Will a kekko converter work well with the 70D and the 70-300 canon lens?
I have a canon 70D and one of my lens' is the 70-300is usm. I am looking for some more distance for wildlife and nature shots as well as some landscape shooting. I've narrowed my search down to the following;
Canon 70-300L with 1.4 extender
canon 100-400L 4.5
canon 400mm prime
sigma 150-500
tamron 150-600
I like to blow up some of my pics to at least 16x20 or bigger. I have down the research but am curious in some actual lens experience. Everyone says that the prime has fantastic image quality but it is limiting because of no zoom. The 100-400 is a great lens but some complain of the pump design and outdated technology. The 70-300 is same distance that I own but better quality and with a tc can add the needed extra distance. Both the sigma and tamron have got rave reviews but they are a lot bigger and heavier to cart around. (most of my shooting would be handheld). On the surface the 100-400 would seem the right choice for me, but the outdated technology worries me a bit - does it pay to buy such an old lens?
That's their overall score. The image quality score is like I posted.
I have been a loyal Canon owner with a T3i, 50mm,10-22, 70-300, 15-85(canon lens) and a 18-270 Tamron lens. I have been thinking about upgrading my camera but after reading many blog comments and snapsort reviews of the D7100 - I am confused. I don't want to start the whole canon vs Nikon debate, however all reviews say that the image quality on the Nikon blows away the canon. Snapsort rates the Nikon at 85 and the canon at 65. If anyone has had either or both of these cameras - is there really that much difference in image quality between these two camera? Any help is appreciated.
Why are you selling it if it is such a great lens? Also what exact model # do you have?
I wouldn't take the big lens on my trip - that I would use for local wildlife shots. I guess the problem arose when I tested my friends 7D with a 70-200 f4L lens. We were shooting birds in his yard - I was totally impressed with the camera and the lens. I did feel that the 7D was heavy, but did like the feel of the camera. Therefore I felt that a 70D would be a good choice( since it is lighter and yet it feels similar). I also thought the lens was better than my 70-300is usm - although I don't know how much better? Or is the price for a L lens worth it? The idea to get a full frame is tempting, but I am not sure I want to dump all of my EFS lenses to do that upgrade. This is why I was thinking that the 70D upgrade made some sense. I definitely want to get a lens with a longer reach no matter what and that is why I was thinking about the Tamron 150-600.
Also I am a little gun shy for buying a used camera - I guess I am a little nervous about used products - even though the price for a better camera makes great sense. I know I am a little confused!
I have been following other posts that lens quality is more important than camera upgrade. I have been debating about upgrading my T3i for a 70D. I have a canon 15-85, and canon 70-300 is usm, canon 10-22 and canon 50 1.4. I was also looking to get a lens with a longer range for an upcoming trip to the Netherlands. I realize that the 70D is a better camera, but would it make more sense to get a lens like the new tamron 150-600 or get a converter for the canon 70-300 to boost that lens. Or should I forego the camera upgrade and go for one of the L lenses with 2.8 or f4 capabilities. I feel that I need the IS lenses. I realize these lenses are big bucks. Any practical advice would be greatly appreciated.
I know this sounds silly, but can I get any good pics of the fireworks on a friends boat that is anchored in the Hudson River, NYC. Its a fair size boat but is it possible to keep the camera still in calm waters? Or am I nuts. I have a T3i and 50mm 1.4, canon 10-22 and a 70-300.
If I stay with the t3i, which L lens would you recommend to add to my mix of lens?
Can I use my ef70-300 f4-5.6 isusm and ef50 1.4, and my tamron 18-270 f3.5-6.3 di ll vc pzd on a canon 6d? Also if I go for the 6d, should I go with the kit lens (24-105 l) of should I get the 24-70 f/4l?
First of all I have a Canon t3i with a 10-22 canon, 15-85 canon, 70-300, 50mm canon and 18-270 tamron. I do mostly landscape, travel and family shooting. With all the talk about full frame I have been debating to trade in my stuff for a Canon full frame like the 6D. (I would stay with canon because two of my lens now could be used with the new camera). I just wonder if the better image quality and weight is worth this move. Or would it be better to upgrade some of my current lens or even try one of the mirror cameras. Any good advice? Lets not argue about canon or Nikon. I actually have been thinking about Sony.
I also have a canon 15-85 lens.
I'm going to Amsterdam and Brussels on a tour, so I want to travel light. Yet I don't want to sacrifice too much picture quality. I have T3i with a tamron 18-270, canon 10-22 and canon 70-300 lens. I also have a Fuji hs50exr which I bought to have a all in one option so I don't need to lug lenses sometimes. I'm curious to hear everyone's experienced opinions.
I am new to raw shooting and am a bit confused if shooting raw and jpeg is better than just raw? I have read that if you shoot both you can decide which to tweak. Also, what is the advantage to save as tiff instead of jpeg? Do most people delete the raw files after PP and just save jpegs or tiff because of large file size?
On a different topic, do you need to re-format memory cards after every shoot or can you just delete the files off the card? What are the cons for just deleting the files?