Well, really planned on going from D3 to MkIV, but also liked the idea of having a 1.6 crop with the 300 f2.8 with 1.4 extender for wildlife. So, when some reviews started to surface from users, I thought I would give it a whirl. This is a hobby for me, and in that context I enjoy trying out new things and if they don't pan out, it is not a huge deal. The pros here have to know what will work for them and what will pay the bills, so when they make a change I can only imagine that it is a huge deal! I know when I am on the job, mistakes just can't be made. But when I am here, my mess ups are acceptable to me :-). Hopefully though, the 7D will provide me some nice wildlife images for my basement and the MkIV will make me some special memories of this season. While Nikon has watched us make 2 state appearances in a row, I am hoping Canon will watch us go all the way
Regards,
Greg
I can see his point. If I shot daytime and a camera had the improved AF, I could enjoy using a 1.6x crop camera on my old 400 2.8.
And when I shoot daytime football (2 games this season, which is a lot), I use the D300 and 200-400, great combo.
What I'd love to see? A comparison of images shot at 6400 between a 7D and a D3. I doubt the extra mp makes a difference when its all resized down, but if it was close enough, that would be interesting.
And of course, the million dollar question: How is the Mk IV gonna act. I could see myself with at least one, since I do have a video background.
The other question I'd ask about the mkiv is whether or not you'll wait until it's been out for a while. I know for me, I wouldn't buy the first one after the mkiii debacle (I'll happily let someone else test drive this time ).
Yes, the D3 is much better no doubt. I really just posted to try to give others more information when trying to fulfill their needs. I was surprised at the performance of the 7, just in that I was expecting worse from a 1.6 crop body. Having said that, I will not be using one in the gyms I am stuck shooting BB But, I do think it will be a great backpack body when I want the " extra reach" the 1.6 can provide.
Regards,
Greg
Those shots(Mike's) to me look great for a 1.6 crop body!! The shot I took was on a field that was just horrible, with lighting changing from bad, to really bad from spot to spot on the field. But, I had owned the body for about 72 hours and thought it would be fun to try out as our local team played their second round game of state. Unfortunately, I will not get to try it for round 3, as we went down to the defending state champs 17-7. Anyway, hope all this info is helpful to someone out there.
Regards,
Greg
PS: I bet I can make an 8x10 on the Epson 3800 that Mom and Dad would love! They are not near as worried about the pixels as we are . While this camera or that photographer could do much better, for small town America this is often the only chance for family and friends to have something on the wall.
Yes sir, I agree. Underexposed and with a bit of motion blur. My only thought in this situation was to jump up ISO another stop, but being first night out I really did not trust the output above 6400. Would you have jumped the ISO one more stop? My 300 was already at 2.8 and I did not feel I could leave the shutter open any longer and have any hopes of freezing the action. Thanks for your thoughts.
Greg
The football shot is too grainy to be a keeper for me. And while the cheer shots in the other thread are nice, the skin tones look unusual. msauk's image is great, but I also realize he didn't have to freeze any action.
I shoot a 20D and even 800 is sometimes questionable. If I buy a new camera at some point will the 7D be a noticeable upgrade or should I look at something used. While I am an enthusiast who sometimes uses the camera to make money I'm not ready to go with something for just sports or just portraits - I'd like the flexibility to continue shooting a little bit of everything. Thanks for your help.
rxgolf wrote:
Yes sir, I agree. Underexposed and with a bit of motion blur. My only thought in this situation was to jump up ISO another stop, but being first night out I really did not trust the output above 6400. Would you have jumped the ISO one more stop? My 300 was already at 2.8 and I did not feel I could leave the shutter open any longer and have any hopes of freezing the action. Thanks for your thoughts.
Greg
I think at some point you will have to decide, get a proper exposure or stop action. I would have chosen the proper exposure and moved down to 1/640th or 1/500th which should be just fine for most shots. Move to more in front of the player where motion is not as extreme as a side shot would be.
Nothing wrong with have some motion in the image especially in the extremities (sp?)
msauk wrote:
I think at some point you will have to decide, get a proper exposure or stop action. I would have chosen the proper exposure and moved down to 1/640th or 1/500th which should be just fine for most shots. Move to more in front of the player where motion is not as extreme as a side shot would be.
Nothing wrong with have some motion in the image especially in the extremities (sp?)
I agree, a small amount of motion blur does not harm the shot as long as the focal point is sharp. In fact, in many sports shots it is desirable IMO.
).