I should have put that it with the original post, but I did post them, somewhere on pg 2
I should have put that it with the original post, but I did post them, somewhere on pg 2 "Smile, nod, and back away."
LOG IN TO REPLY |
DreDaze happy with myself for not saying anything stupid More info Post edited over 8 years ago by DreDaze. | Dec 01, 2014 19:30 | #47 ed rader wrote in post #17301697 40+ mp sensor has already been produced. I'm told 45mp body will be out soon. I probably won't be an early adopter but I will adopt do you think the original 100-400L won't resolve well enough on this new supposed 40mp camera? Andre or Dre
LOG IN TO REPLY |
CheshireCat Goldmember 2,303 posts Likes: 407 Joined Oct 2008 Location: *** vanished *** More info | Dec 02, 2014 01:30 | #48 DreDaze wrote in post #17302367 do you think the original 100-400L won't resolve well enough on this new supposed 40mp camera? Why would Canon make a Mk II then ? DreDaze wrote in post #17302367 i mean i feel like this is something people will be discussing after things come out...but to not buy a lens now, because you're worried it won't resolve for a 40mp camera that hasn't been announced seems a little strange to me. There will be a new lens, and there will eventually be a new 40+ MP body. Thinking about the future is not strange 1Dx, 5D2 and some lenses
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Dec 02, 2014 01:34 | #49 cheap primes + FF > expensive primes + crop. Sony A7siii/A7iv/ZV-1 - FE 24/1.4 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 - 28-200 RXD
LOG IN TO REPLY |
DreDaze happy with myself for not saying anything stupid More info | Dec 02, 2014 01:40 | #50 CheshireCat wrote in post #17303577 Why would Canon make a Mk II then ? There will be a new lens, and there will eventually be a new 40+ MP body. Thinking about the future is not strange ![]() a new MK II probably came out for a few reasons...i'm not positive if one of them was that the old version was being hampered by newer sensors... Andre or Dre
LOG IN TO REPLY |
artyH Goldmember 2,118 posts Likes: 32 Joined Aug 2009 More info Post edited over 8 years ago by artyH. | Dec 02, 2014 09:20 | #51 You will see a large improvement in image quality and AF in low light with the 35 F2IS. I would recommend glass before the body in this case. The 50 F1.8 has a reputation for variable AF, and your other lenses are all crop and slow in aperture and AF speed, compared to the 35.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
![]() | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is Niagara Wedding Photographer 1131 guests, 157 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||