November 23, 2014, 07:28:33 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 ... 152 153 [154] 155 156 ... 235
I'm curious as photographers, Over the years we own different camera bodies and Like to see the progression.

My progression

1999 - My grandfather gave me my Minolta Maxxum AF 35mm Camera W/ 50mm 1.8 & Yashica MAT-124G

2002 - Sold my Yashica and saved cash for a beat-up used Hassleblad 501CM w/ 85mm Zeiss 2.8.

2005 - Bought a old minolta flatbed scanner & A canon 10D w/50mm 1.8. Lightly ventured into 4x5 viewcamera's for landscapes. (mostly not my equipment)

2008 - Sold my Minolta scanner, Hassleblad, Canon 10D. Purchased a Rebel XSI, bought 5Dc, 10-22mm, 50mm 1.4, and 135L

2010 - Broke XSI CPS trade for 7D. Bought 50L

2012 - Sold 5Dc, Bought 5D3 and 24L II.

*Future* - Sell 7D and 10-22mm, Purchase 5D4

Thats Where I Am Now. Lets hear you story!  ;D

If the Dust is visible in your photos, Send it to be repaired.

If not, Then don't worry about it.

If you worry about it, Send it in.

Lenses / Re: 135mm or 50mm...
« on: October 30, 2012, 10:52:32 AM »
Ha yeah thats why i havent found any direct answer to my questions. They are different and i believe i will one day own them both...
good to hear the 135 is that amazing. thats seems to be the way i am leaning as well
I guess my only concern is the difference between my 70-200 justify that being the first purchase?

The 135L is sharper, Cheaper, Lighter, More compact, More discreet that the 70-200. It's arguably the best portrait lens for the Money and is a good tele to carry when you don't feel like packing the hefty 70-200. You lose IS but I've worked around it fine.

You may want to look into this little mini-review I've made about fast primes/

Lenses / Re: 135mm or 50mm...
« on: October 30, 2012, 09:28:28 AM »
I currently have a 5d ii, 60d, 16-35, 50 1.8(af broken), 24-105, 70-200 is ii.

If i had to narrow down the top two things i do with my stuff it would be portraits/weddings and videography.
i would like to have a prime for lower light video and better background separation in portraits. what would you suggest?
I have narrowed it down to three(sorta). The 135mm or 50mm(1.2 or 1.4).
I have tried the 85mm 1.2 and the focus will not do for video so nice lens but not something I wanna weigh myself down with. I have also used the 100L macro and it was good. I am actual sad i returned it but with focus being so slow it will have to come later as most of my shoots are candid orientated, great for video though.
I have narrowed it down to three(sorta). The 135mm or 50mm(1.2 or 1.4).
I love build quality of the L so would i regret the 50 1.4 like i did the 70-200 non is? or is the 135 really a beast like everyone claims and are we really that close to a 1.8 is that i need to hold off? either waiting for a refurb deal or using the current rebates to get one. Thanks for your input.

The 50L is a lens for 50mm freak like myself. Is it worth the extra 1000$? I believe so.

The 135L completely destroys the 50Ls everything except the smelting bokeh which is a matter of taste. It's by far my most used lens.

Lenses / Re: New camera or new lens? Need advice
« on: October 30, 2012, 09:25:25 AM »
It is time to upgrade somthing in my photo equipment. And I need some advice.

Now thinking about these upgrades:
1. Canon 5D classic (upgrade 1ds2 or 5D2 ? )
2. 50mm 1.4 (upgrade to 50mm 1.2L ? )
3. buy f/2.8 3rd party zoom ? (I use zoom lens very rare so thinking do I need to upgrade my canon 24-85)

4. I don't have anything in 85-135mm range so maybe I need to buy one of those:
Canon 85mm 1.8
Sigma 85mm 1.4
Canon 85mm 1.2 Mark I
Canon 100mm 2.8 macro (maybe non L ?)
Canon 135mm 2L (If I will buy this then probably my 200L 2.8 will stay unused in bag. But maybe worth it?)

