October 30, 2014, 11:13:57 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 - Lee Jay

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 78
16
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D2 Video Review -- Requests?
« on: October 26, 2014, 09:03:37 PM »
So, when my 7D2 gets here, I've decided to take a stab at doing a video review - mainly for the fun of it. Does anyone have any specific features/items they'd like to see touched on? Any suggestions/input for what you'd like to see specifically covered would be great.

Thanks!

Ability track high-speed moving subjects moving from/to the camera, and ability to lose and regain focus when those objects leave the frame or the area of the frame you are using to focus.  According to the manual, face mode will work on those objects (by tracking them) even if they aren't faces.  I do a lot of shooting of airplanes, which is why I'm asking.

Just noticed you are in Denver.  I am too...maybe I could provide the objects to shoot!

I'm talking about video, by the way.  I'm already convinced of it's still focusing capabilities.

Thanks.

17
When you consider that you need 4 (or more) times the $s to beat the Tamron 150-600, it is a wonderful deal. I expect a new 100-400 will beat it, but at 2.5 to 3 X the $s.

The Tammy remains the most bang for the buck on long lenses.

I'm not interested in "best value" because I already have a 70-200/2.8L IS II and a 2x TC III.  My best value is to buy nothing at all.  Thus, I'm looking for something that will substantially out-resolve and out-focus my current combo, and it looks to me like the Tamron will do neither, thus being $1,069 wasted.

...well digital picture iso 12233 crops shows that your combo needs to be stopped down one stop to match the Tamron at 400/5.6.

Not surprising really as putting a 2x TC on a good lens is a last resort option.

I've tested my copy extensively, and it's both diffraction-limited and sharpest 1/3 of a stop down from wide open.  I shoot it at f/6.3 all the time, and it's very sharp right there.

18
When you consider that you need 4 (or more) times the $s to beat the Tamron 150-600, it is a wonderful deal. I expect a new 100-400 will beat it, but at 2.5 to 3 X the $s.

The Tammy remains the most bang for the buck on long lenses.

I'm not interested in "best value" because I already have a 70-200/2.8L IS II and a 2x TC III.  My best value is to buy nothing at all.  Thus, I'm looking for something that will substantially out-resolve and out-focus my current combo, and it looks to me like the Tamron will do neither, thus being $1,069 wasted.

19
Soft at 600mm? I don't think so

I've seen plenty of full-sized shots at 600mm to know that it is soft at 600mm wide-open, even on full-frame.

I'm not a sharpness nut, except on telephoto lenses, where it's common to crop like crazy.  When I can properly frame, I find my 17-40L and 24-105L to be quite excellent.  But on telephoto, it's not uncommon for me to crop 2x into a shot that was shot with a 2xTC on a 1.6-crop camera.  That's only 15% of the size of the image circle, enlarged to a full-frame.  That requires critical resolving power.

Have a look.  This is the Tamron against itself (400mm versus 600mm).  There's a substantial difference.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

20
I gave up waiting for the 100-400 and got a Tamron.

I gave up in 2005, and got a 70-200/2.8L IS, Canon 1.4x TC II and Kenko Pro DG 1.4x.  I used that stacked combo for many years.  I later sold the two Canon's and bought a 70-200/2.8L IS II and 2x TC III, and have been using that combo.

21
The 100-400 mk II is just going to be late.

In the 100-600mm space, each of Canon, Sigma and Tamron have two serious plays.

Sigma have cleaned up the 150-600 quite a lot (see http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23384.0) but in terms of size, it's a lot bigger. If Tamron do similar with theirs then arguing a case for the 100-400 will become tricky unless you only buy Canon and can't stand the thought of using a 3rd party lens.

And if you're a birder or interested in becoming one then the 3rd party lenses seem ideal unless someone else (ie company) is buying the lens for you. Now if this lens had of arrived back in 2011-2012, it would have been a very different story however it didn't.

What are you people talking about?

The Tamron focuses slowly and is soft at the long end.
The Sigma S is enormous and not handholdable for long periods by average people.
The Sigma C is a total unknown.
Any Canon is likely to be sharp as hell, and fast-focusing, plus much, much smaller than the 95mm (or 105mm in the case of the Sigma S) filter thread 3rd-party lenses.

I'm in this market.  I didn't buy the Tamron because of the soft images above 400mm and the slow down in focusing at longer focal lengths.  I won't buy the Sigma S because it's way too big.  The Sigma C is interesting, but if the 100-400L replacement is as-expected (sharp and fast focusing, in a small size), I'd buy that over a Sigma C even if the Sigma C is half the cost.

22
I have seen this lens in use in the field this weekend.  It is very much like the 70-300L (at first that's what I thought it was), it has the same extend on zoom design as the 70-300L, can be used with convertors, is fairly light (I think lighter than the 70-200) and has the unusual lens hood retractable slot as described by canon rumours.  I was told to expect it in November.  Cost I would guess around £1,800.  It will sell like hot cakes with the 7D II I should think.

Having the zoom ring on the "wrong" side compared to my 70-200 would be a pretty big bummer.  I've used a 70-300 once, and didn't like it.

23
Time has passed this lens by - it is two years to late.

The 150-600 zoom is the new kid on the block...

Indeed, and like much of America's youth, the 'new kids' are big and overweight.  The retracted 100-400L is the size of a 70-200/2.8, a very convenient size for a 400mm lens.  Considering the optical improvements going from original to MkII of the 70-200/2.8 IS, a new 100-400 should be excellent.  Mount a 1.4x TC behind it, you'll have a 140-560mm f/8 lens that will AF on recent higher-end bodies, deliver great IQ, and be a heck of a lot more portable than those "I'm not fat, I'm big-boned" new kids.  ;)

How quaint. You recommend using a lens 2/3 of a stop slower, thus requiring the use of a higher ISO with an f-stop that requires many autofocus compromises.

