Been waiting for this for quite some time. Would have preferred it at 50% of the MSRP.. but great to see they finally made something for the iPad.
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.
@clostridium - not to be difficile , but while the 100-400 is slightly better in terms of IQ than the 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2xIII, it's not better enough to be significant in real-world shooting. (Note this applies to the MkII version of the 70-200 only.) I have them both, and the difference isn't great enough to warrant taking both white zooms, IMO.
There have been no upgrade rumors. Its not a fast selling lens, and is not easy to resell, .
quite happy to know i can use for portraits as well!
I like your suggestion. Didn't really think about having one or the other with a prime. Now the question with having one or the other with a prime is whats the perfect prime to complement either one. I think the 70-200 with a 40 would be nice but then how would you get those wide shots when needed?
That goes both ways. However, the 24-70 II and the 70-200 II are approximately the same price. A tele prime in the 135-200mm range is several hundred dollars. If you get the 200/2.8, you'll likely not use it after getting the 70-200 II. A 40/2.8 is $150, and given it's conveniently small size, it's useful even after having the 24-70 II.
As for wide shots, someone here (apologies for forgetting who) has pointed out that the 40/2.8 has an exit pupil that's basically at the body, so doing a quick handheld pano shot and stitching the resuting images together is quite easy with that lens, when 40mm isn't wide enough.
If the 7D MKII will have a crop sensor, I do not understand how the camera will have as good of high ISO performance as the full frame 5D MKIII.
Does anyone think the speculation of the 7D MKII high ISO performance is based on the in camera jpeg processing, or are they actually talking about the RAW files?
That will never happen. WHY? - You can't hold 1 gallon of water in 1/2 gallon bucket.
As long as the photographer is not entering a competition and not breaking its rules, to me it doesn't matter what the photographer does with the image, it is his image, his vision ...as far as I'm concerned he can remove/add whatever he wants. Those who are capable of making awesome changes/modifications will continue to do so while those who are incapable will continue to crib that it is unethical.
You missed the point. It's in the amplification process. If the older body (or cheaper body) does not have a good enough amplifier to distinguish signal from noise then your resultant image will be mush. Older sensor tech also is not a sensitive to photons as newer sensors.
But the OP was comparing 1DX and 5DIII raw and they are totally different sensors requiring completely different backend support. No doubt that Canon uses higher end support components on the higher end cameras. The reason is the same. Failure of the amplifier to pull photons from the background noise.No it's not false and it precisely answers your question. High pixel density captures less photons per pixel.
If that's the whole story, the 12 MP original 5D would have the most 'stretchable' RAW files. Does it? The 20D would have the same latitude as the 5DII, since the pixel density is the same. Does it?
Messing around last night. 5DIII, 100 2.8L Macro, MR14 ring flash, 2 extension tubes.That is so cool! How did you make it stay? Every time I approach one it walks up the tree
Quoteone must not choose which camera based solely on the RAW performance
Why on earth not? If outright IQ is a major consideration RAW performance is the benchmark. Any lens can be made to work on pretty much any camera, but we can't swap sensors.
But I'd love to know the actual real reason.
Any feedback is welcome. I'm still new to this whole photography thing.