« on: July 04, 2012, 10:22:51 AM »
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.
Isn't that a bit negative, after we had such nice and constructive posts from both @lex, wickidwombat and revup? I am not exactly a HDR enthusiast or something, but some of @lex's shots can really only be done using HDR and yes, they look well composed and well executed in post-processing. Thanks @lex!
Nice shots, but I also dislike the vignetting. Withhout it, they would be better!There is a 200mm focal length limit to AFL matches - though you could easily get around that if you add in a TC or body with crop factor etcwhat do you mean? You are not allowed to bring longer lenses? Hard to believe....
As for process, they were all shot on my 5D III, with a 70-200mm @ 200mm ƒ/2.8, ISO 800, and a shutter of 1/800s. Post processing was mainly fixing the white balance
There's no way the 7D replacement will not accept APS-C lenses. So no sensor bloat - that's just silly.
APS-H is D.E.A.D. It was only there for faster frame rates compared to FF. It was a compromise. Canon solved this with the 1DX. The whole point of a crop-sensor lens in a semi-pro body like 7D is just that - the crop factor! Otherwise you'd just get the 5DIII. My left nut to say that APS-H will never ever see the light of day ever again in a new body - it makes absolutely zero sense.
You forget one very important aspect of the whole picture: The marketing perspective
The APS-H sensor have no direct competitor
O, and another thing. What is it with the UDMA 7 and speed?
Sandisk is offering a 600x (90MB/s) 64GB CF and they mention it as: UDMA 6
Transcend is offering a 600x (90MB/s) 64GB CF and they mention it as: UDMA 7
Both have the same specifications but are not the same UDMA?
And the APS-H camera in the "old days" was made for getting more fps than the FF camera could achieve. Now you have 14 fps, the finest of ISO etc. So why bother about the APS-H.
QuoteMore megapixels for the 70D.... why do you need more megapixels on a prosumer camera? Its unlikely enthusiasts are going about printing bigger than A3. Stop with the megapixels and put the R&D into better noise and DR not trying to cram more photosites on when its not needed.
Ever so right. 18MP is enoug for prosumers. Better ISO, IQ and DR is far more important. 8
I believe Lee/Cokins will work OK? (but not on the 8-15)
What kills APS-H for me is that there are no wide angle lenses for it that aren't curved surface front elements. (Wide angle would require either the 8-15 fish eye or something like the rumored 14-24.)
The 16-35 becomes a 21-45 (for example).
For APS-C, there are lenses like the 10-20.
The APS-H sensor/cameras are designed especially for wildlife/sports. A very small number of wildlife/sports photographers want/need a ultra wide lens on APS-H.
Who knows maybe we will see a ultra wide EF affordable lens with the 7D2 announcement.
To be honest how many of us will need a wider lens than 16-35/17-40 on a sports/wildlife designed camera???
If the rumor is true 7D2 will be a market killer and no need for a entry lvl FF body.
I'm genuinely interested to find out how many APS-H critics actually owned or have regularly used a 1D body that has the sensor
ultra wide angle problem?
13*1.3 = 16.9
takes 77mm filters and works on current existing APS-H bodies
by all accounts its a pretty kick arse lens too