Digi Cam Poll: What Digital Camera do you use?

nekrosoft13

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
1,476
I want to hear about that EOS-M3 when you get it, nekrosoft13- I actually quite like my EOS-M, but mostly for the size, compatibility, and quality of the 22/2 and 11-22 lenses. Everyone should have the 11-22 for this system, it eats the competition alive!
got my EOS M3 today! with 18-55 and 55-200 lenses, 22mm is shipping, will be here soon, 11-20 in a month or so!

Will post more info later :)
 

nekrosoft13

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
1,476
Updated

Bodys
Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Canon EOS M3


Lenses
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
Canon EF 40mm f/2/8 STM
Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM
Canon EF 85mm 1.2L USM
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro
Canon EF-M 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS STM
Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM
Canon EF-M 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM
Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art
Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD

Extras
Canon EX580 II


Former Gear
Canon PowerShot G3
Canon PowerShot SD400
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ5
Canon PowerShot SD630
Canon PowerShot SD750
Canon PowerShot SD900
Canon PowerShot SD990 IS
Canon EOS 20D
Canon EOS 40D
Canon EOS M - HORRIBLE, CANON should be ashamed!
Olympus OM-D E-M5
Olympus OM-D E-M1
Olympus OM-D E-M10
Sony a7R
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III USM
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
Canon EF-M 22mm F2 STM
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM - GFs
Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
Sigma 85mm F1.4 EX DG HSM
Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM
Tamron SP AF 180mm F/3.5 Di LD (IF) Macro
Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 SP Di VC USD XLD - GFs
Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ
Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO
Olympus M. Zuiko Digital 25mm f/1.8
Panasonic Lumix G Vario 12-32mm f/3.5-5.6 ASPH Mega O.I.S.
Sony FE 3.5-5.6/28-70 OSS
Metabones EF to FE Mark III Adapter
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,520
nekrosoft, can you tell me your experiences with the 5D3 and the 85mmL mk1? I was considering this setup, but I'm of course reading about "dreadfully slow" focus speed of the 85mm.
The thing is, none of those reviews were using it on a 5D3, as of course this lens predates the 5D3. Basically, I was wondering if the 5D3 "makes up" for it.
Can't really afford the mk2.
Usable, or the worst thing ever? Otherwise, I'll probably move to the 1.8.
 
Last edited:

nekrosoft13

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
1,476
Good Question....

I never used the MKII, so I can't compare, but I did have the Sigma 85 1.4 before, and the Canon is definitely much slower.

but for the main purpose of portraits and street photos its fast enough, I haven't tried it on any other camera body yet.

As long as your won't expect to shoot sports or skirmish wildlife with it you should be ok ;)
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,452
It's hard to recommend one of the 85Ls versus the 85/1.8 USM; I rented the II version for my 6D, and even it was 'slow' compared to the f/1.8 version. Further, it didn't really 'do' anything for me. Both have dreadful longitudinal CA at wider apertures (as do the sharper Nikon lenses, the Sigma f/1.4, the Samyang...), and the 85L, while 'sharp enough' wide-open at f/1.2 for many/most uses given that almost nothing will be in focus, really only traded a lump of weight for faster shutter speeds, better subject isolation, and significantly slower focus.

Basically, you're better off with a 70-200/2.8 shooting at 200/2.8 and a close focus distance, or even the 135/2L (or 200/2.8L) while gaining versatility from the faster AF and compositional flexibility in the case of the zoom.

Unless your work can greatly benefit from shooting specifically at 85mm f/1.2, there are better options, including waiting for the inevitable Sigma Art :).
 
Last edited:

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,520
Both versions of the 1.2L are slow in comparison with the 1.8. This knowledge I know from searching around.

Basically both versions of the 1.2L are for those that want (slightly) better sharpness across the frame (notably corner/edge sharpness), and of course being able to shoot at 1.2/better bokeh with more aperture blades. The 1.8 is literally better at everything else, AF speed, size, weight, less expensive filters, etc.

The only difference between the I and II versions of the 1.2L is literally AF speed. The II version is "50%" faster according to Canon, but it's still slower than the 1.8.

