December 20, 2014, 12:22:28 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 - Mt Spokane Photography

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 610
1
Lenses / Re: Quick Comparison: Canon's new 400mm Options
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:46:18 PM »
It's late, and I'm tired, so I don't entirely trust my results here.  However, if I'm right, this will explain these results.

The theoretical maximums, simply caused by diffraction, are 1555 lp/ph for f/5.6 and 2199 lp/ph for f/4.

So, the reason the 100-400L improved less is that there's less room to improve between the old one and the diffraction limit than there was for the old 400/4DO which has a higher diffraction limit due to its faster f-stop.

In fact, the result for the 100-400L II is just 1% less than what I'd calculate from a perfect f/5.6 lens behind an AA filter.  And that 1% number is based on a rule-of-thumb for the AA filter that itself is less accurate than 1%.

We probably will see a bigger difference on high MP bodies where the lens will have a bigger impact.  I'm not about to fool with calculations.

2
EOS Bodies / Re: Ron Martinsen Blasts the 7DII in his review
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:42:41 PM »
I happen to be friends with Ron and have worked with him for some time.  While I do not always agree with his reviews, he's pretty straight up.  One thing is he has always stated what he thought about products - even when it wound up pissing off his sponsors.  Keep in mind that the majority of big review sites out there have to temper their disappointments in order to not suffer financially.

In terms of his review on the 7D2, I happen to agree with it. \

so you recommend that someone who is not using the 7D MK II for wildlife or sports buy a D4s?  A D4s won't do sports or wildlife?  What is he on??
I was kinda wondering the same thing. What does he have against the 1Dx if he recommending a high priced ff? Where does the D4s beat the 1Dx for sports or wildlife? If they're good friends then they may be sharing the same smoke pipe.

Yes, except, as I read it, he is recommending the D4s if you are NOT doing sports or wildlife.  Maybe its just poorly worded, but that's the way I read it, the everyone else meaning those not shooting sports or wildlife.
 
 Canon sports shooters with a big lens investment would be better served investing in a used 1D Mark IV which will outperform this camera both in terms of image quality and performance, and everyone else should consider a D750 (or a D4s if you can afford it)

3
Lenses / Re: Lens internal part falling off? its a refurb lens
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:37:00 PM »
It looks like a shaving from a drill.  make sure its not on the rear of the lens.  Canon drills a small indentation and puts a red paint dot in it for refurbs, at least many of them.  A shaving could have ended up on the rear element.  That's not likely, but check anyway.
 
 

4
Lenses / Re: Further testing to come.
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:24:42 PM »
Yes, it does show up better than the 500 here. Whether that is a fact remains to be seen. I will be field testing over the next few weeks and the results will be more clear cut after that.

I'd expect the 500mm to beat it when there is enough lighting for 1/1000 or 1/2000 sec at f/5.6 at ISO 160.

5
Lenses / Re: How satisfied are you with the 100-400 II?
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:18:34 PM »
I am inclined to stick with my beloved 400 f/5.6L. The new zoom's IS and minimum focusing distance of 1 meter beats the 400 f/5.6 no-IS and minimum focusing distance of 3 meters, so it does sound tempting, but I rarely get that close to birds, and for slow moving tiny critters (snakes, insects, etc), I use the 180 f/3.5L macro with or without the 1.4x TCII. There's a combo that autofocuses s-l-o-w-l-y  when compared to the 400 f/5.6L   ::)

I would really like to try the 500 f/4 or even the 600 f/4 - rent it for a migration week of shooting.

The 400mm f/5.6 is a bargain lens, it would be a shame to see it replaced with a $2,000 lens.  It allows photographers to get into a front line hand held 400mm lens for a reasonable price.

6
Lenses / Re: Quick Comparison: Canon's new 400mm Options
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:15:09 PM »
I really want to see the in-field performance of the 400 f/4 DO II under different lighting conditions. If Canon has solved the DO weakness of poor contrast and flaring, and knows how to make super-sharp DO lenses, then we should expect to see a 500 or 600 f/4 DO someday - maybe 5.5 to 6 pounds, rather than the 7.0 and 8.5 pounds the version II conventional 500 and 600 f/4 weigh. Yeah, I know - unicorns.

