Airmantharp wrote:Canon's sensors still do what they do best; they take great pictures. Files from Sony's sensors have more leeway at base ISOs, where landscapers live, but they don't do as well at higher ISOs outside of the special A7S, which no one would use seriously for anything other than for what it was designed.
And you miss the most important part- Canon has been updating their lenses seeming in anticipation of incoming higher resolution sensors, something neither Sony nor Nikon seem to be taking seriously- and they have said sensors!
TheEmrys wrote:I seriously doubt Canon can exceed Sony's sensors in one step. Since the introduction of the Canon's 5d III 20 mp sensor Sony introduced the 36mp sensor, a 50mp sensor, and 2 new 24mp sensors. And there wasn't much new on the III's sensor. Years of stagnancy. I'll say this for you, you have faith. I would rather have my performance and innovation now, than in some distant future.
Airmantharp wrote:And then there's Sony; a hodgepodge of interesting and exciting technology strapped to mediocre efforts to commercialize said technology. They have the most up-to-date sensor technology and they have a partnership with Zeiss, the second-best lens designer (Leica has been smitten with Panasonic), yet they still can't manage to hit one out of the park.
TheEmrys wrote:... and I am falling in love with an aperture ring on my lenses thanks to the CY Zeiss's I've been shooting...
TheEmrys wrote:I loved my non-art Sigma 50 HSM. It was terrific. Why not look for a CY mount? They are relatively cheap, and adapters are less than cheap. Mine was $20 and functions extremely well. Sure, you'll have to get into using the old style (unless you were a Nikon shooter, then it would be cutting edge) of aperture control on the lens, but it is surprisingly easy and a natural adjustment. Auto everything else works well. The 35mm 2.8 is very cheap, also, but the 50/1.7 is a very cheap way to try it out. At $200, its awfully easy to buy it, try it out, and then sell it if you don't like. If you do like it, still sell it, and get the tremendously fun 50/1.4. I have a ball shooting with it when I want some MF fun. MF really is fun (even though I hate saying it), as it really makes feel connected to the image.
Airmantharp wrote:I'd be all over the 50/1.4 non-Art simply because it would replace my 50/1.4 USM for a number of things, but they'd still be complementary.
Airmantharp wrote: I'm not sure that I'd want to go MF beyond 35, though- I shoot too much moving stuff where having just focus confirmation would be pushing it; missing focus confirmation would be killer. I could definitely live with manual aperture control, though, as that's something that I usually keep my finger on anyway. It'd just be moving the control to the lens from the camera, the camera will still meter as needed.
lonleyppl wrote:Which adapter did you get? I have the Fotodiox and it's fairly good, though infinity might be off. I'm not sure if that's the adapter or if the lens just doesn't have a hard stop.
Any idea how the Sigma 50 HSM compares to the C/Y Zeiss 50 1.7? A quick check of e-Bay didn't reveal any C/Y mount Sigmas available, but I'll have to keep an eye out.
TheEmrys wrote:Couple of thoughts for you. The Sigma had a very nice color to it, but the rendering was very neutral with very little 3-d pop that wasn't bokeh related. Micro-contrast was average. Very similar to my Minolta's (both 1.4 & 1.7) as well as my Sony 1.4. It was also huge. It unbalanced my a65, not sure how it would feel on your 6d. It was very front-heavy.
TheEmrys wrote:I would really look into how well mf does on the 6d before making the leap. I use the mf focus tools in my evf exclusively. Focus peaking for good photos/landscapes, but for portraits I use focus magnify where I can zoom in on eyelashes/pupils. I know that focus screens exist, but I have no idea the cost of making a Canon into a good MF shooter.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests