The 55-250 and the SL2 is the lightest supertele option out there. If it isn't, the people on this thread idiotically dedicated to telling me im wrong haven't found anything lighter. Regardless of any "mirrorless is lighter!" stupidity you might have heard
Cliff L. wrote:
You forgot the Fuji 50-230. It and the excellent 55-200 are much, much better than the Canon 55-250 regardless of which Fuji body they are used on. You could easily crop the images from the Fuji 55-200 to match the framing of the Canon lens, and the Fuji results would still be significantly sharper.
You should go tell the people on the Fuji board the 55-200 is so good, they usually don't seem to think so. I've used 180 Tamron a ton, not seeing a major sharpness difference, not really noticeable if there imo. 50-230 doesn't focus close enough, only 1:5, not an option I'm terribly interested in
gdanmitchell wrote:
Mike, you still have not apparently actually read my posts. However, your enthusiasm for being personally offended by… everything… remains impressive.
Honestly, it is almost like you come to the forum looking for opportunities to take a deep personal offense at the least disagreement with anything you way.
One wonders whether ANY response to your thoughts other than, “Yes, Mike, you are absolutely correct about everything you say, and I’m terribly sorry for being so silly as to hold a different opinion!” would satisfy you.
4 people basically derailed this thread telling me I'm wrong, even though I'm not, pretty much no one agreed with me, and you're telling me I'm the one being the problem? You have got to be kidoing me. I'd recommend reding your own posts, as opposed to accusing others, they're not terribly agreeable, and didn't your wife like her SL2?
She did. She owned two SL models years ago. I wrote positively about them, too, recommending them to certain kinds of users back then. (She eventually gave away both of her SL cameras.)
Today she uses a Canon R system and a Fujifilm system.
anthonygh wrote:
A question about personal abilities and what we need vs wants……..I have been using a Canon 5D SR a lot recently and am really liking what I can do with the files using the various lens /software combos I have available.
I mainly shoot studio (fashion etc) or landscape / seascape….and print to A2.
I’m a bit old school in that I will happily revert to one of my Bronicas…sometimes the ETRsi for the number of shots a roll…or my GS1…..if wanting to push the boat out and get 6 X 7 negs to scan. Loads of pro lenses for this gear.
That said…I was in Paris a month ago and took a 1GX….and was happy with my ‘holiday snaps’. And the A3 prints.
It might be obvious now I don’t buy the latest and greatest…I could afford it….but would it make a difference?
Not asking for advice here regarding upgrading kit…just a bit of a discussion about what is a ‘quality’ product…and what does a person really need to get great images? Pro or amateur?
Probably not what the manufacturers / advertisers / ‘influencers’ tell us…in my opinion anyway....Show more →
The 5DsR is still one of the highest mp cameras out there even though it turns 10 this year. Nikon hasn't made it past 45mp, and many consider the 42mp A7r3 to be a great landscape camera, even now. I dont see eye af helping me too much, besides eyes tend to have a lot of contrast even if you set center point and put that over the eye, 30fps seems mostly good to needlessly generate data at this point.
The 3mp D30 came out in 2000, by 2009 the 7D having 18mp came out. So just not seeing iq advances like in the old days.
I doubt the lowly D3200 or Rebel SL2 have much different raw iq vs more recent $1500 24-26mp cameras. If the colors varied vs other models, you'd hear about it on here. DR good on both on Claff's tests
