« on: January 30, 2013, 01:34:28 AM »
this is really cool. it's like google earth, but with more detail. i'll be checking this out all day.
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.
Rockwell Sociopath?! No!why do people hate Ken Rockwell so much.
Just a guy trying to make an almost honest buck preying on the weak and the confused.
The 5DIII is an ok upgrade to the 5DII. In terms of what matters to me, the 5DIII basically is a 5DII, except with a vastly superior AF. They have similar sensors, MP, DR, etc. The 5DII had awesome image quality, when the 5DIII came out, no one was shocked or astounded by how good it was. Rather, we were told that in JPG, we might get 2 stops better ISO, maybe 1 stop better in RAW. I'm sure the 5DIII is better, but it is rather similar to the 5DII image quality wise and I'm not hearing many 5DII owners complaining about IQ compared to the III. In fact, for months after the 5DIII came out, when Nikon fans were showing reflections in eyeballs at full screen and giggling about how good the D800 was, Canon users were complaining about black borders at high ISO, smearing of details, and overly aggressive AA filtering. Now, the firmware is a little better, LR has better tools in place for editing, and now the 5DIII has settled in as a great camera(as the 5DII was.)
He slams the 5DIII as an upgrade - in what world is the 5DIII not a decent upgrade to the 5DII? Yes, the 5DIII has DR capabilities (and IQ) equivalent to 5DII, but if it's crap, why are he and his friends still using it? I contend that the thing about the 5DII that didn't need upgrading was the IQ - and Canon did a great job with AF, frame rate, dual slots, sealing, etc., i.e., everything else.
i agree. I liked the 24-105, but I always wanted something a little more compact to make up for the slow aperture. If i'm going to carry something big around, i'd rather have the F2.8. Thus, if this lens was 800ish, it would be a fantastic FF travel lens. I really like the idea of this lens, I just think that Canon is way off base with their prices.The only thing that holds this lens from being an excellent lens is price. If price goes down to at least $900, then this will become one of the best lenses out there. I'd buy this as a kit lens with 6D if Canon somehow finds a way to bundle it with 6D. 6D + 24-70 F4 IS for around $2500, I think everyone will be very happy.
+1. Lower the price and this is perceived as a very good lens.
So, what objective measure would you propose to determine 'better' - bearing in mind that's a rather subjective term. Which is the 'better' candidate in an election? Heck, even thePlease don't drag this in to a political argument(although that was my first thought,) It's way too easy to get people riled up already.
Green PartyPentax supporters get their own way.
All Crop sensors have less MP than full frame. They do not like me saying file size has anything to do with the physical size of the sensor. Of course two sensors with equal pixel density, the larger produces a larger file. Were not supposed to relate these two in this discussion though. They want to be hard core sticklers and say file size is controlled only by the number of MP, which is somewhat correct except there are a few other factors involved.As has been said above, All crop sensors do not have less MP than full frame sensors.