« on: January 31, 2013, 09:26:12 AM »
Lightroom 4 does an excellent job with 6D RAW files (just as it does with the RAW files from any other camera I've used; I also have DxO 8, but I don't think it's as good).
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.
You mentioned you were interested in low-light photography. In that case, the 5D2 will not fit your needs, but the 6D would beautifully (as of course would the 5D3). I love my 6D for it's low light capabilities and while the 5DIII does more, you can put the money you save on buying a 6D rather than the 5D3 on or toward another lens. I guess it all comes down to whether you'd really get the use out of the extra features of the 5D3 more than you'd get from another lens.
Can you explain what you mean by low-light capabilities? And why would the 5DII not fit his needs for that? I never had any issues with my 5DII in low light settings. Quite the opposite actually. I'm not sure how the 6D is even better with that. But even if that is the case I doubt that that has more practical implications than the 6D's lower x-sync speed, missing 1/8000 and the small plasticky form factor.
The 5DII is not only a bargain at this point - at least for my needs I'd still consider it the better camera. The MarkIII of course solves all those issues pretty much but still comes in with a much higher price tag and I'd only shell that out if I'd really need the additional features and upgrades over the MarkII. I'm in no rush with that personally.
EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM @ just under $800?
I don't own any L glass. For this price it looks like a good first L lens for my FF camera.
What do you think?
- It continues to shock me that Canon is top of the line for lenses, AF, and ergonomics (in my opinion), yet it continues to have poor sensors compared to the competition. I don't put too much faith in those DXO scores, but the dynamic range data out there, particularly in low ISO, gives compelling reason that Sony/Nikon sensors are a solid step ahead of Canon's. Heck, in some of these tests we're seeing lower price point sensors beat the Canon counterparts (D600 trumping the 5D3, for instance).
+1It would be nice to have an update on the 50mm f/1.4 - at least I am curious about it.
What would be the improvement in a new 50 f/1.4 have over the old one?
As an amateur the current lens works pretty well for me. Took a picture just yesterday. Very low light. Only source was a flatscreen. No NR applied.
oh that´s simple.
AF that does not break that often.
the 50mm f1.4 is one of the lenses where the focus breaks quite often.
better border sharpness.
better sharpness at f1.4
less bokeh fringing.
better bokeh overall on FF cameras.
the lens is good but that does not mean there is nothing to improve.
I can believe that. But should any of that really affect your decision to get one of the 3 cameras over the other? I
i agree, but that is a different point.
in this forum a lot of people spend more time arguing about technical stuff then shooting.
so you have to be technical correct!
the canon fanboys can talk hours about sharpness of one lens vs. the other.
but don´t you dare to say canon sensors lack behind sony/nikon.. then you will hear that doesnt matter.
i guess that is called "selective reality".
i find it somewhat interesting that a 5 year old canon sensor produces sharper images then the new FF sensors.
it´s not much, sure.
but be honest, you would expect sharper images not softer images from a new sensor.
For those you use DxO and Lightroom/Aperture for editing.. what do you do in DxO vs. what do you do in Lightroom/Aperture? In other words, what are the relative strengths of DxO that justify the extra step in your workflow?
The DxO lens corrections are an obvious strength... what else?
IMO, one could actually make a pretty good gear bag with one each of these bodies [6D & D600] and a couple of lenses for each that exploits their strengths. JMO.
Yada yada yada - I think all the bloggers just read other reviews and write a new one, what I'm waiting for is dpreview.com that strangely takes a lot of time, but imho is one of the best for reviews that really tell you where the hidden catches are.
We can either (1) wait on the dpreview, then, or (2) do as everyone and start our own review webpage!
(May I suggest ctrl_c_ctrl_v_reviews.com?)
I have been considering selling my setup
24-70 2.8 mkii
70-200 2.8 is mkii
600 exrt speedlite
To get a 6d
24-70 f4 is
Newer speedlite 430ex ii replacement
I just spent thousands of dollars this year and have hardly used the gear. When I do its for candids or vacations. I wonder if I am wasting the money and should sell it to downgrade to something more enthusiast level and cheaper. Also it's just so much to lug around. Just not sure and wanted some opinions.
I have read prior threads and am still not sold on one lens versus the other. My usage would be weddings plus typical insect and floral macro shots. I have a tax refund coming which would pay for either copy plus a 70-200 f/4 or 70-300L. Any input, especially practical use experience would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
I enjoy portraits of family & friends mostly on my old 450D, and planning to get an indoor portrait lens addition to my EFS 15-85. Does Sigma 35MM F/1.4 DG HSM really worth the price or should I get the cheap EF 40 f/2.8 STM?