[Reinier]

It is the Zigview S2 Live, which is connected to your camera and 'runs' on the liveview. 

 

 

Regards,

 

Reinier

[frank]

IMO the decision on FF vs APS-C depends on the type of photography that you most often take. If you most time use tele lenses then I would think a APS-C or DX camera suits you better since you can take the advantage of 1.5(or 1.6)x FL factor. If you most time shoot landscape with WA and UWA lenses then I think a FF camera is better. 

[Reinier]

Hi Frank,

 

The 28-105mm is the lens I use most, I use the telelens(70-200mm f4 and Tamron 200-500) about 1/3 of the time. I wanted a better lens than the 28-105mm II, so if I buy a new camera, I want another standard zoom as well.

 

Kind regards,


Reinier

[frank]

Hi Frank,

 

The 28-105mm is the lens I use most, I use the telelens(70-200mm f4 and Tamron 200-500) about 1/3 of the time. I wanted a better lens than the 28-105mm II, so if I buy a new camera, I want another standard zoom as well.

 

Kind regards,


Reinier

 

Hi Reinier:

 

If I were you I would just buy a good APS-C camera, since it appears that you do not use WA/UWA lenses a lot. And I agree that you then need buy a new decent standard zoom for APS-C. Of course this is also based on the assumption that you do not need the more bokeh that only a FF can deliver.

 

Best regards,

 

Frank

[Brightcolours]

Hi Reinier:

 

If I were you I would just buy a good APS-C camera, since it appears that you do not use WA/UWA lenses a lot.

 

And I agree that you then need buy a new decent standard zoom for APS-C. Of course this is also based on the assumption that you do not need the more bokeh that only a FF can deliver.

 

Best regards,

 

Frank

APS-C has actually some VERY good UWA lenses available. Like the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM and the Sigma 8-16mm DC. They have less barrel distortion too, than the FF UWA lenses. So, choosing APS-C because of UWA actually makes more sense. 

 

By the way, you mean more blur... Bokeh is about how OOF parts look (quality), not how blurry they are (quantity).  B)

 

I gave a list of APS-C standard zooms above, that are worthwhile to consider. I forgot one: Canon EF-S 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM. Goes a bit wider.

[frank]

APS-C has actually some VERY good UWA lenses available. Like the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM and the Sigma 8-16mm DC. They have less barrel distortion too, than the FF UWA lenses. So, choosing APS-C because of UWA actually makes more sense. 

 

I am not sure if my argument is correct: For landscpae photography people usually want to get images that are sharp from center to corner and hence have higher demand on resolution (both local and global). If you consider the same pixel size then a FF sensor can diliver more than twice resolutions than a DX. Yes in the market there are only a few FF cameras that have substantial more sensor resolutions than DX cameras, e.g. the Nikon D800(E) (and Sony A7r? don't remember exactly). But for the same total resolution a FF camera has a large pixel size than the corresponding DX so at least in principle can deliver better IQ at a pixel level (lower noise, e.g.).

 

Yes I know that DX cameras can also diliver good lanscape photos with good lenses (of course FF camera also need good lenses), But on the global resolution and/or noise control side, FF wins I thinks.

 

By the way, you mean more blur... Bokeh is about how OOF parts look (quality), not how blurry they are (quantity).  B)

 

Yes. Probably I should say "shallower DoF".

[Rover]

IMO the decision on FF vs APS-C depends on the type of photography that you most often take. If you most time use tele lenses then I would think a APS-C or DX camera suits you better since you can take the advantage of 1.5(or 1.6)x FL factor. If you most time shoot landscape with WA and UWA lenses then I think a FF camera is better. 

That, or a dedicated APS-C UWA. When Sigma 8-16 appeared, it voided the argument that there is no getting around FF for the ultra-wideangle shooting. In fact, tests here and at LensTip seem to indicate that it has better sharpness uniformity at the wide end than the 12-24 and doesn't have to be stopped down that much to get more of it.

[Reinier]

My main subjects are landscapes, but I don't need ultrawide lenses. I love the 28mm(on Full-frame) for here in the Netherlands. SO, if I were to go with an APSC camera, then I prefer a (standard zoom) starting at 15 to 18mm. Unfortunately I have seen to many lenses with quite a bit of distortion, even the more expensive lenses. And the Netherlands with its flat horizons, it can be annoying. Especially when I place the horizon in the upper or lower part of the frame. The problem also occurs with seascapes and buildings.

 

I know I could post proces the images and get rid of the distortions, but I like to get images out of the camera which needs as little attention as possible afterwards.

 

Hope there is a store close by which let me try the 70D or 6D, so I can compare it to my 5D.

 

Kind regards,


Reinier

[Brightcolours]

Your current 28-105mm has quite heavy barrel distortion too, does it not? Something unavoidable with standard zoom lens extremes... 

The Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 probably is better than your current lens, with regard to barrel distortion:

http://www.opticallimits.com/canon-eos/5...os?start=1

[Reinier]

Thanks, I will give it a look.

 

I used to have a Canon EF 28/2.8 (I), but it had some distorion too. The same goes for the 17-40mm I owned.

 

I currently have the following lenses with my 5D:

Canon 24mm T/S (I)

Canon 28-105mm USM II

Canon 70-200mm USM F4.0 I (without IS)

 

The 28-105mm is a real nice lens in term of range, but as you said before it is not so sharp. The 24-105mm has a lot of distortion too and is quite heavy. Because of my back I don't want heavy lenses. Especially the one I will use the most.

 

I could go for a prime, but then I would have to chance lens too often. How about the good old 20-35mm/2.8?

 

Enough to think about tonight........

 

regards,


Reinier