« on: November 10, 2014, 02:08:21 PM »
He kind of reminds me of a Vally girl but I agree the ISO ability is most important to me.
having had the camera for a week now, I really really really don't like DPR. Lightroom is a far superior product and I hope they have an update soon.
I like it for its quikview feature. It opens up fast and is great for viewing rating and deleting. Also good if you want to convert without any additional auto corrections on top of what the camera does because the default conversion is the same as an in camera JPEG.
So why not just shoot jpeg? If all we're doing is using DPR to convert from raw to jpeg, then why bother.
I'm using DPP to convert them from RAW to Tiff with the minimum processing possible. But with DPP I have no idea whats really going on "under the hood". Then I review them in Adobe Bridge. The TIFFs that interest me go through Camera Raw into Photoshop. Probably not the best way but so far it's working OK. I'll bring them all into lightroom once there is an update available. If someone has a better workflow I'd love to here about it. The OOC JPGs looked OK but really weren't suitable for evaluating a new camera.
Got my 7Dm2 today. I have to be a bit critical here, it's a great camera but not perfect.
I had some issues with my Sigma 17-50mm 2.8. These lens worked fine on my 70D but I am getting very inaccurate focus on the 7Dm2, no matter what Micro AF adjustments I make.
My other lenses (85mm 1.8, 100mm macro, 10-22mm) work very well with the 7Dm2. So I guess there could be an incompatibility issue between these lens and the 7Dm2 body. I wish more people could test this combination.
Zooming in photos is a step backwards from the 70D. On the 70D I could just use my thumb to press the review button and use the two buttons next to the AF-On to zoom in and out, or just use the touching screen. On the 70D I can also zoom in a photo and from that point rotate the bottom wheel so the next photo would also appear zoomed in, very good to compare focus.
On the 7Dm2 I need to press a button on the left side (so I need to use the other hand) to review the photo, then press another button to be able to zoom and from there use the wheel. If I want to view the next photo zoomed in, I have to do everything again, rotating the bottom wheel won't do it like it did on the 70D.
That exposure scale that is displayed on the top screen of the 70D is now hidden inside the viewfinder on the 7Dm2. Not a big deal but just saying.
It's shocking, IHMO, that the new 7DII has lower scores than cameras with even smaller sensors.
That's been the problem all along with DXO. While their three individual metrics are very insightful, how DXO weighs these metrics against each other to arrive at a single score is one giant mystery. And people are willing to riot over that single overall sensor score
The Zeiss 24-70 f4 just bested the Canon and Nikon versions, despite the fact that the Nikon outscored the Zeiss in each metric the Zeiss still got an overall score one more than the Nikon.
A 1 m MFD and 0.31x mag is awesome!
Back to the real world. I trust the observations of a user over a tester.
Bryan Carnathan has the credibility of being an actual photographer, and his reviews are more focused on his user experience with the gear and less on MTF charts. He's a bit pro-Canon and tends to see the best in their products (lots of enthusiasm for new offerings), but his insights from use and personal anecdotes of how his gear gets it done or lets him down is valuable. He's also very good at sniffing out odd problems with gear (e.g. the Sigma 50 Art AF semi-inconsistency) and sharing his work behind those findings. So I don't look to his site for hard data so much as a global user read on a product, and he's very good at it.
I'm a big fan of all the good stuff at his site, and he's very approachable to answering my questions.
you're really not comparing this to the 200-400/4 are you? o.O
Why not? It's only one stop of difference. The 100-400 has the 100-200 range while the 200-400 has the built-in TC. I'd bet the optics are similar and that it would be really hard to tell the difference between them at the same focal length.
I'd say "it's a WHOLE stop of difference". Night and day in those focal lengths. Compare 300/2.8 and 300/4 or 200/2 and 200/2.8 - there is also "only" one stop difference, yet there is quite surprising PRICE difference
Yes, and that's one reason I find Canon superteles so hugely overpriced.
Compare a 70-200/4L IS and a 70-200/2.8L IS and you'll see a difference that I think is much more justified than the difference between a 300/4L IS and a 300/2.8L IS or a 100-400L IS and a 200-400/4L IS.
I just shot my first soccer game under stadium lights. All I have to say is Holy Sh*T that Flicker function is amazing .... But with the Flicker function and the high ISO I know I chose an awesome upgrade from the 7D.
Here's an example of the Flicker function from a high school football shoot:
This anti-flicker technology is great for sports shooters. It is in fact amazing, a real practical improvement. My goodness, this will surely send the 7D2's DxO score through the roof!!!
Oh wait ... never mind.
I think, the score of 70 published by DxOmark is not through the roof (o.k., it depends on the roof height ...) - just 4 more than the first iteration 5 years ago.
But after looking at the images, the specs and - thanks to all here - the first incoming user based reviews I think this camera will rule for those who need a fast versatile camera (which is at least for me compatible with my lenses).
EDIT: Some haven't perhaps read the corresponding article so FYI:
So if you pledge allegiance to DxO, the 7Dii is merely average...
If you go by the title of that DxO article, the 7D2 basically sucks. Never mind the sports shooter ... low ISO DR is what matters.