If you decide to buy a 5Dc instead of the 5D2, it should leave you enough to buy the 135L also. The 5Dc is still better than any APS-c camera currently made by canon.

The 50L is a love-hate type lens. I love mine and will never want another 50mm unless a MK.2 version.

Edit. I must have mis-read. You already have the 5Dc. Then I would recommend you Upgrade your glass first before getting a new body.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]
« on: October 29, 2012, 04:06:13 PM »
Any chance the IS version is actually an f4L lens?

That would be a M00t lens because of the 24-105L.

Lenses / 24-105L vs 24-70 Tamron VC
« on: October 29, 2012, 03:44:26 PM »
I'm looking for a GP zoom that will fit into my existing prime kit. I will use it for location studio work, travel, and In combo with a Fast prime or two.

I like the 24-105L and I could add my 50L to make my GP kit. The only issue is that for 900$ I'll be getting an F/4 lens, which makes it limited in my live event coverage.

I also like the New tamron 24-70 2.8 VC because of the speed/price. The only issue is it's a tad bit shorter and Makes it awkward to pack my 50L as it covers that focal length already. I could pack a 135L as the combo.

Or I could just continue to use my prime set and I'm just getting buyer's itch. I've been getting around ok but with non-work stuff, a Zoom would be nice. :o

What should I purchase?

EOS Bodies / Re: real-world autofocus on 5d2
« on: October 29, 2012, 11:47:29 AM »
Hi everyone, long time reader, first time poster.

Firstly, I know how to use the search function and realize this type of thing has been discussed before......

I currently use a 50d and 7d with the following lenses: ef/s 10-22, 24-105L, 100l macro, 70-300L. I use the 50d for the landscape, walk-around type things and do my wildlife and other fast-moving things with the 7d. I am very happy with my coverage and results.

I plan on keeping 2 bodies, but am thinking of replacing the 50d not because there are issues but just because it is pretty much surpassed by a lot of offerings out there.

I really like the metal-type bodies, Like a lot of people, going full frame is appealing, but expensive.

Ideally I would love 5d mk3's, but that is not going to happen. If I was just going to have just one body, I would just get a 5d3, (especially with the new exposure bracketing!!) but the 7d is new and I like it.

With the recent price drop with the advent of the 5d3, the 5d2 however is affordable.

I have read the autofocus on the 5d3 is a lot better than the 5d2, which I expect as it is 4 years newer and costs twice as much.

What I am really after is a FF replacement for my 50d to do what it now does, walk around, landscapes, and inside stuff. It will meet some moving targets, but really thats what I am keeping the 7d for.

So, who here has a 5d2 and can tell me how good the autofocus REALLY is? If it is as good as my old 50d, then I can live with that, especially since if I go FF I will need either the 17-40L or the 16-35L anf the 5d2 + lens combo essentially equals the cost of the 5d3.

I realize the 6d will be out there some time, but by the time it is a well-known commodity i suspect new 5d2's may be hard to find. Plus, it doesn't look like the autofocus on the 6d is any better than the 5d2, and I like the build of the 5d series.

A friend who is a pro photographer is a long time 5d1 user, and just upgraded to the 5d2 due to the price drop. He mainly does studio work, but says he has shot sports of all things the the 5d2 and is happy with its performance.

Any help advice will help, thanks a lot!

The only usable point on the 5D2 is the center point. The 5D3 is more of a cut down 1Dx than a 5D2 replacement.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]
« on: October 29, 2012, 11:42:29 AM »
Canon is finally releasing the lens we've really wanted, After we've recieved the lens that we've really wanted, after the lens we've really wanted.

Canon General / Re: Canon Can't Even Make a Billion Dollars Anymore
« on: October 29, 2012, 08:42:54 AM »
The cause? A series Underwhelming products, Inflated Pricing, And a series of restrictions based on profit rather than R&D. IE: 1Dx F/8 focusing.
I doubt the 1D sales have ever had a large impact on canons revenue. They are like halo products.

In example or IE. The hardware of the 61-pt system is capable of f/8 focusing. The 1Dx and 5D3 were restricted in an attempt to force users into larger more expensive glass.

