1
Lenses / Re: Andy Rouse Reviews the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« on: May 15, 2013, 07:50:35 AM »
Yes, versatility is nice, but I need to see technical excellence that makes this worth going for over the 400 2.8 or the 500 F4.
May 24, 2013, 03:35:36 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.
2
Lenses / Re: EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 09, 2013, 06:21:25 PM »There's a 400/5.6 prime too, and they probably wouldn't cannibalize it.
Why would it matter if they still buy a Canon lens in the end?
------------------
http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/
3
EOS Bodies / Re: 21mp Sensor in the 7D Mark II? [CR1]
« on: April 19, 2013, 06:19:25 AM »
I'd need to see improved noise and dynamic range at low ISO to consider moving to a 7D II. I really don't care about the megapixels. 15 was plenty for me on the 50D (which was consistently sharper with the same lenses than my 7D).
-----------
http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/
-----------
http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/
4
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D vs 5D3 noise @ ISO400
« on: April 01, 2013, 03:22:54 AM »
I haven't shot the 1DX, but it looks like an awesome camera.
What's nice about the 7D versus full frame is large prints. I found I was cropping too deeply with the 5D's, and this was affecting print quality at the sizes I prefer to print.
Another poster mentioned the wacky auto focus. I had one of those 7D's, too (and a peeling grip). Luckily, Canon was able to fix both.
Since fine-tuning my 7D, I find myself lusting less and less for camera bodies. Yes, it's a pretty noisy camera, but Lightroom does a masterful job of keeping detail while removing noise. I'm much more interested in location, location, location. I doubt I'd even upgrade to the 7DII.
What's nice about the 7D versus full frame is large prints. I found I was cropping too deeply with the 5D's, and this was affecting print quality at the sizes I prefer to print.
Another poster mentioned the wacky auto focus. I had one of those 7D's, too (and a peeling grip). Luckily, Canon was able to fix both.
Since fine-tuning my 7D, I find myself lusting less and less for camera bodies. Yes, it's a pretty noisy camera, but Lightroom does a masterful job of keeping detail while removing noise. I'm much more interested in location, location, location. I doubt I'd even upgrade to the 7DII.
5
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D vs 5D3 noise @ ISO400
« on: March 31, 2013, 09:03:58 PM »Interesting. My testing (and that of others here) suggest that low ISO, the cropped FF image has equivalent IQ (but fewer MP), and at high ISO, the cropped FF is clearly superior. I'm quite familiar with the 7D - and since getting the 1D X, my 7D has become quite familiar with the inside of a Storm case, and has forgotten what it's like to have a lens mounted.
I used both cameras, shot squirrels and birds (objects that usually require substantial cropping), then cropped the FF to equal the 7D view. What I found, upon printing was the 7D images were superior...and the 7D hasn't even been cropped yet.
Other than that, the FF cameras are a couple levels better all around. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the 7D for wildlife over the others. For everything else, go with the FF. In viewing RAW files, without cropping, they have a significant IQ advantage over the 7D.
6
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D vs 5D3 noise @ ISO400
« on: March 31, 2013, 03:52:22 AM »
No question that the 7D is noisier than the 5D2 and 5D3. I see a lot of blue channel noise at low ISO. And yes, the IQ overall is better on the FF cameras. The images are a level or two sharper and cleaner when viewing RAW files.
I primarily shoot wildlife, and there are some tricks to employ for the 7D. First, for wildlife, I find that using spot metering helps to make sure the subject is exposed properly. The 7D is not kind to anyone who is underexposing, and wildlife will often be in shady areas (bushes, under the canopy, etc). This compounds the problem.
If you are careful with exposure on the 7D and employ spot metering, I find you can use up to ISO 1600 in RAW, even with cropping. I have found that Lightroom seems to be superior for this as well. It does a better job of preserving detail while reducing noise than DPP.
Also consider how much you will have to crop on the FF to get the 7D's perceived reach. In my comparisons, having to crop so much on the 5D's puts them on lesser footing than the 7D in IQ. If I did not shoot wildlife and my focus was people, I would still own the full frame cameras. But the 7D is an outstanding wildlife camera when you become familiar with it. I'd still recommend it for that in a second.
