September 02, 2014, 09:33:01 PM

Show Posts

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.


Messages - jrista

Pages: 1 ... 87 88 [89] 90 91 ... 278
1321
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5DIII - too grainy or not?
« on: February 11, 2014, 04:44:47 PM »
I have to go out and practice. Thanks. ;)

The quick rule of thumb that I follow with ETTR is, always make sure that some part of the histogram is at least part way into the rightmost histogram section or box (in the background, the histogram is divided up into vertical sections). I always try to make sure that my histograms reach 1/2 to 2/3rds of the way into that rightmost box. I could probably push it farther, however when it comes to birds and wildlife which are always on the move, highlights change too much, and I don't want to clip any. It may be for you that at least 2/3rds to 3/4s of the way into the rightmost box is better. Just give it some experimentation, and you'll get a feel for what works for you, and how much of the highlights you want to preserve.

1322
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the next xD cameras do 4k?
« on: February 11, 2014, 04:38:58 PM »
Sure, Canon and Nikon are moving negligible numbers of soft drink units, just as Coca Cola is moving negligible numbers of dSLRs and MILCs.

That's my point -- if someone brings up the tired and quite deceptive point "but how many units are RED moving compared to Canon" it would then also be correct to point to the ridiculous comparison to softdrink sales.  Hence, I don't believe the following statement (by JohnDizzo15) is very relevant to the issue at hand; "I can see where a company like RED and BM may be concerned. But how many units do those two companies move per year? Again, neglible numbers relative to what companies like Canon and Nikon are moving." 

So to repeat myself; if, as JohnDizzo15 said, the "key factor" is price -- when Canon's cheapest 4K camera currently cost $12k while Panasonic's 4k is a mere $2k -- I believe the 1DC folks are now scrambling ahead of NAB.  And even the brilliant guys at RED most likely pay notice to this release -- 4K for $2k might actually be something that's "going to revolutionize the industry" (to use John Dizzo's words), the same way the 5D2 did (six years ago).   

Love, peace & understanding,

-- peer

You continue to miss my point. I am not saying that the key factor is price for their whole line of products. I am saying that it is a key factor for the mass sale items i.e. the things that sell in the most volume and bring in the most revenue like the Rebel line as those are the things that are catering to the common consumer.

In order for the GH4 to have an impact on Canon's decision making process with regard to their xD lines and 4k, the GH4 would have to have significant impact on the sales of the 70D and Rebel. I do not believe that this will happen hence Canon will not react.

Revolutionizing an industry (the DSLR market here specifically) will require that you impact the market in such a significant way that you end up forcing everyone else to make moves to catch up. The GH4 is not going to do that to Canon right now.

Let me just throw this out there then for all the people that think the GH4 is going to revolutionize the industry. How many of you believe that Panasonic will sell enough of these and dip into the sales of the 70D and Rebels that it will cause Canon to move?

^-- This right here is an excellent point! --^

Canon sells SO MANY cameras, that competing products like the GH4 have to be SIGNIFICANT game changers to make an impact.

The D800, technologically speaking, WAS a significant game changer...and even the much vaunted 2 additional stops of DR the D800 offered was STILL not enough to topple Canon's dominance. It wasn't enough to take the crown away from the 5D III as the most popular higher end DSLR on the market for the last several years. Hell, it wasn't even enough to really make much of a climb up into the top ranking DSLRs sold over the last several years.

Canon won't be responding with 4k video in any of their cameras any time soon. As much as some few individuals would LOVE to have it, and I applaud them for their desire to move up to better and more capable equipment, Canon builds products that sell massive numbers for the markets they are positioned in, and they do it conservatively (without taking the risk and expenditure on new features until they are certain those features will mean increased sales.)

1323
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the next xD cameras do 4k?
« on: February 11, 2014, 04:28:24 PM »
...
I am also not sure all that many people truly understand the value of having 4k video, especially when the output is still going to be 2k or 1k for years to come. Those who do, probably also understand the value of having a more dedicated video system, like Cinema EOS.

You don't need Cinema EOS to understand the value in shooting 4K now. Shooting 4K now allows you to deliver 1080p video now and in n years time, remaster your video and all of a sudden you can offer people 4K content in addition to 1080p content.

There you go again. You COMPLETELY INVERTED my statement. I never said you needed Cinema EOS to understand the value of shooting 4k. I said if you understood the value of 4k, you would have a better appreciation for Cinema EOS. You LITERALLY INVERTED my statement. Good god..when do you stop twisting words and obfuscating facts, man!

