Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Latest Canon rumors
#31
Arthur, I would wonder if the newest picture of your African safari friend would not contain a small amount of dust particles.  ^_^ This is about the weakest point of mirrorless in general, the exposed sensor. I have to clean the Fujis more often than the DSLR and I don't understand why they don't activate the shutter when switching off the camera, i.e. to change a lens.

 

Also, Africa with lots of light available is great for the "not-so-superfast" zoom-lenses. In Europe, I need more ISO. Don't get me wrong, I'm a happy mirrorless user, but for fast AF there is a price not far away from good DSLRs. And I decided to go Fuji because I didn't want to have too small, fiddly bodies or too complicated menus.

#32
Quote:I don't think mft has a tele advantage. The pixel density of 24MPix APS-C is pretty much the same as 16Mpix mft and the 52MPix 5ds isn't far off. Of course you have to carry extra glass to cover the larger sensor...
 

I do think it HAS a tele advantage (together with WW-disadvantage). 50% more pixels might be less than 50% more information, but the quality will be better when compared at the same conditions (lens quality and enough light). Plus, a 1kg 100-400 zoom is much easier to hold and balance than a 3 kg 150-600 FF
#33
Hi Chris!  You said: 

 

"Arthur, I think the point Brigtcolours was making was that with the larger format you can stop down 2 stops to match the dof of mft (and increase iso by 2 stops to match exposure and noise)."

 

Yes I think he was / you are making a valid point.  It is the same reason I still have a Canon DSLR.  And maybe I will be more clear if I relate a recent experience.  I am walking along the coast and a guy sees the white lens with the red ring on my 70D.  We talk for a few minutes - mostly about his camera - a $3,200 Sony fullframe mirrorless plus an $800 85mm f/1.8 Carl Zeiss lens. 


I certainly don't want to step on any toes but you can buy some nice EF lenses at that length and speed (or better) Or easily something like the 7D Mark II and a 50mm f/1.4 or better. Mirrorless cams do have certain strengths, but when you look at the great lenses out there for the EOS system I don't see any reason to buy into the DSLR format mirrorless cameras.


I think Canon and Nikon have outflanked Sony et all.  When you can get more from the Champions then you can from the challengers for less money...I just don't see it.  And yes, that Sony / Combo is surely capable.  But at such a price!
#34
At such a price you get 42 MP. And please, FF compared to FF, not to APS-C with 1.6× crop  Wink

 

Name the price in the CaNikon system, please... which then should be able to take 4K video as well (okay, overheating is allowed...  Big Grin ) Sony FF you get in 3 different flavors and if you can live with 24 instead 42 MP (same numbers, different order) then you get it for 1700.- bucks.

 

Next to it: There are Sony lneses around, pricey ones like the Sony FE 85mm f/1.4 GM Lens, which are simply not available in the Nikon cosmos, but costing another 1800.- 

 

Also, yesterday I was walking around to take some close-ups of butterflies with a D810 and a new 300/4. More than half of the shots were just not sharp at the right point. Although the lens is calibrated, the calibration is only valid at 25× FL (7.5 m). Close ups between 1.4 and 2 m would need a different AFMA - no problem for mirrorless at all! Manual focus? Aha, and what should be better with this other form of indirect focussing? Who guarantees me, the screen is in the exactly same position as the sensor?

 

Mind you, the first cameras were for long time mirrorless and still are: Plate cameras. Now we can go the same way and don't need the mirror provisorium anymore as the AF-modules just are no longer precise enough for wide open. high resolution shots - and they never were, it was just not as obvious as we can see today. But to be fair: A friend still sticks to the opinion or fact, his D700 was always spot on with every lens and since the AFMA srta to found it's way in camera menus, the manufacturers get lazy with precise calibrations and leave that work to us clients.

 

Good move and put a lot of stress from the service points... <_<

#35
Completely agree with the crazy pricing of the sony kit. They have gone down the path of very high optical quality in large packages with the lenses, but these don't seem to fit that well with the a7 bodies. Its a shame they couldn't have designed lenses more like Leica is size (I realise they would be larger for the af). I suspect the lens mount diameter and cover glass of the sensor are forcing larger lenses designs.

 

Having said that the a7s with the 15mm voigtlander looks like a nice combo.

 

Certainly comparing a Canikon system of a 5Diii or D750 with some small primes would end up smaller and a lot cheaper.

