Shouldn't the excellent EFs 17-55 f2.8 be considered ?
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.
Unfocused, that was well done!
Thanks for posting that link Sporgon!
Looking at Eastwood's examples, it appears to me that most of the variation in portrait perspective occurs in the range of 24mm to 70mm. The difference between 100 and 300 was minimal to my eye.
So for example a 300 mm lens won't be more 'flattering' than a 135 but you will get considerably more subject isolation, but you'd need much more space and more light.
Ugh? Is this your personal experience or are you having some charts available to support this theory? Not that I'd dispute what you say, but right now my impression would be that 300mm *does* have significantly more compression than 135mm even to the extend that 300mm looks to "flat" for my taste.
Does 85 cut it for pure head shots? Is 135 not versatile enough for half body shots?
I need more! You see, I have grown and you have remained static. You're not willing to change. You sit idly by while my new friend, Nikon, keeps growing.
No offense to Keith, but I'll try to class it up a bit . These are from a campaign I shot a few years back:
since my wife is a bit upset that I sold her old body
Serious 7D shooters are not necessarily amateurs on tight budgets.
16 to 24 MP, but FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAST (10 fps) and with 1 stop improvement in low light ability (I judge that the 6D has a 2 stop advantage over the 60D of the same sensor vintage). Small pro-grade weather-sealed body, under 900 grams. Giant buffer, 30 RAW at 10 fps. 1DX/5D3 focusing system, fewer points, perhaps, but similar algorithms. AF at f/8. Costs the same or less than the 6D.
I've seen some cost comments from folks. I know that this is a thread about positivity, but sub $2k, sub 6D pricing may be a tough get depending on how 'pro' this body is designed.
As I've said many times in this forum, for some people, the reach of APS-C is vital to what they do (BIF people come to mind). To those folks, crop is a really high-quality 1.6x T/C without the T/C headaches of AF responsiveness or significantly lessened IQ. To those folks, the length upside lets them not have to buy a $10k+ lens to get their shots or for those who do have that money, it lets those great lenses reach even further. To those folks, Canon could eeeeeeasily get above $2k for this new body.
I don't want to be a pessimist, but I kind of want this thing to be so good it's worth over $2k. I'll say it: if it's a $1,599 camera, it probably won't be so compelling performance wise for me.
Look at the original 5D and compare against the MK III significantly different, but II to III not so different.
My experience was that from 5D to MK II not so different but MK II to MK III significantly different.
Do other peoples experience match colinrb or mine?
Bigger sensors aren't better in low-light, larger apertures are. Bigger sensors work better in low-light when you can use a longer focal length at the same f-stop, thus increasing aperture.