...an 18-135 compact zoom
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.
...an 18-135 compact zoom
Fix that AF & bring out FF.
If you count the Crop factor, sure why not? afterall, 300mm FOV isn't that tele.
Ah...so crop factor applied to focal length, not just FoV? You must be in some weird, Star Trek-ian mirrored universe where the normal laws of optical physics don't apply. Say "Hi" to evil Mr. Spock while you're there...
Just imagine a world where 35mm didn't exist and only M4/3 did. Then we'd all be saying how 150mm is very tele and unless I'm mistaken, 150mm on m4/3 is pretty tele.
Context is important, but since everyone shoots 35mm, I just put it in those terms. Eh Neuro?
...I just can't imagine being able to find an E mount lens in 10 years time, or an f2.8 telezoom just now.
Full frame lenses have an advantage not because of pixel density per se, but because when you view the final image at a given output size the FF image does not need to be magnified as much.
A 40-something MP full frame camera (i.e. with the same pixel size as the 7d) with the 17-40 would show the same qualitative results compared to the 10-22 on the 7d (and might actually have slightly better resolution due to increased pixel density, though this effect would be small near the corners as the blur from the lens dominates).
It is nothing but a bunch of gearhead whiners crying because "theirs" ain't the biggest this week.
I think it is more that people look at the improvements Nikon has delivered and the price point at which they have delivered and when they look at Canon they're left thinking "WTF am I buying Canon?"QuoteAsk yourself this: have you ever been able to walk through a gallery and point out which camera shot which photo? If the stuff was as bad as some of these idiots claim, nobody would use it.
Most of the time you don't need to because it is written underneath the artwork.QuoteSomething else you might want to ask yourself: If this Sony technology is such a "game changer" why hasn't the game changed? Where are the stunning examples of what can be done? Why do we continue to see shots of the back of lens caps, mediocre landscape shots with shadows lifted 5 stops just to prove a point? Where are the game changing photographs from this so-called game changing technology?
To pick one gallery, that exhibiting the work of the principal behind www.luminous-landscape.com, I imagine that the work being displayed has changed over time from being dominated by Canon sourced material to Sony/Nikon material if what he displays on the web is anything to go buy (and the fact that he no longer owns any Canon DSLRs.) Information about his gallery is at:
If you read enough of the essays from professional photographers that write for the above mentioned website then you start to realise that Canon no longer features like it used to as a tool used by artists, never mind photojournalists, etc.
I would think that what he finds disturbing is the fact that DXO rate the D800 sensor much higher than the 5D, but then say;
" 'half a mo, when we put a lens on it we're not so sure".......
Show me where their sensor measurements include sharpness as a tested parameter. Show me where the above article incorporates the measures they do use for sensors (DR, color depth, ISO noise) in the P-Mpix measurement used for the plot?
It's like they reported data on two people, one being 180 cm tall and the other being 160 cm tall, and you find it disturbing when they later report that the 160 cm person weighs 90 kg while the 180 cm person weighs 75 kg. You assumed the taller person would weigh more, and you're 'disturbed' when the data don't fit your assumptions. The problem is your false assumptions, not the reported data.
I think they fall victim of their own undocumented P-Mpix metric....
It's simple. The D800 has a better sensor than the 5DIII. Canon, in aggregate and on average, has better lenses than Nikon (in terms of sharpness, at least). The resolution we care about is the system performance = sensor + lens. So, while the D800 has a better sensor than the 5DIII, once you slap a lens on both cameras and take pictures, the resolution differences are a wash (on average across a large set of lenses, obviously specific lenses will vary). I and others have made statements to that effect before, DxO is just quantifying those statements.
I don't have a pony in this race but wouldn't it be fairer to use the mark 3 instead of the mark 2,new tech vs old tech is just not cricket