LR3 - Canon 7D ISO 3200 vs. lower ISOs - Crop Tool

Is anyone noticing significant crop tool response time differences between low ISO 7D Raw files and 3200 (or higher) ISO files in LR3?  On the lower ISO files, the crop tool is just about immediate, yet with the 3200 ISO files, things are very much slower..  Angle tool, move (hand tool), etc. all take on very slow responses.
Thanks..
Jay S.

"Is it the crop tool? Maybe it's  the effect of noise reduction...
Try turning off the Detail panel and see if  there's any performance difference now."
Dorin..  The Detail panel is having a definite impace on the speed..  1600 or 3200, turning off detail made a huge difference in crop ability.  Hate the thought of having to turn off detail while working on leveling, etc.  Haven't tried other things like spot, etc. to see if there is an impact there.  For a given ISO, I like to apply as a preset to the whole batch before working on the images - just as a generic starting point.  I went back to LR 2.7 and do not see any difference with detail on or off with regard to crop tool.
Thanks.  Looks like you hit the "bug" if it is one.  I've no idea why that seperate catalog is like an order of magnitude slower though.
Thanks again..
Jay S.

Similar Messages

  • My canon sx120IS continues to show low batter and shuts off even after changing the batteries.

    My canon sx120 is  continues to show low battery and shuts off even after changing the batteries.  Any suggestions? Do I need to send it for repair somewhere, and if so, where?

    Hi LB!
    Thank you for posting on our forum!
    Try cleaning the electrical contacts on the camera and the batteries using a soft microfiber cleaning cloth.  If the same warning still displays, then the camera will need to be serviced.  To start the repair process, you'll need to complete a Repair Request on our website.
    If the camera is more than a year old, you may participate in the Canon Loyalty Program instead.  The Canon Loyalty Program option allows you to replace your current camera for a discounted fee, plus shipping.  The original non-functioning camera would then be returned to Canon USA for recycling using a prepaid shipping label that would be provided.  
    If you would like to take part in this option, please call our Sales Department at (800) OK CANON (800-652-2666) seven days a week, 8am to Midnight.  Let them know you have been working with online support and the Canon Loyalty Program was offered.  Be sure to have your serial number for your camera at the time of your call.
    Did this answer your question? Please click the Accept as Solution button so that others may find the answer as well.

  • Canon Printer CLC 3200 not working under Snow Leopard

    After installing Snow Leopard printing on Canon CLC 3200 is no longer possible.
    Even after updating to 10.6.1, reinstalling the printer and checking all TCP/IP settings, printing is still not possible. The contact to the printer is there, but the printer is stopped and cannot be activated.
    Apple Support has no solution for it. You have to wait for an updated printer driver from Canon.
    If you are working with Canon CLC3200 don't update your Mac to Snow Leopard!!!
    Best, Andrea

    Here is a solution working for the Canon CLC 3200:
    Chose LPD protocol and enter "print" for the queue name.
    Worked for us – hope it does for you, too!

  • Iso developers tool path wont save PLEASE help :)

    Hello,
    I tried going to the apple forums first, but they really just told me how I shouldn't use Dreamweaver, so they were no help.
    Here is what I posted there. I am just going to copy and paste it. I really do appreciate any help I can get
    Hello, I'm very brand new to Mac. But I have Dreamweaver cs5.5 installed (came with it) and it is a new macbook pro.
    I downloaded the Xcode 4.3.2 (took 7 hours on a high speed connection).
    When I open up Dreamweaver and click on site, then Mobile applications, then configure application framework... the path doesnt save.
    All I know to choose right now is the applications folder because that is the only place I see the icon for what I downloaded.
    Here is the most frustrating part... When I choose that, or type in /Developer (as I saw online somewhere) or anything else, I click SAVE and it does not save anything in that space.
    I'm wondering if this means I don't have the SDK, or if I don't know where it saved to, or ... really I'm clueless. Do I have to be a paid member of the developer end to get the sdk?
    I managed to get the droid one for DW easy. Matter of minutes it was all done. But I've been at this iso part for days now.
    Any help would be worth so much gratitude. Really....... I'm on the brink of losing my sanity here
    Peredy

    This post should answer your question:
    http://forums.adobe.com/message/4244129

  • Simple and low cost design tool

    I am looking for a simple (relatively) and low cost(or free) tool, site, software that can help with the design of space. Something that essentially can take a space and place objects to help figure out the layout and design.  Any ideas?

