December 18, 2014, 01:09:22 AM

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 - AlanF

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 78
1
Lenses / Re: EF 100-400mm II - first impressions
« on: December 17, 2014, 02:03:20 PM »
Sorted out the problem why 400 mm seemed soft. The focal length of the 100-400mm at that distance from the target was 370mm, compared with a true 420 for the 1.4x300 with the prime. The smaller focal took the size of the central rings of the chart below what could be resolved. So, I repeated the shots at 400mm (= 370mm) closer to the target so the image is the same size as that from the 420mm. The rings are now very nicely resolved (phew!). Here are the comparisons with my usual procedure. RAW, DxO 10, PRIME noise reduction, exported into PS. On the left there is zero sharpening, on the right 0.9 px at 100% USM.

I am much happier now.


...so at what distance did you actually take your readings?

If the effective focal length is reduced from 400 to 370 it looks as if it is at close range.

8-10 m

I'll check out the focal length at infinity soon.

2
Canon General / Re: Canon USA Addresses the Gray Market
« on: December 17, 2014, 12:59:59 PM »
There are fake 800Es circulating (for those for whom the real ones weren't bad enough). A warning has been issued by Nikon.

https://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/63056

3
Lenses / Re: EF 100-400mm II - first impressions
« on: December 17, 2014, 12:18:33 PM »
AlanF sorry to hear how unwell you are, not able to work! ;)  Reminds me of my kids years back.

Jack

It's the first time I have been ill for ages and am meant to hosting a 120 people at a party tonight. Everything now depends on the therapeutic efficacy of my wife's chicken soup.

4
Lenses / Re: EF 100-400mm II - first impressions
« on: December 17, 2014, 11:28:26 AM »
I am not feeling well this morning so took first photos of birds rather than work!
These are all 100% crops, f/8 at 560mm iso 640 on the 5DIII. DxO prime followed by 0.9px USM at 100% (not necessary but that's my routine).

What's impressive is the Robin was at 1/50 s and the crow at 1/60 s. I took several shots and they were all keepers at those times. The IS is stupendous.

Looks like they may have focused a couple inches forward of the subject. (See the gutter on the crow, and the branch for the squirrel).

I focussed on the squirrels nose, which is very sharp. As he is leaning forwards, the plane of focus is forward of his body. The crow was very close, and the depth of field very thin.

5
Lenses / Re: EF 100-400mm II - first impressions
« on: December 17, 2014, 07:05:12 AM »
I am not feeling well this morning so took first photos of birds rather than work!
These are all 100% crops, f/8 at 560mm iso 640 on the 5DIII. DxO prime followed by 0.9px USM at 100% (not necessary but that's my routine).

What's impressive is the Robin was at 1/50 s and the crow at 1/60 s. I took several shots and they were all keepers at those times. The IS is stupendous.

6
Lenses / Re: EF 100-400mm II - first impressions
« on: December 17, 2014, 05:31:11 AM »
Sorted out the problem why 400 mm seemed soft. The focal length of the 100-400mm at that distance from the target was 370mm, compared with a true 420 for the 1.4x300 with the prime. The smaller focal took the size of the central rings of the chart below what could be resolved. So, I repeated the shots at 400mm (= 370mm) closer to the target so the image is the same size as that from the 420mm. The rings are now very nicely resolved (phew!). Here are the comparisons with my usual procedure. RAW, DxO 10, PRIME noise reduction, exported into PS. On the left there is zero sharpening, on the right 0.9 px at 100% USM.

I am much happier now.

7
Lenses / Re: EF 100-400mm II - first impressions
« on: December 16, 2014, 06:44:37 PM »
awesome so IQ is better than the tamron, how about Af performance with the 1.4? are you using the 1.4 TC mk3?
also that tamron shot looks too blurry for f8 maybe wide open... are you sure you didn't get any shake in that?

the tamron is a bit too big for travel and this looks like a much better option and has panning mode IS which IMO is a massive fault on the tamron.

Using the MkIII. Haven't been able to check AF outside yet, will do that tomorrow. The thing about the 300/2.8 is that you sometimes feel a bit sick about what it cost, then you compare other lenses with it and it just wins.

Maybe there was some shake, but I'll never know from now as I sold the Tamron. I don't regret buying it and making a loss as it is a very good lens and I had a lot of fun with it and have some photos I treasure.

8
Lenses / EF 100-400mm II - first impressions
« on: December 16, 2014, 05:51:32 PM »
My 100-400 II arrived today at the local store, collected it at 2.45 pm, adjusted microfocus on Focal by 3.45, when it was nearly dark here, ± 1.4xTC.

I fired 6 quick shots of the local chimney in the near dark at 560 mm (with the 1.4xTC) at f/8, iso 2500 and 1/25 s. All were spot on sharp. The IS is excellent, at least 4 stops, compared with 3 on my Tamron at 600. The image looks really sharp. I couldn't do any extensive testing as I had to photo all the kids at a Christmas party, but I have just done some quick shots of the centre of the iso 1223 chart to compare with the 300/2.8 II and Tamron on the 5DIII. (My 70D is at WEX being assessed for part exchange).

1. At 400mm and f/5.6, it is not as sharp as the 300 + 1.4xTC at 420mm and f/4. I was only at about 8m from the target, and the focal length appeared to be only about a real 370mm.
2. At 560mm and f/8 with the 1.4xTC it is really sharp, and much better than the Tamron 150-600mm at 600mm and f/8.

