« on: March 20, 2013, 10:19:13 AM »
135L @ f/4 or smaller, high shutter speed and low ISO. That is my definition of tack sharp.
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.
I give an example of how DR is used and this is all you can come up with.
To show that my opinions based on facts are being lambasted by simple opinions with no facts?What are you trying to achieve?Neuro, are you ready to stop standing on the sidelines while people argue against my FACTS with their OPINIONS. I have been killed on this board for using my opinion to make arguments many times. I presented factual numbers from DXOMARK. I explained that I don't think they are the best numbers, but they are at least numbers by a lab. What have you used for your argument, 100% opinion.OK, at the time of it's introduction the D800 had already been announced. The D800 was announced Feb 7th, 2012, the 5DIII March 2nd. The 1DX was announced on Oct 18, 2011 and released in March. So, it was never actually surpassed by the 1DX, it never was as good. I'm not slamming the 5DIII AF, as it is awesome, i'm just showing that your facts aren't facts at all.
Physician, kettle, mote, etc.
I and thousands others had thousands of exposures on our 5DIIIs long before you could even officially pre-order a 1Dx. And the D800 is many wonderful things, but it only surpasses the 5DIII in megapickle count and dynamic range -- its autofocus is far shy of the 5DIII's -- as are almost all of its other features. That you should suggest it's got better autofocus than the 5DIII...and then start whipping the dead dynamic range horse and claiming the D800 has better high ISO performance....
Even if you're not intentionally trolling, which I rather doubt by now, you're still trolling.
The D800 was measured as having better high ISO performance than the 5DIII.
I'm not saying it's a better camera, i'm simply saying that YOU ARE USING OPINION.
DO YOU HAVE ANY FACTS TO SHOW THAT THE 5DIII has better HIGH ISO performance?
Are you even reading my posts? I never said the D800 has better AF. I said the 1DX has better AF and that it was announced before the 5DIII. Whether it was available or not at the time, there was never any doubt in my mind that the AF of the 1DX would be superior.
You guys just spent a page killing our newcomer for not agreeing with you, all the while you have ignored that I presented numbers showing the D800 has better high ISO performance. I never mentioned DR in any earlier posts as I agree it is has been overblown(pardon the pun), however I don't discount it's importance. It's obviously better to have good DR than not to.
How did you rebuke the high ISO dxomark scores? by yeling, "Troll" "Troll" "troll"
TrumpetPower, please show me numbers, not opinions, but factual evidence from anywhere showing that the 5DIII is better at high ISO? I'm curious to see why you are so positive that the 5DIII is better.
As I said in earlier posts, I don't really care all that much for DXOMark, but I don't know where else to turn for lab measured numbers on cameras.
Also, people on this board can bash DXOmark scores all they want, but when Admin posted this thread with false 1DX scores, people were thrilled to gloat about the superior scores of the 1DX.... until they found out the numbers were false, when they went back to hating DXO. lol! http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10075.0
You can disagree with me all you want, it's fine. But please don't call me a troll when i'm at least trying to give evidence. All you have given us is your opinion.
Once again, please show me where any 3rd party has definitively said the 5DIII has better high ISO.
Honestly, I'd get the Sigma 35mm 1.4 + Canon 50mm 1.4.
For a little extra money I really see no reason to get the Canon 50/1.4 instead of the Sigma 50/1.4. I've already said how I prefer Sigma's 50/1.4 to Canon's 50/1.2, which some people may disagree with, but honestly the Sigma produces so much more pleasing images than the Canon 50/1.4, the bokeh is a lot smoother and the colours and micro contrast better, plus the Canon 50/1.4 just feels cheap. The Canon 50/1.4 is not a lens I'd ever bother with and the only friend I have that has, traded it in for the Sigma 50/1.4 pretty quickly.
So, T5i goes head to head against Nikon D5200 while EOS-b competes against the D3200. Not bad.
and they both get punched in the face... Hard... and fall over bleeding
Thanks for all your inputs, it's all exactly the sort of thing I wanted.
Couple of points raised in some of your comments; I'm aware that the 16-35 @35mm pales in comparison to a dedicated 35 prime. I'm also aware that the 50L is only superior to it's smaller siblings between 1.2 and about 2.8, beyond that, the other two are arguably better.
It appears that the general consensus seems to be not to get the 35L; my options seem to boil down to get either the 50L or the Sigma 35 and the 50 1.4...
Again thank you all for your feedback, it's really great. Keep posting and I'll keep reading, though we shall just have to wait and see what I end up deciding to get. Who knows? Not me! Not yet.
The 50L is the sharpest 50mm canon makes in the center from F1.2-2.8. If this fits your usage, I'd get one.
LOL I loved my 50L very much, and it was a lot of things, but not extraordinarily sharp. And for the record the 50mm f/1.4 is sharper than the 1.2 in the center and MUCH sharper on the edges. The edges on the 50L are HORRIBLE, they barely even register on the chart. I've heard some say that they were going for that kind of soft edge effect for portraits, but either way when I got my Zeiss 50 f/2 I realized just how bad the Canon was on the edges. When I jumped from the 50mm f/1.4 to 50mm f/1.2 I didn't notice any change in sharpness, the most noticeable differences are in the bokeh, color rendition, AF speed, and build quality.
Here is the 50mm f/1.4 compared to the 1.2: