other. EF 16-35/4 L IS
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.
I feel an envy of friends users of Nikon is 17-55mm F2.8 DX made bulletproof. The optical quality is not great, but the mechanical strength makes me ashamed of Canon 17-55mm. I do not question the name "L", just give me the build quality similar to Nikon, and I will be happy.
Last year, a friend who's a pro wedding/event photographer was looking to update her pair of D700 bodies. It was recommended that she get the D600 over the D800, with an acknowledgement that neither was really a good replacement for the D700. The source of that recommendation? Nikon Professional Services.
The Linda camera bag, complete with EOS 100D White will be available from Harrods and Selfridges on from early November 2014 for £1,200.
From Canon is said, that the next M... Camera will be much better, around 24MP and faster at AF. Some say, the AF system of the 70D will be built in. Price much higher than the exisitng M2.
Add choice to the poll for "only if mirrorless". Plus Canon can make mirrored and mirrorless versions.
It would be so much more ideal to just have Canon deliver the goods...a kick-ass sensor paired with their wonderful ergonomics and all the lenses I already own.
Thought for you guys: how much of this 'problem' with Canon being so far behind is due to the rising prevalance of Photoshop and significant amounts of post processing?
I have never been huge on all the PS work that a lot of folks do to their work. To me I like pictures that look like what you saw when you took them. But, that's me.
Still, because one can do so many kinds of things in PS, it seems like at some point we have started to measure cameras against how far they allow you to take PS. PS has become where the image is created, and not the camera. The cart is before the horse, no?
Just food for thought.
I post-process every image, and that's because I like the final result to look like it looked to me. The out-of-camera JPEG or default raw conversion rarely looks like that.
That's exactly what I was about to say. Postprocessing is usually essential (to my eye) to get an image that resembles what I saw.
I think you guys are probably in the minority. I read "I want it to look like what I saw" quite often, but then the people writing it load up their flickr streams with razor-thin DOF and desaturated images, water blurred to a fog and polarized skies. Things I have personally never seen in real life.