J A C S: 131 comments and only one mentioning of DR! What is going on?
@JACS. Maybe a good photograph doesn't take pictures of bricks or against Windows in a room. In 99% of the time, there is no need for 14 Stops of DR, but more need in higher ISO. Of course, Canon could get their techniques up to the new Exmorlevel, but always complaining about this single downside makes you a Hater. Try HDR if you need more range.
ProfHankD: I'll repeat my standard plea: wider, smaller, slower, cheaper, ultrawide zooms. I don't care if wide open is f/5.6 (or any number on the good side of the diffraction limit)... but I'd like it to start at 12mm (for FF) and be smaller and much cheaper without having poorer IQ. I have faith that somebody should be able to make a nice 12-24mm f/8 to sell for $300... it can even be manual focus... anybody?
Every Screen on the Back is a EVF if you like to. Just look on it if you prefer it. You never see the real picture on an EVF... it's like a sex doll, it's just a copy of the real one. But there may be people who enjoy it... why not. I prefere the real one.
Damn you Fuji. Stop making everything right ;) I' don't want another System to buy... but one day I will buy a small cam from you as wearable backup.
Maybe for mirrorless this could be quite usefull, but no one wants a f8 lens on an optical viewfinder. And this one is for real cameras, not mirrorless.
art99: Why are you still designing lenses for the mirror box cameras ?They will soon be obsolete pretty soon.Haw about offering us some compact wide zooms for the FF mirrorless instead.Like a 12-36 F4 so I can use it on my Sony A7r.
Oh, there is someone angry because no ones builds lenses for his crappy Sony ;) Hmm, let's see if you're right about DSLRs... I think not.
vscd: Can anyone explain me the hunt for sunstars? I'm just curious... ok, if you like the effect it's ok... but in my opinion a round aperture blade is better.
Hmm. Ok, I think it's not my look then. Sometimes stars are nice, but to have it in the Bokeh would not be my Cup of Tea. So, 9 Blades should be optimal for stars, my Schneider Kreuznach with 26 Blades won't make any stars because it's too round ;)
Can anyone explain me the hunt for sunstars? I'm just curious... ok, if you like the effect it's ok... but in my opinion a round aperture blade is better.
The good side of Fuji is... they really, really, really make everything right. At the moment. Damn you Fuji! I love you since I got my Fuji GX680 back then. You made some huge mistakes in the 90ties with your plastic compact cameras but you always supplied me with Velvia and Acros Neopan. Now you come back on track with the X-Trans and you still can do nice lenses and bodies. The only thing I don't like is the Fanboycrowd you generated with it... bending physics and bashing everything else (unlike Pentax-, Sigma or Olympususers)....but, the hell. A diamond is not responsible for the ones who obey 'em.
Nice work Pentax! Hope Canon would do this with a decent IQ. This would be an awesome lens for holidaytrips. Together with an old, small, 1.4 prime (35mm or 50mm) it wouldn't weight more than a 1.5l bottle of Water.
jaykumarr: So, Canon missed out 24MP in 7D MII ? anyway welcome T6 s.
You spoke about "ancient technology". You have to specify it more clearly to the missing dynamic range before your nag on me. Can you read your own comments, first?
Mr Olympian: Not for everyone and I get that. For a select group this is a must have solution and the only game in town. This cameras should match any FF camera in IQ, DR and noise, but with increased depth of field. For food, macro, close-up work this is the camera to use.
He can. you can. I can. And I do. I got a Sigma Merrill DP3M... do you know how hard to it is to defend yourself as a FoveOn-User? ;) I have nothing against MFT, I think it's way more clever than APS-C which is sitting between the chairs of FF and MFT. It *CAN* really be small, in comparision to a Fuji-XT1. I just can't stand people who have to justify their purchases with abstruse marketing slogans, "MFT is sharp wide open", "XTrans beats Fullframe"; "Mirrorless can do everything smaller" or "no EVF, no buy". It always depends on your needs. Luckily "normal" consumers don't get into detail that much... they buy with their stomach and are more pleased with their gear than "specialists". They are happy with a 20x Zoom ;) We both know what this means.
By the way, I shoot film. That's also one of the reasons I still stick to my Canon. Therefor I'm also commited to Fullframe, which lead to L-lenses. It's nice to have one lens-lineup for everything.
