IBIS, 60 frames/sec, pro-capture, 80 mp hi-res ... Do I have to go on?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
spiritoftheeast
Member
- Messages
- 42
- Reaction score
- 154
I'm wondering if there were significant R&D and production delays with the initially planned R lens lineup. Maybe Canon was watching the relentless Sony switching and the months of rumours for Nikon, and just decided to launch with whatever happened to be ready.
That is my thought and maybe the reasoning there is no IBIS.
quality? I mean we are taking pictures right? Seems like the results would be important.
Trevor Carpenter
Forum Pro
I assume that refers to all those professionals who said they would NEVER use an EVF.
jeffharris
Forum Pro
T
Tommi K1
Guest
You are responsible for quality, not the sensor....
No, I am responsible for the artistic interpretation of the image. The camera and lens is responsible for the technical quality.
It takes both to make truly great imagery.
It's actually funny, this obsession by some with sensor size (and noise). It's like back in the film days photographers would think a 6x6 Lubitel or Pentacon Six is better than Nikon F, because of better resolution and less noise.
how folks here say IQ isn't important when comparing to bigger sensor cameras. But ask about a smaller sensor camera than m43 and it is too noisy, too little DR, etc. etc.
Let me ask a question - What m43 camera do you use?
If IQ isn't important why not just go get an early 12 MP camera real cheap. Who needs 16MP or 20MP?
Surely being the masterful photographer you are, you don't need the latest greatest technology?
You still don't get it, do you? I don't use older 12 mp cameras (or 1", for that matter) because they do not have several features I think are much more useful and important. Like pro-capture, or focus bracketing, or live composite, or hi-res ... I can live with some noise, especially because the quality is still good enough for cover page of a magazine or wall calendar. But without some of those features, I would not get a photo at all.
Loading…
www.dpreview.com
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
"Any", did you say?
You mean something like this?
I'll give you a moment while you move your goalposts. In any case, since you have to use a tripod, anyway, to take such photos, you can shoot with a longer focal length and stitch/merge as many exposures as you like to get whatever IQ you want. The pixel-shift tech (of which I'm quite the fan, by the way), is simply a *convenience* -- it allows one to combine multiple exposures with the click of a button rather than having to manually take and combine them. But it doesn't deliver the IQ of multiple manually combined exposure, either.
Look, if you like mFT best, just say you like mFT best. I shoot with a Canon 6D2 -- the laughing stock of FF DSLRs -- but I don't make excuses for it. I got it for a good price, I like it, and that's that. Are there better cameras? You betcha. Simple, isn't it?
BirdShooter7
Forum Pro
I think in the not too distant future when computational photography has developed a little more you might just get what you are looking for. Right now most/all of the corrections are being done in the lenses and with people demanding that everything is sharp out to the corners of the frame and so on the lenses have to be larger. As computational photography improves simpler lenses (smaller and lighter) will be able to do the job making the overall system smaller, lighter and presumably less expensive.
BirdShooter7
Forum Pro
To better understand Canon's lens releases it would probably help to read the white paper that they released with the launch of the R. In the context of the white paper the lenses make a lot of sense.
You can do exactly that with an m4/3 too, ultimately achieving the same IQ as with the full-frame (only less conveniently so, because you will have to stitch more images).
Making a good photo is in a lot of cases a matter of convenience. You cannot bring a tripod to a museum - IBIS will help you get better photos with an m4/3. You cannot bring an 800mm full-frame lens on a boating trip - 400mm on a m4/3 will get you better results. The same for features like live composite, focus bracketing, hi-res ...
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
That was the point I was trying to make.
There are FF cameras with IBIS and plenty of FF lenses with ILIS.
You can't?
It really won't. It will be more convenient, as you say. But a Sony RX10IV would be far more convenient still, so....
Look, if there are features that mFT has that FF doesn't (keeping in mind that you were mistaken when you claimed that no FF camera had pixel-shift tech), or FF is too big, or FF costs too much, that's all fine and dandy. Let me quote the last paragraph from my previous post:
Look, if you like mFT best, just say you like mFT best. I shoot with a Canon 6D2 -- the laughing stock of FF DSLRs -- but I don't make excuses for it. I got it for a good price, I like it, and that's that. Are there better cameras? You betcha. Simple, isn't it?
So, just say "I like mFT best". That's all you have to do. No need to "justify" it to anyone with moving goalposts and, in some cases, outright fabrications. Just enjoy your mFT gear as I enjoy my 6D2.
Ab Latchin
Senior Member
I just flicked through it. It doesn't explain why the two main primes are an f1.2 $2k lens and a 35mm f1.8 macro... Then a 28-70 f2 for $3k and their general f4 zoom.
Compare that to Nikon's very sensible 50mm f1.8, 35mm f1.8 and a 24-70f4, all well sized, then for boasting they have an f0.95 on the roadmap. But their trio of lenses cover a great deal of general photography.
While Canon only has one prime, whose performance seems to be okay at best, then a beast of an f1.2 prime
gary0319
Forum Pro
Here's some real world experience. My friend and I have shot dragonflies side by side..me with my E-M1 II and PanLeica 100-400 and he with his Canon 5d v3, and his 100-400 L. My dragonfly images are always sharper and crisper than his.....why? Because by the time he crops his 100-400 FF of that image "goodness" to match my m4/3 FOV he is down to about 5 mpx of this goodness. Blow this 5mpx up to be viewed on the projected screen at our camera club and the difference is immediately evident. He now has his own E-M1 II and the 5D is on the sale block
BirdShooter7
Forum Pro
Maybe a more careful read would help? It was pretty obvious to me but I don't really know how to skim through text.
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
Both Canon's and Nikon's initial mirrorless lens offerings are stellar, in my opinion. Canon's offerings are proof-of-concept, that is, they show what the new mount is capable of. For less audacious lenses, just use their current EF lenses which work seemlessly on the R with an adapter -- no loss in performance whether that be IQ or operation. Nikon, on the other hand, as you said, have released some excellent and practical lenses for their new mirrorless mount that have what look to be class-leading performance.
In my opinion, both companies have done an outstanding job with their initial lens offerings. They simply had different priorities. Both philosophies greatly appeal to me, actually!
A relatively small and light 35mm f/1.8 (17 / 0.9 mFT equivalent) with 1:2 macro and IS for $500, well, that's pretty cool.
That's also a simply amazing performer. In any case, as I said, I think both companies did a stellar job with their initial lens offerings; they simply differed in their philosophies....then a beast of an f1.2 prime
Last edited:
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum