New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Canon Thread - Page 179

post #2671 of 2679

Heck if it's equal to the 5d3 it would be an improvement! Given the specs and intended market I'm hoping for something closer to a 1dX level of AF performance. Nikon's D810 and D750 are really kicking ass so I hope they don't screw this up.

post #2672 of 2679
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadCow View Post
 


From what I've read so far, sensor performance should be very similar to the 70D, which is quite good in Canon-land but still behind compared to the competition. 

 

This is exactly what I expected, but after looking at the RAW comparison photo's from DPReview, I must concede that Canon did *something* with the sensor such that 7D II RAW files look about one stop or a little less better in noise compared to 70D RAW.  In fact, 7D II RAW looks to me a bit better than the Nikon D7100 and Sony A6000!   In Canon-land, we will take any RAW improvement we can get :biggrin: 

 

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii/8

post #2673 of 2679
But still doesn't mention the fact that Canon is behind competition, the dynamic range won't be good I bet.

But we'll see.
post #2674 of 2679

I know you long time full frame users won't be impressed, but I had to pull the 70D kit at the price it is..remember this is my first SLR. For years i have used super zooms mostly Sony stuff for their high fps. Last year i got into photography a bit more seriously learning aperture, iso, shutter speed modes. There was three problems i had with super zooms that made me look into crop DSLR, one is the small sensor can't crop later at all, two is there is no buffer and three any iso is horrible. I shoot mostly small perching birds mainly and with any bird photography you need to be able to track the bird which means later you need to crop. I did not have time to go out looking for any birds but i did get to play around in the yard a bit. This was taken with the 55-250 stm kit lens. I need to learn how to use RAW and adjust it where i get most out of my photos first, then once i save up some cash i will upgrade the lens to either the 400mm 5.6 prime or the 100-400mm used. After some time if i feel the need to upgrade to the 7Dmarkii I will but for now i have plenty of time to learn photography better. 

 

 

 

post #2675 of 2679

Skip the 100-400 and get the 400 F5.6 if you need the reach else get the 70-300 L IS :) 

70-300 L IS has better iamge quality and less service issues especially with regards to the push-pull zoom mechanisms. 

post #2676 of 2679

I wish the 7D II wasn't so expensive. Wouldn't mind upgrading my 1D III. My 6D is amazing though to say the least, so that keeps me occupied. Definitely one of the best purchases I have ever made. 

post #2677 of 2679

All the "behind the competition" comments strike me as a bit odd. We're mostly talking about situations and performance which: 

1. skirt the shoals of situations 99.9% of us will never have to deal with - much less where incremental improvements in performance will make a real difference in getting the shot. and

2. are a thousand times better than what the top cameras in the world could manage even 3 years ago. And those were cameras that were more than sufficient for National Geographic, SI, Conde Nast, and pretty much everyone who was not using Medium format digital or bigger. 

 

Would it be nice if Canon was pushing the envelope of what was capable? Sure. But I'm also be happy with stellar image quality (because that's what we have) and better glass in most instances than Nikon's offerings (with very few exceptions, the Nik 14-24/2.8 for instance). Most of this sounds like spec masturbation, and not grounded in actual shooting needs. 

post #2678 of 2679
Quote:
Originally Posted by liamstrain View Post

All the "behind the competition" comments strike me as a bit odd. We're mostly talking about situations and performance which: 


1. skirt the shoals of situations 99.9% of us will never have to deal with - much less where incremental improvements in performance will make a real difference in getting the shot. and


2. are a thousand times better than what the top cameras in the world could manage even 3 years ago. And those were cameras that were more than sufficient for National Geographic, SI, Conde Nast, and pretty much everyone who was not using Medium format digital or bigger. 

Would it be nice if Canon was pushing the envelope of what was capable? Sure. But I'm also be happy with stellar image quality (because that's what we have) and better glass in most instances than Nikon's offerings (with very few exceptions, the Nik 14-24/2.8 for instance). Most of this sounds like spec masturbation, and not grounded in actual shooting needs. 
I shoot landscapes and i'll definitely appreciate a sensor with better dynamic range.

That being said, canon's glass is what kept me pondering.
post #2679 of 2679
Quote:
Originally Posted by raptor84 View Post
 

Skip the 100-400 and get the 400 F5.6 if you need the reach else get the 70-300 L IS :) 

70-300 L IS has better iamge quality and less service issues especially with regards to the push-pull zoom mechanisms. 

That's what i was thinking. I played with the 100-400 but never cared that much about the sharpness. There are rumors of a new one coming in November and i won't be buying anything before then anyway. I will have to rent the 70-300 though, your suggestion makes sense. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home