    Hi,
    Some companies have budget problems and are having to reduce their cost of operation.
    Have you ever heard of open source tools? They can do the job easily and less expensive than proprietary solutions that cost a lot of money.
    You can have a look at a good ETL open source program called Talend Open Studio: it is user-friendly but also has advanced features intended for technical users (java debugger, code injection…). It can perform data migration and ETL as you wrote in your first post.
    The website is [http://www.talend.com/download.php|http://www.talend.com/download.php] to download the open source program. They have a forum and documentation you can read. Tell us what you think about the software.
    For an ETL benchmark: [http://blogs.sun.com/aja/entry/talend_s_new_data_processing|http://blogs.sun.com/aja/entry/talend_s_new_data_processing]

  • About Canon HS system of low lighting

    How well is Canon HS system for taken low light pictures where there little light? I am going to a basket ball game and take pictures in the stand of  a group picture but not sure how well HS system will do in low lighting.  I am thinking of getting Canon PowerShot ELPH 330 HS Black. How fast is the focusing and the DIGIC 5 Image Processor?

    Thank you Mike,
    I have a older Canon A720 IS Powershot camera and it don't take great low light pictures and I have to use exposure setting button on the camera if I don't want to use flash that have liging from a lamp.  It takes great outdoor and indoor pictures just not great on low liging and when you want to not use flash. It have a CCD sensor and the ELPH 330 HS have a CMOS senor that in DSLR's. There is a lag with the camera in wanting to take next picture when it writing  to the memory card. I have messed some improtant shots because of the lag. 
    I am moving up to newest technology and hope the ELPH 330 HS will performed better then my older Canon A720 Powershot camera. I am hoping battery life is a lot better and write speeds on memory card have improved. I always wanted a camera that took wide 24 pictures because I take many group pictures and have to stand back farther with my Canon A720.  I take pictures at birthday parties that have kids and it hard to take pictures of them. I hope the new camera can deal with moving groups of kids. I take some videos and hope new camera makes corrections to the video. If you in low light setting place (like candle lighting) 
    I look to see if ELPH 330 HS have pure color system LCD screen on Canon product page of ELPH 330 HS but it don't say. There not even a product manual on ELPH 330 HS under manual area. 

  • LR3 using too much memory??? Running very slow!

    I'm running LR3 (3.2) on my desktop , which is fairly powerful (Intel Q6600 Quad core @ 2.4 GHz, 4Gb ram, Win 7 64-bit, Radeon 4850 1Gb, dual monitors) with all main drivers & patches up to date.
    Using the 'Library' module LR3 runs fine with ram usage low at around 250-500Mb & CPU at 1-5%.
    Trouble starts when I start using the 'Develop' module. It virtually brings the computer down on it's knees - with ram usage consistently increasing to about 2-2.5 Gb of ram, which brings total ram being used up to approx 85% when taking into consideration the other programs & services running in the background. CPU usage continues to run low though - between 1-5% when inactive in 'Develop' increasing to 25-35% when doing stuff.
    I've tried the 32 bit version in case there was a memory leak, but if there is, it happens on this version too as ram usage is still around 1.5-2Gb mark.
    I've noticed this mainly when working on some of the larger photos - these are generally RAW files (CR2) taken on a Canon 7D @ 18mp - approx 20-25mb in size. JPEG's tend to be much quicker and less resource hungry - trouble is I'm shooting in RAW, so not much help to me!!
    Anyone else suffering or suffered from this and have any tips on how to improve performance? I regularly optimise my catalog (approx 13,500 images - 72 Gb) which doesn't really make any noticeable difference.
    Would it help if I created individual catalogs for each year of photos, thereby reducing the number of photos as well as overall size of catalog?
    I'm more than a little stumped!

