I've had the Sony A6000 for one year now. Maybe the A6300 is better handling.
I am happy with the picture quality. The sensor is good. The choice of Sony lenses is limited. With the Metabones adapter EF lenses can be used and they even autofocus occasionally. I would not recommend it to a friend unless he was buying it.


Looks like the 4/3 has the best selection of lenses. People on forums love their Olympuses though there are complaints about small parts falling off. They just glue them back on and go on taking pictures.


Panasonic / Leica –combo would be something I'd go for if I was in the market now buying into a new system. Just an opinion. This lens reviewed here looks great: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRwa0GYl-3o

Canon Rumors said:

<p>We’re told that a “world’s first” macro is coming from Canon some time in the next year. This is all we were told and can’t even begin to guess what the “world’s first” would mean.</p>
<p>Canon has been pretty innovative in lens design, from the EF 8-15 f/4 zoom fisheye, the 1.4x built-in teleconverter in the EF 200-400 f/4L IS, and the latest EF 11-24 f/4L ultra wide. All 3 of those lenses are pretty creative.</p>
<p>We hope to hear more soon.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

Click to expand...

if by the next year, you mean next 12 months, time has passed.

Click said:

Very nice series, LoneRider.

Click to expand...

Thank you!

I figure I've been making noise about the 5D[X|-ii], I should at least show I've taken a few pictures.

privatebydesign said:

I think the real reason is they offer different characteristics, just like the 70-200 f2.8 IS MkI and MkII do, personally I prefer both the MkI's over the MkII's, to me 'sharpness' is an entirely over rated characteristic for the majority of shooting situations.

Click to expand...

Yep. I sold the 70-200 f/2.8 IS I and got the mark II. somehow I didn't like it. The rendering of the OOF areas was not as pleasing with the mark II. Probably Canon focused excessively on sharpness in the mark II. It was sold last year.

Eventually, I've ended up with the 200 f/2.8L II, a lens I've appreciated more and more over the past year - useful little lens, low profile, excellent IQ and ... Dirt cheap.

odoketa said:

What's this f/2 t3.2 business? I know transmission isn't the same as f-stop, but aren't they supposed to be close?

Click to expand...

Every glass element reduces the light passage, and a apodization element reduces it even more. The large diameter aperture helps allow reduced depth of field.

Very nice pictures. I especially like the first one.

niteclicks said:

That would be a yes. That is the setup I have but you might look at the wireless setup. Mine arrived today and it is so sweet. I always found the 622's a bit fumbly to work with . The 6d I believe works the same as the 5DIII for flash and with the YNE3 rx and tx everything is very straight forward and the Yn600EX is only 20 bucks more.

Click to expand...

How much did you pay for the 600EX? I'm in Hong Kong ATM which is why I'm planning on buying them while I can get them cheap haha. How many flashes do you have now? My biggest regret was buying the Canon 430ex II all that time ago, could have bought 3 YN flashes of higher power for that price...

I upgraded from my Sigma 35 1.4. Color and rendering is excellent. Worth the money if you can afford it. Having consistent AF is also really nice, my Sigma used to miss at 10ft+ every once in a while. They might be about the same in sharpness but to me the Canon just has a better look to it.

chauncey said:

Were I to list importance, noise and dynamic range performance would rank higher than would MP.

Click to expand...

When you decide to look for a camera with "absolute lowest noise" but must choose which ISO you expect this camera is the supreme king.

In a simple way:

5DS has very low noise at ISO 100 or 400, maintaining color accuracy and sharpness compared to other models.
1DX has very low noise at ISO 3200, maintaining color accuracy and sharpness compared to other models.
Sony A7Sii has very low noise at ISO 6400, but the colors are a bit strange and sharpness is not as good, compared to other models.
Canon ME20F-SH has very low noise at ISO 25600, but the resolution is the smallest of the above models.

So I can say that Canon ME20F-SH is the champion at extremely high ISO, but that does not mean it is better than the other cameras at ISO 800. I can also conclude that 5DS is the champion at ISO 100 or 200, but that does not mean it is better than the other cameras in ISO 1600.

The amount of noise is not linear over the entire range ISO, and no camera model will be better in all ISO settings. A particular model of camera can be optimized for the best performance in low ISO, and another model for high ISO, and color characteristics and sharpness will depend on the choice that the manufacturer did when design this camera.

Canon 1DS Mark iii, was a project that prioritizes the best color and clarity with the technology available at that time, and suffers from above ISO 800. Canon used the same "philosophy" in the current 5DS, but technology now allows to reach the same standards color and sharpness, even up to ISO 1600, with the advantage of plenty of resolution.
1DX has less noise, but the color and clarity are NOT the same standard of good old 1DS Mark iii.

bart13 said:

Nice video, good vibe. Maybe a little bit too much lightleaks for my taste

Click to expand...