I'm sure its possible, it depends on marketing.  Are there enough buyers in the market to go for a 500mm, a 600mm or a 800mm DO?  A lot of people recently invested a big chunk of money in the new 500mm and 600mm lenses, and are not likely to change to a DO version, so maybe the 800mm is the next DO lens??

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Ron Martinsen Blasts the 7DII in his review
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:03:28 PM »
I happen to be friends with Ron and have worked with him for some time.  While I do not always agree with his reviews, he's pretty straight up.  One thing is he has always stated what he thought about products - even when it wound up pissing off his sponsors.  Keep in mind that the majority of big review sites out there have to temper their disappointments in order to not suffer financially.

In terms of his review on the 7D2, I happen to agree with it. \

so you recommend that someone who is not using the 7D MK II for wildlife or sports buy a D4s?  A D4s won't do sports or wildlife?  What is he on??

8
Start by Reading page 196 and subsequent in your manual.

9
Lenses / Re: How satisfied are you with the 100-400 II?
« on: December 19, 2014, 08:48:58 PM »
It has met my expectations so far.  Better IS, fast AF, and the images appear sharper, particularly away from the center. 
 
I'd have a tough time saying there is a difference in the center from my MK I version, it was very good.    Meanwhile, the various lens tester's results are positive, but differing from their point of view as to increased acutance in the center.

10
Canon General / Re: Thanks Adorama and Helen Oster !
« on: December 19, 2014, 08:43:43 PM »
Sagittariansrock :: Re the B&H post ... We agree with the lukewarm CS attitude from B&H lately ...

We've done business with B&H for years thru a couple different companies we work with -- was once great CS, but this past year or so, that fell apart.   We bought a 5DM3 and a couple expensive lenses last year on one order, with some additional items -- that's a healthy check to B&H ...

We had a issue with a couple small items - broken on delivery - and an issue with PSE (I'm not detailing the whole thing here, too complicated) -- but it took OVER six months attempting to resolve the issues, and finally gave up on some of it - two items less value than a $100 total, on a $5000 order...  The entire time, B&H continued to deflect blame and ignore calls and emails -- the manufacturer and would not assist -- long story which I'll shorten here and not bore readers with it.   In any event, from that point we looked to Adorama for our equipment ... and only order from B&H (or other vendors) if Adorama does not stock the item.

Couple times since then, we've had minor issues with an order -- Helen always steps up and gets it back on track -- and most recently what may have been an order to B&H if B&H had resolved this $100 issue, but instead we ordered a 7D2 and 100-400 L IS 11 within the last month, along with other smaller stuff, and Adorama got the order instead, and will get all our business in the future as well.   

In my business, if a customer spent $5000 and had an issue with a $100 tech item failing to work properly, I'd have sent a new one in a heart beat.   But instead we got a "run-around", a 'not my fault", and "we only sell the product, we have nothing to do with it after you buy it" ... well, B&H took my money, and that means they take at least SOME of the responsibility to interact with THEIR vendor if there is a problem that can find no resolution.

In my opinion, B&H no longer has the CS it once proclaimed "best CS" in their ads ... well no more, as far as I'm concerned, and Adorama gets our business now.

Guess this is a long rant, sorta, but we should always share our good and bad experiences so others don't lose out for dumb reasons  ...  So, Helen and Adorama, a tip of the cap to you all !!!   And B&H, don't shovel your walkways on our account, because we won't need it clear.

B&H has Henry Posner to help with issues where there is a issue.  He does a similar service.

11
EOS Bodies / Re: Ron Martinsen Blasts the 7DII in his review
« on: December 19, 2014, 08:40:59 PM »
Key statement from his review:

Quote from: Ron Martinsen
Now if you thought the 50D, 60D or 7D was a good camera then you’ll love the 7D Mark II. However, if you are like me and thought they weren’t worth owning if someone gave you one for free, then I have to advise that you stay away from the 7D Mark II – despite how fantastic the body features and technical specifications are.

Seems he's expecting FF high ISO performance from a sensor with <40% of the light gathering capability.  Maybe a tad unrealistic...just a tad.

Ultimately I can’t recommend this camera. Canon sports shooters with a big lens investment would be better served investing in a used 1D Mark IV which will outperform this camera both in terms of image quality and performance, and everyone else should consider a D750 (or a D4s if you can afford it). Sure you’ll get less frames per second on the Nikon, but nearly all of them will be in focus and you’ll have killer image quality too!
 
