« on: March 01, 2012, 10:10:38 AM »
Were I to go FF, I would get either the 5D mk II or the D800... this here one seems to offer not a whole lot extra...
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.
Wow, I had no idea people actually cared about megapixels. Probably all of the photographers who love megapixels switched to Canon and all who hated switched to Nikon and now the companies are flip flopping.A 7DII/7Dx (or maybe even rename to a 6D:
body would be pro, canon needs a pro crop (enough of this only the 1D series is all thats pro, so it would be a good move to counter nikon who boasts a pro crop)
so picture a crop body, boasting lets say, 28-30MP? 1.6 crop and 28MP would kill any argument of the wildlife togs that need extra reach and crop. Throw in a decent AF, decent ISO and some other bells and whistles and you have an amazing $2000 pro crop body that even FF shooters may consider as a back up/special needs cam.
Do that and toss in a 40+MP full frame (which who knows, this we may see this year) and you put nikon in a real pickle (and who knows, maybe nikon has something in their pipeline that better suits the needs of wedding togs)...
All in all, I am glad nikon did this. If canon was the only real player, canon could just sit back. With nikon putting out cutting edge, it forces canon to work harder, and that benefits all of us!
I work for a big camera shop in Canada and Our rep Canon CONFIRMED to us today that its a rebel series thats is gonna be announce On friday March 2, 2012... probably T4-i
Something else he didnt want to tell me will be announcing in the next 2 month
Sorry For party stoping!
Would the existing 7D users sell off your current 7D's after you buy the 5D3, if the AF of 5D3 can match the 7D?
NO. I use a 500 mm f/4L IS on my 7D. The 800mm (for a FF body) is too expensive and since it's an f/8 I could not add a 1.4x to it and still keep AF on the 5D3.
A lot of people think we shoot 7Ds because we cannot afford 5Ds. But there are a few of us that need a very good APS-C camera because we cannot afford a pair of 1D Mk IVs. And the additional cost and weight of a 600mm f/4L IS makes the 500 a better solution.
But I am thinking of a 5D2 for a landscape kit body.
This would be why I shoot a 7D. That, and a 1D mk IV is heaver, to get the same frame is even heavier still, and much much more expensive... The 7D just makes sense!
I'd like it to be within a stop of the 1D X. I shoot a 50D now, but might be willing to go up to the 5D if the AF, frame rate and ISO is sports worthy.
Many are writing about how they crop a great deal, and that it's important.
Where does this come from?
Do you intentionally frame loosely/quickly, or is it more like:
"I wish I had that 300mm lens now that I haven't bought, but I'll crop my 85mm instead"
Sure, ability to crop is good sometimes, but it's not like it's a substitute for equipment or proper photography. and fewer, larger photo sites allow for better image quality in most cases.
I'm a big fan of my 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM lens. Its served me quite well, and better than the 400mm f/5.6 lenses I've tried from friends or other fellow photographers met out in the field. The only real detractor, however, is the aperture range...f/4.5 to f/5.6 is a bit limiting, from an AF standpoint, and from the standpoint of using a teleconverter. I'd love to have a relatively affordable telephoto zoom lens that I could slap a 1.4x TC on to get 140-560mm f/5.6, something cheaper than the new 200-400mm f/4 L IS USM.
Is a 100-400m f/4 a plausibility, for a "reasonable" cost around $3500 or so? Would it be a lens anyone else even cared about, or is that just a focal range and price that doesn't serve anyone's needs? Personally, I'd find 560/5.6 to be far more useful for general bird photography, without having to lug around a heavy 500mm or 600m L.
Many will finally have to face the real world. The will not get a 1 series body for $2000 like they wish. The only question for me, is will it be worth the $1k more or less difference in price between a MK II and whatever FF camera is announced. The only reason I would replace my MK II is a big high ISO advantage at about the same number of pixels. A few MP more or less doesn't matter, but a 40MP body with no high ISO improvement wouldn't help my low light photography, even though many would love to see one, and I can understand that.
We should hear more certain specs in the next week or two.
+1 to the lens sales.
With pictures 1, 2, 3, and the last one, the subjects are light poorly. try shooting with your subject not backlight. Try shooting at either earlier or later in the day. Get the sun shining on your object; point your shadow at the subject to know if it is light well.
What does subject not backlight mean?
Also I can't really control the time of day in those pictures, unfortunately.Quote7 is a dull picture because there is no clear purpose to the image; when everything is on focus, nothing is in focus. You need the background to provide the eye a visual cue that there is depth to the scene. Use the 50 1.4 @ 1.4 as much as possible. It will help you develop this vision.
The purpose of 7 is to show what is there, I did not want anything blurred out for depth of field. Good tip, though.Quote#8 isn't bad, but would be better if the foreground were either black or lighter.
#9 would be better with a better foreground.
#10 would be better if you had pointed the camera toward the ground a little more...
Hope this helps! What makes a good picture is not high saturation as much as it is subtle details as listed above; keep working at it! You are getting there!!!
Many people say that having IS gives you 3 stops of compensation. Which means that you can have a faster shutter speed of 3 stops.
It does not mean you can use a faster shutter speed. IS lets you use a slower shutter speed and reviewers often test it, and it works. BUT- only for static subjects.
You are always free to use faster shutter speeds as long as there is enough light.
Here is a image on my 100-400mmL handheld thru my back window at 1/25 sec 400mm. I grabbed my camera and snapped the image with whatever settings were on it. I was amazed that a 1/25 sec image came out at all. Seconds later, he slowly started to roll the baby goat off, and motion blur took over. He loves the goats, but it hurts when they play on his back. A few months ago, we watched a new set of babies, and one was on the roof of his goat house and jumped on the horses back as he walked by. As soon as the horse took one step, the goat left. It can be a real circus.
Starting to roll
Over he goes, and the goats leave quickly. IS does not let you freeze moving subjects!
So what do folks think the next cropped bodies will be like? Is there anyone else out there who wants one?
I really don't care if my body has a crop sensor or not - I'm interested in the functionality of the body and the pictures resulting from the sensor-lens combination. However, one advantage of ff is the large viewfinder.
The only thing that is very stange that I am currently only using ef lenses that aren't made for my aps-c body - this is historically understandable, and with older lenses it's just fine that only the center is used. But shelling out a lot of €€€/$$$ for an ef tele lens and thinking "great, on a crop body the reach is even further" is just ridiculous - I'm buying high quality glass and it's weight and will never use part of it.