OK after 7 pages of confirmations, we can conclude that:
1. YES RAW is worth it.
1. YES RAW is worth it.
Shooting RAW is like shooting on negative film. You get the negatives and you can go back and create copies that look the way you want, whenever you want.
Shooting jpgs only, is like being handed a polaroid photo. (And I've never liked polaroids.)
The 100-400 + 2 x 1.4TCs doesn't look any better than the SX50, which costs less than 2 TCs
Don't you just hate the moronic marketing blurb that goes with lenses these days? What a load of B/S!Oh yeah! What truth!
I stopped reading this press release (it really is???) after the second paragraph because I had the fear of a retinal detachment.
I went to the German Zeiss HP where the product description was a little bit more rational.
I looked at the pictures and said: Wow! Great pictures from great photographers. Even better because of great equipment.
Honestly I don't understand, why people who don't know enough of photography get paid for such... yeah, you got it... moronic marketing blurb!
If you don't use it and don't need it as light, compact and fast "emergency backup" ... Then sell it.
I would not buy the current canon 50/1.4 or 50/1.2 L instead. Neither are really worth the money. Maybe canon will come up with a really good and priceworthy 50/1.8 IS sometome soon. In line with 24, 28 / 2.8 is and 35/2 IS.
Having owned the 150-500 OS I swore I'd never buy a budget telephoto zoom again. And lets face it even if this Sigma costs 2K its still a budget telephoto zoom in terms of the focal lenght and features you are getting for your money. I will watch this one closely as I expect the image quality of this lens will be very acceptable.
Edit: This 60d's shutter now has 160k cycles (it's rated for only 100k).
I really love my G11. Together with an underwater housing, I can take it almost anywhere without fear.
50 MP, 16 stops of DR. Canon must respond to that!!
No, they don't. This is land of the Canon fanboy. Don't you understand that in the world sensors don't matter. They never mattered since Camon had the best sensors. Now the lens line up is the only think that matters. DxoMark says other company's have better lenses? Then DXOMark doesn't matter. This is Canonland and the only thing that matters is our stuff is the best
You got one thing right – "No, they don't."
In the world sensors do matter, but people don't buy bare silicon sensors, they buy cameras. I'm really not sure why people have so much trouble grasping that and/or accepting it.
I suppose some people just find it challenging to deal with reality. They'd rather live in their own personal version of reality, where their personal opinions are the most important drivers for the development plans of all companies. It's sad.
.18 e-mount cameras since 2010 (not counting video cameras)....23 e-mount lenses (of which at least 2 were refreshes of existing ones).
Doesn't Sony introduce a new camera every day?
Imagine how much better off they'd be if they had just made the NEX5 or NEX7 and build a lens system around it.
I presume that most beginners are not going to purchase the expensive lenses.
To be fair, I generally recommend that tentative beginners get the 100-400L,
I heard the Canon 5D Mark 3 has no interchangeable screens anymore? Would be a shame for manual users like me ;( Can anyone confirm this?
Could someone devise a depth of opinion calculator, to minimize the circles of confusion.
200 2.8L i and ii
Both still no problem to deliver good images at Canon 70d even at 100% and wide open.
70-200 2.8L, 24-105/4 IS is indeed very fine lens and still very competitive.
85 1.8 ,100 2.0 and 100 2.8 USM macro....great lens.