Red Ring Tupperware Party, Autumnal Equinoctal Edition (24)

Timphoto wrote in post #17477380
Jim, the reason the "unfiltered" sensor version costs more is that it is the same sensor with an additional layer added to offset/negate the AA filter. one more layer = more cost.

I don't know whether we'd be able to see a difference. I think the better question to ask yourself is whether the subject matter you usually shoot contains things that would frequently result in moire.

Thanks for that clarification, Tim.

You are right, rarely do I shoot something that results in moire, thought there have definitely been a few times it has happened, and it is annoying. I see it more with our P&S, or my cell phone, with shiny fabrics, window screens, etc, than I do when using my 5D II, though I imagine then it maybe has this low-pass filter on it.

Why does it seem there is never one right answer.

BearLeeAlive wrote in post #17477433
Why does it seem there is never one right answer.

That would be too easy.

Buy both. Have the best of both worlds.

Jill-of-all-Trades wrote in post #17477476
That would be too easy.

Buy both. Have the best of both worlds.

No kidding!!!

I am having enough trouble convincing myself to even upgrade to one new body. These things sure are bloody expensive.

Maybe I should revisit the Sony A7 again.

Jill-of-all-Trades wrote in post #17477476
That would be too easy.

Buy both. Have the best of both worlds.

Having both is like having too many lenses...you can never be certain you packed the best one for your trip.

I always want more gear, but I certainly cannot afford more! If anything, I need to replace my 18-55. It gets stuck at the far end of the focus, and it's getting soft. I want more, but then I spend a day walking around Niagara Falls or Chicago with all my gear in a backpack, and I realize that I don't want to haul any more weight.

My order of gear wishing.... replace the 18-55, get a remote trigger for the flash, replace the 55-250. And somewhere in there get my mirror lens cleaned and buy an adapter for it.
Someday I'd like to move up from the Rebel, mainly for better ISO, but lenses come first.

Timphoto wrote in post #17477498
Having both is like having too many lenses...you can never be certain you packed the best one for your trip.

Good truth to this, actually. I used to almost always take both bodies, with the 40D having the 100-400 pretty much permanently mounted to it. Though very nice for some wildlife photos, and a great combo when needed, I rarely used it. Same with taking lots of lenses. I used to take my big ass Pelican case, that holds all the camera gear in it, but found I rarely used most of it, and that is a lot of weight bring, even if it stays in the vehicle, plus a lot of dollars in gear at risk of being stolen.

In the last year or so, I have started just bringing the 5D, and about 4 lenses, tops, and found I rarely missed not having the gear left at home. Seeing I mostly do people and landscape stuff, with the 24-105 being the number one choice, with the 14-40 and 70-200 tied for second, with the rare occasion of doing macro, or needing the f/1.4 in super low light. I would love to do more wildlife shooting too, but to be honest, just don't have the time to dedicate to it.

I rarely take my 100-400 any more, as the 70-200 with a TC is almost as good, but with the new 100-400 instead of the 70-200, I am thinking that it will get a lot more use.

I am happy with just the 24II - 85II and 70-200. For what it's worth, it gives me all the ranges that i need and enough for landscapes and portrait shots...

would you use the 100-400 more than a 70-200 to justify having one?

Yeah, so many different combinations that can work good for different folks. For some reason I have gotten into relying on zooms a lot since getting into using a DSLR, and rarely use the primes, unless the conditions require (again, like low light and macro).

Would I use the new 100-400 more than my 70-200? I do think so, especially if trading the two in to get the one lens. I like the capacity for TC's on the new 100-400, and hopefully it will focus faster too, the latter being my biggest complaint with my 100-400.

If I sell the four lenses I listed above, and buy the new 100-400 II, I will end up with some cash in pocket too.

Besides, hoping to get some stellar wildlife shots on our yacht cruise in June.

I have the same issues. Before I retired I received a very nice check for unused vacation time. I put most of it into my retirement fund, but also bought some L lenses that I thought I might like. My intent was to use them for a while and then "thin the herd" to a more reasonable quantity. So far I've sold two lenses. I have too many lenses that cover 24mm. A TS-E 24 f/3.5L II, a 24mm f/1.4L II, a 24-105, a 16-35L II, and a 24-70 f/2.8L II. To make matters worse, I'm lusting after the new EF 11-24.

So I'm going to keep the 24-105 and the 24-70, and sell the TS-E 24 f/3.5L II and 24mm f/1.4L II to fund the EF 11-24.

Regarding the Sony A7 and your trip...have you considered renting the A7R with a metabones adapter? That's 36 megapixels and I've seen some excellent shots posted here with the new 100-400 on that Sony.

I have been considering selling some of my not-used-enough gear for a while now. I end up giving most anything away before selling, though. I have 4 sons who would love to inherit everything.

I am considering losing the 100-400 old version because I hardly use it. But now I have 4 DSLR's all wonderful and I find I can't part with the 7DI. I bought the new one, but the old one is so useful, I'm not sure I'll ever sell anything.

The only camera I will part with soon is my G12. I never liked I much for stills. Video, it's actually not too bad. But I won't get much for it. Just find it slow. The SL1 is what I use now for minimal gear.

Just got the 55-250 STM and hopefully, that little gem will be fun.

I only have one son interested in photography and he's done very well with his dad's "castoffs."

That new 11-24 does sound great, from the little I have read about it. Maybe some day. Just cover everything with zoom that way; 11-24, 24-105, 100-400.

I had briefly entertained thought about using my lenses with the Sony A7, and maybe make the move to a few of their lenses in time. I do like the smaller for factor, but I really need to look more into it. I know it is a popular camera, but know little about it.

Last time I looked into renting a camera for a couple weeks, it seemed quite pricey.

I have no kids that interested in photography, I get to sell my stuff, and get what I can.

My daughter will gladly take any camera gear that I am willing to give away.

When I last checked it was about $200 for the A7r with the EF adapter for 10 days.