tomscott said:

Well I did just that. My 40D took a turn for the worst so needed something to fill untill I can get hold of a 5DMKIII. So I got one a year old under 10k shots for £750. Have to say the camera is incredible, everything is great but...

and its a big BUT! The IQ and noise are horrible in the places you don't expect. In fact I am impressed how good the ISO performance is over 1600 (as the 40D was unusable over 1600) but up to 800 it is horrible! 100-400 really really disappointing, especially 100!!! Coming from a 40D it was much cleaner, its still working to make a comparison and shot two side by side and the 7D is worse, noticeably worce. The DR has no difference either... so where it counts it was disappointing, and i was expecting it to be better especialy DR i thought the IQ would be similar. Everywhere else it is an awesome camera the AF system makes the camera useful for everything and the 8fps is great too, but now after 2 weeks im thinking of just selling and biting the bullet for the 5D MKIII and converting FF.

On my 40D I didnt use any NR at ISO100, on the 7D im using 5-10 on the slider and loosing detail. The NR is set to standard too. Its ridiculous, I was using 5-15 for 400-640 on the 40D.

Maybe I was expecting too much but was a bit disappointed. Not just my cam either have tested two to make sure its not just mine.

Is this normal from you other 7D owners. I hate dissing this camera as im a true canon guy, and ive heard great things about the 7D.I remember hearing another member being upset about the ISO100 performance and thinking he must be mad. But I really feel strongly on this one.

Click to expand...

The 7D is a great camera - but as you said it has a lot of noise in low light. In good lighting, it isn't so bad. For sports, the 7D is excellent. High FPS, extra reach with the crop, great AF. I also picked up some of the faster non-L primes for indoor sports - 85 f1.8. The 7D allows you to get shots you otherwise wouldn't be able to.

I was initially a bit disappointed with the IQ when I first got the camera, but have grown to love it after I have learned what light it works well in and not. I shoot 80% sports, so beside stepping up to a 1D body, the benefits of the 7D far outweigh the compromises for me.

However, if I did not shoot a lot of sports, I would not buy a 7D. I think there are better choices for general purpose shooting, landscape, etc. A 60D or T4i would be less money and probably better - or go FF. A 5DIII gives you just about everything a 7D provides (and more) except the reach of the crop, - so if that is in your price range it seems like the way to go, short of a 1D body.

Maybe for you but there other sony users especially their handful professionals that prefers a little bit of muscle from their camera. NEX is nice but I still like the feel of big DSLRs.

AvTvM said:

Axilrod said:

A99 bulky?? It's the lightest FF DSLR available....

Click to expand...

its still a bulky DSLR.

Rather than clunky SLT A99 and a small but one-focal-length-only RX-1 Sony should have announced the APS-C NEX-6 and a very slightly larger NEX-9 with the 24 MP FF-sensor.

Click to expand...

Not sure what the conversion from GBP to USD is exactly, but i think this combination would come in under budget for your colleague.

Find a used 40D, I have found them around here in the USA for around $400-500 USD. Then i would locate a third party lens, i recommend the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 Di for $500 USD. That lens can be used with both crop and FF cameras, so if your colleague decides to upgrade to Full Frame they can keep using that lens. I have used that setup for over 5 years. It worked for me, especially for someone who is looking to get their feet wet in the DSLR realm. When i shoot weddings this was the lens on my camera, including my 5DmkIII up until i had an issue with the lens. I actually bought another one to get me by until my 24-70 II came in.

I realize it is a third party lens, and some will want you to buy a canon lens, but this is an affordable lens that will get you a perfect range for normal shooting. I shoot weddings with this focal range and it works very good for me! Now it will be between the 24-70 II and my 16-35 II.

Hope this provides you something to look into.

Andy

Thanks a lot for going to the trouble; I look forward to them.

Jim

Seems like you are asking Canon to make a digital equivalent of the Pentax K1000. Its a nice idea, but I doubt there is really a market for such a camera.

I just hate to take my eyes of the viewfinder when I'm concentrated on a photo.Maybe my perfect camera would be an EOS 3,handling and weather sealing of EOS1 ,but small as an EOS 5.In fact like the old EOS1V film camera without battery grip...

