On the off-chance no-one's mentioned this yet, Roger Cicala's test results are now available here:
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.
The "this format is almost as good as that one" slope is a slippery one. FF is what, 2.6 times the light gathering area af a (canon) APS-C? Well if the FF is barely better than APS-C with that size advantage, then surely APS-C has an even smaller performance advantage over M4/3 being only 1.4 times larger. And so on and so forth until cellphone sensors are perfect adequate for all purposes.
2. That said, if I do scrutinize, it's not hard to tell the superiority of FF images over APS-C and M43,
Yeah it is actually. The problem with this debate is 99.9% of the people debating have never been forced to pick between unlabeled prints. Much like wine experts discover when they are blindfolded, our ability to "scrutinize" photos is not nearly what we believe it to be when labels are in front of us.
ISO 100-800 (probably throw in 1600 for Sony sensors)...all other factors being equal (MP; lens IQ) with optimal processing for both...you're not going to identify the format between APS-C and FF even in big prints.
When Zack implies that shooting APS-C is a good as Nikon full frame, that doesn't automatically apply to Canon APS-C sensors. We're lagging behind. But when you look at other modern sensors (such as Fuji) that are being put into camera systems in which quality lenses are being specifically designed for APS-C sensors (such as Fuji), you'd be surprised at the high image quality. Modern APS-C sensors are excellent. Rather than being defensive and negative, we should become proactive and demand Canon pick up their game.
No, it's not an irrational fanboy problem, it is a money problem. If I could afford to sell out of Canon and replace all my Canon gear with Nikon, then I'd do it in a heart beat. But I can't. And I suspect the same is true for many others. We're all effectively held hostage by Canon so we're pretty much at the mercy of whatever Canon decides to deliver to us. Some of us are angry that Canon is lagging so far behind in sensor development when compared with what Nikon and Sony are doing, some of us aren't. And that's how Canon stays #1, just like a drug dealer, get 'em when they're "young" and you've got them for life.
Personally, I'd love to have the Nikon D810, but only if I could put my Canon glass on it!
Nikon doesn't make the high quality glass that I need, for the lenses that I use. For example: Canon TSE 24mm mark2.
I'll take this opportunity to trot out one of my favorite photo wishes: an industry-standard SLR mount so we can freely interchange cameras and lenses across manufacturers.
Ain't gonna happen in the U.S. Hey, EU! We need your regulatory assistance here!
Congratulations on your decision to move to 6D (hope you will be as thrilled as I am, since I moved to 6D from crop, 450D).
Seeing that you have the 100mm 2.8 L macro I suggest, that you start out with that one to get some feel for the FL (not too far from 85mm as many suggested above) and the much greater bokeh on FF, than you were used to on crop. I like it for portraits - though not exactly a 'monster'.
Based on that you can make a more experienced decision.
Great locations a little too much post but this is my dream too.
But it's annoying to buy a fairly expensive AF lens which you're expected to fiddle around with on a docking station and even then seems best used, in the case of many copies at any rate, in MF mode.
Why do you think AFMA exists on Canon cameras? To address the same problem that the docking station is for.
The problem isn't QC it is engineering tolerances and the fact that neither camera nor lens are all made the same. There is copy variation between each camera and lens. This means that whilst AFMA might be +5 for a given lens on your camera, that same lens might be -5 on my camera and that same lens might be +0 on someone else's camera.
Sure, most pp software provides lens correction, but not on off-brand combinations.. so you will not get the proper corrections on something like the 14-24mm when used on the Sony body as you would on a Nikon body, and the same goes for the 17mm or 24mm TS on the Sony body, but the Canon's would need less correction to begin with.
The 16-35L IS and the 10-18mm IS alone make this year great for Canon users. If they add the 100-400LII, it would be the year of the lens.
Just got my RMA from B&H. Simply don't want to deal with the dock. Also, just read on the lensrental site that they have had "multiple" problems with the lens locking up during adjustment on the dock.
And I don't play the "good copy" game.
Lovely bokeh, all around IQ, but I'm too spoiled by AF to give it up for MF!