I'd like Canon to consider improvements found in ML.
Wouldn't we all.
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.
have their 603II and 622 triggers, great products, never had the first problem. I had hoped they would gain a NA distributor but did not expect that BH would be first. I think that says a lot about the power they hold in the marketplace and maybe even the marketing work that has been going on behind the scenes.
I do think the fact that they are clearly knocking off these lenses is a knock on their reputation.
It's even better than the 400/5.6.
I was skeptical that this lens could live up to the hype. It appears the hype was justified:Roger at Lens rentals disagrees. He just posted a comparison of the old and new 100-400mm and there isn't that much difference between them.
The 70-200 f2.8 is a lousy lens for BIF. It is way too short. Same with the bare 300mm f2.8. The 300mm f2.8 with the 1.4x will work but it is starting to get heavy.Thanks to all! Now it is clear why I suck so badly at BIF. Clearly my next step is a 7D II. After that, a fast lens (as clearly advised by jrista and strongly implied by AprilForever). And practice. Thanks again.
BIF is not easy. Not by a long shot. I've been doing bird photography for a few years now, and BIF is definitely my weak spot. I've kind of stopped practicing, as I just don't have the lenses for it. A FAST lens is a big plus, so I really think the 70-200 f/2.8 is going to be a good lens to have, with or without a 1.4x TC. If you have the money, the 300 f/2.8 is great. I am not sure about the 500/4 on a 7D II (that's an effective ~810mm focal length...that's really long, makes for a pretty narrow FoV...I have a hard enough time with BIF at 600mm on the FF, let alone 800mm+). I think a 500/4 on a FF would be ok...it still seems a little long to me, especially if you do not already have good BIF skills (if you had good BIF skills, I think it would be excellent, you'll get a lot more detail...but learning on it would be tough, just keeping the bird in the frame would be tough with a 7D II.)
I don't see the inherent difference in wedding photographs one bride in a white dress looks pretty much the same as another. Portraits - same thing one guy in a suit looks like every other guy in suit.I think your question applies to photography in general now, not just wildlife.
Why's that? As one of the other big photo business segments weddings and portraits tend to look inherently different, an architecture/product/... all have different content as ordered by the client. To me, wildlife photogs seems to be among the most endangered species as w/o further amendments, the content never gets outdated.Unfortunately as you point out, wildlife photography has become a measuring contest of one's financial power (having the latest gear) as well as their availability to be out in the field almost everyday.
Yes, the latter cannot be helped I'm afraid to say :-o ... but one other catch of wildlife tele shots is that if you manage to get a great shot with your 600mm, the less wealthy photog can still get lucky and get a better shot with his/her cheaper 300mm as long as the subject doesn't eat you. So i reckon there's more in it for beginners, unlike with sports where you have to sit at the edge of the field and simply have to have a 1dx+600mm.
Anti-Canon = everything Canon does is bad.
Canon fanboy = everything Canon does is good.
Neutral = Canon is best at many things but not everything.
Ok, so that makes me Neutral.
Personally I prefer primes, I shot mostly with a 400mm f5.6L until i upgraded to a 500mm f4L.People prefer zooms.
I can easily understand it. But zooms have also huge disadvantages especially with a x4 range:
The primes are not as complex as a zoom and could really be optimized and for wildlife photography you are anyway at the longer focal length you have at least 95% of the time.
So are primes so bad at all?
Which has caused my old brain to start wondering why nobody has reverse engineered the WFT-E7A and produced a cheaper model. There are off-brand battery grips, selling for a fraction of the cost of a Canon. Surely it wouldn't be too difficult to manufacture a wi-fi unit which sold in the $300.00 range....or perhaps it is too difficult which is why I'm never heard of one.
I assume the latter - look at the disastrous performance of Yn's rt flash transmitter clone which obviously made them delay their whole line of announced rt flashes.
It's true that wifi is standardized and it should be easier to implement, but sub-par radio performance is annoying and will make a lot of people buy the more expensive, but working model. With battery grips it doesn't matter as much for non-critical shooting if you can buy 3x-4x clones for the price of 1x original.