• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

A couple portraits...

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Can I request that those of you with that annoying sidebar 'gay' arguement request your parents sign up for retro-active birth control?

Thank you.
 
Originally posted by: OdiN
Originally posted by: Soccerman06
Originally posted by: OdiN
Originally posted by: Soccerman06
My puppy is cuter

:heart:
Click to expand...

Lies.

Probably because I don't like dogs.
Click to expand...

How do you not like dogs?
Click to expand...

Because they are annoying, worthless, messy, dirty, slobbery, poor excuses for pets.

They are barely withstandable if kept outside where they belong.
Click to expand...

You do realize your going to hell for that statement right?
 
I also have the 100mm Macro 😀

Great lens, but not as 'crispy' as the 50mm.

Next purchase though is a 5D. I'm sick of APS style viewfinders. Can't see sh^t.
 
Odin,
Is that the close focusing of that lens? Or is it with a 500d (or similar) close up filter?
My Sigma 70-200 is freakishly sharp for a Sigma, but I'm not sure if it can get that close without help.
 
Originally posted by: Soccerman06
You do realize your going to hell for that statement right?
Click to expand...

No I'm not. It's just my opinion. If you like em, which you obviously do, I've got no problem with that.
 
Originally posted by: foghorn67
Odin,
Is that the close focusing of that lens? Or is it with a 500d (or similar) close up filter?
My Sigma 70-200 is freakishly sharp for a Sigma, but I'm not sure if it can get that close without help.
Click to expand...

That's about as close as I could get to the subject with that lens. No close-up filter.

Focusint distance is something like 3ish feet minimum. But then you can zoom in. This was at 125mm.
 
Originally posted by: spikespiegal
I also shoot a lot of shots with my 50mm f/1.4 prime. It's about a $300 lens. It doesn't zoom, but offers some of the sharpest results of any of my lenses,
Click to expand...

I have the same lens for my 10D and love it. My 50mm 2.5 Canon Macro was a hair sharper, but the 1.4 is faster and brighter.

I disagree with your comments about lenses. The Sensor on a 10D/20D/30D is much smaller than a 35mm film SLR, and unfortunatley most of Canon's lenses were designed for the larger frame.

The smaller image area on Canon's 10/20/30D is a lot tougher on lenses, and in particular makes their lens kits perform like junk.

BTW - nice cat pics. Contrast and tonality are perfect. Those disagreeing need to get their monitor calibrated.
Click to expand...

What don't you agree with?

And actually the reverse is true. The smaller sensor size is actually easier on lenses and more forgiving because it only uses the center of the lens, which is usually better than the edges. On a full frame camera, you will run into sharpness falloff and light falloff on the edges, particularly corners, unless you have a good lens.
 
Originally posted by: OdiN
Originally posted by: Soccerman06
Originally posted by: OdiN
Originally posted by: Soccerman06
My puppy is cuter

:heart:
Click to expand...

Lies.

Probably because I don't like dogs.
Click to expand...

How do you not like dogs?
Click to expand...

Because they are annoying, worthless, messy, dirty, slobbery, poor excuses for pets.

They are barely withstandable if kept outside where they belong.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup: I agree! Cats > all > dogs.

BTW Beautiful pics man!
 
On a full frame camera, you will run into sharpness falloff and light falloff on the edges, particularly corners, unless you have a good lens.
Click to expand...

This is obviously somebody talking who's never used a full frame dSLR like I have, and never used a film camera bigger than 35mm.

I honestly don't give a sh^t about vignetting at the edges of my frame because the middle two thirds will have 1/2 the pixels density in a full frame dSLR than an APS. Case in point, the $1,000 28-70 2.8L Canon I used on both a 1Ds and a 20D, and was a piece of junk on the 20D because of it's smaller sensor. It was a much better lens on the 1Ds because the sensor was bigger and pixel density was lower. Lenses have finite optical quality, and unfortunatley Canon hasn't upgraded their older lens designs to accomodate the smaller sensors like Nikon is doing.

I also own a 4x5 view camera and several 6x7 RBs. The bigger the film/sensor format, the crappier the lens can be. If you've bought into the smaller sensor / better lens quality myth (usually promoted on Nikon and Olympus forums), then an even smaller sensor such as those used on point -n- shoot digital cameras would be better yet. Care to argue that one?

Some of the fixed Canon lenses I've used like the 24mm 2.8 had so much chromatic aberation on my 10D I refused to use it. According to you, a smaller sensor would fix the problem.

