« on: September 08, 2013, 09:12:20 PM »
I wouldn't be surprised if this was really a 24-105mm f/2.8 for full frame users. With the release of the 18-35 f/1.8 one might expect more amazing releases with Sigma.
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.
Lenses, lenses, lenses. More lenses to match the form factor and weight without having to use an adapter. Then maybe more people will buy into it as a "system".
I think the current discount prices should help with that. Selling lots of cameras creates a market for lenses.
While selling the camera cheap may not make Canon much money now, I think it was necessary to get the line going.
Once there is a sufficient user-base, then they can make some money selling lenses/accessories/upgrade cameras.
It will also start to attract other companies to produce products.
What I have come to see is that prime users are envious towards the 24-70 users with all their versatility and weight saving. While I see zoom users that envy the prime users for the better image, and of course bokehliciousness of 1.4 and faster. Some girl that spent all she got on a 5D2 and the 24-70L II later wanted to get primes instead LOL, wish I could afford that lens though...
I think I'm with that girl. I'm probably weird, but I don't find 24-70 zooms very appealing. They're nowhere near versatile enough in focal length for me (for versatility my 24-105 is more useful), and within their rather narrow range zooming with your feet makes as much sense. I would rather cover that range via a couple of light primes - a 28 IS or a 35 1.4 plus a 50 1.4, say - and save the zooms for lengths where foot-zooming isn't a good substitute: ultrawide and long. So I would likely be asking the question in reverse....
Still, it's hard to change the perspective between 24 and 70 with your feet. I don't use the 2470 to get closer, I use it to set my perspective and then footzoom to the crop I want. Plus the AF of the 2470 kills every prime under 200mm.
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....