So much of Canon gear on worst of 2017 and Adobe as well with subscription model.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ-LZIc99Mg

I would like to respond to the OP's "In my opinion, the real skills behind photography, patience, searching and exploring for the best composition in any condition with capturing a stunning scene just like it is, with any kind of gear...", with a special focus on "just like it is". The human eye has a higher DR than any 35mm sensor we've been yet able to design. So to me, "just like it is" means "the way it actually looks", not what the sensor is able to produce. My favourite shooting is in low light, especially dusk or dawn when the sun is still below the horizon. Higher DR means lower sensor noise in post. Yes, I can reduce the graininess in post but I also hate to lose resolution. I will take all the DR I can get in a full frame or crop frame camera. We still have a ways to go before it equals the DR of the human eye.

Idea: buy kurvd, cut ends. Rubber shell for lens use all time.

Don Haines said:

KeithBreazeal said:

But it will have awesome donut bokeh!

Click to expand...

mmmmmmmmmm...... donuts.......

This could be an interesting lens, particularly for food photography!

Click to expand...

This might gain them a niche in the police surveillance market as well...

mkabi said:

Mikehit said:

Besisika said:

1080P output from a 4K is the pro standard today. 1080P from a 5D III is a quality of yesteryear.

Click to expand...

Pure BS.
Most real pros shoot 1080p quite happily, use manual focus and produce top quality video for documentaries and films. Most people demanding after 4k DSLR/mirrorless are youtube vlogging wannabes.

Click to expand...

I have to agree with Mike on this one.
Well, I wouldn't have said in that manner... but think about it.
If you are a pro... you have work... and if you have enough work, why would you pile more work on top of that work? Recording straight to 1080p and delivering that is faster and easier...
I have friends who do wedding videos for a living (thats his full time gig), he is averaging 30 odd weddings per year... 8 hours X 2 cameras and 1 of them is from a DSLR. You do the math... I think he has 2 kids and a wife on top of that... I help him out here and there... but if you want spend hours upon hours editing (splicing seconds to minutes of video, color correcting, adding effects, authoring and then publishing). Adding an extra hour or 2 because you have to work with 4K doesn't make sense to me? Does that make sense to you? Because the average consumer can't tell the difference between 1080p straight from the camera and 1080p coming from 4K.

Click to expand...

It's all getting a bit generalistic with the responses here. I'm a filmmaker producing content for TV and there are a number of strict standards and formats you have to adhere to. DSLR/mirrorless, 4K or not, aren't yet really recommended video cameras for that level of work.

Dslrs are great for plenty of non-broadcast quality productions such as the mentioned wedding video market where output standards are not strict. In order to confidently include 4K video in any business, assuming most people will be viewing it at 4K, you will need bigger memory cards as the file sizes are significantly bigger, a lot more hard disk space to store the files and for a few backups plus a pretty powerful PC able to cope with the larger files. It's simply out of the budget for a lot of smaller businesses. Also lens choices become a lot more critical as 4K can really show up a lens' shortcomings, especially cost effective photography lenses adapted for filming.

I've only really seen proper 4K production setups involving cine cameras, not dslrs. The majority of people who would choose a dslr over a cine camera probably don't have the sort of budget to cater for that level of professionalism and are very likely not to have a critical need for it anyway.

They are much much more than acceptable XL+

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-powershot-g1-x-mark-iii-review

brad-man said:

Then it will have a new mount and a frustratingly limited selection of slow zooms with their native mirrorless mount lens offerings, but a houseload of awesome professional lenses will work from day one.

Click to expand...

Fixed that for you.

Unlike with EOS M, which lacks high quality EF-S glass to adapt, any Canon mirrorless FF offering will have world class glass from day one.

Unless you want world class and native mount from day one, which (a) isn't happening and (b) won't be that small -- only a handful of lenses will lead to smaller aggregate footprint (think pancakes, 35 f/2, 50 1.8, etc.) will you actually save much aggregate space for that sexy thin mount -- if we even get that thin mount.

- A

aceflibble said:

"Everything that makes up and is used by the processor matters... but the processor doesn't matter."

