December 21, 2014, 07:23:04 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 4 ... 59
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.

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.

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.

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):

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?  ;)

Lenses / Re: teleconverter
« on: December 14, 2014, 05:34:15 PM »
never owned one or used one,  i have a 70-300L on my canon body , i use to have the 100-400 but its gone and maybe in a year from now ile get the new 100-400  but as for now what would be my best quality  1.4 teleconverter to use? or should i just crop my photos?  this will be mainly for airshows since i need that extra reach.

The 70-300 should not be used with canon teleconverters.  They will work but at one end of the zoom range the internal optics will touch the TC and can cause damage.  There are aftermarket TCs which will work fine but the sharpness will suffer.  As mentioned you are better off just cropping the image and use a faster shutter speed.

Lenses / Anything shot with the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: December 13, 2014, 08:15:35 PM »
Lets see what this new lens can do.

Yep I'm waiting until the reviews come out and some real world tests by you all before I take the bite.  I was not impressed with the mk1 version.  Hopefully somewhere between the mk1 and the 200-400.

Animal Kingdom / Re: The 1200mm Sharpness Test
« on: December 12, 2014, 04:42:16 PM »
The Canon 100-400 could get MUCH sharper than that...and I mean the OLD 100-400...

First of all, the two shots of the chickadees are not necessarily the best I have or even representative of the lens but they are the only two I have of that North American bird (I am in the UK), but they are similar to your shot of the chickadee.

Secondly, the quality is comparable to those of yours from the 100-400, when comparing them side-by-side and certainly not MUCH less sharp.

I was never able to get very sharp shots with the old 100-400 on a 7D. Top is a dunnock at 400 on the 7D, typical of my efforts, below is a dunnock taken on the 300/2.8 + 2xTC III on the 5D3. They are chalk and cheese.

You know, looking at your images again...the birds do not appear to actually be in focus. Well, the first one, I'm not sure...that whole image has a softish appearance. However the second one, below the bird and a little forward everything gets very sharp. I was looking at the birds only before, and I was seeing softness. Going by your second image (of the original two you posted), I'd say the 150-600 is acceptably sharp.

Regarding the dunnock shot with the 7D, it also looks focused a little forward of the bird. That just sounds like an AFMA issue.

I've found that the great whites are pretty much dead on for the most part. My 600 is at 0 AFMA on all my bodies, except with the 2x TC, where I had to move it to +5 AFMA. My 100-400, I actually had to tweak the AFMA a lot on that...and I think in the end I ended up around -15 or -18. That was with FoCal as well, and I've learned that FoCal may not really be as accurate as it seems....which may just be due to the quality of the printed target, not sure. I bet my 100-400 could get a lot sharper if I sent it in with my body to have it adjusted...but then I'd be out my camera and a lens for a while, and it would be an extra cost. I plan to sell that lens anyway, so I'll leave it up to the buyer to have it adjusted for their body if they need (which they very well may not).

My 600 by itself AFMAs around +4 which is reasonable which leads me to think my 2Xiii may be out of kilter...though it's not WAY out on my other lenses.  I wonder if they can adjust the extenders electronically rather than needing to do it physically?

It took me a long time as well to realize FoCal is not more accurate than doing it manually using a scale.  There are way too many factors that can affect the results, not to mention the constant tinkering with their algorithms.  I actually had better success in their earlier versions and then things got complicated and went downhill.  IMHO.

Software & Accessories / Re: An Easy Magic Lantern How-To from CNET
« on: December 12, 2014, 12:55:14 PM »
I am surprised that Canon hasn't taken these features to heart and started including them in current and future camera firmware.  It seems to reason that officially supporting many of the options would be a nice boost to a features comparison between cameras.

We are fortunate that ML development has been free and donation based to date.  If canon were to include certain features, the cost of the camera would likely be higher than most people could afford.  It would be nice to have some of these built in but the development and regression testing costs would make it cost prohibitive.

I believe that Canon actually likes it better this way.  With a good part of the market, the ability to use ML on a canon body is a desired feature not available anywhere else.  It was on my short list when I decided between Nikon and canon back in the day.

Animal Kingdom / Re: The 1200mm Sharpness Test
« on: December 12, 2014, 12:12:04 PM »
Great thread guys.  I like the real world discussions and comparisons without all of the theoretical BS we normally see and read.

I use the 2xiii with my 300 II frequently but for some reason when I put it on my 600 f4 I it back focuses so severely that afma -20 doesn't even get it close using multiple bodies.  Thinking about sending it in to canon for a tweak.  Manual focus is a pita for birds!

Software & Accessories / Re: I used ML for over a year.
« on: December 12, 2014, 11:59:15 AM »
I never explored the more esoteric features. I used the exposure bracketing features on my 5D MK II for real estate HDR and it worked perfectly. I just sold that camera after uninstalling ML because the 5D MK III has replaced it in my bag and that new camera has those capabilities built in. One thing about doing a lot of HDR is the actuation count goes up dramatically. Probably the only thing that adds them faster is time lapse.

You should look into the ML dual-ISO feature for HDR.  Let's you do it all in one shot.  Requires some post processing tools but I find its worth it.  I can shoot sports and wildlife in HDR to preserve highlights and shadows when shooting conditions are not the greatest.

7D MK II Sample Images / Re: Anything Shot with a 7D MII
« on: December 12, 2014, 11:55:26 AM »
Thanks for posting your camera settings too.  Very helpful.  Would also be nice if everyone could also post their AF mode and AF case settings they used.  Many people are new to the AF system in the 7d2 and could be helpful to many.

Software & Accessories / Re: FoCal - 7DII support
« on: December 12, 2014, 11:50:03 AM »
I just hope FoCal 2.0 isn't a buggy mess. Reikan have released some pretty bad updates in the past.

One of the main reason I just stopped using it.  I was racking up way too many shutter actuations playing around trying to get it to work consistently.  I'm way better off using a Spyder LensCal.

Software & Accessories / Re: An Easy Magic Lantern How-To from CNET
« on: December 12, 2014, 11:46:58 AM »
I find it funny that the article fails to mention two of the most important features of magic lantern: DualISO and RAW video.

Well it is "just the tip of the iceberg."

Hopefully the extra publicity will help Alex to continue development so we can look forward to a ML for the 7d2 and beyond.

EOS Bodies / Re: Focus problems with the Canon 7DII?
« on: December 12, 2014, 10:16:16 AM »
I'm wondering if the next firmware update will sort out some of these niggles


You guys are assuming the problems with some copies have nothing to do with hardware.  Since a replacement seems to fix it, that's unlikely.

There are multiple issues being reported.  The obvious ones such as AF way front or back focused are likely hardware issues.  The others such as phase discrimination issues, lack of obtaining a consistent lock, favoring background, are likely fixable in firmware.  Still making some assumptions, however similar issues with other models have been resolved in the past with an update.  Such as 5D3 ability to AF with lower light which in effect also improved the AF lock in normal light with low contrast targets.

So based on past history AF capability can be improved with software refinements.  People shouldn't wait though to contact Canon about issues.  They are eagerly taking in all of the reports to identify issues, prioritize updates and correlate with serial numbers.  Let them know ASAP of any issues you all have.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 59