Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 11   Go Down

Author Topic: canon ?  (Read 48849 times)

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: canon ?
« Reply #100 on: December 27, 2014, 01:09:24 pm »

Well, there is a difference in requirements for photographing objects with leaves as the background, where DR is never a problem, and landscape photography where high dynamic range is very much appreciated.

In a few instances, the difference can be seen.

But in most, I think don't think so.



That is why ND Grads are very basic filters for landscape photography. They are especially useful for darkening skies. And they are used very frequently. Sony sensors like in the D810, are able to get a scene right without the use of those filters, as heir dynamic range covers it, most of the time.

That is a nice advancement, like I said, but is no reason to dump a camera system ... especially when using filters & bracketing is also possible.



Now you, Jack are very keen on nature photography, and dynamic range is obviously no the point where you feel your camera is lacking. For you AF, and fast usability is of much more importance.

Actually, with macro, I am needing ultimate resolution, which is why I am still considering the D810 ... but will be waiting until March/April to make my decision. I honestly don't use AF that much, but do sometimes. Ultimate resolution is what I am after ... yet I am constantly amazed by images posted by people with D300s, 7Ds, 5Ds, etc. I have seen some great images with the D810 also, as well as one person who just can't take good macro shots, even with a D810.



That is not splitting hairs, but facts. Can't you live with the fact, that there are differences in systems, and at the given moment Canon is not on the lead in terms of sensor design? There is lots of guys here, who know a lot about sensors technology and you may find will a lot of post concerning the matter. Maybe, Canon will come up tomorrow with a new shining 50MP sensor which will satisfy those who demand more DR. But as of today there is none.

Well, speaking of "splitting hairs," this guy takes ultra-close macro images with the lowly 7D that do just that. Maybe the images might be a tad better with a D810, but they are still amazing with the (outdated) equipment the guy is using right now. Does he really need to run out and buy "another camera" to make his images "more amazing"  ??? ::)

I don't think so.



This is what Diglloyd writes when testing the 5DMKIII:
To see streaking pattern noise at ISO 100 is disturbing for a $3500 camera, but this example shows clearly that the Canon 5D Mark III made little progress in this regard over its predecessor.
Uniform grain-like noise is not objectionable. But any kind of pattern noise is disturbing, and greatly reduces the versatility of image making.
To have pattern/streaking noise at ISO 100 shows that the camera has poor quality electronics. Since the Canon 5DM3 costs $1000 more than the 5DM2 and has had 3 years for development of higher sensor quality, this is astonishing.
Cheers

Honestly, I never really thought much of Diglloyd's reviews. I remember one article where he said that the Micro-Nikkor 200 "couldn't have" good bokeh because it's only f/4, when most consider the lens to have stellar bokeh. I know what he meant, but there is more to exceptional bokeh than just the ability to get down to f/2.0, and the fact he didn't even test it (but just "surmised" it) really was a turnoff as to the credibility of the review.

Finally, his Nikon-biased opinion of the Canon 5D Mark III apparently doesn't hamper the creative beauty of people who actually make their living creating stellar images, like Art Wolfe :D

Reading Diglloyd's review, one wouldn't think that possible.

The fact that many talented photographers actually use the 5D MkIII in the real world, and to beautiful effect, pretty much debunks the article ...

Like I said, with the level ALL top cameras are able to achieve these days, I think being at these "right places" at "the right time" has more of an affect on great imagery than "which modern high-end camera" you happened to bring.

Jack
Logged

dwswager

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1375
Re: canon ?
« Reply #101 on: December 27, 2014, 01:45:18 pm »


Cheers,
Bernard


Bernard, they don't get it!  I know the DR this scene encompasses and even on a D810 this was tough.  Take 3 EV away and the shadows are totally blocked up.  Even with close to 15EV at base ISO, I would ask for 3 EV more to be totally happy!

