Without mentioning anyone specific I just wanted to say that writing an essay requires good grammar, which also requires knowledge.
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.
I had been hopeful. but it looks like, that canons 70d sensor isn´t worth to be my next investment.
the new live view autofocus is pretty innovative. I appreciate, that we get back AF microadjustment und an updated AF-system.
but i´m sorry to say. the sensor-quality isn´t (at least) on par with the sony sensor of a nikon D7000. even more lagging behind nikon´s D7100. 2ev less dynamic range and 1/3ev in the high-iso area. thats remarkable, when you consider, that the sony sensor of the D7000 has been released back in 2010.
well, all in all. I won´t buy the 70d.
maybe a 7d mk2 will have a competitive sensor.
Right, but you're supposed to be a photographer first and an editor second. DR doesn't help you when you're actually taking your shot, though it might give you peace of mind knowing the very basics of exposing an image is no longer relevant.
That is missing the greater point. It does help you when you are taking a shot since you need to be able to judge whether a certain shot might have too much DR for the camera to handle and whether you need to get into multiple exposures or graduated filters etc., or when that is not possible which can be the case, to realize the shot may struggle to process well.
Sure better DR can be nice when it comes to rescuing blown shots or shots where the exposure wasn't quite dead on but it is mostly about much more than that. If a scene has a lot DR it may exceed the camera's ability no matter how perfectly you expose.
It's not at all just about people who make a mess of exposure all the time simply wanting to be able to escape that. It's rather little about that.
I love how people keep arguing over the sensors and how much more DR they actually need. These people aren't photographers, they're editors with cameras. Tons of DR is like a crutch for them. Wow, they screwed up their shots,, shouldn't that mean they have to live and learn from loss? Lazy. Such a worthless excuse for a petty argument.
This really doesn't make any sense. Every good songwriter, author, or photographer is also a good editor. It's always been that way.
Also it's odd (IMHO) to excuse away technological advancement for the sake of technique. Why can't one attain both? Should we have puffed our chest at the implementation of auto-focus? Should we have held our noses at IS? After all, good technique can nullify those as well....
Yes, I agree that focus breathing is acceptable in a lens, for that price, however I also agree with XVNM that this is dissapointing regardless.
Again, I disagree. While the motor may be good for video because of its sound, or lack thereof, it's a $199 lens! Even lenses that cost thousands of dollars exhibit focus breathing.
The Kia Rio starts at $13,600.
The Ferrrari 458 Speciale probably costs 20x that.
You might be disappointed that the Kia can't take a corner at 60 mph or go 0-60 in a couple of seconds, but you should be just as disappointed that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny don't really come and bring toys and candy to little boys and girls. None of these expectations are realistic.And the issue of focus breathing is relevant particularly so for video users
I didn't say that it wasn't. I said/meant/implied that being surprised/disappointed by it in a sub $200 lens was ridiculous.
Back when I shot film, Canon made a piece of crap plastic 28-70 3.5-5.6 lens (the so-called "plastic fantastic" that was literally a throw in/throw out lens) and a 28-70 2.8 L lens. If you got a good copy of the latter (which I did) you could make some really nice images. If you had the former and compared them, even at f/5.6 it was Ford Pinto vs Mercedes SL class convertible (I guess I'm in a car mood today). Maybe even a bicycle vs the Mercedes. You shouldn't expect to be able to extract gold from a pile of manure and be disappointed when you can't. That's like, well, being disappointed after staying up all night and seeing that Santa did not shimmy down your chimney.
And, btw, focus breathing can be observed in the 24-70 2.8 II at all focal lengths, as well as in the 70-200 2.8 II.
Just because a relatively cheap lens has an STM does not mean it's not going to be a relatively cheap lens designed primarily for still cameras, STM or not.
Canon's Description:QuoteA unique and indispensable addition to Canon's series of EF lenses, the new EF 40mm f/2.8 STM offers an ultra-slim and lightweight design. Incredibly compact in size, the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM delivers high image quality from the center to the periphery thanks to its advanced lens configuration including an aspherical element, a bright 2.8 aperture, and optimized coatings that minimize ghosting and flare while providing exceptional color balance. The EF 40mm f/2.8 STM's unobtrusive design helps the photographer avoid overwhelming their subjects with a large lens and to remain discreet in sensitive shooting situations with no compromise in performance. Its diminutive design is complemented by features such as a newly developed stepping motor for smooth and quiet continuous AF while capturing video with the Canon EOS Rebel T4i DSLR, a circular aperture (7 blades) for beautiful soft-focus backgrounds, and a short minimum focusing distance of only 0.98 ft./0.30 m.
It delivers the "smooth and quiet continuous AF while capturing video...". I don't see it promising more than that. In fact, it seems to me that it delivers well on its promises.