April 18, 2014, 12:43:10 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 - Loren E

Pages: [1]
1
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: February 14, 2014, 12:41:00 PM »
A weather-sealed 16-50mm f/4 IS sounds wonderful.  As does the 14-24mm f/2.8 - but what'll she cost? $3K?
As a 16-35mm f/2.8 L III ...

with 77mm filter threads and IS please...

2
Lenses / Re: Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?
« on: February 11, 2014, 10:15:40 AM »
Hi Loren, glad you are enjoying the 400 DO!!...join the (small??) club!!

I use a mk3 2x as I also have a mk2 300 2.8, and I'm using a 1Dx which I think (although it's a bit subjective) improves the keeper rate over my previous 1 Ds3....although..oops..just seen you have a 5D3..

My photography is mostly wildlife, mammals, so I'm not doing birds in flight generally therefore perhaps not pushing the combo as much as others as my subjects tend to be slower moving, however almost all shots are sharp as a tack.

I'd go for the mk3 anyway, as firstly, it's future proof, and secondly, I think it's sharper than the mk2.

Best of luck!!

George.

Thanks for reporting back George on what you're using, much appreciated!

3
Lenses / Re: Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?
« on: February 11, 2014, 02:00:07 AM »
I'd take issue with anyone who says the 400 DO isn't as sharp as other more recent lenses.
I use one with a 1DX and 1.4 and 2X TC and have some really excellent results...the only thing I'd say is it needs a wee tweak in PP on the contrast front.....and it can be picked up very reasonably second hand.

George.

Hey George, I am loving my 400 DO with 1.4 TCII. I want to get a 2x TC to use with it on my 5DmkIII. Which version of the 2x TC are you using? I am hoping I can get good results with the version II since this lens won't benefit from the chip in the version III anyways. Best -L

4
Lenses / Re: Sigma 16-20mm f/2 Coming?
« on: December 19, 2013, 06:57:37 PM »
The last three Sigma rumors I read about have been for this 16-20 F2, a 24-70 F2 OS, and a 135 F2 OS. How sweet of a trio would those three lenses make!

For a while I tried covering my focal ranges with F2.8 zooms but found that F2.8 is just too far from F1.4 for some of my low light and portrait work, yet it is hard to justify owning F2.8 zooms in addition to fast primes that overlap the focal length like the 24 F1.4L, 50 F1.2L, and 85 F1.2L. I ended up going with the fast F1.x primes for low light and f4 zooms for travel. F2 zooms however might make me really reconsider having those primes and instead sell the fast primes and F4 zooms and just simplify down to two F2 zooms. I like that idea a lot. Sure F2 zooms would be big and heavy but I'd have half as many lenses and switch them half as often. I love the idea of a 16-20 F2 on the 5d mkIII and 24-70 F2 on the 7D, with the 135 F2 in the bag for when longer reach or shallower DOF are needed. I'd be all on board with some F2 zooms and wouldn't mind the short 16-20 focal length if IQ was good! OS would be sweet as well - I enjoyed it on the nikon 16-35 when I didn't have a tripod and needed to stop down!

5
EOS Bodies / Re: Dual-pixel AF and ISO performance?
« on: November 30, 2013, 02:47:58 PM »
You said "The Dual pixel does not hinder AF performance" and then said "Let me repeat it, Dual Pixel does not hinder the ISO"....did my confusion arise because you meant to say ISO performance instead of AF performance in your first post?

And hasn't the Nikon D7100 been tested to be close to 2 stops better at high ISO than the 7d? I didn't do any side by side comparisons but definitely felt like my level of satisfaction with ISO 6400 on the D7100 was similar to that felt with ISO 1600 on the 7D...at least in terms of where I felt I wanted to cap my high ISO usage for the respective bodies....maybe to be fair 1600 on the 7D is more like 4000 on the D7100 than 6400.

There is perceptually better and actually better. There is most definitely a psychological component to thinking that the D7100 is "two stops" better at high ISO. From a technical standpoint, it probably isn't possible to actually get truly two stops better, since stops are a power of two, and ISO performance is dependent upon Q.E. and pixel area. The 7D has larger pixels (4.16µm vs. 3.91µm), which is it's benefit, where as the D7100 has more Q.E. (but certainly not enough to literally be two stops better.) The D7100 has 11% better Q.E. than the 7D (52% vs. 41%). In terms of pixel area, the 7D pixels are 13% larger. Technologically, the D7100 has a better sensor with a better architecture, which also probably gives it an edge when it comes to high ISO (primarily, it has a higher SNR, which means that at every ISO, it has a larger usable signal). Overall, from a literal, physical, technical standpoint, the difference between these two sensors is fairly small, and while the D7100, thanks to its excellent SNR, does better, it isn't anywhere close to two stops (i.e. the 7D at ISO 6400 has a saturation point of 536 vs. the D7100 at ISO 6400 which has a saturation point of 541...almost negligible.)

