How about the Canon EF 100/2? Good reviews all around and I really like mine ...
If anything, he will be even harder pressed to explain why he wants a 100/2 in addition to the 100/2.8
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.
How about the Canon EF 100/2? Good reviews all around and I really like mine ...
My 500D, noble beast that she is, needs to be retired.
Her AF isn't sufficient when trying to catch quicker birds in flight and when it comes to low light photography, anything over ISO 800 affects image quality.
So I decided, that I wanted two cameras to replace her and set my sights on the 6D for the full frame goodness and 7Dii (yes, I know it's not out yet ) for frames per second, AF system and so on.
But a friend is now messing with my mind. His advise? Get the 5Diii instead.
His contention is that the 5Diii will give me more bells and whistles than the 6D offers and provides sufficient resolution that would allow me to crop an image to equal the 1.6 "zoom" of a crop body.
But I'm not so sure that cropping an image shot at 400mm (FF) would give me the "fill" of a 640mm (APS-C) without negatively affecting image quality.
What would you guys do? If the 7Dii isn't announced this year, I may go for the 70D instead.
I'm really in need of some convincing that the full frame can replace a crop body.
Thanks in advance
+1. My 7D was worse on ISO 640 and above than my 5Dc is at ISO 1600. I haven't done any comparisons, but I think my 50D might be cleaner in high ISOs than my 7D.
And the fact that scientifically reproducible tests say you're wrong do not impact your opinion one bit, eh?
It's a good guess your opinion was formed by zooming straight to 100% which means 18 MP magnified > 15 MP magnified > 12 MP.
Another good guess is that if you had to pick from unlabeled screen or print views...equal in size...you would pick the 5Dc image as the noisy one that "must be the 7D."
Nowhere did the OP say he is considering buying a CN-E lens. It could have been simple curiosity. You said it yourself, no one would be stupid to ask about CN-E lenses on a forum before dropping 25K. So it is unwise to assume that, isn't it?
Don't take out your pent up frustrations on others. I agree that expensive lenses do not make one a better photographer- the same as expensive cars don't make a better driver. Photography has become a fad among rich amateurs now that it has become more accessible to them- but trust me, it's them buying those 1Ds and L lenses
that contributes towards keeping the cost low for you professionals. At least, partly. They are not your competition, and they are not hurting you.
Unless you are shooting video in central Scotland, neither you, nor any rich amateur are my competition.
For 2/3rds approx of my shoots I hire in a camera to the clients soecification. The BBC like XDCAM and SxS chips. STV like DVCPRO on tape, or P2. Some production companies still like Digibeta. Some producers will only accept 4.2.2 on an SSD.
Although it's not unheard of for cameramen with a specific discipline to shoot primarily on one format (wildlife guys trained out of Bristol all seem to use Pannys, odd at the the bbc, but thats how it is, although recent shoots have been on red dragons...) and therefore be owner operators, for the jobbing guys like me, you shoot on what your client that day wants. you can't own every format, not at £20k entry points for an hd eng body without a lens...
So really, the rich hobbyists aren't keeping the gear I use, cheap for me.
I don't really have any built up frustrations. I answered the questions, and supported a point somebody else made.
If anything I get frustrated by folk not doing even basic research. Yep. That one does annoy me. Why go to a manufacturers website when one can just open their mouth and let their belly rumble....?
You mention "well known shortcomings" but I could point to numerous professional reviews where the reviewers said the same thing I've always said: at ISO 100-800 there is very little difference vs. FF.
Having owned FF and a 7D, I'd have to disagree.
Yup I would also agree with Michael here on this one. There is definitely noise visible at ISO 800 on the 7D, not much though. Even at ISO 100 I found myself using the NR slider sometimes. With the 5D2 I leave that slider alone 99% of the time.
I gotta be honest pablo... kinda harsh, dude! I have wondered the same thing about C lenses so I don't consider this to be a stupid question or a stupid thread.
So please, next time post something less condescending because your previous post does little to contribute to the discussion other than show everyone a side of you that isn't very considerate. I mean, really, did someone with a cine-lens kick your dog, call you names or something?
