December 19, 2014, 09:23:25 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 ... 24
1
Lenses / Re: Quick Comparison: Canon's new 400mm Options
« on: Today at 02:46:19 PM »
Perhaps canon could do well with a mid price f6.3 lens that covers the 400-600 range, but to date canon has not delved into the smaller aperture (than f5.6) lenses.

In my experience, using a lens naked (without tc's) and cropping in post yields better results, with the exception of a few combinations (primarily the v2 superteles with v3 tc's)

Also, in my experience the performance improvement of f4 and f5.6 AF lenses yield more keepers due to more accurate AF, faster AF and lower ISO. I personally would not be interested in an f6.3 lens at any focal length for this reason, and I'm a wildlife photographer.  I'd rather crop.

2
Lenses / Re: Quick Comparison: Canon's new 400mm Options
« on: Today at 01:50:03 PM »
For the wildlife photographer the real benefit of the mark ii 100-400 will not be a huge iq boost (which does not appear to exist). The real news here is the improved IS, the much faster and more accurate AF, and hopefully an improved IQ/ performance when paired with a 1.4x.

3
Wait, there is a MASSIVE difference in image quality between the 5DII and 5DIII?! Since when??

Yes the 5DIII has improvements across all features (mostly the focusing system), but I don't know if image quality is really one that is massively changed. Used right, the 5DII has fantastic image quality.

The difference is absolutely HUUUUUUGE, it's crazy. I used to shoot weddings (just friends and relatives at first) on a 60D which had great image quality, I made a bit of money so bought a 7D for the bigger view in the eyepiece... unfortunately the image quality wasn't as good so I just used it as a back up to the 60D in the end. I then made enough to buy the 5Diii and a few quality lenses but it messed with my head using the same lenses on both a full frame and a crop so I bought a 5Dii as my back up... I went in blind and just used it as I would the 5Diii (a mistake on my part) and the images were an absolute wreck compared to the 5Diii. I guess it could be just like preferring Kodak film to Fuji though. VC to EC... those old choices we had to make back in the day...

I sold the 5Dii straight away and re-bought the 60D & I never want to look at a 7D again...

I agree.  White the 5D2 can produce excellent images, the 5D3 does have a huge IQ improvement.  Couple this improvement in IQ (cleaner/sharper looking pixels, better ability to pull shadows, MUCH lower color noise at high ISO, better luminance noise at higher ISO) with a far superior AF system and your keeper rate is much much higher. 

4
Lenses / Re: Can you stack Canon 2X plus 1.4 Extenders?
« on: December 10, 2014, 10:36:14 PM »
The moon (and the Earth under you) are moving remember.  You can't take a long exposure unless you have some way to track the moon.
Objection! While at night it is dark here on earth, on the visible moon it is day. I have successfully photographed the moon with a 600 L II, a Canon 2x III and a Kenko 1.4 x (in this combination you don't need any extension tube). I used the 6D @ ISO 1600 and f 13 and 1/320 s. At this magnification, you clearly see the moon moving, but believe me, 1/320 securely freezes that movement!

Yes, it can be done... But this is pretty soft even for web viewing.  Drop the 1.4 and shoot with the 600+2x and crop a little and your final image would be much sharper and allow for two full stops lower ISO or faster shutter speed.

5
Still hoping I will receive mine before I'll fly from CH to US at 20th of december ....

On the swiss site of Canon I do not see any indication of the expected shipping date

Why not just buy it when you are in the us. Wouldn't it be cheaper then?

6

I think this might be a but optimistic. Even if canon finally created a good optical formula for the 400 DO, there is not much to compel someone to buy this lens unless its a "perfect" fit for your kit.

The 300 costs less, only weighs a tiny bit more, plays very well with both the 1.4 and the 2.0, and gives you the ability of f2.8 at 300mm when you need it.

For sports, maybe, but if you're doing wildlife/bird  photography, the first thing you do with the 300 2.8 is slap a 1.4x on it which converts it into (more or less) the 400 4.0.   So if the 400 is as sharp as the 300, you might as well start from there and have room for more teleconverters at the upper end.     It is a shame about the price, though, as it's going to be mighty hard to justify the extra $5000 if the new 100-400 takes teleconverters well.

I am a wildlife/bird photographer and find that I most use my 300 w/out converters for large mammals (deer, moose, etc) and I use it with tc's for smaller mammals and birds.  I also do most of my shooting in low light so f2.8 is a must.

I may be proven wrong (I hope I am) but my instincts tell me that the 300ii+1.4xiii will be sharper than the 400 DO at f4.   

Totally agree about the price. Way too high IMO for we are likely to get (same problem as the original 400 DO)


7
The 400 DO could be one heck of a sharp lightweight big prime - being Canon's second stab at it.

I mean an ultra sharp 400 and a very good 560 with 1.4X TC - probably far better than the 300/2.8II at 600 with 2xTC.

We shall see in due course.....

I think this might be a but optimistic. Even if canon finally created a good optical formula for the 400 DO, there is not much to compel someone to buy this lens unless its a "perfect" fit for your kit.

The 300 costs less, only weighs a tiny bit more, plays very well with both the 1.4 and the 2.0, and gives you the ability of f2.8 at 300mm when you need it.


