September 17, 2014, 07:55:44 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 - RGF

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 85
Software & Accessories / Re: Settings for Reikan Focal
« on: September 11, 2014, 07:39:04 PM »
You might find this post I wrote a while back helpful:

Thanks.  very helpful.  On 70D (my wife's camera) my 70-300 was profiled easily  while her 100-400 has caused nothing but problems.  I may bring this lens into canon to get them to check it over

Software & Accessories / Settings for Reikan Focal
« on: September 11, 2014, 06:27:41 PM »
I am starting to adjust camera bodies with lenses

Wonder what settings in the preferences are recommended.  I tried high strict AF repeatability and found that was problematic.

Any recommendations?  After basic tests, what would be recommended next.  I got the pro software.

Lenses / Re: The New Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II
« on: September 11, 2014, 04:30:54 PM »
The image quality would have to be impeccable though...

Something the two DO lenses released to date aren't known for. 

Personally, I'm not really interested in a 400mm f/4 lens...I'd rather have the 300/2.8 for the faster aperture when needed.

You reach 560 with this lens with just 1.4XTC whereas the 300/2.8 is still only at 420. To most people a 2xTC degrades the image to much. So basically this new lens could beat the 300/2.8 in the range 400 - 560. That's pretty important - we shall see.

Well, if I need to reach 560mm, I'll be using my 600/4L IS II, giving me an extra stop of light, and even more reach with a TC if needed.   :D
Exactly and I was really hoping the next DO lens (with better IQ in theory) would be a 600mm (f/4 or f/5.6).  Smaller size & weight at that focal length would make a lot more sense to me.

600 F5.6 DO could be really sweet depending upon price, weight (undoubtably easily handheld), and IQ.

Like to see how the new 400 DO II stacks up against the 400 DO (original).  I have heard but was never confirmed that Canon made small improvements in the 400 DO over the years.  Wonder if that was true?

Lenses / Re: When will we see a replacement for the 100-400?
« on: September 10, 2014, 11:23:52 AM »
Yup, Canon doesn't want to eat their own lunch. Problem is that they're then exposed to others eating their lunch. Canon is never very aggressive here.

LOL.  People who speak of f/5.6 zooms or primes 'cannibalizing' supertele sales are rather clueless.  The superteles are on a whole different level of IQ, are 1-2 stops faster, and have better AF.  Pros who need a supertele generally know it, amateurs often move up from the 100-400L, so that lens is sort of a gateway.  Even with a big IQ boost, a new 100-400L won't beat the superteles.  Canon also prices their lenses to ensure profitability. 

As for 3rd party competition, that's been there all along.  For some lenses, the quality has gone up (though Sigma's QC issues apparently continue to plague them) have the prices.   The Tamron 150-600mm is a decent lens, with similar IQ to the current 100-400L (similar in the overlapping range, similar at the long end to the 100-400 + 1.4x).  A 7DII/X with f/8 AF will make the 100-400 w/ TC quite feasible as a much smaller and lighter choice over the Tamron.  The Sigma 150-600mm is even bigger and heavier than the Tamron. 

Will we see an updated 100-400L?  Yes, I think we will.  Likely in late 2015 or spring 2016.  Canon is good at extracting profit from consumers.  So...release a 7DII/X now, the new action-oriented APS-C body will spur sales of the 100-400L.  Some of those who have one already will buy the 1.4x because of the f/8 AF.  A year later, release an updated 100-400 to get people to upgrade. 

It might make philosophical sense to release a new 100-400 along side a new 7-series body, but it probably doesn't make fiscal sense.  The economy isn't terribly strong right now.  Spreading out the launch of 'big ticket' items targeted at the same market segment seems logical.


I have the 600 II and 200-400 (plus a 300 I).

I have traveled with both the 600 and 200-400 but it is a difficult due to the weight and size.    Hard to put much else in the bag or lift the bag into the overhead bin without letting the Flight Attendants know how heavy it is.

If Canon had a much better 100-400 (similar to the raves I have heard about the new Nikon 80-400) it would make my travels a lot lighter.  Then I would have a hard decision.  Keep both the 200-400 and improved 100-400 or sell the 200-400.