I stand by every word. They are specialist tools. I don't know how good or how bad, how rich or how poor the op asking the questions is. I paint a scenario of where these lenses come into their own, what they are designed for, what no other type of product would do. I think that goes some way to answering the question of why they cost so much... sorreeeee.
I also stand by my other comments, and nowhere do I consider them a personal attack on any other specific forum user, I am critiquing the fairly recent trend in photography where everybody wants the latest and greatest and most expensive. The technology has been static for 5 years as far as bodies go, and probably 10-15 years as lenses go. Part of that trend is confusing cost with performance or value. Simply put, a bright ring type USM lens will give a talentless photographer more keepers, but the photographs still won't be that great. Obviously they would give the talented professional more keepers too, but the talent would shine through regardless.
If the question was, will these cinema lenses make my still photography better, then, apologies if the timbre of my reply frightens the horses, but no, they will not. They will make your still photography worse.
There, I've just saved you 25k.
If anybody reading this has a spare 25k to drop on a lens, and will buy or not based on what somebody on a forum says... then I really consider that I'm doing them a public service. Find a charity close to your heart or something instead. It will be more rewarding.
Quite where you think I'm having a go a cinema lenses or cinema lens users, I fail to see. Cinema lenses are great. For cinema. And in that regard, the answer is in the question, so maybe 'obvious' is kinder than 'stupid'.
which leads me to the next (obvious) question
Is there any advantage for Still Photographers to use cine lenses?
The fact you can afford to buy cine lenses and do buy them to take Still Photography will satisfy an underlying mental need to compensate for other inadequacies you may have. Much the same as buying large white lenses will for some.
Yes at this years Photokina NIKON is reported as releasing a medium format camera with the same sensor as Hasselblad, Phase one , and Pentax, but mirror less and with a new type of shutter, will this put the damper on our new 7DThat depends on how good someone else is with Photoshop between now and Photikina.
Hopefully someone with better attention to detail, too. In removing the left side of the camera, the lens release was also removed. A buyer would need to think carefully about which lens to mount first...
All I can say is that I'm in awe of some people here. I get involved in print judging, and (annoyingly) most people don't say what type of camera/lens combo was used. And, obviously, there's no EXIF data to review. I'll admit it, I'm just not capable of telling what type of camera or brand was used. But some people here are so confident that there is a night and day difference. I'm now worried that I must be missing something. Some even suggest that my eyesight must be defective if you can't see it (ok, my eyesight is defective and I wear glasses...but I see fine with my glasses on).
Help me! When I look at a print, what should I be looking for so that I can determine with high level of consistency and certainty if it was taken with a P&S, M43, crop camera, FF, medium format or large format camera? If it helps, most prints I see are approx 8x12. I'd love to get this right so that I don't inadvertently promote an image taken with a crop camera over a FF camera.
I sure hope this is sarcasm
No, it will be true.
I'm sure most people here on CR would consider the 5DII and the 6D to produce higher IQ / resolution than the original 5D, or even the APS 650D.
On my website at Building Panoramics about 40% of the images are shot on the 5D, about 45% on the 5DII, about 15% on the 6D. There are two shot on APS.
I'll offer a $500 reward to anyone who can tell me which pictures were shot on the 5D.
I noticed that in a link listed on the initial linked page for this thread, Arias makes note of what many here have mentioned: that he's "back pedaling now".
The link ( http://dedpxl.com/crop-or-crap-math-or-moment/ ) also has the video where has expresses a view contrary to his current one, the very video ecka mentions earlier in this thread.
In the article, he writes, "Look. Some of the trolls out there are going to think this is a Fuji sponsored message. It isn’t. While Fuji is a client of mine and I have done work for them they sure as hell don’t keep food on my table or a roof over my head on any sort of regular basis. " He continues in the same paragraph to explain his perspective.
It appears that he is aware that he holds a different perspective now and is aware also of what he has stated in the past. He gives reasons for which he holds his current view.
Is it not reasonable to see him merely as someone who has changed his mind about something in light of his self-reported experience, and also to take his word that he is not doing Fuji's bidding?
Just a question I'm left with as I read this thread.