Great Kiskadee with a snackThat's a beautiful bird and a very nice image!
60D + 70-200 f/4 IS @ 200mm, f/4, 1/250, ISO 400
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.
Regardless of how good it may be, I just can't see them losing all kinds of FF customers over it. FF is a whole different animal and quite likely, always will be... A lot of us own FF & Crop and will likely continue to own both...If this camera is better than the 5D Mk3, then it will cost more than the 5D Mk3.
By the way, why would Canon create a camera thats a huge leap from the 5D Mk3, when the 5D Mk3 was released last year?
Also, back to pricing... why would they create a cheaper APS-C camera with better specs than the 5D Mk3? If you were a business man... and this is your business, would you think that this is a smart maneuver? Losing potential customers of FF
If Canon EVER came up with a sensor that allowed an APS-C to be a HUGE LEAP from their newest FF, then they would shut down everything else and start building new FF cameras, buyers remorse of 1Dx and 5DIII owners be damned. And Canon engineers would be booking flights to Stockholm, and Nikon and Leica will focus solely on microscopy and I'd be selling everything to buy Canon shares!
None of the above is happening right now, so relax. Hopefully the new sensor will be sufficient to improve APS-C performance by 1-2 stops. That's all. FF will still rule IQ, sensitivity, etc. and no one who can afford an equivalent FF setup (that means appropriate super-telephotos for those who will immediately start clamoring about the APS-C "reach") will buy APS-C.Canon may attempt to impress us with some new solutions, but as long as they stay behind with theirs old sensor technology it is mostly cosmetic solutions compared to Sony/Aptina/Panasonic and others
I think the thread started with rumors about a new sensor technology in the 7DII. Either you believe it (and stop complaining about old sensor technology) or don't (since it's only a rumor) and move on with life (outside a rumor website).
That one is a really nice one, made me smile too! Funny, someone in another category was just trying to convince everyone how bad our 7D's perform in low light! HA HA!
Taken with 7D & 10-22mm
I love the one with the little kid on the gnarly tree with his hands in the air.
Made me smile....and remember that life is GOOD!!
Great shot, thanks for sharing!!!
Is there such a thing as FF nay-sayers? I really doubt it. I think there are FF owners and those who would like to be be FF owners. And the 7D? I used to own one before - its low light performance was really discouraging. I hate to be blunt but the 7d (and the rest of canons line crop line up) sucks and any kind of low light. And those who say they like the 'reach' of the crop sensor cameras, reminds me of the day when people thought that Digital zoom was useful!The 7D doesn't suck at all, it's been a very relevant camera in it's class and still is. I have very usable images all the way up to ISO 3200 with my 7D and have posted some in this forum before. The simple answer to any low light issues with a 7D is OCL, if you're doing portraiture. My 5d3 is a great low light performer, interestingly enough, I use OCL with it for portraiture as well... Sometimes it's not neccesarily the gear... The 7d has served thousands of photographers quite well for the last several years, despite the yacking about low light issues...
I've owned two 7D's, two 5D MK II's and two 5D MK III's. My 7D was mostly useful as a studio camera with good lighting, or outdoors with bright lighting. It suffered at high ISO 800 or over, but could be used at 1600 or even 3200 if you were immune to noise or used a lot of NR.And if you need the fps rate with the extra low light advantage and only have modest budget resources, the 5D3 answers both of those... albeit a little slower fps rate than the 7d, the 6fps are still useful... If it wasn't for budget restraints I'd love a 1Dx!
I always preferred my 5D MK II to the 7D's. Finally, I sold the 7D's and bought a used 1D MK II. What a improvement that made.
The 7D was certainly a good crop body, it had some significant good points in adequate light and suffered in low light.
BTW, you need only look at the resolution scores at Photozone, DXO, or any lens review site to see how much sharper FF images are than images from a crop camera. Even a old 5D classic will out resolve every Canon crop made including the 7D when tested using the same lens. The reason is that FF cameras are not as demanding of a lens as a camera with a small sensor. Just because a crop uses the center portion of a lens does not overcome the FF advantage except for vignetting.
The 500 sounds like a good compromise in your situation...Which super Tele would you recommend for wildlife, including birds.
It would depend on whether the birds are the primary purpose for the lens or just one of many purposes.
If all you're going to do is shoot birds, you want the longest and fastest lens you can get. Think of the Hubble, or maybe the Keck.
But the ideal birding lens is not going to be very useful for much else.
The 400 is the most versatile of the Great Whites. It's the fastest, for starters. And if you put on teleconverters you get the same reach and speed as the others. If a teleconverter is going to live on the lens, then the native equivalent will be better in every respect, but not by leaps and bounds; the 400 is still a superlative 560 f/4; it's just not quite as superlative as the 500 f/4. And the 400 is an awesome 800 f/5.6, even though the 800 f/5.6 is more awesome still.