Slow AF isn't the worst thing in the world to me. Right now I'm shooting on a 5D2 and I have to deal with its finicky, inaccurate focus especially in low light situations. I'm hoping to unload a bit of gear and move to a 5D3 to mostly deal with that issue. Slow AF is one thing, AF that I don't trust is another. It's basically been a hurdle I've had to deal with as long as I've had the camera. I've had to get accustomed to it. I know that's a side point, but if the 1.2L is accurate on a 5D3, I probably won't care that much about its focusing speed. As long as it can keep up with relatively slow moving targets in Servo mode (some of my portraiture involves motion, and I will admit I prefer lazy AF tracking to pre-focusing and repetition on the part of the subject).

===

In terms of the second part, I actually have the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II now. But I'm planning on unloading it. And, well unloading all of my zooms actually and going 100% prime. I'm finding that it's necessary to become more and more deliberate with my choices and focal length is an artistic choice I find extremely important that many disregard. I'm finding that zooms make me lazy. They make me generally not pay attention to focal length. They often bend me to zoom around rather than moving to achieve framing. These are, what I consider to be, bad habits. My zooms have to go. So it's not a shot at you, but I wouldn't want to use 200mm to achieve shallow depth of field if the look that I wanted was 85mm.
I do desire the 135L at some point, but it's something that can wait. It's crazy to me that it's one of Canon's sharpest, fastest lenses, and its so cheap on the second hand market. But that's all a digression.

Right now my least expensive lens is the lens I'm using the most (50mm f/1.4). If my math comes out right, after I've sold all my stuff (and possibly with a few hundred more thrown in), I should be able to get a 5D3, 50 f/1.2L, 85 f/1.2L, and 35 f/2 IS. I really don't need anything else in my bag. I'm going towards basically 100% portraiture at this point and eschewing other types of photography (I'm starting to have less and less time to work on other stuff anyway, and most of my other day to day shooting is done with the 50mm prime). I think 95%+ of my shots are done or will be done with 50mm and 85mm. The only time the 35mm will even be necessary is if I'm on set and there literally isn't enough space between myself and the subject to get the shot I want. I would still consider that to be a focal length 'compromise', but you have to do what you have to do.

===

So long story long, that's why I'm curious to know about experiences with the 5D3 and 85 1.2. The logical part of me knows that it makes way more financial and practical sense to get the 1.8, but there is that photographer's pride part that wants to have big massive cool looking L glass. I'm trying to kill that part, but sometimes it's hard. I'm half hoping for glowing reviews of perfect focus and creamy falloff leading to beautiful bokeh to justify it's nice 72mm filter size and Red L ring/designation.
 
Last edited:

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,452
I can't disagree with wanting to go 'all primes'; hell, the only reason I have zooms is that they're economical at certain focal length ranges.

My lowly 50/1.4 USM remains near permanently bolted to my 6D. Light, fast enough, sharp enough, wide enough, long enough... yup. I'm a 50mm whore.

That said, the 85/1.2Ls have an advantage in optics, and 'look', and while not particularly sharper in the middle f/2.8-f/5.6 apertures, has the advantage of less vignetting at wider apertures over the slower f/1.8 version, and sharper absolute performance at narrower apertures. Whether it's worth the weight- well, that's up to you. I'd personally keep both, just as I'd keep my 50/1.4 even if I bought a better 50 of some sort, at least until Canon provides a suitable replacement :).

And anecdotally, Canon's 'wonkier' lenses that have had issues on older bodies seem to be relatively spot on with their updated bodies, including the 5D III, 1D X, 6D, 7D II, and possibly the 70D (and T6i/s). Accuracy in better than near darkness was perfect on my 6D, and was still perfect using center point in essentially darkness (a bit darker than the 5D III's more numerous AF points will focus).

I can see hesitating with it on a 5D II, but there really shouldn't be a problem that a minor AFMA adjustment can't fix on a 5D III or newer.
 

patric

Gawd
Joined
Mar 10, 2008
Messages
660
Time for an update. Just ordered the Canon 135 f/2L. I've never really been a natural light shooter. I learned in the studio on strobes, so I guess it's time to try something new!