    Mark Byron wrote:
    I was having similar issues on my macbook pro using LR3.  LR3 was using 1.5gb of my 2gb of ram and my overall workflow slowed to a crawl.  Thanks to the forums here and elsewhere I've been able to speed up my workflow considerably without having to buy more ram.
    1.  I downloaded the LR3.2RC and have been using it instead of LR3.0.  This resolved the issues I was having with the adjustment brush.  (Still running slow at this point.)
    2.  Under catalog settings/file handling I changed "preview quality" from medium to high.  (this helps when resizing previews)
    3.  Under preferences/file handling I moved the raw cache from my local hard drive to a folder on my external firewire 800 drive where I keep my image files.  I also increased it to 50gb.  (Once I moved the raw cache everything changed.  LR3.2 went from using 1.5gb of ram to just 700-800mb of ram.  Also LR became much more responsive overall.  No more hangs or odd behaviors.)
    Since moving the raw cache everything sped right up.
    Mark,
    I'm unclear as to why preview quality would impact the resizing aspect?  I would think that selecting the preview size most closely associated to the resolution of the monitor would have a much greater effect..
    All,
    I added a post to the new LR3.3 thread set up by Tom Hogarty regarding LR 3.3RC memory consumption.  I'm on a Macbook Pro (2.1) with 4GB RAM.  With both LR 2.7 and LR 3.3 processing the same file (simple load, edit, and export to JPEG) LR 3.3RC is taking an additional 1GB of combined Real and Virtual Memory to complete the task.  After the processing is done, LR 3.3 is not releasing anything back in memory.  If you have a Mac, load up the activity monitor and you can follow how much LR 3.3 is grabbing.
    Jay S.

  • Lens correction settings in LR3

    Hi guys! I have downloaded LR3 yesterday and played with trial version for a few hours now. Looks like a very welcome upgrade over the 2.x version. However I cannot fully appreciate the way lens corrections module is supposed to work.
    I am a nikon user with 28-75 Tamron lens. After setting "custom" lens correction profile and choosing Tamron as lens manufacturer, LR3 accurately suggests my lens model and assigns an existing adobe profile. So far so good. But there is one thing that keeps me from feeling all happy and excited about this new feature: Lightroom would not allow to save different default settings for various focal lengths. For instance, the named above 28-75/2.8 tamron lens has somewhat considerate barrel type distortion at 28mm, and at the same time at its maximum of 75mm geometry distortions are almost non-existent. So while I am happy with how LR3 handles the wide angle distortions, it makes things a lot worse with telephoto range when I apply default lens corrections.
    Hence the question: can I somehow make settings in lens corretions module specific to the focal length used? Of course, I would like LR to do that for me, but since it cannot, is there any walkaround? Tweaking settings for each shot is time consuming, and I see no reason not to make this process a little bit more automated.

    Adani2, I have encounter similar problems with the same lens on my Canon 1D Mark III (a 1.3x crop camera).
    The quick answer to your question is no.  There is no setting in Lightroom that allows for correction at a specific focal length, apparently the software is suppose to automatically determine that.  I use to have a D80 with the Tamron 28-75 before I switched to Canon.  So I decided to process a few shots with LR3 to see if your problem was the same as what I encountered on my 1D3.
    I used LR3's lens correction on three pictures, each a different focal length (28, 40, and 75).  At the extreme ends, I found 28 and 75 to not vary much from the same image corrected with PTLens (the current progam I use to correct lens distortions).  However, at 40 I ran into the same cropping and over correction problem I did with my Canon 1D (albiet it is much worse on the 1D than the D80).  It is discussed more in depth here: (http://forums.adobe.com/thread/656057?tstart=30).  Below is a picture taken at 40mm (f2.8) with the Tamron 28-75 on my old Nikon D80 with the "corrected" image overlayed on top (opacity 50%):
    Before auto aligning of layers in Photoshop:
    After auto aligning of layers in Photoshop:
    Interestingly, the difference between PTlens and the original image for the above shot is virtually zero which is consistant with reviews about this lens (http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/291-tamron-af-28-75mm-f28-sp-xr-di- ld-aspherical-if-nikon-lab-test-report--review?start=1).  Why LR3 believes there is distortion when there isn't any is rather perplexing.
    My suggestion, for this lens on a crop body, would be to not bother making any lens corrections except for critical pictures (e.g. architecture) taken around 28mm.  The distortions for this lens are, for all practical purposes, negligible on cropped camera bodies.

