December 17, 2014, 05:00:59 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - East Wind Photography

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 59
1
Just out of curiosity, can anyone with the lens unscrew the foot and take a shot of the mating surfaces of the foot and the collar?  I'm wondering how they interlock, etc.

More generally, it's a bit of a shame that the stock foot is ramped/curved in the back.  A flat profile would allow the use of longer QR plates with antitwist "lips" to be oriented in either direction.

Getting a little offtopic, I would be surprised if Canon wanted to get into the QR plate/clamp world.  It seems like further fragmentation that wouldn't be of much use to customers or to them, in a niche that they don't have much current interest in.  I mean Canon doesn't even show their own tripods in their product photos: http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/product-accessories/eos-digital-slr-camera-accessories/eos-tripods-other-accessories/eos-rain-cover-medium-erc-e4m

I'd much rather them work on sensor tech than on support products!

You don't need a plate with the anti swivel nubs.  Looks like you can just add a second screw to the bottom plate

2
A little surprising to me that manufacturers of these big teles don't provide an OEM A/S-compatible foot, or even groove standard feed and then include a flush-mounted tripod screw bushing to cover all bases. Seems like a disconnect there.

Anyway, I'm using a Markins PL-55 plate for my 100-400 mk1 and I like it a lot. It's tough, thin, just a bit longer than the tripod collar foot, and has a no-slip back lip. That plate is generic so would probably work for the mk2 as well.

Probobly patent and licensing issues.  I wouldn't be surprised though if canon came out with an entirely new foot design for which they held the patent.

3
7D MK II Sample Images / Re: Anything Shot with a 7D MII
« on: Today at 12:53:12 PM »
Yesterday's Estonian volleyball cup's final:




Shot with 7D MK II and 135/2 lens. Both ISO 4000, shot in RAW. I find that 1DX noise is about a stop better than 7DII, which is understandable. When I bought 7DII, I was prepared for even worse result, so I'm happy with that.

I'm finding similar great action with high ISO.  Recently shot an indoor soccer game with poor defective lighting.  Used ISO 12500.  Images cleaned up nicely in CS5 after converting to DNG files.  Not as good as 1dx but I concur about the 1/2 stop less.  Hard to quantify though.  The noise cleans up really well compared to its predeccesor.

4
I think they'll make a replacement foot soon.

Might need a replacement lens for that foot if one doesn't attach it securely.  That part bothers me a bit.  I'd like to hear from others how secure that is.

The foot appears to be secure, as far as not coming off, the thumb wheel seems to have detents which prevent it from rotating on its own, and it becomes very noticeably wobbly when the screw is backed off but the lens is still held securely, it just has obvious play in the mounting.  Even then, the screw will not back off on its own.  Of course, someone will manage to do it, fools are just to clever to outsmart. 
 
What I did notice is that I had to tighten it, wobble it, tighten again, and repeat 2-3 times to get it to the point where I could not detect any play.  I did not like that.  I don't want a lens foot that allows for any play in the lens.  I may keep it tight and never remove it if it ever becomes a issue.

Yeah that would be an issue for anyone taking a long exposure photograph or astrophoto time exposure.  Any movement would really mess up the shot.  I thought possible the nub after the foot was removed could be used but the manual says not to and that permanent damage could result.  But I'm sure someone will try that too.


5
Lenses / Re: EF 100-400mm II - first impressions
« on: December 16, 2014, 10:33:40 PM »
I have the 300 II so based on this I don't see the need right now for the 100-400.  I used to own the mark 1 model but always used it at 400 and realized I didn't need a zoom.

400 seems a bit soft to me.  Still better than the sigma.  Since you used focal it's possible the afma is still off some.  I would verify that with a better tool, something like a spyder lenscal.  I'm not a big fan of focal.  I think it causes more harm than good whereas a good target and ruler doesn't lie. 

So based on this initial test I can say I'm holding off for a bit.  Thanks for taking the time to post the comparisons.

6
I think they'll make a replacement foot soon.

Might need a replacement lens for that foot if one doesn't attach it securely.  That part bothers me a bit.  I'd like to hear from others how secure that is.

7
There is a hole in the bottom of the foot for a pin.  That is your anti twist option.  Buy a plate with the pin and you will be set.

Which plates come with a pin?

I will need to check.  I have one around here that has a removable pin.  Might have been a wimberly but I need to check.  My other feet don't use a pin but I can see where it would work in this case.  I'll report back after I dig around in my bags a bit.