To truly have a full two stops better noise performance, where the amount of noise at ISO 6400 is the same as the amount of noise at ISO 1600, you either need to reduce megapixel count by a factor of two (pixels that are four times greater area...i.e. a pixel pitch of 7.82µm)...or you need to increase quantum efficiency by two orders of magnitude. The 7D has a Q.E. of 41%. Twice the efficiency is 82%. Twice that is 164%. Well, it's impossible to gather more photons than exist, so you can't have more than 100% Q.E. (and achieving that usually requires rather bulky cooling equipment that would render such a camera immobile.)

From a perceptual standpoint...softer detail appears to suffer more from noise. The 7D has an AA filter, where as the D7100 does not. The D7100 is going to have much sharper detail due to having more acutance. THIS is its true strong point when it comes to ISO performance, and probably the key reason why it "feels" as though it has less noise. Detail is sharper with the D7100, so noise doesn't appear to be as prevalent, even though it is roughly the same as the 7D. There is a tradeoff for this...more aliasing and moire. General aliasing can be delt with to a degree with downsampling, moire can be very difficult to deal with (there are some tools, however most simply reduce color moire and mitigate monochrome moire, but none can actually eliminate it.)

If you don't shoot subjects that have repeating patterns or clean edges that might result in aliasing, then the D7100 is certainly an amazing camera, and its sharper detail will certainly result in perceptually less noise.

The 70D is still using the same general sensor design and architecture as the 7D, so it is doubtful much of its weaknesses have been resolved. I get the feeling that the 70D is sharper, which will go a long way to mitigating how noisy it "feels". It has a larger signal, however again thanks to Canon's read-noisy archaic sensor+ADC architecture, it still isn't as good as the D7100 (26726e- vs. 29236e- FWC.) The 70D also still uses an AA filter, which is going to soften detail around nyquist...and while that eliminates (or greatly reduces) aliasing, the lower acutance will still make it "feel" as though it is noisier...dual pixel architecture or not.

Really informative post, very interesting about the affect of an AA filter on noise perception. I wonder if Canon will begin going the Nikon route and moving AA filters.

6
Lenses / Re: IS Versions of the 50mm, 85mm & 135mm Coming? [CR1]
« on: November 29, 2013, 06:32:17 PM »
135mm F1.8L IS please! I'll take one along with a 16-50m F4L IS and a 7D mk II :)

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Dual-pixel AF and ISO performance?
« on: November 29, 2013, 06:28:19 PM »
You said "The Dual pixel does not hinder AF performance" and then said "Let me repeat it, Dual Pixel does not hinder the ISO"....did my confusion arise because you meant to say ISO performance instead of AF performance in your first post?

And hasn't the Nikon D7100 been tested to be close to 2 stops better at high ISO than the 7d? I didn't do any side by side comparisons but definitely felt like my level of satisfaction with ISO 6400 on the D7100 was similar to that felt with ISO 1600 on the 7D...at least in terms of where I felt I wanted to cap my high ISO usage for the respective bodies....maybe to be fair 1600 on the 7D is more like 4000 on the D7100 than 6400.



The Dual pixel does not hinder AF performance, but if high ISO interests you, just go to FF.
Heh don't think you read much of the post. Especially this part " And before you tell me to just go full frame if I want quality high ISO, I own a 5d mk III and love its high ISO, but will always switch to the crop when I am shooting wildlife or other reach-limited scenarios. "


From the other posters it sounds like it isn't known to the public whether Dual-pixel AF hinders ISO performance capabilities, but can't be a good sign if the 70D is that little of an improvement unless they independently crippled its high ISO performance to help carve out a niche for the 7d mk II.

Let me repeat it, Dual Pixel does not hinder the ISO.  Its been well tested, and results are easy to find online. It also does not improve ISO, but you did not ask that!

Switching from a 5D MK III to say a 7D in bright light is fine for  focal length limited scenarios where you can use low ISO.  However, at High ISO, you will gain due to lower noise.  You can also AF to f/8 with your 5D MK III which may be a benefit.

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Dual-pixel AF and ISO performance?
« on: November 23, 2013, 08:33:08 PM »
The Dual pixel does not hinder AF performance, but if high ISO interests you, just go to FF.
Heh don't think you read much of the post. Especially this part " And before you tell me to just go full frame if I want quality high ISO, I own a 5d mk III and love its high ISO, but will always switch to the crop when I am shooting wildlife or other reach-limited scenarios. "


From the other posters it sounds like it isn't known to the public whether Dual-pixel AF hinders ISO performance capabilities, but can't be a good sign if the 70D is that little of an improvement unless they independently crippled its high ISO performance to help carve out a niche for the 7d mk II.