So, that would be my recommendation. If you want an all-puropose Great White that'll be fantastic at a bit of this and a bit of that, the 400 is for you. If your needs are more specialized, get the one that best fits your specialty.
And, if you don't know what your needs are...get one of the Lesser Whites such as the 300 f/4 or 400 f/5.6 or 100-400. First, those are still wonderful lenses with many advantages over the Great Whites, especially including weight, size, and cost. You may well find that one of the Lesser Whites is your dream lens. And, if it turns out that you need more...by the time you outgrow the Lesser White, you'll know exactly which Great White is for you.
Thanks everyone for their great thoughts. I like shooting birds but also shoot cats (think Lion, Leopards, Cheetahs) as well as bears (Grizs).
Luckily I don't have all the money in my pocket yet - otherwise I buy one of each (if I had a really BIG pocket).
The biggest downside to the 600 is travelling. It will barely fit in my Gura Gear Kikobo and is pain to use in Safari vehicle in africa. 500 is the best compromise between weight, size and reach.
A buddy has the 400 which he loves and has encouarged me to get one - my expereince of the 2x on the 500 is mixed (at best), so I am bit cautious to go that routine.
How does the 400 w/ 2x compare to 500 w/ 1.4. Granted I loose a 100mm of length.
Wouldn't it be something if after updating to the next firmware the Magic Lantern logo popped up on the screen .That would be interesting!
There'd be some real upgrades , that's for sure.
Bird Fightnice little series! That 5d3 af system is pretty decent, aye?
The low light, noise issue was the only reason I purchased the 5d3. I loved everything about my 7d except the noise in the shadows and low light work at weddings etc. It's not that the images weren't usable, for 95% of them were, it's that it caused me a lot of frustration and a lot of extra time in post processing. It was aggrevating.i guess what i really need is encouragement that i do the right thing with my money.
.....all I can tell you is that there is an improvement going from the 7D to the 5DIII. As I am just a hobbiest, it has caused some heartache as to if that was the best use of my money. But there is enough of an improvement, flipping through photos my wife even commented that the 5DIII pictures looked better than those from the 7D in low light.
I upgraded from the 7D to 6D. The noise in low light on the 7D was ruining my portraits. I'm amazed at how nice the 6D high ISO noise looks, like film grain instead of a blotchy mess. I miss the 7D AF a little bit, but it's well worth giving up for much better images. love full frame.I didn't get rid of my 7d when I made the jump to a 5d3, I did make the jump however due to the same issues. Some portraiture was ruined with the 7d in low light, good off camera lighting always helped in those situations though. My issue was that most of the noise issues in portraiture required much more processing time than those I'm now getting with my 5d3... It was a workflow issue for me. I still use my 7d a fair amount for birding and sports, albeit not as much as I used too.. The 7d may still end up going sometime in the near future but not just yet, I still love it!
+18X10, 4X5, 617,612,69,68,67,66,645,35
bigger is better... or used to be.
If they made an 4x5 sensor or 8x10 sensor that behaved just like film. We wouldn't even be talking about d800s.
I loved the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 IS at 12mm on my 7d and at 16mm on my 5d3! I couldn't believe I could use it on my 5d3 but at 16mm it's excellent! Kind of a neat surprise since I was going to sell it since I bought the 5d3. Using it at 16mm has worked out well for my Real Estate Photography work... still looking for a good uwa for my 5d3 in an L lens though...I have used various UWA lenses on eg Canon's 7D - and let me say that wide open at equivalent of 14mm and 16mm (in FF comparison) - the Sigma 8-16mm, Sigma 10-20mm's or Canon 10-22mm and Tokina 11-16mm, etc really shine. Often they're much sharper in the corners than FF can do with eg a 17-40mm or 16-35mm.
At equivalent or equal apertures?
At equivalent apertures *1, and definitely at equal apertures *2.
1) eg Sigma 10-20mm @ f/5.6 vs Canon 17-40mm @ f/8 or f/9. I've seen so many shots of FF with good L glass zooms - even stopped down they don't match the crispness of APS-C. Not ALWAYS, but often! These pages give you an indication / comparison (which is matched up by my real work usage):
2) eg Canon 10-22mm at wide end at f/5.6, even with the Canon 16-35mm, I've seen an advantage to the APS-C 'cutting off' the corners of the lens....
Just for giggles, I'm guessing he used LR4 and NIK... best guess... I was wondering that about the piano image as well.. Reminded me of the awesome NIK Gold effect filter...Hit me baby one more time
Shot last saturday (30 March, 2013)
see the whole serie on my site http://maximlinssen.com/sanatorium-what-else/
Bathroom is most excellent, what programs did you use?