24-105 is practically useless for wildlife
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.
honestly, i do love fuji cameras. however, either one of the following will work:
1. if one are willing to learn about photography and have fun with all its challenges , dslr with optical viewfinder would be the camera he/she should buy, or
2. if one WOULD NOT LIKE to learn about photography, then a mirror-less camera should be the one that he/she will pick up since:
a. you get what you see which is, to me, no challenge and fun, and
b. ease of use (even a kid can get a right exposure after less than an hour of learning.)
if i have to buy a mirror-less so that my wife can also use, fuji x-pro1 or fuji x100s will be the one that i am going to buy since i think it does offer, sort of, optical viewfinder. fuji xt-1 (my friend lets me use his for few times) is a wonderful camera, but too bad, it does not offer optical viewfinder like the other two... hopefully fuji offers both again in the future...
it is just my personal thought and i am not a pro either...
Its not for sale - its still pre-order only, just like it is in the USA. Some of our major stores here (including the biggest one in Brisbane) still have no info at all about it. Only recently over the last few days has a more realistic price been placed on this lens.
There currently is nowhere that I am aware of that you can actually get hold of this lens in Australia. I've pre-ordered, and have been told mid july.
What is it with the "more megapixels"? This is a camera for action and wildlife photographers, not for landscape photographers. The landscape photographers already have a decent camera in the 6D, and might like something with a few more MP, to take advantage of the ever-increasing quality of lenses. The action/wildlife photographers want "more throughput (fps and buffer depth).
Someone at the camera club meeting last night pestered the local camera shop representative about the "7D2". Hey, everyone is in the dark, including the CR1 and CR2 sources.
All very good points. I'm in the same position, will be on Safari in Kenya/Tanzania for 8 days and havent figured out yet what to bring.
At the moment I'm strongly considering bringing my 5D3 as my (only) DSLR and:
- Buy the Tamron 150-600 as main lens for the whole trip
- Bring the 24-70 II for the landscapes and environmental shots (but considering the dust, that would stick on the 5D the whole day, hmmm)
- Get a RAW capable point & shoot (e.g. the G1X II?) in case wildlife gets very close and for the shots in the villages, environmental shots, etc.
Would like to prevent bringing a second DSLR body as we are already hassling with the weight limit of 15kg.
Although an other option would be renting a crop body and use my 70-300L and keep the 24-70II on the 5D3 but wouldn't that spoil the quality of the more distant wildlife?
Would love to hear your thoughs on that.
The answers to this poll are surprising to me. Considering physics instead of the business of photography, the 50mm lens happens to perform even better.
However, considering a lens without consideration of its use in photography is like an NBA team considering a draft pick without regard to his basketball skills and how they would serve the team.
For photography, I would always choose the Sigma 35mm if I was forced to choose between it or the 50mm ART. The benefits that a great 35mm can add to my photography would be more frequent and more valuable. In fact, I normally don't even have a 50mm prime in my kit.
If you are considering which of these two spectacular lenses would be more important as a member of your photography "team" (and if you can't choose both), then I would disagree with all the current votes for the 50mm, and would instead strongly recommend the 35mm.
I'm not a relic from the analog era, but I see a few intersting points in film.
1- You keep focused on shooting instead of reviewing and you can't say for sure 'ok, got it, lets pack up.'. You 'might' stay involved longer and catch the magic moment.
2- The fact that a longer period separates the shooting and the viewing helps being critical of your own work.
3- it is harder to hope and fix it in post,
4- well, thats pretty much the idea...
Honestly, I enjoy shooting film in a manual camera, but in the end digital has many more advantages. The most obvious is for learning the technicalaspects, experimenting is much less costly and the exif is a nice tool to help understand what went good or wrong. I think that today, for an amateur, film is nice. But for a professional, digital is awsome. (Except for the fact that digital might have killed the last pro).
You are both wrong. A new 100-400 with a built-in TC would be an excellent upgrade. The present 100-400 works well with a TC and a newer model with a built-in one would work even better. A built-in TC gives better results, is faster to implement, and does not require exposing inside the camera to as much dust.
Myself and many others would not mind paying the extra cost for such a feature.