I believe a number of nature photographers feel the same way.

Lenses / When will we see a replacement for the 100-400?
« on: September 09, 2014, 09:15:55 PM »
There have been lots of talk of a 100-400 replacement and yet nothing has materialized.  When might we see this lens?

I have all but given up hope that it will be replaced.  After all, it is Canon's top selling lens and if they made it too good it would hurt 200-400F4 sales  :o


Anything is possible - after all a man walked on the moon (or was all done in Hollywood studio?)

BTW - that is not even a good 4/1 joke.  Not at believable.

No price yet?  $5K, $10K?

If one has to ask, he probably can't afford it...  :'(

Affording is the question, do I want to afford it (cut out other expenses)?

No price yet?  $5K, $10K?

50 MP, 16 stops of DR.  Canon must respond to that!!


Canon rumors need to respond to that.

New Canon 3D with 42 MP and 14 stops of DR, 10 FPS, and 4K videos.

Photography Technique / Re: Is RAW worth it?
« on: August 25, 2014, 02:08:40 AM »
Raw is better if you want to make adjustments to white balance or boost the shadows/cut the highlights. That sort of thing because you are not making corrctions to an image that has already had adjustments and compression applied. The camera itself makes a raw to jpeg conversion which is the same as DPP. Shooting raw does not automatically give better results but gives you more flexibility and if a better raw converter comes along then you can still work with your old files but if you have jpegs then everything is "baked in".

Well exposed JPG is nearly as good as a RAW.  But when you run into trouble, RAW will save your butt.

EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 03:22:05 PM »
Details about the sensor are lacking.  Great marketing buzz terms but does the sensor have significantly better DR (vs 70D and 5DM3).

Also a bit surprised about the dual CF/SD card slots. Perhaps this is up the write speed?

Biggest choice is OS vs Windows 8.  OS is a clear winner - i recently switched from PC to Mac and glad I did.  There are a few frustrations (I can not hot key as often on the Mac as a PC), but otherwise glad I made the switch.

When looking for PCs (both laptop and desktop) I could not find any that had only USB 3.0 interface.  All I saw had mix of USB 2.0 and USB 3.0.  USB 2.0 is okay for keyboards and mouse about not data.  I need 1 plug for kb/mouse and the rest for data.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L For Sale
« on: August 16, 2014, 11:41:39 AM »
Not sure if my wife would believe a lens could be that expensive, let alone I would consider buying it

I don't know if I could get insurance on it

And how would you travel with the lens - but if you can afford a $150,000 lens you should be able to afford a private jet.  Definitely would not need to fly in coach with this baby :)

Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 16, 2014, 01:21:40 AM »
Can you control the camera and use live view over an eyefi card?  I have no interest whatsoever in downloading pictures over WiFi.

wifi has no value to me when I shoot wildlife.  in fact, unless I am shooting in a studio I can not image using wifi (I am sure I am missing some uses).

Major interest is the new sensor - multiple layer implies higher effect resolution.  but what about DR?  Unless Canon thinks that this camera will not be used contrasty subjects (which is not true - back lit wildlife, sports, etc).

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Anyone own both Canon and Nikon
« on: August 12, 2014, 04:04:15 PM »
I think my previous reply to the OP was very confusing.
So try to rewrite it here:

IIn many ways the Sony A7R is not as refined as the D810 is , but it is a lot less risky and  also much cheaper to get.

And if you do shoot only landscapes or studio set up work , then there is no difference between the D810 and the A7R.

36 MP would be nice but also will increase workflow (larger files, more disk space, longer processing times, ...)

Don't worry about that, it is not true.
My first digital camera was a 1.3 megapixel one (a Canon/Kodak DCS 3C).
Now I have a 36 megapixel one, and imageprocessing is about a 1000 times faster.

The rate that computers are becoming faster, (and the harddisks are becoming bigger)  is much greater than the rate the camera's get more pixels.

computers are faster, disks and cards are much cheaper.  Today I can buy a solid, but not the best, SanDisk or  Lexar card for the 5DM3 for less than $3 / 36 exposure (the equivalent of a roll film which use to cost $10-15 with processing).

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 85