Focus Stacking and Tilts are 2 ways to get large DoF.  While there are times you can use either, there are times that only one will work.  Same with high DR and exposure bracketing.  Sometimes, it isn't possible to bracket and merge exposures.  And I do both focus stacking and exposure stacking.  The following highly stylized image (Photomatix) shot with D7100.  The later images when the sun was peaking over the horizon lost all detail in the shadows.  Could have used a few more EV of DR!!!

Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: canon ?
« Reply #102 on: December 27, 2014, 05:13:00 pm »

Honestly, there is nothing distinguishably excellent about those shots, Bernard, compared to what some other camera could have achieved.

I don't remember mentioning these images as demonstrating any particular aspect of the D810's performance, did I? I thought my comment was about having fun with the latest equipement?

But since you ask, all 3  images are in fact pretty remarquable technically for different reasons:
- the first image is mostly lens related in terms of lack of CA on very high contrast edges which is an essential component of the clean and fresh look of this image. Flare mgt (lens performance and technique combined) is also pretty decent when you think that I could hardly look at the scene because of how blindenigly bright it was, my own eyes were flaring like hell. That was shot with an Otus,
- the second image is IMHO a decent example of technique (stitching and depth of field stacking combined) applied at -15c. In terms of equipment, the remarkable sharpness results from the combination of sensor, camera support and outstanding lens (a Leica 180mm f2.8 APO in this case). That does make a clear difference in decent print sizes,
- the 3rd image is a 300 megapixel stitch that obviously shines in terms of DR. Shadows are clean in the very deep shadow of the valley compared to the bright sky around mt Fuji. The eye could hardly distinguish anything there, yet the very concept of this image relies on the depth of the foreground valley and about the ability of equipment to capture this cleanly, as I am sure you have realized.

The truth is, you could have got the exact-same qualitative results with just about any modern camera, and no one would know the difference.

I believe that this is not the case as explained above, and IMHO, it doesn't take much experience of this type of photography to understand why.

Do you have any similar images to share that would give some credit to your claims to the contrary?

In fact, 99.99% of all magazine cover shots, awarded photography, etc. were all taken with cameras that are "less than" what today's cameras are capable of.

Yes, so what? Is your goal in photography to reach a level of technical quality sufficient not to be rejected from magazine cover pages process due to technical issues?

Cheers,
Bernard

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: canon ?
« Reply #103 on: December 27, 2014, 06:17:47 pm »

I don't remember mentioning these images as demonstrating any particular aspect of the D810's performance, did I? I thought my comment was about having fun with the latest equipement?

So does that mean one can't go out there and have fun with the equipment he bought a few years ago? ???



But since you ask, all 3  images are in fact pretty remarquable technically for different reasons:
- the first image is mostly lens related in terms of lack of CA on very high contrast edges which is an essential component of the clean and fresh look of this image. Flare mgt (lens performance and technique combined) is also pretty decent when you think that I could hardly look at the scene because of how blindenigly bright it was, my own eyes were flaring like hell. That was shot with an Otus,
- the second image is IMHO a decent example of technique (stitching and depth of field stacking combined) applied at -15c. In terms of equipment, the remarkable sharpness results from the combination of sensor, camera support and outstanding lens (a Leica 180mm f2.8 APO in this case). That does make a clear difference in decent print sizes,
- the 3rd image is a 300 megapixel stitch that obviously shines in terms of DR. Shadows are clean in the very deep shadow of the valley compared to the bright sky around mt Fuji. The eye could hardly distinguish anything there, yet the very concept of this image relies on the depth of the foreground valley and about the ability of equipment to capture this cleanly, as I am sure you have realized.

I like the first image the best; the second does nothing for me; and, while the third is kind of dark for my taste, I like it okay too.

Not sure if any of them compares to most of the landscape shots I saw on Art Wolfe's site, however, that I linked to, but I guess that would be my subjective opinion.

I understand that maybe you can pull more detail out of the shadows, but sometimes shadows are fine without a lot of detail. In fact, all your talk about resolution, sensors, stitching, etc. reminds me of a quote of a famous photographer: "There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept."

I still maintain that a great photographer doesn't need to always have the latest camera to take great images, what he has (that most don't) is a great eye for what to capture. Conversely, I also maintain that the latest camera focused on ho-hum subjects will still produce only produce ho-hum images.



