Why has this made it to page 30?
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.
Why has this made it to page 30?
My advise: Switch systems, be happy, and STFU
Yes. Especially when there are three Sony FF bodies that you can adapt Canon lenses to and still have aperture control, AF, and IS! You don't even have to switch, just add. AF is dog slow, but who cares for a high DR landscape?
If you're posting in thread after thread on a Canon forum complaining about DR but you haven't switched or added a Sony A7 body, then DR isn't actually the issue.
Not to forget: good close focus capabilites welcome, sth. like 1:3.5 or 1:4 would be great!
3. The smears on the Hassleblad Lunar is that it is a dressed-up Sony. So why isn't a Nikon D810 smeared for being a dressed-up Sony?
My intention is to have a good quality walkabout all in one solution when on holiday etc with the wife. Pickup the 6D and 24-105 and off we go with no need to swap out lenses. I am hoping to see a good IQ improvement over the 550D and 18-135 STM.
I'm intrigued why more fixed-mount lenses with a simple, high quality zoom aren't offered more often. Right now, the best bet for fixed-mount lens with a small, high quality zoom are some "cheaper" APS-C Leicas or the high-end point and shoots like the Sony RX100 series or the G1X II. Fuji has the X10, X20 bodies that do this as well, I think...
I think the reason why is manufacturers want lens pullthrough dollars, so the added cost / hassle of making it modular in as many body designs as possible is more profitable in the longer term. Just guessing, though.
Do I but the Sigma 14-24mm OS which takes 82mm filters, although all my other lenses take 77mm filters, and also lose 13° of angle of view compared to the Canon 16-35mm f/4? I think not.
I'm sure these lenses will be good for others, but I will skip them for now.
How is the viewfinder on the SL-1? I looked through a 450D the other day and was shocked by the tininess of the OVF. I like to see what I'm doing and for that reason I actually like the EVF on my NEX - it's much bigger than the OVF of a traditional xxx(x)D body.
I always thought the SL-1 looked interesting for use on a telescope with its low weight. How is the iso performance ? I use the 5DmIII for wide field but still use the 40D when I need to get closer ( and lighter), and it stinks above iso 800.
Excellent thread. This topic has vexed me on 5D3 flower work. The 5D3 has always been oversaturated on reds in my hands, and I seem to lose something when I try to rein in the reds in RAW processing.
Is this more than a disagreement about what "very little" means (or, put differently, about whether the differences you see matter)? dtaylor doesn't say they look the same, after all....
He implied the difference is not noticeable to which we responded (based on actually having owned a 7D and 5D) that we disagree. That is all we are stating. Neither person is wrong as we are simply stating opinions. What others choose to do with that info is their business.
Note this is based on the 7D. Modern day APS-C cameras with Sonikon sensors is a different debate. Perhaps in those cases the difference is less. I'm sure someone with both could comment.
@ sdsr - Glad you have gotten good results out of the combo. I agree with you that when you are able to get a usable shot with an adapted EF lens, the extra resolution and DR are nice to have. However, the process and frequency I have experienced with regard to getting keepers has been rough. The bumps in those two departments are insignificant when the shots riddled with blur from shake.
For instance, I took about 150 shots with the 85II mounted yesterday. My hope was to be able to get good results at wide open or close to. However, this was not the case. I've had a lot of problems not getting camera shake/blur even at faster shutter speeds than I would normally use. The other problem is with when I would frame the subject away from the center. It was impossible to get anything sharp between (what the camera showed) f1.3-1.7. In the center, it was okay and good enough at times. But for the most part, I was underwhelmed and thoroughly disappointed with anything out of the dead center of the frame. Things started to get acceptable around 2.8 which is definitely not where I wanted to shoot with the 85.
After having attempted to use basically every piece of Canon glass I own on the Sony, I have found that the IQ is just not where I imagined it would be. However, when I mount the native 55mm, IQ is pretty darn good and I don't believe the lack of performance is any fault of the Canon glass.
There may be a small segment of users out there that have gotten the perfectly crafted adapter that causes only minimal degradation, but my belief is that that segment is truly minority.
Furthermore, simply enabling AF and saying you've accomplished the ability to retain most features is not the same as actually making the lenses anywhere near as usable as in their native mounts. Don't be fooled for one second that you will be able to AF EF lenses on any of the Sony bodies in any real world situation where your subject is not lifeless.
I have 35L 50L,135L,200L trying to get 1-2 new lens to travel
1.wish list/ (16-35f2.8 or f4) (24-70 f2.8II) (70-200mm f2.8 or 70-200mm f4)
2.would you sell 35L or 200L when u get 16-35 or 70-200?
3.which 3 lens would u take to travel? and street photography