No but you implied that Cinema EOS is needed for 4k.

No. I said that a full understanding of 4k implies the need for something better, like Cinema EOS, to fully take advantage of it.

Which I and those already shooting 4K with non-Cinema EOS equipment would disagree with.

You can disagree all you want. Doesn't change the fact that you twisted my words, again. Inverting my (or others) statements to make an argument is what ticks me off about you, and whether you disagree with me or not, you don't have any right to misrepresent what I've said to bolster your own argument. Make your own damn argument! You need to learn how to have a discussion without twisting people's words and obfuscating the facts in order to further your side of the debate.

You disagreeing is your prerogative, but it doesn't change the fact that the majority of people buying DSLRs wouldn't know what to do with 4k if it slapped them in the face. For the people who do know what 4k is and what it offers, many already make the argument that all they need is 2k. For everyone else, that currently small group, there are already plenty of options, albeit as Neuro pointed out, in smaller sensors.

Canon, being the conservative company they are, will only deliver 4k video in their DSLRs when 4k video is about to become a BIG thing for the masses. They won't deliver it in their higher end DSLRs yet because it is currently a niche interest in a budding amateur market. Under different and much better economic circumstances, I could see Canon getting on the ball sooner rather than later, but the world's economies are still struggling, there are a myriad of factors dragging the major world economies down, and Canon won't put time, money, and effort into something that is still quite niche until that that fact changes. Adding 4k video now might sell a handful of additional high end DSLRs...it wouldn't dramatically change the bottom line for Canon, certainly not enough to justify the up-front costs in making it happen.

1324
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the next xD cameras do 4k?
« on: February 11, 2014, 03:43:45 PM »
...
I am also not sure all that many people truly understand the value of having 4k video, especially when the output is still going to be 2k or 1k for years to come. Those who do, probably also understand the value of having a more dedicated video system, like Cinema EOS.

You don't need Cinema EOS to understand the value in shooting 4K now. Shooting 4K now allows you to deliver 1080p video now and in n years time, remaster your video and all of a sudden you can offer people 4K content in addition to 1080p content.

There you go again. You COMPLETELY INVERTED my statement. I never said you needed Cinema EOS to understand the value of shooting 4k. I said if you understood the value of 4k, you would have a better appreciation for Cinema EOS. You LITERALLY INVERTED my statement. Good god..when do you stop twisting words and obfuscating facts, man!

No but you implied that Cinema EOS is needed for 4k.

No. I said that a full understanding of 4k implies the need for something better, like Cinema EOS, to fully take advantage of it.

1325
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the next xD cameras do 4k?
« on: February 11, 2014, 03:33:32 PM »
...
I am also not sure all that many people truly understand the value of having 4k video, especially when the output is still going to be 2k or 1k for years to come. Those who do, probably also understand the value of having a more dedicated video system, like Cinema EOS.

You don't need Cinema EOS to understand the value in shooting 4K now. Shooting 4K now allows you to deliver 1080p video now and in n years time, remaster your video and all of a sudden you can offer people 4K content in addition to 1080p content.

There you go again. You COMPLETELY INVERTED my statement. I never said you needed Cinema EOS to understand the value of shooting 4k. I said if you understood the value of 4k, you would have a better appreciation for Cinema EOS. You LITERALLY INVERTED my statement. Good god..when do you stop twisting words and obfuscating facts, man!

1326
@Rienz: I'm curious about the JPEG quality. You say these are strait out of camera JPEGs? When you move into the green backgrounds, the posterization and artifacting is really bad. Really quite bad, especially at the lower ISO settings. Any chance you could take a RAW and save it at maximum quality JPEG?
Hi Jon,
Unfortunately, I only shot them in JPG (as I had forgotten to change it back to RAW, after my recent timelapse session with the camera) ... also they are not straight out of the camera, I used LR 5.3 to add a bit of vibrance and saturation (with the brush tool), only to the flower ... as well as reduce the files sizes for posting here ... would the file size converstion cause the posterization and artifacting to the background? I'm not an accomplished photographer like you, so user error cannot be ruled out ... but I'll upload the full size JPGs (straight out of the camera) to dropbox or my Smugmug account and post the link, for your scrutiny ... but no harsh comments on user error please, I can't take it  ;D (just kidding, any comments on how I could improve the image, is always welcome).

