February 01, 2015, 05:15:14 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 - East Wind Photography

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 62
46
Lenses / Re: Cost to repair image stabilization on 70-200 f2.8L IS II
« on: January 01, 2015, 04:19:54 PM »
IS is the most fragile part in these lenses.  It is not rugged by any means.  Treat your lens like a carton of eggs.  That being said, my 300mm was no match for a linebacker that had the run of his career.  I sent it in to have the  IS replaced and it was about 400.00 and included a needed lens collimation, and a couple of other minor things replaced.

For the 70-200 it is worth getting repaired as a replacement is about 2K.

If you are not a CPS member, this may be a good time to join if you qualify (register your lens first via CPS before sending in) as you will get a discount on your repair and parts.

47
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: January 01, 2015, 03:59:47 PM »
Tested out the sky-watcher star adventurer last night. Worked rather well with my 7d2 and 300mm f2.8l II.  However needed a larger counterweight from an old Orion p.o.s. Mount...about the only good thing to come from that.

Seemed to track unguided pretty accurately and was able to take 30 sixty second subs of lovejoy at ISO 1600 without any drift errors.  The moon had more of an impact than the mount.

Today I attempted to mount my 5d3 and 600mm f4 to it but with both counterweights it was still a bit top heavy.  However I was able to lock the clutch and it tracked without stalling the motor.  Took about 15 seconds to  stabilize so I will likely have to use a manual cardboard shutter for the subs.  I'm sure this combo exceeds the useful weight limit but it will be worth trying once the moon gets out of the way.

I have a trip planned next year to the Midwest and have been looking for something to take that will not require an extra suitcase.  The skywatcher is small enough And takes about as much space as a couple of  dslrs , excluding the tripod which has to go anyway.

I stacked the subs but having some issues with my laptop so the final will have to wait until that get resolved.

Here is one sub which I edited on my iPad.


48
Technical Support / Re: Battery drain
« on: December 27, 2014, 09:51:41 AM »
I have now tried every combination of things to get to bottom of this. Memory cards out, swapped batteries, reset the settings. But I have come to conclusion that the repair was not executed properly. Looking at various forums, I have come to point that it's more than likely a main circuit board issue. So another wait from my dealer, who on the first instance wanted to bin a rather expensive piece of hardware, but I don't want to give up.

Forget the dealer.  If you are serious about keeping it then it would be good to send it back to canon for repair.  Possible they may not since it's an older model but they may be the best ones to evaluate what's wrong and do the repairs.

If it is a circuit board issue, I doubt anyone will repair it.  The labor to diagnose and repair/replace suspect chips or components may cost more than buying another used one.


49
Smartphone cameras just suck. What else can I say.  They are fine for taking shots of your baby doing something silly but I've found if the conditions are even somewhat challenging, forget it.  I've never liked touch screen cameras much either.  The Eos-m is the only touch screen camera I use frequently.  However I despise the touch screen interface.  Takes way too long to make exposure adjustments...and with a phone, there are no adjustments that are of any real value.

Smartphone cameras may be only good for capturing the vehicle of the guy that just stole your DSLR...then again the quality is so bad it probobly wouldn't be of any use to anyone.

50
Technical Support / Re: Battery drain
« on: December 25, 2014, 01:57:03 PM »
No it doesn't get hot, the thing I have noticed though, is that the last 20% of the charging cycle takes longer than the 50% and 80% on the charger. Dead to 50% takes about 3 quarters of an hour, 50% to 80% takes about half an hour but the last 20% can take up to 2 hours to complete a charge and that's applicable to both my LP E4's. But I'm baffled to why I go days or even weeks with my 1d3 and hundreds of shots in the bag and no issues, but the 1ds3 only gives me a day at most. Is the 1ds3 more power hungry due to its resolving power. Seems I have little option to replace both batteries with the LP E4n, what do you guys out there think?

Charging rates will change based on cell temperature.  It does typically take longer to charge through the last half of the charge.  However an old battery may also heat up more internally causing the charger to reduce the charge rate for safety reasons.


