« Last post by Click on December 02, 2016, 08:25:52 PM »
Lovely shot, Vern.
Obviously I compared stabilization in the lens, versus stabilization in the body, both with the same viewing angle.I read somewhere, that body image stabilization (IBIS) works well with wide-angle lenses, and not very well with tele lenses.penny drops!.. of course it does!
With a WA the camera has to wobble an awful lot to move the image at all, with a telephoto hardly any movement results in image shift. Any accelerometer in the camera will be limited (noise & resolution), and that limit will show up at the "long" end of the lens range first.
Its good to see someone up the game and try to take on the dominance of Adobe were all better when competition comes into play. Apple badly let down their customers when they abandoned Aperture it just showed the accountant in Tim Cook as opposed to Steve Jobs and Photos is a standing joke that Apple should be ashamed of.
I would like to see some additional primes to better round out the M glass line-up, but I'm pretty comfortable with my current M5 and kit:
(1) EF-M 15-45 - compact standard zoom
(2) EF-M 55-200 tele zoom
(3) EF-M 22/2 - super compact prime
(4*) EF 50 STM mounted on an M adapter
Using the 50 STM on an adaptor fills the portrait prime gap in the current lineup and its small/light enough even mounted on an adapter that I works well with a compact kit. I'd love to see Canon come out with a 55mm and 85mm EF-M prime at some point.
This 4 lens combination gives me 24mm-320mm full format equivalent focal length coverage with slow zooms and the two primes (35 and 80mm equivalent) for low light and option for shallow depth of field.
I haven't experimented with my better quality EF L lenses on the M5 yet, but plan to this weekend just to experiment. I don't expect its something I will do with any frequency, even with the M5's capable autofocus capability since the whole idea behind the M series is small size and limited weight.
My M5 + 15-45 kit arrived yesterday as did by EF-M 55-200. Limited time and terrible weather have prevented any serious photography yet, but I was able do to some shooting with it yesterday during my lunch hour. I like how it handles and am initially impressed with the EVF and auto focus system. I'll run it through more thorough testing shooting the kids this weekend and I'll report back next week.
Like many others, I'm a bit disappointed by the reviews. Honestly, I was expecting to, and would would have paid, 50% more than the retail price of the II for a really stellar upgrade.
But, in comparing all the 24-105s and seeing how small the differences are, I have to wonder is there is something that I don't understand which limits just how good a lens in this range can be. I suspect that if Canon could have made a better lens for another $500-$600 they probably would have done it.
I haven't ruled this lens out, but I'm not sure it's worth upgrading just for the zoom lock and improved IS. This was the only lens I was contemplating next year (after pretty much filling out my lens wants/needs over the past two years), so 2017 might be a no-lens purchase year (although I kind of doubt it. )
To the guy saying 6000$ camera spares don't matter.
800mbps video of the MKII = 100mbs per second = 6GB per minute. 128GB Card (350$) holds 20 minutes.
For a normal standard of 5 hours worth of media for documentary/nature shooting,
3 cards give you an Hour at 950$.
5 hours and batteries needed to run the camera for 5 hours equals = funnily, 6000$ish
The 4K on the MKII is only suitable for very high end applications where 12K for a video rig is pretty good. But for us, who want to shoot comfortably at the awesome 60p quality of the MKII, believe it or not, on a doc shoot we need accessories that cost as much as the camera body.
Carolina Chickadee, 5DSR ISO 500, 600II f4, 1/1000, fill flash @-1 1/3 w better beamer.
my critique - would be better w a little more DOF. Focal point was on the eye but looks slightly front focused (just did AFMA using Focal, but looks like it missed slightly). Would have been better to trade off shutter speed for f5.6, I think. I'd like to be better at spotting this in the field, but its hard to see on the back of the camera.
I'm experimenting to see if avian pics w/o the 1.4X III are OK with just the 600 while using the 5DSR.
Unfortunately, our leaves have now fallen and all the beautiful color around the birds is on the ground.