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.
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.
Papi61 - I was an iPhone holdout. I refused to buy an iPhone, even though I wanted a smartphone. So before the first Android phone was released, I pre-ordered it, sight unseen.
I finally got tired of having to tinker with Android so much, just to get it to work like it should. I know how to, I just don't want to spend my time this way. The battery should last all day - out of the box. So after two frustrating Verizon LTE Android devices, I broke down and got an iPhone 5. I realize the Verizon battery issues have long since been remedied, but the iPhone's strengths were good enough to make me stay.
iOS is far from perfect, but the Apple eco-system is *fairly* well integrated - certainly better than what anyone else can offer right now (Microsoft's trying, but they still have a relative dearth of apps).
Android retains many of the problems that have plagued UNIX (for consumers) for decades.
You don't have to be brainwashed to see these things, but you might be blind if you don't.
Actually, people who buy Apple products do care. They just don't see a better (overall) alternative right now. They keep making just enough changes to stay on top (kind of like Canon), but they're loosing their edge.
At least Apple's market isn't slowly collapsing - at least not the way Canon and Nikon's is. Nikon seems to be smug in their second position, but they shouldn't be - especially since they aren't as diverse as *any* of the other 3 main DSLR makers, each of whom is a huge player in some other market(s).
CaMeRa QuEsT: It's called an ISO hot shoe for a reason: it has to adhere to International Organization for Standardization (ISO) set of specs. Either Nikon or Phottix are not complying with these specs, thus the misalignment issue. I really, really doubt that Nikon would mess up after half a century of building cameras with them.
This isn't the first incompatibility with third-party hardware that Nikon's had in recent years; whether intentional or not, they don't seem to mind!
Agalliac: Only boys of Canikon need autofocus because they operate their cameras on automatic. Who cares about the video module. I have a camcorder that costs U$20.000 . What interests me is the quality of the image , the sharpness . In terms of image quality, the only camera capable of rivalling with my Pentax K- 3 is my PhaseOne. Sorry DPR but you review are tendentious .
jpino79 - I never said that. I didn't say being an automatic shooter was bad, nor what brand they would use. Rather, it was an acknowledgement of the limitations in some systems - a warning that an automatic shooter might want to stay away from Phase One or Pentax, because they generally require more patience. But the payoff is there if one has the time.
There are "automatic" shooters, and it's a legitimate style with legitimate applications. They may use whatever brand they wish.
I lean towards the quality and patience approach - which style do you prefer?
BTW, I failed to mention it before, but I have shot a Pentax (with the FA43 on it) side-by-side with a modern digital Hasselblad. When I was going through the photos later, I had trouble telling which was which without looking closely at the photos or checking the metadata. Ironically, this was a promotional Hasselblad event where they encouraged you to bring your own camera to compare - they provided the studio setup and the model. Neither camera clearly stood out as better when I was culling the photos. There were (obviously) resolution differences, but the Pentax was almost like the same thing on a smaller scale, with beautiful colors and rendering.
So it's actually pretty easy for me to believe someone would use only Pentax and Phase One. In fact, this would be my choice, if I needed a medium format system right now (I was previously Phase One certified). These cameras aren't the right fit for everyone (like the aforementioned "automatic" shooter), but the quality is there.
zw1975: 5DII's poor DR for shooting landscape . . . . I know your pain because I have the same.
If only finding your personal voice were easy. That's the problem, I think.
Although equipment isn't the main issue here, I do think it would make sense to sell everything but the 70-200 (and maybe the 24-105) and get the new 11-24, which I apparently is just becoming available.
Or it might be preferable to try something like a Fuji, Pentax, or Nikon system, where quality mid-priced primes are readily available (this is Canon's weak spot). That might be just the "boost" which would encourage even more thoughtful photography. Canon excels in areas like sports photography, but it almost leads to too much of a commercial attitude.
But the main thing is finding a way to make the photos express more than just the spot you happen to be in when you decide to zoom and click the shutter. Primes at least force you to carefully consider your shooting position, and which focal length you actually want.
It also doesn't help that many of these particular Canon lenses are weak amongst their peers. For example, Sony, Nikon, Pentax and Fuji all have better quality WA lenses than these two Canon models.
Fortunately many other factors matter as much as the equipment.
evan47: brilliant idea. now narcissists can pretend they have more than one friend.
Usually they have about one friend at a time, on a revolving door plan. Every 2-3 months one friend's out and another one's in. Months later a friend may come back for a while.
But now with their new fantasy friend, maybe they can leave some of these poor souls alone!
DStudio: It will be interesting to see whether the CMOS actually creates images that are better (or even as good) as the CCD sensor did.
We shall see.
It will be interesting to see whether the CMOS actually creates images that are better (or even as good) as the CCD sensor did.