I keep imagining slapping my macro lens on this camera and using my finger to track insects etc on the touch screen for critical sharpness.We May Dream
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.
I've decided to offer some help to Sigma with an FAQ set for potentially confused customers.+1
I do not think anybody is getting the point the OP is trying to make.It appears you folk from Nth America are spoilt for choice,we in Aus would love to have a chain that sells for such low prices and pays you the difference in sales prices,don't think CR is to blame for B&H pricing though,
He bought it on X for US$ 2049
Then a couple of days later CR runs a campaign promoting savings at B&H for the same lens at US$ 2099.
He is questioning the integrity of the promotion.
So please explain how that is "outperforming" it?I was able to get what you were aiming at,thanks for the post, afraid some of our friends on CR have trouble seeing wood for trees
Simply, the detail or resolution from the SX50 at 1200mm is better than the 5DIII +100-400mm at 400mm. If you take a crop from the 5DIII combo to give the same view as the SX50, the SX50 image is better. This is useful if you are taking a bird photo which requires heavy cropping from the 5DIII and 6x less from the SX50.
As I had in the first post, I am not implying the SX50 is better than the 5DIII but the extra reach at 1200mm beats out the 100-400mm at 400mm. That is quite remarkable and unexpected to me, and it means I can travel light. Normally, I would use the Canon 5DIII with a 600mm prime, and only use the 100-400mm when I had to travel with limited luggage. But, for work trips I'll just take the SX50 for from now on knowing I can get some spectacular shots.
So you're taking a crop where only 1 pixel out of every 9 on the 5D Mark III is thrown out, and you're saying that a point and shoot is better.
This would require your 5D Mark III to have 10 TIMES the starting resolution to get a better result.
No wonder you came to the conclusion you did. Now try the 5D Mark III with a 2x teleconverter and a 400mm lens vs the SX50 @ 800mm.
Please read everything that has been written here. I routinely use a 5DIII with 600mm of L lens attached for bird photography and am happy to cart this gear around because it gets superlative results. When I travel light by plane or have a few minutes to spare on a business trip, I usually take the 5DIII with a 100-400mm for bird photography, which is still quite heavy and not in the same IQ league as the prime lens. I have found that for bird photography I can use the SX50 and sometimes get better results with the 100-400 set up.
Regarding your suggestion of putting a 2xTC on a 400, I have tried a 1.4x on the 100-400mm L and the 5DIII. Aside from the autofocus being horrible, the IQ is degraded so much that there is no advantage in using the lens without TC and rezzing up 1.4x. A 2xTC would be even worse.
Regarding the comment by RGF about not being useful to most photographers, CanonRumors represents only a tiny fraction of photographers - those of us who are primarily interested in high end gear and the highest IQ. There are 100s of millions of photographers who want tolerably good kit that they can afford and easily use to get acceptable results. Cameras like the SX50 have huge popular appeal and can be useful to us as well.
we only put the 'u' there because it is correct English spelling,not everyone on CR is from Nth America and we appreciate our own conventions as you do yours.Maybe there is room for a "Humour" section threads like that could be moved to.
...and a section for threads where people put a 'u' in words like humor and color. Oh, wait...we already have one.
no offens but i really wonder that amateurs spend so much money on tripods.
don´t get me wrong i know a good tripod is essential.
i see a LOT of documentations from world famous photographers. i love to watch everything that has to do with photography.
of course GITZO is often used but i also see BENRO, MANFROTTO and the likes used by famous photographers.
for me that means, if a tripod that cost a fraction (50-33%) of a GITZO is good enough for these people they must be good enough for me?
so what is it with these 1000+ euro tripods?
are they really worth it as photographic equipment or is it more like a louis vuitton handbag?
now i have to admit, i have a GITZO tripod and RRS ballhead myself.
but it was a present from my father.
i would not have spend that kind of money to be honest.
and as this is my first and only tripod, i don´t have experience with cheaper tripods.
+1I won't be disappointed if the 70D gets the 'old' sensor, but I will be disappointed if the 7DII doesn't get a meaningfully improved sensor.
Looks like an old photographers vs. journalist(?) argument...
Perhaps that's a fair way to categorize my thoughts on photography - based more on journalism than creativity after the fact. To me, if I can't go and stand where you stood and see what you saw, it's not a photograph, it's something else. And there's nothing wrong with that - I'm not saying what people in this thread have is UGLY or undesirable, I'm just saying that they've crossed the line out of photography and into something else. Some rely so heavily on post processing to make something interesting that they should not call themselves photographers, but post processors. For me, photography is about capturing a moment. If you post process the bejeezus out of something, that moment is gone and something else has taken it's place. A fake moment, that never existed. And again, THAT'S OKAY - I'M NOT JUDGING THAT. I'm just saying that it's not really photography - it's a different form of art.