Great shot!

I've had good experiences with Sim2000 and their sister service for prints, which I think is called Simlab.

Re: EOS M - Colour Availability

KitsVancouver said:

That's too bad because it will likely mean I have to pay full MSRP. Does anyone know if Canon direct charges tax?

Click to expand...

Yes, Canon Direct charges sales tax. They charge shipping too, so expect to pay a good amount more than MSRP!

I can't imagine any big changes. My trifecta is Canon, Sony then Nikon. Nikon will still sell a lot of dslrs, but just won't be able to keep up with Sony's overall camera sales.

EOBeav said:

If you end up going with a FF, you'll want to hang on to that 70-200.

Click to expand...

No worries, the 70-200 f/4L is a keeper
That is, unless I replace it with the 2.8 IS version at some stage.

robbymack: Why do you suggest the 17-55 f/2.8 IS when I already have the Sigma 17-70? Wouldn't a 24-105 f/4L IS be much more of a step up or would the IS and constant f/2.8 of the 17-55 be worth the upgrade? I suppose the IQ might be better than the Sigma as well?
As for indoor low light photography I'll probably have to resort to flashes anyway, and one of the things I'm starting to invest both time and money into (an additional Speedlite, radio triggers etc.)

Looks like she had an amazing trip and is a quick study
Hope those hippo photos are tightly cropped - not sure I'd want to be close enough to get those photos at 250mm

Wow, you all are amazing!

K-amps said:

You don't have a 70-200 f2.8 mk.ii yet?

Click to expand...

lol No, not yet. I have been on the fence regarding the 70-200 f/2.8 mk. ii for a while now. It seems that there is a general consenses that this lens should set me up rather nicely for my work.

Thank you all again for your support. I definitely still have the others in mind, but I will likely be jumping on board with this little monster.

Also, LightboxPhotos -- I checked out your site and you are quite exceptional at what you do. Keep up the great work!

-Tabor

Found this spoof on a post and thought I'd share it. I thought it was pretty funny.

LEAKED Official Apple iPhone 5 Promo Video - Keynote 2012

Hopefully should be hearing something this week.

Thank you!

The EF mount version of this lens is now available for pre-order at B&H, just in time for Potatokina:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/890581-REG/Voigtlander_bd296e_28mm_F_2_8_SL_II_Lens_Canon.html

Luckely Canon Sweden was in error, today did I recive my 24-70/2.8L II! Some RAW-files for you to preview: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9336.0 Unpacking pictures (in Swedish): http://rust.se/canon-ef-24-702-8l-ii-usm/

FYI, plural eyes ONLY works when the quality of the sound recorded via the on board camera mic is good enough and its 'focus' the same as the audio you wish to sync to. So, in a quiet interview situation where primary audio is being recorded double system, sure the camera mic is perfect for lining up waveforms via something like plural eyes. But if you are in a noisy situation and the mixer is booming, chances are the camera mic picks up way too much ambience; or when you wish to sync up wireless lav sound on subjects and the camera is likewise too far away or the environment again too noisy, it will not work. How can it? Plural Eyes is 100% dependent upon lining up similar waveforms between the canon audio and the 2nd system audio; if they aren't there, it can't line them up.

Other than that, I use it constantly but ALWAYS have other fallbacks for obtaining sync such as getting the TOD clock as close as possible to the recorder TC; and slating when possible. A more $$ solution is to have a jam or wireless TC system, but this usually precludes also having a camera mic ( that is without adding a lot of stuff to the camera...).

my 2 bits

Like most people who have replied, I have both and the 85LII is my main lens. The 50L gets very little use as it sits between the 35 and the 85 which are both amazing and it is less so. My main reservations relate to its sharpness wide open. I do a lot of low light stuff and use the 35 and 85 wide open a great deal.

The only thing I would add is that while the 85 is amazing on full frame, I was very disappointed with how ordinary it seemed when I tried it on a 7D and a 60D.

