No Mark, you did not say that and it's my mistake to have implied it accidentally. I apologise. I am coming to the view that it's just not good enough to be relying on "Sport" mode, but I have yet to be informed why that is so. From videoing I have learned to locate & video vulture flight below the horizon using x20 of my XM2 and I'm getting good colour and plumage detail despite handholding. I had hoped that the highly regarded IS on my new 100-400mm would allow me to handhold sharp still images of vultures. My next hope was that "Sport" mode was made for that sort of fast (but not very fast) moving image ... nobody has said that I'm wrong in thinking that, but several have suggested more sophisticated approaches ... so the question prompts itself in my "small but active" ... What's not good enough about "Sport" mode? Please do give your opinion if you have time.
I am reading Duncan's super articles on the 3 balls in the air and the use of AV but, given that I am alert to avoiding background light interference and accustomed to handholding birdflight, I am wondering why Canon bothered to provide "Sport" mode if it can't handle big bird flight better than my fiddling around with settings could achieve. It sounds like I'm advocating "dumbing down" but I prefer to think I am checking out the obvious before accepting the more complicated. Does that make sense at all at all?
|