I ordered this lens today, can't wait to get out and try it!
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.
Well after much consideration I ordered a factory refurbished t4i with 18-135 STM lens .. Im excited to began my photography journey .. I will keep everyone posted . Thank you for all your help. Truly !!
to be honest, the pop up flash is so useless that I often wondered why it was on the original 7d. I get the pop up flash for the entry level models, the rebels and the XXD series, but a pop up flash on a prosumer model....seems like a waste of real estate....
The 7D was the first camera able to be an optical master for Speedlites (via that popup flash), and that's a very useful capability in a prosumer model.
Of course, with the current RT system, the camera could be the master without the onboard flash - and I hope we see that someday!
when I saw this, I thought it might be thgmuffin finally ageing that f5.6 is useless for shooting night sports... I guess I will just continue to wait for that acknowledgement.
Hang on a minute - doesn't the AA filter actually serve a purpose other than just smudge our images? Doesn't it reduce moire and aliasing?
Indeed, that's why aa filter is spelled "anti-aliasing" :-)Without it you would have to deal with that in post.
Probably yes, but the point is: only if required and only in that particular area! And moiré effects on full res stills should be very far in between, maybe 1% of shots in 10% of the image?, that means that for the others you're getting sub-optimal stills because the moiré effect in video is much more ubiquitous.
With your argument Canon could also force the camera to apply all other image "enhancements" to raw like lens profiles, de-vignetting, CA correction, nice poppy colors, ... but also all at the cost that if you don't want these in post you cannot get rid of them. If you shoot raw it should be as raw as possible, postprocessing software is always better at doing the job, even if more time and work consuming.
But like the 24-105 vs 24-70 f/2.8, the 70-300 has some advantages over the 70-200 f/2.8, namely an extra 100mm in focal length.
The problem I have with the 24-70 f/4 is that it will duplicate the inevitable 24-70 f/2.8 IS which patents were filed for a while back. The 24-105 at least though would still have a spot in my kit for that extra range when needed.
Is it just me or do the images look blurry? I'm viewing them on my iPad and they look kinda garbage. The shots themselves are not very interesting, maybe that doesn't help. I was expecting more. I'll have a proper look on my monitor at home.
I wonder if AFMA is required for this lens/body pairing and has not been used.
There is a potentially legitimate argument there; however I think there are few people who print so large that the AA filter makes much difference in sharpness.
Probably not, but with that approach you can scrap a good part of the L lenses - but as the gear lineup is concerning iq and price, it's a bit strange to purchase a multi-thousand €/$ lens and then let the sharpness be reduced by a small piece of glass in front of the sensor with an aa feature that is good for nothing if you don't shoot video.And it's still true that any model of DSLR without video will be a niche product, and will cost more. Again, think of the D800E: it costs $200 more to get a camera without the AA filter. Shouldn't it cost less?
Sure, but that's supply (production amount) and demand (unique feature) - I'd like the aa filter choice for every dslr, for example the 6d is really crappy with video, so there would be ample demand for a sharper 6d-e version.
Nikon has seen this problem, and as far as I understand it also severely reduced the aa filter strength for their latest cameras like the d7100.
You'd need some kind of special mirror that let some light pass through to the sensor and yet reflect part of it up towards the OVF.
It's called a pellicle mirror. Canon used them in a few film SLRs a long time ago, Sony uses them today (the SLT series), and if you check the main CR page, you'll see that Canon recently had a pellicle mirror patent publish.
I'd much prefer the 24-105mmL for way less, they often pop up for $650. The longer focal length range makes up for the very tiny difference in MTF. I have the 24-70 f/2.8 MK II.
The distortion in the 24-105 makes it much less useful than it could have been.Also, if they discontinue the 24-105L it might even (temporarily) increase demand for it, meaning I could sell it for a bit more than I paid! Bonus!
I'm interested in how that new Sigma is going to perform at the wide end. It could be the answer a lot of people are looking for.
You might find that the release of Sigma's lens impacts the ability of you to sell the Canon one at the price you want...
If it worked really well then I would not mention this, but I see tons of complaints from 6D owners about the AF.
then they bought the wrong camera.
i see your point and i agree from a customers point of view.
how could i not.. the more i get for my money the better.
a 7D like AF would be nice to have in the 6D, no question.
but from canons point of view it makes absolut sense.
i had not bought a second 5D MK3 as backup body if the 6D had a 7D like AF.
is the D600 AF performance much better? from all i have seen, not really.
I've not used a 6D but own a 5Diii and have owned a 7D. Just to be clear, we are not calling the 7D AF system good, are we?
well the 7D AF is pretty good. and that seems to be the common opinion:
what are you shooting and what are your complains exactly?
of course the 5D MK3 AF is better but then... the camera cost twice as much.
and if you need the best low light AF performance the 5D MK3 or 1D X is sure the way to go.
but does that make the 7D AF bad? i don´t think so.
and a great deal of 5D MK3 customers, who are not professionals, are totally confused by the 5D MK3 AF. so i bet they use only 25% of it´s potential.
you would call the 7D AF bad?