If they like "playing" with the sensors they might as well make a lower noise/higher DR one
(Let the debates begin... )
(Let the debates begin... )
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.
Hey not Nikon trolls at all here (I do not have anything Nikon - not even a PS)$100 off...soon will drop to $1500;)
The price in the picture is the kit price with lens, and even that changed to the latest [cr] - obviously Canon lowered the price in the meantime to counter Nikon...
.... but the pre-order price is released and THE RESULTS ARE IN (this is also in the first post):
25% of you were correct
12% guessed too low
63% guessed too high - don't you Nikon trolls trust our favorite brand to be reasonable :-p ?
Now, that was the worst thing to say. Everyone will wait for that camera and will not buy 70D at all19 AF points and a D-pad. To whomever said it would need a joystick, sorry...told ya!
Joystick will be in 7D II with 1D X or 5D III 61points AF system - 10fps
Well, that ought to DRum up some DRead from the DRoll DRones who DRool over DR, and DRag many a forum thread down the DReary path of DRivel, DRaining into puddles of DRoss.DRoolific sentence
Loctite Blue 242 is 'semipermanent' - a good hard pull with a long-handled hex key and the screws will come out. But they won't work loose on their own. Loctite has other products with a much stronger 'permanent' bond.Once more 100% precise. Thanks
RRS doesn't use distributors - you buy direct from them. They do ship internationally.
I owned both 1.4x and 2x extenders V.II for use on my 500/4 V.1 and 300/2.8 V.1 and when they V.III extenders were released, I upgraded both.It is worth. I have always been satisfied with my EF1.4X II but until recently the only use of EF2X II that was really worth was back in 2006 when I had used my 300mm f/4L (non-IS) with that 2X teleconverter and photographed the total eclipse.
I didn't really see any noticeable difference with the new 1.4x (perhaps just a tad in the corners) but I did find a noticeable improvement with the 2x on both lenses. Across the entire frame. I rarely used the V.II 2x because I was never really happy with the results. Now I use the V.III 2x all the time and am very happy with the IQ it delivers with both my 1D Mark IV and my 5D Mark III bodies.
If I had it to do again, I would not bother to upgrade the 1.4x extender for my use.
Just my personal experience, for what it's worth.
I have read that autofocus speed decreases by 50% with EF1.4X III and by 75% with EF2X III.I just got 500 II, paid a lot and if the difference is so small as negligible I prefer to not spend more money for now (I have version II teleconverters).
If you only shoot the moon and other things which move slowly or not at all, there's not a substantial benefit to upgrading. But if your subjects move, the improved autofocus performance with the MkIII extenders is reason to upgrade, if not for the IQ benefit.
This is a very interesting piece of information. Unfortunately it seems to me that the weakest link in IQ is the EF2X II so if I were to upgrade I would first replace that very lens.Another point is Canon III extenders don't stack because of the protrusion (perhaps it's for weather resistence, but probably more for preventing us from using them in ways they weren't designed -- Murphy-proofing).
It's the extra elements in the 2xIII. You can still stack a 1.4xIII behind a 2xII. With the MkIII extenders, you can put a 12mm extension tube between them to stack...if you're willing to take the IQ hit from stadking, that is...
They are a tiny bit sharper, probably not worth upgrading unless you are super critical, or, of course, if you have one of the new super-teles at $10K +, why not.Have you verified that? I mean there are tests at TDP some of which show the III just a little better but some show them equal. I was thinking about version II telephotos in which case I guess everyone would say go for version III but come on have you made comparison tests? Even TDP has tests only with version III.
The older lens looks essentially new -- not even a mark on the tripod foot.Then it is probably less used and/or more well taken care of. So it must be a better choice.