« on: July 16, 2013, 08:03:29 PM »
Until a fully featured ML version is compiled and distributed for 5D3 (with 1.2.1 firmware) it is purely theoretical...
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.
What I'm looking at...
(sell 60D, 10-22, 70-200, keep 50 b/c why the hell not?)
5D III (toying with the 1D IV for build and speed but perhaps as a second body next year?)
5D III would be my choice! (In fact I do have it and I have not regretted it)
16-35 II (traveling, street, some landscape, group or environmental portraits even)
OK direct replacement of 10-22
70-200 2.8 IS II (everything...weddings, events, portrait, some closer wildlife)
Not so fast. You are coming from a lightweight set. Have you tried 70-200 2.8 IS II? It is heavy!
Plus, your 70-200 is an EXCELLENT lens.
135L (covers my portraits, some street stuff, events/stage stuff)
OK THIS IS PERFECT!
24 1.4L (not as good as the TS but it's more versatile. churches, markets, lowlight, astro)
As you said not so good as the TS. You can forget it for astro. It has HUGE coma!
+1 I do have a 35L 1.4 and I am not selling it. I am not interested in Sigma/Tokina/Tamron/etc...Plenty of people are actually selling their 35L copies to purchase the new 35mm Sigma.Where did you get this information?
Always pronounced it 'Nick-On' not nigh-con or knee-con. Don't really care if I'm right.Same here
I bought the new 24-70 two times....the first time i used it and said to myself....hell this lens is boring. So i sold it. Than i bought it a second time to give it another try. What should i say...it was still boring. I mean...this Lens is sharp like a knife...but for me it has a boring look. So i sold it again. I rarly use Zoom-lenses and the 24-70 has not enough reach...so i bought the 24-105. this Lens is also boring but has a better Zoom range.Very interesting!
And then we wake upa 70D doing better than 6D in ISO performance is all possible.
Just like a 6 cylinder car out doing a 8 cylinder car of the same engine capacity because they have new technology applied. but when then new tech is apply to the 8 cylinder engine it will over come again.
So APS-c do better than FF for a while, then FF improve again.
no that is impossible from, Canon have then solved the earth's energy problems if a APS sensor has that kind of QE
That's correct. The good effect of all that is improvement across the whole field which will be applied in a hopefully much more advanced form in upcoming FF bodies.
I keep my "wedding gear" where every gentleman does…
5DIII owners are arguing this point as if they are Macgyvers of photography who get the job done with the bare minimum... lol1st. You are being both rude and ignorant of the fact that not everyone needs a high megapixel camera. Your needs are NOT everyone's needs. The mere fact that you laugh at people who are satisfied with their 5DIII camera is ... funny to say the least... Especially since NO ONE said there shouldn't be a high megapixel camera.
There are plenty of uses for infinitely high megapixel counts. Maybe not for weddings or casual shooting... but in general, you might accomplish the same shot with a cheaper/sharper lens and still have the freedom to frame what you want after the shot. Working in advertising, I often reuse the same image for different purposes—some cropped in extremely close. With retina displays coming on to the scene, high resolution isn't just for big prints.
Also, for stock photography photos are priced by size (at least on istockphoto). Not to say that most people NEED those big sizes... but as long as they will pay, I am a fan
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/%28lens1%29/886/%28lens2%29/175/%28brand1%29/Canon/%28camera1%29/795/%28brand2%29/Nikkor/%28camera2%29/792+1 Plus, it's the combinations of Cameras and Lenses that count so the difference of 22Mpixel Canon with top Canon lenses and 36Mpixel Nikon with top Nikon lenses is not so much according to DxO if I recall correctly. Sure D800 wins but not by much.I'm sure the threads in the Nikon forums back then ("12 mp is enough, no one needs 21mp") are the same as from Canon loyalists now ("22mp is enough, no one needs 36mp")...
Similar but not the same or even close. 12 -> 21 is a much bigger jump in system resolution than 22 -> 36, taking into account all other factors for resolution.
There are Nikon lenses equal good as Canon, there are lenses from Sigma, Tamron etc
Put a good lens on a d800 and I guarantee that you will se a difference, the same difference IF Canon had a 36Mp camera today
You have to test it at least at 39mm and 41mmBoo! You only tested the 40mm at one focal length? Incomplete review!
Yeah, sorry about that I'll try to milk more focal lengths out of it the next time.
This will bring the same views as when CDs started to usurp the analogue 33 1/3 world. When you look at those multi million $ images ,esp the one of the girl in the dress as well the Rhine one ,it seems the answer is ....whoever will pay for it can call it what they want.