April 17, 2014, 09:55:13 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 ... 9
1
EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: Today at 07:13:00 AM »
Okay, I know one is discontinued and the other is non-existent, but this is mostly for fun and a bit of learning.

Do the experts here think that the overall image quality of the 7DII will match or at least come close to the APS-H 1D IV? Why or why not?

I think it would have to be equal to or better.  There has been a huge leap in ISO usability from the 1d4/5d2 generation to their respective replacements. While it seems you only have gained 1 stop or 2 in regards to noise, I really think that the cleanness of the images across all ISO levels have dramatically improved. The noise we are left with is more of a luminance noise, which is much easier to clean up and retain detail. "Tough" noise was my complaint with the 7d. If they ever come out with a replacement, it doesn't need to revolutionize the high ISO game, but just give easier to work with noise at that ISO 800 - 6400level. Id love to see a 16mp "c" sensor that comes close to a 5d3. I would also welcome the new AF systems.  If they address these categories (if they ever so release a mark ii) then I would buy one.

2
Lenses / Re: Canon 300mm f2.8is II with 2.0x teleconverter III
« on: April 16, 2014, 07:08:17 AM »

A question I have though, with the v1 300 2.8, is it worth upgrading my 1.4 II to the 1.4 III?

Nope.  Optically the iii might be a sliver better then the ii, but not noticeable.  When I used to have the 300 v1, I bought a 1.4 iii and could not tell any difference in IQ.  FoCal numbers were a little better for the iii, but something like 4-5% higher.... not noticeable even at 100%. 

The only reason to get a viii TC is if you have a vii lens.  This will result in a significant improvement in AF speed and accuracy.

3
Lenses / Re: Canon 300mm f2.8is II with 2.0x teleconverter III
« on: April 15, 2014, 07:32:03 PM »
I'm shooting with a 7d 500mm mk I with 1.4tc and I have no problems with sharpness. There should be hardly any noticeable degradation wide open if properly calibrated and using correct long lens technique.

It's just a matter of your "sharpness" tolerance. Mine is too low to be happy with the combo you suggest. I have calibrated all of my lenses and use proper technique. Not only do I believe that the 500+1.4 is too soft for my tastes, focal iq testing supports my belief. (With multiple lens copies) I'm not suggesting that this is rubbish by any means, just that I am much happier with the iq of my 300 along with the smaller lighter build.

4
Lenses / Re: Canon 300mm f2.8is II with 2.0x teleconverter III
« on: April 15, 2014, 12:18:25 AM »
Canon1, So did you sell the 500.  I was seriously wondering if the 500 with converters wouldn't be better for the added reach.  I've shot for 1 year now with the 300 X2 and have been pretty satisfied except for the desired reach (might consider a 7D2).  If you have both lenses I'd really love to hear the feedback on a direct comparison.

Jack

Jack,

I was quite happy with my 500 mark 1 when shooting without tc's. I found that with the 1.4 that AF was pretty slow and iq degraded a fair amount. I tested several tc's and used a few 500's all calibrated to 5diii and felt the same way. I could always get better results by cropping a shot at 500, so I never used the tc's. Also, for the type of shooting I do (hiking, kayaking) it was not the most portable lens. So the 300 was the best choice for me.

My take on the 300 for AF and iq compared to the 500:
300 without tc is the sharpest lens I have ever used. It's unbelievable. And the AF is so fast.
300 with 1.4tc has almost no iq loss, is sharper then the 500 at f4 and AF is still very very fast.
300 with 2.0 is not quite as sharp as the 500, AF is not quite as fast, but still excellent for fast moving subjects and blows the 500+tc away with both iq and AF.

Of course, this is the 300ii with v iii tc's compared to a 500i with v ii tc's. it is my understanding that the new 500ii and 600ii lenses are extremely sharp even with tc's.

I went with the 300 because the focal length fits my shooting style so perfectly, and with tc's it is still great.  Go with version ii lenses if you can afford them. They are worth every penny.

