October 21, 2014, 06:29:23 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 - Canon1

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19
1
Lenses / Re: 100-400 with 1.4x teleconverter on crop body
« on: October 20, 2014, 06:32:02 AM »
This is a really poor combo even on a ff body that will AF at f8. The already slow AF performance of the 100-400 is made almost unbearable with the tc. It hunts, and when it does find focus the iq is just terrible. Your images will be far superior from a keeper and iq standpoint if you simply crop more in post.

The tc does work ok on the 400 f.6, but just ok. AF is quite acceptable but iq is not super (better stopped down to f11) Plus without IS the SS has to be really fast.

2
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Shipping October 30, 2014
« on: October 19, 2014, 08:22:49 AM »
i have gotten used to having the wifi on my 6d and 70d. i really wish the 7dii had it built in but i have an idea that should work. it has 2 card slots cf and sd, you can specify what files to write to each so if you use an eye fi card and shoot raw to the cf card and small jpeg to the eye fi in the sd card slot then it should do the same thing.

File transfer is only one of the useful features of wifi... Although... I won't miss this feature. But there are many people who will!

3
Lenses / Re: Selling my Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II
« on: October 16, 2014, 07:25:40 PM »
Dylan,

There is another thread on this lens.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23270.0;topicseen

Curious if you used it with the 2xiii and if so, would you comment on performance.


4
Lenses / Re: 70-200 f2.8 IS mk 2 with 2x extender
« on: October 16, 2014, 05:19:17 PM »
I am also interested in this combo. My go to is a 300 f2.8is ii and I have a 100-400. I've been waiting for a replacement 100-400 but it always seems just around the corner.

I like the iq just fine for the 100-400, but the IS is just ok, and the AF speed is quite slow.

For this who have used the 70-200 f2.8 is ii with the 2.0x tc iii, is the AF any faster than the 1-4?  I find the 300ii with 2.0x iii AF very fast and is great for BIF.

5
Lenses / Re: Is FoCal worth ~$150?
« on: October 15, 2014, 07:44:00 AM »

I sent it in to canon and they "fixed" it.  When I got it back, I ran the test again, and Canon had done absolutely nothing to fix the actual problem.  So I sent it back, this time with all the FoCal printouts. A few days later my camera came back with some hardware work and it was fixed.

Yikes!  Some service huh?  I hope they did not charge you for the first "fix".

No charge. I was several months outside of warranty too... So kudos to canon. :-)

6
EOS Bodies / Re: Jeff Cable reviews the 7Dm2
« on: October 13, 2014, 10:52:57 PM »
Must be Jeff doesn't know about dpp...

7
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D Mark 2 Rolling Review
« on: October 13, 2014, 12:29:52 PM »
Was on holidays with limited internet when the 7D2 came out.  Does the camera have the option of linking AF points to exposure? 

To me this is quite important when choosing not to use the spot center point.  Example, 6D with 600mm using vertical orientation and the upper focus point.  A pileated woodpecker lands on a stump in close proximity and my exposure comes off his densely black body (center point), significantly overexposing his red and white and black head. So just compensate - right?  However, in situations like this the subject tends to be in constant motion with the background/foreground shifting from dark stump to blue sky to significant to almost out of the picture, not to mention the shadows.

Of course I'm relatively new to all this so there are no doubt some alternate solutions but for now that may be a deal breaker and reason to wait a little longer.

BTW in contrast to this reviews assertion, I find in my multi-hour hikes up mountainsides that I'd never crave to have a much heavier camera, although I do understand the principle of balance.  My 6D with 300 2.8 X2 balances very nicely and is more comfortable than with just the 300.  The shot doesn't illustrate perfectly but you can see how my hand pulls the camera into my armpit allowing the unit to be both carried comfortably or simply steadied by my hand while being supported by the shoulder strap.  I can climb through bushes and jump puddles without losing a beat.  Sadly, the 1Dx doesn't sit in there nearly as well and adds quite a bit of weight.

Jack

Nope. Only the 1d.

8
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D Mark 2 Rolling Review
« on: October 13, 2014, 11:04:44 AM »
As Steve said... Rouse is not exactly unbiased and independent. When all the canon explorers say its too good to be true... Well don't bet the farm on these reviews is all.

Andy mentioned that he thought this camera could beat the 5d3 on high ISO. I'm not drinking the punch yet.



