I like the Hoya Super HMC series filters, that's what I use.
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 lowlight usability of the 5D3 is just nuts by comparison. With the 60D I was always trading slowing the shutter and opening the aperture to try and maintain a 100-800 iso. I checked my Aperture library and only have two keepers above 1600 iso from the 60D. With the 5D3 I dont even think about noise until I get to 12800. And after pixel peeping some keepers in the 12800-25600iso range, I have to say its not just the amount of noise...its the TYPE of noise. The noise in the 5D3 is soo much less distracting that the 60D. Cant emphasize that enough. The noise in the 5D3 typically looks more "artistic" than the 60D, much like film grain and less like the 60Ds "video camera" noise look.
Just curious, if AF is 2nd most critical next to IQ, why do you think the EOS-M would be better than the T2i?
Just to point out, though...AFMA also applies to the focus confirmation for manual focus.We discussed that as well. He commented that his 50 f/1.2L had back focus, which translates to imprecise focus with the focus confirmation. His preference was to use the precision focusing screen; he did not pay attention to the focus confirmation.
His 50L might have had back focus, but might not. What it does have is focus shift, which is back focus when you stop down from wide open, that varies with the aperture selected.
...So the 6D certainly sounds like an attractive choise, after all having the main feature I would want. Given your type of photographing, which specific features would you really miss with it and how often in real life would them make your pictures worse?
My copy of the 70-300L is very very sharp at 70mm till about 135-ish even on the 5D3. I start noticing the edge softness above 200mm even at f8-f11. The center frame sharpness is identical for both bodies. For your application at 300/5.6 the edges would be blurred anyway.
If you're not looking at the 24-70 for shallow depth of field and mainly just for low light, I think the 17-55 on 60D with IS is better. I'm not very stable so the slowest I can handhold is 1/100 even at 24mm so I really miss the image stabilization from the Sigma lens. After I acquired the 24-70L, I found out that Tamron makes a good 24-70 f2.8 with IS, it's too late for me but you might give it a consideration.
I haven't tested the 35L but if you like the 35/1.4 on the crop sensor, you'll definitely like it on full frame. I recently shot a charity event with the 24-70 mostly at that focal length and at 70mm. It is wide but not too wide as to cause distortion. You can really get close to your subject while also including some of the environment. I also have the 50/1.4 which I rarely used on the 60D because it's too narrow for most things and not as sharp as the 70-200II for portraiture. I use it a lot more now on the 5D3 because of it's size and weight and low light ability. The depth of field seems better too on the 5D3, it's smoother. It's almost useless at f1.4 though. I don't know why you would need an f1.2. I personally rarely use my lenses wide open. I prefer the look of f4-f5.6 for sharper portraits and just blur the background and I prefer to raise my ISO for low light. I'd rather have grainy photos than blurry/ out of focus ones, but I'm still learning, I've only been shooting for about a year so that might change.
Just to let you know, that with the 5D3 I noticed that some lenses that are very sharp on the 60D were softer on the edges. But you really need to pixel peep. The lenses that I noticed this are 70-300L and the 24-70L
I don't think you'll need the 24-70 if you already have the 24-105. The 24-105 would be a great walk-around lens for the 5D3.
With regards to the 6D, I agree with you that it doesn't seem much of an upgrade. I think I would rather get the 7D or the 5D2 to get more value for the money.