April 19, 2014, 11:11:59 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 ... 187 188 [189] 190 191 ... 208
2821
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Pressure By the Nikon D600?
« on: June 20, 2012, 11:40:21 AM »
i don't think anybody here should be brand-loyal, unless you are paid by Canon, whoever has the product better for my use & budget, i will go for it.

agreed, I have looked at the nikon system. Its very promising but I dug alittle deeper to see If i'd REALLY Switch. What is keeping me here is the prime glass. Thats Really about it,

- Canon 135mm f/2 Performs better than the nikon 135mm f/2 DC and is a whole lot cheaper.

- Canon 50mm 1.2L performs better than any 50mm from 1.2-2.8, Which I love and Nikon doesnt quite match.

- Canon 24mmL II is alot cheaper than nikon alternative and equal IQ.

The catch is now is that canon makes up this savings over nikon with their new Bodys. Jeez, $849 for just a T4i? Seriously...

Nikons bodies are cheaper but they get you on the glass. Flash wise, nikon is alittle cheaper but canons 600RT is ridiculously priced. Almost make me want to just use PW's.

Can't switch, but with all these new bodies from nikon offering alot for less, Makes me stare at my aging 5D...

Canon 135L has no real competitor in Nikon's lineup but I disagree about the 50mm. I mean, unless you really can't live without f/1.2 there are many nice alternatives. Also, 24mm is a replaceable focal lenght. There are 21, 25 and 28mm by zeiss, a new 28mm by Nikon, or even 35mm IMHO doesn't make that lot of difference.

I suppose, the 50mm prime is the french fries of the camera world. Many differences and preparations but boils down to personal tastes. The 50L has nothing that looks quite like it.

Zeiss - No AF, No good for me. Landscapers will love it though.

28mm nikon has nothing on the 24L II or the Nikkor 24mm. Except price, but premium, super speed glass isn't cheap either. I get the same IQ for less with canon.

35mm isn't wide enough for my crop bodies. Not an option for me.

2822
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Pressure By the Nikon D600?
« on: June 20, 2012, 11:27:49 AM »
I have bought a D30 just for web pictures as I like to keep up with technology

LOL Me too! Ebay'ed for 80$.

2823
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mk III vs D800/E, is the 5D3 better at anything?
« on: June 20, 2012, 11:26:07 AM »
And why should Canon's version be so much more expensive?

Well, Canon has this 5d3 thing at $3500 with a polished 5d2 sensor and 22mp. And they have a big money 18mp pro 1dx they will release eventually for serious sports photography and so on.

If you were Canon, what would you do once you got around developing an ok 30mp+ sensor  - put it into a $5000 body, sell it to people who are willing to pay this for at least a year and then trickle it down - or put it into a $2500 body right away cannibalizing the whole premium product line? Yeah, right.

If they put it in a $5,000 body they will watch more and more D800's fly off the shelf and more Canon products sitting on the shelf.  They are pricing themselves out of the midrange segment.

Although many enthusiasts might buy a big megapixel D800 for $2000 less than the rumored 1D formed big megapixel Canon; I don't think Canon would then care about the market split.  I have a couple friends who shoot medium format and neither of them would trade their hasselblads for a D800.  To them, the D800 is a gimmick and not up to par with their demands. Have you considered that a $5000+ big megapixel Canon DSLR might be aimed at medium format professionals and not enthusiasts that want to make like they have a medium format camera? If the big megapixel Canon body merges the advantages the top of the line DSLRs and meets the requirements of medium format users, wouldn't medium format professionals then have the option of using a very versatile high resolution system? A D800 can't deliver that.

Whats truly disappointing is that an old 4x5 view camera can out-resolve about any SLR camera. Its alot cheaper than a d800 too.

Sensor size is king, no serious medium format shooter will replace their 60Mp hasselblads for a D800. If anything, a better reason to invest more in the system to show the real difference's in medium format. Soon, 200MP medium format will be the norm.

