« on: November 27, 2014, 10:17:47 AM »
Well taken shots everyone.
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.
After seeing the posts related to focus issues I fabricated a flat target from 5mm thick yellow craft foam and narrow black masking tape so I had a high contrast target. Target was set up about 10 meters from camera; camera on tripod. Using the tamron I took shots at 150 and 600mm with MFA adjustments from -10 to +10. None of the shots with the7D2 where in focus. I put the lens on my T3i and, without adjustments of course, took the same shots. Again, none were in focus. Finally I tried with my 70-300L with similar out of focus results.
Apparently I built a focus target that cameras can't focus on. Will contact USAF to see if they want to use it in their stealth technology.
Bumping this one back up, now that the Unicorn II(TM) is on Amazon. Did Canon overstate it, or are people happy with the lens additions?
We hear often about a camera "not perfect' not creating "sharp images" and I can't quite fathom why. If it's a malfunctioning camera or lens, there is time to return it.
Some of the critiques on here make no sense to me -- it examines the electronic component of an image, finds a micron measurement that differs, and then scream "foul' and "not as good", and "this one is better' at "Some" part of the technology.
Maybe it's me, but I have yet to buy a camera or a lens that fails to suit the images I produce. Not every image is perfect, and that has more to do with the photographer or the scene than the equipment. I shoot lots of 'keepers' and lots of 'rejects' but I blame the rejects on myself, or the subject, not the equipment.
And I'd imagine some malfunctioning equipment arrives at the retailers -- and a buyer gets one, returns it, and gets a replacement or repair that works fine. but, I'd bet the 'rejects' are few, and some even imaginary, in fact, maybe.
When i buy a piece of equipment, I run it thru some tests, push it out hard to where I need it to perform, then get on with clicking the shutter -- if it malfunctions with a defect (I've only returned ONE camera in twenty-five years, and NO lens). So, either I suck at evaluating my photos, or I'm getting good images ... but once I initially check a piece of gear, the I use it until it fails ... Otherwise, I'd spend all my time testing and no time filling the wallet that got flat buying equipment.
Personally, not only do I think they are both aimed at quite different markets, but I also think it very much depends on what you are used to.
For me, once you get used to the 1 series it is difficult to move away. I like the size, weight, quality and the way it balances perfectly when using big white lenses.
If I was forced to choose between the 7D ii and the 1D Mark IV I would choose the 1D Mark IV.
I was reading on the internet, I usually don't bother but this really caught my eye, are we that far behind these days.?
No, were not as far behind as DXO indicates. The 7D II "SCORES" poorly on DXO because it hasn't gained anything on the low ISO or color depth front. DXO scores are a very bad way to compare cameras, always have been, always will be.
Ignore DXO scores. Look at the measurements. Look at the ISO chart, and compare it with the original 7D chart (the likely upgraders to the 7D II). What do you see? Has anything improved?
The 7D II did gain about 2/3rds of a stop improvement at higher and very high ISO settings over the 7D. It did not gain at low ISO as it still has roughly the same read noise, and it barely gained on the color fidelity front. Until Canon does something about their readout system, I wouldn't expect the low ISO or color accuracy performance to improve. Canon has a distributed system...the sensor is only one part, there are additional off-die components involved, and I believe it is those off-die components that are really holding them back (and, if the information is correct, those components are not even manufactured by Canon, they are relatively cheap third party components). That's low ISO, though, just low ISO.
(Personally, I was really hoping Canon would do something special with the 7D II sensor, something way out of "normal park" for themselves...but they did not. It would have been nice to see Canon show some real out-of-the-box innovation on the sensor front, but as far as low ISO performance goes, it's pretty run of the mill for Canon. I found that quite disappointing when the 7D II was first released, but in the grand scheme of things...they improved the sensor where it mattered for the 7D II's primary use case.)
The 7D II DID make gains at high ISO, and they are very reasonable gains. The 7D II sensor Q.E. has improved, the total sensor size also increased a little bit (the 7D II has more of a 1.55x crop at 336mm^2 rather than the classic Canon 1.6x crop at 330mm^2...slightly more total sensor area, better high ISO performance), and the FWC increased (by almost 10ke- over the 7D, which is quite considerable, and even 4ke- over the 70D. So, despite the fact that the 7D II barely gained much in terms of total DR at ISO 100, the increased charge capacity of the pixels is still going to mean lower photon shot noise, which is going to mean an improvement in IQ at midtones and highlights.)
Those improvements at ISO 100 ultimately trickle down to the higher ISO settings, allowing more charge at each setting, which is probably where most of Canon's high ISO improvement comes from: more light, less gain, lower noise.
Are the gains as much as many of us hoped? No. Are they reasonable gains for the intended use case for the camera? Yes. Plus, throw in all the rest of the improved features...65 cross type AF points. Unless the new AF system has the same jitter issues that the 7D had, that should be a winner.