BurningPlatform said:

Finally something to upgrade to from my trusted 5d mk 2. 4k and all!

Click to expand...

My 6S is still doing fine, so I'll wait a year or two. Like many of you, I'm not so likely to upgrade a phone because of the camera.

I have shot 4K with the phone, and it is not bad. I used the extra resolution to let me zoom in during editing and produce a good-looking 720p video without any upscaling.

Quick thoughts after scanning through the review, with close scrutiny of the sharpness tests (24, 35, 50, and 70mm), then viewing/reviewing several of the posted photos, including zooming in on several. Several of the shots do not look either focused properly or the shutter was to slow even with the VC engaged. So I can't tell if I'm critiquing the lens or the tester's shooting technique. Most of the architectural shots are tack-sharp, even out to the edges (real-world example). As opposed to their sharpness tests of book spines. (Which have terrible lighting.) To get a proper understanding of center and edge sharpness, in my humble opinion, it would be far better to test the same 4 focal lengths at the closest focusing distance of each, then at 15-20 feet, and at Infinity. And in a mixture of settings: indoor & outdoor, good & bad lighting, contrasty and drab, etc.

The lens is a winner. I have no doubts that one can capture excellent photos with it. However, I would not pair it with a high-megapixel model like the Canon 5DS r they did their shooting with. I would love to see the lens tested on a 5D Mk IV, the new 6D Mk II, and a 5DX Mk II. Would also like to see some results with an 80D and a 7D Mk II. In the same breath, you simply can't best the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 Mk II - for a number of reasons. However, I'm also not a professional photographer, and so, feel that one can get exceptional images given the right lighting and camera settings with any of the current offerings and including the older models of each (Canon, Sigma, and Tamron). And don't forget, Tokina has a very well received (by an albeit limited crowd) newer 24-70mm f2.8 offering as well.

Mt Spokane Photography said:

mostly weird communications from people I did not know or want to know.

Click to expand...

A pithy description of the Internet. ;D

privatebydesign said:

I sold my 1D last year for $250.

It was a great camera, when compared to film cameras, but 4.2 MP was always a limitation and part of the reason for the dramatic gains in sensor capabilities over a short time period. The ISO performance stood up well when compared to film but that was it, again the sensor was outgrown technologically speaking very quickly. As was that dumb 1.3 crop that was not EF-s compatible so ultrawide angle coverage was non existent.

But anybody that uses one can't help but be frustrated with the non zooming replay, tiny screen the limited menu and whilst the IQ is good its nothing special and vastly outgunned by pretty much everything since.

As for the 'look' of the files. That is nothing more than the rendering programs algorithms interpretation, it is easily changed and if you take the time to make ISO specific camera profiles including color profiles and tone curves and apply them on import you can make pretty much anything look like anything else with no input or further time taken, it's digital for goodness sake!

Click to expand...

I think you may have missed the why I love this camera, I did state in my full article all the hurdles that need overcoming. But once that is out of the way there's no competing with the colour saturation and sharpness this camera has, no amount of software can make up for hardware limitations.
The same reason film still holds its own, is the same reason this camera can.
Once you get over not being able to crop, the rewards are plentiful. And as for the 4.2mp? I will be doing a follow up with how big it can print, I think everyone will be pleasantly surprised...

I will definitely agree with you that the lack of a zoom function on a professional digital camera is nothing short of a joke, and the 1D has the worst screen on earth.
But I was very honest about this in my article

https://www.flickr.com/photos/52057517@N04/36522983224/in/photostream/lightbox/

Tugela said:

Talys said:

Orangutan said:

I totally don't get the anti-AA filter fetish -- I'd much rather have microscopic softness than moiré.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm with you. Moiré will totally ruin a shot; softness you'll never see, won't. Plus, post-processing sharpening will completely eliminate the softness 99.999% of the time, and provide an acceptable result to most human beings 100% of the time; but if you get hit with moiré on something that matters, that you don't catch in the moment, you're screwed.

Plus, very few people really need 20+ megapixel files in the finished product. Once you reduce it, any softness will be gone, but you'll still be stuck with moiré.

Click to expand...

If you have access to the RAW files you should be able to correct for that anyway through pre-debeyering softening. AA filters were only really necessary in the pre-RAW era, and having them in the camera now takes way options you might otherwise have.

Click to expand...

I have taken tens of thousands of shots with my 5DSR of birds and have had only a handful of them being spoiled by Moire (and not really spoiled, just a slight amount that is only noticeable on high enlargement that you do don't see in small prints). I have had similar Moire from my 5DIV. I have had great shots from my 7DII. The 5DSR crops are simply sharper.

As for: " Plus, post-processing sharpening will completely eliminate the softness 99.999% of the time, and provide an acceptable result to most human beings 100% of the time". Sharpening increases acutance, apparent sharpness; it doesn't restore details that are lost by softness, ie get back the lost resolution because of blurring by the AA-filter.

buggati said:

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:

Here's a few pics from it.