I agree! I've never understood the appeal of that video effect. It's the same as rudely shining a bright light directly in the viewer's eyes over and over while they are trying to enjoy the content. Yuck. Whenever I do a slideshow, I edit those transition effects out. If necessary, I prefer the opposite effect, gracefully going dark between shots.

Hi All,

Other day I bought this bracket from Adorama. I am not happy with the bracket but I am looking for similar product. Issues with this design is when L is on right side, the vertical rod is too close to the grip preventing me to hold my 5D MK3. When I reverse the bracket, I cannot reach the view piece. Reverse design of it fits my requirement. Anybody got any suggestion?

ahsanford said:

Luds34 said:

StudentOfLight said:

Me.

I actually traded in my 35/1.4 L for the Tamron 35/1.8 + UV filter.

Click to expand...

How do you like it? Can you compare/contrast it with the 35L you got rid of? Do you miss the f/1.4? Is the Tamron usable wide open?

-Thanks

Click to expand...

This is OT, but head here for the mother lode of 35mm head to head review work from CR's reviewing partner Dustin Abbott:

http://dustinabbott.net/2016/01/35mm-shootout/

- A

Click to expand...

Sorry for not getting back to you guys. With all the 1D-X II and 5D"x" rumors I completely lost track of this one.

I didn't like the 35L/1.4 wide open, and ended up using it more at f/2 or f/2.8most of the time. While sharpness was okay in the center of frame at f/1.4 it was not fantastic. The corners were quite soft at maximum aperture and I didn't like the background blur characteristics, especially when for example shooting with strong highlights filtering through trees. (The edges of the blur circles were harsh.) Chromatic aberration was quite severe as well.

The strength of my 35L was that its autofocus was extremely fast and accurate, however I found that this was not as useful for me at this focal length. When shooting events I generally wanted more depth of field than 35/1.4 offered and more of these low light shots would be shots where I'd have people or groups pose so AF speed was less critical and AF accuracy would be sufficient.

Anyway, so onto the Tamron. Yes, it is usable wide open.

You can pixel-peep the crops on TDP for sharpness:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=1003&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
It also holds up pretty well on the 5DsR and I have no reservations using it on 18-20MP APS-C bodies.

Vignette is low compared to say the 35/2 IS or the f/1.4 lenses at their maximum aperture. For my low light shooting this is an important consideration. If you are shooting at ISO-1600 or ISO-3200 and you need to brighten corners by more than 2 stops then they become extremely noisy. So I highly regard low vignette.

I consider the AF accuracy to be reliable but slow. At least 30-50% slower than the 35L USM.

Then onto the Tamron triple act: Vibration Compensation, close-focus capability and weather sealing. These three combine to make the Tamron a great option for my travel kit. That and the fact that it performs well on both FF and APS-C makes it very versatile.
I've included a comparison with my 60D+35VC and 5D-III+40STM. Remember that my 5D-III loses weather-sealing status when using the 40STM whereas the 60D retains its weather sealing status when the 35VC is attached.

While I love the Tamron for my purposes, it is not a perfect lens. I've already touched on the slow AF speed, but (like the 35L) it also suffers from a purple fringing problem with extreme contrast transitions. Lastly there is one more issue, which I believe is field-curvature related, that I happened to pick up when shooting stars. The tangential and radial planes of sharp focus appear to curve in opposite directions. So If you defocus the stars slightly then astigmatism is increased and you'll render peripheral stars as seagulls or comets depending on which direction you bias focus.

This was my decision for my needs, but I expect others priorities to be different and come to different conclusions on what is workable for them.

p.s. Ideally I'd like to get the 35L II to use for paid work and night sky, but I wont sell the Tamron which I'd still keep for use in a lighter travel kit and for casual shooting.

Hector1970 said:

So if I used a dedicated profile in Lightroom noise and downsample the file I'll get an image better than a 5DIII image on my 5DSR.
That doesn't sound too good or too practical. Maybe if I stand on my head the picture will look better too.
I personally think Canon stretched the 5DSR and 7DII sensor too far in maximizing MP's.
It was really a race to 50MP.
I think the 5DIV will be a better all round camera.
Maybe it's too simplistic to judge photos as they appear out of the camera. In high ISO the 5DIII is better making the 5DSR limited to low ISO use where it performs very well.
But again I think the 5DIII camera is a great camera and probably all most photographers will ever need.
Grab one while you can if you are thinking of moving to full frame.

Maiaibing said:

Hector1970 said:

I'd find the 5DIII much better than than the 5DSR (which I assume is like a 5DS) in low light.

Click to expand...

Sounds like you are probably using Lightroom's standard color profile if this is the case.