I don't need to scrutinize if you resaved them with a higher compression ratio. That's what did it. Resaving any jpeg, even at high quality, has a pretty severely detrimental effect, especially with poserization. I thought the images were strait out of camera JPEGs, which is why I was surprised by the amount of posterization in the OOF background.

1327
@Rienz: I'm curious about the JPEG quality. You say these are strait out of camera JPEGs? When you move into the green backgrounds, the posterization and artifacting is really bad. Really quite bad, especially at the lower ISO settings. Any chance you could take a RAW and save it at maximum quality JPEG?

1328
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the next xD cameras do 4k?
« on: February 11, 2014, 02:39:23 PM »
It's a m4/3 camera.  Yawn.  If I want a little sensor and 4K video, I'll get a GoPro.   :P

Ditto.

I don't think Canon will put 4k into their DSLRs until 4k becomes more mainstream. It requires a fair amount of horsepower to process 4k video streams. Outside of 1D and 5D line users, I don't see most Canon DSLR owners having the necessary computing hardware or software to really make anything out of 4k.

I am also not sure all that many people truly understand the value of having 4k video, especially when the output is still going to be 2k or 1k for years to come. Those who do, probably also understand the value of having a more dedicated video system, like Cinema EOS.

1329
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5DIII - too grainy or not?
« on: February 11, 2014, 01:58:34 PM »
Thanks to all again, expecially to "jrista" for his comprehensive and understandable explanation.

@klickflip: I really don't know these tricks, I was just shooting. :P Ask me something about my hobby, if you want. (its in nickname) ;)
And I like your corrections.

I just didn't understand why an author of the linked article in dpreview.com said that it is a "must" to shoot at the base ISO. As "jrista" said in his post, the best option is to push ISO as high to reach ETTR with required (desired) shutter speed and f-stop.

I'm not sure why he would say that, unless he really doesn't actually understand the purpose of ETTR. The only time when I think always using ISO 100 with ETTR would be valid is for landscapes. Static scenes, where shutter speed can vary at will without any adverse affect, is the only time when you would want to lock yourself into ISO 100. For everything else, you really need to CHOOSE your shutter speed (and aperture, for the DOF you need), then you "push" exposure with ISO. If your shooting skateboarders, then your an action shooter, no question. The most critical factor for you is shutter speed...choose that, then push ISO. Trust me on this. :) I've been doing it for several years now with birds and wildlife.

I want to ask you one more thing (jrista or anybody else). In what way do you make an ETTR when you have one very very bright part of image. Like sun, small window in a dark room, or anywhere there is big dynamic range. Ok, HDR is one option but let say you want to make a single shoot. Will you sacrifice that bright part of an image with purpose to put the rest of an image into the right side of histogram. Or will you shoot like an author of the previously linked article where he put that window and sun on the right edge, but the major part of image was under exposed?

The real question is, what highlights are important? When the sun is in the picture, if there are any shadows at all, you have 20+ stops of dynamic range. Plan and simple. No DSLR camera on earth can capture 20 stops in a single frame. If your scene is static, you can do HDR. If your shooting action, you have two options: Add light to the shadows (i.e. flash or other artificial lighting), or choose what highlights and shadows to preserve, and "discard" the rest. If the sun is actually IN the frame, you can't capture it in any detail. It, and most likely a certain amount of sky around it, will be blown. That's just the fact of the matter.

But...that isn't a problem, either. You don't need, and don't necessarily even WANT, the sun and the deepest shadows to all be visible and detailed. Letting the sun and surrounding sky blow out is actually more desirable...maybe even artistic. Deepening the deepest shadows, while lifting the rest, and recovering highlights, will increase the contrast of the scene. @Kickflip actually demonstrated this very well with his first sample image...he attenuated the contrast curve, which produced a very artistic image.

It isn't possible to preserve unlimited dynamic range, and you shouldn't bother trying. Preserve what you can...and preserve what is important, and don't worry about the rest. That's what photographers do. It's what they have been doing for decades upon decades. In your work, at least the kind of work with the skateboarder, the only thing that REALLY matters in the scene is the skateboarder and his board. The rest of the scene is background and periphery content...it can be darkened or lightened or whatever you want to do, but the key subject in the scene is the boarder, his board, and maybe part whatever ramp or rail he kicked his trick off of.