I should note I found no image quality difference when I compared Canon zooms used on a 20D to my fixed 50mm on my 10D. That's because the sensor is degrading lens quality greater than the increased sensor density on the 20D.
 
Originally posted by: spikespiegal
On a full frame camera, you will run into sharpness falloff and light falloff on the edges, particularly corners, unless you have a good lens.
Click to expand...

This is obviously somebody talking who's never used a full frame dSLR like I have, and never used a film camera bigger than 35mm.

I honestly don't give a sh^t about vignetting at the edges of my frame because the middle two thirds will have 1/2 the pixels density in a full frame dSLR than an APS. Case in point, the $1,000 28-70 2.8L Canon I used on both a 1Ds and a 20D, and was a piece of junk on the 20D because of it's smaller sensor. It was a much better lens on the 1Ds because the sensor was bigger and pixel density was lower. Lenses have finite optical quality, and unfortunatley Canon hasn't upgraded their older lens designs to accomodate the smaller sensors like Nikon is doing.

I also own a 4x5 view camera and several 6x7 RBs. The bigger the film/sensor format, the crappier the lens can be. If you've bought into the smaller sensor / better lens quality myth (usually promoted on Nikon and Olympus forums), then an even smaller sensor such as those used on point -n- shoot digital cameras would be better yet. Care to argue that one?

Some of the fixed Canon lenses I've used like the 24mm 2.8 had so much chromatic aberation on my 10D I refused to use it. According to you, a smaller sensor would fix the problem.

I should note I found no image quality difference when I compared Canon zooms used on a 20D to my fixed 50mm on my 10D. That's because the sensor is degrading lens quality greater than the increased sensor density on the 20D.
Click to expand...
price points??? 5d's and the 1ds Mk II's are pricey. And they loose value. A good 'L' lens will only drop a few percentage points.
Why so hostile?
 
Because I'm sick of 20D/30D users defending Canon and their junk lenses. Some of the 'L' series Canon glass I've used I woulnd't pay $10 for.

In order to get better quality images I need to either move to a 5D, or move to Nikon. Nikon uses APS sensors to, but unlike Canon, they are designing their lenses for the smaller sensor and not pushing 20yr old designs.
 
Originally posted by: spikespiegal
Because I'm sick of 20D/30D users defending Canon and their junk lenses. Some of the 'L' series Canon glass I've used I woulnd't pay $10 for.

In order to get better quality images I need to either move to a 5D, or move to Nikon. Nikon uses APS sensors to, but unlike Canon, they are designing their lenses for the smaller sensor and not pushing 20yr old designs.
Click to expand...

Umm, Canon does have EF-S lenses. They also have other L series zooms that start at 17mm. Junk lenses? Right, that's why they hold retail value better then any other AF lens series.
And Canon has the only Full Frame DSLR's. And you don't like APS-C? And you hate Canon.😕
 
Originally posted by: OdiN
Originally posted by: archcommus
Can I ask an honest question? I know nothing about photography but I hear people on here rave about lenses all the time. What's so special/important about the lens? What does a $600 lens do differently than the small one that comes in a standard digital camera?
Click to expand...

The photographer makes the image, not the lens or the camera. Better equipment can make a particular job easier, but I heard a story from a guy once about a photo class. The instructor led a field trip for students to take pictures. They all had their SLR's, and the instructor used a disposable kodak or something. Several of his pictures turned out better than anything the students took. He knew his limits, and had to stay within them, which made it harder to take photos because he couldn't take what the camera wasn't able to properly expose, but he made a point that the camera isn't the most critical thing.

Now, the lens that I took this with is a $1700 lens. The reason I needed this lens is because it can shoot in low light. It has a 2.8 aperture through the whole zoom range and Image Stabilizer.

So if I'm shooting a wedding in a darker lit church, I can shoot at ISO 1600, 2.8, and 1/30th of a second, handheld, and still get a good sharp shot because of the IS. It just wouldn't be possible to shoot in that situation otherwise (without flash). That's a case where the lens is needed, and the cost justified.

I've seen some really great photos with the 18-55 Canon kit lens. If you know the limitations of it you can work around them and produce excellent images.

You just have to research and find good quality lenses which are not as expensive. Such as the Tamron 28-75mm Di XR LD - it's about $350ish, but has excellent optics and a 2.8 aperture though the whole range.

