anorphirith wrote:
HELLO!! if everybody follow the trend of Leica and start making MF portable SLR all the prices of the current lenses that you own are going to DROP badly, that mean the thousands off $$$$ in investment that you have on lenses, GONE,
Full Frame is WAY enough, they can make 2.0X or 3.0X sensors if they want but not larger than FF,
Nope. The new Leica is only another salient in the same direction as the Mamiya ZD camera. If the Nikon MX rumor comes to pass, it will only force other players into the game. That won't eliminate 24x36 or even APS-C, but it will put pressure on current medium format...which is a great thing to happen.
Yes, "FF" as we recognize it is simply a carrying forward of the limitations of the previous era's photographic technology. Arguably we need no longer be limited by these constraints!
PetKal wrote:
I understand what you are saying, but sometimes it helps one-brand aficionados to look up some other systems such as 24 Mp Sony, 37 Mp Leica, 60 Mp Phase One, etc in order to hopefully get a better sense of where Canon fits performance- and cost-wise in the digital camera world.
I think it should be madatory to shoot with another brand of camera and third party lenses to give us a deeper understanding of the hurt we cause when we deride other brands but then return to business as usual
I think it should be madatory to shoot with another brand of camera and third party lenses to give us a deeper understanding of the hurt we cause when we deride other brands but then return to business as usual
I'm not completely sure of what that meant, only being passing familiar with Ozzie. But anyone who derides a 5D should spend a season shooting football (anyone's football) and then a season shooting basketball with a Mamiya Century Graphic.
Man, you need to learn who to trust, and who not to! If you can't see all the may reasons that this guy falls into the latter category...
Let's wait for some actual independent, non-sponsored tests, with side-by-side comparisons. Whaddaya' say? I suspect the 5DII will actually fare pretty well in good light, but I want to see it for myself. I'm not going to trust some shill beta-tester, who considers his studio to be "one of the ten best wedding studios in the world."
I just don't know what all the complaints are about. I presently shoot with a Canon 30D - Check my profile for my lenses. I just had + $400.00 in prints sell today from one of the galleries that represents me. All I can see in the 5D MKii are some great features that will allow me to push my creativity and sales to a new level.
I have no complaints regarding the 5DmkII specs, however I do have some reservations regarding many of the posts. If you can't afford $2700.00 for the body - then I don't really care about your negative comments - Why not give critical comment to a camera that youhave purchased and use - That would be helpful.
Please don't take my comments as "elitist" . I'd love to own a Hassy - but it is out of my reach - but I don't post negative comments.
Shoot - Print - Share the beauty of the world that God has given us.
Quality of lenses are important - Cost of great lenses seem to appreciate -
I'll keep my 500 f4 L IS a bit longer. Although I am a bit curious about some of the new Zeiss offerings.
Nickerjo wrote:
Quality of lenses are important - Cost of great lenses seem to appreciate -
I'll keep my 500 f4 L IS a bit longer. Although I am a bit curious about some of the new Zeiss offerings.
jn
I'm waiting for the Zeiss ZE 800 f/4 and have set my self up as a subprime lender so I can get a huge government handout and will easily be able to afford this lens.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I'm waiting for the Zeiss ZE 800 f/4 and have set my self up as a subprime lender so I can get a huge government handout and will easily be able to afford this lens.
Cableaddict wrote:
Man, you need to learn who to trust, and who not to! If you can't see all the may reasons that this guy falls into the latter category...
Let's wait for some actual independent, non-sponsored tests, with side-by-side comparisons. Whaddaya' say? I suspect the 5DII will actually fare pretty well in good light, but I want to see it for myself. I'm not going to trust some shill beta-tester, who considers his studio to be "one of the ten best wedding studios in the world."
But I digress .......
they dont claim that, they were judged to be that way.
Cableaddict wrote:
Man, you need to learn who to trust, and who not to! If you can't see all the may reasons that this guy falls into the latter category...
Let's wait for some actual independent, non-sponsored tests, with side-by-side comparisons. Whaddaya' say? I suspect the 5DII will actually fare pretty well in good light, but I want to see it for myself. I'm not going to trust some shill beta-tester, who considers his studio to be "one of the ten best wedding studios in the world."
globalkiwi wrote:
Yes, "FF" as we recognize it is simply a carrying forward of the limitations of the previous era's photographic technology. Arguably we need no longer be limited by these constraints!
Well, we do unless people don't mind having to sell all their lenses (at a major loss) and buy a bunch of (way more expensive) others with bigger diameter glass elements...
Canon would have to research and develop a whole new line of lenses, and that takes a lot of time and would cost a lot of money in R&D...
I'm not saying it won't happen though.
In fact it probably will, specially if manufactures reach a point where they can't find a way to put more MP and increase DR without increasing sensor size.
Is there a design/practical reason for canon not using af-assist lights on the camera? (other than strobist tenedencies with builtin flash :P) It just seems to me that this would solve lots of lowlight af-problems?
Anyone that thinks the camera is capable is either a 'fanboy' or suckered by marketing, any pro commenting positive is simply a shill, and the only people in all this that are correct and objective are those saying the camera is limited, its AF isnt good enough to work, its not fast enough, and it isnt weather sealed enough.
From what I've seen, it has outstanding IQ, and I will be finally replacing my film cameras for landscape imaging , especially with the newly announced 21mm distagon.
Video isnt my thing, never has been, but I can tell you this, the thought of combining this video function with the MPE65 or 180L Macro and the sheer number of possibilities has given me an enthusiasm for image making I havent had for many years.
Its not perfect, no camera is, but it certainly ticks many of the boxes Im looking for, and a few I didnt know were there.
dcmiller wrote:
.....
Is there still a working link to a 1080p version of the movie?
I'm not sure there ever was one. There is a link to a 960 x 540 at Canon but it displays it at a fixed size. If you want to see it full screen to see how well it upsamples, use the instructions on page 67.
Anyone that thinks the camera is capable is either a 'fanboy' or suckered by marketing, any pro commenting positive is simply a shill, and the only people in all this that are correct and objective are those saying the camera is limited, its AF isnt good enough to work, its not fast enough, and it isnt weather sealed enough.
From what I've seen, it has outstanding IQ, and I will be finally replacing my film cameras for landscape imaging , especially with the newly announced 21mm distagon.
Video isnt my thing, never has been, but I can tell you this, the thought of combining this video function with the MPE65 or 180L Macro and the sheer number of possibilities has given me an enthusiasm for image making I havent had for many years.
Its not perfect, no camera is, but it certainly ticks many of the boxes Im looking for, and a few I didnt know were there.
ulrikft wrote:
This might be another stupid question:
Is there a design/practical reason for canon not using af-assist lights on the camera? (other than strobist tenedencies with builtin flash :P) It just seems to me that this would solve lots of lowlight af-problems?
My old Elan had one, and I don't see a problem with it.
However, frankly I haven't found a problem with getting the camera to focus in light that was at least bright enough for me to see the subject. I've specifically tested that in extremely dim rooms--far dimmer than I'd actually attempt an image--and found the 5D able to focus.
A good part of my success is likely that I know how to focus. Focusing with AF in dim light requires the same techniques we used with split image rangefinders back in the dim, dark manual focusing days. If you know how to focus with a split-image rangefinder, you can get the 5D AF to work in any situation that you yourself can see the subject.
ulrikft wrote:
This might be another stupid question:
Is there a design/practical reason for canon not using af-assist lights on the camera? (other than strobist tenedencies with builtin flash :P) It just seems to me that this would solve lots of lowlight af-problems?
Pratical as in... Canon wants nothing in the way for you to buy a flash from them