Expose to the right...just shift your exposure as far to the right as YOU PERSONALLY believe is acceptable given the scene, it's lighting, and how much of the highlights YOU want to preserve. And go with that. The fundamental concept is pretty simple. There are no real hard and fast rules...that's probably the only rule you should REALLY learn about your photography: YOU are the photographer, it's YOUR art, own it and make it yours! ETTR is just a technical tool that allows you to create higher quality exposures that preserve more detail with less noise...when possible. But there are no rules...it's just a tool, like your camera, like your flash.

1330
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5DIII - too grainy or not?
« on: February 10, 2014, 05:38:56 PM »
@Climber:

ETTR is very simple: Expose to the right! That's really it. You honestly don't have to get too technical about it, and if you DO try to get too technical about it, your going to spend more time fiddling than photographing.

The concept is pretty strait forward. Noise in an image signal is a ratio of the saturation of the signal. When using a digital sensor, where exposure in post is effectively "fluid", you should maximize the saturation of your signal as best as possible, and correct the exposure in post. By "exposing to the right", you increase the number of pixels that have a higher signal to noise ratio, and thereby reduce the amount of noise in those pixels. You also put a larger percentage of the image signal above the read noise floor, and usually require a post-process exposure pull in order to correct, meaning you reduce the read noise floor even further than is otherwise the case.

The mechanics are also pretty simple. First, choose the shutter speed you REQUIRE in order to freeze the motion in your shot. Then, push ISO until your histogram reaches well into the right-most vertical box in the histogram display. You do not want the histogram to ride up the right-hand edge, and to maintain the best color fidelity in the highlights, you want the histogram to peak just a little before the right-hand edge, then fall.

Regardless of how the exposure looks when you do that, that is considered "correct exposure" in the digital world. Making the image look "correct" to human eyes is a post-processing matter, and a matter of personal taste, so don't bother trying to achieve that in camera. Just expose to the right. It's not really hard, and as you practice with it, you'll get a feel for how far to the right you can push without running the risk of clipping highlights you don't want clipped.

I also want to point out a fact about noise in regards to the processed image Marsu42 shared. He lifted the background shadows quite a bit, and revealed some banding noise. Banding noise like that is primarily a problem at the lower ISO settings. You were at ISO 200. To expose properly (without flash) you would very likely have been at ISO 800 or ISO 1600...at these settings, banding noise is extremely low to non-existent on most current Canon cameras (older cameras, like the 5D II, might still exhibit some banding at higher ISO settings.) You will still have read noise, but you'll be able to lift it more without that unsightly banding.

I use a Canon 7D myself currently, and I employ ETTR in most of my work. The 7D has terrible banding in the shadows at ISO 100, 200, and 400, but that banding is almost non-existent at ISO 800 and not present at higher ISO settings. I usually shoot at ISO 800 and above, and I often lift the shadows by several stops in photos where I try to preserve the highlights, which results in my key subject ending up mostly in the darker midtones and upper shadow tones. I never have problems with banding.

1331
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom for iPad Coming Soon
« on: February 10, 2014, 12:06:44 PM »
People who want to edit photos on a 9 inch screen are masochists.
WOW! :o ... I can understand that it does not meet your needs, but calling everyone (who will benefit from that feature) "mascohcists" is a highly opinionated and utterly ignorant comment.

Agreed. Wow.

1332
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Here is what Earth looks like from Mars
« on: February 10, 2014, 12:06:00 PM »
The really cool thing about viewing Earth from Mars is that Earth is inward of the solar system, rather than outward. It would exhibit phases like Venus does when viewed from Earth, as it orbits around the sun. So you would have New Earth phase, Waxing Earth Crescent, Waxing Earth Half, Waxing Earth Gibbous, Full Earth (largely obscured by the sun, only visible as it enters and leaves this phase, and then only moments after the sun has set on Mars), Waning Earth Gibbous, Waning Earth Half, Waning Earth Crescent.

Even cooler than Venus...with a powerful enough telescope, you could probably see the Moon's phases as well...what a sight that would be: Waxing Earth Crescent with a Waning Moon Half. :D
That would be an epic view ... one married guy from Qatar got selected to go on a one way journey to Mars, so maybe he'll get to see "Waning Earth Gibbous, Waning Earth Half, Waning Earth Crescent" etc

That would be one crazy trip. Maybe someone will bring along a 28" PlaneWave CDK and an ASA DDM160 mount for "Earth Observing". :P

I don't think it's going to happen, though. The sheer cost of such a trip is so astronomical, not even the world's most popular reality TV show could maintain the funding for it. It would become the single most expensive project the world has ever seen, and I don't think anyone can truly survive on Mars. Not permanently. Honestly, I think when the time comes, if they really do try, it'll end up being a disaster. There are SO many things that could go wrong, not the least of which is food and water supply problems, but also technical issues and personnel issues. Even assuming they try to maintain a supply chain of food and water deliveries, that just means the cost never ends, and they would always need funding.