2824
Lenses / Re: Which 24-70 to buy for weddings & events?
« on: June 20, 2012, 11:20:59 AM »
The reason to get the 24-70L II version is that then you don't need primes in that range because the zoom will do just as well as the primes can, supposedly.  So suppose a wedding photographer wanted a 35mm and a 50mm prime lens.  Most would probably buy the L version let's say for sake of argument, even though this might not be true.  That would run about 1399 for the 35L new, and 1499 for the 50L new.  You only get two focal lengths for 2898.  If you buy the 24-70L II zoom lens, you probably are going to get just as good of quality for weddings as the primes for 2299, saving $600, plus all the other focal lengths.  It's not a bad deal.  I have some proof at least on my end, because my 24-70L I copy was sharper than my 35L at f/2.8.  That could be lens variation though. 

And the poster who uses the 24-105L, don't count that out with a good high-ISO performer such as the 5D Mk II.  It can do it.

Your forgot the reason we shoot primes. SPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED

2825
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Pressure By the Nikon D600?
« on: June 20, 2012, 11:16:00 AM »
i don't think anybody here should be brand-loyal, unless you are paid by Canon, whoever has the product better for my use & budget, i will go for it.

agreed, I have looked at the nikon system. Its very promising but I dug alittle deeper to see If i'd REALLY Switch. What is keeping me here is the prime glass. Thats Really about it,

- Canon 135mm f/2 Performs better than the nikon 135mm f/2 DC and is a whole lot cheaper.

- Canon 50mm 1.2L performs better than any 50mm from 1.2-2.8, Which I love and Nikon doesnt quite match.

- Canon 24mmL II is alot cheaper than nikon alternative and equal IQ.

The catch is now is that canon makes up this savings over nikon with their new Bodys. Jeez, $849 for just a T4i? Seriously...

Nikons bodies are cheaper but they get you on the glass. Flash wise, nikon is alittle cheaper but canons 600RT is ridiculously priced. Almost make me want to just use PW's.

Can't switch, but with all these new bodies from nikon offering alot for less, Makes me stare at my aging 5D...

2826
Lenses / Re: Which 24-70 to buy for weddings & events?
« on: June 20, 2012, 11:06:08 AM »
I'd get the tamron, The original 24-70 is a good lens but a bit long in the tooth. The tamron is better in every way except built quality, Plus VC.

Unless you have the budget for the MK2, the tamron is the obvious choice.

2827
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Mirrorless Entry
« on: June 19, 2012, 04:34:45 PM »
Darn it Canon! you have disappointed me again! APS-C or larger!

2828
EOS Bodies / Re: More 1Dx sample shots now with 500mm F4 L II
« on: June 19, 2012, 02:54:25 PM »
Stunning ISO performance. Perhaps the D4 will have its work cut-out for it in the top tier pro camera range.

This make me want to save more and skip the 5D3 and straight into the 1Dx.

2829
Lenses / Re: Ultra-Wide options for APS-C Body
« on: June 19, 2012, 01:13:51 PM »
10-22 is a awesome lens. Very sharp and almost no distortion. Canon lenses hold there value better also

2830
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Pressure By the Nikon D600?
« on: June 19, 2012, 11:44:44 AM »
To early to comment on a rumour. You realise the Canon 6D will have the 36mps sensor from the 3D but limited to 4fps - but only cost $1500

I'll believe it when I see it. I'm just disappointed with canon not knocking it out of the park with the 5D3 and I'll continue to wait another couple of months to see some more announcements, they'd better nail it against the d600(if the rumors are true)

Oh no - not another person disatisfied with their current kit to the extent of jumping over to Nikon

PS It will be cheaper to buy a 5D3

Dissatisfied? Nah.

Disappointed? Yes, Canon can do better.

