December 18, 2014, 12:43:53 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 - East Wind Photography

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 59
1
Edit: Just seen that TDP has the image quality data on its site. There seems nothing between the 5.6 400 and the vii

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=278&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Well, in the corners, the 5.6 400 L looks better to my eyes and this becomes even more pronounced if you compare both lenses with the 2xIII attached:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=3&LensComp=278&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1

However, I expect that in real life and @ 800 mm/f 11 you will have more keepers with the zoom than with the prime most of the time due to the IS, unless you have reaaaly good light.

I'm not so sure.  The 400 prime has better light transmission than the new 100-400.  21 lens elements vs 7 on the prime.  IS may help but it doesn't help in every situation.  It's the zoom trade off.


2
Lenses / Re: Review: Sensor Performance of the 7D Mark II
« on: December 17, 2014, 09:59:53 PM »
I just received the sky watcher star adventurer product from B&H.  Looks very well designed with a lot of thought going into it's usefulness.  I'm impressed with the size and weight.  Will be easy to travel with.  The declination bracket can also hold a second ball head mount for a guiding scope and autotracker.  :D
 
The declination bracket also has a worm type fine adjuster.  I would imaging it would be fairly easy to construct a motor that would allow for some kind of declination autotracking.  Though I doubt it would be needed for most digital imagery.

I haven't had a chance to take it out yet.  Maybe next week.  All of this is fine but if it cant track as described it's not worth anything.

3
Anyone who has the 400 5.6 and the new 100-400 - which one is superior at 400?

I don't have either but the shots I've seen taken with the 100-400 and 400 both I would say the 400 is superior in sharpness and light transmission.  However the 100-400 gives you the zoom capability.  Though how much are you really going to use it at less than 400?

If you already have the 400 5.6 I would say keep it unless you really need the zoom for what you shoot.

4
Just out of curiosity, can anyone with the lens unscrew the foot and take a shot of the mating surfaces of the foot and the collar?  I'm wondering how they interlock, etc.

More generally, it's a bit of a shame that the stock foot is ramped/curved in the back.  A flat profile would allow the use of longer QR plates with antitwist "lips" to be oriented in either direction.

Getting a little offtopic, I would be surprised if Canon wanted to get into the QR plate/clamp world.  It seems like further fragmentation that wouldn't be of much use to customers or to them, in a niche that they don't have much current interest in.  I mean Canon doesn't even show their own tripods in their product photos: http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/product-accessories/eos-digital-slr-camera-accessories/eos-tripods-other-accessories/eos-rain-cover-medium-erc-e4m

I'd much rather them work on sensor tech than on support products!

You don't need a plate with the anti swivel nubs.  Looks like you can just add a second screw to the bottom plate

5
A little surprising to me that manufacturers of these big teles don't provide an OEM A/S-compatible foot, or even groove standard feed and then include a flush-mounted tripod screw bushing to cover all bases. Seems like a disconnect there.

Anyway, I'm using a Markins PL-55 plate for my 100-400 mk1 and I like it a lot. It's tough, thin, just a bit longer than the tripod collar foot, and has a no-slip back lip. That plate is generic so would probably work for the mk2 as well.

Probobly patent and licensing issues.  I wouldn't be surprised though if canon came out with an entirely new foot design for which they held the patent.

6
7D MK II Sample Images / Re: Anything Shot with a 7D MII
« on: December 17, 2014, 12:53:12 PM »
Yesterday's Estonian volleyball cup's final:




Shot with 7D MK II and 135/2 lens. Both ISO 4000, shot in RAW. I find that 1DX noise is about a stop better than 7DII, which is understandable. When I bought 7DII, I was prepared for even worse result, so I'm happy with that.

I'm finding similar great action with high ISO.  Recently shot an indoor soccer game with poor defective lighting.  Used ISO 12500.  Images cleaned up nicely in CS5 after converting to DNG files.  Not as good as 1dx but I concur about the 1/2 stop less.  Hard to quantify though.  The noise cleans up really well compared to its predeccesor.

7
I think they'll make a replacement foot soon.

Might need a replacement lens for that foot if one doesn't attach it securely.  That part bothers me a bit.  I'd like to hear from others how secure that is.

The foot appears to be secure, as far as not coming off, the thumb wheel seems to have detents which prevent it from rotating on its own, and it becomes very noticeably wobbly when the screw is backed off but the lens is still held securely, it just has obvious play in the mounting.  Even then, the screw will not back off on its own.  Of course, someone will manage to do it, fools are just to clever to outsmart. 
 
What I did notice is that I had to tighten it, wobble it, tighten again, and repeat 2-3 times to get it to the point where I could not detect any play.  I did not like that.  I don't want a lens foot that allows for any play in the lens.  I may keep it tight and never remove it if it ever becomes a issue.

Yeah that would be an issue for anyone taking a long exposure photograph or astrophoto time exposure.  Any movement would really mess up the shot.  I thought possible the nub after the foot was removed could be used but the manual says not to and that permanent damage could result.  But I'm sure someone will try that too.


