Just ran out quickly to see what the 200-400 could do with the moon.
Nice..but seems to have too much sharpening applied. Might just be CR jpg translation.
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.
Thanks for all the replies peeps. You've helped a lot in making my decision.
The question I have left, however, is whether anyone would trust ONLY an SD card? (For slower shootion situations of course.)
It's just that I will be running my MkII and MkIII side by side for a while, and can only afford to get an SD. So that'll have to go int the MkIII, and the CF stay in the MkII for the time being.
This summer I'm doing a lot of photography-focused backpacking in mountains and forests. My primary considerations for choosing gear are handheld IQ, weight & pack space, and preference for weather sealing (when possible/practical). So far, I'm just about set on taking a 6D, 17-40L, 100L macro, and nifty fifty. Something tells me I'm going to need an option for more reach (animals), but the 400mm 5.6 available to me seems out of the question due to size. In the past I've used a 70-200 f/4 non-IS, but that was on a 7D.
Appealing to this forum's collective knowledge and experience, my question is whether I can get a 300mm+ lens weighing less than 800 grams that will beat the IQ of just cropping photos from the 100L. Or should I try and make do with the 70-200? Any thoughts? Thank you!
well , as one example, in Asia, Japan the 3DX has been sold as a status camera, nothing Canon can brag about, do you still think sales from a 18Mp are important factor for the audience here? Then I suggest a compact camera, easier, better tuned for average people to get a straight good JPG out from the camera
What's a 3DX? If Canon had released one, they'd be bragging about it, you can count on that.
Am I to understand that you're suggesting that I should look for 'a compact camera, easier, better tuned for average people to get a straight good JPG out from the camera'? I hope I'm simply misunderstanding you...
hmm.... ok good point East Wind and also very different than what the OP mentions and different from what has been reported out on the canon forum. assume from your description that you using 100% genuine Canon batts too.
part of the problem here is that Canon is woefully unclear as to the precise expected behavior. that said, something is causing some cameras to magically change burst behavior at 49% battery level.
Postulating just for thoughts on how battery voltage can affect drive speed...and without knowing all of the facts this may or not be a possibility....
The battery is tied directly to the lens AF motor. depending on the lens used may put more of a load on the battery and affect the AF speed of the lens. If you have your camera firmware to 1st and 2nd shot focus priority, you could get yourself into a situation where slow AF can also slow your drive speed.
If you can reproduce the problem, please go into firmware and set 1st and 2nd shot priority to shutter priority and see if the speed picks up. If so then you can say that AF speed may be the likely culprit.
or turn AF switch (on the lens) off. The battery also powers IS, so turn that off as well. Li batteries have very low internal resistance, so I really don't think this (by itself) is enough to explain the marked decrease in burst speed. All these factors may be consistent with what I believe to be an unfortunately vague statement in the manual, i.e. if this was about battery behavior you might see 5.5fps instead of 6, which would occur at low battery levels, but it would not occur magically at 49%.
I still think we have to think of this in terms of firmware behavior, not battery behavior. The firmware's objective appears to be conservation of energy and prioritization of certain features like AF and IS ,which is may deem more important than burst speed.
At the Olympic Games in Beijing there where many Canon shooters moving directly to Nikon because of the low keepers they got with 1Dmk3.
The lens line 14-24 , 24-70, 70-200 and 200-400 Nikon lens was also a big argument to move over to Nikon at this time.
Yeah, but the "this time" to which you're referring is now 5 years ago, and two camera generations back.
Are they ? , here in Europe lot of sports photographer/agenties moved to Nikon because of the D3S , D4 and the 200-400/4 is working so well.
Thanks to those who've commented on the +2/3rds exposure - I tend to keep that amount dialled in and occasionally adjust based on what the image itself looks like on the rear screen (histograms be damned!). The warranty is up very soon so might get it checked out.You should learn to trust your histogram!
For those taking action shots in silent-mode, do you find it captures most/all of the action? A few people on the forum thought that due to the way silent-mode works (a more gentle mirror open/close function) meant the camera wouldn't be quite as reponsive for faster action. What do you reckon?
Fine weather today so off to try some birds in flight after lunch
I've tried using silent mode for action shots. It's a no-go as far as I'm concerned. The mechanism is just too slow to use - especially for bursts.
My 5D III, pre-ordered before release so it was full price, initially under-exposed all shots by about 2/3 of a stop. It went off to Canon for repair/review, and came back within the week working fine.
Since then, it has very occasionally lost the will to focus, but turning it off and on again has cured that.
No other problems, and a real joy to use - particularly if you like low-light photography. I've certainly never regretted the decision to buy.
I keep it in silent shutter mode most of the time - the quietness is a real benefit. Sitting watching a school play when the official (commercial) photography snaps away with his noisy Nikon that can be heard across the room, and thinking I could do that so much more discretely has been a bitter-sweet experience.
Interesting that you say the exposure was under by 2/3rds of a stop - I also feel mine under-exposes too often by about that much but usually put that down to never picking the right metering for the subject! Joking aside, I've been taking pics for probably 30yrs so should've learnt about exposure by now and yet I feel the need to over-expose by half or 2/3rds of a stop almost all the time. I suppose this isn't a vast amount but it does make me frown at times. I wonder if Canon tweaked a software parameter or made a hardware adjustment. Any clues?
Anyone else concerned by their 5D3's metering? (I don't need anyone to tell us all to buy a 1DX instead, yawn.)