New 5d Mark 3 on the way

[Captdanno]

Went from Rebel to 5d M3, big jump I know.. Camera coming today any firmware advice? I guess I need to see what version I have on camera first.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:
Was there something wrong with the bokeh in my posted sample?
It broke all the rules you have read. And it is 2 1/2 stops off your favorite.
People should start shooting and forget the numbers. Use what works.

---

It might be amusing to have people send in pictures with no Exif data and let the purists try to guess which ones were taken with a zoom lens and which ones with a prime. 

[mitch236]

You guys misinterpreted my response.  I was merely pointing out that comparing a zoom (say a 70-200 f/2.8) to a prime, the main advantage is a larger aperture (say 85 f/1.2).  I wasn't making any claims about whether that's important to anyone in particular.  But like anything, it's only important to the end user if he or she finds it useful.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@mitch236 wrote:

You guys misinterpreted my response.  I was merely pointing out that comparing a zoom (say a 70-200 f/2.8) to a prime, the main advantage is a larger aperture (say 85 f/1.2).  I wasn't making any claims about whether that's important to anyone in particular.  But like anything, it's only important to the end user if he or she finds it useful.

---

I've never used an f/1.2 lens, but I do remember when the first 50mm f/1.2 and f/1.1 lenses came out. (Canon had one and Nikon had the other; I don't recall which was which.) Reviewers judged both lenses difficult to handle, on account of their ridiculously low DOF. I sure don't remember anyone proposing to use either one of them as a portrait lens. Their value, if any, was for low light situations in an era when effective film speeds topped out at around 400. Apparently times have changed a lot.

[cale_kat]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@mitch236 wrote:

You guys misinterpreted my response.  I was merely pointing out that comparing a zoom (say a 70-200 f/2.8) to a prime, the main advantage is a larger aperture (say 85 f/1.2).  I wasn't making any claims about whether that's important to anyone in particular.  But like anything, it's only important to the end user if he or she finds it useful.

---

I've never used an f/1.2 lens, but I do remember when the first 50mm f/1.2 and f/1.1 lenses came out. (Canon had one and Nikon had the other; I don't recall which was which.) Reviewers judged both lenses difficult to handle, on account of their ridiculously low DOF. I sure don't remember anyone proposing to use either one of them as a portrait lens. Their value, if any, was for low light situations in an era when effective film speeds topped out at around 400. Apparently times have changed a lot.

---

So basically, you don't know what you're talking about....

Just saying... You haven't owned one. You're relying on the opinions of others. And you have no appreciation of fast glass.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@cale_kat wrote:

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@mitch236 wrote:

You guys misinterpreted my response.  I was merely pointing out that comparing a zoom (say a 70-200 f/2.8) to a prime, the main advantage is a larger aperture (say 85 f/1.2).  I wasn't making any claims about whether that's important to anyone in particular.  But like anything, it's only important to the end user if he or she finds it useful.

---

I've never used an f/1.2 lens, but I do remember when the first 50mm f/1.2 and f/1.1 lenses came out. (Canon had one and Nikon had the other; I don't recall which was which.) Reviewers judged both lenses difficult to handle, on account of their ridiculously low DOF. I sure don't remember anyone proposing to use either one of them as a portrait lens. Their value, if any, was for low light situations in an era when effective film speeds topped out at around 400. Apparently times have changed a lot.

---

So basically, you don't know what you're talking about....

I'd love to know how you came to that conclusion, given that I ventured no independent opinion on any subject. And since I'm old enough to remember the time frame on which my recollections were based, you might at least allow for the possibility that they're accurate.

Just saying... You haven't owned one. You're relying on the opinions of others. And you have no appreciation of fast glass.

And exactly how do you know what I think of fast glass? I said nothing against it, except for the universally accepted observation that fast lenses have low DOF. As it happens, I probably have less regard for fast glass than I did when I was shooting Tri-X on my Nikons at f/1.4, now that I can crank my 5D3 up to ISO 2000 and still get good results at f/4.

---

[mitch236]

I'm new to this forum so don't really understand why we are bickering over this.  The fact is, I haven't seen any current offering from Canon of a zoom lens that has an aperture of 1.2 (or 1.4) which you can get from Canon as a prime. My fastest zooms are 2.8.   Perhaps stating it that way you will understand my reasoning  behind the choice to buy a prime lens as opposed to buying zooms.  As for whether you think that aperture is necessary for your work is simply your opinion.

[Skirball]

---

@mitch236 wrote:

I'm new to this forum so don't really understand why we are bickering over this.  The fact is, I haven't seen any current offering from Canon of a zoom lens that has an aperture of 1.2 (or 1.4) which you can get from Canon as a prime. My fastest zooms are 2.8.   Perhaps stating it that way you will understand my reasoning  behind the choice to buy a prime lens as opposed to buying zooms.  As for whether you think that aperture is necessary for your work is simply your opinion.

---

Welcome to internet forums, where bickering and digression are expected for any discussion that goes more than 2 pages.  I'm pretty sure we covered this point by page 2, but it doesn't stop people from arguing their own agendas.  There's little correlation between what's discussed in here and what people are actually out there doing with their cameras.

[cale_kat]

---

@Skirball wrote:

---

@mitch236 wrote:

I'm new to this forum so don't really understand why we are bickering over this.  The fact is, I haven't seen any current offering from Canon of a zoom lens that has an aperture of 1.2 (or 1.4) which you can get from Canon as a prime. My fastest zooms are 2.8.   Perhaps stating it that way you will understand my reasoning  behind the choice to buy a prime lens as opposed to buying zooms.  As for whether you think that aperture is necessary for your work is simply your opinion.

---

Welcome to internet forums, where bickering and digression are expected for any discussion that goes more than 2 pages.  I'm pretty sure we covered this point by page 2, but it doesn't stop people from arguing their own agendas.  There's little correlation between what's discussed in here and what people are actually out there doing with their cameras.

---

Maybe there wouldn't be so much bickering if the "so-called" experts took less time to shove the opinions of others aside or just post nasty comments like the "keyboard photographer" comment. (BTW,  I actually like this comment because if you have about 2,000 posts, you are a "self-annointed" keyboard photographer. Ha ha.)

[Skirball]

---

@cale_kat wrote:

---

@Skirball wrote:

---

@mitch236 wrote:

I'm new to this forum so don't really understand why we are bickering over this.  The fact is, I haven't seen any current offering from Canon of a zoom lens that has an aperture of 1.2 (or 1.4) which you can get from Canon as a prime. My fastest zooms are 2.8.   Perhaps stating it that way you will understand my reasoning  behind the choice to buy a prime lens as opposed to buying zooms.  As for whether you think that aperture is necessary for your work is simply your opinion.

---

Welcome to internet forums, where bickering and digression are expected for any discussion that goes more than 2 pages.  I'm pretty sure we covered this point by page 2, but it doesn't stop people from arguing their own agendas.  There's little correlation between what's discussed in here and what people are actually out there doing with their cameras.

---

Maybe there wouldn't be so much bickering if the "so-called" experts took less time to shove the opinions of others aside or just post nasty comments like the "keyboard photographer" comment. (BTW,  I actually like this comment because if you have about 2,000 posts, you are a "self-annointed" keyboard photographer. Ha ha.)

---

You do realize that Ebiggs and I are two (very) different people, correct?

[cale_kat]

Yeah, I know the difference.