I just went from the 5D2 to a 1DX. Once you stop fretting over the 3MP difference you'll be a happy camper (until something with more MPs from Canon arrives, perhaps even longer). I'd say the overall image quality is definitely not worse.
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.
Any update on this subject?
It's not supported at this point, although the only problem it causes is with metering (physically, it fits). Chuck Westfall told me that it's apparently something Canon could fix in firmware, if they choose to.
A list of accepted focussing screens is given, but the Ec-S high-precision one is not among them.
If it has been desupported, that would be a real step backwards. Users of fast manual-focus lenses in particular would have a problem; with back-button autofocus set, you'd need to hold the AF button down to get focus confirmation. Users of lenses via unchipped adaptors would be in real trouble.
Hmmm... "The EOS-1D X supports the Ec-A, B, D, H, I, and L focusing screens."
Still, I wouldn't panic quite yet - the technical report lists only 6 screens, but the Canon CPN spec page states, Focusing Screen: Interchangeable (12 types, optional). Standard Focusing Screen Ec-CV. So, I suspect the 1D X will take the Ec-S, or Canon will come out with a 1D X-compatible equivalent.
I used a 5Dc with the EG-s screen for years! and it was perfect but I dont miss it with the 5D3 AF. Granted, I'd like to have both the EG-S and the 5D3 AF. Even the Focus confirmation is 10x more accurate with manual lenses on all AF points.Yeah, I was wondering whether the AF was good enough to make up for the lack of an EG-S equivalent, but...
As for reach, Just get an new M-III tele-converter but canon is lacking in the wide department but If you that serious to buy a 2000$ 14-24, why not look into the Zeiss 15mm?I am seriously considering the Zeiss 21mm, but I might get a 17-40 first in order to determine which focal length I like best.
If your in M mode, I don't see a need for Expo-comp because there must be a particular reason for the person selecting they're aperture or shutter speed. The Auto ISO works great on my 5D3 In M mode. Granted, I would appreciate a zoom histogram.The expo-comp in manual with auto iso would bias the automatically selected iso and leave the time and aperture alone.
But you must appreciate that canon DOES have a 100-400mm, canon DOES have the 600EX-RT, and canon DOES have the Best AF on the Market, The fact that canon DOES allow you to even change focusing screens in the first place and so many things that make this platform unique.Oh yes, I've got my personal prime trinity 35L, 100L, 135L and am very happy them, plus some more stuff that works great, too! If all I had was a 28-135, and I didn't care about the 135L, which is my favorite lens, I might already have a D800e, because what I don't really care for are anti-aliasing filters.
erwinwang, thanks for the beautiful shots and sharing your views. As a user of 50L and 50f1.4, I can't agree more to your views.
I did the 7D + 5DII thing for a couple of years, which is a lot like the 6D + 7DII scenario - the 5DII for landscapes and portraits, the 7D for birds/wildlife. The thing is, the 1D X is a really nice 'bag'. It's a lot more robust than the lesser bodies, that great AF and fast frame rate comes in handy for portraits (basically, each shot is a 'double-tap' so there's almost never a lost shot due to a blink, etc.). As for reach, it's artificial unless you're printing large - a 1D X image cropped to the FoV of the 7D gives a 7 MP image that still has (slightly) better IQ, and if you don't need to crop, the IQ is much better.
7d MK ii sighted
While I can see some of the points the original poster made I don't share the immense disappointment. Someone said it's a swiss army knife, not far off. Everything is a compromise.
I'm with the OP... Canon does seem to be making too many compromises lately and not delivering products people really want.
I can't recall a single product announcement in the last year that wasn't met with some level of disappointment in capability and dropped jaws on price.
You obviously haven't tried the 5D3, learn to shoot and the shadow 'noise' won't be a problem.
Hm, you are right, the 6D has interchangeable focus screens, that's unexpected, I had read somewhere that it doesn't... However I would appreciate the 5D3/1DX AF system, too.
Uninformed rant, then?
Also note the 5D3 screen is a major upgrade, so 99% of buyers will reap the benefits while the 1% who want to use short manual lenses with large glass (invariably not made by Canon, hello Zeiss) can get a 6D 'cos they won't need the rapid-fire super AF systems of the 5D3. Or keep it simple and upgrade to EOS! (Zeiss is sooo 60's tech).
Is the 16-35 ii good sharp at edges at F8 at 16? I'd be surprised.
I've been using one for 4 years now....have you tried one? I hope you aren't basing your opinions on forum chatter. Please take a look at my flickr page and see if there are any landscapes where the 16-35IIL is found to be lacking...then again, I never found the 17-40L particularly lacking either. Both are excellent lenses.
So just get 6D. Better shadow noise performance and you can change the focussing screen. What about putting 1.4xtender on your 70-200? or 135L with extender.