September 19, 2014, 12:01:14 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 - Jackson_Bill

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16
1
EOS Bodies / Re: Chuck Westfall Talks Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 18, 2014, 09:21:26 AM »
The silence regarding the high iso performance was deafening. One remark in passing about Digic 6 noise reduction but I'm not sure what that means for ISO above 800.
Sadly, it sounds like moving the 7Dii to video is more important to Canon.
Very disappointed.

2
EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 16, 2014, 01:55:42 PM »

And just like Neuro, this was one of my most frequently used mode :D


Zone AF was your most frequently used mode? What types of photography are you doing? For my wildlife stuff, I use spot AF / AI servo with my 7D almost exclusively. I have trouble enough getting the focus I want with that and can't see how zone AF would work.

3
EOS Bodies / Re: How excited are you about the new 7D II?
« on: September 16, 2014, 10:43:26 AM »
Not at all, yet, even though I've been waiting for years.
I need to see some RAW files at 1600 ISO before I can decide. If its like the 70D, I'm very disappointed.

4
Software & Accessories / Re: How do you carry your tripod around?
« on: September 16, 2014, 10:39:50 AM »
Quote
How do you carry your tripod around?

with my right hand. simple. least inexpensive. most efficient.
   but sometimes when i am hiking or the like, then i attach them to any of my lowepro backpacks.

Actually, I have to agree with this ^
I have a Gitzo carbon fiber tripod and Wimberly head. If I'm planning to walk a long distance (say, more than a mile) without using it I'll put it in the pouch on my LowePro Pro Trekker 400. However, especially with the head, its a quite top-heavy so I'll just carry the tripod in my hand for shorter distances.

5
EOS Bodies / Re: High ISO Samples from the Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 16, 2014, 09:28:54 AM »
Wow. This is 12800 ISO. This is 5D3 league of noise performance not APS-C.

*Impressive noise reduction, at any rate.*  If recommend waiting for RAW files before passing judgement on noise performance.

+1

6
EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 15, 2014, 07:46:43 PM »
I'm not so sure about that. A friend of mine with a 70D took some test shots and I don't think the 70D performance at 1600 is all that much better than my 7D. If so, Canon needs some magic in that "low light sensitivity" improvement to the 20.2 Mpixel sensor to make the 7Dii worthwhile, IMO. Without a usable 1600 (or higher) ISO, I'm thinking I wasted all this time waiting for the 7Dii and maybe the 5Diii is the answer.
I'm definitely NOT pre-ordering.

That's only the answer if you can either get closer, or use a bigger lens (500/4 versus 300/4, 300/2.8 versus 200/2.8, etc.).  If neither is the case, most likely the camera with the smaller pixels will win.

Exactly, only I'm looking at the 800/4 vs my 5004 and that's an EXPENSIVE proposition.
I was hoping that Canon would come up with something that matched the EXMOR process, which would give me a usable 1600.


7
EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 15, 2014, 07:35:49 PM »


If wildlife stills were the only goal I'd definitely rather have the 7D2 over the 5D3.


I'm not so sure about that. A friend of mine with a 70D took some test shots and I don't think the 70D performance at 1600 is all that much better than my 7D. If so, Canon needs some magic in that "low light sensitivity" improvement to the 20.2 Mpixel sensor to make the 7Dii worthwhile, IMO. Without a usable 1600 (or higher) ISO, I'm thinking I wasted all this time waiting for the 7Dii and maybe the 5Diii is the answer.
I'm definitely NOT pre-ordering.

8
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Do you need a really high ISO?
« on: September 11, 2014, 06:46:09 PM »
I've gotten a real lesson in high ISO needs.  I just received the Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 lens and have been testing it on my 7D and 6D.  f/5 and 6.3 are really slow!  I can add 3 stops of light on the 6D (ISO 6400 vs, 800 on the 7D) which makes the lens a lot more usable.  That won't help on BIF, so I'll be stuck shooting in good light on the 7D (really would like to have a 5D!!

Yep, I totally agree with the need for higer ISOs when using long tele's. The problem with the going FF is I'd need to replace my 500mm with an 800mm to get the same image size and that's a huge cost difference.

9
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Do you need a really high ISO?
« on: September 11, 2014, 06:42:34 PM »
Q: Do you need a really high ISO?
A: Day to day? Hardly ever.
...