____________________________________________________________________________________
 
I'd also prefer low actuation 1D Mark IV for a few dollars more, and if you are not using the 7D Mark II for wildlife and sports, a FF body for about the same price makes sense, assuming you are not stuck with a lot of EF-s lenses.
 
But... A  $6500 D4s as a alternative to a $1800 camera!  We need to get some of that stuff he's smoking.

12
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How much quality am I losing by using mRaw
« on: December 19, 2014, 08:31:41 PM »
Why buy a 20 MP camera and then throw pixels away. 
 
I can understand not needing them, but its a expensive camera, and you can never recover the lost resolution if you shoot in mraw.  Memory cards and hard drive space are so cheap in relation to the price of the camera that its not a factor.  You must still convert to jpg for either mraw or raw, and the image size can be set during that process without affecting the original.

13
Canon General / Re: Thanks Adorama and Helen Oster !
« on: December 19, 2014, 08:26:33 PM »
UPS has missed 2/3 of their delivery dates in the past 3 weeks, I'd have thought they would have learned last year.  Most of my deliveries are routine, so its no problem.

This holiday season, 'Brown' is smelling like something else that's brown (or greenish-brown, says Mr. Hankey).  They've missed over half of my scheduled deliveries, including one that was a perishable birthday gift for a family member that was 1.5 days late.

The thing is that they received such a beating last year for late deliveries that they should be doing better this year.  I received 5 shipments on Tuesday, all except the lens were on schedule, so they seem to be recovering.  I wonder now if they were buried in parcels due to the big winter storms and had to clear those out as well as heavy Christmas shipping.  That I can understand.
 
I've sent 10's of thouusands of parcels by ups for my small business over the years, occasionally they are late, but I don't recall one being lost.  I do get parcels being returned by USPS.  That's usually because the buyer does not know his correct address, and the Post office got tired of fixing it for him.

14
Lenses / Re: Quick Comparison: Canon's new 400mm Options
« on: December 19, 2014, 04:04:50 PM »
He must have picked an excellent copy of the original 100-400 for his comparison.  I'd say my version 1 lens is average but the version II lens is excellent.  My copy of the new one is much sharper wide open plus the much improved IS and twist zoom is a "must upgrade" if you use this lens a lot.

They tested four copies of each generation 100-400, and averaged the numbers.

....that's way LR results are more reliable than other reviews where probably only one unit is tested.

Sure, but LR is sadly not a testing house.  They have world class equipment and a very bright soul to publish and interpret the results, but they are not in the business of comparing hamburger A to hamburger B.  Every time Roger publishes his data, he leaves out one lens we really want to compare against or an aperture other than wide open, etc.

To him, this is a curiosity that he dabbles in, but ultimately he's running a business.  So I have to use  PhotoZone and LensTip to compare numbers and TDP to see IQ with my own eyes.

- A

Yes, I read them all.  Each site has their strengths.  Rogers equipment is the best at what it does, while the other sites give lots of good information.
 
I've read the 100-400mm MK II reviews on those sites, as well as Alan F's on CR, and all generally agree that its very good.  My copy is up to my expectations as well.
 
Its great that we have web sites looking at lenses from different points of view, we get a more rounded picture of things that way.

15
Reviews / Re: Photozone review of 100-400 L II
« on: December 19, 2014, 03:20:33 PM »
They are certainly glowing about it.  I love mine, but felt that the higher contrast tended to make the image appear sharper.  The greatly improved middle and outer edges also make the overall image look a lot sharper.  I believe there is less CA's, but it wasn't a issue on the MK I.
 
I've seen your tests, and they seem right to me, there is always lens variation, but they are as expected.
 
One interesting thing is that the lens center MTF is always highest wide open, and the edge MTF increases very little as you stop down, while the center MTF goes down a little.
 
It is still excellent at 400mm, where I would use it most, in fact, I have only used mine at 400mm, so maybe I should have went for the DO.
 
Roger at Lens Rentals tested 4 each with his new transmissive target.  He just looked at 400mm so far, but did not measure much difference between ver 1 and 2 in the center.  He does warn that he wants to test more lenses to get better data.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 610