... You two realise how you're contradicting yourselves there, right? Or did you skip the earlier part of the thread? We've already gone over how everything other than the sensor itself is encapsulated by the processor now (and this has been the way for over a decade now).

Click to expand...

I think I've been trolled!! Either that or these people are lumping way too much stuff into their definition of a processor. Apparently including some "magic"!

Uncle, I'm tapping out!

"I have an attorney for Christian Louboutin on line 1."

I've a 7DII but never experienced that.
I'd certainly try to exchange it if you can for a new one.
I'm not its biggest fan. Other than the frame rate I don't think its a great camera - certainly not for the money.
My one at least has poor high ISO performance even for a crop camera.
I'll be interested what they do with the 7DIII and what they will improve.

if Zeiss would make AF-lenses for Canon and Nikon, their consumer products division might also grow more than just a disappointing 2% per annum ...


PS: if it got no AF, I will not buy it. Neither camera nor lens. No matter what.

Hi Alan.
Thanks for the heads up on the size, I have just remembered I have a tin with some special bits, a couple of tiny ball bearings, some custom hand made tool-steel boring tips and an assortment of tiny drills. No idea how small they go, I will report back later. If I don’t have a suitable drill I will have to see about getting one after the festive season.
Just a thought, but if I drill the hole a bit off centre will I have a fixed ‘shift’ lens? ???

Cheers, Graham.

AlanF said:

Your drills would seem to too big, though I have some watchmakers tiny ones. You could try punching through with a needle. But, better still, you could drill a 3 mm hole or so in the centre of the body cap, stick some thin black tape over that and poke a needle through the centre. That way, you would have a thinner membrane, easier to punch through, and you could quickly change it to try different sized pinholes.

Hey, let's use Kickstarter to set up a company to sell the kit.

Click to expand...

1) Sony's own 100-400 works better than any adapted lens, let alone with an additional converter. Especially compared to coming from an APS-C camera, you'll find the 'bare' Sony lens gives you about as much resolving power as the longer Canon lens on the APS-C body. You can skip the adapter and the teleconverter and you'll still have the detail you're used to.
2) Stacking any teleconverter on top of a mount adapter is generally a recipe for failure if you want AF to be any good. With an IS lens like your 509mm it'll also murder the battery double fast. If you shoot for ~400 frames, less than 1 hour or so, and the birds you're chasing are of the larger and slower variety (e.g. herons, geese, some of the more placid eagles), it'll be fi e. If you shoot more/for longer, or simply faster or smaller/twitchier birds, you're going to want to either give up the teleconverter, turn off IS, or keep to native lenses. (See #1.)
3) The 7D mk III is due out within the next three or four months. It will undoubtedly have more resolution, a deeper buffer, more effective AF tracking, and a faster burst rate than the 7D2 you've been using, and in most cases the 5D4 too. (Good chance it won't quite match the 5D4 for total pixel count, but it'll still beat it for pixel density, which is what really matters.) Best of all, all your current gear will work with it perfectly.
4) If you really want to switch from Canon, and you're not sold on the Sony's 100-400, the Nikon D500 and their lenses will serve you better. I really love the a9, but if 500mm+ is what you want, Nikon is currently the #1 and Canon is #2; Sonys have gotten much better with adapters, but anything of that kind of length—and again, let alone with a teleconverter on top—and the tracking and battery life go right down the toilet.

What I suggest you do as your first move is think about whether you can wait for the new Canon or not, and if not, just rent an a9 and 100-400 for a weekend and see how you get on with that. That native combination is great and easily produces the results of your existing 7D2 and 500mm, but with even better focus and faster burst rate. If that image quality isn't enough for you, rent the Nikon native combo next. You're talking about some serious gear, so it's worth actually trying all the options out before going through the hassle of switching systems. It's not fun spending the time and money switching only to find out you still don't get the results you want/have a whole new batch of problems to deal with that you weren't expecting. As a user of Canon, Sony, Nikon, Fuji, Phase, and Mamiya myself, I could never advise someone gambles on switching systems without spending a good few days testing that system first.

Several years ago I was at Disneyworld and came upon a night parade when I didn’t have a real camera on me. I got out my iPhone 5, I guess it was, and took pictures anyway. A surpring number turned out really well. So taking pictures of a lighted night parade must not be that much of a trick.