Bodies
Canon 6D and 7D

Zooms:
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L vII
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS
Sigma 150-500mm OS

Primes:
Canon EF 28mm f/1.8
Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8
Canon EF 135mm f/2L

Lights:
Einstein e640 (x4)
Alien Bees B400 (x3)
Alien Bees B800 (x2)
Alien Bees ABR800 ring flash
CheetahLight CL360
Canon 430EX II (x2)
Canon 270EX II (x2)
Yongnou 560 II (x3)

Cybersync/Cyber Commander transceivers and triggers
Yongnou 622c E-TTL triggers (x6)
Lots and lots of light modifiers
 

erek

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
5,837
Ground/Standard :

Canon 5D Mark III (w/ Magic Lantern : 14-bit RAW Uncompressed 1080p 24 fps Video)


Sachtler FSB-8 Fluid Head with Carbon Fiber Tripod Legs


Carl Zeiss Otus Distagon 55mm F/1.4


Samyang 24mm F/1.4


Aerial :

DJI Phantom 2 with GoPro Hero3+ Black


Underwater :

Thunder Tiger Neptune SB-1 with GoPro Hero3+ Black
 
Last edited:

madFive

metal[H]ead
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
8,867
Scooooooore!!
I just got a borderline larceny-level deal on a Nikkor 200mm F4 Micro off Craigslist, ($800, perfect condition used). So happy about this!! Lots more bug pics coming soon.:D
 
Last edited:

Ruoh

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
5,858
More of a gripe than anything... Marketing thought it'd be a good idea to give purchase control to a portrait photographer. We take shots of static objects with extremely controlled lighting, and the end product winds up being a ~1MP image on a ecommerce site. His gear selected?

Canon 5D3, Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM lens.
 

erek

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
5,837
Scooooooore!!
I just got a borderline larceny-level deal on a Nikkor 200mm F4 Micro off Craigslist, ($800, perfect condition used). So happy about this!! Lots more bug pics coming soon. :D


Ever messed around with a "Nikon Nikkor-s 50mm F/1.4 Auto" lens?
 

madFive

metal[H]ead
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
8,867
Ever messed around with a "Nikon Nikkor-s 50mm F/1.4 Auto" lens?
Yeah, I have the AF-S 50mm f/1.4 as well - first DSLR lens I ever bought actually, even though I didn't understand crop-sensors at the time and didn't know it would actually be 75mm on my D90. On the new D750 it's a great general-purpose low-light lens, good for group portraits & full body shots etc. It's not a macro lens by a long shot though; you trade off a lot of sharpness for the fast aperture. I haven't tried it with extension tubes yet - might be interesting to throw those on it and see what it's like when focusing a lot closer. But since I now have my macro bases covered pretty well, I doubt I'll be trying that any time soon.

Nikon also has 55mm and 60mm macro lenses. I'm not sure if you were suggesting using the 50/1.4 for macro or just wanting other general info on it.
 

erek

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
5,837
Yeah, I have the AF-S 50mm f/1.4 as well - first DSLR lens I ever bought actually, even though I didn't understand crop-sensors at the time and didn't know it would actually be 75mm on my D90. On the new D750 it's a great general-purpose low-light lens, good for group portraits & full body shots etc. It's not a macro lens by a long shot though; you trade off a lot of sharpness for the fast aperture. I haven't tried it with extension tubes yet - might be interesting to throw those on it and see what it's like when focusing a lot closer. But since I now have my macro bases covered pretty well, I doubt I'll be trying that any time soon.

Nikon also has 55mm and 60mm macro lenses. I'm not sure if you were suggesting using the 50/1.4 for macro or just wanting other general info on it.
for $100 or even less they seem to be a really good F/1.4 50mm lens
 

madFive

metal[H]ead
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
8,867
for $100 or even less they seem to be a really good F/1.4 50mm lens
Ah, ok. You must be talking about a few older ones. My understanding is that the new AF-S 1.4G is a good bit sharper and the focus is much faster and quieter, but it's not quite that cheap.

This is the one I have:
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Prime-Nikkor-Digital-Cameras/dp/B001GCVA0U/
Couple older ones:
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-50mm-Nikkor-Digital-Cameras/dp/B00005LENO/
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Nikkor-50mm-1-4-AI-S/dp/B0000BVDZC/
You could probably get the older ones for under a hundred used, but I haven't looked.

