General Photography

Loads of sales going on now at Nikon, Canon and Sony. Decided to pull the trigger on the Z5ii w/24-70 f4 S kit. About £600 cheaper than it was a week ago.

Did debate on the Canon R6 MK2 for a while - bound to drop in price once the R6 MK3 is announced on Thursday - but I’ll stick with what I know already. Canon just doesn’t have anything even remotely close at the same price and entry point as Nikon anyway.
 
The Voice said:
Loads of sales going on now at Nikon, Canon and Sony. Decided to pull the trigger on the Z5ii w/24-70 f4 S kit. About £600 cheaper than it was a week ago.

Did debate on the Canon R6 MK2 for a while - bound to drop in price once the R6 MK3 is announced on Thursday - but I’ll stick with what I know already. Canon just doesn’t have anything even remotely close at the same price and entry point as Nikon anyway.
Click to expand...

👏 👏👏 enjoy.
 
The Voice said:
More megapixels aside, wonder what the draw would be for photography because from what I can tell from reviews literally everything else is exactly the same as the R6 MK2.
Click to expand...
Looks like a significant upgrade for videographers but I don't see much appeal from the photography side of things. The mixed dual card slots is a big nope from me.
 
bwana said:

Click to expand...

More marketing hype and being told what you (don't necessarily) need. Sure, some features are game-changers for certain types of photography, like eye AF for sports where you don't have time to really think about the shot, but I know of many professional photographers who shoot with older workhorses like a 5D MKIII because these older cameras do exactly what they need and nothing more.

You need about 10 megapixels in a DSLR camera to print a crisp A4 photo. A 20 year old 12MP Canon DLSR can still produce high quality images with a decent lens and in the right hands.

I love the latest photography tech and am guilty of GAS, but like being told you need a new phone every 6 month/1 year, the camera industry can be a load of marketing hype too.
 
Sir Peel-a-Lot said:
More marketing hype and being told what you (don't necessarily) need. Sure, some features are game-changers for certain types of photography, like eye AF for sports where you don't have time to really think about the shot, but I know of many professional photographers who shoot with older workhorses like a 5D MKIII because these older cameras do exactly what they need and nothing more.
Click to expand...
The main reason they're shooting on old gear is cameras are expensive.

Sir Peel-a-Lot said:
You need about 10 megapixels in a DSLR camera to print a crisp A4 photo. A 20 year old 12MP Canon DLSR can still produce high quality images with a decent lens and in the right hands.
Click to expand...
That changes when you need to crop.
 
Sir Peel-a-Lot said:
You need about 10 megapixels in a DSLR camera to print a crisp A4 photo. A 20 year old 12MP Canon DLSR can still produce high quality images with a decent lens and in the right hands.
Click to expand...
A 20 year old DSLR can still produce good results under the right circumstances. If the person's needs overlap with this then there would be no need to upgrade.

The modern cameras do however offer a number of advantages that impact general photographic use. The sensors have gained several stops of dynamic range and output lower noise, giving better image quality even at lower resolutions. The image processing pipeline has also improved wrt. the on-chip ADCs and the in-body processing of the image. This has also resulted in the increase in the bit-depth of the RAW files. There has also been a major improvement in the autofocus, especially regarding moving objects and subject recognition. IBIS has also become more common, which can also be used in conjunction with the lens stabilization if it is present.

Like most people I don't replace cameras too often, so the capabilities of the newer ones tends to become noticeable.
 
My old Canon 24-105 is giving up the ghost so I'm thinking of giving Sigma's 18-50mm F2.8 DC a shot. Anyone with any personal experience with the lens?
 
bwana said:
My old Canon 24-105 is giving up the ghost so I'm thinking of giving Sigma's 18-50mm F2.8 DC a shot. Anyone with any personal experience with the lens?
Click to expand...
Has it developed the common issue with that lens, the internal flex cable starts breaking?
They are otherwise very good lenses.
 
airborne said:
Has it developed the common issue with that lens, the internal flex cable starts breaking?
They are otherwise very good lenses.
Click to expand...
It had previously and the cable was replaced. Recently though, it has developed large soft spots.
 
bwana said:
It had previously and the cable was replaced. Recently though, it has developed large soft spots.
Click to expand...
As if the lens collimation is out, the lens had a nasty bump and knocked the optical alignment out?
 
airborne said:
As if the lens collimation is out, the lens had a nasty bump and knocked the optical alignment out?
Click to expand...
No way of telling unless I send it off someplace, in the meantime I'm without for a week or more. It's a useful lens, so I will probably have it repaired after I've got something in my bag to fill the gap.
 
bwana said:
My old Canon 24-105 is giving up the ghost so I'm thinking of giving Sigma's 18-50mm F2.8 DC a shot. Anyone with any personal experience with the lens?
Click to expand...
Went with the Sigma 17-40 f/1.8 DC in the end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X