51
EOS Bodies / Re: Ron Martinsen Blasts the 7DII in his review
« on: December 19, 2014, 07:38:07 PM »
I was getting ready to sell my 7D and pick up a 7DII in the spring.  Pretty much every review I have seen has been favorable.

Not so much this one.
http://www.ronmartblog.com/2014/12/review-canon-7d-mark-ii-oh-no-not-again.html

So, who is right?  Should I just hang on to the 7D, or upgrade to the 7DII.  I use this camera for sports shooting.  Night football games, basketball, volleyball - all could benefit from the  higher FPS and improved high ISO performance on the 7DII - if in-fact there is improvement in the high ISO performance.

Has anyone had both a 7D and 7DII?  What are your experiences?

Is Martinsen way off in his review?  His is know for being candid and speaking his mind - and he is a Canon shooter.  But he seems to be a lone voice with such a negative review.

This guy is a nut.  I just shot indoor soccer at ISO 12500 all were in focus.  Obviously had to apply noise reduction but the result was almost as good as what I got in the past with a 1DX.  I think he just made a mistake and had the camera turned around backwards.

I traded up from a 7D and the new model is just so much better in mostly every way.  It's truely an economical sports camera.

52
I'd like to see someone post a close up of the bottom of the foot.  The main 1/4-20 threaded hole is meant to support the lens.  The hole in front is used just to keep it from twisting with a second screw.  I've not seen this foot up close but in previous builds that front hole was for a second screw to prevent twisting only.

What 'previous builds' are you talking about?  The image above doesn't show the hole in front as threaded, which means it's not for a screw.  Rather, it looks like a smooth hole for the anti-twist pin found on camcorder/video tripod heads/plates.  The EOS M EF Mount Adapter has a similar base on it's tripod foot:



Here's a camcorder plate (the RRS B26 which I use on my EF Mount Adapter and on my Vixia HF M41) that attaches to it:



Obviously, a standard plate without that anti-twist pin would attach as well.  But, you can't just 'add a screw', the plate would have to have the pin.  Most camcorder plates, and all of the Arca Swiss-type ones I know of, are short (too short for the 100-400 foot if you want freedom to balance it).  The only long camcorder plate I've run across is by Manfrotto, and it's a proprietary design for one of their proprietary clamp styles.

No the point isn't to thread a screw in there.  Hell that would really muck it up..  The idea is to use it as a set screw so it won't twist.  You set the screw in place and just tighten the main screw that has the threaded insert.  That's how I've used other large lenses in the past.

Anyway I like the idea of putting the plates with the nubs in the front, not the back.  I wonder if the nubs fit up under the front overhang?

53
All the more reason for someone to step up and actually make an aftermarket replacement.  They can even fix the wobbling of the standard foot mentioned in this thread (and in the lens instruction manual).

East Wind Photography mentioned that you can add a second screw.  If this means that the standard foot actually has two holes for screws, then that's even better than an anti-twist flange, as the plate's bolted to the foot in two locations.

Unfortunately, the standard tripod mount for the 100-400 ii has only one hole for screw mount.  It would've been nice...   :)

I'd like to see someone post a close up of the bottom of the foot.  The main 1/4-20 threaded hole is meant to support the lens.  The hole in front is used just to keep it from twisting with a second screw.  I've not seen this foot up close but in previous builds that front hole was for a second screw to prevent twisting only.

54
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II Owners first thoughts
« on: December 18, 2014, 05:00:42 PM »
I've been shooting my 7D Mk II for about a month now, and it's spectacularly good: the image quality improvements over the 7D leap out, and (I'll post some examples tonight) at say 4000 ISO (and above), conversions from Photo Ninja are ***literally*** noiseless at 100% view.


Literally? Really?


You want to provide some visual evidence to back that up, buddy? I just love these internet anecdotes lacking any form of physical evidence whatsoever, especially when they seem to go against the laws of physics.