 

I think Fuji have got a better balance in terms of lens size. I'm currently trying to decide between a fuji or mft system. i'm on the fence with the 100-400s and gh4 or x-t2. The mft system would actually work out a fair bit lighter and smaller, plus I can buy a gh4 at a much reduced price. Another option would be  d7200 and 300mm F4 pf...decisions!

#36
Quote:I do think it HAS a tele advantage (together with WW-disadvantage). 50% more pixels might be less than 50% more information, but the quality will be better when compared at the same conditions (lens quality and enough light). Plus, a 1kg 100-400 zoom is much easier to hold and balance than a 3 kg 150-600 FF
 

OK, I need to know what WW means, Ultrawide, maybe?

 

You words do strike a chord!  I had a hard time getting past the 16 MP density thing, but I think your information question is valid.  People sometimes forget that lenses designed for a system from the ground up will be better optimized.  It's never cut and dried though. 


I am not as conversant with ultrawides as I am with other lengths.  I have a total of one ultrawide on the APS-C format, the 10-18mm by Canon.  I'm not sure who theoretically has advantage.  From what I can tell in the DSLR world, the FF 11-24mm L lens is by far better than anything else.  The 10-18mm STM does a credible job for 1/10 the price, but lets face it, they are not even in the same league!  But would this be a stronger area for mirrorless?


Along those lines the Laowa (sp?) 15mm 1:1 macro....is an extremely compelling lens for ultimate deep depth of field.  To me exciting things are happening with DSLR's.  This lens can be had for a little over $400 and it opens completely new territory! 


Also, Joju - you are wise to eschew complicated menus, and my personal major dislike is "special effects menus".  When you need access to a setting, you don't want to send out a search party!
#37
Quote:OK, I need to know what WW means, Ultrawide, maybe?

 

You words do strike a chord!  I had a hard time getting past the 16 MP density thing, but I think your information question is valid.  People sometimes forget that lenses designed for a system from the ground up will be better optimized.  It's never cut and dried though. 


I am not as conversant with ultrawides as I am with other lengths.  I have a total of one ultrawide on the APS-C format, the 10-18mm by Canon.  I'm not sure who theoretically has advantage.  From what I can tell in the DSLR world, the FF 11-24mm L lens is by far better than anything else.  The 10-18mm STM does a credible job for 1/10 the price, but lets face it, they are not even in the same league!  But would this be a stronger area for mirrorless?


Along those lines the Laowa (sp?) 15mm 1:1 macro....is an extremely compelling lens for ultimate deep depth of field.  To me exciting things are happening with DSLR's.  This lens can be had for a little over $400 and it opens completely new territory! 


Also, Joju - you are wise to eschew complicated menus, and my personal major dislike is "special effects menus".  When you need access to a setting, you don't want to send out a search party!
 

Sorry, my bad, I was in the German abbreviation. I meant WA - wide-angle in general or everything which FL is shorter than the flange distance between sensor and mount.

 

I'm sort of convinced, the shorter the FL gets, the higher the precision of the assembly of a lens has to be which is usually contradictive to the costs. Take the great 11-24 FF from Canon: 5.5 - 12 mm in µ4/3 and the assembly tolerances should increase twice. If the position of a lens element needs ± 0.02 mm, it's µ4/3 counterpart should be as good or better than ±0.01 mm. Centerring and adjusting has to be twice as precise and so on. I don't believe in miniaturization for photographic tools as long as our hands not get miniaturized the same amount. And this kind of precision needs to be build very strongly, cheap plastic parts are taboo and high-precision plastic costs more than metal.

 

The Laowa lens 15/2.8 is, pardon me, slightly crap. Poor mechanical design and execution, at least mine. Shift function only for three  positons: fully up, no shift, fully down. Released by a flimsy, tiny lever. Useless for full frame. No EXIF, not even automatic aperture and the aperture has not even steps. Try to focus at f/11 in LiveView.... To put this lens on the Nikon, you need to push the lens mount button on the body, otherwise it will not end in the correct position. Laowa does interesting optics, but my impression is, they do just enough not to call it a prototype anymore. I had similar thoughts like you before I bought it. But a smoothly working lens is a different story.

 

Complicated menus? Well, Fuji has now firmware version 4.01 on the X-E2 which makes it basically nearly a X-E2s. Great for users who don't wnat to buy new models becasue of software features. Greatly improved AF, too.

