I have the 100-400L and the 70-300 non L altough the 70-300 hasn't seen the light of day since I bought the 100-400L.
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.
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.
I'm interested, but waiting on some real world feedback. If things look good, then I'll be in the second wave of people to make a purchase. Surapon gave some valuable advice which I will follow.
BTW, from the pictures that I can see, the noise level looks great at iso 3200. I have not seen any full size images though. Has canon posted any sample RAW pictures that are downloadable?
I haven't seen any RAW files yet, but you can get 1920 size JPEGs from here...
We should see RAW files when they get their product pages online which, hopefully, should be soon.
Just sell it. Being preoccupied with the look of your gear and having less than perfect confidence in getting the results you want is no good. The important part is that you do not make a loss on this.