That's what I didn't need to hear lol. Thought it was going to be plain sailing like all photography is. HahaCool, I took some shots of flyball earlier this year, although as a mere spectator I couldn't get the angles I wantedGood fun though flyball, although they're so fast that even the D750's AF can sometimes struggle to keep up.
You might find it different, but hit rate for me wasn't as good as I'd hoped. Light wasn't great though and due to the angle I was at I could only start tracking them over the last two jumps which doesn't give much time for the AF system to 'adapt'. Here's a couple
Liking that shot very much Paul, great comp', with a good mono conversion giving a nice full range of punchy tones.
"Looks pretty much like the accommodation you guys will have if you all turn up at my place"
George.
You mind find it different, but hit rate for me wasn't as good as I'd hoped. Light wasn't great though and due to the angle I was at I could only start tracking them over the last two jumps which doesn't give much time for the AF system to 'adapt'. Here's a couple
DSC_4073 by TDG-77, on Flickr
DSC_3984 by TDG-77, on Flickr
Probably just the muppet controlling it using that as an excuseYou do have a rubbish D750 though Toby.
That is pretty bright ... I have my own light pollution, due to my wifes addiction to bloody solar garden lights
Beyond repair mate
TBH I'm not sure why anyone would choose the Nikon over the Tamron or Sigma C 150-600mm. It's more expensive, heavier, less reach and (according to the reviews I've read) not as good at the long end. Considering that the Tamron (and I believe also the Sigma) improves a lot at 550mm that suggests noticeably better IQ with 50mm more reach. Oh, and apparently the Nikon's AF is slower. Obviously you pays your money and all that
Amelia monochrome walk by Tim G, on Flickr
Amelia football by Tim G, on Flickr
What about a 300 f4? The older ones were silly sharp.
Too heavy mate for landscapes. It's one of the reasons i sold my 70-200. The Siggy weighs bugger all by comparison.
Now the newer 300mm pf on the other hand...
I think you're splitting hairs between the lenses tbh, not a great deal in them and I'm sure the tog makes more of an influence. Are you not interesting in the 5D mark IV rather than ditching all of your lenses for another system?
They do, but my comment wasn't meant in the way I think it might have come across. What I meant is that you're splitting hairs in that I don't think you'll see much of a difference, not that you shouldn't compare lenses.
Fair enough, that's obviously less outlay. The 5D4 will come down in price before too long though.
I have the Sigma and can't fault it. I've not used the Nikon so no idea how it compares but I'm not sure how it could be much sharper.I hadn't David, no. Will look into it now however.
Thanks for the suggestion and info.I'm sure I looked into the Sigma when considering the 100mm L, but had forgotten all about it!
TBF the 6D isn't renowned for its AF ability so I'd imagine you'll find the D750 a step up. Several people recently have said that they think the AF system on the 5D3 trumps the Nikon, but having never used it I can't comment. For me Nikon's biggest trump card over Canon is the sensor with it's large DR and superb shadow recovery. Great for landscapes and saves having to bracket most of the time, plus you can rescue shots that you'd have once thrown away.I can understand that.
My point in changing was more based on the issues with the camera I suppose. Pixel peeping is something we all like to do, but I don't bother with much anymore, unless I know I missed focus and that I know was either down to myself, or the focus not locking when and where I wanted it to.
Asking about the lenses was merely an additional question...something which might help my mind swing a bit one way or the other. I know when I was considering moving from the 24-70 MkI to the MkII, there was a mega difference for what I would be using it for, but I went for it regardless. I didn't buy new I might add and the cost to change was minimal, so I don't wish to give folks the idea I simply splashed out an extra £700 on a new lens, without it being justified.
I'm sure by the time the 5D4 comes down to a price I might have considered, the 6D2 will be out.
Nice one, much appreciate the insight.
Absolutely! This is two areas I'm looking into. I photograph items that I then sell on a website. These products can go from very shiny, to black of either shiny no dull in appearance. A good dynamic range is something that has shown it's necessity for what I need. It's by no means bad(the 6D), but there's no harm in considering other possibilities if it means I get what I feel I need...even if it does mean changing brands.
Outstanding, thank you very much for that!
Yes, definitely. The siggy is £90 though...
Abandoned