I believe that this is not the case as explained above, and IMHO, it doesn't take much experience of this type of photography to understand why.

Do you have any similar images to share that would give some credit to your claims to the contrary?

Not really. Yours and my photography are totally different, so I think it's hard for either of us to appreciate the other's efforts. Here are the kinds of shots I like to take:











Yes, so what? Is your goal in photography to reach a level of technical quality sufficient not to be rejected from magazine cover pages process due to technical issues?
Cheers,
Bernard

That was rather harshly-put :D

No, my goal is to capture images of the interesting subjects I find in nature.

I do want to maximize the detail, and to capture the vivid colors in (hopefully) optimal light ... but not to the point I can't sleep over it.

I don't really do it for sale but just for my enjoyment ... a perpetual "Easter egg hunt" in nature for me :D

Jack
« Last Edit: December 27, 2014, 06:21:26 pm by John Koerner »
Logged

dwswager

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1375
Re: canon ?
« Reply #104 on: December 27, 2014, 08:36:35 pm »

This thread started with a question:

I was once an avid follower of this site but have been in the 3rd world for several years and dropped out. Michael was once an avid Canon user. From what I gather not so much now. Why? Has the brand fallen that far behind?
dr b

The simple answer to this question is yes.  That does not mean great images cannot be made with Canon cameras or older cameras of all makes in general, but the quality ceiling keeps going up which allows better images, different images and more image making options.  Nice images by the way!

No, my goal is to capture images of the interesting subjects I find in nature.

I do want to maximize the detail, and to capture the vivid colors in (hopefully) optimal light ... but not to the point I can't sleep over it.

Given your goals of maximizing detail and capturing colors,  then all else being equal, the D810 would be the recommended full frame DSLR for you (can't comment on Sony A7R). The D7100 would be the best crop sensor option.  Both have best in class pixel density for capturing detail and DR and color depth for vivid colors.  Both also do not have a OLPF so with proper technique are sharper than other cameras.

But nobody would serious recommend an amateur dump say $10,000 worth of lenses and accessories just to use one of these 2 cameras.  Nor, if one could not afford to upgrade, would anyone say, oh quit making images because you just don't have the best tool for the job.  For amateurs like us, it is a lifetime investment and we typically ride out the lows and enjoy the highs and keep making images that we enjoy. Only when we believe the long term trend isn't going to improve should we consider switching and making the investment that entails.  Professionals have a little different calculus and are likely to pull that trigger much quicker.

And I will quote and agree with Erik when he said something to the effect of I find most equipment outperforms it user!
« Last Edit: December 27, 2014, 08:40:29 pm by dwswager »
Logged

LKaven

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1060
Re: canon ?
« Reply #105 on: December 27, 2014, 09:05:33 pm »

Regardless of ability (or camera for that matter), there is the matter of what technique one can or cannot use successfully with a given camera, and how much that matters to one. 

If you have a style that depends upon the ability to lift shadows at base ISO, then you would want a sensor that would facilitate that.  There are lots of artistic reasons why one might want to do this.  One might want to shoot people in open sun without fill flash plus assistants plus modifiers plus stands.  One might want to do an indoor-outdoor shot where one wants to have detail revealed on the inside part.  One might prefer an "illustration" style where the shadows are compressed into the mid-tones.  And you want all of these things to be clean.

All of these things may involve lifting the shadows selectively one or two stops, or even more.  You can do this on a Sony sensor, which is optimized for noise at base ISO, and /mostly/ "ISO-less".  You cannot do this on most Canons without revealing ugly pattern noise.  And this is one reason why Canon is judged to be "behind".

If you do not do any of the things that reveal pattern noise, then the Canon has many things to recommend it, including advanced AF and an excellent lens selection, and a pretty look to its images.

At the APS-c level, I'm keeping a close watch on Samsung with its NX-1.  This should keep us engaged until Fossum's Quanta Image Sensor gets built.

