nananananana: I'm not convinced the sailboat example is an issue related to not having micro adjustment.
Why, because it's a non-STM L lens on a crop body. The 760D focuses much better with STM lenses.
(On the "recommended lenses" on the canon site for the 760D, they have STM lenses as the choices, 18-55 STM, 15-135 STM, 24 STM, 40mm STM , 50-250, STM new 50mm STM, and so forth. None of them are older USM lenses. Canon does recommend STM for the 760D)
The lens you used is an older $2000 USM lens, not a recommended STM. Also not a standard lens at all for a crop body, I don't know that many people putting $2000 glass on low range cameras.
As several youtube peeps have shown, non-STM lenses, are focusing slower and less accurate. I have not heard of anyone having STM focus issues.
If you can reproduce this issue on an STM lens, but I have my doubts.
I use pro-level lenses on entry-level bodies without hesitation. It's the most economical path to high image quality. I'm not sure what your complaint is here.
Perhaps these Canons have a problem with L glass. If so it should be pointed out in a review. But they *should* be able to take great photos with a 70-200L.
Saying one should stick to STM lenses just because it's a Rebel makes little sense.
DStudio: The non-removable battery sounds like the biggest problem. Why do this?
I hope so.
That's a pretty good argument for this design, Doc - I agree.That's an important demographic, and a worthy goal.
It's just that I'm afraid by pursing this design they're cutting off over half of their potential customers.
ThatCamFan: Or just use a polorizer, mit is wasting time.
I guess some people just assume that most research is being done specifically for THEM.
Hugo808: I always thought that my trusty polariser is the one filter they'd never be able to emulate but here we are.
You can't stop progress.....
In a ideal scenario this technology would be combined with a polarizing filter, but that's often not practical.
Esign: If the MIT researchers have trouble finding better things to do, I can submit a long list of more meaningful problems to solve...
My guess is that most of the problems you consider meaningful do little to advance technology or society.
It's because of people who solve such "trivial matters" that we can drive cars or type these messages to each other.
Someday this "meaningless exercise" will lead to someone being able to capture cellphone photos or video of a robbery from OUTSIDE the store, through the glass. And all kinds of other useful deeds your mind can't fathom right now.
Doesn't seem like the tradeoff's worth it, Doc. 20 minutes on, 2 hours off, 20 min. on, 2 hrs off, ... - doesn't seem like a viable usage pattern in many situations.
My first thought was the Sigma 50/1.4 doesn't compliment the camera well. They may measure great, but they don't look great.
But then as I looked at the shots with the Canon lenses, they don't look much better. Not 3D, flat, no life, no character or feeling that you could touch or identify with the objects, or that the images would touch you. I can pixel peep at the detail, and the detail's flat too.
It's not the subject matter or the weather - it's something else - je ne sais quoi.
Athonline: The 7-14mm looks quite sharp throughout.
Only criticism are the colors in some shots, which look a bit desaturated. Then again, I got used to using Oly's JPEG engine, which tends to produce quite vibrant colors and apply a warm-ish color temp. I guess the editors didn't do any "major" adjustments in the post-process of the RAWs.
Athonline: Interesting comments - thanks!
The non-removable battery sounds like the biggest problem. Why do this?
Yes, I understand that's how most people handle it (with a preset), and it seems to work well enough for them.
But I suppose most people would rather have their camera output optimized, not neutralized! Especially when the camera manufacturer went to so much effort to make it good.
"By design" may be open to debate. Perhaps it's by lack of design? Phase One creates very good profiles for other manufacturer's cameras. One of their techs has told me that creating a good profile is *not* an easy or trivial task.
Papi61: Wow, it seems to be out of stock everywhere. Is it really selling like hotcakes or did Nikon only make a small batch?
I used to have the old 300/4, it was a phenomenal lens, but the lack of VR restricted it to a tripod (or at least a monopod.)
Better to fix it sooner than later. Now many people may not even have to hear about it.
I guess whether you need a tripod or monopod depends on what you're shooting. When I shoot action with a 300 I naturally don't need either. And that's my most common use for a 300 right now.
Looks pretty good. I guess weight and VR are big enough advantages to justify that price! I'm not convinced the image quality is any better (or even quite as good) as some older 300mm lenses for various (D)SLRs.
Love this photo! It wasn't staged?
Also, it looks as if it would have been fine if more of this gallery had been shot wide open (or within < 1 stop).
It's not just their JPEG engine - Olympus' glass itself tends to deliver these nicer colors. You can see this characteristic going back to the days of film - even in basic cameras like the XA.
You can probably blame Adobe with their color profiles and overall design, making it a bit of work just to get a photo to what should have been the starting point. Their competition doesn't all follow their pattern.
It's almost as if Adobe is trying to 'level the playing field,' or something silly like that. It's probably due to a lack of effort, rather than a conspiracy, but they end up dulling the images coming from glass that actually captures more color and is often superior (e.g. Pentax, Olympus, perhaps Fuji). And then the way they treated the X-Trans sensor - I don't think they try hard enough here.
deep7: Based on those few pictures, the 7-14 could be truly excellent. I have come to expect that from the more expensive Olympus glass but ultra-wide zooms seem to be fickle things to make well.
Really? All 5 of them?
This gallery helps to demonstrate how some of us really don't want to go that wide so often. Or even use a wide aperture for WA shots.
I agree with others here - it would have been nice to see a few shots between f/2.8 and f/4 or so.
Wait, that's not fair!
How can Yongnuo make copies if they keep changing the design?
Papi61: "As a quick fix for Odin users, Phottix suggests wedging a sliver of cardboard at the front of the hot shoe to keep the trigger aligned."
LOL, sounds like one of those "redneck repairs", as featured in a famous website by the same name.
I won't try to ruin your fun anymore.
Well at least you were able to accurately evaluate yourself in the end. I didn't realize you'd go back and read the conversation from the beginning.
Certainly you know the first Android phone wasn't on Verizon. In fact I did have a more-than-decent Android phone. If you had read what I actually said ...
but then you might have to think a little, stretch your mind, and realize there are other good opinions and decisions besides your own. Because - fortunately - everybody is not you.
Life is no fun unless you can create a straw man that's antithetical to your own perspective, right? You've got to keep propping up those caricatures, even if they no longer exist (or perhaps never did). In case you missed it, the Apple fanboy caricature died quite a while ago.