Can you provide a direct conversion, no additional edits, full size 100% crops no scaling at all, to demonstrate what "literally noiseless" means in your vocabulary?

I would have used the  term virtually.  I used 12500 the other day for a soccer game.  That would not have been possible on the 7d.  After post processing the images were about as good as the 7d at 800.  The noise cleans up much better than the old model.

Yep there was noise...yep there was loss of some detail.  But it was a soccer game and I was able to shoot at 1/1000 second and faster.  Next time I will target M42... A real test.

55
Edit: Just seen that TDP has the image quality data on its site. There seems nothing between the 5.6 400 and the vii

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=278&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Well, in the corners, the 5.6 400 L looks better to my eyes and this becomes even more pronounced if you compare both lenses with the 2xIII attached:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=3&LensComp=278&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1

However, I expect that in real life and @ 800 mm/f 11 you will have more keepers with the zoom than with the prime most of the time due to the IS, unless you have reaaaly good light.

I'm not so sure.  The 400 prime has better light transmission than the new 100-400.  21 lens elements vs 7 on the prime.  IS may help but it doesn't help in every situation.  It's the zoom trade off.


56
Lenses / Re: Review: Sensor Performance of the 7D Mark II
« on: December 17, 2014, 09:59:53 PM »
I just received the sky watcher star adventurer product from B&H.  Looks very well designed with a lot of thought going into it's usefulness.  I'm impressed with the size and weight.  Will be easy to travel with.  The declination bracket can also hold a second ball head mount for a guiding scope and autotracker.  :D
 
The declination bracket also has a worm type fine adjuster.  I would imaging it would be fairly easy to construct a motor that would allow for some kind of declination autotracking.  Though I doubt it would be needed for most digital imagery.

I haven't had a chance to take it out yet.  Maybe next week.  All of this is fine but if it cant track as described it's not worth anything.

57
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.

58
Just out of curiosity, can anyone with the lens unscrew the foot and take a shot of the mating surfaces of the foot and the collar?  I'm wondering how they interlock, etc.

More generally, it's a bit of a shame that the stock foot is ramped/curved in the back.  A flat profile would allow the use of longer QR plates with antitwist "lips" to be oriented in either direction.

Getting a little offtopic, I would be surprised if Canon wanted to get into the QR plate/clamp world.  It seems like further fragmentation that wouldn't be of much use to customers or to them, in a niche that they don't have much current interest in.  I mean Canon doesn't even show their own tripods in their product photos: http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/product-accessories/eos-digital-slr-camera-accessories/eos-tripods-other-accessories/eos-rain-cover-medium-erc-e4m

I'd much rather them work on sensor tech than on support products!

You don't need a plate with the anti swivel nubs.  Looks like you can just add a second screw to the bottom plate

59
A little surprising to me that manufacturers of these big teles don't provide an OEM A/S-compatible foot, or even groove standard feed and then include a flush-mounted tripod screw bushing to cover all bases. Seems like a disconnect there.

Anyway, I'm using a Markins PL-55 plate for my 100-400 mk1 and I like it a lot. It's tough, thin, just a bit longer than the tripod collar foot, and has a no-slip back lip. That plate is generic so would probably work for the mk2 as well.

Probobly patent and licensing issues.  I wouldn't be surprised though if canon came out with an entirely new foot design for which they held the patent.

60
7D MK II Sample Images / Re: Anything Shot with a 7D MII
« on: December 17, 2014, 12:53:12 PM »
Yesterday's Estonian volleyball cup's final:




Shot with 7D MK II and 135/2 lens. Both ISO 4000, shot in RAW. I find that 1DX noise is about a stop better than 7DII, which is understandable. When I bought 7DII, I was prepared for even worse result, so I'm happy with that.

I'm finding similar great action with high ISO.  Recently shot an indoor soccer game with poor defective lighting.  Used ISO 12500.  Images cleaned up nicely in CS5 after converting to DNG files.  Not as good as 1dx but I concur about the 1/2 stop less.  Hard to quantify though.  The noise cleans up really well compared to its predeccesor.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 62