8
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5DIV: 36 MP US $ 3799 TBA in March 2015
« on: November 23, 2014, 04:45:35 AM »
It's pretty irresponsible for rumor sites to post this acting like it's a credible source. CR and other sites have actual insider info from credible sources to base their posting on.


Uh huh... And CR sources are ALWAYS credible and CR has NEVER been wrong.

 All the rumor sites are guilty of making claims without much truth to generate page hits, even CR.  AF least CR ranks the rumors.

9
Post Processing / Re: POLL: Do you need to fill the histogram in post?
« on: November 21, 2014, 07:11:46 PM »
Don't get me wrong, most of my images end up with a relatively balanced histogram, I just don't need a histogram to "see" when a properly exposed image with well processed highlights and shadows.   ;) My workflow is not hindered by this approach.

10
Post Processing / Re: POLL: Do you need to fill the histogram in post?
« on: November 21, 2014, 05:52:03 PM »
I use the histogram when shooting, not editing. I make sure that images are exposed properly in the camera, but after that the histogram does not get any attention.

Personally, I am creating images that an hang on the wall, not histograms. I edit each image based in the image...

11
Lenses / Re: 70-200 or 100-400 conundrum.....
« on: November 20, 2014, 07:41:21 AM »
Based on what you have said, I would suggest the 70-200 f2.8ii.

It's a spectacular lens with the 1.4, but just ok with the 2x, so don't assume it's a great 400mm option.

If you intend to be at 400mm whenever this lens is on, than the 100-400 would be a better choice. (You mentioned this as occasional, however in my experience, the more reach you get... The more reach you want)

Both would be a great choice, however there is something to be said about canon's f2.8 lenses (prime and zoom) from a performance and iq standpoint... Just awesome.

12
Canon General / CR Forum Etiquette
« on: November 14, 2014, 06:16:58 PM »
It really seems like there is a lot of hostility here among forum members. I really can't believe some of the stuff people say to each other here. Good debate is productive, but some of this stuff is...

Before this, I've  never seen a group of people who all share the same passion as one another be so brutal to one another.

There are even many posters here with thousands of posts who used to be wonderful sources of information who now resort to the same childish behavior.

I challenge everyone to grow up a little, and recognize that there are tons of people here, beginners and pros alike, who all share this common passion of photography. Think of the discussions we could have if we left the bull s#%t behind.

I hope the admins don't sensor this post. My intent here is not to slam CR or further inflame members, but to encourage people to try to be civil and productive. This is a great community and resource.

Happy shooting,

13
Lenses / Re: Preorder: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 14, 2014, 12:34:06 PM »
The reason Roger is more trusted than you is because he wouldn't have said he got one good one out of four, he would have said he tested six (he would have tested the two you didn't) and he found two to be off, and those two were from the same batch.

I wrote the following in my first post about this: "2 copies were very soft at 400mm, 1 was decent and 1 was super sharp." Which is a fact and the only point that I wanted to make was that there were QC issues with the old 100-400. I didn't elaborate on when and where those copies were tested until you insinuated that the pick was completely random and therefore labelled my post as untrustworthy. I then gave more details, but how does that change my original statement? You buy a new lens and chances are that you get a bad copy. With the old 100-400, chances were quite high. After all, at one point in time, 4 buyers bought a 100-400 from my camera store. One got a perfect lens (that was me), another got a decent lens and 2 got lenses that were really bad. You may find this ok, but I don't.

Don't get sucked in Aichbus.  Sometimes people here have nothing better to do than argue for the sake of arguing.  I reviewed three copies of this lens when i bought one and all three (after calibration to the body) varied significantly.  For me, the three copies were "poor", "ok" and "very sharp".  This particular lens model has had a long known history of significant sample variation.  It's the only lens that I have seen where every reviewer mentions sample variation as being a significant problem....

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II Owners first thoughts
« on: November 12, 2014, 08:49:48 AM »
I returned mine due to front focusing issues.  Volleyball players' arms and hands were in focus instead of the torso or face.  It was a frequent occurrence.  It may be something correctable by AFMA but FOCAL isn't working yet with the camera.

Reikan FoCal works perfectly for this camera.  It is not able to analyze the RAW files in real time , but you can take all the test shots manually (shooting in JPG) and run these through the program. I have already calibrated my 7D2 to my lenses and it made a big difference.

15
Lenses / Re: Preorder: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 12, 2014, 07:12:54 AM »
Frankly, I never understood the attraction of ordering a product before it is reviewed. Is being the "first kid on the block" one of the motivations?

As a general rule, this is a good policy. However, with this lens I think ordering is a safe bet. Does anyone doubt this lens will be anything less than stellar?

That's a good point ... Canon's recent lens releases have been great, even if expensive. It's a good sign when we can fully expect a new lens to be awesome. Still, I will wait for reviews (and possible sale prices) mostly because I'm in no great need for this.

One reason to wait is that early adopters often need to deal with manufacturing issues that have not been worked out yet.  The 24-70 f2.8 II had some funny noises when zooming as an example.  Canon quietly fixed this without really acknowledging a flaw, so later models (like mine) were not affected. 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 24