« on: November 06, 2014, 08:14:47 AM »
Not meaning to pick on you, but you've said a few things I wanted to reply toI use a 5D mark III and I think that, overall, the new high megapixel Sony sensors. I shoot landscapes/architecture/portraiture/food/street photography/food...Quote
They do not test AF capability, or many of the other camera characteristics.
Sensor IQ is the only real baseline comparison aspect for all cameras.QuoteI don't care if they rated it as the best camera or the worst, their numerical rating system does not point a buyer toward what he needs to buy for his use.
I don't know about that. It told me what I needed to know (and what I already guessed at): don't pay $1800 for ancient crop tech.
For many of us wildlife shooters, AF is extremely important. I appreciate your chosen subjects tend to be larger (mammals or large birds), so it's probably less important to you - but to generalise from that to say sensor performance (at low ISO) is all that matters in comparisons is extraordinarily blinkered.What about the shots where a grizzly bear is backlit at low ISO's? Or a soaring golden eagle?
Low ISO dynamic range is extremely useful for wildlife
Also, excusing away technological improvements based on usage guesstimates is really an argument against improvement in general.
Those are valid cases, but hardly representative. I try to avoid backlit situations - all equipment has limitations, and I'm well aware that this would challenge my sensor. But I find backlit/silhouetted wildlife shots mostly less aesthetically pleasing anyway. A personal view, but these are all personal views. As for a bird against the sky, so long as the sky is blue I don't find any problem. On a white sky, it's rarely worth shooting anyway - except for records. I'm not sure marginal/unusual cases are the way to decide whether a camera is good or not.
That's exactly what DxO does. They give Canon *zero* credit in the way of points for the amazing anti-flicker feature or for great weather sealing,
Those are peripheral features, and usually overcome by even decent photogs. Bad sensor IQ is a bit tougher too get around.
Actually you can get around any limitation - as I say above, it might involve not shooting in certain conditions, but we all do that. And since when was Canon sensor IQ (even at low ISO) *bad*? It's not as good as some of the competition. Not as good does not mean bad.I've always shot with canon, I love my lenses (specially my t-s 24) and my 5D mIII, but I sincerely hope they put a sony sensor on their 5D IV, since it will be a killer combo for travel photography.
After waiting for so long, I've given up on the idea they will catch up on sensor technology.
Is there anything wrong on wanting to have the best camera system (for my needs) and the best sensors (for my needs)?
I't seems that whenever someone mentions the sony sensors is, at best, heavily criticized.
You think that's what's happening on these forums? I try to remain neutral, but it seems mostly that the pro-Sony/anti-Canon/low ISO DR fanatics (call them what you will) are the ones who say their personal needs are all that counts - this camera is bad because it doesn't have the best low ISO DR, AF isn't important etc. And then anyone who says 'actually I'm content with what I've got, or interested by what has just been released' is a fanboy, or hates innovation or whatever. Everyone has different needs. Incidentally, is a crop sensor camera the best choice for travel anyway? I don't know what you're shooting, but I imagine landscapes/architecture is part of it - so you'd maybe want the widest FOV possible, and AF/fps isn't so important, so why choose the 7D2 at all?
You are proving my point. I'm neither pro sony nor anti-canon or low iso dr fanatic. Of course that my needs are all that counts for my photography. Thats why I only talk about what I would like to have and not judge anybody else's preferences.