December 19, 2014, 01:47:24 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 - Act444

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 23
1
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.

Thanks for the response. I don't have the 400 5.6 or any 400mm lens for that matter. However, I do have the 70-300 (L version).

This is a lens I've been awaiting for a while ever since I started with FF cameras. 300 isn't always enough reach for me on a 5D (it's great on a 7D though). So...I am undecided as to whether to trade the 70-300 in for one of the new 100-400s, keep both, or perhaps another lens such as the 300 f4 which might be useful on the 7D2 for campus animals (they let you get surprisingly close sometimes).

The 400 5.6 would be great...if it only had IS. Since I prefer the freedom of handheld shooting...I've basically written that one off.

2
Anyone who has the 400 5.6 and the new 100-400 - which one is superior at 400?

3
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: Canon EOS Rebel SL1 w/18-55 IS STM $323
« on: December 16, 2014, 12:12:27 PM »
I have the SL1 but it's not my primary camera. However, it is decent enough when traveling light is a priority, or as a small HQ camera to take into events where "pro" cameras wouldn't be allowed, etc...particularly when paired with a lightweight lens like the 28 2.8 IS (or the 55-250 STM if telephoto reach is needed). It's also ideal with the new 24 2.8 "pancake" that was just announced.

In fact, despite having a "fancier" 5D, some of my favorite images were taken with the SL1 

The one complaint I would have is that the dynamic range seems especially limited even compared to other Canon bodies like the 6D. Skies blow out extremely easily and cannot be recovered so have to be careful. A custom mode would have been nice as well, but can't have everything I guess.

Despite those shortcomings though, wouldn't hesitate to recommend it as a second camera or backup. As a primary camera though, I'd probably go for the T5i instead.

4
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7d mk2 seems very soft?
« on: November 29, 2014, 07:35:30 PM »
Haven't had a chance to REALLY test out my 7D2 (i.e. at an actual event), but from test shots out and about, sharpness-wise all I can say is that it is significantly improved over the original 7D (which was soft on EVERYTHING), and about on par with my SL1/M. It only "looks soft" if I compare to my 5D3 (which we know is not a fair comparison)...

5
Lenses / Re: With a new 100-400L, is the 28-300L Next?
« on: November 29, 2014, 03:53:24 PM »
The 28-300 delivers similar IQ to the 24-105L, and while quite good, after upgrading to the 24-70/2.8 II and getting the 70-300L, I preferred the better IQ of those two lenses and sacrificed the convenience of the 28-300.

Hmm....not quite my experience but then maybe I have a really good 24-105.

Or maybe I had a really good 28-300?  I owned two copies of the 24-105, both were very good at the wide end (except for the barrel distortion) and slightly less sharp but still quite good at the long end.  However, the 24-70 II is simply a stellar lens and definitely sharper than the 24-105.

I have experience with multiple copies of the 24-105 as well, and actually saw slight variations in performance too (one had mediocre performance at wide end away from center, another was real good at wide end but meh at 105, and the 3rd (the "sole survivor", so to speak) seems to be the best of the lot (great at 24 apart from distortion, not bad at 105 either). One thing that WAS consistent across all copies is 50mm being the "sweet spot" - the lens is REALLY sharp there...contrast that to the 24-70 F4 where 50mm is the weak link and the difference is obvious even at smaller sizes...

As for the 24-70 2.8 II, I'd agree it's sharper than the 24-105 but it's not perfect by any means...I find it slightly softer at 70mm than the other focal lengths at 2.8...plus, I experience occasional back-focusing with mine in certain situations (which ended up ruining more than one shot) but that's probably for another thread...

I had only one 28-300 so not sure if I had a "good one" or not.

6
Lenses / Re: With a new 100-400L, is the 28-300L Next?
« on: November 29, 2014, 01:22:03 PM »
The 28-300 delivers similar IQ to the 24-105L, and while quite good, after upgrading to the 24-70/2.8 II and getting the 70-300L, I preferred the better IQ of those two lenses and sacrificed the convenience of the 28-300.

Hmm....not quite my experience but then maybe I have a really good 24-105. I picked up a 28-300 at what was then a good price and I found it to be just borderline "good enough" IQ wise...however, the convenience was unbeatable. I remember shooting a two-day event - one day I took the 28-300, the other day taking the 70-200 F4 (and instead using an M/11-22 to cover the wide angle). I was blown away at the quality difference. The 28-300 is hard to beat for convenience but ultimately I decided to let it go mainly due to the IQ sacrifice (and other reasons too).

I think a non-L version is more likely than an L-version replacement. I'd appreciate a smaller, less conspicuous version... I didn't exactly appreciate the excessive attention that lens drew when I used it at public events anyway...

7
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D II owners, did you need to AFMA your camera?
« on: November 28, 2014, 01:42:32 PM »
My 7D2 was fine with the 70-300L, but the 24-70 (f4) needed adjustment at the wide end (it was front-focusing). Applying a +4 adjustment at 24mm seemed to help a bit, but there appear to be other issues - I'm going to blame them on the lens though, not the camera (because I saw these same issues on the 6D and 5D).

