I've found good use for the touch bar. Left tap = level on/off. Right tap = histogram on/off. Swipe = magnify.
This is what I do was well.
Upvote
0
I've found good use for the touch bar. Left tap = level on/off. Right tap = histogram on/off. Swipe = magnify.
You will not find many wide angle primes with IS today. So a five stop IBIS like in the Sony A9 means that you can use ISO 800 instead of ISO 25600 for a hand held night shot. In both cases you can take the picture, but of course with ISO 800 it looks much cleaner.
My favourite subjects are skyscrapers and very often you are not allowed to use a tripod at the plaza in front of a skyscraper. In Dubai for example the whole downtown area around Burj Khalifa - even including streets and sidewalks - is owned by the company Emaar. They do not allow tripods anywhere in that area, unless you have a written permission and paid a high fee. Observation decks are another problem. Empire State Building is a good place for night shots of Manhattan, but you can't use a tripod there. And then there are even cities like London or Paris, where tripods technically are forbidden anywhere, unless you have a special permission.
Of course there are some options of wide angle zooms like the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 with IS, but how cool would it be, if you could just use ANY lens on your camera and it was stabilized? For example that super sharp 17mm tilt and shift lens from Canon.
For me it just makes much more sense to have Image stabilisation in the camera than having it in every lens, which of course makes every lens more expensive.
Isn't the whole point of "very high end lenses without IS" to have no "counterparts with IS when focal length, aperture, image quality, etc. is taken into account"?I'm still trying to find those very high end lenses without IS made for systems with IBIS that are demonstrably cheaper than their counterparts with IS when focal length, aperture, image quality, etc. is taken into account.
Isn't the whole point of "very high end lenses without IS" to have no "counterparts with IS when focal length, aperture, image quality, etc. is taken into account"?
That's what I'm talking about. Why do you think that "cheaper" is a factor for the target market of "very high end lenses without IS"?No. I'm talking about lenses in one system from one manufacturer with IS lenses and no IBIS and corresponding lenses from other systems with IBIS made by other manufacturers that have no IS. Where is the cheaper 85mm non-IS lens made to go with an IBIS system that optically performs as well as, say, the Canon EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS?
That's what I'm talking about. Why do you think that "cheaper" is a factor for the target market of "very high end lenses without IS"?
For example, do you think "cheaper" was a factor in not adding IS to TS-E 17?
Because I was responding to a comment that claimed:
"For me it just makes much more sense to have Image stabilisation in the camera than having it in every lens, which of course makes every lens more expensive."
If IS makes every lens that has it "more expensive", why are similar lenses that do not have IS no less expensive?
Because you were asking about "very high end lenses", for which such small parts of their BoM costs don't really affect their market price, as they are expected to be high margin products anyway.Because I was responding to a comment that claimed:
"For me it just makes much more sense to have Image stabilisation in the camera than having it in every lens, which of course makes every lens more expensive."
If IS makes every lens that has it "more expensive", why are similar lenses that do not have IS no less expensive?
Now we are trying to get into the minds of the folks who set prices. With Sony, my first guess is volume. Historically, they have not sold nearly the volume of FF lenses as Canon (and perhaps they still don't), and they probably don't have as much infrastructure for production of high-end FF lenses. (Or they might be having other companies make them?) So they would need to charge more per unit to profit. Plus, from a marketing standpoint, if the company believes the lenses must have a certain cachet, and they want to put in customers minds that a Sony lens is every bit as good as a Canon lens, they wouldn't make it a priority to set a lower price and point out that Sony is lacking a feature that Canon has.
Just brainstorming.
Because you were asking about "very high end lenses", for which such small parts of their BoM costs don't really affect their market price, as they are expected to be high margin products anyway.
Maybe you should look at pancake lenses and their IS-having equivalents (or explain a lack thereof).
I was replying to a comment that said "... which of course makes every lens more expensive."
It did not say "some" lenses. It did not say "low cost" lenses. It said every lens.
Because you were asking about "very high end lenses", for which such small parts of their BoM costs don't really affect their market price, as they are expected to be high margin products anyway.
Maybe you should look at pancake lenses and their IS-having equivalents (or explain a lack thereof).
You may even go a step further and make the argument that lenses designed for a system with IBIS are likely to be more expensive. The reason for that is that the sensor moves, therefore the lens has to have a greater image circle and has to be more optimized towards even performance across the frame, unless IBIS is allowed to degrade the image quality.I'm disputing the claim that putting IBIS in the camera instead of putting IS in the lens unequivocally makes all IS lenses more expensive than their non-IS counterparts.
I'm still trying to find those very high end lenses without IS made for systems with IBIS that are demonstrably cheaper than their counterparts made for other systems that use IS when focal length, aperture, image quality, etc. is taken into account.
TBH using adapted EF glass is the way right now. The RF50, 85 and 28-70 are the only RF lenses really worth using. The other offerings are only equal to the existing EF glass. Not better.
I disagree. The RF 24-105 is considerably sharper and has better IS than either model of the EF 24-105. I also find that for my purposes, the greater range, lighter weight, smaller size, and IS make it a better all-around single lens for travel than the EF 24-70 f/2.8.
And the RF24-240 doesn't have an EF counterpart, the EF versions of the 24-70 and 15-25 lack IS, the new 70-200 is a lot lighter, etc.
Canon might not have those lenses, but third party manufacturers have them. For example that whole Sigma Art lineup does not have an IS.
Canon on the other hand has some very expensive prime lenses that many people will not buy, because they do to have an IS. For example the 35mm f/1.4. Just imagine that lens with IBIS! IS seems to be very expensive or technically difficult at lens with very fast lenses. So they usally are a stop slower. The 35mm f/1.4 does not have IS, but the 35mm f/2 does. The 24-70mm f/2.8 does not have IS, but the 24-70mm f/4 does.
You will also find some examples where the IS version of a Canon zoom lens is much more expensive than the non IS version. Just look at all the 70-200 lenses from Canon! There are versions with f/4 and f/2.8 each with IS and without IS and the IS versions are much more expensive.