Colorado David

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1178
Re: canon ?
« Reply #106 on: December 27, 2014, 09:55:59 pm »

This has become a little like driving slow past a bad car wreck, gawking to see if any of the bodies are still at the scene.  I keep thinking I'm finished reading this thread, but then I drive around the block and look again. ::)

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2513
Re: canon ?
« Reply #107 on: December 27, 2014, 10:16:56 pm »

Mantis: Mr. de Koerner, I am ready for my close-up......
That's a very enjoyable set of close-up and macro photos, John. Clearly you get what you want from your camera. You found a fetching little jumping spider with the bright orange head - I haven't seen one like this in the Midwest USA.

dwswager said a mouthful when he said that equipment often outperforms its users. I have been weeding out some forgotten files from 2011, and I have realized that I am getting far better photos from that camera (a Canon 60D) in 2014 than I did in 2011 - same lenses used.

Bernard, that's a luscious snow scene. I can't comment on the inferior nature of the Canon sensor at capturing the necessary DR - because I don't have the necessary SNOW. 3 degrees C and drizzling here. Have a happy New Year's everybody.
Logged

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: canon ?
« Reply #108 on: December 27, 2014, 10:21:53 pm »

And I will quote and agree with Erik when he said something to the effect of I find most equipment outperforms it user!

I believe this is true, especially for most with the D810.

One fellow I remember seeing, Jim Daly, really had some impressive images with the D810 and chose subjects that I feel really maximized its potential. (He also uses a Sony.)

Yet still, there is another fellow, Tomas Rak, who with just the old 40D and the original 5D can put out some equally-colorful images, that I've not seen anyone with a D810 be able to get close to (macro-wise).

Thus again, a person's acquired skill at lighting, post-processing, and just being at the right place at the right time, all seem to have more bearing on the impact of the final image than which camera a person decided to bring (and whether there was +2 EV or not).

Anyway, have a good night.

Jack

PS: Thanks Nancy. I am still learning. And I agree, I think just the continued acquisition of experience will serve me better than continuously upgrading cameras. I plan on making one upgrade and probably won't again for another 5 years.
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2839
Re: canon ?
« Reply #109 on: December 27, 2014, 10:35:36 pm »

Technical quality is completely different from aesthetic quality. Technical quality is equipment-limited, while asthetic quality is user-limited.

Better equipment doesn't make your photos any better. But it makes previously-impossible photos possible, and technically difficult and/or situational photos much less so.

This only makes a difference if you're shooting at the boundaries of technical capability. If you use a tripod or don't shoot in low light, you won't get anything out of improved high ISO (except where this flows back to low-ISO DR). If you shoot live music, every extra stop of ISO is gold. If you don't shoot action, better AF won't help you. If you shoot mainly in low-contrast situations, extra DR won't help you. If you're constantly pushing the DR boundaries, every extra stop makes previously impossible shots possible and greatly cuts down on the need for filters. If you don't print large, extra resolution won't help you. If you own a large-format printer, every extra pixel is invaluable.


It's a bit like print gamut. Extra colour gamut is always a good thing. If you print rich, saturated images, it will help you greatly. But if you shoot in monochrome, it won't help you at all. But that doesn't make it useless, and doesn't make it a bad thing to have - having the extra gamut doesn't make your monochrome prints any worse.
Logged

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2106
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: canon ?
« Reply #110 on: December 28, 2014, 09:02:15 am »

While I agree with this in principle, I would argue the 2nd point.  I love to hold onto gear because the longer I work with it the better I become utilizing it.

But 2 cameras this year seem to stand out.  The D810 and the 7DmkII.  If you think of the D810 as a minor refresh to the D800e, you would be mistaken.  It is better in dozens of ways that when all wrapped together make a camera that seriously could have been a D900.  I almost bit on the D800 and am just giddy that I waited because I would not have been able to afford an upgrade.  Anyone that owns a D800/D800e and cannot afford to upgrade should not try the D810.  It will make you cry.