2831
Lenses / Re: Battle of the 50mm's (1.2L , ZE 1.4, ZE 2.0)
« on: June 19, 2012, 08:39:44 AM »
Hi All,
I've recently got my 5D Mark III, and got it with the kit lens, and in a months time I really want to pick up a good 50mm prime (I've come from film, and a good 50mm prime was the lens that stuck to my camera body the most), so I've narrowed it down to these three choices. I'm liking the 1.2L, as I was really quite impressed with the build quality of the 24-105 (I thought I'd hate it coming from all metal film lenses), and the fact that it has a bit of a larger aperture, and let's admit, it looks really nice too.

The other two options are both Zeiss, and I'm considering these due to their build quality (closer to what I was used to) and the fact they're manual focus only is a non issue for me, I'm quite used to it from when I shot film, and the 5D III's focusing screen is super bright, and very easy to MF in (even with the f/4 lens)

So basically, I'm just wondering what people who've maybe tried any of these lenses have thought and which you would reccomend :) I'm sure they're all fine lenses and I'll be just as happy with any, but would love to hear some opinions.

Thanks in advance all! :)




I would recommend getting a brand new Nikon 50mm 1.2 and using a Nikon to Canon AF confirm adapter.

http://www.adorama.com/NK5012.html

The Nikon 50mm 1.2 is the best 50mm lens ever made for image quality stopped down.



It's as sharp as the 50mm 1.4D is at f/2.8 at f/2.0. meaning it's "a stop sharper".

Here's a comparison between the 1.4D at f/2.8 (simulating the Nikon 50mm f/1.2 as it's not been tested by that website) and the Zeiss 50mm f/2.0 Makro which is the sharpest 50mm lens you've posted:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=637&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=727&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Simply put the Nikon 50mm 1.2 is equivalent to the following lenses at f/2.0:

Zeiss 50mm f/2.0: Would have to be at f/2.8 to be equally sharp
Zeiss 50mm f/1.4: Would have to be at f/4.0 to be equally sharp
Canon 50mm 1.2: Would have to be at f/4.0 to be equally sharp

It has substantially better image quality than any other 50mm lens out there stopped down.

With that said the Nikon 50mm 1.2 is average at f/1.2 and average at f/1.4 (there are better 1.2 and 1.4 lenses but it's not bad), it's just the best 50mm lens AT or BELOW 50mm f/2.0 and it's nice to have the abbility to go to f/1.2 even if it's second or third best at that.

On top of that the Nikon 50mm f/1.2 is built like a tank, it has better build quality than any of the lenses you listed by a huge margin, yes even the Zeiss lenses which most people can't fanthom being improved upon. It's build quality can be described as how a tank would be built if it were made by a swiss watch maker.

Anyways hope that helps.


You forgot to mention the Nikon 50mm 1.2 has the worst coma and veil haze to ever cross a 50mm design still being mass produced from f/1.2 to f/2. The canon 50L does not have those abberations from its aspherical Element. Stopped down performance at f/4 is moot, as we're using fast 50mm for low-light and wide open performance is required.

The 50L is king from 1.2-2.8 w/o abberations like the coma and veil hazing on non aspherical designs.

2832
Canon General / Re: Canon Launches Mixed Reality System
« on: June 18, 2012, 05:51:52 PM »
Canon stop designing and releasing stuff that most people do not need nor want.

Fix the 50 1.4.
Revamp the 35mmL
Make a 14-24L
Add IS to the 135L
Make your DO patents real.
Make a High MP body to compete with d800.
Release a mirror less system that doesnt suck.
Make more pancakes.



2833
Lol, I still use my ancient Novatron monolight m500's from like 2002. They just have a dial for power and HI-Low switch.

I like to chimp for studio lighting and using my histogram. Lightmeters slow me down IMO.

2834
Lenses / Re: Lens upgrade
« on: June 18, 2012, 04:09:37 PM »
The 28-135mm not a very good piece of glass. The 24-105L is a much, much better lens and you'll notice it when you pick it up the first time. Also it doesn't creep like the 28-135mm.

2835
Lenses / Re: REALLY BAD Lens Scratch
« on: June 18, 2012, 11:50:51 AM »
It depends, probably not much for a sigma.

This is why I use UV filters.

Pages: 1 ... 187 188 [189] 190 191 ... 208