1DX Worth the Money?
- By charlesa
- EOS Bodies
- 61 Replies
I believe I answered your question in another appropriate thread Secret.
Upvote
0
I guess it's because the d4 doesn't replace a high mp camera..there the d800 for that..the 1dx however does and there isn't any high mp camera yet....halfwake said:Funny how Kai commented that 18MP of 1DX might not be enough, but he didn't make any comments on the Nikon D4's even lower 16MP.
Pompo said:In af point expansion, when you use only the cross points, the af points used in the expansion area corresponding to the middle empty columns blink! Im sure you all are aware of that, but why those unavailable couldn't just disappear? Another aggravating feature of this "intelligent viewfinder"
Ellen Schmidtee said:My impression from reviews is that Nikon's equivalents to the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 (the 17-35mm f/2.8) and EF 17-40mm f/4 (the 16–35 mm f/4 VR) do not have the kind of advantage which would make people switch to Nikon, or prefer it in the first place.
Though the 16-35 & 17-40 would benefit from an upgrade, IMHO Canon's priority would be a lens to compete with the 14-24mm.
Could be something like that, certainly you're losing around two stops at 1:1. I know some of that is due to light loss within the lens, due to the design and physics, as well as some light loss from being in your own lightLetTheRightLensIn said:Kernuak said:I'm intrigued though why the 100mm macro USM is the only f/2,8 lens in group E, when even the older non-USM macro is in group C. I notice it's even worse with the 180mm macro, as it is in group G with or without the 1.4x extender.
Yeah it is odd. Glad I upgraded to L.
Maybe it is to sell more L versions. ;D ;D
If not then maybe something about the internal baffles and how it heads into macro mode as a non-extending lens, maybe the larger elements in the L get around this. The older non-USM uses an extended barrel type macro design. It is interesting that even the 100L is one of the few lenses faster than f/4 that does not get the central point to work as a super precision double cross point. Gotta be something to do with the way macro lenses are designed. Once you are at 1:1 I think they act more like f/5.6 in how much light they let in even when set to f/2.8 too, not sure where they decided to class the AF rating for it, at normal distance or macro.
gshocked said:Dear all,
Just looking for an opinion. I want to get my first L lens and I'm tossing between Canon 70 - 200 f/4 IS vs. 70 - 200 F2.8 non IS. I'm looking to use it for sports photography, mainly outdoors but sometime indoors. I've heard lost of pros for both but I haven't read a review that has given me an opinion between these two lenses. I'm leaning towards the f/4 IS but would the 2.8 compensate for hot having IS?
Has anyone used or have both? Which would people choose - larger aperture or image stabilization?
Any thoughts?
(Thanks in advance!)
RunAndGun said:I can't recommend anything in that low price range, but I can tell you NOT to go cheap on wireless gear. Like anything else, you get what you pay. I work in television and all of my wireless gear, since I started freelancing in the 90's, is Lectrosonics and it's the majority of what you will see in the field being used professionally(for a reason). Audio, unfortunately, is an afterthought a lot of times. It's not "sexy" like a camera or lens, but it is just as important. Lectro gear is not cheap. For someone with my needs, you are looking at about $7K or so for a complete two-channel system. But they have "entry level" systems, too. You can get into a single channel set-up for under $1,500. You are much better off spending a little more on an entry level Lectro system that is built to last than a plastic Azden or Sennheiser or Shure system that's in the "$600" range.
A junk 35mm film slr or old powershot will do it. Just give them the serial number. They e-mail you a shipping label so you can send it to the recycling center where is will be crushed. I doubt if anyone really cares if you actually send one, they just want a serial number.K-amps said:Marine03 said:Why not get a Canon Loyalty Program referb 7D? Costs less or same and 90 day warranty
To get into CLP, don't I have to trade something in?
ihans said:Just got my 1Dx with a MacbookPro retina and just wanted to say that the FTP transfer is very fast.
I read an article about it and when you consider dof, its not a prob. I haven't read about using the 35L for stars.tron said:Bosman said:I agree that "artistic" doesn't mean shallow DOF. I am kinda sayin that to be serious about corner sharpness no one should expect it below F2.8 on any lens, well i don't anyway. I actually rarely shoot below F2.2 personally. I don't think it lends to great photos unless your subject is enhanced by the composition. For me single person portraits & Detail shots usually fit into the shallow DOF category for me. If the surroundings lend to the image and tell a story they are more useful somewhat in focus. F1.4 is good for astro photog and for corner sharpness i'd guess not many landscape photographers shoot larger apertures than F5.6, thus making this mute point imo as this lens is excellent stopped down.Stone said:Sigh, not everyone shoots every 35mm shot at f1.4, if one's only purpose for purchasing this lens is to obliterate the background on every shot, that's certainly your prerogative but myself and many others want to the use the lens in more than that 1 limited scenario. Corner sharpness is important to many, myself included but I won't discount those that find it unimportant as "using it wrong". In addition to those "artistic" shots, I would use this lens to shoot low light street scenes where I would in many cases want corner to corner sharpness. One eyelash in focus is not the be all end all of artistic composition....
Hello,
I have 35mm 1.4 and 1.4 is not even good for astro photos! Stars that are not close to the center look more like ... seagulls due to coma! You have to close it at least to 2.8 to get rid of most of the coma
Still, I am not really complaining because the 16-35mm 2.8 had again extreme coma at 2.8 ...
Some of the third party camera repair stations still have a few parts, and they salvage whatever parts they can from severely damaged units. Check with them about possible repairs.rmblack said:Alright guys,
Got the lens, it's optically in great condition, a lil' bit of internal dust but nothing to worry about.
Things to worry about:
- Put two rubber bands on over the loose grip and it seems to be fine...but weather sealing is @ -1
- The part of the lens that houses the rear lens element moves slightly...and moves the rear element by about a millimeter. This I took to be a huge problem, as if that moves while shooting my focus will change. (yes?)
- Did some real quick afmf adjustments...and +20 looks the best. (5dmkII)
Optically it's still a beast, and I don't think I'll be returning it...but is there any way to improve on it's faults? Please share any experiences you may have had!
Thanks guys!
sorry wickid, i dont always shoot raw but one thing i'll say is Canons noise red in camera is far far far from crap.wickidwombat said:why not just shoot in raw and have 1develop preset in lightroom then batch process it all .it will give much better results than the crap in camera processing and requires little effort
Right. That is why I am not going to buy till I try. I miss the reach of the crop sensor so I figure at least getting to 560mm with a 1.4x will help.Mt Spokane Photography said:AF with those pins taped varies from model to model and body to body. I taped several lenses and tried TC's on them with my 5D MK III, and they struggled or did not AF at all. Only one, a old 70-200mm f/2.8L did what I'd call a reasonably fast and accurate autofocus with TC's stacked. My old 40D would AF on almost any lens with TC at f/8 and usually f/11. It just is unpredictable.