At least the Tamron is so soft at 600mm and f/6.3 that I don't consider it usable there.  I'd rather use it at 400mm wide open or 600mm and f/8, making it no faster than a 100-400 with or without a TC.  The Sigma Sport looks better, but it's too big and heavy.  We don't know about the Sigma Contemporary yet.

24
Time has passed this lens by - it is two years to late.

The 150-600 zoom is the new kid on the block...

Indeed, and like much of America's youth, the 'new kids' are big and overweight.  The retracted 100-400L is the size of a 70-200/2.8, a very convenient size for a 400mm lens.  Considering the optical improvements going from original to MkII of the 70-200/2.8 IS, a new 100-400 should be excellent.  Mount a 1.4x TC behind it, you'll have a 140-560mm f/8 lens that will AF on recent higher-end bodies, deliver great IQ, and be a heck of a lot more portable than those "I'm not fat, I'm big-boned" new kids.  ;)

The only problem will be the price. Canon will ask for an arm and a leg for it, and that makes it really difficult to balance a telephoto lens, IS or no IS.

Wait for a good deal.  I bought my 70-200/2.8L IS II for $1,974 from B&H when they were normally $2,499.

25
The 400 5.6 prime beats them all, canon 100-400, sigma zooms, whatever.

A midrange zoom isn't supposed to "beat" a prime because unless you're focal length limited. With the zoom you can get the optimal sensor coverage meaning less noise and more sharpness because of less nr. With a prime, what do you do if your subject decides to get near you? Quickly switch to the 300L, 200L and 100L?

Walk backwards?

I don't own any primes yet, so that's just my working theory as of the moment.  As soon as I own some primes I can properly answer your question and back it up with the scientific method.  ;)

How fast can you walk backwards?  Most of my subjects approach at 100-200mph.

26
Time has passed this lens by - it is two years to late.
The 150-600 zoom is the new kid on the block and the imminent Sigma S version could be a very good lens.

It's nine years too late, and it will still be worth probably twice what the Tamron and Sigma C cost.  As for the Sigma S, it's too big and too heavy to hand hold 10 hours a day, which is what I will do with this lens.

27
The Tamron is $1,069.  This lens is 2/3 as long.  So, it will be $712.66.  CR2.

You're welcome.

28
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 24, 2014, 09:10:58 AM »
You can use software (noise reduction and downsampling) to trade all that extra resolution for much lower noise in the overall image with the same sharpness (resolution), and in fact that's what you end up doing when you compare the two images at the same final size.
That's something else again. This discussion was related to the discussion regarding the intensity and total quantity of light and whether how that was affected (if at all) by the size of the sensor [before post processing].

Yeah...and you can't do what I said unless you have all that extra light captured in all those extra pixels.

Quote
All those photons that are collected by all those extra pixels count in the total signal (sharpness) to noise (noise) of the final overall image, and that's the reason that a larger sensor out-performs a smaller sensor in low-light despite having the same sized pixels.
No, those extra pixels don't count (again, before post processing).


Yes, they do.

One assumption that we always make is that quantization noise is negligible.  That means, you can't see the individual pixels.  If you can, that's another whole problem.

Since you can't see the individual pixels, your eye is essentially averaging some small number of pixels together.  The averaging works like this - the noise goes down with the square root of the number of pixels averaged.  Average 4 pixels, you cut the noise in half.  Average 9, you cut the noise by a factor of three.

This works out the same as the decrease in shot noise from all that extra light - SnR goes with the square root of the number of photons collected.

In reality, all larger pixels do is block average.  It turns out that block averaging is about the worst performing method of noise reduction there is.  Even the most basic noise reduction is better, and modern advanced method are enormously better.  So, smaller pixels that are block averaging less combined with modern noise reduction software will out-perform larger pixels since the larger pixel are doing the dumbest kind of noise reduction there is.

29
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 24, 2014, 07:50:51 AM »
To get that crop reach advantage, you need a GREAT lens. A lens like the 100-400 or the Tamron 150-600 is not sharp enough.

Not true.

I'll challenge anyone to go out with a 1DX or 5DII or III and get a moon shot like this one with a 100-400L.



Hand held.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=435.msg120132#msg120132
And here,
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=10014826

As I said...not even close.

Oh, I missed the bit where you didn't mention the TC, that was naughty of you. There are loads more FF images out there with 5D MkII/III's with TC's that are every bit as good as yours, I was just looking for 100-400's.

Why?  That shows that the bare lens was sharp enough to be dramatically out resolving the sensor, which itself had pixels 1.6x smaller than those in the 1DX.  Oh, and this was a 2x TC and this shot was slightly better than the same shot taken with just a 1.4x.  That's like a 72MP 1.6 crop sensor or a 184MP full frame sensor.  And that's on a 16 year old zoom lens.

30
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 23, 2014, 11:39:27 PM »
To get that crop reach advantage, you need a GREAT lens. A lens like the 100-400 or the Tamron 150-600 is not sharp enough.

Not true.

I'll challenge anyone to go out with a 1DX or 5DII or III and get a moon shot like this one with a 100-400L.

Nice image, well processed; but not sure I see the point.

It was shot with a 100-400L + 1.4x TC - so you could not even capture that image on a crop camera with the 100-400L alone.

Phil.

And what's the purpose of a TC?  Answer:  To compensate for the sensor under sampling the lens.  A 1.4x TC can be thought of as shrinking the pixels by 1.4x or as doubling the pixel count, rather than doing anything optically.  They are equivalent, and in both cases if the lens isn't resolving the detail, the extra pixels or extra magnification won't help.  But it does help as you just said yourself.  And you are right.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 78