8
Lenses / Re: EF 100-400mm II - first impressions
« on: December 16, 2014, 10:33:40 PM »
I have the 300 II so based on this I don't see the need right now for the 100-400.  I used to own the mark 1 model but always used it at 400 and realized I didn't need a zoom.

400 seems a bit soft to me.  Still better than the sigma.  Since you used focal it's possible the afma is still off some.  I would verify that with a better tool, something like a spyder lenscal.  I'm not a big fan of focal.  I think it causes more harm than good whereas a good target and ruler doesn't lie. 

So based on this initial test I can say I'm holding off for a bit.  Thanks for taking the time to post the comparisons.

9
I think they'll make a replacement foot soon.

Might need a replacement lens for that foot if one doesn't attach it securely.  That part bothers me a bit.  I'd like to hear from others how secure that is.

10
There is a hole in the bottom of the foot for a pin.  That is your anti twist option.  Buy a plate with the pin and you will be set.

Which plates come with a pin?

I will need to check.  I have one around here that has a removable pin.  Might have been a wimberly but I need to check.  My other feet don't use a pin but I can see where it would work in this case.  I'll report back after I dig around in my bags a bit.

There's another discussion about feet for this lens however here is one from really right stuff

http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/EF-100-400mm-f-4-5-5-6L-IS-II-USM/

Includes two screws one for the main mounting hole and one for the secondary hole.  Some other plates have a removable pin such as the Manfrotto RC series but they are not swiss arca.  That was the plate I was thinking about.  However I discovered that some wimberly plates also come with two screws to stabilize the plate with larger lenses.

I dont have one of the new lenses so I cant say for sure that it's threaded or not and the manual does not say a thing about it.  So my take is that you use the second hole for an additional screw so it does not twist on the plate.  Makes pretty good sense to me to include that on the larger tele's.

Also see the thread
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=24159.msg474333



11
There is a hole in the bottom of the foot for a pin.  That is your anti twist option.  Buy a plate with the pin and you will be set.

Which plates come with a pin?

I will need to check.  I have one around here that has a removable pin.  Might have been a wimberly but I need to check.  My other feet don't use a pin but I can see where it would work in this case.  I'll report back after I dig around in my bags a bit.


12
There is a hole in the bottom of the foot for a pin.  That is your anti twist option.  Buy a plate with the pin and you will be set.

13
Lenses / Re: EF 100-400mm II - first impressions
« on: December 16, 2014, 06:03:46 PM »
I'm a bit confused.  What are the left and right images on each row?  They are a comparison of some type by your titles don't describe it well.

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II Owners first thoughts
« on: December 16, 2014, 12:16:27 PM »
If I compare the results of the 7D to my brandnew 7D Mark2, I am diappointed. The body itself is great (like the 7D is). But I can not see an major improvement in the picture quality.  I can see highlighted (looks "artificial") edges, a lot of noise and mushy colours. On the positive side, the AF is superb and working well on fast objects.
Another point to critisize is the movie mode. The movies are a lot worser, than the 7DsĀ“. I will decide it after the weekend, if I send it back.

Not sure what you are looking at.  I just photographed an indoor soccer game this weekend all at ISO 12500 and after a little PP the shots look better than the old 7d at ISO 800.  I also did a video at 29fps at a concert and it was all as good as my 5d3 and I didn't have to worry about manual focus.  Dual pixel AF kept the subject in focus as I moved about the stage.

The 7d2 is an amazing system once you get a good copy.


15
EOS Bodies / Re: Focus problems with the Canon 7DII?
« on: December 15, 2014, 02:14:12 PM »
These standard deviation numbers would be the "precision" numbers, and the accuracy should correspond to the average offset from the correct focus.

Before someone flames you to as crisp, I'll mention it nicely because I've posted these numbers before: Canon enthusiasts and 7d1 owners argue that lensrentals' measurements aren't valid as their sample size is too small (it is 1):

Quote
We then tested it in our Imatest lab using one copy of each Canon camera we carry.

*sigh* I wasn't out to try to become misunderstood, and yet it happens. If I get flamed because the purpose is not recognised there is not much I can do about it.
I often attempt to be reasonably concise and keeping the posts short enough to have them read. If possible I add links to source information.
Here I introduced an explanation to what the terms "precision" and "accuracy" would be in another way compared to earlier posts. Also added the information from the table to give a hint about how different models stood in relation to each other, and it was also the best way (in my opinion) of showing the SD measurement, which I believe to be the same as what is referred to as "precision".

I set out assuming that people are smart enough to comprehend my posts without me needing to include a lawyer-ish "fine print".
It's also perfectly possible that I have missed reading an earlier post, giving these numbers or explanations, in this thread because I haven't reread the entire thread from start again. I'm flawed that way.

So..what's the difference between accuracy and precision?  ;)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 59