There's another discussion about feet for this lens however here is one from really right stuff

http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/EF-100-400mm-f-4-5-5-6L-IS-II-USM/

Includes two screws one for the main mounting hole and one for the secondary hole.  Some other plates have a removable pin such as the Manfrotto RC series but they are not swiss arca.  That was the plate I was thinking about.  However I discovered that some wimberly plates also come with two screws to stabilize the plate with larger lenses.

I dont have one of the new lenses so I cant say for sure that it's threaded or not and the manual does not say a thing about it.  So my take is that you use the second hole for an additional screw so it does not twist on the plate.  Makes pretty good sense to me to include that on the larger tele's.

Also see the thread
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=24159.msg474333



8
There is a hole in the bottom of the foot for a pin.  That is your anti twist option.  Buy a plate with the pin and you will be set.

Which plates come with a pin?

I will need to check.  I have one around here that has a removable pin.  Might have been a wimberly but I need to check.  My other feet don't use a pin but I can see where it would work in this case.  I'll report back after I dig around in my bags a bit.


9
There is a hole in the bottom of the foot for a pin.  That is your anti twist option.  Buy a plate with the pin and you will be set.

10
Lenses / Re: EF 100-400mm II - first impressions
« on: December 16, 2014, 06:03:46 PM »
I'm a bit confused.  What are the left and right images on each row?  They are a comparison of some type by your titles don't describe it well.

11
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II Owners first thoughts
« on: December 16, 2014, 12:16:27 PM »
If I compare the results of the 7D to my brandnew 7D Mark2, I am diappointed. The body itself is great (like the 7D is). But I can not see an major improvement in the picture quality.  I can see highlighted (looks "artificial") edges, a lot of noise and mushy colours. On the positive side, the AF is superb and working well on fast objects.
Another point to critisize is the movie mode. The movies are a lot worser, than the 7DsĀ“. I will decide it after the weekend, if I send it back.

Not sure what you are looking at.  I just photographed an indoor soccer game this weekend all at ISO 12500 and after a little PP the shots look better than the old 7d at ISO 800.  I also did a video at 29fps at a concert and it was all as good as my 5d3 and I didn't have to worry about manual focus.  Dual pixel AF kept the subject in focus as I moved about the stage.

The 7d2 is an amazing system once you get a good copy.


12
EOS Bodies / Re: Focus problems with the Canon 7DII?
« on: December 15, 2014, 02:14:12 PM »
These standard deviation numbers would be the "precision" numbers, and the accuracy should correspond to the average offset from the correct focus.

Before someone flames you to as crisp, I'll mention it nicely because I've posted these numbers before: Canon enthusiasts and 7d1 owners argue that lensrentals' measurements aren't valid as their sample size is too small (it is 1):

Quote
We then tested it in our Imatest lab using one copy of each Canon camera we carry.

*sigh* I wasn't out to try to become misunderstood, and yet it happens. If I get flamed because the purpose is not recognised there is not much I can do about it.
I often attempt to be reasonably concise and keeping the posts short enough to have them read. If possible I add links to source information.
Here I introduced an explanation to what the terms "precision" and "accuracy" would be in another way compared to earlier posts. Also added the information from the table to give a hint about how different models stood in relation to each other, and it was also the best way (in my opinion) of showing the SD measurement, which I believe to be the same as what is referred to as "precision".

I set out assuming that people are smart enough to comprehend my posts without me needing to include a lawyer-ish "fine print".
It's also perfectly possible that I have missed reading an earlier post, giving these numbers or explanations, in this thread because I haven't reread the entire thread from start again. I'm flawed that way.

So..what's the difference between accuracy and precision?  ;)

13
Lenses / Re: teleconverter
« on: December 14, 2014, 05:34:15 PM »
never owned one or used one,  i have a 70-300L on my canon body , i use to have the 100-400 but its gone and maybe in a year from now ile get the new 100-400  but as for now what would be my best quality  1.4 teleconverter to use? or should i just crop my photos?  this will be mainly for airshows since i need that extra reach.

The 70-300 should not be used with canon teleconverters.  They will work but at one end of the zoom range the internal optics will touch the TC and can cause damage.  There are aftermarket TCs which will work fine but the sharpness will suffer.  As mentioned you are better off just cropping the image and use a faster shutter speed.

14
Lenses / Anything shot with the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: December 13, 2014, 08:15:35 PM »
Lets see what this new lens can do.

15
Yep I'm waiting until the reviews come out and some real world tests by you all before I take the bite.  I was not impressed with the mk1 version.  Hopefully somewhere between the mk1 and the 200-400.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 59