there are good reasons people with 5D go out seeking better WA performance, Canon wides under perform and we see this all time, either people are talking about the despair of their lens performance as we have seen. Or looking for mount adapters and alternate lenses, or seeking out more exotic film lenses even out right bargains, its
not a bad thing, its actually kinda healthy and necessary. That is
if you want things to improve.
But coming out here in the more public fora condemning the criticism of others about Canon WA, does nothing for the health of FF as a system, gives Canon more excuses NOT to improve it, lies to the unsuspecting and wrongly condemns the opponents or those that believe in change when change is necessary. If you think that Canon WA cant be improved upon, you're an idiot plain and simple.
If you think/say corners dont matter the consider this, in deeper DOF photography which is more common in any event, soft corners are admitably less of a distraction, unless like the former writer you focussed on detail in the corner only to have the rest OOF/soft. You pay good money for resolution only to lose it on the corners because of your glass/or/ you stop down beyond the 'equivalent' stop, bringing yourself closer to diffraction and having less operable aperture range. If you really believe that corners dont matter then go make yourself some round pictures and be happy.
At one time I thought the lack of performance for Canon UWA was a matter of sensor/mount geometry, but the use of Nikons nice 14-24 on 5D proved that untrue, there is nothing wrong with 5D, there is plenty wrong with its UWA lens suite sans the 24. Stopping down so close to diffraction is quite simply inefficient, and suggests to me that the apparent beauty of images produced at times with this lens has more to do with the camera and photographer than the abilities of the lens.
Hiding the truth or otherwise from the public side of the forum is to be politely dismissed, allowing one thing in the Canon forum and another out here in the public fora is to be utterly despised.
On the basis of that discussion Joe Mama, i want nothing more to do with you. Dont bother, no more taunts questions or other bs you can dream up will rope me in. I wont answer, ....ever..... the world wont need to be reminded of this anytime soon.
As to the subject DOF and an apparent inequivalence for 4/3rds
i make no apologies for 4/3rds, they have long needed to produce a fast lens somewhat above the normal lens view (50mmEFL), its just not a sphere i have indulged in. For those ends I have a Konica 57/1.2 that presently no other camera than 4/3rds can mount anyway (register), just maybe to have some fun with when i find the time.
So many 4/3 pundits feel that shallow DOF is "overrated" -- that's their prerogative. However, they don't have the option to get it with the same perspective and framing as 35mm FF............I'm just saying that the claims of IQ "advantages" of smaller sensor systems are bogus.
This then is the origin for incessant drips...
100% crop
Where or why can this be represented in equivalence? Well its a non issue, this particular FF advocate would have you believe there is something wrong with this because,...well because, or retreat to 'well its not the same fov'. Yet the smootheness of the bokeh and sharpness of this lens performance 'right across the frame' are also pretty difficult to match elsewhere. Synchronise a portrait composition to the ability of this lens and you wont go far wrong. This doesnt make it the king (who was the complete tw@t that said that?) of systems by a long way, it just makes it a more useful amount of entertainment. That closes the door on this bs, its principle proponent and the bendover gang, just see me as other wise engaged....
things wrong with this whole discussion...?
1/ like others before it from the same origin, it is meant to inflame and abuse, not matter how politely, target for today 4/3rds, in that it succeeded
2/ its erroneous dependence on what are 'slightly' erroneous crop factors for calculating dof when all along the subject should depend upon coc
3/ the lack of discussion of the highly related diffraction and stops of freedom before diffraction limitations supported by facts, and by implication the possibility that unlike animal farm, not all animals are created equal, vis-à-vis to lenses.
4/ the lack of discussion about controlling dof by camera/subject position
5/ the allowable use of language like 'almost' and 'good enough' 'extreme' in disingenuous condescending ways
6/ the dismissal of operational strengths like 4/3rds being better disposed wide open, and 'almost FF135' not so
7/ the dismissal of operational benefits like shooting a metered scene at an actual F2.8 as opposed to its 'equivalent' in light energy for 'almost FF135'
8/ the dismissal of other system properties necessarily pushed to the background to more favourably dispose the 'almost FF135' better strengths after foolishly supposing containment of the UWA/WA issue was sought in a previous thread
9/ the notion that somehow it matters...
10/ raising the ire of Riley
--
Riley
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous (just)
