October 31, 2014, 11:02:28 AM

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10
51
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II Owners first thoughts
« Last post by photennek on Today at 08:57:25 AM »
I love my 5D MK III and shoot sports with it, some triathlons, especially the bike portion.  It is not built for that and especially with a lot of movement, the AF does not track enough to my liking.    Could well be user error, but if you are looking to get sharp action with movement, I think the 1Dx is the top choice, when budget comes into play, I would go 7D MK II over 5D MK III. 

5D MK III will be better low light, but not so much AF tracking.  I would rather have an image with slightly more noise that is tack sharp than a out of focus one with less noise.

YMMV

I am rather surprised at this.  I thought that focusing was the thing that the 5D3 was good at.

It is. I have owned a 7d, 5d2, and 1d4. My 5d3's have better AF than all of these and it is noticeable. I shoot a lot of BIF and work in low light all the time.

I guess the point is, 5d3 is good, but apparently 7d2 is now even better.  I'm curious if someone can give a number (metrics) to how much autofocus tracking has improved in practise.  I don't know if there is existing comparison (metrics) how much better 1DX is compared to 5d3 in autofocus tracking... apparently 7d2 should be the best of all these three.
52
7D MK II Sample Images / Re: Anything Shot with a 7D MII
« Last post by tayassu on Today at 08:56:54 AM »
Thanks for sharing! :)
That low-light performance looks freakin' amazing! :D
53
Hey entropy69! :D
You say you miss the reach sometimes and you say you never use your 7D; so why don't get a body that has got that reach and that you actually use?
I would say go for the MKII! :) After all I read (in this forum, in Arthur Morris' blog etc.) the 7DII will blow your mind! I read from different photographers that the AF is better than the one in the 1DX, which is considered the best in the world, and Arthur Morris even says that the resolution and noise on the 7DII is better than on the 5DIII! 10 vs. 6 fps also make a truckload of a difference...
Go for the 7DII! :D
54
7D MK II Sample Images / Re: Anything Shot with a 7D MII
« Last post by AcutancePhotography on Today at 08:53:00 AM »
ISO 4000?  Pretty nice.  Bet the lighting in that gym is craptastic.  You did a good job.
55
I think you answered  your own question

"I bought a 7D three years ago, added a 5D mk III later. Since then I have not touched the 7D but kept it as backup camera. " 

"The 5D mk III is really awesome but every now and then I do miss the extra reach."  But not missing it enough to dust off your 7D, right?

Unless you have money to burn, I would keep shooting with the 5D3 and continue keeping the 7D as a backup you don't touch.  Why buy another camera, if it is likely it will be another back up camera sitting on a shelf?

Is there really something you can't get with the 5D3 that you could only get with the 7D2.. that you could not get with the 7D you already paid for?

But this opinion is coming from an old photographer who is cheap and does not suffer from G.A.S.  ;D
56
I bought a 7D three years ago, added a 5D mk III later. Since then I have not touched the 7D but kept it as backup camera. I shoot various subjects, also a lot of sports using the 70-200 2.8 II, Sigma 120-300 2.8 sports and 1.4III converter.
The 5D mk III is really awesome but every now and then I do miss the extra reach. Extra mm for full frame are really expensive and above budget.... Would it make sense to replace the 7D for the Mk II and start using the 7D mk II for sports only? Or would I be disappointed since detail and low light performance of the 5D mk III are better than then 7D mk II anyway?   

300mm f2.8 would yield 480mm f2.8 on the 7D mk II
300mm f2.8 + 1.4 converter would yield 672mm f4 on the 7D mk II

Reasons to consider upgrading the 7D: better reach and maybe AF speed (how does it compare to the 5D III anyway??). fps, although dramatically improved in the Mk II is not my main concern. Any thoughts appreciated.
57
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Most ridiculous camera ever?
« Last post by AcutancePhotography on Today at 08:45:02 AM »
I read the title of this thread and suspected it had something to do with the DF. And yes, it was. hahaha

How about a gold plated Canon Point and Shoot?

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-ADVANTIX-Limited-Edition-Gold-Plated/dp/B004EBP0TC#
http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Canon_IXUS
58
Seems like a long-winded way of saying "expose high, process low."  I already use this method when I have time, and I have one quibble with his explanation: the goal, for me at least, is not to put the brightest areas at 99+% exposure, but to put the brightest areas I care about at 99+% exposure.  In some cases I'm willing to allow some areas to blow-out, either because they're too small to affect the final image or because it's a trade-off I'm willing to make for the rest of the image.

And let me see if I can avoid derailment of the thread: sensor DR irrelevant here because no matter how much DR you have (current sensor tech) you can still apply these principles to optimize your exposure.  Can we please not argue about sensor DR in this thread?
59
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Most ridiculous camera ever?
« Last post by AcutancePhotography on Today at 08:41:11 AM »
I would hate to lose the lens cap on this one.

Do they sell a lens hood to protect the gold lens hood???   :)
60
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Most ridiculous camera ever?
« Last post by sanj on Today at 08:40:19 AM »
I read the title of this thread and suspected it had something to do with the DF. And yes, it was. hahaha
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10