  • HELP!!!--- Canon Pixma MG5420 Mac OS X 10.5.8 PowerPC Universal Binary Print Driver...... ---

    Greetings Everyone!
    I am a bit miffed at the moment.
    I purchased a Canon Pixma MG5420 Print-Copy-Scan machine with the intention of using it with my Power Mac G5, PowerPC, Mac OS X 10.5.8.
    But alas. Apparently it is not to be. The box in which the printer came cleary displays the Mac Logo and the Universal Logo, the Universal Logo looking like this:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_binary
    The Mac OS X system requirements also notate the OS X to be a minimum of 10.5.8!
    The driver CD only contains drivers for Mac OS X Intel.
    So Someone....ANYONE!....please tell me why Canon has stooped to this low level of "False Advertising"???
    Let's FLAG this issue and find out WHY!
    NEED HELP!
    ....and could use working drivers!

    IT"S OFFICIAL!---> Canon has stopped porting any of their drivers to the Universal Binary format for MAC OS X which is a combo installer for PowerPC and Intel machines.
    The MG5420 MFP that I have was released in December 2012 and they *said* that I was the first person to "complain" of this issue!....REALLY!?!?....wow...so there is no one else out there using the PowerPC platform??? I find the G5 (model M9592LL/A) to be quite adequate and useable for what I do!  I guess the engineers couldn't be bothered to "port" it to the PowerPC platform!  Listen Canon, if you don't think the PowerPC is still useable, go visit http://www.macofalltrades.com/ and watch the "trend" of what sells and what doesn't.....or maybe you should call another authority of Apple products http://www.macsales.com/ and ask what volume of PowerPC compatible parts they sell?!  
    And Canon, I know you offered to buy back this "mistake", but for the $99 I bought it at, (extra set of ink not included) I may just hold on to it and do the "workaround" of scanning to and printing from a Windows XP PC shared folder...No, Canon, I'm not completely stupid!....I set-up MFP's for my job, so I know a little bit about networking!  ...enough to be dangerous, at least!  ;-)   Any way, I just got this G5 a year or so ago and it is new to me...I probably wait a little longer and then get an Intel Mac, and THEN it will work natively with this INTEL CANON!....LOL!
    What do you think?!.....Thoughts?.....Ideas?
    Oh, and Canon.....get your "engineering" team and your marketing "box makers/printers" in Thailand to get their "info" to correspond and be accurate....that way there will be no false advertising and misrepresentation of Apple's "Intellectual Property" and "breach of contract!.....You darn well know they have an "Image" to uphold!
    https://developer.apple.com/softwarelicensing/agreements/maclogo.html
    CHEERS!
    PS--you better watch your back Canon on this little faux pas!....Epson might use this to their advertising advantage!....they still support Universal Binary!

  • LR3 Import Selected Folders

    In LR2 it was possible to put a checkmark beside selected folders to import in the LR catalog. The 'include subfolders' checkbox in LR3 only partially accomplishes the same thing, but with much less flexibility.
    I create my folder structure and copy images from CF cards through the operating system and do my initial edit and captioning in another program. Only then do I want to add them (without moving) to my LR3 catalog to take advantage of the Develop module.
    When I started using LR2 I just imported folders as I needed to work on the images, but didn't import the root folders the 'shoot' folders are in. That means I have a whole lot of rather unorganized folders in a long list in my catalog. I'd like to go back and rationalize the catalog, adding the root and higher level folders. However, if I select 'Camera2010' to import with 'include subfolders' checked then LR3 wants to import everything, including small web versions and optimized TIFFs that are in folders a level below where all my raw files live.  Yes, I could uncheck those files, but it would be a huge amount of tedium.
    Is there any clean way to get my folder structure rationalized within LR3 without importing all the unwanted low-level processed images? My current catalog is about 50K images and I have many more to add.

    GatorJim2000, very helpful answer.
    I was able to turn off 'include subfolders' and select a high-level folder. Then I could Ctrl-click the individual folders below that I wanted to import, making sure not to highlight (select) the lowest level folders I did not want. Thank you.

  • Screen resolution in all the programs is really low.

    I recently bought CS6 and the screen resolution in all the programs is extremely low.  The tools and the content of the documents.  I have checked the preferences and I don't see a problem or an option to increase the quality.
    Can anyone help me?
    Thanks

    If this is a retina Mac there is nothing you can do about it. CS6 is not optimized for retina.
    If that’s not what you’re talking about we’ll need some real details.