Of course, they can and they do. I didn't write that you need to stop down to get sharpness, I wrote that you can get more Depth of field with it. At the same time you won't loose sharpness through diffraction and you won't loose light (as some may think), because you can compensate it with higher ISO. Please try to read, and more important, *understand* sources more carefully. You just jumped on my answer to "Mr Olympian", without understanding the point. Now you blame me for it? Slogans like "MFT lenses are sharp wide open" are as childish as they are untrue. This has nothing to do with the sensor but just with the optical formula. Believe it or not, some people don't jump on the mirrorless-MFT-hype-train.
cgarrard: Mark my words- it will be released in America. "No you can't have it" .... just makes you want it more.
Hmm, I think they can both live in coexistance. For me a mirrorless ist just a (nice) small second cam. The mainwork is done with a DSLR. To lay down for 2 hours with a 400 f2.8, waiting for birds, is nothing an EVF can stand out ;)
And yes, maybe it's wrong, but if I go to a job with a small mirrorless the customer won't pay me for my toy. But that's fair, because I have the same disadvantages for going to streetphotography with the DSLR-monster. Mirrorless is not the answer to everything, just to size/weight ;)
M43 lenses are sharp at full aperture? What has a lense to do with the sensor? Slippery Ice, you said? Yes. Really slippery for you.
All lenses have their peak usually stopped down a bit, mostly @f5.6 to f8. The only exception may be the DO-Glasses of Canon because of their way to work (f.e. check specs of the 400 DO 4L II). On smaller sensors you run earlier into diffraction, this mostly depends on the smaller pixel pitch. Ask yourself why there is an f45 on Large Format Lenses and MFT has f16 at it's max. Maybe this huge difference makes it clearer for you than the comparision with fullframe. A large format camera mostly performs @f16-f22. The MFT would be "dead" at f22. For the rest please read books about optics, there exist endless good literature. Light is captured by film or sensors, bigger areas capture more light. That's it. The good thing is... the sensors are that good by now that you won't need more than MFT anymore. But you gain the weight/size advantage.
Tommygun45: God. I wish I could go back to all of those guys who I've had to stand next to at airshows or when birding or at sporting events. They sit there with 30 pounds of DSLR and lenses. They would look over at my 5n, or A6000, or A7r and laugh. Now I am not going to say I told you so, but....
Well, who's laughing now?
Have fun with your slew of new garbage cameras Canonites. Those lenses must feel like an albatross around you necks, no?
And, Sony made good glas? When? The only thing after buying Minola was getting in contract with Zeiss which ended up in a massive coop. 3-4 Lenses are available for the A7, nothing like a 85 f1.2, 11-24 nor 200-400.. just standard-bulkware or manual Zeissglass. What did Sony invent? DPAF? A 11mm Fullframe Wideangle? Any good lense (Zeiss is not Sony!)? They did nothing except a quite good sensor (it really quite good). I got this sensor in a better cam (D810) without the crappy SonyControls around. The Expeed even outperforms the BionZ, on their own sensor (!). What a punch in their face.
Canon made a lot of things wrong, right, but the lenses are quite good. Of course you can bash on them, you can hate as you always do. What cares the oak if the pic scrubbs. Sometimes I think it's better this way... getting rid of users who just jump from Review-Golden-Star-Winner to another. Settle down, get away from the gear and start to shoot.
I don't know what you did today, except of trying to bash on me (by the way, you failed), but I did some fantastic pictures in the studio with an old 5D, not Mark 2 or 3, the old one. There was *no* single minute were the theoretical disadvantage of DR was even visible. This cam is from 2005. So apart from your brickwall-pixelpeeping and reading tec specs, there is nothing helping you for getting better pictures then to get yourself out of a nerdy forum. I had an Zenza Bronica and an D810 with me. I don't care about Vendors as you do. If you have a daily Dynamic Range problem you should read a book about how to use filters or HDR. But I think you always shoot against the window in a dark room, just the pull the shadows in post, span*ing you for your good body-purchase.
maadfw: This lens just made Nikon 14-24 a Standard zoom :)
Make your own view... maybe it's nice for you, maybe not:
tabloid: Pity its not mirrorless.
There seems something for you to stay on Canon. You really compare Liveview with mirrorless regarding batterylife? You miss the point...
We don't need to. Why adapting the bottom of a bottle if you have the finest USM Autofocus lenses? Bodies come and go, glass lasts.
And they care for 11mm, too. But it's Canon-bashing time, so no one is interested in real arguments ;)