Messages

31

EOS Bodies / Re: Any new news about Canon 1D X f/8 AF?

« on: May 08, 2012, 10:50:39 AM »

I talked to them about the f/8 issue and the answer was the same. It's because the way they have the AF points.

I guess that for what you do, f/8 AF is important. Do you consider it an issue or not? Considering the 1Dx will be a great camera. Can it replace your 1DIV?

The AF is lightning fast and just locks! I probably had about 3 images out-of-focus during my overnight used of the camera.

I still believe using a full frame for bird photography is not ideal even using a long lens like my 800mm. I'll keep my 1D MKIV and 5D MKIII for landscapes.

can you explain to me why? is it because of the lack of the cropfactor? or the more shallow DOF?
wouldn't a 1D X with a 1.4 extender almost be the same as a 1D mk. IV? (like in autofocus speed, image quality etc.)

Hi,

If you use a 600mm lens with a 1.4x TC attached to a 1D X, you’ll get 840mm at f/5.6 while with the same set up with the 1D MKIV is 1092mm at f/5.6 with an excellent AF performance.

You won’t be able to use a 600mm with a 2x TC anymore so that’s out of question. Same goes with the 500mm.
I truly don’t see a reason to sacrifice 252mm by using the 1D X.

In other words

600mm X 1.4= 840mm (1D X with a  1.4x TC – f/5.6)
600mm X 1.3= 780mm (1D MKIV – f/4) – No tele-converter attached.
600mm X 1.3 X 1.4= 1092mm (1D MKIV with a 1.4x TC – f/5.6)
600mm X 1.3 X 2= 1560mm (1D MKIV with a 2x TC – f/8) with a not so great AF. Single point.
800mm X 1.3 X 1.4= 1456mm (1D MKIV with a 1.4x TC – f/8) with a decent AF. Single point.

As you can see, a big difference.

Thanks!

i see your point, thanks for your quick reply!

32

EOS Bodies / Re: Any new news about Canon 1D X f/8 AF?

« on: May 08, 2012, 10:08:16 AM »

I talked to them about the f/8 issue and the answer was the same. It's because the way they have the AF points.

I guess that for what you do, f/8 AF is important. Do you consider it an issue or not? Considering the 1Dx will be a great camera. Can it replace your 1DIV?

The AF is lightning fast and just locks! I probably had about 3 images out-of-focus during my overnight used of the camera.

I still believe using a full frame for bird photography is not ideal even using a long lens like my 800mm. I'll keep my 1D MKIV and 5D MKIII for landscapes.

can you explain to me why? is it because of the lack of the cropfactor? or the more shallow DOF?
wouldn't a 1D X with a 1.4 extender almost be the same as a 1D mk. IV? (like in autofocus speed, image quality etc.)

33

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D mark iii & 100L - Heineken product shot

« on: May 05, 2012, 02:38:33 PM »

like dawgfanjeff said, the bottle is not entirely vertical. and perhaps you can lower the output of the flash a little bit, so the top logo is still readable.

for the rest, i like the picture, with the ice and stuff. makes me thirsty. good job!
cheers from holland

34

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Sharpness Test

« on: April 27, 2012, 05:12:38 AM »

nice sharp images! makes me want to buy one too. i just have to wait a little longer to get the needed funds...

@prestonpalmer haha, lol

35

Lenses / Re: Does anyone use the lens hood on their 35/1.4L? Or any other lens?

« on: April 26, 2012, 04:26:59 PM »

I always use the hood, even just for the physical protection.

Same here.

+1

+1 (lt's start another +1 pyramide )

36

Lenses / Re: 300/2.8 L (IS MK1) or 400/2.8 L (non-IS)

« on: April 20, 2012, 08:17:41 AM »

Thanks for the beanbag/ricebag advice...did not think about, but similar concept to upward shooting  .
 
I could use tripod when sitting, but not laying down.
 
I have a buddy that will lend me a gimbal head to test drive once I make a decision.  Is a gimbal head overkill, good idea or a necessity?

