Eric Ouellet: What the heck is going down here, people talk about raw, bandwith, artifact of jpeg and so on.There is a format with better quality and just more options for the same size... And the higher quality is truly visible! All of that for free... That's just great!!! Congratulation to Fabrice Bellard for its job and its free licensing.
About Raw: You could also save your raw file in this format (loss-less). One format that could fits all (with compression).About Bandwith: No connection? Better quality for same size or smaller size for same quality.About Artifact: A company do a good job or not of converting to JPEG and/or we should also live with the way this encoder works. It's not a debate on good conversion. Anybody good convert properly if they really want it.About Better color accuracy: You can have more pixel (if any could ever see the difference) but mainly it also support the ICC (like jpeg).We (and companies) only have to accept it and we will all live happier :-)
@akpinxit,you misunderstood the comparison tool. Just set the photos to tiny and move the slider left to right. left side is mushy jpeg and right side is BPG. if you still see left is better, you must be communist
jaykumarr: very cute shot..great job..
what is your opinion about this tamron lens? does it do BIF well?
Bird In Flight
very cute shot..great job..
a dream like photo..
i think DR of D800 played a superb role in bringing out colors in shadows.
excellent work.. stiching is not visible...
jaykumarr: readers who are angry about the pricing should see the pricing of 80-400mm II Nikon AF-S. That is 20% higher. ( As per the feedback from users, that Nikon lens is extremely fast focusing and almost as sharp as prime. So I neither blame that price).
@Bananasplit,My original post was that, this 100-400mm lens price is not unfair at all since 80-400mm nikon has higher price.
But somehow you did some roundabout and finally managed to advise me to buy 7DII . For that you claimed nikon has costlier lens and canon has bad noise sensors as the reasons.
I am tired finally.
@Bananasplit,The noise is better in 7DII than 7D. probably something wrong with you to claim otherwise.
When you failed to prove D7100 is better, you approved that 7dII is no sloth.
@Bananasplit, please provide theDXOmark link where 7DII noise is worse than say D7100. That will help me too to switch to Nikon.
// noise of the 7D at low ISO too high and Canon did not make an effort to improve it in the 7D II//@Bananasplit,as per dpreview studio test, 7DII has low noise, on par with others on both jpg and raw. Perhaps, the extra resolution of (2)4MP is useful only with prime lens at specific apertures.
Please re-do your analysis. I think 7DII release is very satisfactory. If you are still not convinced, you can sell your equipments and change to Nikon.
readers who are angry about the pricing should see the pricing of 80-400mm II Nikon AF-S. That is 20% higher. ( As per the feedback from users, that Nikon lens is extremely fast focusing and almost as sharp as prime. So I neither blame that price).
dpreview :Why there is no lens reviews for a while? ( I understand you are busy in 7D MKII review), i think you should review lens like nikon AFS 80-400 II etc.
excellent photo ysal.. this photo gives really different perspective of the humming bird
jaykumarr: To me images look very nice, clean with good white balance, good sharpness, moderate saturation.
Canon Engineers must have traded off some resolution for video, since they added little pixels in sensor for better AF during video. The result is slightly less resolution, but better video and higher FPS due to saved MP size. anyway great job.
@ Karl Gnter Wnsch,Thanks for clarification.
@Karl Gnter Wnsch,
I am not sure how you claim that they split every pixel in to half. Halving is .5 of the original size. If they had done that, that means, Canon is using 40MP capable sensor for 20MP.
If you were trying to convey that a smaller portion of sensor is traded off, that is what I am saying, since that smaller portion may just be equivalent to extra 4MP Sony/Nikon sensors have.
Joed700: It seems like the Sony Alpha a6000 is the winner here in terms of sharpness and high ISO performance.
sony is jpeg is superb overall. But in raw, it looks really bad.
To me images look very nice, clean with good white balance, good sharpness, moderate saturation.
cheap.. cheap that you fed an animal that is not supposed to be fed. cheaper is you gave chicken to some herbivore
jaykumarr: omg.. the style of dpreview titles.. superb..
"new $78K lens" - loudly says everyone "not for you" even before clicking the link. Canon should have released this lens two week back as "impossible".
It is canon's business to price and sell whatever.. we should not intervene in their business. Moreover, it is clear that Nikon is not offering anything close to Canon like this or 100-400mm or 200-400mm 1.4x . I haven't seen them doing any improvement in their lens side.
I and thousand others here will be happier if Canon gives a sharper,faster version of already good 100-400 L , rather than these kind of professional only lens. I think that will be more profitable for Canon.
thanks mgblack74 & steelhead3.
Both your comments helped me learn something new. I thought nikon 80-400 is average lens, but i clearly see that new version (that costs 250%) is real sharp one.
omg.. the style of dpreview titles.. superb..
Branko Collin: If I've learned anything from some of the arm-chair lawyers in this thread, it's that Lensrentals.com must be filthy rich by now because of all the copyrights that automatically devolve to them every time someone takes a photo with rented gear.
@Branko, sorry, my mistake. Now when I read this, I see your sarcasm, but when i read it 2 months back i could not.