place my canadian pre-order within a couple days of it being announced and delivery expected mid November
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.
Nature moves a lot...in <0.5s...across the entire frame...thereby defeating a manual blend?
I would consider it "easily circumvented." Soft brush on a mask? Not long at all.
But most people generating chatter on the Internet right now are doing so because they saw a Fred Miranda or Tony Northrup review.
Taken with Olympus C-5050 in 2003
What about you? If you would have had top gear right from day one, would have it been "worth it"?
Looks like DIGIC 6 is doing a decent job. Not FF level quality, but definitely better than the 7D at high ISO.The outdoor shots in decent light look OK.
The thing that was surprising to me was the amount of color noise in the boke background of the ISO 100 shot...seems like a lot of color noise for midtones.... I'm hoping it's just a JPEG encoding thing, and that it wouldn't be there in the RAW.
Which begs the question...where are some 7D II RAW images? The OOC JPEGS look good for an APS-C, and that's probably primarily due to the DIGIC 6 processor...but how are the RAWs? Are the RAWs cooked by DIGIC 6 like the JPEGS? If not...is RAW IQ going to suffer?
But, the point is this: Did it stop me from driving wherever I wanted? Did I get to my destination late? Did I get more tickets? Did it, in fact, have the least bit of impact on the ability of me and my truck to get the job done and get to the destination we were headed for? No. Not in the least.
So, that's the way I look at the Dynamic Range debate. Would it be nice to have a little extra range? Sure. But like the sound system in any vehicle, it doesn't prevent your from getting to where you are going.
..If you're a fan of entirely predictable 'experiments' perhaps you'd like to drop an object – tennis ball, apple, your camera – from a couple of meters above the ground, and verify the existence of gravity. Be sure to start a new forum topic to educate all of us on your findings.
I'll give it a shot
(argument from boredom )
1) What is, in your professional opinion, the camera body which produces the best quality images?
2) What are, in your professional opinion, the lenses for that body which produce the best quality images for the variety of scenes you frame?
Do you exclusively use 1 & 2?
If so, I concur that you have higher standards than [whomever].
If not, I assert that, while you may have high desires for image quality, you don't have higher standards.
Do you exclusively use 1 & 2?
So easy to say, "MY image quality standards are higher than YOURS" when you're anonymous and can say whatever you want. You can as easily say that you've flown to Jupiter and back ... with the same level of conviction, and just as much credibility. But I'll grant you that your standards for pushing 4- or 5-stop underexposed nearly-black frames and rescuing them from the trash are higher than mine. You'll win that argument every time.
Could Canon's IQ be higher? Of course! But the fact remains that Canon meets the IQ standards of some of the very best photographers.
Well, Aglet's not quite as anonymous as you might suppose. http://a2bart.com/
You can browse his website and draw your own conclusions.
I like this one. It's titled, "9th Street Bridge, SW" but I'd call it "Stairway to Heaven" because of all the artifacts in the sky. Really speaks to having a high standard for image quality in the way one showcases their work.
..it does sound rather dubious for anyone in group B) to claim to have higher image quality standards than group A).
17mm f4L TS-E and 5DIIII like it!