« on: January 03, 2013, 11:15:43 AM »
I use Av mode for focusing and flip over when done.
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.
Comparing noise at different resolutions makes no sense whatsoever. My one pixel camera has no noise at all, even at very high ISO; will you buy it from me?
They could surely get rid of the adjustable preamplifier and improve noise/DR performance at low ISO. High ISO would suffer but that doesn't matter in the studio.Is it just me or does the 6D sensor slightly outperform the 5D3 sensor in dynamic range and is on par in everything else? Maybe Canon started moving and can improve their sensor performance after all.yes they can but it cost, they can shorten the analog signal way, more readout points/ADC .
Also need a 17 - 55 (approx) but the Canon f2.8 one is too expensive. Anyone know if the Sigma 17-50 2.8 is good?
with the new lens series from sigma you don´t need canon for that.
you can do it yourself.
Which means you don't need to have a camera with AFMA or software like FoCal??
It will all come down to the optical quality. It has to about match the 100-400L at 400mm and f/5.6. If it's substantially worse than that, and up-res of the 100-400L might beat it.I kind of disagree, simply because this goes to 600mm. If it can match the 100-400 at f/5.6, then thats a really impressive feat, but, I think its equally important for it to be as sharp at 60mm as the 100-400 or 400 prime would be with a TC on. Cause if it is, then the fact it does it natively could be another leg up.
But really, the key is gonna be price. If its around the same price as the 200-500, then the range it gives might cause birders to go with it over the 100-400 (IS less important, and 600mm more critical than 400mm). Especially if a new 100-400 comes out and raises prices. If it costs more like $1300, then I can't see as many going with it
What I meant was, it'll have to be as good at 600mm and f/6.3 as the 100-400L is at 400mm and f/5.6. If it's not, an upres of or teleconverter attached to the 100-400L could equal or beat the Tamron, making it pointless.
I'm confused about most the comments here.
Comparing a REBEL and a 7D to 5D II or 1DX is just not happening.
I have used all cameras and i would much rather crop pictures from a 5D II because of one simple reason.
The image quality from a rebel is simply put A LOAD OF CRAP. Doesn't matter how much reach you get if you only get to keep 1% of the pictures because of poor imqge quality. You can zoom in with 5D II pictures a whole lot and the image quality is still awesome!
"Quantities are limited so act fast"
Why should we act fast?
I notice on the splash page, http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/standard_display/EOS1DX_firmware, that the first lens listed as newly compatible with the 1.4x is the 70-300L. WTF? The two aren't physically compatible. Does Canon want to boost service revenue by repairing broken elements?