Can someone (I am thinking of you, jrista) explain why no low-pass filter is better than a non anti-aliasing one (except to Nikon, who can probably save some money).
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.
If your camera is in good enough condition to be sold as "mint" or "near mint" condition then you obviously haven't used it very much.
Better lenses...yeah, as long as you don't shoot UWA...cus besides the 17mm TSE Canon is pretty weak in that regard. I'm still using my old 5D2 but I would be a pretty happy camper if Canon came out with something like the D810.
Thanks for all your responses!
Having both is certainly ideal, but I find myself forcing to choose one or the other. Shooting on a 7D, when using a long lens for shallow DOF, I need to stand further away from the subject and the lightstand. In windy conditions, the lightstand gets blown over all the time Sure I could use a sandbag, but it's a lot of extra weight to carry. My wife already dislikes the idea of me carrying lots of gear when we go out.
So I like to put my foot on the lightstand, which needs to be relatively close to the subject. In that case, I'll need to use a wider angle lens -> reducing blur.
I guess the ultimate solution is to go full frame!
Look similar to Op/Tech Reporter/Backpack System Connectors.
One side has a male quick connect, and the other a female. Not sure how short you can adjust the webbing though.
In a pinch, consider going to Home Depot
Cheap, work great, multiple colors help make your bag stand out, very strong.
I use them. Plus, they come in lots of sizes.
I am not sure I understand what the post is about.
What is the reason for your frustration? Are you feeling bad for the lenses? Are you feeling bad for the people who make the wrong choices?
I don't see anyone else who is suffering from this sharpness addiction- I am sure no one is losing a client or a competition because his amazing shots weren't taken with an L lens or because his lens has low MTF values!
The 50L still sells well, and commands a high price. If it were more popular it would be even more expensive. And those new IS primes- thankfully they got 'ignored' and the prices came down. Now you can have all your limbs AND a prime with IS.
Objective tests matter to a small minority of people. Don't get frustrated- just ignore them.
The frustration stems from two things:
1) It is a shame that some write off lenses because of sharpness tests, as some of the real gear treasures aren't the sharpest lenses. A lot of folks missing out on the good stuff...
2) From one that likes the look of the 50L/85L, I fear Canon might start prioritizing sharpness over bokeh in future lens design for instance so lenses can get higher review scores.
What I'm trying to explain is that in fashion you rarely/never shoot in a way to get most of the model lost in bokeh. Wide open or not, it's about showing the clothes. So if I shoot at 1.8, It's likely a full body shot, or at least a bust, but even when it's a bust, it's likely to have focus on something in the shot, like accessories.
I'm trying do distinguish popular wedding look, which is bokeh, bokeh, more bokeh, from actual commercial way of shooting which is product, product, more product.
Yes, I understand why event photographers that shoot wide open might find their focus lacking.
However, I don't get why people complain for "still" work. So, okay, yes, my camera would probably search for focus endlessly if I set it to a focus point other then the center one, especially in low light, so I don't.
I'm trying to learn here. I guess my question should be: What/how/when do you use those other AF points for? And how do people do it on MF systems where there is only one, is there a way to apply same techniques?
MF Hasselblads have a focus system that readjusts itself when you recompose.
That's why I am asking. I don't understand where is the issue? So many are complaining about it, so it does exist, I just can't get it.