5
Lenses / Re: Canon 300mm f2.8is II with 2.0x teleconverter III
« on: April 14, 2014, 01:11:27 PM »
I previously owned a 300 f2.8is version I and absolutely loved that lens.  Razor sharp, very versatile, small and light (relatively) and worked very well with a 1.4x TC.  The one down-side is that it was very SOFT with a 2.0x TC.

I ended up selling this lens to fund a 500 f4 is Version I.  I have been pretty happy with this lens for the most part, however it does not perform super well with TC's from both an IQ standpoint as well as an AF speed standpoint.  I find that I almost exclusively use this lens without TC's to produce images I am consistently happy with.

I really miss my 300 2.8, and have been considering the newer version II for quite some time.  I would need to sell my 500 to afford one so I thought I would ask for feedback from those who own the 300 Version II and have used it with a 2.0x converter Version III.  The lens comparison tool from TheDigitalPicture indicates that this lens does quite remarkably with a 2.0x TC.  So well to my eye that I am thinking it would be a nice replacement for my 500 f4 Version I, and give me the 300/420mm that I so often miss.  Has anyone used this 300+2.0 combo?  How do the images look?  How snappy is the AF?  Compared to the 500f4is?  Any feedback is appreciated.

Happy Shooting,

Why not consider the 400/4 DO which reaches nearly 600 with only a 1.4XTC.
Lighter to carry around as well.
Seems to be a good seller for Canon.

This is an old thread from 7 months ago and was recently resurrected. About 6 1/2 months ago I went ahead and bought the 300ii and the 1.4 and 2.0 version iii.

I am loving this combo and highly recommend it to anyone. I like everything about this combo and it is far better for me ten my 500 and consistently makes better images. For the bird and wildlife photographer, it is tough to beat this combo.

6
Technical Support / Re: Magic Lantern Issue/Question
« on: March 02, 2014, 01:21:45 PM »
There is... in 12 hours I will provide link... curently not on my computer... there are very few features implemented. You can forget about dual iso or similiar ;)


UPDATE:

 I had a brief discussion with a forum mate from there. Obviously the so called build 108 is not OK.

40D OS is VxWorks. Newer bodies (aside from 1 Dx, for which I don't know) use (Canon internally developed) DryOS. Magic Lantern enhancement uses DryOS ONLY:-(

Check this topic and see for yourself the status of development (in case you haven't alredy done that)

As for all done so far here is a download site. I am sorry for misleading you. I thought that it was already working. :-((((

Have fun!


No worries !  Thanks for looking into it more.  I ended up getting a t2i instead.  I KNOW that is on the ACTUALLY supported camera list. :)

7
Technical Support / Re: Magic Lantern Issue/Question
« on: March 01, 2014, 09:13:00 AM »
There is no ML for 40D yet. Several developers of ML worked on it and did not seem to continue with the project somehow.

That's what I was expecting someone to say.  Nice of them to list it on their home page as a "supported" camera.  Oh well.

In regards to the ACTUAL supported cameras... are all ML features valid with each camera?  Or do some cameras support some features while other cameras....  I'm interested in Bulb Ramping.  Thanks!

8
Technical Support / Re: Magic Lantern Issue/Question
« on: March 01, 2014, 09:06:56 AM »
There is no ML for 40D yet. Several developers of ML worked on it and did not seem to continue with the project somehow.

That's what I was expecting someone to say.  Nice of them to list it on their home page as a "supported" camera.  Oh well.

9
Technical Support / Magic Lantern Issue/Question
« on: March 01, 2014, 08:19:10 AM »
I just bought a used 40D for a time lapse project and want to put ML on it to take advantage of bulb ramping.  Anyway, I just went to the ML site to download the software and it does not list the 40D as being supported in the new stable version. http://www.magiclantern.fm/downloads.html  On the home page http://www.magiclantern.fm/ it lists the 40D as being supported.

Is there an older version of ML that I need to use?  I can't seem to find it anywhere. 

I've never used ML before, so I am not familiar with the whole process. 