9
EOS Bodies / Dual-pixel AF and ISO performance?
« on: November 23, 2013, 05:10:40 PM »
I switched from Nikon to Canon recently, and for my crop body went from a D7100 to a 7D. The 7D seems great with the major exception of high ISO performance, which I find disappointing compared to the D7100. Yes of course the D7100 is much newer sensor technology, so it should be better at high ISO, but I have high hopes of a 7d mk II in 2014 that would trump the D7100 at high ISO because of even newer sensor tech.

But now with the 70D having dual pixel AF, which is of little use to me since I don't shoot video, I assume this will be in the 7d mk II as well. My question is: Does dual pixel AF have the downside of hindering high ISO performance? I have read this from uninformed sources and am curious if there is truth to it. As a still shooter, I would be way bummed if technology that mostly benefits video shooters was really hurting us still shooters! I want the best high ISO performance possible in a crop body for stills and would be thrilled to see a 2 stop improvement over the current 7D, but man what a bummer if we saw only minor improvement as a result of dual-pixel tech implementation. (would be WAY cool if Canon offered 2 versions, a video optimized version and a sills optimized version). And before you tell me to just go full frame if I want quality high ISO, I own a 5d mk III and love its high ISO, but will always switch to the crop when I am shooting wildlife or other reach-limited scenarios.

Thanks for any clarification on this dual-pixel AF tech question!

10
Lenses / Re: 135 F1.8L IS
« on: October 28, 2013, 02:53:58 AM »

Same size
Same weight
IS
f2 or f1.8
Sharp wide open to f5.6

COUNT ME IN ::)

would certainly expect an increase in size and weight if getting F1.8 and IS, but hopefully not too much.

11
Lenses / 135 F1.8L IS
« on: October 28, 2013, 02:25:26 AM »
Who else would be all over this if they could keep it to around 25% larger than the current 135L and 50% more expensive ($1,700 range I'm thinking). The current 135L is really nice but lacking IS and weather sealing are bummers, and the extra 1/3 of a stop with F1.8 would be appreciated for really low light work like concerts. I know it has been patented and the current L lens is a pretty old design - would be sweet if Canon brought this patent to market in 2014. Yes yes I know it will be a good bit more expensive and also larger than the current lens but I think the upgrades would be well worth it. I'm curious how many other folks feel the same way. What a sweet pairing it would make with the 70-200 F4 IS or 70-300L to cover the normal telephoto range.

12
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Talk [CR1]
« on: October 14, 2013, 03:00:10 AM »
A 7DII with slight megapixel increase, awesome high ISO, AF system from 5Dmk III and same build/FPS as the current 7D...a lot of wildlife and sports shooters would be pretty pleased I think!

awersome high iso and APS , please tell me how it should be done

I should have qualified "awesome" - I'm not asking for 5DmkIII high ISO obviously since a couple years of sensor development won't trump a significantly larger sensor of course - I'm talking D7100 awesome which I found to have much better high ISO performance than 7D.

13
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Talk [CR1]
« on: October 13, 2013, 07:07:19 PM »
A 7DII with slight megapixel increase, awesome high ISO, AF system from 5Dmk III and same build/FPS as the current 7D...a lot of wildlife and sports shooters would be pretty pleased I think!

14
EOS Bodies / Re: 7DmkII F8 AF for wildlife?
« on: October 01, 2013, 12:22:55 AM »
How was image quality with that TC? I am curious how much it would degrade IQ with the 400 F5.6...

Also is it a non-reporting TC so that the 7D body reads F5.6 instead of F8?



I had no trouble with f/8 AF on my 7D, my 40D, or even my old 10D when using a Kenko DGX TC and my 100-400mml.  There is a incompatibility with a 100L, but AF works well with the Kenko.  No need to worry or wait if you need it, its been here for a long time.

15
EOS Bodies / 7DmkII F8 AF for wildlife?
« on: September 30, 2013, 05:09:16 PM »
I am getting more serious about wildlife photography and recently switched camps from Nikon to Canon. Loving the Canon glass I have been shooting. One thing though for budget wildlife photography that Nikon currently has going for it is the D7100's "reach" between being able to AF with teleconverters at F8 (for example the 80-400 + 1.4TC) as well as the 24mp pixel density.

Do others think Canon will try to keep up paces and add F8 AF abilities in the 7DmkII, like implemented in the 5DmkIII, to keep up paces with the D7100? The 400mm F5.6L + 1.4TC on a 24ish megapixel crop sensor would be a budget/travel wildlife photographer's dream! At least for me. Curious if others think the demand is there for this AF implementation to make it to crop sensors in Canon land.

Cheers -L

Pages: [1]