« on: September 29, 2014, 11:07:54 PM »
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.
Looks pretty good. Very interesting lens....
I flipped through the AF guide the other day, and people need to start really seeing how much awesomeness that has trickled down from the 1dX, plus new features. This camera is a sports/bif dream if you ask me. Superb AF coverage, must be the best coverage ever? And all the tuning you can to to the AF in the same way as the 1dX will open a brand new world for people not in the 1d market. I would be over the moon excited if I wasn't in the 1d crowd, and even now I can't wait to have a go.
And the anti-flickering mode for fluorecent light? Are you kidding me? That is a game changer...
It is going to be as huge as the original 7d.
-And buyers, PLEASE do read the AF guide and really understand how to make use of the AF system, because if you don't, you will miss out BIG TIME...
I saw the 7d2 also now can assign different AF settings to the AF-ON button and the *-button, and that is probably my most favorite feature of the 1dX.
Yes, I do realize this thread is about IQ and noise, but that shouldn't be the main reason to buy or not but the 7d2. But you take a fantastic shot with perfect focus in a ridicolous fast pace situation and that epic moment, or would you like a miss focused shot that is superclean with 14 stops of DR? Then buy another camera.
It's got the functions, but that is it. The AF module on the 1Dx and 5DII are light years ahead of the 7D II.
Geeesh. This focus guide alone is going to keep me busy for ages. Lots to learn before November!
Everyone (including myself) seems to be searching the internet for reviews on the new 7D2. It looks like an impressive camera, kind of like how the 7D looked impressive back in 2009 when it was first introduced.
Well, I find myself wanting a new 7D2, but... my now 3 year old 7D still works perfectly and still takes amazing photos... What's my point?
My point is, I will probably upgrade to the 7D2 eventually, but not today. I love my 7D and it still does today what it has always done for me, take fantastic photos. It's still lighting fast and I love the image quality, even at high ISO's. No it's not a low light camera and it was never designed to be, but with a little post-processing images even taken at ISO 3200 are very nice, especially when they are of a hummingbird's wings frozen in time...
I am forcing myself to remember that it is the photographer that makes the photo, not his or her equipment. Yes tools give a workman more options BUT any camera in the hands of a skilled workman (or woman) is an amazing thing. You can capture a moment in time and share it with your friends, family and even make a living doing so.
I love my 7D. I don't see me getting rid of it anytime soon.
The files can not be read because the codes behind them have not been released.
Photo Ninja (unofficially but very efectively) reads 7D Mark II files and my early conversion tests suggest a stop+ high ISO improvement over the 7D - which is pretty damn' impressive, these days.
I've said it before (...) Sensors are only a shortcoming if you let them be.
Yes, indeed, however, it is still untrue to discount the huge importance of sensor tech for your end result and shooting abilities.
I am not sure what format Canon is using for their RAW files. I guess it's not CR2 because Adobe can't read them. Might be awhile before we learn about the low light performance.
Canon sez t is new sensor tech and something to do with the lenses o the pixels and the way they gather light. Tile will tell
I have had a 24-105 f/4L for five or so years now, using it exclusively on APS-C bodies. Currently, I shoot with a 70D.
Of my regular-use lenses, the 24-105 is one of the least impressive. It is a reasonable all-around lens, but the sharpness and overall look trails other lenses I use regularly, such as Canon's 10-22, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and the times when my Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 throws a sharp image. The 24-105 produces consistent results, has good build quality and is quite reliable. However, the images just don't "pop" in the way some of my other lenses do.
For my money, the 17-55 f/2.8 is a great all-around lens. I've rented two and used a third copy that a coworker has, and for IQ, speed, AF and all-around usefulness, it is my first choice on crop-sensor cameras. I will hopefully purchase one in the coming year. For me, it's main downfall is the build quality. I often shoot outdoors in dirty/dusty conditions, and the 17-55 (and reports of internal dust building with lens age) doesn't inspire confidence. However, I will use it mostly as an indoor lens and outdoors in non-dusty conditions.
The 100-400 weighs only 110g more than the 400 prime, 1360 vs 1250g. The difference in weight is not that big a deal.
I don't know about the specific models, but it's not just the weight itself but the *distribution*.
For example the long 70-200L/2.8 creates much more torsion on the wrist than to be expected even considering the weight difference to the 70-300L. The more glass is on the front and the longer the lens, the worse this effect gets.