Here’s what the anonymous grapevine has sent us over the 8 weeks
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
It doesn't need to be shot with a macro lens when you want it to look like it was shot with a portrait lens, either.
Upvote
0
As you mentioned the ef 85mm 1.8, you are probably correct, but that problem you mentioned with the hair and fabric would still be, there wouldn't it? Better to learn the old tried and true techniques and understand the theories behind why they work because even if you can afford any lens you want, you're likely to know someone who can't afford it or just isn't ready it make the investments.
Upvote
0
R1... bug after bug and almost obsolete before it's even out based on SONY and NIKON'S next gen releases from what we see as an agency.
We were a devoted Canon shop and they have literally lost millions from our agency alone since the 1DXMKII, when we saw the head fake of the R3 even with years of "Good Will" we never gave Canon another purchase.
Suckered into looking at a pre-production R1 all I can say is, "What a dissapointment"
Canon is now losing half our broadcast business too.
This drip drip drip of technology and unkept promises are too much.
In an a photo and ad agency meeting in New York last week, everyone felt the same except an agency that can't afford to do anything but repair their Canon equipment vs. better options, that are not in their budget. My guess from how many they let go in the past 1/4, they are not far from being taken over or going under.
Paris for my group will be 80% Nikon, 20% Canon. Once Paris is over, every remaining piece of Canon equipment will be sold or donated.
So keep reading about the R1, don't hold your breath... not yet... because once you get your hands on one... then you'll need to hold your breath from the stink of a job Canon is going to try and shove on to us.
We were a devoted Canon shop and they have literally lost millions from our agency alone since the 1DXMKII, when we saw the head fake of the R3 even with years of "Good Will" we never gave Canon another purchase.
Suckered into looking at a pre-production R1 all I can say is, "What a dissapointment"
Canon is now losing half our broadcast business too.
This drip drip drip of technology and unkept promises are too much.
In an a photo and ad agency meeting in New York last week, everyone felt the same except an agency that can't afford to do anything but repair their Canon equipment vs. better options, that are not in their budget. My guess from how many they let go in the past 1/4, they are not far from being taken over or going under.
Paris for my group will be 80% Nikon, 20% Canon. Once Paris is over, every remaining piece of Canon equipment will be sold or donated.
So keep reading about the R1, don't hold your breath... not yet... because once you get your hands on one... then you'll need to hold your breath from the stink of a job Canon is going to try and shove on to us.
Upvote
0
At least we now know what the R1 will look like and there's no suprises or big shocks...it's obviously looks like a 1 Series camera. Squint a bit and it looks a lot like an R3...squint a bit more and it looks like a slightly svelte 1D mk I. Or if your eye sigth is really bad...it looks like a modern iteration of the T90.
Upvote
0
Lenses with some uncorrected field curvature aren't as sharp from edge to edge when focused at the same position (you have to move the focus slightly from where the center is in sharpest focus to get the edges & corners as sharp as they can be), thus things the same distance from the camera as the eyes but on the edges are not as noticeable as with a macro lens having a high degree of flat field correction.
Upvote
0
If someone wants to save some money by shooting two different types of photos with the same lens, then they probably don't care.
Upvote
0
This is where the conversation regarding using the same lens for portraits and macros began:
Anyone considering buying an ultra high resolution R1s AND an R5, as well as a 600/5.6, probably cares less about saving, comparatively speaking, much less money on an additional lens for portraiture than about getting the best gear for a specific job. For most photographers who use a 90mm/100mm/105mm Macro for portraits, it's not primarily about saving money.
It's usually more about seeing the test charts and how the macro is "sharper" edge to edge than the "portrait" lens [but usually only at close distances when imaging flat test charts, and not so much comparing both lenses performance shooting 3D scenes at more typical portrait shooting distances than test charts are usually shot for lenses in the 90-105mm focal length range] and thinking it is thus a "better" lens than the wider aperture "portrait" lens, even though the latter has rendering characteristics actually much better suited to portraiture.
Upvote
0
Are you really too stuck up your own ass to figure it out? The joke was about Riker's name and your attitude that we are stuck doing things the same way for over thirty-five years in the past by coincidence riker's show and EOS were introduced at about the same time. Some people know glass is more important than the body and in the Dslr era (and before) bought their first L lens for a Rebel series or even earlier bodies. Judging by your other arguments, you can't understand why Neuro used a word like "fundamental" or it's meaning, as well as thinking we live in a 2-dimensional world textbook of photography where people can only follow one path of doing things. Obviously, you think you are much smarter than you really are. However, THAT IS YOUR FANTASY. If you feel insulted, I hope it will encourage you to think a little more.
Upvote
0
I have seen enough people do it and if you care about things related to the differences in the design of lenses intended for macro vs portraits, you can use an amazing number of things to diffuse the light around your subject.Well, thanks. I can't give you an equally scientific reply. I've seen macro lenses widely used for portrait, it wasn't just me. I can only say it's fine for me and you can call me undemanding.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I'm not the one who keeps arguing that there's no advantage to using a lens designed to image three-dimensional scenes instead of using a lens optimized for two-dimensional scenes on three-dimensional scenes as well. You're the one doing that.
I've never argued that glass wasn't important. In fact, I've been arguing that using the best glass for a particular use case is extremely important. You're the one that said, "If someone wants to save some money by shooting two different types of photos with the same lens, then they probably don't care." That sounds to me like you're the one who places less importance on using the most appropriate lens for a given task.
Judging by your most recent response, you're unable to comprehend any of the above.
The best macro lenses are optimized for flat field reproduction at close distances. Other lenses optimized for larger distances and to create more pleasing out of focus areas around the in focus subject perform better for shooting many three dimensional subjects, including large aperture portraits. That's just as true today as it has ever been.
There's an old saying where I come from: "The bit dog always barks the loudest."
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Well, thanks. I can't give you an equally scientific reply. I've seen macro lenses widely used for portrait, it wasn't just me. I can only say it's fine for me and you can call me undemanding.
I've also seen plenty of folks use macros for portraits. I've also seen their results. For head shots at f/8 with the subject in front of a blurry backdrop they do as well as anything else. For wide aperture portraiture they can be quite lacking compared to lenses that are optimized for that task.
Shoot what you want. Defend your choice as being "just as good" if it makes you feel better.
Upvote
0
I never said there was no advantage. I said some people are going to choose another option. learn to read
Upvote
0