11-02-2010, 05:40 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-02-2010, 05:41 PM by backcountryskier.)
A few observations:
Wide primes are an issue with APS gear. There is no solution, yet. Why not get a 17- something f/2.8 zoom?
Why switch brands? If you stick with Canon you'll be able to share lenses - a huge advantage. If you want a flipscreen you could get the 60D now. It weighs 750 g or thereabouts. Or you could sit tight and wait for the next rebel which almost certainly will have a flipscreen. It'll weigh 500 g or so.
I've got a 7D and 17-55 IS for home use. I have dragged this thing up a few mountains but it's a big brick in my pack. When I go traveling (I'm gone several months each year) I still reach for my trusty 400D and Tamron 17-50/2.8 (plus a few more lenses). It is an awesome setup, but it lacks IS, live-view, and video. I can envision myself in a year or two with a 600D and a stabilized 17-something lens (likely off-brand, Canon 17-55 is nice but it's too heavy for travel).
I have a feeling that you only read the OP and not the entire thread. Here's a summary + other info.
1. I'm not switching brands and never intended to. I wanted another system in order to enjoy both worlds.
2. Since the OP was posted I've decided to sell the Sony due to problematic ergonomics. I also never bought a Rebel because of the exact same reason.
3. Indeed, the Tamron 17-50/2.8 was a candidate as it offers AF and a very useful range. BTW, after getting the Tamron 60/2 for the A33 I'm happy I didn't as I'm experiencing a lot of AF hunting. In comparison, my 60/2.8 (also without AF limiter switch) is significantly quicker. I was then thinking about Sigma's HSM lenses but canceled it because of the selling decision.
4. I have the 7D, 17-55/2.8 IS and a host of other lenses. BTW, I also have the 18-55 IS (and 55-250 IS) when I want to travel light. Obviously, these were purchased before the Sony. Strangely, the 18-55 IS is also a lot quicker to focus than the 18-55 SAM. This leads me to suspect that inherently, Canon's AF system is a lot better than Sony's.
genotypewriter
Unregistered
[quote name='Yakim' timestamp='1284642025' post='2841']
No. My main problem is detailed in the OP. In short: There is not even a single lens that can answer all my requirements (fast + wide + small + AF). <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />
[/quote]
Yakim, I hate to sound this way... but I have a feeling that you've fabricated this problem so that you won't have to buy something. I mean, when photography is important to them, people carry the equipment that will take the shot they need:
[url="http://www.flickr.com/photos/move_lachine/4745050556/"]'550m above Hong Kong' by Thomas Birke[/url]
![[Image: 4745050556_e9e8cd3b18_d.jpg]](http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4077/4745050556_e9e8cd3b18_d.jpg)
[url="http://www.flickr.com/photos/le_carabinier/2886477517"]'atsuko67' by Sean Marc Lee[/url]
![[Image: 2886477517_33830a0ab4_d.jpg]](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3060/2886477517_33830a0ab4_d.jpg)
You don't have to travel around the world with a two tripod rig probably weighing close to 30kg in total... or not even a Pentax 67... just get yourself 5D2 or a D700 + a 24mm f/1.4 on either mount and stop sending people here round in circles <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' /> You did say in your o.p. that price wasn't a problem too, you know?
GTW
Sigh......
Please read my post above yours. And if it is not too much trouble to ask, each post on this thread.
I'll summarize by saying money is not an issue if weight and perfect fit to my needs are met.
genotypewriter
Unregistered
[quote name='Yakim' timestamp='1288769288' post='3931']
Sigh......
Please read my post above yours. And if it is not too much trouble to ask, each post on this thread.
I'll summarize by saying money is not an issue if weight and perfect fit to my needs are met.
[/quote]
And you should read my post <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' /> ... if money is not a problem, go for something that's there and something that'll do the job. What exactly do you want to shoot? You didn't mention this in your op... and since you're the person asking for help (supposedly), I think you should update the OP with these additional details that we require to make a suggestion to you, instead of asking people to read the entire thread.
Anyway, long story short... there's nothing that will satisfy you and this is exactly the situation that you want to be in... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' /> Money's in the bank, hands on the keyboard and shutters not released ;P
Sorry if this is not what you want to hear <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
It's not what I shoot (which is just about everything), it's what I shoot with. If you look at my reply to your question in page #2 you'll see what I was after. I got it all and I should have been happy but alas I'm not. It's mainly because of the ergonomics (last post on page #2).
Anybody wants a mint A33? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
I agree with genotypewriter... you made up some fictional requirements without any or any real reasons.
Example:
You want a DSLR with AF video. You are willing to buy a whole new system, but when i point out AF in shallow DOF DSLR video is a disaster, not a plus, you say that you don't shoot enough video to "justify buying another camcorder".
Camcorders cost nothing, yet you can justify buying a 2nd camera platform for unclear reasons? Ok...
You want a camera with a wide angle lens. Why? Never answered, you just "want it".
You want a camera that has an EVF. Why? Never answered, you just must love the downsides of EVF's I guess.