The key problem with the Mars One mission is the masses of people who would be required to fund it by continually watching the reality show will eventually get bored. Even if the show maintained a core viewership that would never leave, they would never represent the tens of millions of sustained viewers necessary to extract the kind of advertising revenue necessary to sustain the mission.

There is also the inevitable TRUE realization of what these people are signing up for means...a ONE WAY trip to Mars. People think that's amazing right now...but there is no rescue plan, there is no return ship, there is no return period. It is a PERMANENT LIFE CHANGE, on a scale no one on Earth has experienced before. Psychologists can't gauge the effect of that on people, even if they try. That will have to sink in on multiple levels before people finally get it, and when they do, I'd say as much as half the people who sign up for a one way trip to Mars end up snapping once they are stuck there for a LONG year of MASSIVE hardship and the ever-present long-term threat of danger, going ape-S___ crazy, when they realize they are literally marooned on another planet with no hope of return...or at least, no hope unless the Mars One mission ends up building a rescue vessel (which would take years, so all these crazy people just keep on the crazy that whole time...you know what crazy people do to space missions...we've all seen the consequences of THAT via hollywood for enough years).  :o

Mars One...exciting idea...bad idea. Anyway...
Maybe a bunch of hot nud3 ch!cks, and some "Big Brother" style in-house fights/arguments, drama etc, might keep the reality show going for a few decades ;D ... I wouldn't mind contributing towards the first part ;D ;D

Yeah...lol...thats where I thought this conversation was going! :P

I suspect a bunch of hot nude chicks in a big brother style escapade is probably the best way to get everyone killed. At some point your going to get a couple of jersey shore-esque guidos going at it over the chick with big tits, and next thing you know an airlock pops open because the fools are fighting in it....derp, there goes the Mars One mission! Oh, gee, and we got to see a bunch of people bleeding from their eyes while they all died a horrifying death...on live TV...over a pair of tits....  :-\
Man you are a buzz kill  ;D... here I was thinking "happy thoughts" about "hot nud3 ch!cks à la Big Brother style" and you just killed them all in a gory fashion with bleeding eyes and what not  :o ... I propose we all think happy thoughts about those nice ch!cks floating gently in the capsule and the all "airlocks are tightly sealed" ... in addition they all reach safely to Mars and when the ch!cks are getting old, they are safely brought back to earth and replaced with newer hotter ones to live on Mars until they too are replaced and the cycle goes on to keep us all happy ... so whenever we get worked up about DxO discussions, we can go watch them live (or 5 to 15 minutes delayed transmission). So, please, no more killing of the hot ch!cks ... if gore is absolutely necessary for TRPs, (in order to keep Mars mission funding alive and healthy), a few of the dudes can go ;D

Hey man, you can get all that right here on earth! No need to wait for Mars One!  ;D Of course, if everyone on the mars one mission does eventually go bonkers, there is no reason to assume they wont all take their clothes off like normal crazy ppl and have crazy martian orgies while their minds disappear...you never know!  :P

1333
Lenses / Re: question about 600mm lenses
« on: February 10, 2014, 11:58:05 AM »
Reality check here.
High end TEC apochromatic refractor, all-fluorite triplet, f/5.6, 110mm front element diameter, for FL of 616mm, 18.5" long, 10 pounds (fits carry-on regulations) = $4,500.00 (special order)
http://www.optcorp.com/tec-110mm-f-5-6-apo-fluorite-refractor-telescope-110560.html

Least expensive 110mm apochromatic refractor, glass doublet, 110mm f/6.0 for FL 660mm, 21.5" long, 11.5# = $1,300.00
http://www.telescope.com/catalog/product.jsp?productId=103016&type=product

Bear in mind that these telescopes have manual focus with coarse and fine focus gearing, and don't have image stabilization.