And while it is a relatively inexpensive, cropped sensor camera, that really doesn't improve the sensor much (1 stop DR at high ISOs only) it does pack a variety of functional improvements over the 7D.  Least among these being the 65 all cross type sensor focus system and additional 2 fps.

I totally agree with you about the D810. I plan to sell my D800E.

In my opinion disregarding the D810 is easy if you just look at specs without trying it. I find this camera to match the Canon 5D mkIII for all other aspects except the sensor and possibly an edge to the D810 wrt. the autofocus. I tried some portraits using continous autofocus and 3D and it was absolutely amazing how the AF system cloud match the focus I intended despite movements of the model.

I think a lot of opinions on different cameras and systems are made by people who have not even shot a single picture with the particular systems. Sadly enough this applies also the reviews on this site. 

ndevlin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 679
    • Follow me on Twitter
Re: canon ?
« Reply #111 on: December 28, 2014, 09:08:39 am »

I loved Canon when they invented AF that worked (film EOS-1) and zoom lenses in exciting ranges (20-35mm!!), and when they revolutionized photography with the 1Ds as the first pro-level 35mm digital.  But that's 13 years ago, and they haven't done a thing since that, to me, was of real interest.  

As digital marched forward, the lenses that were ok for film turned out to be complete crap.  Their core zooms (24-70, 100-400mm, etc.) were just awful for anyone used to something like a Mamiya 6 or Leica/Contax in the film days.  So I left and have never looked back.  

Now, it remains true that Canon may be the best system when getting the image is all important, and image quality is, at best, a far secondary concern --> ie: hardcore journalism.  The pro-level 1-cameras, I am told, still stand up terrifically well, and optical quality is largely an academic issue in that realm.  So white lenses at sporting events, and red lines at car crashes and car bombs make perfect sense.  But for the recreational market, I'm completely unsure why people 'go there', other than having an install-base of lenses and clever marketing.

Being so far removed from Canon for so long, my question is this: have they actually improved the optical quality of their lenses? I know the TSE glass is considered outstanding and used cross-platform by many, and the long fixed teles have always been good, but in the core of their system have the got glass that actually does justice to even their whopping 24MP cameras, to say nothing of something double that?

- N.
Logged
Nick Devlin   @onelittlecamera        ww

ndevlin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 679
    • Follow me on Twitter
Re: canon ?
« Reply #112 on: December 28, 2014, 09:10:55 am »

I think a lot of opinions on different cameras and systems are made by people who have not even shot a single picture with the particular systems. Sadly enough this applies also the reviews on this site. 

Hans, the first sentence is undoubtedly true.  But what exactly do you mean by the second?

- N.
Logged
Nick Devlin   @onelittlecamera        ww

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2106
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: canon ?
« Reply #113 on: December 28, 2014, 09:19:33 am »

I loved Canon when they invented AF that worked (film EOS-1) and zoom lenses in exciting ranges (20-35mm!!), and when they revolutionized photography with the 1Ds as the first pro-level 35mm digital.  But that's 13 years ago, and they haven't done a thing since that, to me, was of real interest.  

As digital marched forward, the lenses that were ok for film turned out to be complete crap.  Their core zooms (24-70, 100-400mm, etc.) were just awful for anyone used to something like a Mamiya 6 or Leica/Contax in the film days.  So I left and have never looked back.  

Now, it remains true that Canon may be the best system when getting the image is all important, and image quality is, at best, a far secondary concern --> ie: hardcore journalism.  The pro-level 1-cameras, I am told, still stand up terrifically well, and optical quality is largely an academic issue in that realm.  So white lenses at sporting events, and red lines at car crashes and car bombs make perfect sense.  But for the recreational market, I'm completely unsure why people 'go there', other than having an install-base of lenses and clever marketing.

Being so far removed from Canon for so long, my question is this: have they actually improved the optical quality of their lenses? I know the TSE glass is considered outstanding and used cross-platform by many, and the long fixed teles have always been good, but in the core of their system have the got glass that actually does justice to even their whopping 24MP cameras, to say nothing of something double that?

- N.

