Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Huh. Neither Sony NEX C3 nor Samsung NX11 seem all that compelling to me. The Samsung doesn't even seem to have a newer sensor from previous, just adding some features like panorama. While the Sony has a new sensor, it seems to just unnecessarily boost the Megapixel count, with preliminary IQ impressions being not really better than older model.

I must say, at least Samsung has a ton of new lenses coming to market..

I might just keep saving my money towards Canon mirrorless (right..) or just wait for a new full frame Canon and use my APS-C with small lens like 35mm f2 as "portable."

Edited by Jon L
Posted

I might just keep saving my money towards Canon mirrorless (right..) or just wait for a new full frame Canon and use my APS-C with small lens like 35mm f2 as "portable."

I'd grab a Fuji X100 in a heartbeat if my fund allowed it. Or NEX5 if it had a fast prime in a somewhat normal FL.

Posted (edited)

While the Sony has a new sensor, it seems to just unnecessarily boost the Megapixel count, with preliminary IQ impressions being not really better than older model.

The sensor in C3 (also in D7000, D5100, K5 and A580) is a little better than the old one in terms of DR, color depth and ISO performance. I'd get a C3 over mirrorless if I need one today :)

http://www.dxomark.c...n/(brand3)/Sony

Edited by Cankin
Posted

I'd grab a Fuji X100 in a heartbeat if my fund allowed it. Or NEX5 if it had a fast prime in a somewhat normal FL.

They're coming out with a 35/1.8 for the nex.

Posted

They're coming out with a 35/1.8 for the nex.

"They" being Sony or? Timeframe?

Also, what happened to all the NEX lenses Sigma announced some time ago?

Posted (edited)

Folks, been reading a lot at photography forum. Planning to get a ultra tele. Not in the short term but in the next 2-3 months. I know you guys are quite critical and dependable on the advise. Thinking hard between Canon 100-400 or Sigma 150-500. Strength / weakness of both lenses from what I read:

Canon : weakness: almost 30-35% more expensive, shorter focal length, never like the white color of tele for L series (more like personal opinion). Strength : Better IQ, 77mm filter - compatible with my existing glass (24-105 and tokina 11-16) so only need UV, lighter, smaller, f4

Sigma : weakness : lots of report said that its soft wide open at 500mm, heavier, IQ still behind canon, f5, 86mm filter. Strength: longer focal length, cheaper, black color hence less obvious vs canon

With the above facts, which one you guys would choose ? Main application is wildlife and sports. Or better still have any of you guys tried any or both lenses ? Thanks in advance

Edited by forbigger
Posted (edited)

Considering the well-documented focusing problems Sigma lenses have with Canon bodies, I'd never buy one without having several copies on hand that you can test out. There's also a chance of Sigma lenses not working with future Canon bodies, since they reverse-engineer as opposed to licensing from Canon. Also, Canon 100-400 has IS (2-3 stops, iirc).

On a completely different note, bluebirds were back at my in-laws' backyard again this year. Unfortunately, I didn't have time to grab my glasses or put in my contacts, so I ended up taking the below shot at f/2 when I thought I had stopped down to f/4.'

MG0053-XL.jpg

Edited by Salt Peanuts
Posted

yeah, edited my post above, the 100-400 do have IS.......actually my biggest worry would be whether 100mm less makes lots of difference in real world? i dont feel comfortable using an zoom extension due to manual focusing

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.