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]

"No offence but your opinion isn't fact either."

Oh, no offence taken but it isn't just my opinion.  Because nearly every, if not every single reputable testing facility confirms it.

And you are free to choose whatever your own opinion tells you to.

[boristhemoggy]

Thing is almost every testing place says the Sony AR7ii beats the Canon 5DSr in noises, detail and low light performance. I've tested both and found the Canon to be better.
Reviews leave me cold, that's why I like to ask people who actually own gear what they think of it. Official tests don't always reflect real world usage.

[ebiggs1]

"Official tests don't always reflect real world usage."

And neither do real world people. Most have an agenda.   So how about re-stating it, the consensus is the Canon ef 24-70mm f2.8L II is the best of its kind?

[boristhemoggy]

Yeah I like that. 

I recall some years ago now saying that the 5D2 was not much of an upgrade to the 5D and that in some ways it wasn't a very good camera. I posted dozens of photos to back up my claim and gave in depth reasons. 
I faced a barrage of crticism from Canon fanboys who were determined to prove I was talking rubbish and that it was in fact a fine camera. 
When the 5D3 came out everyone rushed to say what a fabulous camera it was and how the 5D2 was rubbish....

The odd thing is that none of them produced comparison photos to prove their point. 
I'll be doing a comparison shoot between the 5D and the 5DSr soon to prove another point: the 5DSr is a reat camera, better at some things in some ways than the 5D, but for some purposes there's no real difference between them. I will of course be posting lots of photos so people don't just have to take my opinion. 🙂

[ebiggs1]

I share your opinion about the 5D vs 5D Mk II.  As a matter of fact I sold my Mk II.  I later sold the 5D for a Mk III. Which is an outstanding camera.  But I later sold it in favor of my 1Ds Mk III.  I know high ISO is going to the 5D Mk III but most everywhere else I prefer the Ds3.

I am still on the fence about the new 5Ds.  So far all I see is 50MP!  Which is great if you have lenses to support it.

[Waddizzle]

"I am still on the fence about the new 5Ds.  So far all I see is 50MP!  Which is great if you have lenses to support it."

I look at the 5Ds and I see a camera that has been optimized for taking shots of still subjects.  I see the new 1Dx II as just the opposite, as being optimized for taking action shots of moving subjects. 

[boristhemoggy]

The 5DSr is to me, what the 5D3 ought to have been. The colours are excellent and there's so much detail that even though we're told the dynamic range is the same, it appears to be much better as shadows are cleaner.
Finally, sharp images! However only as sharp as the 5D I first bought so long ago.

[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.

[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.