So to answer the question, the more expensive lenses usually are "faster" which means they have a lower f/number (aperture - the smaller the number, the larger the opening). They also usually are able to use the same lower aperture through the whole zoom range, while less expensive zooms must use a higher aperture number (smaller opening) at the long end of the zoom. The smaller the opening, the less light you can let into the lens which means you are limiting yourself as far as what conditions you can shoot in. You can still shoot indoors with not a lot of light, but you have to use flash. Sometimes in weddings, flashes are not allowed.

So there are many reasons why the more expensive lenses are needed - depending on what type of work you do. I have to spend the money. I do portraits and weddings and such, and my results need to be good. My 70-200 (the one I shot these with) allows me to shoot in low light without flash, as well as be unobtrusive. I can zoom in and catch details of a wedding without being right in everyone's face.

I also shoot a lot of shots with my 50mm f/1.4 prime. It's about a $300 lens. It doesn't zoom, but offers some of the sharpest results of any of my lenses, and lets me get a tiny, thin DOF @ 1.4 for creative shots. Canon also makes a 50mm f/1.8 prime which is under $100, and can also take amazing shots.

So no you don't need expensive lenses to take good photos. But they can help an already good creative posing and composition/exposure of photos by getting sharper and more properly color saturated results.

Bottom line is just that the photographer has to know the limits of the equipment, and be able to work within those limits. If he/she can do that, then some awesome pictures can be had.
Click to expand...
Thanks. 🙂 So that's pretty much why for typical shooting settings (i.e. in bright light, indoors/outside, where flash is allowed, basically anywhere a normal person like me would take a picture) anything above and beyond a standard stock lens isn't really required.

Good info.

 
Originally posted by: OdiN
Originally posted by: aidanjm
they are hardly "the world's best". lol.

great photography is about seeing things differently. seeing things other people don't see.

that is not something that you - a fundamentalist christian homophobe - are capable of. you're too brain washed, too full of hatred.

this is why your work is - and always will be - mediocre and uninspired.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Galen Rowell is one of the best landscape photographers who ever lived. The same goes for Ansel Adams.

And here you go calling me a homophobe again - which is ridiculously untrue. Brainwashed eh? Bullshit.

You're such a fvcking tool. It's amazing that even you probably are so screwed up in the head that you probably believe your own bullshit.

I also see that you can't seem to even name "the world's best" - but you insist you know who they are, and you know that they are gay.

So anyway, go back to sucking cock - that's probably the only thing you're good at.

You obviously don't know anything about photography.
Click to expand...

My definition of a great photographer would be someone who changed the course of popular culture, or changed the way people look at themselves. That is not Galen Rowel or Ansel Adams, who at the end of the day are just producing technically competent hoiliday snaps. People Andy Warhol, Robert Mapplethorpe, Diane Arbus, even contemporary commercial photographers like Bruce Weber, changed the course of our popular culture. That is greatness. It's hardly surprising that the greatest, are or were gay men or women. Outsiders. Freaks. People who see things in a different view.

Your work - is "blah". The best you will do - tacky wedding photos and snaps of pet cats. This is a function of who you are - unimaginative, conventional, empty headed, brain washed, stupid, hateful.

 
Originally posted by: spikespiegal
On a full frame camera, you will run into sharpness falloff and light falloff on the edges, particularly corners, unless you have a good lens.
Click to expand...

This is obviously somebody talking who's never used a full frame dSLR like I have, and never used a film camera bigger than 35mm.

I honestly don't give a sh^t about vignetting at the edges of my frame because the middle two thirds will have 1/2 the pixels density in a full frame dSLR than an APS. Case in point, the $1,000 28-70 2.8L Canon I used on both a 1Ds and a 20D, and was a piece of junk on the 20D because of it's smaller sensor. It was a much better lens on the 1Ds because the sensor was bigger and pixel density was lower. Lenses have finite optical quality, and unfortunatley Canon hasn't upgraded their older lens designs to accomodate the smaller sensors like Nikon is doing.

I also own a 4x5 view camera and several 6x7 RBs. The bigger the film/sensor format, the crappier the lens can be. If you've bought into the smaller sensor / better lens quality myth (usually promoted on Nikon and Olympus forums), then an even smaller sensor such as those used on point -n- shoot digital cameras would be better yet. Care to argue that one?

Some of the fixed Canon lenses I've used like the 24mm 2.8 had so much chromatic aberation on my 10D I refused to use it. According to you, a smaller sensor would fix the problem.

I should note I found no image quality difference when I compared Canon zooms used on a 20D to my fixed 50mm on my 10D. That's because the sensor is degrading lens quality greater than the increased sensor density on the 20D.
Click to expand...