And if you were just looking to get into macro on the cheap, you'd be much better going with this one:
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-55mm-Micro-Nikkor-Lens/dp/B0000BVDZZ/

Why do you ask? Looks like you're shooting mostly Canon gear there.
 

erek

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
5,837
Ah, ok. You must be talking about a few older ones. My understanding is that the new AF-S 1.4G is a good bit sharper and the focus is much faster and quieter, but it's not quite that cheap.

This is the one I have:
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Prime-Nikkor-Digital-Cameras/dp/B001GCVA0U/
Couple older ones:
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-50mm-Nikkor-Digital-Cameras/dp/B00005LENO/
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Nikkor-50mm-1-4-AI-S/dp/B0000BVDZC/
You could probably get the older ones for under a hundred used, but I haven't looked.

And if you were just looking to get into macro on the cheap, you'd be much better going with this one:
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-55mm-Micro-Nikkor-Lens/dp/B0000BVDZZ/

Why do you ask? Looks like you're shooting mostly Canon gear there.
This is the one :


http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/50mm-f14-s.htm




(I asked because this was the best bang for the buck I could find for a 50mm F/1.4 ... used an adapter to mount it to canon)
 

northrop

grumman
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
9,817
Yeah, I have the AF-S 50mm f/1.4 as well - first DSLR lens I ever bought actually, even though I didn't understand crop-sensors at the time and didn't know it would actually be 75mm on my D90. On the new D750 it's a great general-purpose low-light lens, good for group portraits & full body shots etc. It's not a macro lens by a long shot though; you trade off a lot of sharpness for the fast aperture. I haven't tried it with extension tubes yet - might be interesting to throw those on it and see what it's like when focusing a lot closer. But since I now have my macro bases covered pretty well, I doubt I'll be trying that any time soon.

Nikon also has 55mm and 60mm macro lenses. I'm not sure if you were suggesting using the 50/1.4 for macro or just wanting other general info on it.
Been there, done that, lol. 50mm/1.4D was also my first lens purchased for a D80 (unless we're also counting the kit 18-135mm that came with the body) :p

Currently, I can't remember the last time I used the lens. Even with the full frame body, I find the 50mm to be... odd. I tend to grab my 85mm almost exclusively now, or the 24-70 for the wide angle. I recently tried the Sigma's 35mm Art lens, and was blown away. I've only used it for about 5 minutes, but it performed superbly on my d800, IMO.

This is the one :


http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/50mm-f14-s.htm




(I asked because this was the best bang for the buck I could find for a 50mm F/1.4 ... used an adapter to mount it to canon)
But... why? What's the cost/usability benefit of using an old Nikkor glass with adapters over a Canon equivalent?
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,452
But... why? What's the cost/usability benefit of using an old Nikkor glass with adapters over a Canon equivalent?
Choices in Canon EF-mount would be the 50/1.8 II (not f/1.4, probably the worst-built lens Canon has ever made) or the current 50/1.4 USM, which is around three times as much as either the f/1.8 Canon or old f/1.4 Nikkor.

The comparable Canon 50/1.4 primes to Nikon's older primes are the FD lineup, which unlike the Nikkors, cannot be easily adapted to the EF-mount due to the shorter flange focal distance.
 

erek

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
5,837
Been there, done that, lol. 50mm/1.4D was also my first lens purchased for a D80 (unless we're also counting the kit 18-135mm that came with the body) :p

Currently, I can't remember the last time I used the lens. Even with the full frame body, I find the 50mm to be... odd. I tend to grab my 85mm almost exclusively now, or the 24-70 for the wide angle. I recently tried the Sigma's 35mm Art lens, and was blown away. I've only used it for about 5 minutes, but it performed superbly on my d800, IMO.



But... why? What's the cost/usability benefit of using an old Nikkor glass with adapters over a Canon equivalent?