Click to expand...

those pictures look beautifull

Click to expand...

Thank you

Ian_of_glos said:

stevelee said:

Would facial recognition focusing make sense for some of these situations or is that mode incompatible with some other setting you need?

Click to expand...

Well I never use live view for sports. Live view might be fine for landscapes where you have plenty of time to compose the shot, but for sports you really need to use the viewfinder. Also the phase detect AF points are designed to focus very quickly, which is what you need for fast action.
As you will have seen from the examples I posted yesterday, you don't often focus on a player's face. More commonly the AF system will pick up the ball or the good contrast between a player's shirt and his arm. Quite often the A'F point settles on the back of a player so in this situation facial recognition would be of no use.

Click to expand...

Face detection IS available with viewfinder focus on multiple Canon cameras.

And imo, it works very well quite often, but when it misses, it misses, and it will take a second to switch to a different AF-mode.

AvTvM said:

Canon Rumors said:

...
Here’s hoping the PowerShot G1 X Mark III is a big step forward for the “G” series.
...

Click to expand...

maybe one huge 4k step ... ;D

"one small step for (a) man, one giant leap for mankind" ... https://youtu.be/csO9VTtrg5A?t=147

Click to expand...

pretty much improbable, it's smaller than the M cameras if you consider the throat of the lens elements and how they have to sit inside of the camera and it's basically the same guts as an M.

I think you have to be sniffing the good stuff to even consider 4K on such a camera.

ahsanford said:

Mystery SLR without bluetooth and country of origin not named?

Only one logical conclusion 8)

- A

Click to expand...

;D ;D ;D

Don Haines said:

beforeEos Camaras said:

also the 100mm 2.8l the points was set to 1 I went from 60 points to 44

Click to expand...

Yes, the regular 100F2.8 macro is 4 points, but the more expensive L version is only 1 point...... There is a distinct possibility that there are mistakes in the table....

Click to expand...

I guess cps wants me to get a case of gas or more points XD
at first I thought canon was going to discontinue the 400mm lens but I think your right,
about the table being broken

I find it interesting that with all this talk of color and skin tones there isn't a single person photographed in this piece that isn't white Just sayin......

ahsanford said:

Sporgon said:

ahsanford said:

As time marches onward, just about every camera segment will become mirrorless.

Click to expand...

Just about - so with the exception of Nikon, Canon and Pentax dslrs? Mirrorless - and by that I mean dslr replacement mirrorless, not p&s, rose because those other manufacturers could not meet the other three head on in reflex designs.

Until mirrorless can offer the same power consumption as a dslr and real time viewing the future isn't all mirrorless IMO.

Click to expand...

I didn't say it would be tomorrow, but in (say) 10-15 years time, I could see new SLRs only being made for the most demanding professional folks (1-series, perhaps 5-series).

For general Rebel-class consumer, I think it's much more about responsiveness of SLRs vs. mirrorless than it has anything to do about battery life. Yes, the battery life is a major consideration for enthusiasts and professionals, but I've never seen a soccer mom / hockey dad geek out about his SLR's battery life. She/he is excited about SLR responsiveness and how moments / events / etc. are not missed like they were on their cell phones or old P&S cameras. And on that front -- responsiveness -- mirrorless is much closer to SLRs than it is with battery life.

Also, there's the argument that losing the mirror unlocks high fps opportunities for low/mid-range rigs, which some might find attractive.

So I expect Rebels to swap over to mirrorless first, and then it will climb up the line. It'll be a while, but I'm pretty confident the changeover will eventually take place.

- A

Click to expand...

And they'll all come standard with 50mm "L" lenses, no matter the brand.

AlanF said:

Perhaps someone involved could give a brief summary of the points of contention as 24 pages are rather too much to trawl through to find out what this is all about. I did like Jack's comment, which I considered adding to my signature.

Jack Douglas said:

Unfortunately, in otherwise thoughtful threads, there is often someone who is looking for a moment of glory by being the center of attention, regardless of how stupid they make themselves look with their comments. Free speech is not free, the price is potentially exposing oneself as a fool.

Jack

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Wow, Alan, you mean I actually wrote that! It must have been one of my better days! I often wonder how many poor judgment statements I've made amongst the 4000+ (I prefer not to check).

My wonderful deceased parents had one major flaw, neither could let go in an argument. I did not like the arguing that often went on over trivial stuff, but then who's to judge what is trivial?