If you use Canon's RAW engine or a dedicated profile in Lightroom noise is somewhat better on the 5DS R than the 5DIII on top you get better detail - if you reduce to the same file size.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Well using a profile is just good practice, according to some (I don't, perhaps I should) - it's certainly the case the different software produces different results, and if quality is paramount, finding the best is worthwhile. And downsampling is surely a normal part of the process of outputting images for people to see? I certainly never post full sized images online. But as for preferences, it's a matter of taste. From the comparison files I've seen, there's not much in it between these two cameras.

Click said:

Great review. Thank you Dustin.

Click to expand...

You bet, Click!

AlanF said:

"Mirror slapper" is a common term of Canon abuse in these threads.

Click to expand...

Although only used by one member. Common because they shoehorn it into every reply...

Apparently the Leica M 262 has the same burst rate.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1202012-REG/leica_m_typ_262_digital.html#Specification

Up to 3 fps at 24 MP for up to 8 frames

Click to expand...

See, Canon is giving us something as good as a Leica for 1/10th the price!

Even if they're moving a little...the distortion tools allow this...50" tall @ 300 ppi.

Mt Spokane Photography said:

So far, no independent reviews. This is another Nikon NPS review, basically a sales pitch. If you do not give a positive review, you are dropped from the NPS program. Canon does exactly the same thing.

I could not tell if the images were processed from raw or jpeg, or how much NR was applied, it might be buried in the article somewhere.


There is no indication that the images were taken in low light, so the high ISO may be a deception intended for those who think that light levels don't matter.

Click to expand...

It's definitely worth being cautious. But the comparison with the older model is still useful, right? They wouldn't be so duplicitous as to use different settings for the two sets of shots? Or would they? Given the target audience is at least in large part professionals, who wouldn't want to be dicked around.

Sabaki said:

Hey all

Thanks for the feedback. Seems that experimentation and stacking will have to become part of my workflow once I eventually spring for the 16-35 f/4.0 IS

YellowJersey,you have some very cool 'scapes on your DeviantArt profile! Great shots

Click to expand...

Thanks!

3kramd5 said:

Refurb7 said:

If mirrorless is so important to you, why does it have to be Canon? It seems the market already offers a wide selection of mirrorless for you. What's your delay in moving to Sony/Fuji/Olympus?

Click to expand...

The bulk of the canon system is compelling. Great lenses, great speedlights, great bodies, great support (obviously this depends on where you are located), and most everything works well together. Other systems aren't as complete, or feel very disjointed and poorly planned (sony). I am guessing AvTvM isn't willing to trade all the good canon offers in favor of one or two desires (small and mirrorless), when the bulk of his dream system (including things like a 4K EVF, dust tight 1 and meter waterproofing in spite of a fully articulated LCD, autofocus-only (no MF), eye control, etc) isn't offered anywhere.

Personally, My paid work is all canon - if someone hires me to man a camera, I won't risk using a system which hasn't earned my trust. I have sold plenty of photos I took with other systems of kludges (like sony bodies with metabones adapters holding canon lenses), but they were photos I took on my own time.

Click to expand...

Thanks. Exactly.
Plus I do prefer the Canon EOS user interface (but not Powershot).
EOS with Canon Eye Control AF v2.0 it would really be as perfect for me as it gets. 8)

ah, but least I forget: wireless ETTL protocol should finally allow for 2nd curtain sync. That's long overdue, Canon RT system's usefulness notwithstanding. Plus RT remote control for zoom relector on speedlites buried deep in some lightformer.

slclick said:

I'm voting for the 24-35 f/2. This is MY one lens as opposed to two primes solution. YMMV. Weight and size don't bother me and I primarily use it on a tripod so... Results have been fantastic in the short period I have owned it. Check out Dustin's review here on CR for more info. You can get it with a Street Price over at CPW btw. It'll come from B&H lickety split.

Click to expand...

Must suitable for the OP's needs. A little wider than 35 mm, and f/2 will really help for starscapes, aurora.

World's fastest autofocus, eh? Under what conditions exactly? I'm eager to see how it compares in real world performance next to a 7D II or a D500. More points and better tracking aren't equivocal. Neither are high speed focus acquisition in a lab and live tracking speed in the field. But very I'm eager indeed to see a comparison under good and poor lighting conditions and a variety of situations.

Hi, I really like the light-shadow capture. The focus on a daily scene is cool, but maybe just a little bit too less dramatic don´t you think? I mean it is a nice picture but not extraordinary.

Hi, I really like the extract of the flower. It is unusual frame and thereby creates an outstanding focus on a detail. The artificial (I guess) light is a nice addition and keeps the picture interesting.

The only "flaw" in the 14mm f/2.8 that I can find is a scuff on the box. Lens was pristine and came with all the original paperwork and wrapping. Go for it!