hmm, if these specs are true, it does not sound exciting.
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.
Did I miss it?Yes, you missed it ... we all did
Goodbye my dear 5d mk III . You were my first "real" love. You were so quick and comfortable in my hands. I loved the way you felt. When we were together, we were "one in the same". You were the peanut butter to my jelly. Simply amazing and skilled in every aspect. Your resolution, dynamic range and AF were as real as it got. I even loved your previous model almost as much. You were my "King of the World."Seriously ... when people feel compelled to post their unhealthy "love affairs", like this, about things, they are desperately in need of some human contact or need to see a shrink ... in this guy's/girl's case, he/she needs both.
I have decided its time to move on. We just don't see eye to eye anymore. I need more!
Are you sure it's not a Sony and the photographer is ashamed of it... by the way I cover the brand name on all of my 3 Sony cameras with a black electrical tape
Threads like this are what makes Canonrumors a hoot to read.How dare you sir! Don't you know that reasoning is not a virtue in these kind of forums
Few things are more entertaining than reading Canon owners getting spun up over a Nikon product.
If you like Canon, buy Canon
If you like Nikon, buy Nikon
If you like Canon and Nikon, buy Canon and Nikon.
Is it really more complicated than that?
If you don't think the D810 is the camera for you, great! No one is forcing you to buy a D810. But just because someone does not like the D810 does not mean it is a bad camera or that someone else may like it.
But if everyone felt this way, Canonrumors would not be as entertaining as it is.
I returned recently from a week of shooting up in Churchill, MB. What a place for birds in June.Very nice pics Glenn ... welcome to CR!
Here are a few that I hope you will enjoy!
Your expectations are very low ... along with the "popcorn maker and cheese grater" I also want an integrated coffee maker.At least now we know when the forums will be flooded with people complainingI for one am disgusted that the new camera does not include an integrated popcorn maker and cheese grater.
(just trying to beat the rush)
I understand what you are saying ... but I was not saying the the dimensions provided by camerasize.com are incorrect, however they are misleading in the way they display the sizes by just giving one dimensional view.Canon SL1 with 15-85 IS. That's all you need. This gives you great IQ for the size, good image controls, built-in flash, and a lens with an equivalent of 24-135.
The EF-S 15-85 might be a bit long for landscape photography; the OP may need the 10-22 as well.Those camera size comparisons are very misleading ... in reality there is a significant difference in the space that a 6D+24-70 f/4 & a7+24-70 f/4 occupy in the camera bag. In the space that 6D+24-70 f/4 occupies I can fit in an a7+a6000 cameras and 24-70+10-18mm lenses.
I have no doubt that you can pack more lenses and camera bodies using Sony's system than the one from Canon, but this is something which is also due the particular size/configuration of your bag and how you arrange your lenses and cameras. So, this really goes beyond the scope of the comparison provided in Camerasize.com, which shows only the side-by-side differences between different camera+lens combinations and the actual gain in space is something that has to be assessed by the user considering his/her bags and means of gear transportation. Finally, unless camerasize.com got the relative dimensions of the cameras and lenses wrong, the information provided are in no way misleading - but of course this information does not garantee that the photographer will make the best judgment out of it...
The point I tried to make earlier is not that absolutely no gain in space/volume is possible by changing from FF DSLR to mirrorless FF systems (i.e. keeping the same sensor), as you say you can carry more lenses and bodies by switching from Canon to Sony. My point is that more gain in space is possible by going from a FF system, which intrinsically requires large lenses for a given f/ apperture and image quality, to an APS-C system - mirrorless vs DSLR has all in all a lesser impact on total camera+lens volume/weight than FF vs APS-C.
I am convinced that using an APS-C system with fully optimized lenses (top build and optical quality) can deliver a higher image quality in a smaller package than a FF mirorrless systems with reduced-sized lenses having a compromized design and construction.
Those camera size comparisons are very misleading ... in reality there is a significant difference in the space that a 6D+24-70 f/4 & a7+24-70 f/4 occupy in the camera bag. In the space that 6D+24-70 f/4 occupies I can fit in an a7+a6000 cameras and 24-70+10-18mm lenses.Have you ever hand-on a7 series with their native lenses: FE 35mm, 55mm, 24-70mm etc...?
