Fantastic deal! Congratulations.
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.
OK, this is an update; the fall season just ended.
For the most part I used the borrowed 100-400 with the 6D and during the daytime it was a great combination. For night games I put he 70-200 ii on and let the action come to me.
I did rent a 300 2.8 and it was a lot better...even took pictures at night but I don't have that kind of cash.
I did try to have two cameras going occasionally but it never worked for me. (though it does improve the chances of going anywhere you want on the field without anyone bothering you).
I'm sure a new 100-400 when it comes out will be great...it will also be 2500 and I can likely get a used 100-400 for 1000.
Here's a panoramic shot with the 40mm. Sunrise at Flamborough Head on the Eastern coast of England.
This is just my opinion, but I think that a large part of the allure of the micro 4/3 cameras is the small size. If Canon is to compete with the EOS-M they need to keep it small, and going FF means it is going to be fairly close in size to the 6D....
The A7 and A7r I really don't get however. If you just want 30+ MP and/or greater DR than Canon offers, buy a D800(E). At least you will have a large selection of lenses available and know the manufacturer won't abandon you by moving on to a new lens mount or IBIS in a few months.
Maybe because with the D800 you have to commit to 100% swapping systems right now. Give up the better Canon video, the Canon 24-70 II and 17 and 24 T&S and 70-300L and MPE, nicer UI, etc. With the A7R you don't.
If you are a Canon user you are getting it for the MP/DR for landscapes most likely. You are not replacing your 5D3 or 1DX or 7D with this, it's a supplement. A hack to get the DR Canon refuses to deliver to so far.
my point is, I can't foresee anyone clutching onto their 24-70 f/2.8 II when IS version inevitably comes out - even if the IS version is slightly less sharp due to the difference in optics (which usually isn't the case, even if it happened once in the past). Reason, because I think pretty much everyone would like the *option* of IS if it is there. It is useful even at normal focal lengths, not just tele.
I just don't get mirrorless. Well...I sorta do...I kinda get Fuji mirrorless, but that's about it.
I don't get interchangeable lenses on a mirrorless. If I want a smaller, fake Leica body I'd want a single, fixed lens moderate zoom (24mm-100mm for example). I'm not going to use a 200mm 2.8 lens on a mirrorless camera, much less a 70-300 or 100-400 zoom. No point. I'd rather pay a little more, get a stellar zoom that I can use under all conditions and save the interchangeable lenses for the DSLR, which is a lot more practical form factor for changing lenses.
This is when I truely appreciate the body size of my RX1 and X100s
I'll take A7 FF mirrorles and Zeiss lenses in this case
I doubt that an A7 with the 24-70 is smaller or lighter than my existing setup so it would end up as an even more expensive paperweight.
"If you demand performance there's a better option than DSLR"
"Faster than a DSLR - With 8.6 fps continuous shooting the NX300 lets you capture the moments within the moment with a series of brilliantly clear stills"
"Quicker Auto focus - A hybrid AF (auto focus) system combines phase and contrast detection for faster and more accurate auto focusing.
Is it possible that there'll be a crop-sensor camera in the future that will get rave image quality reviews or is that where full-frame comes in and it's just best to place much more importance on lens selection?
Comparing the two systems brings to a very disappointing conclusion: the 6D sports an AF sensor which is only marginally better than a 3 years old camera costing 1/4 of its price, and in some ways even less capable of the AF sensor built into an entry level dslr costing 1/3: the 650D sports 9 cross-type points up to f/5.6, sensitivity -0.5 to 18 EV.
I know, that central AF point is really good, but still, i'm not very excited about spending 1400€ (after mail in rebates) on a camera with great AF performance in the center, and the same AF system of my 3 years old entry level dslr on other points.
If you have both the 24-70 II and the 24-105, the 24-105 will be sold, it's only a question of time ...
In your case you might want to look at the 24-70 f/4 IS. It has the sharpness of the 24-70 II, with better IS than the 24-105. But, it is overpriced at the moment for sure as its now a 5diii kit lens. Probably will be in the $1000 range in 3-6 months.
many forum users here and elsewhere keep bashing the outer AF points. I'm really confused.
What about the outer AF points? Have you tried to use them with a fast prime? Are they really that bad?