------------
http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/
I primarily shoot wildlife, and there are some tricks to employ for the 7D. First, for wildlife, I find that using spot metering helps to make sure the subject is exposed properly. The 7D is not kind to anyone who is underexposing, and wildlife will often be in shady areas (bushes, under the canopy, etc). This compounds the problem.
If you are careful with exposure on the 7D and employ spot metering, I find you can use up to ISO 1600 in RAW, even with cropping. I have found that Lightroom seems to be superior for this as well. It does a better job of preserving detail while reducing noise than DPP.
Also consider how much you will have to crop on the FF to get the 7D's perceived reach. In my comparisons, having to crop so much on the 5D's puts them on lesser footing than the 7D in IQ. If I did not shoot wildlife and my focus was people, I would still own the full frame cameras. But the 7D is an outstanding wildlife camera when you become familiar with it. I'd still recommend it for that in a second.
------------
http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/
7
EOS Bodies / Re: replacing 7d with 5d3
« on: March 05, 2013, 03:54:16 PM »Quote
Basically, at low ISO (less than ISO 800), there will be no meaningful IQ difference between the 7D and the cropped 5DIII
I'd disagree with that.
I noticed a significant improvement in sharpness and low ISO noise (especially in blue skies) with the 5D II and 5D III. Those cameras lost their edge when shooting wildlife with a 300 prime, however.
The 7D and 5D II compliment each other really well. I didn't see the need for the 5D III when using the 7D for wildlife, and designating the 5d II for landscapes, although my 5D II had no issue whatsoever tracking sprinting animals in very lowlight with the center AF point and AI servo. The issue there is just reach.
If I was the OP, I'd stand pat and enjoy the flexibility.
8
EOS Bodies / Re: replacing 7d with 5d3
« on: March 04, 2013, 11:26:27 PM »
Since you own the 5D II, you may already have an answer to your question. Do you like the 70-300 on that body? If so, you are good to go. I went back and forth on the 7D, 5D II, and 5D III. In the end, it was about more pixels on the grizzly, so I kept the 7D.
There's no question ( at all) that the IQ on the 5D's is superior...except when shooting wildlife and having to crop. And then there's the fact that one hasn't even cropped the 7D yet, so....
BTW, I found the 5D II's center AF point just as good as the 7D, and even better in low light.
Best of luck.
-------------
http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/
There's no question ( at all) that the IQ on the 5D's is superior...except when shooting wildlife and having to crop. And then there's the fact that one hasn't even cropped the 7D yet, so....
BTW, I found the 5D II's center AF point just as good as the 7D, and even better in low light.
Best of luck.
-------------
http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/
9
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Spec List [CR2]
« on: February 19, 2013, 11:18:21 AM »
Looks great, but I doubt I'll be upgrading my 7D for it. 24mp on APS-C just scares me, and makes me think jpg in-camera processing rather than dynamic range and blue channel noise in RAW at ISO 100 and 200.
My current 7D is built like a tank and does pretty well.
---------------
http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/
My current 7D is built like a tank and does pretty well.
---------------
http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/
10
Lenses / Re: Would you keep a lens that required +18 AFMA?
« on: January 10, 2013, 07:35:53 AM »Just bought the new Sigma 85/1.4. It requires a +18 AFMA on my 5D III. I'm concerned that if I ever get a new camera body, and it front-focuses even a little bit more, that I won't be able to adjust it.
What do you think?
Way too much, IMHO. Plus, if you ever decide to sell the lens to someone with a non-MFA body....
I have a rule of no more than "10" either way for a new lens. Good luck.
------------
http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/
11
Lenses / Re: Glacier National Park - New lens?
« on: January 05, 2013, 11:55:11 PM »I will definitely bring a CP with me, as well as a ND.
A neutral density filter is what I forgot the last time I went to a national park... Yellowstone, in my case. NDs are a must for taking proper exposures of all the awesome waterfalls and rapids, if you want that soft, velvety water look. At glacier, you'll use it a LOT.
Good point, but I kind of stopped using mine. A CP and careful settings seems to do just fine most of the time. Definitely not a bad idea to have one, though. Glacier is, IMHO, a water park at its heart.
-----------
http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/
12
Lenses / Re: Glacier National Park - New lens?
