+1 pretty much. RTFM.B/c the 5D3 simply won't track across the frame, while the D800 will do so marvelously.
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.
+1 pretty much. RTFM.B/c the 5D3 simply won't track across the frame, while the D800 will do so marvelously.
granted we have different uses for our gear but I can not agree with many of your points, I've rebutted within the quote re my experience with Fuji, Olympus and Pentax.You must be crazy to think ML cams are ready for prime time wedding shooters. Those reasons are perfectly valid as to why 99% of the wedding industry sticks with DSLRs.Lack of lens Selection. - MFT system has a lot of great glass covering UWA to long zoom, Fuji X has the UWA to medium tele covered with long tele coming. The real limitation is MFT ultimate resolution is lower.
Lack of a Mature Flash system. - I'm not familiar with the Oly yet, I think it has some pretty decent capabilities, but Fuji X system flash is definitely weak. Pentax ML work with existing Pentax kit which is decent, but not extensive
Lack of Ergonomics for Long Handheld use. - definitely not. Every ML body I've got or used has a very comfy, if optional, grip available. E-M1 feels custom made for me even w-o the grip so this is, if anything, subjective.
Laggy EVF in Low Light. - last year, probably. newer systems, not really. Some gain-up very well in low light and maintain decent frame rates, like Fuji XT1 & XE2. I find they're quite easy to get used to using and compensating for any slight lag.
Slow AF - compared to what? Top line sports-oriented DSLRS?... then yes. good current ML systems AF speed is comparable to consumer/prosumer SLR, i.e., fast enough for most things, most users, and the accuracy is often very high.
Crap Battery Life. - will give you that one, most ML bodies w EVF do have some energy management options you can set that improve battery life by turning displays off if you've not got your mug up to them. But nowhere near the battery life of an efficient SLR - then again, ML's are still mostly handicapped by compact body forms and tiny batteries rather than the larger capacity batteries used in prosumer + SLRs. This could easily change with design alteration with present tech.
Crap Sync Speed (A7R) - ya, some could be faster, so could some SLRs too. -
No PC sync port. - it's right there on my Fuji XT1, and a simple and cheap hot-shoe adapter for everything else.
Viva la MILC!
I tried the EVF at a store and Its really good. Well worth the trade for the hotshoe but someday, maybe we could have both.This would have been a killer camera but no Hot Shoe anymore.
We talked about that. She has NEVER used the hot shoe on her NEX so I don't think it will be a problem.
Zeiss is all I use for my fashion and portrait photography. Ever since my first outing with a rental, I fell in love with them. They are definitely not for everyone and may not be the best in any one category. But overall and how happy I am with my images, there is nothing else than Zeiss for fashion and portrait.MF is not as expensive as it used to be if your willing to look at older systems. I was able to jump into Hassy MF and I'm just an average professional at best. Hassys lenses are very reasonable on the used market and it's got a good size market for MF.
I simply hope that the new model Canon cameras take advantage of these new lenses from Zeiss. On a 5DMKIII, you'll get a 30% increase in sharpness over the older lenses. But is it worth a 400% price difference? Not with these cameras. Sharpness isn't everything.
Give me a 20MP Medium Format camera and I'd be very happy. You can't touch the detail and color resolution with FF. Of course, that would include an amazing Leaf shutter lenses which would give me a 1600/sec sync speed. No HSS! But all this comes at a cost. 2x at least the most expensive Canon system including an Otus lens. And the Pentax system is completely inadequate on so many levels.
If a new Canon body matched with this Otus would give me 90% of that MF look, a sync speed of 1/500 or better and close to a 1DX price, that would be tough to turn down. As a Canon user, there is absolutely no need to upgrade my cameras or lenses until this happens.
Canon sensors are not "sub-par": they're excellent.
Nah, excellent means top notch... DXO says they are just mediocre compared to the competition.
No way around it.
Just remember when you mention DxO you are relying on a company that says the D5300 sensor is excellent while Hasselblad medium format sensors are mediocre by comparison
Try to imagine how silly, foolish, and inexperienced you look to those of us who have actually seen files from both and know that the DxO testers must be on some heavy recreational drugs
Another reason I chose that combo is its advantageous to a FF+crop shooter. Your get the FF focal lengths but you also get those in between ones as well so, 24-50-135 & 35-85-200 on apsc.I used a 24-50-135 combo for the majority of my shooting. Look at your catalog as see where your best shots are and stick to those focal lengths.
I like pretty much everything I've seen shot with the 135L, and I was on the fence about buying that or the 100L Macro recently, the IS at that focal length seems necessary for some things and a nice to have. I'm sure within 3-5 years, all the non-L Canon primes will have IS, and perhaps some of the L's also.
