« on: September 16, 2014, 07:12:15 AM »
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.
The 40mm pancake turned out to be quite popular so maybe this 24mm one will too .... but wait EF-S? Now that just seems a little bit silly to me. Why restrict it to crop only? And without IS? This thing had better be under $100 because otherwise why would anyone need this? The kit lens does f/3.5 IS at 24mm, right? And if you want a quality 24mm prime there's the ~ $500 EF 24mm f/2.8 IS (which is pretty small already IMO).+10000000000000000000000000
The 24-105 could be a cheaper FF option. Some people were banging on about that here so I guess there might be a demand but seriously? So you fork out $1600 on a FF 6D right? Assuming you went body only. And then you go an pair it with, what I assume will be, a cheap kit lens with compromised IQ? Why? Why not just stick with a rebel and a 18-55 kit lens if you're a cheapo? Having a FF camera means you give a s___ about IQ. This rumor makes no sense.
And a 400mm DO version 2? because the the original was so popular right?? Right?
Where is the 100-400 replacement and where is our 50mm IS?
I have a feeling the next rumor will say "Sorry no 7D replacement, just a white powershot with instagram built in".
There are no stupid questionsDitto +10000000000000000000000
Most folks in general do not understand the relationship of sensor size, pixel density, and pixel size. For many, the picture they take on their phone looks great on that little 4 inch screen. Put it on an 8 by 10 print and it doesn't so much anymore.
Most folks who own good DSLRs are shooting crop sensors (APS-C). Those sensors are already 500 times bigger than an iPhone. Full frame is simply twice as big as that. Mr. Haines nailed it for you.
But again there are never stupid questions when you're trying to learn!
+10000000000000000000000000While very cool, I'm satisfied with the 16-35 f/4L already. Too late sigma.
The 16-35mm IS is excellent in a sea of wide angle zooms that are mediocre, with the Nikon 14-24mm, and 16-35mm VR being one of the few other good ones.
The thing is Sigma's 14-24mm might be even sharper than Canon's version and wider. That would be a killer lens. There's lots of room to improve quality in this segment. The 14-24mm could blow Canon out of the water, or just be slightly better in every way like the 24-105mm (though lacking weather sealing, and being much larger as the down side)
I'm very curious to see what the 24mm 1.4 is like, every major brand has tried to get the 24mm prime right, and most don't perform well above f/2.0.
I'm very hopeful of some serious improvements with these lenses.
I too am skeptical about a zoom as wide as 11mm. I hope they don't sacrifice too much IQ for it.+10000000000000000
My ideal UWA is a 14-30mm f/2.8. I'd gladly give up 5mm on the long end for 2mm on the wide in regards to the current 16-35mm. And despite the number of people here who don't think f/2.8 is necessary, it comes in very hand for wedding receptions and night photography.
Continue making photos with the old gear.+1000000000000 Yep!!!
Besides since posting this thread, I do less telephoto in the street now - use my 35mm a lot more+10000000000000
If left in colour, you'd see the colours of their suitcases - who cares what colour they are that is not the point of the photo.
FQ2A6148 by dancook1982, on Flickr
Guildford never feels as inspiring as my trips to london, but here's a selection from recent times.Great shots Dan I love the B&W touch.
1 In the office by dancook1982, on Flickr
2 Shoes by dancook1982, on Flickr
3 FQ2A0465 by dancook1982, on Flickr
4 Beautiful People by dancook1982, on Flickr
5 FQ2A9041 by dancook1982, on Flickr
6 FQ2A9103 by dancook1982, on Flickr
7 FQ2A8606 by dancook1982, on Flickr
8 FQ2A8583 by dancook1982, on Flickr
9 FQ2A6982 by dancook1982, on Flickr
10 FQ2A6999 by dancook1982, on Flickr
11 FQ2A6899 by dancook1982, on Flickr
The more "1DX" they put into the 7D Mark II, the more I will like it!+10000000000000000000000000
You've demonstrated that Nikon's 85/1.4, which is among Nikon's very best performing lenses even wide open, is sharper than Canon's 50/1.4, which is not a particularly sharp lens, particularly wide open. You make no mention of performing an AF microadjustment/fine tune, which can be critical for sharpness with fast primes shot wide open.+1
You've demonstrated that Canon's AWB is poor...something most of us know already (although it's better on the 1D X than any other Canon camera I've used).
I'm not convinced you've learned anything beyond the obvious...
It's funny, though. I wrote a blog post addressing THIS VERY camera release and how it relates to gear freaks:+1
I wrote that on June 26, as if I could predict the tendency of nerds to "NEED" the newer, shinier, camera body.