I want to win!
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.
This is a purely hypothetical question but I'm guessing many of you have thought about it once or twice.
I'm curious if anyone else would consider a DSLR designed, dedicated and optimized solely for still photography worthwhile / desirable?
Quite simply: If you could get better still images from a camera without video, would you buy it?
- Would you buy it instead of a hybrid model with video features if it produced better still images?
- Would you buy it if the images were the same but it was designed differently for still photography use?
Does anyone else think compromises might exist in hybrid DSLR designs in order to offer HD video on the same sensor?
- Would a sensor designed for dedicated still photography perhaps offer better specs, IQ, sensitivity, speed, [insert other perceived benefit here]?
- How much better would a dedicated still photography camera perform if it didn't have to produce video as well?
- Would the CPU, processing and firmware possibly be less complex, more efficient and stable?
- Would the control layout and ergonomics, menus, etc be easier to use and offer more versatility and/or control?
- Is it possible that video features have delayed R&D while engineers work out new challenges due to the hybrid designs?
- Do you think video increases the price of the camera? Is it logical to think a dedicated still camera might cost slightly less while still offering better images?
Just thought I would throw it out there to chew on. Might make an interesting discussion. Thanks for your time.
That is why "most" shoot raw. so they can adjust everything in post.This is not true. Red and the Blackmagic cinema cameras shoot in RAW and they also shoot very flat. I am interested in a knowledgable answer to this question too, as I want to expand the dynamic range of my DSLRs.
Same is true for video if raw is a option then there is no need for cinestyles.
Just about to pull the trigger on a 5D Mk III to replace my 40D as main body.
I currently have a couple of Sandisk Extreme 60mb/s 8gb cards.
I was thinking of getting a 32GB for the 5D Mk III. And hope to use it for both stills and video capture.
So do I just get a Sandisk Extreme 60mb/s 32gb card or would i be better advised to pay extra now for a Extreme Pro 90mb/s ? Is the extra cost really worth it? Will I be dissapointed with the performance of the 60mb/s cards? Or how about going all out and getting a Lexar Professional 1000x card? Are these as reliable as Sandisk?
So many questions
+1 for the statement, but -1 for research: Unfortunately the 6d has *not* the 1dx/5d3 center af point (double-cross @f2., it doesn't even have the 60d/650d/... single-cross point) - it's the same as the 5d2!
It actually has a cross type sensor with improved sensitivity to -3EV compared to the 5D2's -2EV. So it is not the same as the 5D2. Until someone gets their hands on the camera and compares the AF who can say how it will perform?
It will also be interesting to see if it has the improved focus control for the new lenses that Roger has documented.
This is a feature of the 5D3 and 1DX that Canon's marketing departmnet is failing to exploit. With the new lenses the phase detect AF of the camera is as accurate as the contrast detect.
OK guys, help me spend $3000.
I've got a 1D3 together with:
24/3.5L II TSE
I'm going to "finish" my lens collection first then add a FF body at some point (5D2?). I'll probably get a couple of 600EX flashes too, but my 430EX on a cord works OK for the moment.
I think between the 17-40 and 70-200 I've got walkabouts sorted. I love fast glass but only have the 50/1.8. Most of my shooting is of the family (young kids) but I'd like to get into portraits at some point. I've just returned two Sigma 50/1.4s which front-focused even with +20 MA so my confidence is knocked with Sigma - shame as they were otherwise great lenses. The shortlist is:
85/1.2L II $2000
I've pretty much discounted the 135/2 since it's too tight on a APS-H, and my 100/2.8 kind of fills that role. I like the idea of covering 35 and 85, and making do with my 50/1.8 until Canon manage to produce a decent 50mm lens. The 35/1.4L and 85/1.2L II would blow my budget slightly but the results look great! Alternatively I could downgrade to the 85/1.8 and buy two 600EXs and a STE3.
I'd welcome your thoughts - have I missed anything?
I've had my 40mm f2.8 STM Pancake for a few weeks now. It's barely left my camera. I love it.
I'm seriously wondering if I'll ever use my 50mm f1.4 again - ?
OK, the 50mm is faster but I reckon the IQ from the 40mm is better. Plus, there's something about the 40mm that just 'works' for me.
Basically I wondering what other 40mm users think?
(I'm also thinking about selling my 50mm to fund the 135mm L, so I need a bit of convincing please!).
All of Canons 50mm lenses lack something, maybe except for the 1.2L (which is in turn quite expensive).
The 1.4 is built way under par, and the dramatic difference between image center and corners makes it
easy to hate it. The 1.8 is an insult in its build quality, and the optically well performing 2.5 compact macro
is in desperate need of a better drive.
So yes, there is a lot of need for a new 50mm.
I still have a 1.8/50mm MkI, and I have the 2.5/50 compact macro.
The 1.8 is good enough for low light, and the 2.5 is good for general work.
Both are way from perfect.
1.8/50 with the mechanical build quality of the 1.2L at a price point of 350 USD or below would be a no-brainer.
Let's see what canon comes up with.