~100 USD for the Nikon Nikkor-s 50mm F/1.4 Auto including the adapter

all other F/1.4s are a lot more expensive
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,520
~100 USD for the Nikon Nikkor-s 50mm F/1.4 Auto including the adapter

all other F/1.4s are a lot more expensive
I guess. But you could get a 50mm f/1.8 STM for $100 and have autofocus... Otherwise you're right, $250ish for a used Canon 50mm f/1.4.
 

erek

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
5,837
I guess. But you could get a 50mm f/1.8 STM for $100 and have autofocus... Otherwise you're right, $250ish for a used Canon 50mm f/1.4.
I do mainly video, and with that -- manually focus anyhow. The plastic fantastic 50mm F/1.8 s are nice and all, but that old Nikon Nikkor-s 50mm F/1.4 Auto is all metal and actual glass. Amazing build quality and aesthetics. Handling one in real life feels like a fine piece of a well built and crafted jewelry that isn't fragile, but has a sensitive nature and response to it's focus and aperture rings with nicely defined detents.
 

fishrule

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
338
Camera:
Canon EOS 5DS

Lenses:
Canon 100mm F2.8 L IS Macro
Canon 50mm F1.8 STM
Canon 40mm F2.8 Pancake lens
Canon 28mm F1.8
Canon 16-35 F4L IS
Canon 100-400 F4.5-5.6L IS MKI
Canon 24-105 F4L IS

Flash:
Canon 430 EXII
 

ocbaud

I'm a baud Man!
Joined
Nov 3, 2000
Messages
5,703
Camera:
Nikon D810

Lenses:
NIkon 24-70mm f/2.8
Nikon 50mm f/1.4G
Nikon 85mm f/1.8G (faster, sharper, and cheaper than the 1.4 on my body)

Flashes:
Nikon SB-700
Nikon SB-5000 (maybe soon)
 

kindasmart

Gawd
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
817
Camera:
Nikon D810

Lenses:
NIkon 24-70mm f/2.8
I have the Nikon D610. I regret not getting the D810, but the body + 3 lenses was already $4000'ish and that was already pushing above my budget. If I had to do it over I'd get the D810 and 14-24mm f/2.8G and hold off on the nifty-fifty and macro lens....and wait another 6-9 months before I picked up the 200-500mm.

I'm curious ocbaud, do you have the "G" or "E" version of the 24-70? Being a landscape guy mostly I'd want the "E" version but that's a lot of coin. A portrait or wedding guy should definitely go with the "G" version.

Current Lenses:
Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G
Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G
Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G Micro
Nikkor 200-500 f/5.6G

Wants:
1) Sell D610 + 16-35mm lens and pick up D810 + 14-24mm lens.
2) Buy D500. I'm starting to dig wildlife/bird photography. This is a bit down the road thought.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,452
From what I've heard/read, the E version is superior in every way, including to a great copy of the G- supposing you get a great copy of the E. Copy variation plagues fast standard zooms regardless of make, and Nikon still lags in terms of QC, so you may have to cycle through a few copies, but great copies of the E are magnificent.
 

kindasmart

Gawd
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
817
From what I've heard/read, the E version is superior in every way, including to a great copy of the G- supposing you get a great copy of the E. Copy variation plagues fast standard zooms regardless of make, and Nikon still lags in terms of QC, so you may have to cycle through a few copies, but great copies of the E are magnificent.
Interesting. If you look at the review and MTF charts provided by Roger Cicala at LensRental.com you see that the "E" version is better at the edge and corner Vs the "G" version, especially at the wide end. But I agree with you that at the long end (70mm) the new "E" version is better than the old "G" version in every way.

The increased edge/corner performance really stands out when the "E" version is compared to the newest Canon EF 24-70mm L lens. The canon is better that the Nikkor "E" version in the center, but lags behind on edge/corner performance.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,452
Interesting. If you look at the review and MTF charts provided by Roger Cicala at LensRental.com you see that the "E" version is better at the edge and corner Vs the "G" version, especially at the wide end. But I agree with you that at the long end (70mm) the new "E" version is better than the old "G" version in every way.

The increased edge/corner performance really stands out when the "E" version is compared to the newest Canon EF 24-70mm L lens. The canon is better that the Nikkor "E" version in the center, but lags behind on edge/corner performance.
The bigger issue is that the first samples and test results of the lens were relatively poor, in comparison with the G version, and strikingly so in comparison with the 24-70/2.8L II, which Nikon should have been looking to best as their G lens was starting to show weaknesses on their 36MP Sony sensors. Some point to a low DxO performance here, but Roger's MTF charts are far more comprehensive about what an average lens should be (if the DxO sample was from that first batch, at least).

