We're going to see a lot of sharp cat photos from rich peoples living rooms soon
And the internet will be a happier place for it.
Upvote
0
We're going to see a lot of sharp cat photos from rich peoples living rooms soon
I agree. This is just as true today as in the film era.
Well, we may not have cared about the body so much, but we certainly cared about the film.
Now the body is the film, so to speak, determining the look.
I don’t agree. It would be really hard to pick out a camera from the look of a photo. I’d go so far as to say it would be impossible, disregarding blind luck.Now the body is the film, so to speak, determining the look.
Yup! And the same during the film era. I belong to a FaceBook group for vintage lenses. People there are apt to post that they like the old manual film era lenses because they like the "film" look. It always gives me a chuckle. It fascinates me. It just seems I remember film and paper choice being huge determiners of "look" and that the "film look" actually comes from using film... not from the lens. I've even set up surveys (polls?) with side by side photos taken on the same subject, same camera, and then digital vs vintage lenses. Nobody has ever been able to tell the difference with any reliable accuracy. They say they can, but they all fail the test. Then they accuse one of rigging the survey. They cannot possibly be wrong. Some are even so bold as to put down exactly which lens was used. Funny as hell.I don’t agree. It would be really hard to pick out a camera from the look of a photo. I’d go so far as to say it would be impossible, disregarding blind luck.
Lighting, optics, and processing after the fact are what by and large gives unique looks.
One substantial difference is that they didn't bother with the EOS-1 until there were enough EF lenses that a pro would actually buy an EOS-1.
And then some of us (me) add heavy vignetting to most shots anyway. So, while most assume vignetting is a bad thing, some of us (me, at least) happen to like it a lot.The problem with the 50 isn't the nature of the vignetting, which is unavoidable, but its degree. Just like the 50L it's got so much of it that you're not getting f1.2 worth of DOF for most of the frame. In practice you're rather getting the DOF of a 50mm f1.4 lens that's well corrected for vignetting. I guess that this is just the result of the compromises that had to be made between marketing asking for a f1.2 lens that's sharp and a small size. IMO the 50 RF would have been a better tool had it been designed as a f1.4 from the start and nearly no one would have seen the difference in pictures.
It's totally the smart thing to do as they can sell it for €2500 euros and can introduce the RF mount with a fanfare but it's not really what serves the users the most IMO. I think that a 50mm f1.4 with low vignetting and zero astigmatism would have made for a more significant difference over previous designs.
Anyway I'm quite excited to see which design choices Canon will make with this new 85mm and how they'll implement the apodization exactly. For starters that it's a coating technology is quite something as Canon claims they could more easily implement apodization in various designs.
Skill? Nawwwwwwww.... Everyone knows that every possible shadow detail, aberration, vignette, etc., must be corrected in lens/camera. We pay so we don't have to have things like skill. If my photos suck, it's the gear.I remember when I started shooting (maybe a decade ago) that caring more about the body than the lenses was supposed to be the mark of a newbie. That caring more about bodies has become the norm is... interesting.
"...skill is the biggest predictor of quality."
This could be really good.... or something like a transparent (LCD) display in the lens with high resolution which creates the apodization pattern Some menu item where you can draw you own apodization pattern in-camera.
It just seems I remember film and paper choice being huge determiners of "look" and that the "film look" actually comes from using film... not from the lens.
True, but that isn't a "film look". That is from the lens. I own and use 40+ various M42 mount lenses on my 5D Mark III. A Helios 44-2 58mm f/2 lens can achieve a swirly bokeh, flairs a certain way, vignettes a certain way, renders colors a certain way. Has nothing to do with film. It is the look one can get from a particular lens. The "Helios look" in this case.I'm sure you are so experienced that you couldn't possibly be wrong, but film-era lenses also had different rendering than modern designed-for-digital. Partly due to leaded glass, more primitive and single-sided coatings and generally fewer optical elemens.
HahahahWe're going to see a lot of sharp cat photos from rich peoples living rooms soon
One does get the impression that Canon had to release the mirrorless new generation of bodies and lenses ahead of their preferred schedule, which would probably have happened end 2019 with a pro IBIS and the RP together with 6-7 L lenses and 3-4 more mainstream and less expensive lenses like the 24-240. Nikon’s move and/or Sony’s growth forced an early and rather incoherent timing, with the R cobbled together and whatever lenses were ready for production, the rest following in a haphazard way. This is of course pure speculation
The first "Pro" EOS body, the EOS-1, was not introduced for 30 months after the first EF mount camera, the EOS 650. This is nothing new.
Lol...Another Troll...Yea, I mean Canon has only had what? FIVE YEARS of watching Sony? Embarrassing they took so long to get into FF mirrorless and they were still not ready.
Lol...Another Troll...
What is embarrassing is it has taken Sony five years.(.they are on their third version of the A7 and A7R ) and they still can’t design a great handling camera with easy menus.
The Sony FF camera’s are seriously flawed... but if you like that go ahead.
They are from 2012. Practically infants in terms of lens age.Those 20 something non L EF primes are long in the tooth. RF versions?
I mean, sure you could count pixels and compare them to known camera specs. But looking at noise in a photo doesn’t really tell you anything unless you also know how it was shot.Well, look at the resolution. Higher resolution would rule the a7iii out. Look at the noise. Low noise in dark shots, or high dynamic range would rule the EOS R out, as would a stabilized 24/1.4 shot. I agree it's not a Velvia vs. Kodachrome difference.