marc petzold: Nice Info about that particular picture background, i was happy to read it,more of that, please. That composition looks very good to my eyes.
Apart from that, the Canon 16-35 L II Lens wasn't that good reviewed at lenstip, for example:
Canon EF 16-35 mm f/2.8L II USM11. Summary
solid, sealed barrel, excellent image quality in the frame centre, chromatic aberration sensibly controlled, only slight distortion, taking into account the focal lengths range, low astigmatism, low vignetting level, very quick, silent and accurate autofocus, lens hood and a case included.
unacceptable image quality at frame edge in the aperture range from f/2.8-4.0, average work against bright light, bad price/quality ratio.
Seriously? Who cares about the lens review; can you show me anywhere in the final image that suffers from the lens' massive imperfections?
MSTsnapdoc: I went to Best Buy to see if they had any 7D Mark two's in stock and in fact they did. I played around with the camera for about 45 min. I used A Canon 24 to 70 as well as a 70 to 200 2.8. My experience was quite different than the others I see here. The autofocus was all over the place. Very few shots were in focus unless I held the camera absolutely still on the subject and even some of those were not in focus. I have a 5D Mark III and know how to adjust the autofocus system and that did not help. The store associate who actually seemed more knowledgeable than most was also baffled and had the same experience. Tracking an athlete with my 5D I may have one or two shots in a series where it focuses on the BG, with this camera I only have one or two where it focused on the subject even when it occupies a substantial portion of the frame. Obviously I didn't buy it and will wait for mine to arrive from Amazon and test it thoroughly. The shutter was whisper quiet and vibration free..
Yes, the autofocus is completely broken. Shame on Canon!
markleavesley: I'm no photography or camera expert, or indeed even an amateur. I don’t have a 7D2, or the 7D before it, because I understand anything on the Dxomark website, I have it because it is FAST and captures great family photos in conditions that a compact wouldn’t stand a chance in.
Using my Canon 17-85 IS USM, here are photos I took of our fireworks yesterday. For nearly all the camera was Av @ 1/500s, auto ISO to 16,000, no NR, -2/3 EV. A few are in P and the very last few after the big green cake are with MF (all of the rest are middle 9 point or middle zone AF, scenario 1, tweaked to be as fast and responsive as possible).
Having tried to photo firework before with the 7D, these are better, there is more…ambience. No MF or hunting with the AF, just point and click (and when it goes, it goes). Amazing.
Wanted to share these with the community and stick my thumb up for the 7D2. For Joe Bloggs like me, it’s brilliant.
With the camera set to Av and ISO "limited" to 16,000, how does it work in practice? As conditions get darker, does it gradually open the aperture to maximum and only then start trying to raise ISO, or vice versa, or...?
Devendra: Good to know 7D II folks are able to experience what D300 had 7yrs ago, way back in 2007.. yes I am talking about the "iTR capability (Intelligent Tracking and Recognition)"If the author is talking about face recognition, then Nikon D300 had no problems with this even in low light with my D300 with 51AF/3D focusing.http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/8053750120/photos/2879358/51-3d
Devendra: cool story bro.
rhlpetrus: Looks excellent overall, plan is to get the Leica version. Thanks for good review. Repositioning AF point is mostly an issue when using a tripod, for most other uses, focus and reframe is much quicker.
Huh? Why wait for the Leica version?
dwl017: Sorry my Samsung NX300 with 45mm F1.8 prime will blow this thing out of the water. Im sorry but $900 for m4/3 fixed lens is surely a joke. No way in the world with so many other options. You would be better off with a first edition Sony RX100
Any detachable lens alternative is a much better buy.
...for *you*, maybe.
bmoag: The technology of sensors is amazing.Sadly the physics of light refraction has not changed.Small sensor, small lens, big limitations.However for most users who are happy with a selfie quality image how much do these technological advances really mean?
Camera snobbery at its finest.
Jogger: Cant wait till they scale this up to 1-inch type. Imagine an RX10 with 24-200/f2.8 for Panasonic FZ1000 (24-400) with PDAF. Goodbye m43.
Seriously Jogger? So, larger sensors are no improvement, and we'll also see the death of APS-C and FF?
mpgxsvcd: 4 years ago this chip was unimaginable. Now that it is here Canon is still where they were 4 years ago talking about the “Impossible”.
Right, because four years ago Canon hadn't come up with on-chip PDAF, *before* Sony. Quit the wanky fanboyism and just enjoy the fact that these companies are improving all the time.
mpgxsvcd: The youtube live streaming has peeked my interest. Please tell me more.
And, it's different to (focus) peaking :-)
AbrasiveReducer: Not sure I see the need if the filters are in brass mounts. Aluminum does jam but that's because it's not brass. Still, this seems like a good idea, and if it catches on all filters will soon have knurled rings.
steephill, you're wrong.
T3: I had the original 100-400L IS. I really loved that lens, before selling it. I actually didn't mind the trombone design. It's nice to see that they've finally the whole lens. But now that the new one is even bigger, longer, heavier, and more expensive, and so late in coming, this thing holds no appeal for me. It's just too late. Too bad they didn't introduce this MKII a few years ago. Still, it's nice to see an update to an old favorite of mine, even though I won't be getting this one. The original was a beast to lug around, and this one is even more so.
Too late for what? That makes no sense.
Either you have a need for a lens like this, or you don't. Are you simply saying you no longer shoot with long lenses?
Presumably it's more about the fact that many lenses require a filter to complete their weather-sealing.
Stacey_K: " and successive cameras".... well that is unless Olympus decides to change the lens mount again. I'm done trusting this company to support the customers who invest in their system.
Through corporate mis-management and a partnership with a crappy sensor manufacturer (panasonic), Olympus killed the 4/3 mount right as they had a sensor (the one used in the OMD) in their hands that would have made their lovely ZD 4/3 optics shine. Instead they pull this bait and switch to m4/3. I give then 3-4 years before they bail on this format and switch to yet another mount.
Olympus's problem has never been their optics, and I'm sure these will be fantastic lenses. But I'm willing to bet they will decide in the future the 4/3 sensor is too small and ditch this mount, leaving anyone who buys these lenses left in an orphaned system. I would never trust this company again after what they did with 4/3.
Yes, I knew what you meant about preferring that aspect ratio, and that's fine. But I wrote my reply to correct your incorrect statement about the name, lest others get confused about it.
Still, I could have written it in a less snarky manner.
maxnimo: Okay, I'm trying hard to not burst into laughter, but what would a serious photographer use a 7-14mm lens for?
The only thing I can think of is a sneaky, dishonest realtor who wants to make a small room appear huge.
Zoran and mais51, please see either of:
The fact that the aspect ratio is 4/3 just a coincidence.
Zoran, the sensor *happens* to have that ratio, but the name "4/3" is for very different reasons.
Err, mais51 and ZoranHR, you realise that 4/3 is a sensor SIZE, not ASPECT RATIO, right? Apparently not...
Haha, just as well DPR commentators aren't professional image-quality reviewers! Every time new images are added, we see diametrically-opposed viewpoints, stated with absolute conviction, based on the same objective data.
What a w@nk.
Edit: lol @ DPR, firstly for treating "w@nk" as a "swear word", and secondly for bothering with such easily-bypassed censorship.