kfreels wrote in post #17071168
Methinks you don't shoot sports r nature much. Contrast is a pain in the rear for anything that happens outside during the day. I'd argue that DR is almost more important to sports and nature shooters than for landscape work. When shooting sports, you're shooting people. And those faces need to be properly exposed. If they are outside during the day, it's hard to get a good face shot without blowing out the background or having the raccoon face you get from overhead sunlight directly on the face. The same happens with nature where you shoot a critter - especially birds - with a blown out sky or underexposed critter. And on most of this, fill flash isn't an option because you're working from long distances. It would be nice if you could always have the sun at your back but it rarely works out that way with sports and nature since you can't just ask them to move so you can reposition yourself. And you can't do 2-3 exposures in sports and nature for HDR to compensate for a scene with too much contrast.
As for sensor design, all I have to say is that you're wrong. There's plenty of room for improvement with sensors. I won't waste my time arguing about why. There's plenty of other threads about that out there.
Finally, you didn't crush my hopes for an ideal camera. I think you're way off the mark in your belief that the 70D is the 7D replacement. It doesn't make any sense with all the room there is for improvement that is well within the capability of Canon and plenty of people willing to pay for it over the 70D. The 70D in many places doesn't even match up to the specs of the 7D. And they continued to manufacture and sell lots of 7Ds even after the 70D came out. I don't know which signs you're reading but it seems to me that maybe you're reading them wrong.
You're getting your responders mixed up. Your first paragraph responds to me, but your other two don't. I don't shoot many sports, but I do a lot of wildlife, macro and birds. I agree that high contrast can be a problem, but not as frequently as it is in landscapes; it's a difference in degree, not in kind. Particularly in sports, I don't much care if the background is blown out or completely dark, as long as the subject is properly exposed. The background is usually irrelevant to the quality of the shot. and often you simply don't have those extremes because the event is later in the day, or indoors.
In a landscape, you usually want the entire frame to have nice detail, in both light and dark ares. In sports, that's not nearly as important in MOST situations.
Gripped 7D, gripped, full-spectrum modfied T1i (500D), SX50HS, A2E film body, Tamzooka (150-600), Tamron 90mm/2.8 VC (ver 2), Tamron 18-270 VC, Canon FD 100 f/4.0 macro, Canon 24-105 f/4L,Canon EF 200 f/2.8LII, Canon 85 f/1.8, Tamron Adaptall 2 90mmf/2.5 Macro, Tokina 11-16, Canon EX-430 flash, Vivitar DF-383 flash, Astro-Tech AT6RC and Celestron NexStar 102 GT telescopes, various other semi-crappy manual lenses and stuff.