You want a small camera. But not a Canon, for its "bad ergonomics" (funny to say that about the compact DSLR with the best ergonomics). So you get a smaller Sony with way worse ergonomics.
And then you find out that small is not for you. Ok...
Simply put, a useless thread about finding something without purpose. One has to have hobbies, right?
Just get a camcorder for AF home video, and get a Voigtlander 20mm f3.5 SL II or Sigma 20mm f1.8 or Canon 24mm f1.4 for your 7D is you for still unknown reasons want a wide-ish prime for the 7D which is not too small for what you find comfortable.
In short: There is not even a single lens that can answer all my requirements (fast + wide + small + AF). <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />
Correct. So why ask?
FWIW I own both T17-50/2.8 non-VC and T90/2.8 macro. AF on 90/2.8 starts hunting as soon as you take it into the shade. 17-50/2.8 does great even in very low light (dim interior, city at night). Both are LOUD but very accurate (no microadjustment needed).
genotypewriter
Unregistered
[quote name='Yakim' timestamp='1288785187' post='3938']
I got it all and I should have been happy but alas I'm not. It's mainly because of the ergonomics (last post on page #2).
[/quote]
Ergonomics... heh...
[url="http://www.flickr.com/photos/wmliu/472410925/"]'girl and her large format'[/url]
![[Image: 472410925_6209cb769d_d.jpg]](http://farm1.static.flickr.com/168/472410925_6209cb769d_d.jpg)
[url="http://www.flickr.com/photos/capturelifeinaction/4024824404/"]'Camryn [9 y.o.] Shooting the 124G'[/url]
![[Image: 4024824404_4df8cca248_d.jpg]](http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2437/4024824404_4df8cca248_d.jpg)
[url="http://www.flickr.com/photos/grantbrummett/3732177261/"]100-400 IS[/url]
![[Image: 3732177261_84775e6748_d.jpg]](http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2635/3732177261_84775e6748_d.jpg)
[url="http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikebaird/4519090093/"]1D3 + 600/4 [/url]
![[Image: 4519090093_823e3630e1_d.jpg]](http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4011/4519090093_823e3630e1_d.jpg)
[url="http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/sigma_200-500_2_8_ex_dg_field_review_samples.htm"]200-500mm f/2.8 ... Juza[/url]
![[Image: 009475l.jpg]](http://www.juzaphoto.com/shared_files/articles/sigma_200-500/009475l.jpg)
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1288792756' post='3941']
I agree with genotypewriter... you made up some fictional requirements without any or any real reasons.[/quote]
Wrong. I wanted a camera that will complete my Canon set with things I lacked in it.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1288792756' post='3941']
Example:
You want a DSLR with AF video. You are willing to buy a whole new system, but when i point out AF in shallow DOF DSLR video is a disaster, not a plus, you say that you don't shoot enough video to "justify buying another camcorder".
Camcorders cost nothing, yet you can justify buying a 2nd camera platform for unclear reasons? Ok...[/quote]
AF in video was only one of my requirements. A camcorder would only answer that particular need but the A33 would theoretically answer all. Heck, I have two P&S that have AF in video.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1288792756' post='3941']
You want a camera with a wide angle lens. Why? Never answered, you just "want it". [/quote]
Never answered does not mean "Does not exist". On my Canon 7D I use my 17-55/2.8 IS a lot. I find it my most useful lens and the range is an important part of this. The 17-20mm range is used a lot.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1288792756' post='3941']
You want a camera that has an EVF. Why? Never answered, you just must love the downsides of EVF's I guess.[/quote]
Again, never answered does not mean "Does not exist". I don't like shooting through a screen. That's one of the main disadvantages I find in P&S.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1288792756' post='3941']
You want a small camera. But not a Canon, for its "bad ergonomics" (funny to say that about the compact DSLR with the best ergonomics). So you get a smaller Sony with way worse ergonomics.
And then you find out that small is not for you. Ok...[/quote]
You are right. Here indeed lies my biggest mistake. I got so carried away by the dazzling array of the features I wanted that I completely forgot about this crucial issue.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1288792756' post='3941']
Simply put, a useless thread about finding something without purpose. One has to have hobbies, right?[/quote]
Wrong, and I hope I was able to clarify this in my answers to your questions. Again, I wanted something (i.e. another system) that will give me what I don't have in my Canon system while retaining some of the things I was after. Example: Other than the kit I also got the Tamron 60/2. The Canon 60/2.8 is one of my most used lenses. Mounting the 60/2 onto the A33 would give me two advantages over the 7D + 60/2.8 set: Faster aperture (for non-macro use) and AS.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1288792756' post='3941']
Just get a camcorder for AF home video, and get a Voigtlander 20mm f3.5 SL II or Sigma 20mm f1.8 or Canon 24mm f1.4 for your 7D is you for still unknown reasons want a wide-ish prime for the 7D which is not too small for what you find comfortable.[/quote]
I said it above:
1. A camcorder would only answer that particular need but the A33 would theoretically answer all.
2. The 17-20mm range is used a lot.
|