  • Lightroom 4.1 RC and Canon 5d Mark III Cropping Info/ratio bug

    Today I imported RAW images I shot on the Canon 5d3 with the camera set to Add Cropping Information set to 4:5 ratio.  Crop lines are displayed on the camera LCD but you see the full frame outside of the crop when review files.  Alarmingly, when I imported them to LR 4.1 RC, the images appeared cropped to 4:5.  I though ok, I'll just go to the crop tool and I will see that a crop has been applied and I'll remove it. Unfortunately, there was no file beyond the crop lines, it could not be removed as far as I could tell.  I called Canon and they told me to try Digital Photo Professional, a program that I never pay attention to.  Sure enough, the images were intact when viewed there.  There appears to be a bug when LR 4.1 RC encounters the crop tag on the raw file.  I have posted this on the Adobe Forums. I am running OS X 10.6.8 on a Mac Pro.

    I got 'caught' by this feature today.
    I used my new 5D3 in the same way I normally use my 7D which is to turn on the aspect ratio 'display' on live view so that I can frame my image for alternate format (ie. 1x1). The 'choice' is made in post-processing. On the 7D, RAW files imported with this setting are FULL size. On the 5D3 the RAW files have the aspect ratio applied and it cannot be 'removed'.
    This is contrary to the 5D3 manual which says JPEG are saved with the crop but RAW are saved full size. In fact, viewing the RAW file with the Preview.app shows the full size so this is in fact a 'feature' implemented by Lightroom to 'bake in' the aspect ratio set/used in camera.
    In Canon Digital Photo Professional the aspect ratio is 'applied' in the default view but can be easily removed. However, changing this on the RAW file doesn't cause Lightroom to 'detect' the file modified outside LR and allow you to apply the changes making the full frame image available in LR4. The ONLY way I could get the full version into LR4 was to export as TIFF with DPP and then import the TIFF in LR4.
    I don't 'normally' use TIFF files at the beginning of my workflow although sometimes they end up in LR4 after roundtripping to Photoshop and/or other plugins that require a TIFF file.
    This is NOT ideal and should be changed to make the behavior consistent with other Canon bodies and CR2 files and/or with DPP. I personally like the idea to 'display' the image with the aspect ratio on import but ALLOW you to back it out giving the full frame image if you wish. The added benefit is that you get access to the RAW data beyond your original crop that can be used for cloning into the desired crop/aspect ratio.
    Please implement this modification in the next update of LR4.
    Thanks

  • Poor JPEG quality LR3

    Hi,
    I have just spent hours and hours editing a number of photos (in RAW format) in LR3, including plenty of adjustments using the the sharpening tool brush, but when it comes to exporting the images to JPEG they resulting images are of poor quality compared to how they look when i have finished editing the RAW files.
    So my question is that, how Can i get the JPEGS to more accurately reflect the way the images look after editing, before i exported to JPEG from RAW?
    I am shocked at how poor quality they are once exported to JPEG. I mean, why should I have bothered to sharpen the images up myself, for LR3 to then disrgegard these adjusments, leaving me with soft JPEG's??
    I am now starting to feel as though this software may be waste of money
    a7s

    Hi,
    I am not sure how I can provide evidence of the problem with both a JPEG and RAW file??! What should i do to allow this??
    When i export I select JPEG, Qaulity 100, Sharpen for screen -       High. Thats pretty much all i have changed.
    The colour space is RGB and the resolution is 720ppi - but i havent touched either of these so dont know what the best setting is - especially for ppi?
    When i have both the RAW and JPEG open side by side I can see, for example the creases in someones face nice and clearly on the RAW file, but on the epxorted JPEG these details are lost. I worked hard to retain these details, but in JPEG they are lost!

  • Lightroom not fix hot pixels from my Nikon D7100

    Hi there.
    I have a problem with my cam D7100: there are tons of hot/dead pixels on the sensor.
    I am going to bring this cam to the service center.
    But I have a lot of images captured with this cam, and need to remove hot pixels from them.
    One my friend say about auto-removing in Lightroom.
    So I try Lightroom 4.4, 5.0, 5.2. No one can remove hot pixels.
    (sample images are here:
    http://www.ex.ua/get/327247286713/74274705
    http://www.ex.ua/get/327247286713/74274765
    http://www.ex.ua/get/327247286713/74274845
    http://www.ex.ua/get/327247286713/74274919
    iso 100-200-400-800, shutter 1/250)
    Is this operation going automatically, or I need to chose some tools or options in Lightroom?
    Please, help me somebody, cause thouthands of images are flaking!!!
    Thanks a lot!