I fear that the 24 will be too wide, yet the 35 is closer to the 50 than any other separation. My gut tells me 35-85-135, but I can't help feeling like I'll miss that 50. The truth is that I use the 50mm f/1.4 more than any other prime lens currently. But I think if I didn't have it, I'd use the 35mm f/2 IS just the same (and maybe even grow to like it more). You're probably thinking "just use keep the 50 and dump the 35 then, that's easy"...and that certainly holds logic. For me, I don't think I've forced myself to explore enough with the primes and using my feet. I default to what I know and what I'm comfortable with.
Thanks for the feedback!
http://nikonrumors.com/2014/09/06/what-to-expect-from-nikon-for-photokina.aspx/It took them long enough to make a d700 replacement but I would hardly call the 5d3 pricing plundering for the price I got them for. I billed charges from them that have paid them ten times over or more.
- price is about that of the 5D3 on special.
- similar number of AF points, suggesting similar AF capability
- more megapixels
- at least the same video, if not 4k
- similar fps rate (6.5 or
- it will be the Sony Exmor sensor, so clean shadows, good DR, etc.
- we can expect an oil or dust issue to be uncovered in the first 3 months after release, taking another 6 months to resolve and a D760 to be released next year.
This looks like the successor to the 5D2 that many of us expected but then Canon decided to plunder our wallets with 5D3 pricing.
Great because we all want 50mp of detail in our lens cap shots. Please review the info again because Jrista explained what DXO is referring about actual resolution received.The page supports it.
The page listed 3 lenses recommended for the D800. That is all. It said nothing to support what you are claiming. Unless you have another link this point is done.QuoteYou will never get 50mp or even close to it with most lenses.
Stop using terminology incorrectly. You will get 50 MP with the lens cap on.QuoteEven with aps cams, the difference is the same, indistinguishable with most glass and stark with supreme glass.
Not what anyone else reports with APS-C
I said I trusted DXO lens scores to a degree and other reviewers reflected my experience with the lenses tested. IE: Abbotts 135mm APO tests.Your absolutely correct and that's what I've been saying. To get near the 50mp resolution, you would now need supreme lenses to see a major difference. 36--->50mp would be a small jump with most lenses(negligible)and like you mentioned, huge if with an Otus.The page supports it. You will never get 50mp or even close to it with most lenses. The jump from 36mp to 50mp will be slight with most lenses and stark with supreme lenses. Even with aps cams, the difference is the same, indistinguishable with most glass and stark with supreme glass. That's why cropping FF 22mp vs aps 18mp the results are nearly identical. On paper they shouldn't be, but on the other thread, negligible.
The point I was trying to make before was that you can't get 50mp with any existing lens, and probably wouldn't with any lens created within the next decade. The same goes for 36mp, 24mp, 18mp. You cannot actually resolve those resolutions with ANY lens, even the best of the best of the best. Because output resolution has an asymptotic relationship with the least resolving component of the system. To even get close to 50mp, you would probably need to be shooting a lens like the Otus at f/1.4 (assuming it's diffraction limited at that aperture...if not, then you would need a lens even better than the Otus).
Assuming you don't have a crappy lens, then you can realize improvements by moving to a higher resolution sensor. Every time you do, the nyquist limit drops. That allows more information to be resolved usefully. It might be resolved at lower contrast, but until your down near the Rayleigh limit, you can still do stuff with lower contrast detail (it's more work to enhance it, but it can be done.) If you jump from 18mp to 50mp, even with just an "ok" lens, your going to see a huge difference. The frequency of detail that might have been resolved crisply at 18mp will now probably look a little soft...however, your going to be resolving a level of detail the 18mp couldn't even see at all. The same would go for the difference between 36mp and 50mp...although the amount of smaller details you resolve wouldn't be as significant, and would require more work to enhance.
For any given lens, going from 24mp to 36mp, then to 50mp, WILL realize an improvement. The improvement might start out at around 18% for the jump from 24-36mp, then drop to 11-12% for the jump from 36-50mp. It might be a mere 5% in a jump from 50mp to 70mp. Beyond that, your probably within the margin of error...however, then your in the realm of oversampling. That has a whole 'nother set of benefits.
Back to my original statement, forget about getting the most out of those 50mp with the current selection of native lenses in the A7 mount. Added on top with the small pixel size, extra camera shake.
Ah, ok. I guess I misunderstood something along the line, when you said you believed DXO when they stated the Zeiss 135 could actually get 36mp out of the D800. Good to know we agree.
I don't know much about native lenses for the A7 mount...however, I would really be interested in seeing how some of Canon's newer lenses work with that sensor when adapted to the A7 mount. I bet the 24-70/2.8 II is phenomenal.