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.
nice you talked a little too quick but it was ok so I scribed your channle
I also have both Al and CF tripods, and my experience with them is that the CF tripods settle down much quicker than Al ones after making adjustments to the camera.
Digging deeper, if you want a tripod which dissipates vibrations as quickly as possible, then the carbon fiber versions are again much preferred, although if you're operating in strong winds, the heavier aluminium models may have the edge. If you shoot in very cold conditions, the carbon fiber models won't become anywhere near as chilly to the touch, although leg warmers on the aluminium versions will equally make them easy to handle.
In terms of my usage, I do a fair amount of landscape photography currently (both wet and dry conditions) as well as other nature but I also do some portraiture and sports. The monopod option that detaches from both would be utilized from time to time but again - they both offer this ability. Both come with a basic ball head and both extend to about the same height. I'm tall so it really doesn't matter - both are going to be a bit short but I'll deal with that.
You and Northrup find the 7DII impressive, and you're arguing that the 7DII's IQ is as good as the camera Northrup suggested might be ok for non-pros posting images to Facebook. Impressive, indeed.
Agree with what has been said so far in response to the comparison; this is not a valid test - unless you are aiming to show the 7DII is better.
1: As has been said, the 24-105L at 100mm and f4.5 does not have the same sharpness and contrast as the 70-200ii f2.8 at 100mm at f2.8.
2: You shot the 5DIII at ISO 3200 at 1/125 with a focal length of 100mm, so at best for critical sharpness you were probably dependant on the efficiency of the image stabilisation. You shot the 7DII at ISO 2500 at 1/250 at 100mm, so much less dependant on the IS.
3: You shot the 5DIII at f4.5, the 7DII at f2.8 in relatively dim light, so the 7DII had over twice the (volume) of light reaching the sensor than (the crop area of ) the 5DIII. ( Bearing in mind exposure is calculated on light density, not quantity).
These three points are why you obtained the result you did.
What you are saying is the same area of a sensor from a current crop camera is the same as the same cropped area from a three year old ff camera, that doesn't sound good at all. It sounds like there has been no improvement in actual sensor output, on a per area basis, for another three years.
I didn't watch the video.
If you're suggesting that image noise of a 7DII image and a 5DIII image with same lens/distance cropped to APS-C FoV are similar, ok.
Watched the video.
So what you are telling me is that the 7D2 with the right lens (at 100mm) is better than the 5D3 (with the wrong lens) at a similar focal length. Sorry that didn't blow my socks off. Much as I like my 24-105 F4 it is not going to produce the same results as a 70-200 F2.8 Mk2 or my Mk1 for that matter. Naturally the 7D2 has a narrower field of view and more, smaller, pixels on target - so what? Is its high iso as good? When the correct lens is used is it's resolution as good?
Sorry it didn't work out for you and your needs but I'm very happy with the results that I have been getting.
In response to the replies, yes this is basically my dumb. I had owned the original 7D and had similar problems with it, but I had too much hope that this was a much better step forward. I seized on several positive reviews despite my own better initial judgment.
The sample image was mainly intended to show that I do in fact own the camera and am not a troll. The problem images will go in the delete pile...