« on: January 04, 2013, 09:08:49 PM »Hello all,
I will be going to Glacier National Park In late July. I am planning on taking quite a few pictures, as I love traveling to the National Parks.
Then you'll love Glacier. It's the best national park I've ever laid eyes upon for a variety of reasons.
Quote
First, should I look into purchasing (or perhaps renting) a specific wide angle? I hope I can upgrade to FF sometime, but this likely won't be until about 5 years down the road. The two options I was considering here are the 16-35 II and the 10-22.
There are a couple things you have to consider. First, 18-135 is a tremendous range for Glacier. But I'm not such a fan of that lens. Too much compromise.
Glacier is all about the water. Lakes, rivers, and waterfalls are everywhere. You're going to be doing compressed landscapes, making 18-135 a fantastic range. The ultra wide angle is what you'll need when you are in the forests, or hiking in narrow canyons. It won't get used otherwise, and if it does, the results will merely "shrink the mountains" (don't be that guy, lol).
Glacier is blessed not only with incredible wildlife watching, but a wide variety of scenery. It's also divided by two distinct sides: the wetter, greener west side with the big rivers, and the windy, jagged east side with its more impressive peaks. Both sides are brimming with stunning lakes. The wind on the east side will punish you. A tripod is a must.
Your 70-200 will work for lots of wildlife (especially the little guys in the campgrounds), but I would consider maneuvering away from the 18-135 IS. Here's what I would propose you go to Glacier with:
Scenario A: 70-200, Sigma 10-20, Canon 50 1.8 II.
The Sigma 10-20 is $400 new, and just as good as the Canon, and better in build quality and warranty. The image quality form the 50 1.8 and Sigma is better than the 18-135.
Scenario B:
70-200, Canon 15-85 IS.
This will get you decently wide and up the quality from your 18-135.
Scenario C:
70-200, 18-135 IS, Sigma 10-20.
Quote
Secondly, should I add an extender for wildlife?
Depends on how focused on wildlife you are. If you're up around 50%, yes.
Quote
Lastly, are there any locations that are a must? And is there any other specific gear that I "must" bring to have a successful trip?
Put a CP on your ultra wide and your standard lens. With so much water, you don't want glare.
Every location in Glacier is spectacular, which is why it towers above most other parks that have "best spots". That said, you'll have a better chance of spotting bears and other wildlife along Going to the Sun Road, and the eastern half of the park due to the more open nature. The west side has taller, denser forest and more green. The woods around Apgar remind me of the Northwoods in a way (the spots that aren't hacked down, anyway).
I spent several weeks camping in Glacier in the fall of 2012 (which felt more like winter). I left the day they closed Two Medicine and Many Glacier for winter. I remember being cold and cooking in snow, lol. But man I saw many great things. I'll be going back in 2013, as always.
--------------
http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/
13
Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS Resolution Tests
« on: January 04, 2013, 08:50:36 PM »Thanks and no thanks, Canon- I'm glad you're creating and improving products, but I'll stick with my 24-105L lens. I can live with 5% barrel distortion at the wide end in exchange for the increased telephoto reach. It's the best overall travel lens I've ever used.
I agree with this, and I like it even better on my 7D as a travel lens.
-------------
http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/
14
Pricewatch Deals / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS in Stock at B&H Photo
« on: January 04, 2013, 12:13:55 AM »
Yeah I don't see a reason to swap out my 24-105...at all.
-------------
http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/
-------------
http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/
15
Lenses / Re: Zoom vs Primes?
« on: December 15, 2012, 03:53:22 AM »
Actually, you can be outside the mountains, and have a clear view of the peaks and your immediate surroundings, then drive ten minutes into the mountains and be in blizzard conditions. Happened to me several times this fall/winter in Glacier National Park. Weird, but true.
This was my first year with the 24-105 L, and I can't praise that lens enough. Wonderful travel lens, but I do prefer it more on crop than FF. It just sings on crop. Really takes abuse, too. I know Canon is releasing a new 24-70 IS, but I don't see why I'd switch.
------------
http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/
This was my first year with the 24-105 L, and I can't praise that lens enough. Wonderful travel lens, but I do prefer it more on crop than FF. It just sings on crop. Really takes abuse, too. I know Canon is releasing a new 24-70 IS, but I don't see why I'd switch.
------------
http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/