I use all my primes close to there max Aperture.
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.
<div name=\"googleone_share_1\" style=\"position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;\"><g:plusone size=\"tall\" count=\"1\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=11393\"></g:plusone></div><div class=\"tweetmeme_button\" style=\"float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;\"><a class=\"tm_button\" rel=\"&style=normal&b=2\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=11393\"></a></div>
<p><strong>Two f/4 Telephotos Coming<br />
</strong>I’m told we can expect two new f/4 telephotos to be announced in January, 2013.</p>
<p>The first will be an EF 300 f/4L IS II, you can obviously expect better coatings, IS and a slightly lighter weight.</p>
<p>The second is said to be an EF 400 f/4L IS, no mention of it being a DO lens. With the price of the coming EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x, mixed with the also expensive 400 f/4 DO IS, there is probably a big market for a 400 f/4 prime that is “affordable”.</p>
<p><strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">c</span>r</strong></p>
Canon has some catching up to do with respect to sensor performance as measured by http://www.DxOMark.com. Canon doesn't even come close to the top performing Nikons. (High score is better.):
96 Nikon D800E
95 Nikon D800
94 Nikon D600
81 Canon 5D III
79 Canon 5D II
(The Canon 1Dx is not yet rated.)
What are the chances that one of the reasons for the new sensor in the 6D is to catapult Canon's sensor performance into the mid 90's? I can't see Canon doing that considering the $3,500 EOS 5D III just came out and has a score of just 81. But Nikon's new $2,100 D600 kicks butt with a score of 94!
Sensor performance isn't everything... but, if I were to choose Nikon or Canon today, I wouldn't be choosing Canon.
I´m suffering from an broken 7D, as my bike crashed into an car this week and the camera case and the mirror were pulverized.
Now I am looking for an new Camera.
But I do not want to buy an 7D again. The 7D was fast, but mine was suffering from bad noise and moire.
I need an fast AF, as many AF-fields as the 7D, but with an better image quality.
I take photos from birds, my children and landscape. My son from jets and at car races.
1.6x crop factor would be prefered, but is not recommended (no must).
Waiting for an 7D II???
But will it appear in the near future???
Saving money for an 5DIII???
But I own some EF-S lenses (macro, wide angle, common zoom), also some L-lenses for FF.
What is your advice?
The 5DIII is very expensive for me, otherwise I would buy it. Or wait for an 7DII...?
I am just starting to get my head around my 5D III after a 60D. I have been to a few photography courses and have LR4.1 and PSE10. I shoot raw & L JPEG. My confusion is that some recommend sRGB however other people recommend Adobe RGB. The 5D III manual recommends sRGB but the LR books are divided. I only shoot for my own enjoyment at this stage but may join a club later when I get a little better. Any thoughts very much appreciated.Srgb for 99% of everything. A-RGB for special prints.
Nikon's cheaper primes are not better because they are too late to the party? So this party has closed? Any new comer will always be considered not as good as canon because they are too late? That's why canon don't update these primes because their loyal followers still think they are the best even one of them has some QC issues for a long time.
I also chose canon in your poll because their long white L lenses. We are talking about cheap prime lenses for budget users here, so your poll results is meaningless.
BTW, please don't post your self portrait
It's funny because it took Nikon 20 years to Finally put out decent primes.
What a fanboi~~
Thats a pity as I assumed that you would have the mental capacity to do the research by youself but since that is beyond your grasp, I stand behind my statement.
The Nikon 28 1.8G, 50mm 1.4G, and 85mm 1.8G are good lenses, But they are 20 years late to the party.
While IQ is important, its not as important as getting the shot in the first place. Canon has had these very useful features while nikon was still fiddling with screws in there bodies.
1. Full Time manual Over-ride - Also Not having to fiddle with AF-MF switch and leave my hands clear of the focus wheel.
2. Silent & Fast USM Focusing
3. Complete compatability with all EOS bodies, Even Rebels AF with all lenses. Not just the ones with screws.
Canon 28mm 1.8 - released with all these features in 1995 - Nikons 1.8G was released in 2012
Canon 50mm 1.4 - released with all these features in 1993 - Nikons 1.4G was released in 2008
Canon 85mm 1.8 - released with all these features in 1992 - Nikons 1.8G was released in 2012
Canon 100mm F/2 - Released with all these features in 1992 - Nikon has not matched.
