hate the 6D. After owning the 7D, I wouldn't want anything less than its AF and the 5D3 is that camera for me IMO. You will have to ditch the Kit lens from the 60D with either camera.

Not true! different cameras for different things, I have a 7D and will buy a 6D as a second body.  Great combo.  Now, if he's selling the 7D to buy a 6D and shoots a lot of sport pics and moving subjects then that's a different thing (even though many pros got by pretty well with the 5D markII for years!).

Why not just buy a Mk2 and save 600$? Afterall, he's not going to shoot sports with either the 6D or 5D2.

2005
"3. In the heat of good shots, stopping to carefully clean beer off your front element shows a lack of preparation as a candid-man and your in-experience to your employer.

Did you get those shots? You stopped because of that? Wheres your Filter?"


Are you serious? Why would it take any longer to clean an element or a filter? Why would I be presumed to be more inexperienced because I was cleaning an element next to somebody else cleaning a filter? Nether of us would miss any more shots than the other........

As I keep saying, there is sound reasoning for either route, if there was a really good reason for one over the other then this question wouldn't garner such defensiveness.

That comment alone speaks for itself about your experiences.  :P

2006
I answered yes.  I put a UV filter on every lens that will take it, and my 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is no exception.

1)  Most L lenses aren't fully weatherproof without it.
2)  It's easier to clean (flat glass, no ribs/ridges, you're not brushing the front element)
3)  The usual protection reasons... banging it against something, sand/dust, etc.

edited to add:  LOL at the cling wrap response!!

1) Isn't true, almost all L lenses that are weather sealed do not need a filter to seal them, the 16-35 MkI and II and the 17-40 are the most notable exceptions.
3) Works great in theory, until you break the comparatively flimsy filter and rub nice shards of glass on your front element.

There are very good reasons for using filters, and equally valid reasons to not use them, it really is personal preference as lenses have been protected, and ruined, going either way.

I tend to use them in very harsh conditions (I am often in salty spray and sandy conditions) but the rest of the time leave them off as I always use hoods and doing so mitigates many of the reasons people give for using filters.

How about at a crazy reception party? Where a happy patron swings around a beer, slathering your 50L with its lens hood on full of bubbly joy? Well, in my case my filter was pretty ugly and require a moment of serious cleaning. I wouldn't have felt comfortable cleaning my front element as harshly as it needed to be cleaned.

Now, this wasn't a "harsh" environment at all but one of the many times which a filter has saved my lens.

No, personally I don't care about drinks, kids sticky fingers or any number of other things, modern lens coatings are pretty tough, but like I said, filter use is an entirely personal opinion, there are pluses and minuses to both sides. I have lost two 17" MacBook Pros to drinks, I have never degraded any lens element because of it. Say he had swung his glass enough to break your filter? In that situation he might have knocked my lens hood off, I can put it back on again whereas you have glass shards all over your front element and in your filter thread.

 As for cleaning, I make my own solution out of Isopropyl Rubbing alcohol, ammonia solution and a little distilled water, it costs a couple of dollars for a good quantity and you can mix it strong to get ride of some very severe looking marks that often turn out to be grease and grime.

1. I always use lens hoods but that won't always save your lens or front element.

2. The filter is a second line of protection. As for shattering glass, I've had one shatter on my 24L II and simply unscrewed it, and continued to shoot the rest of the event. If I didn't have one, There would be one less 24L II in the world.

3. In the heat of good shots, stopping to carefully clean beer off your front element shows a lack of preparation as a candid-man and your in-experience to your employer.

Did you get those shots? You stopped because of that? Wheres your Filter?

2007
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D: 'I need a Must Have's List'
« on: December 14, 2012, 12:05:59 PM »
If you love your 7D, You will hate the 6D. After owning the 7D, I wouldn't want anything less than its AF and the 5D3 is that camera for me IMO. You will have to ditch the Kit lens from the 60D with either camera.

2008
The 135L vignettes at F/2 on FF. On your 550D, It doesn't see this because of the crop sensor and the 5D will show this. I believe it just the learning curve of getting used to the MK3, and how the Camera "behaves". You might have to expose more to right or stop down to remove the vignette.

2009
I answered yes.  I put a UV filter on every lens that will take it, and my 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is no exception.

1)  Most L lenses aren't fully weatherproof without it.
2)  It's easier to clean (flat glass, no ribs/ridges, you're not brushing the front element)
3)  The usual protection reasons... banging it against something, sand/dust, etc.

edited to add:  LOL at the cling wrap response!!

1) Isn't true, almost all L lenses that are weather sealed do not need a filter to seal them, the 16-35 MkI and II and the 17-40 are the most notable exceptions.
3) Works great in theory, until you break the comparatively flimsy filter and rub nice shards of glass on your front element.

There are very good reasons for using filters, and equally valid reasons to not use them, it really is personal preference as lenses have been protected, and ruined, going either way.

I tend to use them in very harsh conditions (I am often in salty spray and sandy conditions) but the rest of the time leave them off as I always use hoods and doing so mitigates many of the reasons people give for using filters.

How about at a crazy reception party? Where a happy patron swings around a beer, slathering your 50L with its lens hood on full of bubbly joy? Well, in my case my filter was pretty ugly and require a moment of serious cleaning. I wouldn't have felt comfortable cleaning my front element as harshly as it needed to be cleaned.

Now, this wasn't a "harsh" environment at all but one of the many times which a filter has saved my lens. 

2010
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Do you miss APS-C?
« on: December 14, 2012, 10:00:23 AM »
I only miss the reach from APS-c but nothing else.

Pages: 1 ... 132 133 [134] 135 136 ... 235