I think even DPreview ripped Canon for cutting features from the 6D.
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.
In good light the 7D is a good performer. However, once you used the AF of the 5D3 or the 1Dx, you see the differences over there.
Even if it is quite the same sensor as the 70D. I have seen several pictures of a friend out of his 70D, and must honestly tell you I can't get them out of the 7D due to the noise.
Dustin, is that a wild or captive wolf?
It's in a preserve, so does that qualify as a wild or captive?
There are useful innovations, and there are frivolous innovations.
SONY: "Because we can."
I would avoid 2X teleconverters on anything but the sharpest of sharp lenses on a crop camera. The 400F5.6 and the 100-400 with 2X teleconverter will have LESS resolving power than the bare lens...
I did the test several years ago.... it was an eye-opener....
If it is not broke don't fix it! I hope Canon Never messes with the 5.6 400. It is a perfect lens for the size, weight, price and does exactly what it does with no crap added. IS will only add weight and Jack the price sky high out of most peoples price range, if you want newer optics and IS look at the 2.8 II USM or the new f4 and be ok to pony up the crazy extra cost but don't ruin it for everyone else who can't afford, don't want IS, carry extra weight. In USA you can find them used for $900 in great condition and the sharpness is so good you can crop the crap out of the image even on a 1.6 sensor, that is why the 5.6 is a perfect BIF lens, all you have to do is point it and get center spot focus then hit the shutter....amazing Bird pictures easily!
Which is exactly the point. You use the sensor every time you take a shot, so if Canon sensors were so inferior, Canon would not have remained the market leader.
Right now, Canon sensors are absolutely inferior at low ISO. This is fact.
I'm not really interested in who sells the most hamburgers. If I was, I'd be shooting grizzlies with iPads and you probably wouldn't hear from me soon.QuoteHow do those touting Exmor advantages demonstrate them? They underexpose by 4-5 stops then push the shadows back up. While there are valid reasons to do that, it's an 'advantage' that's totally useless to the vast majority of dSLR buyers.
Fortunately, technological improvements aren't based on this.
The low ISO DR of the Exmor's is extremely beneficial for landscape and wildlife shooters. I know a few shooters who even tossed their GND's. Simply expose for the sky and lift your shadows later on with minimal penalty.
This is a good thing.
I'm genuinely intrigued, would you say wildlife work is mostly low-ISO? I find the opposite.