I bought a new one anyway. Fixing the old one just isn't worth it. At least now I have the MkII versions of both the 18-55 and 55-250, which looks nice for what it's worth ;D

xamkrah said:

Filters.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply. How are you finding filters most useful to your photography? ND to show motion / allow you to shoot wide open etc in daylight? Circular polarizers to enhance images? UV to save your butt if you've got butterfingers like I do? Where are you seeing the most impact in areas that post production tweaking won't get you there? Thanks in advance

verysimplejason said:

I didn't bother with the lens roadmap because I'm already looking at the EF and EFS lens lineup which is extensive enough. It will be advantageous if instead of looking at native lenses, one looks at the advantage of looking at EF and EF-S lenses instead

Click to expand...

[EDIT] it does seem to me like we're saying the same thing, we just phrase it differently. The EOS-M really is just piggy-backing on top of Canon's EOS system. It isn't a system camera in its own right. If you want to buy a mirrorless as a way to extend your Canon DSLR system, then I agree that it makes sense.

My critique is really directed at how it stands up to the competition in its own right. To me, it's pretty clear that it's close to dead last (only the duds from Nikon and Pentax are in the same territory)

First, if you want to buy a camera to use the EOS system of lenses (which I agree is a very strong system), your best choice is a DSLR. Assuming you don't own a DSLR and want to use EF glass, there's not much point in my opinion getting the EOS-M. You could get the latest Rebel for the same price.

EF (and EF-S) lenses blow the compactness advantage you otherwise get from a mirrorless camera because of the longer flange distances. So there's not much point in the Canon mirrorless unless the native lenses are adequate.

I mean, why invest in something you cannot use later if you want to go to the next level (DSLR APS-C/FF)?

Click to expand...

Because that thing might be more suitable. Because it makes more sense to buy glass for the camera you have now, not for the one you might buy later. For example, that's why APS-C users buy EF-S lenses for wide angle -- full frame lenses aren't wide enough.

I travel a lot with work around Europe and the US and always take my camera with me and this has taught me a few lessons.

1. Pack lite and make the most of the kit you take with you. Trust me walking around with all your glass is old really quickly.

2. Pack lite, unless you want to risk having a horrid trip because of lost equipment ALWAYS hand carry your camera...this poses the weight problem as most flights are now putting a 10kg limit on carry on (and some as low as 6kg!)

3. Cheat where possible. How many shots do you think you are really going to need 200mm for when walking in a city? I live in London and shot in the city at weekends and to be honest some of my most preferred shots have been at <100mm and so the 24-105 is a great choice for this...plus if I want one or two longer shots I have a 2x tele converter (no idea, but better then lugging a great 70-200 around!).

4. Be creative, get out of the comfort zone of having all the kit to cover everything and use creativity to overcome the short falls in traveling light.

Personally I now travel with just my 5d3, 50 1.4 and 24-105 and the 2x tele. I don't even bother with my flash as the 5d3 can make up with it in ISO. Sometimes I might add a fold up reflector and a cheap (See:lite) 70-300 5.6 for when I think I will REALLY need some reach, but it is a fraction of the weight of the 2.8 version.

I also take my mac air with me as carry on, this acts not only as a backup for the memory cards, on location/hotel room editing but I also use it as a charger for many devices (cell phones etc) thus saving the need to carry a lot of adapters. A second battery will generally see me last a two week holiday as I do not use live view much at all.

Good luck!

PS, if you want a quick and dirty of the tourist highlights in London, there are a number of walking "photo tours" run for photography training purposes which are worth investigating.

Well, given how much Sony just dropped on us today, Nikon should be dropping something big tomorrow to compete...

Rienzphotoz said:

Lawliet said:

Ironically Canons raw files grow to similar size once you apply the lens corrections of newer DPP versions - and some lenses really benefit from it, the 16-35's borders come to mind.

Click to expand...

I've never used DPP to apply lens correction to raw files ... but I'll give it a try to check out the file sizes.

Click to expand...

If Digital Lens Optimizer is used, which is great, RAW file size almost doubles (!). I get around this by applying DLO, convert from RAW to JPEG, then undoing the DLO (which gives you original file size) before closing/saving the RAW.