« on: December 16, 2014, 06:12:18 PM »
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.
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.
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 7Ds´. I will decide it after the weekend, if I send it back.
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):QuoteWe 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.
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 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).
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.
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.
I just hope FoCal 2.0 isn't a buggy mess. Reikan have released some pretty bad updates in the past.
I find it funny that the article fails to mention two of the most important features of magic lantern: DualISO and RAW video.
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.