Depends on what you mean by "really high ISO". I've owned a 7D since they came out and my two complaints are 1) poor high ISO performance and 2) poor AF.
By high ISO, in this context, I mean 1600 or higher. The 7D is OK at 400, so-so at 800 and useless at 1600.

And day-to-day? I need it every day.
Out at dawn and/or shooting in the evening until the light is gone - those are the times the animals are moving.
Middle of a bright sunny day? - they're asleep in the shade.

10
Canon General / Re: Those D'oh moments!
« on: September 09, 2014, 05:42:26 PM »
I had my camera bag in the trunk of a car.  I had been in it to get something and didn't bother zipping it; imagine getting it out of the car and upright watching it split open...
...
Been there, done that. My 15-85 EFS got a trip to Canon.
An unintended plus for the UV filter - hammered the filter and broke the glass, the threads and glass on the lens were still OK.

11
EOS Bodies / Re: A Rundown of Canon at Photokina
« on: September 03, 2014, 12:13:53 PM »
Quote
EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II

...
The 7D II sounds good too, and if its sensor is a true breakthrough, I'll probably go through five of them just like I did with the first version!

...
I'm curious - You went through a 7D body per year? How many photos were you taking and how did they fail?

12
Animal Kingdom / Re: BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here
« on: August 30, 2014, 11:42:46 PM »
An interaction between an osprey and an eagle at Oxbow Bend in Grand Teton Natl Park
The osprey caught a fish and the eagle hassled him until he dropped it
The eagle took the fish
and the osprey tried to get it back, but no luck

best I could do hand holding the 500

13
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7DMk II or the 1DMk IV
« on: August 30, 2014, 10:43:01 PM »
I have the 5dMkIII with TC 1.4Mk III and 100-400mm, 4.5-5.6L

Thinking of getting the 7DMk II

or

the IDMkIV with 2x TCIII with 400 f5.6/USM

Objective: Best IQ at distance handheld for BIF.

Saw the discussion on the 300mm with TCs and was quite impressed with that combination.  Any comments or opinions would be appreciated. Now if handheld is a bad idea, then I can go with a monopod, or gimble or whatever. Hands on experience is a plus.

I suggest you save up for a 400 f2.8, either new or used. Either one will provide better resolution.

14
Here is a way of calculating the effective extra reach or resolving power of a crop body versus FF, which will amuse the geeks among us.

Measure the MTF of a lens on the crop (= MTFcrop) and the same lens on the FF (= MTFff). The ratio of the MTFs, MTFcrop/MTFff, gives the relative resolving power of the bodies with that lens. However, the crop body can be placed 1.6x further away to give the same field of view. Therefore, the true effective relative resolving power, R, is given by:

R = 1.6x MTFcrop/MTFff.

Photozone lists measured MTFs for a set of lenses on the 5DII and 50D. I calculated their ratios for the Canon 200mm f/2.8 II, 85mm f/1.2 II and 35mm f/2 at wide apertures below the DLA. MTFcrop/MTFff is very close to 0.726 in all cases.

This gives R for 50D/5DII = 1.16.

So the effective extra reach is 16%.  (Based on the ratio of their pixel sizes, a value of 36% is expected.

The dpreview widget gives values for the 5DIII and 7D only for a few lenses. I did the same calculations with the Tamron 150-600mm (between 150-400mm), the Canon 200-400mm and the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 A at wider apertures below the DLA. In all cases, MTFcrop/MTFff is close to 0.742.

This gives R for 7D/5DIII = 1.19.

So, the effective extra reach is 19%. (Based on the ratio of their pixel sizes, a value of 45% is expected).

There are always arguments about using MTFs quantitatively, but I think in this particular calculation it is reasonably valid to use them. It fits in reasonably well with experience - Jon has shown there is better resolving power in photos of the moon with the 7D, but it doesn't look 45% better. And my own experience is that the 7D and 70D aren't much better than the 5DIII, certainly not 1.6x.

I assume you mean you're dividing the line widths per picture height (LW/PH) at the center when you say you're dividing the MTFs. If so, how do you figure that you can divide the APS-C by FF LW/PH values when the max LW/PH stated in the charts are different for the two sensors?

15
Landscape / Re: Yellowstone and Grand Tetons
« on: August 28, 2014, 09:21:32 AM »
Yes it is beautiful country indeed!
Thank God for Teddy Roosevelt and John D Rockefeller, Roosevelt especially.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16