New Canon full frame?

Raymond Lin · 31 Jul 2012 at 21:49

jonneymendoza said:
umm the first pic shows u focused in the middle using the middle point(the only usable af).

the 2nd one is a joke. you are trying to gain focus on your subject thats perfectly lite compared to the gate/dark area.

Do you even know how a AF system works?

Show me a pic and proof of u focusing using one of the outer points in a scene where its hard to distinguish between contrasts in a specific scene.

good luck digging one such photo.

Your arrogance is sickening.

Raymond Lin · 31 Jul 2012 at 21:51

An Exception · 31 Jul 2012 at 21:52

You take around 700+ images at a wedding Raymond, I'm not sure what showing a handful proves. It would be more useful to know what your hit rate is, ie how many are pin sharp out of 10?

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=4712529

From the thread you posted, I would be livid if my hit rate was 30-50%. I would think my camera was broken or something, but I remember having similar issues with the 550D 50D +50 1.8 and 85 1.8.
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=4712821

Raymond Lin · 31 Jul 2012 at 21:52

Raymond Lin · 31 Jul 2012 at 21:54

An Exception said:
You take around 700+ images at a wedding Raymond, I'm not sure what showing a handful proves. It would be more useful to know what your hit rate is, ie how many are pin sharp out of 10?

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=4712529

From the thread you posted, I would be livid if my hit rate was 30-50%. I would think my camera was broken or something, but I remember having similar issues with the 550D 50D +50 1.8 and 85 1.8.
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=4712821

He asked for one photo.

It proves that it is not useless. Granted, it is not the best (never claimed it was) but is it totally useless?

Wait, no, you are right, you Nikon users are always right, it is utterly useless, it was all luck, wedding after wedding.

Ksanti · 31 Jul 2012 at 21:59

Why can't we all just stfu, acknowledge that both systems are very capable and more capable than 99% of the photographers arguing over them, and just take a quiet moment to laugh at sigma?

An Exception · 31 Jul 2012 at 21:59

Raymond Lin said:
He asked for one photo.

It proves that it is not useless. Granted, it is not the best (never claimed it was) but is it totally useless?

Wait, no, you are right, you Nikon users are always right, it is utterly useless, it was all luck, wedding after wedding.

If the hit rate is 30-50%, then that's not acceptable to me. If you find it acceptable and can grab enough in focus at every wedding and it works for you, that's great.

Personally I'm **** every time I see a fuzzy image that would otherwise be great.

James J · 31 Jul 2012 at 22:00

jonneymendoza said:
please dont even mention the ancient useless 8 point af system thats as useless as a blind frog with on the centre one usable.

Anyways to answer your question, wildlife togs use a 7d because its fast, has a far SUPERIOR af then teh crap thats inside the 5d2 and has a crop reach. perfect for wildlife.

do not go and mention 5d2 here because i and others will have a field day proving you wrong.

the 7d has AA thats visible and impacts the iq in a negetive way and there is no if or buts about it.

we are NOT discussing whether YOU or others are happy with the AA and the iq of the 7d. we are discusisng the fact that it does have AA that affects the IQ.

that is all.

Lol brilliant. Just proven yourself to be a troll, congrats!

Raymond Lin · 31 Jul 2012 at 22:00

An Exception said:
If the hit rate is 30-50%, then that's not acceptable to me. If you find it acceptable and can grab enough in focus at every wedding and it works for you, that's great.

Personally I'm **** every time I see a fuzzy image that would otherwise be great.

It depends how you define hit rate................right D.P.?

James J · 31 Jul 2012 at 22:02

jonneymendoza said:
umm the first pic shows u focused in the middle using the middle point(the only usable af).

the 2nd one is a joke. you are trying to gain focus on your subject thats perfectly lite compared to the gate/dark area.

Do you even know how a AF system works?

Show me a pic and proof of u focusing using one of the outer points in a scene where its hard to distinguish between contrasts in a specific scene.

good luck digging one such photo.

Quoted for future reference to an example of utter stupidity.

An Exception · 31 Jul 2012 at 22:03

James J said:
Lol brilliant. Just proven yourself to be a troll, congrats!

Your the one who brought this whole AF thing up!!!

Raymond Lin · 31 Jul 2012 at 22:04

Oh, and one of my favourite !

135 @ 2.0

James J · 31 Jul 2012 at 22:04

Ksanti said:
Why can't we all just stfu, acknowledge that both systems are very capable and more capable than 99% of the photographers arguing over them, and just take a quiet moment to laugh at sigma?

But sigma make some great lenses!

The new 800mm is pure sex in alloy.

An Exception · 31 Jul 2012 at 22:05

James J said:
Quoted for future reference to an example of utter stupidity.

Stop trying to be antagonistic please.

An Exception · 31 Jul 2012 at 22:06

Raymond Lin said:
Oh, and one of my favourite !

135 @ 2.0

You said this wasn't actually very sharp?

Raymond Lin · 31 Jul 2012 at 22:08

An Exception said:
You said this wasn't actually very sharp?

I think i said it wasn't as sharp as I liked.

An Exception · 31 Jul 2012 at 22:09

Raymond Lin said:
I think i said it wasn't as sharp as I liked.

So not so good if you wanted a large print?

Raymond Lin · 31 Jul 2012 at 22:10

An Exception said:
So not so good if you wanted a large print?

Actually, it's fine when printed (large or otherwise), but the pixel peeping part of me (yes i do have that side), it is not 100% sharp, it is more like 98% sharp.

p.s. it was 1 shot, that shot's hit rate was 100%.

Anyway, i am out of this thread, it was fun while it lasted.

An Exception · 31 Jul 2012 at 22:12

But not printed large then?
I would count that as a usable shot, but not a 'hit'.

James J · 31 Jul 2012 at 22:13

An Exception said:
Your the one who brought this whole AF thing up!!!

If you read my post instead of just trying to flame, you'd see that I compared the garbage about the AA filter on the 7D to what people on this very forum say about the focus on the 5D mk ii. That got blown out of the water by a few members on here, including you and this is exactly the same. Its perfectly acceptable to say something like "the D7000 has a better sensor, giving better DR and a sharper image due to less aggressive AA filters" instead of making out that a 7D cannot take a photo because the AA filter is the worst thing since the only way is essex...

No one on here can argue the first part of what I said as thats just fact, the D7000 does have a better sensor. The sensor however isn't the only thing people buy cameras for, with the 1.6x crop factor making super telephoto focal lengths vastly cheaper and easier to obtain and a better autofocus system.

Its just like I wouldn't ever argue that the 5D mk ii's autofocus system is anywhere near as good as the D700, as it isn't, thats fact. However, like above, making out that it simply doesn't work is just laughable.

All this talk of hit rates is also pointless, as the hit rate naturally goes up when you know the limits and quirks of the hardware inside out. If you handed me a D700, my hit rate with that would be lower than with my 5D mk ii, simply because I don't know how to use the autofocus system properly on the nikon model. With time that would obviously improve and probably surpass the 5D mk ii for hit rate, but we are most likely talking a max of 1 potential photo difference in a wedding environment. If it was a sports event, which neither camera are designed for, the D700 would clearly be the winner. Thats all fine and dandy though and no one would dispute it.

Its time to all come back to reality and refill the common sense tanks.