First it looks like you're a Noink fanboy from your post below. Second you don't know what you are talking about.

I'll answer your statements here...

#1 - Yes I have used full frame. I have used some medium format, but not a lot.

#2 - So you don't care about the vignetting at the edges? Well you should. Are you content to just throw away parts of your picture? I'm sorry, but if I have the pixels, I would rather use them and get a larger final print size than toss away 1/3rd of the picture as you claim.

I don't know about the 28-70 2.8L, but I have used the 24-70 2.8L on a 20D and gotten excellent results.

Canon has many lenses that are accomodating the smaller sensors. Take a look at the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS that is recently released.

#3 - I never said that a smaller sensor was better. I was simply saying that it's less demanding of the lens, especially in the corner areas, vs. a full frame sensor. You might be able to get away with a lesser quality wide angle on a smaller sensor size, vs. a larger sensor size.

#4 - Where did I even mention chromatic aberration, or state that a smaller sensor has anything to do with CA issues?

#5 - A fixed 50mm is going to provide better quality than a zoom, so you're kinda comparing apples to oranges here. I've used my 50mm on both my 10D and my 20D and it's better on the 20D.
 
Originally posted by: spikespiegal
Because I'm sick of 20D/30D users defending Canon and their junk lenses. Some of the 'L' series Canon glass I've used I woulnd't pay $10 for.

In order to get better quality images I need to either move to a 5D, or move to Nikon. Nikon uses APS sensors to, but unlike Canon, they are designing their lenses for the smaller sensor and not pushing 20yr old designs.
Click to expand...

Nikon's sensors are inferior to Canon currently. Their high ISO noise is not nearly as good as Canon. Nikon has NO full frame cameras, vs. Canon who has the 5D and the 1Ds MkII.

That's also making your other argument about Nikon making lenses for the smaller sensors rather moot.....it's because NONE of their cameras have a full frame sensor so they don't need to design lenses to accomodate them.

I've shot with both Nikon and Canon and I prefer Canon's image quality and lenses. I'm not saying Nikon lenses are junk. They have some excellent glass. But so does Canon.

I'm thinking that perhaps you don't know what you are doing. You're attacking Canon and their lenses because you don't know how to use them. That's not Canon's fault.

Did you ever think that maybe a particular L lens that you were using wasn't quite calibrated right? It happens. Send it in to CPS and have it calibrated - or perhaps there was a calibration problem with your camera. Did you ever send them in to CPS for checking out?
 
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: OdiN
Originally posted by: aidanjm
they are hardly "the world's best". lol.

great photography is about seeing things differently. seeing things other people don't see.

that is not something that you - a fundamentalist christian homophobe - are capable of. you're too brain washed, too full of hatred.

this is why your work is - and always will be - mediocre and uninspired.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Galen Rowell is one of the best landscape photographers who ever lived. The same goes for Ansel Adams.

And here you go calling me a homophobe again - which is ridiculously untrue. Brainwashed eh? Bullshit.

You're such a fvcking tool. It's amazing that even you probably are so screwed up in the head that you probably believe your own bullshit.

I also see that you can't seem to even name "the world's best" - but you insist you know who they are, and you know that they are gay.

So anyway, go back to sucking cock - that's probably the only thing you're good at.

You obviously don't know anything about photography.
Click to expand...

My definition of a great photographer would be someone who changed the course of popular culture, or changed the way people look at themselves. That is not Galen Rowel or Ansel Adams, who at the end of the day are just producing technically competent hoiliday snaps. People Andy Warhol, Robert Mapplethorpe, Diane Arbus, even contemporary commercial photographers like Bruce Weber, changed the course of our popular culture. That is greatness. It's hardly surprising that the greatest, are or were gay men or women. Outsiders. Freaks. People who see things in a different view.

Your work - is "blah". The best you will do - tacky wedding photos and snaps of pet cats. This is a function of who you are - unimaginative, conventional, empty headed, brain washed, stupid, hateful.
Click to expand...

You obviously know nothing about art or photography at all. Your definition is meaningless. To call Ansel Adams or Galen Rowell's work "technically competent holiday snaps" just shows to what degree your incopetence and misunderstanding goes to.

You're calling Robert Mapplethorpe a great photographer. Well I don't think that taking pictures of a guy bent over with another guy's arm halfway up his ass is good photography. Nor is shoving cables or other paraphanelia in some guys ass and taking a picture of it. But I can see why you like him.