    Nikon-User-D7100 wrote:
    I understand, that I have camera's sensor issue, but I can't understand why Lightroom not "repair" that images?
    LR actually does more than find and repair 100% level "stuck pixels," it also finds and corrects low-level hot pixels and higher-level "random" hot pixels. The problem is that you have "many" higher level hot pixels and LR's processing algorithm thinks they're image data. A different raw processor may work better or worse. Feel free to "trial" any of them and report back here what you find. Even with my 600D set +2EV higher in exposure (ISO 100, 1/30 sec. versus ISO 200, 1/250) your noise levels are much higher. IMHO you've got a defective camera!
    (Click on image to see full-size)
       Nikon D7100  ISO 200, 1/250 sec.      Canon 600D ISO 100, 1/30 sec.

  • Sensor and Pixel Basics

    The recent introduction of the 5Ds with its 50.6 megapixels leads me to ask about sensor size and pixels.  There is an on-line tome by W. H. Majoros that describes the situation well, I think.  You can reference it at "digitalbirdphotography.com".
    Frequently when discussing full-frame vs APS-C cameras, the fact that the image appears larger on the APS-C photo is spoken of as its having an increased magnification.  But this is misleading.  The "real" size of a photo, when displayed on a computer monitor, is seen when looking at it at 100% magnification, in which case there is a one-to-one mapping of sensor pixels to monitor pixels.  The displayed photo size of a photo is due to the linear pixel density of the camera sensor, not the overall size of the sensor.
    Regarding the ultimate sharpness of a photo, while it is limited by the pixel density (higher is better), it is also limited by the pixel size because of electronic noise (lower pixel density and thus larger pixel size is better).  So at some point higher linear pixel density becomes a negative feature.
    Which brings me to a comparison of the new cameras, the full-frame 5Ds and the APS-C 7D Mark II.  I compute that the linear pixel densities of tese are both about 240 pixels/mm.  Until now the full-frame 5D cameras have had lower pixel densities, which seemed like an advantage due to their larger pixels, especially at higher ISO.
    So except for the larger FOV provided by the 5Ds, why would anyone want this over the 7D Mark II?  I'd appreciate others' thoughts on this.
    Thanks,
    Edward1064

    Edward1064 wrote:
    The recent introduction of the 5Ds with its 50.6 megapixels leads me to ask about sensor size and pixels.  There is an on-line tome by W. H. Majoros that describes the situation well, I think.  You can reference it at "digitalbirdphotography.com".
    Frequently when discussing full-frame vs APS-C cameras, the fact that the image appears larger on the APS-C photo is spoken of as its having an increased magnification.  But this is misleading.  The "real" size of a photo, when displayed on a computer monitor, is seen when looking at it at 100% magnification, in which case there is a one-to-one mapping of sensor pixels to monitor pixels.  The displayed photo size of a photo is due to the linear pixel density of the camera sensor, not the overall size of the sensor.
    Regarding the ultimate sharpness of a photo, while it is limited by the pixel density (higher is better), it is also limited by the pixel size because of electronic noise (lower pixel density and thus larger pixel size is better).  So at some point higher linear pixel density becomes a negative feature.
    Which brings me to a comparison of the new cameras, the full-frame 5Ds and the APS-C 7D Mark II.  I compute that the linear pixel densities of tese are both about 240 pixels/mm.  Until now the full-frame 5D cameras have had lower pixel densities, which seemed like an advantage due to their larger pixels, especially at higher ISO.
    So except for the larger FOV provided by the 5Ds, why would anyone want this over the 7D Mark II?  I'd appreciate others' thoughts on this.
    Thanks,
    Edward1064
    Canon's ISO ranges include, at the top end, a regime described as "ISO speed expansion" or something similar. One way to describe the transition point into that regime is "the point beyond which you may not want to go if you can't tolerate a lot of noise". If you look closely at the specs, you'll see that that point is two stops lower for the 5Ds than for the 5D Mk III.
    So yes, larger pixels are better, and the greater FOV may be the only advantage of the 5Ds over the 7D2. But if you need it, that's how to get it.
    And one is left to hope that the 5D3, with its evidently better low-light performance (and noticeably lower price), will remain in the product line for the foreseeable future.
    Bob
    Boston, Massachusetts USA

Maybe you are looking for