But:

  1. the electronic spirit level is a thing that I activate on the D810 by dedicating it to a function button and after that saving it to custom menu. On the Fuji, I can switch it on after digging deeply in the menu and somewhere at the display functions I find it after pushing 6 other menupoints first.
  2. On the Fuji, I have 7 (!) custom menus. But so many functions are excluded from grouping it to custom menu, that I don't use it. Also, I can't even give it a name, like "landscape" or "tripod" or available light".
  3. Now I have three X-E2: One with a broken EVF, came back as "total loss" but is still functioning. It's replacment, when it was away to the repair shop and a "second body", which now became third body and came with a 18-55 kit-lens, the better one. I just can not save the settings of one of those to a SD-card and transfer those settings to the rest...  Sad keeping all three bodies with the same settings makes sense, no? But is in reality a time consuming adjustment.
  4. The WIFI remote is great. Unfortunately, not all dials and switches are ignored by it. To adjust exposure compensation, I have to switch off the camera, adjust the compensation dial, switch it on and re-connect the camera with iPad or iPod.
Soem things really improved by firmware update, others still suck.
#38
Quote:I think Fuji have got a better balance in terms of lens size. I'm currently trying to decide between a fuji or mft system. i'm on the fence with the 100-400s and gh4 or x-t2. The mft system would actually work out a fair bit lighter and smaller, plus I can buy a gh4 at a much reduced price. Another option would be  d7200 and 300mm F4 pf...decisions!
I don't have first hand experience with µ4/3 but I also would look closer to Panasonic's offers, if I still would have to decide. Why did I went Fuji? I admit, their PR department does a good job, several X-shooters are very convincing photogs.

 

Sensor size µ4/3 I found too small and constantly reading "lots of noise from the sensor" was also not attractive. Fuji has a lot of fast primes, their firmware upgrades were well-documented and the dials and wheels are a very good alternative to a top-display. Just a little bit too easy to move accidentally...

 

The X-E2 was my "cheap" beginners test run and once the face-/eye-detection nailed the sharpness, I was falling for it. It's still not always easy to get the right face in focus in a group and in low light, but I really like this "no danger"-appearance of these small yet performing systems. After discovering what capture One can do with actual X-E2 RAWs, I don't regret at all to be jumping into this mirrorless stuff.

 

Now, for the D7200 and 300/4 PF you should consider, there's still the issue of the VR not handling all shutter speeds well, OFF in daylight and ON in dawn can help, but it still has a nervous bokeh from time to time - sample will follow. However, I appreciate it's close-up distance of 1.4 m.

#39
I thought the VR issues had been resolved? the size and weight of the 300mm pf is very appealing.

 

I prefer the output of my x100t better than my wife's e-pm2. Still I would be able to share lenses with her if I got a gh4. (20 1.7)

 

the x-T2 + 100-400 combination is actually fairly expensive as its all new. the D7200 body would work out to be about half the price!
#40
Quote:I thought the VR issues had been resolved? the size and weight of the 300mm pf is very appealing.

It's improved, but at certain shutterspeeds I still see worse results (tripod or handheld)

 

Quote:...the x-T2 + 100-400 combination is actually fairly expensive as its all new. the D7200 body would work out to be about half the price!
The X-T2 has a couple of features the D7200 has not. Plus, while there's only one AFMA setting in the D7200 for the 300/4 PF, you would run into the same troubles as I did yesterday when you use focus distances the lens is not calibrated for. Also, it's not exactly fair to compare a zoom and a prime. Also, since the 300/4 PF E uses electric aperture, most adapters for mirrorless cannot change aperture values.

 

To be very fair, you could add the useless Nikon RT-1 (tripod holder), then the difference of the package would be like 450$. Without the tripod ring 650 $ (2722.- francs vs. 3377.-). The Fujinon has a very good tripod holder, attached to stiff metal instead soft plastic.

 

What you get with the Fuji combination:

 

371 focuspoints vs. 51 - track, whereever you want and be sure never to adjust AFMA again

zoom-range 100-400 = 100mm more 

between 2 and 8 fps more (depending on the additional grip/electronic shutter)

4K video if that's of interest for you

tilt screen, but no touchscreen (no touchscreen is for both of them)

firmware upgrades which bring new features.

totally silent electronic shutter with 1/32.000 and 1/8.000 mechanical

weather sealing

 

To me, the focuspoints, no need to AFMA and the screen are already reason enough. I will keep the D810 for a while, but with APS-C you could offer me a D500 for free and I would trade it in for a X-T2.

 

But I agree, it's not a cheap bargain.

  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)