8
Interesting.

This does tell me one thing - the STM version is very much overpriced at this point in time. At $250-$300 it would be worth a look and find a place I think...but as of now you can get white-box Ls for about the same or a little more than one of these new. (For a used one in good condition, even less!)


ETA: Also interesting to compare it to the 24-70 F4 IS:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=961&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=823&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The 24-70 is better except at 50mm where they are pretty close.

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II Owners first thoughts
« on: November 16, 2014, 12:27:22 PM »
One thing I noticed, and would like to ask other owners:

Reading the manual, it looks like the buffer capacity for RAW is 24, or 31 if you use a UDMA 7 CF card.

Now, I have a SanDisk 128GB UDMA 7 card in the CF slot...but I'm still getting the lower 24 count. This is with OR without an SD card in the slot. Anyone else using this card (or is managing to get the full 31 buffer rate)?

10
Lenses / Re: The New Canon EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM Pancake
« on: November 15, 2014, 05:44:29 PM »
To my surprise they had one at the store when I went to pick up my 7D2...ultimately couldn't resist. Got one for my SL1.

It is virtually identical to the 40. No complaints about sharpness, either - pretty good.

11
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II Owners first thoughts
« on: November 15, 2014, 05:24:54 PM »
Finally made the upgrade!

1st impressions, having only shot test images indoors -

- Nice feel to this camera, handles much like a 5D. Pairs with the 5D3 very well.

- Loving the expanded customization abilities of this camera. Particularly the expanded "My Menu" option and the ability to customize entire tabs...awesome.

- 65 pt AF spread has very good coverage of the frame.

- Tested it with 2 lenses - the 70-300L and 24-70 4 IS. The 70-300 was basically good to go, but the 24-70 front-focused significantly esp. at the wide end. An on-the-fly AF adjustment helped a little (I don't have the advanced tools that many other forum members do to get it completely right).

- AF accuracy - can't speak too much to this, as my ability to test was limited...but I can say it's much more consistent than the original 7D. Not perfect, of course, but you can re-focus and take the same shot over and over and have confidence that the shot will be of acceptable sharpness. (Wasn't the case with the original 7D, which was all OVER the place). Servo accuracy seemed a little better, but again, since I have nothing moving I had to move myself. Not the ideal way to test, so more on this later.

- Focusing: Also impressed by the camera's ability to focus in dark conditions, even in Servo mode. This is probably the biggest improvement over the original 7D in my opinion, since that was its #1 weak spot.

- High ISO performance - it's one thing to see test images online, but when you actually pick up and use this camera in your own lighting condition, it tells you so much more. Don't expect the performance of the 5D3/6D but it's a SIGNIFICANT improvement over the 7D - and not just in noise AMOUNT, but in noise QUALITY. Grain appears much finer with no "blotchiness" and significantly fewer "colored pixels" (although they're still there if you look for them). Best high ISO performance I've seen from a crop camera to date. 3200 is good (I set the Auto ISO limit here, as on the original 7D), and for the first time on crop, I find 6400 to be actually usable! Probably would hesitate to push beyond 6400, although I did test all the way to 16,000 and if one really needed the light, at least the files clean up nicely. I underexposed some 3200 shots and attempted to boost it up 1+ stops - much more flexibility in the files, but still not at the level of FF. Overall, if this is the best they could do, I'm happy.

Great camera so far, I like it.

12
Lenses / Re: First Image of the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Lens
« on: November 06, 2014, 05:24:30 PM »
Nice!

Another lens I've been wanting a while. Might trade in the 70-300 for this - or try and see if it's worth having both...

13
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II Owners first thoughts
« on: November 04, 2014, 10:33:50 PM »
Not an owner (yet, I will be soon) but I did play with one briefly in a store this afternoon. Feels a lot like the 5D - a slightly smaller, lighter version of it that is. What also struck me is that the viewfinder seems to be a bit brighter than other Canon crop DSLRs I've used...

Shutter sound is noticeably quieter than the 7D (nice)...

Thing is FAST (although the slow-speed continuous mode seemed to chug along at its own pace at times?)

Feels nice in the hand, I have big hands so I've always been a fan of the larger cameras, they feel better to me...

Unfortunately could not test image quality or AF performance but I like what I see so far.


Can't wait to pick up one of these things to shoot some ice skating...and other stuff...

14
Pricewatch Deals / Re: 24-70mm f/4L IS: atomic rebate in Switzerland !
« on: November 03, 2014, 09:04:26 PM »
Good lens for its current selling price. Don't expect it to be on the level of the 2.8 version (or even the 24-105 if used around 50mm) but it holds its own.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II Owners first thoughts
« on: October 28, 2014, 03:49:59 PM »
Waiting to hear the feedback from the early adopters...will be picking one up at some point, could be a couple weeks or a couple months...

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 23