Hmm, things can get MUCH more expensive than that. Officina Stellare Hiper APO 152, 152mm f/8 aperture, 1200mm focal length, carbon fiber and aluminum tubing, internal thermal control, laser collimation, explicitly designed as an astrograph: $11,928

http://telescopes.net/store/officina-stellare-hiper-apo-152-achromatic-refractor-telescope.html

As I said before: It's a matter of tolerances. Officina telescopes produce STUNNING quality, RAZOR sharp stars corner to corner. Because they enforce much tighter tolerances on every aspect of the scope...even down to the turbulence of the air inside the OTA in the spaces between the elements.

You get what you pay for. A $1300 APO refractor isn't going to have a flat field, it isn't going to be aberration free, it is going to suffer from thermal gradient issues and internal air turbulence problems, etc. (BTW, all of these things REALLY matter when it comes to astrophotography, they matter when it comes to the study of cosmic objects (particularly turbulence, it messes with Poisson spot shape), but they don't really matter for visual observing. You could easily get away with a $1300 APO for basic visual observation...it probably wouldn't cut it for anyone who's say looking for double or triple stars by analyzing Dawes diffraction spot shape, and it definitely wouldn't cut it for astrophotography.


1334
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5DIII - too grainy or not?
« on: February 10, 2014, 12:33:35 AM »
Don't forget this is a flash illuminated action shot, if HSS is not an option then 1/200 could well be it for shutter speed, that means everything else is a work around, the sync speed is often the only hard limit in this type of shooting situation.

Oh, sorry, didn't catch that it was a flashed shot.

That definitely changes some things. With direct flash, your bound to have a bright subject and dim background, which has the potential to increase noise in the background (especially if you lift it).

If shots like this are the primary reason for the camera then much more though needed to go into sync speed.

As for the background, there is still zero indication from the OP as to what he wanted the background to look like, I am sure, as he was using flash, the intention was to intentionally under expose the background, in which case a touch of noise reduction and a lowering of flash power is all he needs to do.

Agreed, there isn't enough noise in the background in the sample shot to be a problem. It would only take a feather touch of NR to eliminate it.

1335
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D vs. 70D: Which has better image quality?
« on: February 10, 2014, 12:31:00 AM »
Grrr  Not sure why the site thought I "forgot my password" when I quite emphatically DIDN'T forget it, but now that I've gotten my rant that is tangent to the topic out of the way....    >:(

I've owned a 7D for about a year and a half now.  I find the 70D vs 7D to be an interesting comparison.  When it was announced that the 70D would have "the same" 19 point AF system as the 7D, I wondered that was really the case or if its Servo accuracy would be improved.   The LensRentals results showing that the new AF systems in the 1DX and 5D Mark III had massive improvements in Servo tracking, even against such heavy hitters as the 1D Mark IV, so I thought it might be likely that the 70D's system would be more accurate.  Based on various reviews, and posts CR, I'm satisfied that it has been substantially improved, despite being labelled "the same."  I'm definitely +1 in the camp that AF is crucial to IQ.  A clean out of focus image, is still and OOF image!

In addition, I've seen some of the IQ issues with the 7D that have been reported.  My 7D blows my T3i out of the water for most things.  It's AF may not be equal to the 70D's and not nearly as good as the 5D Mark III or the  especially AF speed and accuracy on moving subjects, but it is still a great system that beats the Rebel hands down, as one would expect.  But I've seen some of the sky noise at 100 ISO in airshow pics--the T3i (used as a second body), does seem to create cleaner images that require less editing.  Still, I find my 7D images clean up nicely in post (I'm just using DPP).

Based on the reviews I've read, it seems that the 70D has made some progress on both the IQ and AF fronts, making it a compelling camera.  Two AF features it's missing though are AF Expansion and AF Spot mode.  I have read many reviews that make light of these two modes, but I've found them very useful.  AF Expansion is very useful for tracking a fast moving BIF.  And I find Spot mode far more useful than I'd originally thought, when trying to get a lock on a bird through dense foliage.  ....

+1 Thanks for the thoughts and perspective!

The 7D is definitely getting dated, but it is a "fine horse", as you put it. I still use a 7D for all of my work. I've put off buying a new camera for a good long while now, waiting for the 7D II. It's getting pretty tough to keep putting off a purchase, however, as the IQ race just marches on past me, and I'm always on the hunt for better and better IQ wherever I can find it.

Sometimes you need to give that fine old horse a rest from the racetrack, and put a faster, prettier, younger horse on the track instead. ;-)

For anyone just buying their first horse, I'd say skip the 7D and get the 70D.

Pages: 1 ... 87 88 [89] 90 91 ... 278