Yep, for me to buy another 1.6x crop camera, it will need to have great low iso ability. Matching my 5DIII...if not it's a waste of a great camera casing.
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 have a Canon 5D Mark III and I'm wondering besides the "full frame" sensor, just why would anyone spend more money on the 5dm3 and not buy the 7dm2? the 7DM2 seems like a great camera in every way...Welcome to the forum. Yes, 7D Mark ii does everything equal or better than 5D Mark III, with the exception of the full frame sensor at high ISO.
If they solved their bokeh problems, perhaps the lens would have more appeal, but I think that bokeh is a problem inherent in the DO design?
The 400 didn't have a bokeh problem. The 70-300 DO was the lens with the sometimes weird bokeh. The internet seems to have lumped both lenses together as if they were one and the same. Spec highlights on the 400 could have a bit of a bullseye effect but that was about it. The OOF areas aren't as nice as the 300 2.8 or 400 2.8 in my opinion, but they aren't really problematic either.
I think the 400 f4 DO II would be pretty amazing if it were about 2/3rd or 1/2 the cost of a 300 2.8 IS II but that's really unlikely.
That depends on your definitions of "problem" and "bokeh".
I think the 400 MkI does have bokeh problems, I used one for a day and got it to do stuff like this, I am sorry but for >$6,000 I want much better than that. Now I will admit that I personally shot over water like this regularly, so for me it was an unsurmountable issue, and I can well understand others happy and extensive use that never induces such low quality, but for me the 300 f2.8 IS MkI and 1.4TC was a much better, and cheaper, buy and in my opinion DO sucks, yes the 400 DO sucks less than the 70-300 DO (which really sucks) but they both suck.
I'm sure these are wonder optics that live up to their billing, regardless of how overblown some of the verbiage is in the marketing slicks.
But for my money, I think I would pour my $ into a medium format system for portraits before I considered the Otus lenses. I could do a lot more with, say, a Pentax 645Z and a couple of lenses, than by adding the Otus lenses to my lineup.
Just my take on them.
Doesn't mean I won't lust after this 85mm...
How much better is this lens compared to the Canon EF 85mm F1.2L II? Is it worth over twice as much? I don't know and I am not trying to be cynical. I would just like to hear what people say. Thanks.
Don't you just hate the moronic marketing blurb that goes with lenses these days? What a load of B/S!
Why can't they just say...hey! it's got amazing optitics, you REALLY need to try this puppy. It aint a real f1.4...but most f1.4 lenses aren't either. It's big and heavy and it's manual focus which makes it crap for sport and nature. But use it for available light portraiture and it's amazing. Don't use it in the studio under monoblocs...why use an f1.4 lens at f11? Seriously...get out there on the street with this and be amazed. Or go shoot some walls and boast on a forum how great it is. Or pop it on a shelf and admire the Carl Zeiss craftsmanship.
honestly? Nature? Studio? gimme break. Low light portraiture is what this lens is built for, nothing else. In that genre it will excel.
What exactly is it that makes you an expert for the use of this lens?
Yes Sir, the D810 is has an better image quality and dynamic range than the 5DIII. But, as you can read in many postings on this forum, an optical system is more than just the picture sensor. The whole system has to work perfectly together to help you to get an - technically seen - good picture.
In my family, you can find the D810, D800 (both my husband), 5DIII (my son), 6D &7 D (myself), and A7r (my daughter).
And each camera has its benefits. My daughter needs a light camera with an good image quality (like my husband does - but he owns several Nikon lenses). My son and I prefer to shoot birds, planes and animals, so we stayed with Canon).
The 5DIII is an all-in-one package. The image quality is not as good as the Sony´s and Nikon´s, but its autofocus system is superior. The D810 has an superior image quality, bit the autofocus system lacks of speed, if you shoot moving objects.
I think, each camera has its own field of application. Sometime you can not directly compare them betweeen.
I it true, that Canon should get better in resolution and dynamic range, but Nikon should hurry up to get an fast autofocus system. (This is my opinion).
By the way: My husband, who stayed at the soccer WM told me, that there were several modified cameras "in the field". With bulky housings, others with an odd combination of cameras and lenses or leneses that were not printed with their specifications). So you can be sure Canon is working on succesors of the 1Dx and 5DIII.
For me, a 7DII will offer a number of useful advantages to my existing 5DII cameras. A higher frame rate and a longer reach. I'm hoping that these will not be at the expense of the high iso ability of the 5DIII and great per pixel sharpness and clarity I see from that same camera. The 7DII is a newer generation to the 5DIII, so I think we should be seeing advances in those areas. If not....I'll pass and save for a 1DXII
Shooting at base ISO and being able to process a file without having to watch awful blotches or noise would be nice
A couple of questions come to mind; do you actually go looking for noise ? I mean getting a group like-minded friends round and having a noise hunt ? Or the one who can create the most noise gets a coconut ?
Secondly have you used a 70D ? ( disclaimer here - I haven't but I'm hearing very good reports.......)