Sigma is trying to put the smack down on Nikon , Canon. Interesting times ahead. Even if just a CR1 rumor.
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.
For RAW shooters, 'better ISO and IQ' with a newer Digic processor is no more than marketing BS (which is the worst-smelling kind!).The world is a much richer place thanks to marketing. For instance, where would we be without 'unlimited' data plans with limits on them?
+1 LOL Seriously...
Artie's subjective evaluations are convenient, because he can change his mind, even contradict previous statements, and it's all 'ok' because it's subjective.
@jrista - I have both the 1.4xIII and 2xIII, and after the novelty of f/8 AF (with effectively a single point) wore off, I usually use the 1.4x, and only rarely the 2x. YMMV...
Outsanding!Yea, that 7D was not an easy camera for me to use. It took me 4-5 months before I really started to appreciate the information you could extract from the photos. My sharpest and most detailed shots are with it. With out a doubt what so ever for me to say that. I love detailed photos.
But? I didn't realize how poor the AF was until I went with a IV camera. For me it was a trade off well worth it. And I also think I would go with a 1DX or 5D III before ever going back to the 7D. Just for the AF.
The mark IV is the easiest camera I have ever worked with. But I cannot push it near as far as I did the 7D. The info is just not there to use and push.
My experience anyway, and my way of post processing. What really amazed me is in PS I could de noise and sharpen the 7D back to incredible detailed pics. With the IV I cannot. In my mind that is pixel density at work. Just amazing.
www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotosQuoteI also think I would go with a 1DX or 5D III before ever going back to the 7D. Just for the AF.I can understand and appreciate that. I thought the AF on the 7d was fantastic once I conquered it... It was far superior to the 60d I purchased or any of the Rebels I've owned.
That being said, I had no idea how incredible the AF would be on the 5D III when I purchased it! After using it for 6 months, I came to the realization that I wasn't using my 7d at all anymore... I then took it out for a couple of jaunts to the lake and wow, I kept putting it down and grabbing my 5d III... I have way more keepers with the 5d III than my 7d.
I did take quite a bit of time to research and put into practice, the tweaking of my 5d III settings and have improved even more since then...
I likely wouldn't pick up another 7d, though still very fond of it but I would definitely like to see what the MK II will bring to the table with regard to AF. I think they are going to make it quite mouth watering...
I am reading (most of) these posts with interest. It may be that someone else has touched on this, since the number of posts is fairly high, but I´ll give it a go.
I am not an expert on all the technical aspects of the bodies we are discussing. I am first and foremost a photographer, trying to get the best images with what I have. Currently I use 1DX and 5DIII as my main bodies, but I also have 1DIV and 7D. And I am looking forward to the 7DII. But my main concern is AF and not IQ. For everything that stands still, I prefer to use FF bodies (a few thousand reasons have been posted before this one). I have lots of high quality glass to get the framing right, so my interest for a cropped camera is only for long reach.
As I see it, the real benefit of a 1.6x sensor, besides cheaper lenses, is in combination with a 400/500/600mm tele, possibly combined with extenders. The AF system will work on a closer framed image and thus give me a better opportunity to secure focus on the specific part I want in focus. When I crop an image from a FF, it´s more of a gamble. But currently, the AF systems on both the 1DX and the 5DIII are so much better than the current 7D, that you don´t really have an advantage with a cropped sensor. So at the moment my 7D stays in the bag (actually at home). But with the 7DII, that may all change.
So, I cross my fingers and hope for a best possible AF system and good high-ISO performance (rather than very high resolution) on the 7DII. I´d be interested if some of you more technically competent could comment on this.
Is Topaz much better than the NR in PS? I have never tried anything but PS.
It seems to be to me. I wouldn't say by a hugely significant margin, but it seems to do less damage to detail, and is definitely more configurable. It does noise reduction and detail recovery, as well as debanding in both horizontal and/or vertical. It has black level correction, as well as independent shadow, highlight, red, and blue channel fine tuning.
So far, I have not seen much need to really tweak much beyond the basic "RAW - light" or "RAW - moderate" presets. If, for whatever reason, I find detail loss in my subject to be too much, I simply mask off the subject in Photoshop, copy it to it's own layer in place, and run a preset on the base layer...and my critical subject detail remains 100% untouched. I rarely spend more than a couple minutes per image, five at most, getting results that to me seem to be ideal (something I never quite felt with just Photoshop or Lightroom noise removal.)
As usual I was thinking of me only. You are right of course. Point well taken. If I were shooting sports and in that arena. I would also be using a tripod and good head.
Yea, send me the pics...
No, you are right, in fact we both are. They are handholdable but not for any serious lengths of time, and believe me you would not be using a tripod at a major sporting event.
As for the pics of all the birds I know that fart, my gf threatened me with some serious surgery if I sent you anything that resembles her. Bizarrely, she did say I could send you those of her ex bf's gf. Go figure..... ;-)
I have the 600 II and am awaiting the arrival of my 200-400 .... But, neither of them are light, and hand holding them is not as easy as some of you on this board seem to think it is. Doable, certainly, but challenging, YES. Way too much lens for a small person or a woman to handle, without being on a tri-pod (Wemberley) or at least a monopod
I am glad someone pointed that out. I keep reading different posts with people saying the 400, 500 and 600 ii lenses are handholdable. They are, but only for a (very) limited period of time.
The 600 ii is just under 4kg add that to a 1D X which is 1.4 kg or something, giving you a combined total of around 5.5kgs.
Not sure about that statement. I have the new 500 II. I have had it for about 6 months and it has been on a tripod maybe a hand full of times. I shoot daily with it. I also had the old 500 IS and it lived on a tripod. The loss of 1.5 lbs made this a hand hold-able rig for me. The only time I even think about a tripod is when I add a 1.4 t.c. which is very seldom. I shoot small to medium size birds.
99% of what you see here is handheld.
You have some lovely shots there, and 10/10 for the domain name birdsthatfart!! That's brilliant.
I guess that it depends on your style of shooting and what you shoot. I do mainly sports which means I am often seated and need to keep the camera pretty much horizontal for long periods of time. I of course use a monopod for this, if I didn't I would tire quickly.
I also have to carry all my gear (a lot of stuff) from the train station/car park to the media centre to the pitch, up and down steps, etc etc which is pretty good work out by itself.
As you are shooting birds mainly, I would imagine that you do not keep your camera and lens up horizontally for very long periods, is that right?
So I think handhodable depends on what we are doing and how long we are keeping the camera at eye level for.
Oh and I know a couple of birds that fart, I may send you their pictures!