I did try the A7 at my local photo supplier when I was considering this option, but I did not test the whole set of native lenses. Although you're right that these are smaller than Canon's L equivalent, I did not find the size/weight reduction significant enough for me to step out from my 6D+ L lenses system (sure, the difference would be much more striking with a 1D body).
Your comment made me curious enough to dig the aspect of size difference further, and here are some side-by-side comparisons (keeping the equivalent focal length and apperture as constant as possible) :
¤ 35mm prime (135 format): http://camerasize.com/compact/#380.368,487.394,520.422,ha,t
¤ 50/55mm prime (135 format): http://camerasize.com/compact/#380.306,487.87,520.408,ha,t
¤ 24-70mm zoom (135 format) range: http://camerasize.com/compact/#380.367,487.393,520.421,ha,t
In some cases (like with the 35mm prime) the Sony system is indeed very compact and even smaller than the Fuji X, but in other instances the size difference with the 6D is very limited. Now, what would be interesting is to compare how the Sony lenses fare compared to Canon's L in terms of optical quality. That could be something to do on DxOmark next time I have time for that.
Interesting on the camera comparison. The site only show top view? I wonder, why don't they show front, back and side view
The A7 series certainly fit well the situation, but what is the point of using the exact same bulky FF-optimized lenses if the initial goal is to significantly reduces the overall system size and weight? The camera body size will be for sure smaller but not the lenses, so on the whole the size and weight reduction will be only minimal.In my office bag I could carry my Mac Book Pro and Canon 5D MK III + 24-70 f/2.8 lens and a 16-35 f/2.8 lens ... but now I can carry 2 cameras (a7+a6000) and 5 lenses (10-18 + 24-70 + 70-200 + 55 + 85 with Metabones adapter) and a MBP in the same space (but this would not be possible even if I only carried my 70D & 5 equivalent EF-S lenses). Lenses for the mirrorless cameras may not be as fast as the DSLR equivalents but they are a happy compromise.
Most people look at some camera/lens size comparison websites and come to incorrect conclusion that there isn't much of a difference in size, but one has to carry the mirrorless cameras and lenses around in bag to know the difference. What the mirrorless system does is reduce the overall weight and the space they occupy in your camera bag, plus you don't need to carry heavier tripods ... I now use Benro's MeFOTO Roadtrip tripod, (including ballhead) which fits inside my carry on luggage in the flight ... that's 2 mirrorless cameras, (1 full frame + 1 crop sensor), 5 lenses (with a FOV from 15mm - 300mm), 1 tripod with ball head, 2 speedlites and a Mac Book Pro as hand luggage in one single bag.
Only those who travel frequently can appreciate the flexibility and ease that such a setup provides ... also the resulting weight reduction only brings back the joy of being able to use the gear you want anywhere. Many photographers I know (including me) have carried lots of DSLR gear only to realize that sometimes the space and weight took away the fun factor of photography (bcoz on many occassions we didn't get to use the gear we carried), so we tried taking only a limited amount of gear only to feel guilty for not carrying a particular lens which would have been perfect for a given situation ... but the mirrorless system provides you with the luxury of being able to carry 2 cameras with half a dozen lenses along with a light weight tripod & a MBP as hand luggage ... now that is awesome. Yes, as of now the morrorless system cannot do everything what high end DSLRs or "L" quality lenses can do, nevertheless its a happy compromise, one which I am very happy with at the moment.
The A7 series certainly fit well the situation, but what is the point of using the exact same bulky FF-optimized lenses if the initial goal is to significantly reduces the overall system size and weight? The camera body size will be for sure smaller but not the lenses, so on the whole the size and weight reduction will be only minimal.In my office bag I could carry my Mac Book Pro and Canon 5D MK III + 24-70 f/2.8 lens and a 16-35 f/2.8 lens ... but now I can carry 2 cameras (a7+a6000) and 5 lenses (10-18 + 24-70 + 70-200 + 55 + 85 with Metabones adapter) and a MBP in the same space. Lenses for the mirrorless cameras may not be as fast as the DSLR equivalents but they are a happy compromise.