Studio58 wrote:
what a crock.... you guys are kidding yourselves.
I'd be interested in having you expand on this - & no I'm not being sarcastic or confrontational. It's just that the logic behind this thread seems a little dodgy to me.
What's funny about it, he couldn't be happier. He loves the camera. Every time, without fail that I get out the camera, he starts strutting around. The crappy thing is, I get it out when he's being cute, then he mvoes like a little bastige! He heee!
When that pic was taken, the cat was yawning, and if you've ever watched a cat yawn, towards the end of the yawn, when the mouth is almost closed, it does that.
globalkiwi wrote:
I'd be interested in having you expand on this - & no I'm not being sarcastic or confrontational. It's just that the logic behind this thread seems a little dodgy to me.
Look, it is simple really. I make my living out of producing images for clients. They love them. Never once have I had a client make a negative comment on the technical aspect of an image, the opposite in fact. The images out of my 3 series cameras smash anything I was able to produce using negatives, even better than my Hasselblads .
There have been times when I have detected a shortcoming..... I am more inclined to ignore it knowing that ultimately the technology will progress & the product will improve. The quality at this point in time is already superb.
Rather than the glass half empty approach, I prefer to dwell on the positive. For example, my
85 1.2 on the 1DS3.... man that rocks. Or my 300 2.8 is just fantastic. My 70-200,24-70, 16-35 etc, not in the same league but they do a job that works for the clients & me too.
Ben Horne wrote:
You might want to reconsider that statement. I have a heck of a time getting very sharp corners on a landscape shot when it's printed at a normal size (>= 12x18)...
shouldn't the L zooms be sharper on a 1DsmkIII or a 5DmkII due to the smaller pixel pitch than that found in croppers (1.6, 1.25)? I was under the assumption than the smaller the pixel pitch, the less lpi resolved from a lens. Am I really off in this one?
This thread is amusing to say the least. Someone will chime in and say that film can out resolve the 1Ds III, yet the lenses are not good enough.
If the lenses can not resolve what the 1DS III sensor can see, one would think the image could not be better on this camera body versus the previous model because the lens just can't see it. Now if someone thinks that 18mp is the max the lenses can resolve somewhere between the last body 1DS II and this one, the next body certainly will show no benefit since the lens is maxed out.
I use a 24-70L on my 1Ds3 all the time. I'm usually stopped down to between f8-f13 with MLU and on a tripod and the results are excellent.
I'd rather have the scope to crop precisely with the zoom than mess about with all sorts of different primes. I honestly don't think I could tell the difference at those apertures anyway.
