24-105 Vs 24-70 Mk ii

[boristhemoggy]

I've been looking at the 24-70 2.8 mk ii but it's a shed load of money. Is it really that much difference to a 24-105? I mean in the real world, would you really notice any improvement of image quality?

[ebiggs1]

"The 5DSr is to me, what the 5D3 ought to have been."

Not possible because the high ISO of the 5d3 is worlds apart from the 5Ds.  There is an't any way a general use camera can give up that much ISO performance.

[ebiggs1]

"I see the new 1Dx II as just the opposite, as being optimized for taking action shots of moving subjects."

There is no doubt the 1Dx Mk II remains the speed king but it is still a 'general' use camera.  Putting it in to a niche already is probably premature.

[boristhemoggy]

So far, I've found noise control to be much better on the 5DSr. Time will tell but the ability of the 5D3 to go beyond 6400 ISO could well be simply smoke and mirrors with no real benefit.

[ebiggs1]

"... the ability of the 5D3 to go beyond 6400 ISO could well be simply smoke and mirrors ..."

Now you don't really mean that?  The 5D3 is not new.  It has proven its worth. Time and time again.

The problem with the 5Ds and all mega MP sensors is pixel size.  Its pixel size is 4 µm.  The 5D3 has 6 1/4 µm.  Bigger buckets if you will = more light gathering ability.  Actually the 5Ds has the same size pixel as the new 7D Mk II and the same poorer low light performance.

IMHO, as always of course.

[ebiggs1]

BTW to carry this a little farther the diffraction limit of such a sensor (5Ds or 7D Mk II) is going to be approx f6.3 vs f10+ for the 5D Mk III or my 1Ds Mk III.

This is where diffraction begins to visibly affect the image sharpness.  As the sensor pixel density increases I.E. smaller pixel, the narrowest aperture that can be used to get perfectly sharp images. It is the point where IQ begins to be compromised.

Of course all this is paper talk and what you see in actual use may be somewhat different.  Or it may not be a factor at all.  But the fact remains it is there.

[Waddizzle]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"I see the new 1Dx II as just the opposite, as being optimized for taking action shots of moving subjects."

There is no doubt the 1Dx Mk II remains the speed king but it is still a 'general' use camera.  Putting it in to a niche already is probably premature.

---

No niche.  I think every Canon body is a "general use" camera. 

It's just that I see each of the different full-frame bodies as having a different set of design priorities and compromises.  As you say, the 1Dx Mk II is the speed king.  I think we said the pretty much same thing.

[ebiggs1]

I have already run across some guys that claim the 1Dx Mk II's strong suit is as a video camera.  Some say it is a sports camera only.  It isn't even in full use yet.  I am going to wait and see what shakes out.

[Waddizzle]

The 1Dx Mk II has one major strike against it for use as a video camera.  While it can record 4K video, it cannot output 4K on the HDMI port to an external recorder, something which some competing models can do. 

External recording removes the memory limitations of memory card when recording high frame rates at 4K.  Each second of 4K video is comprised of as many as 60 8MP still images, which works out to roughly 500 MBytes/sec.  

[ebiggs1]

You and the others that have mentioned this to me are wasting your time.  I have no interest in video.  I don't care if it did any video at all.  Let alone whatever 4k is.

[boristhemoggy]

I wish DSLR's had the option of NOT having video to make them cheaper. If I wanted to video I'd use a video camera.
Anyway, I finally decided to buy the Tamron 24-70 2.8 lens.
It beats the Canon 24-105 and the Canon 24-70 2.8 MKi.
I'll find out what sort of performer it is at the weekend at a wedding.