I can't afford it even if I would, but Sony proved this technology is available now, so it means in 3-4 years it will be mainstream. Thank you, Sony.
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.
If you're buying vintage lenses, read this first:
and once that's clear, start the buying madness
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.
Contax-Zeiss Primes have less issues being fitted to EOS camera than the FD lenses. Plus, They're awesome.
If one of the OP's is correct and this 46MP sensor is a Foveon sensor, this is similar from what I understand is in Sigma DP MERRILL point and shoot that has a few good reviews. However if it was this simple and that great, wouldn't this already be a trend by now?
Last year I met a photographer who actually had done extensive research on this Foveon sensor and his advise to me then was to 'give them some time to perfect it'. He was shooting a Canon 5D2 and had numerous Sigma and Canon lenses but advised me to stay clear of that technology for now.
As much as I "love" Canon...
Maybe going with another brand for this project would be better suited.
Case in point, I was thinking of pick up a Pentax K30 dslr. Nothing too fancy, but with the native ability to mount most, if not all, Pentax lenses from the beginning, and the in-body IS, sound a bit more fun.
I don't have any frist hand exp, but i would imagine some older F mounts might be a good idea. If that's not trick enough, you could get some Leica R mounts.
You're failing to frame things in the right context. 4 years ago all people wanted was a better AF in the 5D2, now things have changed as technology matured and new performance standards were defined.
Also, the improvement in AF (supposedly) boasted by the 6D over the 5D2 is quite undersized for today's standards and for the price of that camera with respect to other missing features compared to its older sibling.
Some years ago a Blu-Ray player was 800€, now you can have one for 80€. Selling old technology for a brand-new price tag is unacceptable. But I guess Apple fans and stockholders would probably disagree with me.
Your blu-ray comparison is BS. There is nothing new in todays blu-ray player that wasn't in one from 4 years ago. So if you want to use that as an example then compare the price of the mkii from 4 years ago to now. Big difference right? The mkiii has a new sensor, new AF, new processor. i.e. it is NOT 4 year old tech. Anybody who thinks it is is just plain daft. It might not be the tech you wanted in the mkiii but it IS what people asked for.
Canon filled a patent for a foveon type sensor. If there will be a 46.1 megapixel camera I expect the foveon type sensor in it.
I can't help but chuckle at the state of affairs on this forum now. For years I coveted a 5Dmkii but couldn't justify getting rid of my 7D to do it. After all the 7D AF system is "light years" ahead of the antiquated 5dmkii AF system. I read hundreds of threads and posts dedicated to how bad the mkii AF system was/is. The general consensus was just giv us a 22mp (who needs more, right) 5D with a better AF system. Well Canon delivered exactly that. What's the old saying? Watch out, you might get what you asked for. I'm still amazed at the pictures a lot of you have gotten with your 5D mkii and it's antiquated AF system.
.. cuz the stabilized one's only just been announced.
Actually, having expected its announcement back in spring, I opted to purchase the original version in F-mount so I'd have that range covered on my FF Nikon bodies until I could afford/justify a new Nikon version. Since I mostly shoot all manual, AF speed and even accuracy is of little importance to me. Resolution tests looked pretty good for the price.
I was concerned about the MF precision with this lens since the end-to-end focus throw is not very long but it's very smooth and lightly damped and works well in the field. Better MF than Nikon's v2, IMO.
The other thing that worked well in the field is the lens' absolute sharpness performance. It's amazing, considering the price! Smooth bokeh, very close focus ability, and it's stupid-sharp! Enough that I was able to generate moire issues on distant brickwork using 135mm FL. Very low CA too.
I don't know if it's quite as sharp as Canon's v2 of the 70-200/2.8 but it's good enough for pixel-level detail on my D800e and that means I'll be keeping it and not buying the Nikon one.
If you're hankering for a good deal on a fast 70-200mm zoom, the Tamron is worth considering. If you don't need IS, it's comparable to the non-IS Canon lens at a lower price.
No I get it... I just think anyone saying "this is better..." or worse... "Canon / Nikon missed the boat" etc. based on a spec sheet when no one has shot the first frame with a production version needs to chill. Spec sheets are worthless, images and useability are everything.