Upload & Sell: Off
| Re: Canon 1DX and Zeiss lenses |
Should I remind you of what it means to have a civilized discussion. Or do you want to make a speech ?
Here\'s my opinion. Using manual lenses on the beastly 1DX make very litter sense.
You do realize that there are many manual focus lenses available for the 1DX that are completely unavailable and/or unusable for any RF system
Zeiss 50/2 Makro-Planar
Zeiss 100/2 Makro-Planar
Zeiss 135/2 APO-Sonnar (no current RF could even focus a 135/2 due to RF baseline limitations)
Every MF lens longer than 135mm.
Frankly an RF sucks as a manual focus platform unless you want to focus only in the dead centre of the frame or accurately focus a fast & wide lens via an optical viewfinder. The 1DX used on a tripod with Live View can offer accurate focusing that can only be otherwise achieved with a view or technical camera (as is common to main-sensor LV systems), a capability no RF currently has, although the M240 will have it when it finally arrives. Additionally the 1DX can do accurate manual focus of macro, tilt-shift and lenses over 135mm, none of which can be done with an RF (admittedly a Visoflex allows long & macro lens use on an M, but only by adding a low-quality SLR finder to the mix).
RF usage is about a particular method of working. If you like the process of shooting an RF, enjoy it. But don\'t claim that an RF is a better MF platform as RF\'s are extremely limited in capability (they just happen to do what they are capable of relatively well) compared to a DSLR or a LV-based camera like an SLT or Mirrorless system.
I\'ll note that personally I wouldn\'t shoot either an RF or a 1DX. The RF is too limited, the 1DX too large. My personal choice is a compact DSLR like the Pentax K-5 or a Mirrorless system like the NEX-7. But that preference is driven for my taste for compact and light systems combined with mid-speed primes. I don\'t claim that they are better than an RF (just more capable) or a 1DX (just more compact)