Photos and tests have been out for quite a while now, it basically matches the 70D for high ISO, a stop behind the 1D MK IV, 2 stops behind the 5DMK III.
 
 
You can see for yourself.
 
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

One thing to keep in mind is that the tests from IR are far from perfect. The lighting is not even consistent from one camera to the other for the same exact test scene.

I don't dispute that the new 7d sensor is a great improvement over its predecessor, and may very well be one and two stops behind the 1d4 and 5d3 respectively... But I have yet to see a definitive test that illustrates this, or a review by an impartial source. ;-)

9
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D Mark 2 Rolling Review
« on: October 13, 2014, 07:00:01 AM »
As Steve said... Rouse is not exactly unbiased and independent. When all the canon explorers say its too good to be true... Well don't bet the farm on these reviews is all.

Andy mentioned that he thought this camera could beat the 5d3 on high ISO. I'm not drinking the punch yet.

Looks to be an awesome camera. High ISO looks good too, but a thorough independent review may bring folks back to reality a bit.

10
It looks like a reflection off of a pane of glass.  Were you shooting through a window at this spider?

11
Riiiiiggghhht....  :P

12
EOS Bodies / Re: B&H Photo Hands-On With the EOS 7D Mark II
« on: October 09, 2014, 07:28:09 AM »
I've got one on preorder... Just glad bh didn't announce that it was a piece of junk. Whew!   :P

13
Lenses / Re: used 300 f2.8 IS or new sigma 120-300 f2.8
« on: October 08, 2014, 08:10:17 AM »
Mind if I throw in a curve ball into the mix?  I've been thinking about a 200L f2.  Which is a 280 f2.8... and a 400 f4...with extenders. 

I too have thought about the 300mm, but the 200 seems more flexible with the added stop.  Thoughts?

JD, here are some photos with 200mm f2 + 1.4x TC III.

These are raw, straight convert through LR5 with lens profile correction, minor adjustments in highlight & shadow etc...+25 in sharpness. 10-15 contrast: http://dylannguyen.smugmug.com/Lens-Test/200MM-F2-IS-14X-tc-iii/n-93P6B#!/

These are JPEG, SOOC: http://dylannguyen.smugmug.com/Lens-Test/200mm-f2-IS-14TC-III-JPEG/n-mJcgN#!/

Too bad the bokeh is so bad...  :P

14
Lenses / Re: Is FoCal worth ~$150?
« on: October 08, 2014, 08:03:01 AM »
Actually, one thing worth mentioning is that FoCal does let you know when your gear is not operating properly.  You will get errors during the test, or you will get a completed test that rather than showing a nice bell curve of IQ throughout the AFMA range it will look like buck shot scatter.  When this type of thing happens you know you have something wrong with your gear that no AFMA setting will cure. 

While this is rare, it has happened to me before.  I had a 300 f2.8IS that worked perfectly for a couple of years. (I originally and successfully calibrated it with FoCal when I bought it).  I then had a suspicion that I was having some problems.  Not as many images were achieving the tack sharp focus I had enjoyed.  So, I ran it on FoCal and got testing consistency errors along with huge variability across the AFMA range.  I sent the lens in to canon and they had to replace an IS motor.  FoCal confirmed it for me.

Another instance was with my 5DIII.  I have two of these bodies, and immediately when I purchased them I ran them through FoCal with my lenses.  Originally they were within about 5% of IQ of each other at optimal AFMA on any given lens.  After over a year I began to suspect that one of the bodies was having some trouble.  Totally gut instinct... it wasn't like one just stopped working.  So, again I ran both bodies through FoCal and sure enough, the body had a problem.  Instead of being within 5% of each other, there was over 30% IQ loss on the body in question.   I sent it in to canon and they "fixed" it.  When I got it back, I ran the test again, and Canon had done absolutely nothing to fix the actual problem.  So I sent it back, this time with all the FoCal printouts. A few days later my camera came back with some hardware work and it was fixed.

FoCal is an excellent tool for calibrating AFMA, but it is also an excellent tool at helping to diagnose when there are problems with your gear.  Is it worth $150 to me?  At least....

15
Lenses / Re: Is FoCal worth ~$150?
« on: October 07, 2014, 10:21:49 PM »
Yes... Worth every penny...

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19