Oh and thanks for the insults. Those were great.

If my art is "blah" and I need to take photos of someone with a chair stuffed up his ass for it to be interesting to you, well then I guess you won't ever find my work interesting.
 
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: OdiN
Originally posted by: aidanjm
they are hardly "the world's best". lol.

great photography is about seeing things differently. seeing things other people don't see.

that is not something that you - a fundamentalist christian homophobe - are capable of. you're too brain washed, too full of hatred.

this is why your work is - and always will be - mediocre and uninspired.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Galen Rowell is one of the best landscape photographers who ever lived. The same goes for Ansel Adams.

And here you go calling me a homophobe again - which is ridiculously untrue. Brainwashed eh? Bullshit.

You're such a fvcking tool. It's amazing that even you probably are so screwed up in the head that you probably believe your own bullshit.

I also see that you can't seem to even name "the world's best" - but you insist you know who they are, and you know that they are gay.

So anyway, go back to sucking cock - that's probably the only thing you're good at.

You obviously don't know anything about photography.
Click to expand...

My definition of a great photographer would be someone who changed the course of popular culture, or changed the way people look at themselves. That is not Galen Rowel or Ansel Adams, who at the end of the day are just producing technically competent hoiliday snaps. People Andy Warhol, Robert Mapplethorpe, Diane Arbus, even contemporary commercial photographers like Bruce Weber, changed the course of our popular culture. That is greatness. It's hardly surprising that the greatest, are or were gay men or women. Outsiders. Freaks. People who see things in a different view.

Your work - is "blah". The best you will do - tacky wedding photos and snaps of pet cats. This is a function of who you are - unimaginative, conventional, empty headed, brain washed, stupid, hateful.
Click to expand...

that's your gay definition of a great photgrapher. Again, the world considers Adams a great photographer, not mapplethorpe.
 
Originally posted by: torpid
Well, that puts to shame the photos I was previously proud of that I took of my cats... now I feel that mine are quite pathetic. Thanks a lot, JERK!!! 😛

http://shim1.shutterfly.com/procgserv/4...3127cce98548efde40100000017109KcuXDRrw

http://shim1.shutterfly.com/procgserv/4...3127cce98548ee1f65f00000027109KcuXDRrw

http://shim1.shutterfly.com/procgserv/4...3127cce98548ecd67e400000037109KcuXDRrw
Click to expand...

haha, no problem 😉

They aren't the easiest little guys to take pictures of though. Won't really do what you want all the time.
 
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: OdiN
Originally posted by: aidanjm
they are hardly "the world's best". lol.

great photography is about seeing things differently. seeing things other people don't see.

that is not something that you - a fundamentalist christian homophobe - are capable of. you're too brain washed, too full of hatred.

this is why your work is - and always will be - mediocre and uninspired.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Galen Rowell is one of the best landscape photographers who ever lived. The same goes for Ansel Adams.

And here you go calling me a homophobe again - which is ridiculously untrue. Brainwashed eh? Bullshit.

You're such a fvcking tool. It's amazing that even you probably are so screwed up in the head that you probably believe your own bullshit.

I also see that you can't seem to even name "the world's best" - but you insist you know who they are, and you know that they are gay.

So anyway, go back to sucking cock - that's probably the only thing you're good at.

You obviously don't know anything about photography.
Click to expand...

My definition of a great photographer would be someone who changed the course of popular culture, or changed the way people look at themselves. That is not Galen Rowel or Ansel Adams, who at the end of the day are just producing technically competent hoiliday snaps. People Andy Warhol, Robert Mapplethorpe, Diane Arbus, even contemporary commercial photographers like Bruce Weber, changed the course of our popular culture. That is greatness. It's hardly surprising that the greatest, are or were gay men or women. Outsiders. Freaks. People who see things in a different view.

Your work - is "blah". The best you will do - tacky wedding photos and snaps of pet cats. This is a function of who you are - unimaginative, conventional, empty headed, brain washed, stupid, hateful.
Click to expand...

LOL

So, with how flaming a homosexual you are, you must be the best motherfvcking photographer in the Milky Way galaxy.

Seriously, get a grip. This isn't a gay world no matter how hard you want it to be, no pun intended.
 
Originally posted by: aidanjm
My definition of a great photographer would be...
Click to expand...
I cut out all the other babble from your post, because the first 8 words were the most important. Read them again, and tell me exactly why you are bashing another man's definition of a great photographer. Why are you entitled to your opinion and he not to his?

Asshat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top