waht do you think about differences in effects on pictures between editing in camera and in DPP?
I'm not really wanting to get roped in to be honest, my opinion is what works for me is best for me.
I went against my own advice and put the firmware on yesterday, and because my nephews are visiting (aged 3&1/2 and
the improvements in burst depth are coming in very handy.
And my new 100 f2 USM is getting a work out, as is the AiServo mode on my 7D. But I digress.
Canon have made a very good camera excellent. Those who aren't immediately reaping the benefits of fwV2 don't use a camera in a way that requires them to have a 7D. In my opinion.
Not a fan of in camera processing. I shoot RAW because I do like to tinker at the computer, add about 40% sharpening and about 50% luma NR depending on the ISO. And I see the benefit.
I don't use DPP all that often, I find ACR via photoshop better. On the rare occassions I shot with an 18-55 kit lens (non and IS) I found DPP squeezed that extra 10% out the lens.
I had a wee dabble with the incamera RAW processing. I can see the benefit for those on a quick turn around, and certainly the rating seems like a great idea, but generally... not for me.
I can't speak from any imperical or qualified standpoint, just what works for me.
I would say that when folk start quoting 10 previous quotes in a reply that a thread has went sour, and that it's probably time to get back out with the camera and remind yourself why you do it.
Forums are all the same. It could be cheese. Somebody would have tried a cheese first, somebody could have spent more on cheese, some folk just can't accept anybody else liking another type of cheese, somebody else might just want to get on with enjoying their cheese without being insulted.
It's tiresome. A shame because there is a lot of knowledge and a lot of worth on here. Some folk just let themselves down though. And they certainly wouldn't speak the way they type if they were sitting next to the person in a pub...