Like the majority, I would prefer improved high ISO performance, even if that requires the MP count to be kept down. I can't imagine a 7D II having less FPS than the original.
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.
I try as far as possible to completely discharge the LP-E6 in camera (so it will no longer power the camera) before I recharge it, though I'm not sure if this really makes much difference to battery life/ recharge performance.
If anything, that's worse. Li-ion batteries are better used frequently but lightly. Frequent full discharges will actually reduce overall longevity.
When I only used crop, the 17-40 was one of my most used lenses, but once I switched to FF for landscapes, it rarely found a use, except for some more creative ideas, as the corners are simply not good enough on FF, even at f/8-f/16. Mind you, the 24-105 suffers form the same deficiencies between about 24-30mm, but then I now use the 24mm f/1.4 MkII for landscapes at 24mm.
I never understood, what is the specific advantage of this hybrid IS?
Too slow for a prime; it seems (because I have not tried it) to lack the clarity of the L primes based on the TDP comparisons. It has IS, indeed, but so does my 24-105 with 1 stop difference. Two stop faster, and I would jump on it.
WE WANT BETTER PIXELS
NOT JUST MORE OF THEM!
Your pixels will be smaller....
This made me realize that even $399 was too much for it.
Now, the 35/2 IS for $399 would have been another story...
Hi. Thanks for the comments. I need the extra reach and at the moment I usually have the 70-200F4 mounted with the 1.4 II extender. Therefore this only leaves one option and that is the 100-400L.
Really unsure what to do. Was going to trade in the 70-200F4 against the 70-300L so that I only had one lens on most of the time. Was hoping for slight better IQ though (don't we all )