BrundinPhoto wrote:
I love that this has become an A7 series discussion... :P
Some people just keep bringing it up as if God handed it down from the heavens to Sony to lighten mankind's existence since it does everything so perfectly.
kezeka wrote:
Some people just keep bringing it up as if God handed it down from the heavens to Sony to lighten mankind's existence since it does everything so perfectly.
There is nothing in canon worth to compare for full frame. Their DR all are the same since last decade
mttran wrote:
Their DR all are the same since last decade
Numerically that's true, but the low ISO shadow quality of the most recent cameras (such as 6d and I suspect 7dii) has much less banding, so it's massively more usable than it used to be.
It has improved; just not numerically. However, reality is more important than numbers
whumber wrote:
I've noticed that the edges and corners on my 16-35 f/4 IS are noticeably softer on my A7 than they are on the 5D3 or 1Ds3. At first I thought it was a problem with my adapter, but all of my other lenses seem alright and it seems pretty even around the frame. I wonder if it has something to with the sensor glass thickness.
On the A7R, if you have a slightly misaligned adapter, corner sharpness issues will be more noticeably with ultra wides than normal lenses.
When testing my TS-E 17mm, I went through a few adapters before finding one that gave me great corner sharpness.
SLR lenses are quite telecentric in any case as they have to clear the mirror and therefore do not produce the smearing/softness issues many photographers experience when using the A7R with rangefinder lenses. (Leica, etc..)
So, when adapting Canon lenses to the A7 or A7R, if your lens is free of issues, the main culprit is always the adapter.
mttran wrote:
There is nothing in canon worth to compare for full frame. Their DR all are the same since last decade
Then we can all agree that hopefully this new Canon camera has a revolutionary sensor in it. That way Sony has some competition and we can ALL benefit.
PhilDrinkwater wrote:
Numerically that's true, but the low ISO shadow quality of the most recent cameras (such as 6d and I suspect 7dii) has much less banding, so it's massively more usable than it used to be.
It has improved; just not numerically. However, reality is more important than numbers
Fred Miranda wrote:
On the A7R, if you have a slightly misaligned adapter, corner sharpness issues will be more noticeably with ultra wides than normal lenses.
When testing my TS-E 17mm, I went through a few adapters before finding one that gave me great corner sharpness.
SLR lenses are quite telecentric in any case as they have to clear the mirror and therefore do not produce the smearing/softness issues many photographers experience when using the A7R with rangefinder lenses. (Leica, etc..)
So, when adapting Canon lenses to the A7 or A7R, if your lens is free of issues, the main culprit is always the adapter.
Great to know. I thought that might be the case except that the softness seemed uniform around the frame. Guess I'll have to try swapping through adapters now.
Prevelige wrote:
And if you're so happy you switched to Nikon, why are you trolling Canon forums, and reading Canonrumors website?
Because "TROLLING" allows me to stay informed about what is going on AND because every time I DO, I SEE ANOTHER reason that re-in forces that I made the correct move. I don't want to regret the switch.
gdanmitchell wrote:
But what is with the compulsion to insist to me that my choice to use the cameras I use is wrong or somehow illogical? I just don't get this at all.
Where in the world did you get the idea I was trying to do this I went so far as to explicitly begin my last post saying that no one is trying to convince you to buy an A7r. You seem to be spending a lot of time trying to refute a point no one is making.
I could continue to try to explain to you the reasons for my choices in the context of my photography,
Not necessary, never asked for, and irrelevant to my point.
but I've been down this path enough times to understand that this will likely not lead us anywhere productive — especially once we arrive at the point where your extraction of the word "replace" (as one option) versus the word "augment" becomes a major point, and you leverage this to imply that I hold a point of view that I do not hold. ;-)
(Rendering this entire point largely moot, you seem to have missed that I also wrote a few words later in the same sentence, "or to augment Canon lenses...")
Untrue, as I pointed out that your use of both these words is the source of the conflation I was trying to bring to your attention.
And, for the record, there are "pluses and minuses" to consider — I have considered them — whether one is thinking of switching systems entirely or augmenting by purchasing a body.
Once again: I am not talking about pluses and minuses in context of comparing individual camera bodies against each other. Rather, the discussion is in the context of switching systems. If you switch from one system to another you need to consider the pluses and minuses of that switch. If you simply buy a different body to augment your existing gear, you are not incurring the minuses that would come with replacing the other system.
So, I'll just try to keep posting objective descriptions of my perspectives, share my thinking and reasoning, acknowledge that reasonable people can come to different conclusions...
... and spend less and less time trying to explain stuff to folks who sometimes seem to me to be less interested in a balanced understanding of the pluses and minuses of things and more in having an argument. :-)
What I'm interested in is not having my points misconstrued. So, to be clear, once again: I personally do not care what camera systems you use or why you chose to use them and I have zero interest in altering your opinions of what camera gear you use. Nowhere have tried to convince you that your own choices are somehow flawed or misguided.
My point revolves around discussing your counsel that people who have bought into one brand should have patience with that brand and not switch to another brand just because that brand has come out with something better. I actually agree with that as good advice. What I disagree with (and I hope we are still allowed to have civil disagreements ) is that the way the "augmenting" was lumped in with that advice, implying that people should also not augment their camera gear until they see what their chosen brand has set to deliver. To me this seems silly. If I wish to augment my Canon DSLR system with a Sony mirrorless system, why should I excercise patience to see if Canon will release a better DSLR? Other than financial, what exactly are the "minuses" that I'm incurring by adding a mirrorless camera to supplement my DSLR, regardless of whether it's Canon, Fuji, or whatever?
(As a parenthetical point to this discussion, I will add I find it unforunate that the A7r has become such a lightning rod around here. It seems that whenever it gets mentioned people jump to the conclusion that you are disdainful of anyone who doesn't use it, and you must be attacking the person you are engaging with. Granted there are a lot of vociferous supporters who also express a lot of disdain for Canon bodies, but I really wish that those of us who happen to use an A7r and like it wouldn't get lumped into a 'Sony zealot/Canon hater' category).
artd wrote:
My point revolves around ... the way the "augmenting" was lumped in with that advice, implying that people should also not augment their camera gear until they see what their chosen brand has set to deliver. To me this seems silly. If I wish to augment my Canon DSLR system with a Sony mirrorless system, why should I excercise patience to see if Canon will release a better DSLR? Other than financial, what exactly are the "minuses" that I'm incurring by adding a mirrorless camera to supplement my DSLR, regardless of whether it's Canon, Fuji, or whatever?
I referred to "either as replacements for Canon systems or to augment Canon lenses" in the bit that you originally referred to, and I was referring to both options from my perspective...
Reasonable people will come to different conclusions, but that is mine.
digitalbug30d wrote:
didn't get an answer before aboutDR issues isn't 11-13 stops enough? as long as you expose right in the camera and not rely on post to fix.
Yes and no. DR becomes amazing when trying to get the photo 'just perfect', especially in very difficult situations, like weddings. If you ever get the chance to play with a D800, you'll see what I mean. Ever since, I've been more concerned with DR than high-iso capabilities. It has improved my photography.
PetKal wrote:
I think you allow yourself to get drawn into this sort of threads which are a forum equivalent of iPhone 6 buyer lineups, except the phone is real.
I just always thought Dan got paid by the word....
Archive 2014 · OMG - 1DsX in NYC...
I went so far as to explicitly begin my last post saying that no one is trying to convince you to buy an A7r. You seem to be spending a lot of time trying to refute a point no one is making.