Imagine: the end of Daylight Saving Time means, that for the next four-and-a-half months I will go home from work in utter darkness. Depressed? Not yet 😛
And this is one more reason to love my Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC. Incidentally, when I looked into a camera shop’s window today, it suddenly occurred to me, that not only Nikon owners are in the unfortunate position to have a non-stabilized 24-70/2.8, Canon owners have exactly the same problem!
I don’t know why, but until now, I had always assumed that only Nikon could have made such a brain-dead decision, but now it’s clear: they didn’t need stabilization, because their only serious competition does not have it either!!
Now tell me: why should I go for “full frame”, aka FX? The D7000 is already only slightly worse than a D700, the future D400 will most probably have the exactly same sensor. Thus noise-wise it’s only a matter of being two or three years behind the bleeding edge, but on an already very high level. On the other hand, for my type of photography, where motion blur is not a problem, a stabilized 2.8 lens on DX gives me at least as good image quality as a non-stabilized lens on FX - for a third of the price.
This can’t be a Nikon dilemma only. Just as the D300 is every bit a pro camera, so is the Canon 7D. The only real advantage of FX seems to be the bigger viewfinder, but only when it’s 100%, and when you want that on FX, you are deep in pro territory. It just does not make sense for me. What about you? I know many of you own the Canon 5DmkII. Compared to the 7D with its better … well … everything, is the sensor really so much better? Is it worth the hassle? Is it worth the higher lens costs? And if so, why exactly?
The Song of the Day is “A Voice In The Dark” from Elvis Costello’s new album “National Ransom”. Great album, great song, I’m glad to find a reason to feature it. Here it is on YouTube.