Show Posts
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.
We haven't done this one in awhile have we?
I didn't need IS with my FD 50mm f1.4, and I don't need it now, especially for the extra $400 over the current lens....
Then I'm glad you're not Canon's only customer, and you're glad this won't be Canon's only 50mm option.
Yes, this was actually a very good article summarizing the advantages/disadvantages of the major releases and explaining their rationale.
A very brief take-away: Canon, Nikon and Sony all released excellent cameras. 5DIII got the edge largely because of the range of improvements, including focus and because its excellent low-light performance was deemed more useful and significant than the high resolution of the D800: "...we felt strongly that the Canon produced the best balance across all imaging factors, with Low or better noise up to ISO 12,800, and still acceptable noise at ISO 25,600."
I found this assessment of the D800 very interesting: "Noise is Low or better only to ISO 800, and Unacceptable at ISO 12,800."
From everything I've read and heard about the 5DIII this sounds like a well-deserved honor.
I have them, after 12800iso the 5dmk3 is little bit better than d800 , same size and raw
at 6400iso d800 shows visible more details and the noise is on par with 5dmk3
why are they not mention the 14 stops DR at base iso?
I can see more than half of those pictures taken by 5D mark II.
Not half, more like a quarter. A link to a metadata analysis of those image was posted in this thread.
I wonder... All those people posting that Canon is behind, that they have to catch up, whatever...what do they think about Canon being behind when a collection of Reuters' 'best images' of the year was shot with the camera distribution in that collection? I realize that there are many categories of photographer besides photojournalists, but eyeballing the pie chart, Nikon has 9-10%, Sony 1%, and Canon around 90% of the images in the collection. When seeing a piece of data like that, it helps put some of Canon's design choices (e.g. the 1D X) into perspective.
...a new “pro” APS-C camera, currently expected to be the EOS 7D Mark II.
I'm interested in this. I wonder what 'pro' means? I'd love a redesigned APS-C sensor with significantly lower high ISO noise, in a 1-series style body with the 1D X's AF system. That's what 'pro' means to me...
An EF-S zoom fisheye and a wider replacement to the EF-S 10-22?
My impression was the EF-S 10-22mm should be upgraded, specifically to have wider short end and maybe some IQ improvement.
An EF-S fisheye zoom? Does the Tokina 10-17mm sell that well? After years of not making any circular fisheye lenses (note there was one for the FD mount), does Canon suddenly see a market for those on both FF & APS-C? Wouldn't it compete with both the upgraded EF-S 10-22mm and the EF 8-15mm L, which serves as diagonal fisheye lens for APS-C?
My guess is the Sigma 4.5mm full fish eye has enough sales that Canon wants to compete?
I never liked the weird look of the full circle with mass vignetting...
As far as the 60D, does this means the astronomy one too?
An EF-S zoom fisheye and a wider replacement to the EF-S 10-22?
My impression was the EF-S 10-22mm should be upgraded, specifically to have wider short end and maybe some IQ improvement.
An EF-S fisheye zoom? Does the Tokina 10-17mm sell that well? After years of not making any circular fisheye lenses (note there was one for the FD mount), does Canon suddenly see a market for those on both FF & APS-C? Wouldn't it compete with both the upgraded EF-S 10-22mm and the EF 8-15mm L, which serves as diagonal fisheye lens for APS-C?
Err, I think canon is losing it. Why not just re-vamp the 24-105L Mk.2?
This lens will be DOA.