I mostly commented to point out that the initial lower performance samples were not likely indicative of what the lens could do, and that it a bit unfairly got labeled a half-assed effort on Nikon's part, when that criticism should be reserved just for Nikon's Q/C team ;).
 

kindasmart

Gawd
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
817
I mostly commented to point out that the initial lower performance samples were not likely indicative of what the lens could do, and that it a bit unfairly got labeled a half-assed effort on Nikon's part, when that criticism should be reserved just for Nikon's Q/C team ;).
Gotcha. I believe Roger's tests are fairly recent so they should have tested the "newer" versions.

I like Roger's tests because he uses up to 10 copies of a lens and attaches lenses to a machine/tester and not just a camera body so results are comparable between brands.

While Canon and Nikon tend to leap-frog a bit as far as lens quality, generally, it seems that Canon is a 1/4 to 1/2 step ahead of Nikon. And as far as QC and service Canon is many steps ahead. Nikon is ahead in sensor technology. I guess we'll know if that's still true and by how much when the D5 and 1Dx2 actually ship and get tested.

Most advanced amateurs and pros think DxO mark is bullshit and I tend to agree.
 

northrop

grumman
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
9,817
All this talk about G vs E... I like all my lenses to be uniform at 77mm filter thread if I can help it ;) I'm already splurging on filters for the 14-24mm.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,452
Most advanced amateurs and pros think DxO mark is bullshit and I tend to agree.
They're not bullshit, not hardly, so long as the limitations of their testing are taken into account. Single samples and test charts are not going to tell you things like rendering, performance at infinity (which can vary a lot), sample variation, etc. But they are comprehensive and are good at conveying other issues such as vignetting, distortion, and CA performance, and also acuity at test chart distances, which is certainly applicable to plenty of shooting situations.

So, take them as a data point, and in those cases where there's overlap with other sources, make comparisons, until you're able to use the lens yourself :D.
 

PCMusicGuy

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 9, 2006
Messages
1,197
I've been using my Olympus TG4 camera more and more over my Canon T3i. It really does take pretty great pictures on the go without the fuss of the lenses. It being waterproof, and wife proof are pretty good bonuses too.
 

HiCZoK

Gawd
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
821
Nikon p610. Totally fun little camera with amazing zoom capabilities.
Just look at this !

And it makes great photos too
 

TechHead

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 12, 2001
Messages
3,870
Updated List:
Nikon D7100+MB-D15 grip
Tamron 17-50/2.8
Nikon 28-70/2.8 AF-S "The Beast"
Nikon 70-200/2.8 VR1
Sigma 100-300 F4+matched TC (going to sell this..)
Sigma 150-600 f/5-6.3 | Contemporary + dock
Nikon DX AF-S 35/1.8G
Nikon 50/1.4D
couple of MF older Nikkors
SB-800x2 flashes


Pentax K-01 mirrorless
Sigma 8-16 f/4.5-5.6
Pentax FA28/2.8
Pentax HD DA70/2.4
Pentax K50/1.2
Pentax A50/1.2
Pentax A24/2.8
Pentax A50/2.8 Macro
Pentax A 35-105/3.5
Pentax F35-70/3.5-4.5

SMC Takumar 50/1.4
SMC Takumar 85/1.8 (beauty!)
SMC Takumar 105/2.8
SMC Takumar 55/2.0
Super Takumar 85/1.9
 

Daggah

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 26, 2005
Messages
3,196
So I had to unexpectedly buy a Nikon D750. I was in Bali at Tanah Lot (a temple off the west coast) for sunset, and my D800 with 14-24, on a tripod, on a rock...well, it toppled over as I was climbing down from the rock. I'm still not sure if my clumsy ass knocked it over or if I just wasn't careful enough about how I had it set up as I was climbing down. It landed right on the 14-24, and a chunk of the lens hood took the brunt of the impact. Then it fell sideways from there into a bit of sea water.

At the time, it still seemed to work, I took a few more pictures and everything looked OK. Then later, I noticed the rear command dial wasn't working. As of right now, the lens seems OK with cosmetic damage, and the body seems to be working fine, but I plan on sending them both in to Nikon for repair. But when we got back to Singapore the next day, I went ahead and bought a D750 in a camera shop there to keep me going since I still had nearly a week of traveling and photography to do. As luck would have it, at least I got a really good deal on a camera that seems to be new in box. I paid about $1600 USD for the D750. And I'm actually really, really liking it.
 
Top