Have to be careful about that ricebag... Don't use real rice if you're in tropical areas. I tried a DIY one, was fine till one day I found beetles all over my bag... was wondering where they came from, especially when they kept reappearing despite multiple "vaccuum treatments"... Finally realised it was from the bag =(

That said, I made a new one with a handful or two of uh... "borrowed" styrofoam beans from my sister's beanbag... Works a charm. Might want to get be wary of getting it damp though - I carry a waterproof foam mat around for that as well, just in case.

i got a bean/rice bag filled with these kind of things: https://www.lowlandphotoservice.nl/granulaatkorrels/440-rjs-granulaat-korrels-lichtbruin.html. the website is in dutch, but i guess there's similar products to be found in your country. they are lighter than rice (about 1 third lighter) and don't attract beetles

37

Lenses / Re: 300/2.8 L (IS MK1) or 400/2.8 L (non-IS)

« on: April 20, 2012, 03:29:49 AM »

Thanks for the beanbag/ricebag advice...did not think about, but similar concept to upward shooting  .
 
I could use tripod when sitting, but not laying down.
 
I have a buddy that will lend me a gimbal head to test drive once I make a decision.  Is a gimbal head overkill, good idea or a necessity?

so far i have only used a normal ballhead, but i do think a gimbal head is a good idea. it's on my wish list to buy.

38

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Have you considered joining the dark side?...

« on: April 20, 2012, 03:14:17 AM »

nope, i'm happy with my canon equipment

39

Lenses / Re: 300/2.8 L (IS MK1) or 400/2.8 L (non-IS)

« on: April 18, 2012, 10:37:16 AM »

you can use the 300 without a tripod, but i would recommend to use a tripod anyway. especially if you're shooting subjects that are above you, it can get heavy (pointing the lens upwards in an angle. if you guys know what i mean. don't know another way to say this ). your arms will get tired and you will have a harder time to keep the lens steady. the IS helps a great deal though, but won't be enough.

also, when lying on the ground, it's great to have a ricebag or tripod (on wich you can put the lens as low as possible to the ground) to relieve the weight from your arms.

40

Lenses / Re: 300/2.8 L (IS MK1) or 400/2.8 L (non-IS)

« on: April 16, 2012, 03:41:13 PM »

i have never used the 400 but can tell you the 300mm + 1.4x + 7D kicks ass! you'll get quite some reach with it (672mm compared with fullframe) with a max. aperture of f/4. that's really great! it's large enough to get nice blurry backgrounds and fast shutterspeeds. i can tell you i'm really happy with this combination.

i used to have a 100-400 before i bought my used 300mm. the 300 is better in every way. it has faster AF, is weather sealed and has way better IQ. also the larger aperture is a big plus. it lacks a bit of flexibility (without zooming like the 100-400), but i used to use my 100-400 at longest end most of the time.

anyways, good luck with your choice! spend your cash wise

41

Lighting / Re: Light Meters?

« on: April 13, 2012, 10:05:39 AM »

i have a Sekonic L-358 too. i use it to set up my flashes when doing portraits, so i get the right exposure. the camera's meter is not as accurate. with the sekonic i know the exposures are correct.

Plus the added bonus of the Sekonic being able to meter the flash exposure too. When you do a reflective reading from a camera to the subject, it is only metering the ambient light reflecting off of the subject.

When you set the a light meter to meter incident combined with flash you get the entire exposure.

yes, you are right. that's part what i meant to say . i use it to meter each flash individually, to setup each flash's output. and then the whole scene and adjust accordingly.

42

Lighting / Re: Light Meters?

« on: April 13, 2012, 09:41:56 AM »

i have a Sekonic L-358 too. i use it to set up my flashes when doing portraits, so i get the right exposure. the camera's meter is not as accurate. with the sekonic i know the exposures are correct.

43

Site Information / Re: Main site formatting problems in Safari

« on: April 04, 2012, 06:51:20 AM »

same in firefox and internet explorer. there appears to be something wrong with the stylesheet.

44

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Plus ca change...

« on: April 02, 2012, 04:13:51 PM »

haha, what a great post!

45

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon 400 f/2.8 IS

« on: April 02, 2012, 04:10:42 PM »

Johankh - that is one incredible bird portrait!!!

Unbelievable position and timing for that lighting!!! Great job.

absolutely! what a beautiful shot!