April 18, 2014, 05:17:49 AM

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.

Topics - birdman

Pages: 1 [2]
I hate to ask, as it has probably been beaten to death all over the world, but I need to know. My 5dII does fairly well, and based on my needs seldom pushes for TOO much of an increase. However, if they are using a sensor very close in MP size, it seems they are just following the approach by Nikon in the D3s revision.

I would expect images at 25,600 to rival 6400 on current 5d. Two stops is asking a lot, but I really think after 4 years of technology development this would be possible--even at 22MP.

If there is merely a clear one-stop advantage, I don't see a worthwhile reason to upgrade if AF is unimportant. Maybe low ISO/Shadow noise improvements could warrant a reason. As they always say, the proof is in the pudding. The more I look at the D800, which on paper appears to be wonderful at its price, the more I believe it will be noisier than a bunch of bad kids on Saturday morning. And that is a major reason NOT to jump ship!! At least for me, it is.

EOS Bodies / Will the suggested 5d III specs satisfy your photograpy needs?
« on: February 22, 2012, 07:17:22 PM »
I, for one, wish the 5d III had higher MP. I feel like the IQ will essentially be the same as the current 5dII that I own. ISO performance will be certainly better, and AF will kick serious but. However, it is a little curious to me that the MP as essentially the same. What I am saying, simply, is that the 1d3 and the 5dIII may be close to the SAME CAMERA!! Think about AF, frames per second, and MP. Then it becomes more curious.

Maybe I will keep my 5dII, which I am content with, and invest in new glass to be released soon. This may be my best bet. I just hate to keep a depreciating asset when I could afford to sell  and upgrade for about $1,000--the price I would get for my D7000 that I never shoot. AF is not important to me because I do 90% landscapes. But I will withhold judgement until the "Official" release. We could be in for a huge surprise.

EOS Bodies / What makes a System (Canon,Nikon,Leica,etc.) most important?
« on: February 22, 2012, 07:09:53 PM »
I will try to post a few intellectual topics. Excuse me if I insult some of you (and your superior intelligence), as I got badly flamed for talking about the new D800.  >:(

Anyway, I have the 5dII and D7k. I graduated up from the Canon 40d to the 5dII a few years back. God I loved that 40d. For me, I was familiar with the controls, feel, and AF/metering of the 40d so the transition was easy.

I got the D7000 thinking I would use it as a smaller, faster body--plus I could start using Nikon lenses on my 5d. Well, that hasn't happened yet, and I rarely shoot with the D7000. I will not take time to learn all the bells and whistles on the Nikon. It is a solid DSLR with excellent video, excellent AF, and excellent IQ. I will sell soon though. Its hard to go back to sub-FF after spending so much time with bigger, brighter viewfinder.

I like each system, though, for different reasons. I think Canon has better telephoto (and more choices) options, such as many F/4.0 choices. I think Canon produces better natural colors (leaves, grass, skin tones). I think Canon has intelligent engineers that make shooting very simple. The list goes on and on. Nikon seems to produce better wide-angle lenses. I like that Nikon has started updating all of their primes, and they are all seemingly fantastic. I like Nikon's AF abilities in their higher-end cameras. I think Nikon has better noise levels, which simply comes down to software and the processing engine.

We'll see how this next gen plays out. I was sold on the new D800, but I really want to stay with Canon as my primary option. They have a TON of news lenses due to come out, and I know they will create a great wide angle. If money was no object, I would choose the 1Dx. I think the low-light performance will be nothing short of astonishing. The IQ will be equally as impressive. Happy shooting....and shopping!!!

Lenses / 70-300L anyone?
« on: February 17, 2012, 09:50:56 AM »
This lens intrigues me. I don't know why, but it does. I have the 70-300 IS (non-L obviously) and it is a great lens for the price.

The 70-200/4.0 IS has always been one that I wanted, but with the 70-300L my opinion has since changed. Of course, I have never shot with it, but all the reviews are very positive. My question is, how does the IQ compare to all of the 70-200's? Is the price worth the upgrade vs. 70-300 IS? How does it feel and balance in hand? Thanks

Pages: 1 [2]