Very good photo taking into account all circumstances! I have a question regarding your logo: is it Photoshoped or is really hanging on that wall ?
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Im really interested in what you decide to do as I am waiting for the Sigma 150-600 to see how it compares to the Canon 200-400. Obviously its not going to be the same but will the Canon be worth $10000 extra? I dont mind paying if it is but for a lens that wont be my primary Im kinda thinking about the Sigma.. .hoping there is some reviews coming out asap!
In the good old days of film, I shot a lot of Kodachrome64... When lighting was not good your options were to use artificial lights or stop taking pictures. My second body usually had a roll of "high speed" film in it... ISO400 or ISO800..... same problem.... loose the light and you go home.
My first digital DSLR was unusable at ISO800 and topped out at a very noisy ISO1600. Now there isn't a DSLR (or mirrorless) on the market that does not produce better results at ISO12,800 than film did at ISO800.... and the numbers are slowly creeping upward.
Last night I mounted a laser pointer on the top of my camera and tried taking pictures of the cats chasing the red dot. You could not see the red dot. I turned the lights down low and cranked up the ISO to 12800 and it worked very well. These are shots that were impossible before and I have come to accept this as normal.... so yes, I need high ISO....
This is very true. Good cameras have always been expensive and out of the hands of most people. Now however, we in the digital age have gotten spoiled some with the advances in technology and I think the "noise" comparisons between film and digital are largely being forgotten.
I don't really stop and think about what ISO I need my 7D to be at to get the shot. I use whatever ISO I need to get the shot I want. I have said this in the past that I have shot as high as ISO 3200 with hummingbirds in flight and after processing the images look fantastic, both on screen and in print.
Guys are doing today with digital that could never have been accomplished with film back in the day. I think noise levels today are very acceptable even with crop sensors and you should buy the camera body that you need at the price you can afford and then use the heck out of it.
I also think because of computers too many people have become "pixel peepers" and look way too closely at the images they take. I usually print my photos at 11 x 14 and even at higher ISO's with my 7D they look great. Looking at an image zoomed in at 100% will destroy just about any image and I think any camera would have a hard time holding up to someone who is convinced that viewing them at that large of size is the only way to judge a camera's worth.
The way I look at it is, once I have processed my RAW image (regardless of what ISO I used on my 7D) and converted it to Jpeg and if the image looks good on screen, then make a print to be sure... good to go!
My 2 cents.
Maybe we are spoiled...however, maybe we are on the cusp of another revolutionary leap forward in IQ again. Ten years from now, we could be looking back at today, and saying the very same thing about noise levels today as we are about noise levels with film.
Yes, we have amazing technology today, and it's allowed for wonderful things. However, counter to "We have it great" is, we could have it better. And, we likely WILL have it better. Most companies are rocketing forward at lightning speed on all camera capability fronts. I know that Samsung doesn't have a great lens selection yet...but, YET. They have a 7D II killer on their hands (well, with the exception that the high speed 15fps rate is 12-bit RAW, which is kind of a Samsung killer ). All they really need is a great lens selection and a reliable support department. Those things simply need time to accumulate and build up.
Same goes for Sony...they are redefining a lot of the market today, and like Nikon, throwing out a lot of products to see what sticks (although I actually think Sony is doing a better job with product naming and whatnot than Nikon has ever done). It is, again, only a matter of time before Sony's lens lineup bulks up, and they have the benefit of Zeiss behind their glass.
Ten years from now, 14-16 stops of DR (maybe even as much as 20...there are already video sensors that do that with multi-bucket exposures) and ultra, ultra low noise, even at ultra high ISO settings, will be so common that we'll be looking at todays cameras like we look at film. For me, I honestly wonder if Canon will be a big player in that future. They may have lenses and support, but their products, technologically, are being matched or surpassed by even the likes of Samsung....
Though these jpegs look promising; Tony Northrop has a preliminary review concluding little to no improvement over the 7D; while Scott Kelby claims, " It's "high" ISO performance is the best he's ever seen on an APS-C camera".
I'm hoping Kelby's conclusion is the "correct" one!
Maybe I'm just losing hope. I've been following this site much longer than I've been a forum member and I don't understand why Canon is so reluctant to develop/release lenses that they should know their customer base keeps hoping for.