Sneakyracer Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
gdanmitchell wrote:
Your experience with an adjusted lens mirrors mine—in other words, I have sent in a "problem" lens and had it return in much better condition. In at least one notable case, it was literally better than when it was new.
Often when we hear on photo forums that X is miles better than Y, the truth is frequently more like:
1. X is better than Y, but by a smaller increment than the verbiage might imply,
2. X is better than Y in some ways, but Y can be better than X in others,
3. Both X and Y are actually quite good,
4. Either X or Y could be a better choice, depending on what and how you shoot, and
5. It is difficult for all of us at times to step outside of the perspective of our own photography (I'm not immune) and understand that our needs are not equal to everyone's needs.
If you need what the TS lenses do, then you need the TS lenses. If you don't need that, but you might need other things more, then the TS lenses may not improve your photography and might even impair it. Or not.
;-)
I'd say that those regularly making very high quality 30 x 40 prints are candidates for MF digital. Up to roughly 24 x 36 (and a bit larger with 800, etc) the difference, while visible to those who look very carefully, tends to be much less significant and would likely not be significant for most people to choose to give up the flexibility and so forth of full frame DSLR shooting.
Dan...Show more →
I agree. Honestly most of the better lenses for Canon really exceed what the sensor is capable of in regards to sharpness. What I am seeing is that the sensor is most times the limiting factor.
MF Digital really comes into its own when you have wide angle, expansive compositions with lots of fine detail (leaves, grass, foliage in general and rock, vegetation details).
|