Nick,
With all due respect why not doing your homework and find reviews of the lenses that Canon has released in the last couple of years. Truly state of the art lenses. I shoot both Canon 5D mkIII and Nikon and really wish I had the Canon lenses on the Nikon body, especially the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II which is amazing. If you don't exceed the DR of the Canon sensor the IQ really good. But how could you know?  ;D
« Last Edit: December 28, 2014, 09:31:57 am by Hans Kruse »
Logged

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2106
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: canon ?
« Reply #114 on: December 28, 2014, 09:20:29 am »

Hans, the first sentence is undoubtedly true.  But what exactly do you mean by the second?

- N.

It seems quite clear to me that this is the case.

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3369
    • http://www.paulholman.com
Re: canon ?
« Reply #115 on: December 28, 2014, 09:29:03 am »

that's 13 years ago, and they haven't done a thing since that, to me, was of real interest.
It might not have been of interest to you, but the 5Dii created a whole new genre of hybrid still/video cameras and started an entire sub-industry from it's introduction. The impact of the 5Dii in the video production industry can't be over exaggerated.
Given that, unexpected and unplanned, success; it's no surprise to see Canon move into it and grab a big share by developing the C series cameras that have again carved themselves a huge following.
This market has really proved a big success for Canon and it's easy to see why playing 'feature ping pong' with Nikon still cameras has taken a back seat whilst they concentrate on lucrative new opportunities, but they'll be playing again next year.
Logged

CptZar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 157
Re: canon ?
« Reply #116 on: December 28, 2014, 10:02:36 am »

really wish I had the Canon lenses on the Nikon body.

1+

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: canon ?
« Reply #117 on: December 28, 2014, 10:12:21 am »

Being so far removed from Canon for so long, my question is this: have they actually improved the optical quality of their lenses? I know the TSE glass is considered outstanding and used cross-platform by many, and the long fixed teles have always been good, but in the core of their system have the got glass that actually does justice to even their whopping 24MP cameras, to say nothing of something double that?

Hi Nick,

Canon have continuously improved their lenses, also because of digital sensors. Those are many of the type II lenses. Even a number of lenses from the analog days do perform very well on digital systems. The interesting thing is that Canon also continued to improve lenses that were already very good on digital systems, as if they were preparing for even more demanding things to come in the digital arena.

An issue with Canon is that their sensor production equipment (wafer steppers etc., which they use(d) to produce their own high-end CMOS devices) has not kept up pace with other manufacturers' production equipment with regards to resolution. Competitors can produce smaller feature sizes, which helps with producing more densely packed designs. So currently, it seems, Canon would have to contract outside manufacturers of such equipment or purchase finished products from competitors (I believe they already purchase Sony sensors for their compact camera range for a while).

Another issue, for stills photographers, is that Canon decided some years ago to focus more on the motion imaging side of the market. That segment also needs outstanding 'digital' lens designs, but less resolution. Maybe their senior management has by now come to realize that the economical situation, combined with demographic developments, means that they are missing opportunities to have younger people join the Canon users population, which will negatively impact their lens sales potential in the longer run.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2106
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: canon ?
« Reply #118 on: December 28, 2014, 10:47:11 am »


Being so far removed from Canon for so long, my question is this: have they actually improved the optical quality of their lenses? I know the TSE glass is considered outstanding and used cross-platform by many, and the long fixed teles have always been good, but in the core of their system have the got glass that actually does justice to even their whopping 24MP cameras, to say nothing of something double that?

- N.

You could e.g. study this http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Which-lenses-should-you-choose-for-your-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-vs.-Nikon-D800-Competition-is-closer-than-expected

See attached DxO measurements on the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and see that compared to the Tamron which is a well regarded 70-200 lens

See also http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon-ef-24-70mm-f-2-8l-ii-usm/5

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: canon ?
« Reply #119 on: December 28, 2014, 12:50:54 pm »

Sure, but it still is fun to shoot with the latest stuff!

Bernard, what is that pink spot? An early cherry-blossom? Trees blushing in the presence of mighty Nikon? ;)
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 11   Go Up