Nikon didn't have a fast 28mm period in the budget range until now and its only marginally better than the canon.
Nikon's 50mm 1.4G barely surpasses the canon 1.4 in IQ, and that lens is from the 90's.
Nikons 85mm 1.8G is the same story, Infact it has more CA's than the old canon.
Canon's 100mm F/2 is still better than any nikon budget tele-prime.
If you look at the nikon AF-D series which competed against canons prime's up until the recent nikon primes, they're just horrid little lenses.
As for fanboyism, I'm anything but that. I agreed that Nikon's current bodies are better but they're prime lens selection isn't even fully caught up to canon yet. I even held a poll showing that alot of users agree with this.
If nikon has better primes, I wouldn't be shooting canon.
Whatever~fanboi always win
I would like to get a setup of old, possibly all-metal, manual focus fast primes.
I am a child of the AF generation, so I'm very little experienced in this sense and I don't know which ones are worth having nowadays.
I'm interested in 20-28mm, 30-40mm, 50-60mm, 85-100mm and 135mm. A standard setup.
Please share your opinions with me. Doesn't matter about brands, as long as they can be adapted and that it makes sense to buy them price-wise.
It seems the further I delve into photography the more there is to learn, gone are the days of just Pointing and Shooting and accepting what the camera chooses...
These were the days I would look at photos taken by pros and hope that one day I could achieve similar.
Everyday I try to learn something and then attempt to put it into practice...
My latest reading is in relation to the "Zone System"...at least the simplified for digital version of it...
As much as I enjoy using this system for obtaining the correct (subjective exposure) it doesn't seem to be "everyday practical" (again subjective, as it depends on your everyday needs).
Spot Meter, choose your tone, Spot meter, choose your tone...the system seems to work best if you have the time to take numerous meter readings, to determine where your shadows and highlights will fall.
Obviously this system is dependant on choosing and knowing where your tonal values fall, and for colour, knowing which colours are Zone 5 (18%)
Then there is the ETTR school of thought, push the exposure to the right but avoid clipping the highlights (or at least the highlights that matter), this seems to be the quickest method, quick look at the preview and histogram and adjust...
Even though it seems quickest is it the best, my luminance histogram will show clipping based on the JPEG, not the raw file, so I need to know how far I can push ETTR, but this luminance histogram doesn't show the possible RGB clipping.
1. Am I over thinking this
2. Is there a preferred method.
What got me thinking about this?....I live in a tourist town, I watch people all day everyday taking photos, from camera phones through to 1Dx, rarely do I see anyone consider composition or exposure, everything is left to AUTO mode (yes, even on some of the very high end cameras I see people use)
So I started thinking, was I better off knowing less about photography and never understanding 18% grey....or am I better off knowing more but always chasing the "Perfect exposure"...
Photography and Golf, both pursuits that drive you crazy seeking the perfect game ( I gave up golf early on, realising it would drive me mad)
I like macro prhotography and until now I have some nice photos of flowers and insects that move slowly (spiders) using an 60mm canon efs macro lense. I want to go full frame so I would like to hear your suggestions. Is it worth going for the 100mm IS which is the double price from the non IS? I am also considering the 180mm but although is an L lense is not IS. Do I need IS in order to take a moving subject (i.e. a bee, a flower under wind) without a tripod with these magnifications. If so why the 180 lense is not IS and is the most expensive? Also what about image quality?
Please I would love to hear the expert advise.
Someone tested 6D on photokina and it seems the AF is not bad at all
Sunday night where I live. I am processing some family pictures from this weekend and just discovered a feature that I haven't seen or used before, it's the output sharpening feature in Lightroom. I've only used Lightroom a couple of months so far and still consider myself to be on a steep learning curve. Is this a useful function according to those of you who have used it? Is this a stupid question as I should always use it? Any advice is appreciated.