The repetition is so frakking annoying. The whole thing could have been reduced by half. He should be embarrassed.
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 would love a crop function on my 5DIII. Most of the time, I shoot in mRAW (10mp). I only switch to full RAW (22mp) when I lack the reach I need, and then crop in post. But I would much rather have the ability to crop in-camera, rather than waste all the storage space (both in-camera and after transfer).
Those light field cameras are just another means of postponing photographic decisions to the office desk. In former times you had to get it all right at the moment of the shot, now we can, thanks to raw imaging correct the exposure later, thanks to cameras like the 1DC choose the right moment later (when recording video, Canon did promote this with the term "micro expressions" google for "micro expressions canon"), now Lytro offers postponing the focusing …
Call me old fashioned, I don't like all this. Off course I also make mistakes and I am happy when I am able to correct them to some extend later on but usually I prefer to choose the right moment, the right framing, the right focus point, the right exposure and the right field of depth at the moment I take the shot.
Imagine a future where an omnidirectional viewing light field detector is mounted onto a stick which one just holds into the air during an event. This detector would then just capture everything around it in a form of a three dimensional scene movie. Later then, at the office you would sit down and have your real photo session: choosing the right moments, do the framing, setting the focus points and so on. Would that be better in any way or just a duplication of what we're already doing nowadays, only time shifted?
Repeat after me:
one nine nine
one nine nine
one nine nine
one nine nine
one nine nine
one nine nine one nine nine
one nine nine one nine nine one nine nine
one nine nine one nine nine one nine nine one nine nine
i'm pretty sure the 100L is 8 blade
as far as i know canon don't make 9 blade lenses
some are seven which are really nice like the 16-35 f2.8L II and the EF-M 22mm
7 blades renders f16 or narrower light stars really nicely on landscape shots IMO much nicer than 8 or 9
another thing to consider since budget is an issue in the OP
I bought the Sigma 35 ART, Sigma 85 1.4 and the canon 135L for the same price as a canon 85L II
i also have the 100L and personally i use the 135 alot more the extra stop is massive when you need high shutter speeds in lower light no IS on such a long length is a bit of a pain sometimes though but its bokeh is amazing and i don't think i ever stop it down
This is sad.
Does anyone else not think Canon is fully asleep at the wheel?
I'm a 1DX owner for goodness sake. Where is high MP? Where is innovative mirrorless? Where is any innovation at all?
Please spare me the "it's coming" hooey. There is very little coming. They are in turmoil internally selling into their installed base and ignoring the competition.
Don't worry, they'll come soon enough. If you can't wait, feel free to switch to Nikon. You might want to try 6D first for the meantime. It's not as high-DR/MP as the D810 but it's the best Canon can offer if you're looking for IQ/MP.
if I'm honest with myself I'd be hard pressed to think of an image that I've shot with my 5DIII that I couldn't have shot a year ago with the 7D.I have issues with your comparison.7D iso over 6400 anyone? I don't get that noise until I hit 25k on the 5D3. to each their own but my 5D3 and 7D images are night and day.
I think that's unfocused's point -- the 5D3 may be better, but maybe not for what he shoots or how he shoots it. What if he doesn't need ISO 6400, for instance?
Arias' only argument in that video that I'll back him up on: the limiting factor is usually our ability, camera know-how, composition skills, etc. and not our hardware.
That said, I do need ISO 6400 and I love my 5D3 for it.
Yes. Most of my photography falls into two categories. Things I shoot for myself for my own pleasure and personal expression and things I shoot for others. Not commercially, but generally as a favor to others who can't afford to pay (head shots for starving actors, senior pictures for kids whose families don't have a lot of money, family member portraits, etc.)
I seldom shoot over ISO 400 if I can avoid it, especially when I'm shooting for myself – which are the images I really care about. But, there have certainly been times when I have needed and appreciate the high ISO capabilities of the 5D3. But, few of those high ISO images are ever going to go in my portfolio, so what I was really referring to was the images that I am most proud of.
Just trying to bring a little perspective to things, I guess. I don't think Arias' point (nor mine) was that there is no difference between formats, but that the differences are not nearly as great as people make them out to be.
I like ZA, but this isn't his best work. In a few months, he'll look back at this and be embarrassed.
Probably embarrassed all the way to the bank.
It's quite a bit over the top, but I think his point is legitimate. People obsess over sensor size and convince ourselves that it makes a huge difference. I'm as guilty as the next person, but if I'm honest with myself I'd be hard pressed to think of an image that I've shot with my 5DIII that I couldn't have shot a year ago with the 7D.