The 6D's attempt to stretch the 5D's AF system to another generation is a pure profit based venture instead of R&D.

The EOS M with the recycled 4 year old sensor being priced at 599$ body only is another example.

There are many more, but I'll let you fill those in.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EF Lens Speculation [CR1]
« on: October 27, 2012, 10:15:16 PM »
Give me a 135L f/1.8 IS. The current 135L is already perfection, but IS and f/1.8 would only make it irresistible.
How do you improve on the 135 f/2? The only meaningful way forward is 135 f/1.8is. It's almost certain to be bigger. But it's unlikely to be such astonishing value as the current lens; it could not sell anywhere near the price of the 135 f/2 which is easily found for under $1k new.


IS possibly. BUT, it would cost close to 2K$ and ... who would dare to sell his/hers own superb existing 135mm copy if Canon were to stop its production. I wouldn't ! In addition 1.8 is too much. I cannot find a real reason as it would skyrocket the cost...

Zeiss already makes a 135 f1.8, adding IS should be straightforward. Its entirely probable and stupendously practical in reach, and speed limited situations.

It'd be around 85L II price territory but I'd be ok with that.

EOS Bodies / Re: Is 22Mpx Really Enough?!!!
« on: October 26, 2012, 06:50:35 PM »
You are answering your self, film is film and sensor are sensors. And old CCD are old CCD, and today there are a big difference between sensors
did you read Lars Kjellberg article
everything is  not black or white and you have some trouble to understand that and you have a habit of presenting everything you say as truth without analyzing the situation

35mm, medium-format, or large format?

A large format negative does not have to be enlarged as much as a 35 mm negative, and the results are therefore much sharper. Most photographers would agree on that. However, our test shows that 35 mm can be almost as sharp as large format, if you take the photographs correctly and choose the right film.

By Lars Kjellberg

The MF Hassy Has much more detail than the 35mm in those crops.

You can see it obviously when looking at the center Circle crop. The 35mm has nasty grain but the MF shot is much cleaner and can resolve the lines farther in than the 35mm can. With a finer-grain stock like velvia 50, It will be even more pronounced.

Either way you slice it, MF still resolves better detail than 35mm.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Better dynamic range than my 5DIII
« on: October 26, 2012, 06:31:11 PM »
Its not the camera but the Fleshy, breathing Device behind it is what counts.

CameraSatan standing over your shoulder?

Do you mean Nikon? ;D

EOS Bodies / Re: Is 22Mpx Really Enough?!!!
« on: October 26, 2012, 06:00:38 PM »
se  answers above , physical conditions, everything is  NOT equal because it is a MF sensor

You must have never shot MF before.  :P
sorry but I have. I have done a comparison between Pentax 645 and D800E.
Do you understand that there are two different  sensor we are talking about? One old CCD and a new smaller cmos
And even if the larger sensor is larger the QE and DR are far behind a modern 24x36 sensor and the results at base iso are very similar, at higher iso the Pentax is no match for d800

Have you shot phase one before? Because MF still resolves more detail than any 35mm DSLR.

Take the best 35mm DSLR d800 and stack it up against the best MF system, The phase one IQ 180. Its no comparison.

Totally agree. But there is no point arguing with those who suggest 35mm can even compete with MF... it's wasted effort. They have zero credibility. Just let them live in their delusional world and don't feed their compulsions :)

Your completely right Ray.

There shouldn't be an argument, Because this 35mm vs MF argument has been around for decades and still some don't understand that a bigger piece of Film/sensor will always resolve more detail than a smaller format.

MF has its uses, so does 35mm. Its just MF does resolution better.

Lenses / Re: Your technique for switching lenses in the field?
« on: October 26, 2012, 05:36:47 PM »
I flip my lens facing out from my BR strap. Pull out my other lens and Turn the lens on my camera just enough to un-engage the button. I remove the rear cap on the lens in hand and take off the lens on camera. Quick swap later, i put the rear cap back on to the lens I removed and back into my bag.

Pages: 1 ... 152 153 [154] 155 156 ... 235