100mm macro L or non-L will be fine.
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.
their target is to record in 4K not timelapse it.
they offer cinema 4K as well at only 12 fps.
its a microsd card limit.
With the same money of the 24-70 F4L, I could buy a Used 24-105L and 100mm Macro L.
That says enough about my thoughts on that lens.
Then you'd have to also buy a 50mm 1.4, 24mm 1.4 35mm 1.4. and 85mm 1.8, if the quality is good enough.
Show me some of your ISO 3200 Shots from both cameras. I've owned both before and the 5Dc has better ISO performance.
No. You show hard evidence that the reproducible tests available at sites like DPReview and IR are wrong. I'm not the one waving my hand at and dismissing hard data. You are. Back it up or shut up.
And it better be perfect...and reproducible...right down to the last parameter. Not different subjects, lighting, and exposure, shot on the fly at different times and places, then compared, probably at the wrong magnification (i.e. 100% for both meaning the 7D file is inspected more closely), which is typical of people making claims that go against reality.
And don't reply with 36 point type like some child.
The Zeiss is the sharpest 50mm made but its only F/2 and the bokeh isn't as nice as the 50L.
The Zeiss looks great in The Digital Picture comparison. However, the "sharpest 50mm made" appears to be the current Leica 50mm f/1.4. That lens seems to outperform the best from Canon, Nikon, Sigma and Zeiss — though it costs a bundle and won't work on any DSLR. See the charts in the "Overall Comparison" section of the LensRentals "50mm Shootout" here:
And Leica may have surpassed even their own sharpest 50 with their new 50/2 ($7,200), not tested in the LensRentals shootout.
Sorry if I don't shoot shoot test chart but in real world use the 5Dc is better than the 7D.
No it's not. We're not discussing opinion here. Noise levels are objective, testable reality. The 7D tests lower across the board (chroma, black, grey). This doesn't magically change with a "real world" scene.
The chroma noise difference in particular is human observable in print where the 7D clearly looks better.
As has been beaten to death, the 50L is Canon's sharpest 50mm lens from f/1.2 to f/2. Narrower it is not. The 50 f/1.4 actually gets sharper from about f/2.8 and narrower.
However, sharpness is not everything. If you are going to be shooting a lot wider than f/2.8, then by all means get it. I don't think it is worth the price, but then again, if you are the consumer you know the price going into it.
some people are mentioning the Zeiss 50mm f/2.0 Makro-Planar ZE Macro as a replacement for the 50mm 1.2 or the sigma 1.4, any feedbak please?
Meh. If there is any tiny difference, it will be irrelevant in real world use.
Sure, though we'll only know for sure by looking at studio shots after a 6d raw converter is out. And concerning the dpreview shots: Actually I looked again and the focus on the 5d3/6d shots is a little different, so even @f11 that explains some differences.
These are out of camera Jpg's. They look identical to the 5D3 files but only with more NR in camera.
Look again, for example @iso6400 on the fur of the mouse on the left - there are more details in the 6d even though it has a cleaner background, so it's not just more nr. But still doesn't mean much since it's a comparison of two beta in-camera jpeg engines with too high nr settings...
is 15 fps in 4K worth anything? or will it be all choppy?
looking at the gopro3 and thats the top resolution for video.
i am just thinking cropping that down to 1080P would get rid of some of the fish eye factor that these cameras display.
the other option is 2.7K at 30 fps.