Jack

Photorumors picked up a Nokishi.ta story on some new Canon body registrations (or perhaps older registrations that we haven't married up to a released product yet):
https://photorumors.com/2017/09/22/whats-next-with-a-list-of-not-yet-announced-cameras-that-have-been-registered-with-various-agencies/#more-91679

- A

danski0224 said:

GMCPhotographics said:

I don't really see the point of the Sigma lens. No one needs an f2.8 180mm macro lens. No one shoots a macro subject wide open, especially at that focal length. Sure, top down flower abstracts can look cool, but this is better served with a shorter focal length like a 100mm. Everytime I've shot something that requires the extra focal length...I've needed to stop down to apertures like f16. So i would quite happily have a sharp f5.6 180mm macro if it was small, light and really sharp at f16.
The Canon is an old lens. But it's optimised for stopping down when focusing close. It's AF isn't ideal for general shooting. The Sigma sort of wants to be a jack of all trades and it want's to kid you that it's good for action, portraiture and serious macro work. When covering so many basses, there has to be design compromises. So I see this lens and an oddity and an overly large and heavy one too. Your millage might vary.

Click to expand...

The Sigma has OS and the Canon does not.

The Sigma will give you more and better AF points than the Canon.

The Sigma is quite sharp at non-macro distances, and f/2.8.

It would be nice if Sigma would update this lens to the latest Global Vision series.

Because the Sigma is not a Canon lens, one may encounter some AF issues on Canon bodies.

Click to expand...

Firstly, on my 5D III and IV, AF is quick and accurate.

Regarding updating this...No! For some reason I've had bad luck with ART series AF on the same two bodies, and I can't imagine the creamy bokeh and sharpness being significantly improved. This is an amazing lens for garden macro, and does the trick for smooth, very pleasant close-up portraits. If it ain't broke, please don't fix it!

pwp said:

Not sure of the OP's needs. Can these be used on-camera?

-pw

Click to expand...

I can confirm this same problem also exists on the Tamron 85mm 1.8 VC.

edoorn said:

Wait - my brain creates jpgs out of my eyes? I want raw!!

Click to expand...

I want an eye transplant with Hooty as the donor. Think how cute I'd be and spying would be a breeze - they do have colour vision don't they?

Jack

A good company would admit the issue, and have a recall or send replacement parts at no charge. I can't imagine wanting a unit for professional use if the door breaks with little use and the manufacturer does not stand behind it. To me, its just a hint of what lies inside.

I've worked with electronics manufacturers over much of the world before I retired, its a constant battle, even with the best of them to get them to use proper parts, materials, and processes. We not only visited production lines, but we tested units with many tests, and tore down units to look at them, cross section them, look under the outer cases that hide the construction, measure plating thicknesses, we checked everything.

Its amazing how little understanding some manufacturers have on the ultimate impact of design changes, and, since testing is expensive, they don't retest after a design change.

Another thought: Beef up the battery door, and what breaks next due to the stronger springs?

The hardware resolution is only 854 x 480 pixels and the brightness is only 70 lm (not 701). I do not see any use for photographers. For showing photos, any smartphone has a better resolution and brighter display these days. For creative lighting, better get a Light Blaster or something...

privatebydesign said:

Power wise he thinks it is about half a stop more powerful than the 600 EX RT

Click to expand...

It shouldn't be that difficult to calculate the GN for a specific power setting from the display. 76 Ws doesn't look that much, it's more or less the average power of units like the 600RT (I didn't find an official figure for it, but it looks to be between 60 and 75 Ws).

There are more powerful shoe mount units (i.e. the Quantum), although they usually need an external battery.

The recharge speed is not surprisingly either, because of the battery type. Nice to have in a compact design without external batteries and cables.

As other said, this looks a nice companion to a Profoto set, but as a standalone solution may add little.

Try this https://www.adorama.com/c/Used. This is where I bought mine. They also sell used camera and so far, no issues or anything.

Woody said:

Jopa said:

That's why we need mirrorless ... :-[

Click to expand...

Agreed

Click to expand...

As long as the mirrorless has an OVF, I will be happy. I don't actually care if there is a mirror or not

rrcphoto said:

I'd imagine a dremel or a sharp knife will make the cord slot in the battery door for the SL2.

Click to expand...

I checked the SL2 manual and it does list the DR-18 AC adapter, same as T6i, etc. I thought I'd easily spot a opening, but must have missed it. It is at the bottom right of the battery in the photo. I'll check again when out in my studio.

So, I'll get a adapter.

Sporgon said:

rfdesigner said:

Fleetie said:

Sporgon said:

rfdesigner said:

.. but I hope canon drag their feet a touch and get this spot on..

Click to expand...

Blimey, how much feet dragging do you want ? The EF 50/1.4 is from 1993 !

Click to expand...

That was exactly my response when I read that post! Crikey! They've had years now!

Click to expand...

yes and they'll have been working on different things.. finally management have admitted a new 50 is needed.. if they skimp the developers might not have enough time to do a decent job, or they might just cost cut it so we end up with dreaded "focus by wire".

Click to expand...

I don't think they would go focus-by-wire with it, but then I have got a 100% track record of being completely wrong when it comes to guessing what Canon are going to do next.

Click to expand...

Damn!.. that's blown it then.