Do bear in mind too that the X1D's sensor is pretty small by medium format standards. The Fuji GFX has the same size sensor and people have adapted Canon EF lenses to that.

A '35mm' lens projecting an image circle large enough to cover these smaller-than-6x4.5 'medium format' cameras isn't particularly special. The time to get excited will be when full 6x4.5 digital occurs and we can adapt lenses to that. (Though personally, as someone who grew up on large format and mostly used 6x7 for the last twenty years, even 6x4.5 doesn't get me too excited; 35mm sensor cameras can easily replicate the same look with f/1.4 and faster lenses.)

ecqns said:

privatebydesign said:

Playing devils advocate here, what can you do with a tilt shift lens you can't do in post?

Click to expand...

One very big thing for me - is that when you have clients looking over your shoulder when you are shooting - I'd much rather have my lines straight then telling them - "Oh don't worry I'll fix it in post, we can move on."

Plus if you don't use a TS-E you need to include a lot of extra frame for the transformation. A lot of my shots show a straight on perspective, one point, so I want everything to be right in camera.

Click to expand...

another important reason is that I want as much of my 42Mpx Sony frame as possible. Since I have to crop a vertical 35mm frame down to a 4x3 ratio, we don't want to waste pixels.
When I have to use the 11-24 (and I dislike using it but its an emergency) I have to transform a ton of the image, losing 1/3 to 1/2 of the frame.

If Canon (or Nikon!) came out with a 14 (or 13!)mm TS-E I'd be all set for lenses.

YuengLinger said:

neuroanatomist said:

hne said:

I read that as almost the entire optical system moving.

Click to expand...

Indeed, looks like everything but the rear element is in the moving inner barrel. Thanks!

Click to expand...

This helps me appreciate its accuracy and understand its lack of speed. I'm lucky with my copy--pinpoint even at 1.2.

Click to expand...

+1. I am very satisfied with the accuracy of my 85L f1.2 as well. Paired with the 1DXII I have used it with success on running children as well.

slclick said:

neuroanatomist said:

bluenoser1993 said:

Typically the information is easy to find for venues. For example, the NFL has a lens length limit of 6 inches at all stadiums. The 135 is perfect for this and can be combined with a 1.4x if you are further from the field.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't the 200/2.8 be even better?

Click to expand...

Yes, it is one of the most underrated lenses in the Canon lineup and the longest FL black lens. (while being quite compact still) It's also a pretty good performer on the M5 with the 1.6 added.

5D3, 200 2.8L Antelope Island, The Great Salt Lake

Click to expand...

Makes a great portrait lens, too...if you have enough room.

T1i, 200/2.8L II @ f/2.8

keithcooper said:

SkynetTX said:

Lossy RAW encoding is a complete nonsense. If Canon wants faster burst mode they should include more memory in their cameras for processing. By the way, I absolutely don't care about burst mode. I use my camera to take still pictures. They should develop a true macro lens with Insect Stabilization instead.

Click to expand...

Insect Stabilisation - is that a puff of poison gas out of the front of the lens?

Click to expand...

DDT...

Don Haines said:

I found that the 105mm cannon works quite well for shooting people

Click to expand...

EF mount.

The issues raised in the comments here are interesting in the way they show that you ideally pick a lens for the work you want to do with it.

I've gone back and measured a number of shots I took at f/2.4 and it is significant, but still quite fixable in ACR.

I'm partly going to pin it on the size of the front element in this particular design, which does seem small, given the size of the front of the lens.

Unfortunately, the lens has gone back, so I've not had a chance to check the filter thread issue mentioned. I had a polariser to try with the lens, but only used it a few times. I'm just not a big filter user at wide angles (the new big filter system was not available to try at the time I received the lens).

Not sure when the 11mm is turning up - I'll be interested to see how it compares with the likes of my 11-24.

That said, I'm the first to admit that I simply don't have the patience to do much detailed lab type testing - it's about what you can do with a lens for me ;-)

BTW, if anyone has any specific questions about the 11mm, drop me a line at Northlight and I'll try and check when it's here.

I have not found any softness, but then I do not pixel beep the corners to find errors. There probably is softness in the corners because of the distortion correction.