Thanks to anyone with a suggestion or answer to this.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]
« on: February 28, 2014, 07:37:29 AM »
Honestly... I vote that this should be the last cr1 released on this body.  These are no longer becoming speculative rumor, but rather redundant and laughable.  (I think we were there 12 months ago...)  Dig in deep CR... find a cr2!

11
Lenses / Re: 24-70/2.8 Canon or Tamron: Which did you choose and why?
« on: February 26, 2014, 06:34:34 AM »

In my opinion the Tamron 24-70 VC is better then the Canon version 1 and about 90% as good as version II at half the price. But if I had the money at that time, I would have still bought the Canon II again.
 

I just shot a baby birthday at an indoor restaurant in evening with 5D III and Canon 24-70 II and found some of the photo's had blur.  I had kept iso at 800 to get clean photo's with flash firing on camera (bounce), but on some of the longer focals >50 mm and group shots requiring narrower aperture, my hand shake got in the way.  Would the Tamron's VC solve this problem in practicality?  The more I shoot dim events, the more I wish my 24-70 II had IS  :-\

What was your shutter speed?  You probably should've doubled your ISO and shutter speed.   ISO 1600 is no problem for the 5d3.

Agreed. 

A properly exposed image at ISO 3200 is excellent with the 5DIII.  For events like this I would not even hesitate to push to ISO 6400.  You coul dhave doubled your shutter speed 3 times.

Also, IS will help to eliminate hand shake, but if you were getting blurry photos from hand shake, your shutter speed was probably so slow that it did not fully freeze subject motion... of course IS would not help you at all in this case.


12
I looked into the gopro and brinno...  but decided to build my own.  Found a fantastic DIY option.

http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-make-a-long-term-time-lapse/?ALLSTEPS


13

My math might be wrong but a photo every 15 minutes for a month is 2880. ;-)

Otherwise thank you very much for the links and comments.

Also thanks to the others for the suggestions. Ill look into the gopro, and will be doing some testing before I actually break earth.

Good call! For some reason I left the 15 minutes in there when I punched it into the calculator. You know, off by a factor of 15. Close enough for gov't work ;)

 ;D ;D ;D
So true isnt it...?

14
I'm assuming you would be making a time lapse video.
 
15 minute spacing is 4 photos/hour, and for a 10 hour day, that's 40 images.  Converting them into standard 30fps video gives 1-1/3 sec for each 10 hour day that something is happening.  At that rate you would have 33 seconds of video in a month. That's before editing, and not counting weekends where nothing may be happening.  .
In a year, you would have 6 minutes and 36 seconds of raw video.
 
Doesn't that seem like too little?  You can probably figure on editing out a lot of it, nothing happens on weekends, bad weather footage might be tossed, I'd expect you could salvage 2 minutes of it for a year.  Having three cameras doesn't really make for much more more video, just for different angles.

Correct on the video.  Great point about shot number and length of finished footage.  It may make more sense to take images more frequently then every 15 minutes.  I was concerned that the GoPro would only do 1 min as a max interval, but after thinking about this it may be better to have more shots.  It would always be best to at least have the footage in case I want it for the footage, rather then not have it and wish I did.

15
You do realize that every 15 minutes for a month is 43,200 photos, right? Multiply that by 3 cameras and you're over 125,000 photos. Even will relattively small file sizes, that's still a lot of space you'll need to store things.

Obviously if you take a picture every 30 minutes (instead of 15) you can halve that. With no construction going on at night you could make a circuit to stop taking pictures after dark (plus the pictures at night will probably turn out poorly)-- I'd look at incorporating an Arduino or a similar microcontroller to control things.

Finally, I pulled up a couple of articles that I glanced at a long time ago. I don't know if they will be of much help, but they might get you pointed in the right direction.

http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-make-a-long-term-time-lapse/
http://hackaday.com/2011/08/21/bunnie-mods-chumby-to-capture-epic-time-lapse-video/


My math might be wrong but a photo every 15 minutes for a month is 2880. ;-)

Otherwise thank you very much for the links and comments.

Also thanks to the others for the suggestions. Ill look into the gopro, and will be doing some testing before I actually break earth.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9