I am really surprised about how good it is with the 1.4xTC.  With it's superb IS and performance at 560mm, I am really pleased I bought it. A little disappointed at 400mm, but maybe microfocus isn't quite right yet. I'll play around with it more in the next few days to see how it shapes up at 400.

Left hand side shots are raw converted to jpeg with no sharpening whatsoever. Right is applying unsharp mask at 0.9 px and 100%.

9
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: December 15, 2014, 01:38:12 PM »
Great shot AlanF, I assume you filled the frame or is there some cropping.  Either way, very nice.  We have red-tails but they never seem to come around my place, hardly ever any hawks to shoot other than high in the sky!

Would you say the 300 X2 is not getting the use it once did?

Jack

Jack
The 300 is my go-to lens - it is so, so good, and I use it at least a day a week here. But, it was easier to take the Tamron with me on the flights to Boston and then to Halifax Nova Scotia. Sold the Tamron on Friday in anticipation of the new 100-400, which will be easier still for travel.

10
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: December 15, 2014, 03:50:29 AM »
Mario
That is a fantastic shot. The only opportunity I have ever had of a close up was in Fenway Park in the summer, when a red-railed hawk flew into a tree when I was strolling with my Tamron 150-600, which I had to use at 450mm.

11
The remark was made that no one understands the physics. Here one person who knows enough: Roger Clark. Read his review of the 7D II and follow the links in it:

Roger Clark seems to be a very bright fellow. But the resolution issue ultimately comes down to the problem that light does not behave entirely like a particle nor entirely like a wave. It's both at once. But not really. And if you look at light too closely, it responds by changing what it is.

Not even the worlds best physicists have managed a complete solution to explain this phenomenon. So, no one really does understand the Physics. Obviously, lots of people understand it better than I do. Roger Clark certainly seems to be one of them.

What are the problems with the wave-particle duality of light and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and quantum effects at a level that is going to affect the observed resolution of a lens and sensor that we can detect in our images? The wave nature of light is sufficient that we can calculate the diffraction patterns at different wavelengths and work out the how they depend on f number, the particle nature means that we can apply Poissonian statistics to photon noise, and regarding the uncertainty and effects; are they large enough to affect us in any practical way?

Even though we don't fully understand the laws of physics, we can design a car without using Einstein's theory of relativity, just based on Newtonian mechanics, and land a space vehicle on a comet. We are dealing with practicalities, not metaphysics. You don't need a "theory of everything" for most practical aspects of engineering.
Whatever, I find this constant bickering over non-existent issues tiresome.

In which case, stop bickering. You raised the non-existent issue of the inadequacy of physics.

12
The remark was made that no one understands the physics. Here one person who knows enough: Roger Clark. Read his review of the 7D II and follow the links in it:

Roger Clark seems to be a very bright fellow. But the resolution issue ultimately comes down to the problem that light does not behave entirely like a particle nor entirely like a wave. It's both at once. But not really. And if you look at light too closely, it responds by changing what it is.

Not even the worlds best physicists have managed a complete solution to explain this phenomenon. So, no one really does understand the Physics. Obviously, lots of people understand it better than I do. Roger Clark certainly seems to be one of them.

What are the problems with the wave-particle duality of light and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and quantum effects at a level that is going to affect the observed resolution of a lens and sensor that we can detect in our images? The wave nature of light is sufficient that we can calculate the diffraction patterns at different wavelengths and work out the how they depend on f number, the particle nature means that we can apply Poissonian statistics to photon noise, and regarding the uncertainty and effects; are they large enough to affect us in any practical way?

Even though we don't fully understand the laws of physics, we can design a car without using Einstein's theory of relativity, just based on Newtonian mechanics, and land a space vehicle on a comet. We are dealing with practicalities, not metaphysics. You don't need a "theory of everything" for most practical aspects of engineering.

13
The remark was made that no one understands the physics. Here one person who knows enough: Roger Clark. Read his review of the 7D II and follow the links in it:

http://www.clarkvision.com/reviews/evaluation-canon-7dii/index.html


Quote: "The 7D mark II has very small pixels for a DSLR. To get all the detail in an image that the sensor is capable of delivering, you need very sharp lenses. Most zoom lenses, especially consumer zoom lenses will result in soft images from this sensor as the lenses can't deliver the image quality. Also, one needs to use excellent technique to take advantage of this sensor. Remember, it is the lens plus the exposure time that delivers the light and the detail to the sensor. The sensor just collects the light delivered by the lens and exposure time. Deliver the light to the 7D2 and it will record stunning images."

You need the best lenses, like the big whites (and it looks like the new 100-400mm II is in that category) to get the best out of the small pixel sizes. Shake you can eliminate with good technique, but a soft lens you can't except by getting a better one.

14
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: December 14, 2014, 02:46:26 AM »
Nice shots, Alan F - the grass isn't any greener on my particular side of the fence but those guys in Florida now that's another thing.

Down to novel attempts at chickadee flight shots with a 6D, pretty hit and miss but this one is passable.  you can count on one hand what I see most days.

Jack

Chickadees in flight! That is a challenge, Jack. Well done.
There is a preliminary account comparing the 300/2.8  + 2xTC with the 100-400 II + 1.4xTC. The 100-400 is almost as good on the 7D II and much better than the Mk I. I have one on order and will be using it to complement the 300 for walking/hiking. For your chickadees, the extra stop from the 300 will it preferable. 
Alan

15
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: December 13, 2014, 03:24:08 PM »
You lucky guys surrounded by those birds. It's been rather disappointing around here. This afternoon was sunny and I managed to get some portraits of some common species with the 300/2.8 + 2xTC on the 5DIII.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 78