Personally, it would be much more useful for me if Canon came up with 16-35 f/2.8 MkIII with sharpness in line with 24-70 II and 70-200 f2.8 II, as well as a real good 35 mm end..
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.
Amazing lens IQ with the Sigma 35, that is for sure. Miles better than the Canon L.
However, I tried (2) copies and both had focusing issues in artificial light that my 35L's have not. It would front focus significantly when used in some indoor lighting (not all). I was constantly having to switch from 0 MA outdoors to +9 indoors (sometimes) and other times 0MA was fine. Drove me a bit insane.
More on the Leica M / Summicron 35/F2 comparison by Digllyod.
He seems to feel that spec wise and based upon his experience of the Leica lens that the RX-1 may be a very good deal (if you can live with the fixed lens part).
Personally, I'd get the Leica M until Sony makes a removable lens variant.
Thank you guys for your advices.
Regarding the focus screens - I plan to get a 5d3 in the future (hopefully), so changing the focus screens is not a reliable option when investing in an expensive Zeiss lens, and I still feel like i need to stress my eye, especially in a dark enviroment when focusing via viewfinder. The Zakuto EVF is too bulky (we're talking about this: http://www.zacuto.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/dslrevf.jpg , right?). The external focus screens are not an option either (at least for me).
I'm not a videographer, so I would use it only for shooting stills and I'm totally attached to looking into a "hole" in the camera (the viewfinder), or tripod + live-view.
So, it looks like there's nothing on the market that would fit my need?
"is there anything it does that lightroom cant?"
Yes there is:
- Display the focus points
- It is free
- Picture styles are much more realistic than in Lightroom
- Lens correction for the available lenses is better than in Lightroom
- The HDR tool can provide really good results if you learn how to use it properly
- It will provide better results out-of-box than Lightroom but if you spend a little bit more time in Lightroom the final result will look better.
The noise reduction is not any better than the one in Lightroom 4 but it is better than Lightroom 3.
Not one bit, waiting for FF-EVIL that doesn't require the sale of a kidney.
Pity he only used the new 18-55 variable aperture zoom and not the excellent 35mm F/1.4.
I think he'd find them even closer if he had
Its images come close in quality to the EOS 5D Mark III over a wide range of ISO settings.
I took a look at the pictures and i can't follow this conclusion.
- Comparison 1 on page 2: roof with trees in the background. Look, how soft these trees are with the Fuji.
- Comparison 2 on page 2: 100% showing branches. Awful color fringing and softness with the Fuji
- Comparison 3 on page 2: the neighboorhood. Again: soft trees in the background. Low contrast.
- Comparison 4 on page 2: roofs and church. Soft roofing tiles
I wonder, how Martin can come to the conclusion above. In my opinion, the Fuji never comes close to the Canon. It's a nice camera, but the Canon is on a much higher level.
It looks great. Do you think there will be a cable required to run from the camera to the flash or there will be electronic connections which will fire the flash.
I know I am not wording this correctly.
Let me try again: Will the flash work as if it is mounted directly on the hot shoe?
I have the same problem with both of my bodies, in low light and trying to AF on fast-action. It boils down to the fact that I just don't think the 1DX's AF is as good as all the hype when it was first released