Interesting, but I'm in doubt about my need for a high MP camera. A camera needs to have a attractive set of features before I upgrade.
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.
It probably won't happen since they would have to redesign the manufacturing process to so it, and there likely isn't enough of a market for it to be worthwhile.
I'm not sure I follow this thread. I think perhaps the word "stigma" is being used incorrectly in the title. When I think of AFMA I think of there being a lot of confusion out there about what it is and how it works, even though it's pretty straightforward IMO.
I've also never seen a thread where somebody claimed to send the lens back to Canon for AFMA. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, $20 says it has - I've just personally never seen somebody claim to do so on a forum.
I have the 17-40 and since you will be using it for landscapes the f4 won't be an issue. I use mine all the time. It's a great lens. The 16-35 f4 is is supposed to be even better overall.
Thanks for the overall feedback.
I agree this is a long way from an ideal study. If I had wanted to publish in a journal I would of course have raised the bar significantly... but this is a forum.
I typically look for trends, but generally trust the sharpness maps of SLRGear and the detailed testing of LensTip and DxO. I also find that no one tests color and contrast, which are very important to me as well. When I did brick wall tests of the 24-70 I & II and 16-35 f/2.8 II & 16-35 f/4 IS, those two were huge improvements.
Ultimately, I try out the lens as some lenses like the controversial 50L suck at testing, but excel at portraits. Same goes with the 180L macro. A German site shows it as the sharpest lens they have tested, but everyone else shows it as decent. My copy is very good, but not my sharpest lens. It has the best color and contrast of any lens I own, however.
Explanation please? What is a low pass filter in this context? What is it for and if it's necessary, why build a camera without one? Is it the same as an anti-aliasing filter (another term I don't understand...)
Folks keep asking the question. The answer is "Do not Make Purchasing Decisions Based on Rumors" A exception might be a CR III rumor with photos of the product. Rumors are not reliable in general, they are great for discussion, but don't take them too seriously.
Some have been waiting thru 7 years worth of rumors to get a 100-400mm MK II.
Thank you for the links. I did search briefly before posting but didn't find those.
As far as my questioning, everyone has good solid answers, both here and those other links. And, if it was purely based on rumors, I wouldn't have even posted. But when you look at the timetable of body releases, the rumors and what the market is doing, it seems like the 5DIV should be dropping very soon. But then again, I don't have the ability dig in and find out whats going on at the electronics shows, and what-not, like some of you may.
When I got the 6D last year, it was the same sort of deal that B&H has right now for the 5DIII. I still feel like I got a good deal, but after shooting with the 6D for a year, I really wish I had just invested in the extra grand and purchased the 5DIII instead. Then, right now, I'd be looking at $3-4K on some really nice glass instead of another body. I really don't want to be in this position again next year, but as my yearly budget for camera gear isn't bottomless, if they bump the sensor up to around 30mp, improve high ISO noise and increase FPS on the 5DIV, I know I'll be a big ole sucker and have to have it instead of lenses for another year. I know there's always going to be a better camera around the corner, but if it drops in 3 to 6 months after I purchase the 5DIII, I'm going to feel really burned.
@tphillips63, I know to many people that would be a good option, but I'm one of the unluckiest people around. Used or grey market, I'd get it and something would go wrong. Then I'd really be bummed.