November 22, 2014, 05:44:04 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 5 ... 84
31
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - Finally using Canon's newer fab?
« on: November 10, 2014, 09:18:17 AM »
@ 59% Q.E would that apply to JPEG or RAW?

We have seen great high ISO photos from 7D II. However, most(all) of photos were shot in JPEG.


The data on sensorgen.info is based on the raw-derived data from DXO, before DXO mucks with it. DXO gets a LOT of raw data, from countless individual RAW images, so I'd say it's pretty accurate.

The fact that the D3 is listed at 90% QE would seem to indicate otherwise.

I suspect the problem is that DxO doesn't take into account any fiddling companies are doing to their raw data.

32
Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 09, 2014, 11:33:30 PM »
This lens is very tempting. I wish it was a little lighter but it's now on my wish list. Can't wait to see the reviews, but Canon seems to be on a roll with good lenses. I hope they replace the 50 1.4 soon. Also a new 85 with IS would be awesome.

They just rebuilt the 85L. Not gonna happen again soon.  If any prime gets rebuilt with IS I figure it will be the 135L due to the focal length.  That one is also long in the tooth, and even Sigma didn't bother with putting IS on the new 35 & 50 ART.

I think Etienne was referring to the 85/1.8, not the 85L II. Although the 85L was refreshed ~17 years after the original design, the 85/1.8 design is now 22 years old.

And while Sigma didn't put IS in its new 35 and 50 Art models, Canon did just add it to the 35/2 a couple of years ago.

I, too, would like to see the 50/1.4 updated, to a 50/1.x (true ring) USM IS version.

Yes I was referring to the 85 1.8, add IS, true USM, rounded aperture blades and we're good to go ... But an 85 1.4 would be cool too.

The 85/1.8 has true ring USM and is one of the fastest focusing lenses around.

33
Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 09, 2014, 06:43:38 PM »
The thing I changed in my shooting was to put the 100-400 on the 5D III instead of the 7D.

Effective approach, if you don't have to crop (i.e. if you can shoot at 400mm versus 250mm on the 7D).  If you do (shoot at 400mm on both, crop to match), you've gained nothing.

Yes, but a keeper shot that might need some cropping is better than a fuzzy or lost shot.  It comes down to how many keepers.  If I need more reach, I'll put the 300 2.8 + the 1.4x on the 7D.

With a big, slow, lumbering full-scale B-17, you should have 100% keepers.

It also works when they are haulin' ass

F-22 Raptor afterburner turn © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal Photography, on Flickr

Full-scale airplanes aren't ever really a challenge to keep in focus.  This was done with the 20D and the 70-200/2.8L IS and 2xTC III, and this is easy and reliable.

34
Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 09, 2014, 06:04:49 PM »
The thing I changed in my shooting was to put the 100-400 on the 5D III instead of the 7D.

Effective approach, if you don't have to crop (i.e. if you can shoot at 400mm versus 250mm on the 7D).  If you do (shoot at 400mm on both, crop to match), you've gained nothing.

Yes, but a keeper shot that might need some cropping is better than a fuzzy or lost shot.  It comes down to how many keepers.  If I need more reach, I'll put the 300 2.8 + the 1.4x on the 7D.

With a big, slow, lumbering full-scale B-17, you should have 100% keepers.

35
Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 09, 2014, 05:35:59 PM »
The thing I changed in my shooting was to put the 100-400 on the 5D III instead of the 7D.

Effective approach, if you don't have to crop (i.e. if you can shoot at 400mm versus 250mm on the 7D).  If you do (shoot at 400mm on both, crop to match), you've gained nothing.

36
Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 09, 2014, 03:51:41 PM »
I'm assuming it will perform better optically than the old one did with two 1.4x TCs attached.  And this is the old one with two 1.4s.

I'm also assuming that it will AF at least as well at 560mm and f/8 on a 7D2 as my 70-200/2.8L IS II does with a 2x TC III on my 20D (for which I use only the center AF point as well).

Hi Lee Jay,

First, awesome moon shot!

I'm curious why -- since you (apparently) have a 2x TC III -- you chose the 100-400 + 2 1.4x TCs for your moon shot, instead of the 2x TC III? (Maybe you didn't own the 2x at the time?)

Thanks, and correct.

37
Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 09, 2014, 03:50:40 PM »
Great R/C captures!  I've shot them and it's crazy to keep them in frame, let alone in focus.  The only thing more challenging is Dragonflys.

Thanks.  Most people don't realize how hard it is to shoot these things.

38
Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 09, 2014, 12:18:01 PM »
Virtually ANY lens on ANY camera body will produce an image that looks great for web-sharing.  I hope that your expectations are met, I really do... 

That moon shot is a 100% pixel-for-pixel crop from an 18MP 1.6-crop Canon sensor.

Quote
Do you believe that the 70-200/2.8 IS II + 20D performs well with respect to AF?  If so, I believe that you will be happy with the 100-400II+1.4XIII.

Pretty well.  I have relatively good success capturing 200mph+ R/C aircraft with shallow DOF at 400mm and f/6.3, even with very busy backgrounds.






Quote
Personally, I believe that the 70-200f2.8II+2.0xIII mounted on my 5DIII or 7DII has marginal AF.  Acceptable for stationary subjects as well as general walk around, but not great for BIF or fast moving targets.  The IQ however is not that great.  It is soft (relatively) at all apertures.

I've printed 20x30s from that combo, and they are quite nice.

39
Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 09, 2014, 11:53:36 AM »
What are current satisfied 100-400 owners thinking?
I don't really see any faults with mine (not to be confused with knowing there's room to improve) so I'm in two minds lol.

My 100-400L has the same faults as the other four copies I tests.

First, it's got lousy handling.  The lock ring is the reasonable place to put my hand, and that means zooming causes AF changes if you aren't really careful because turning the lock ring turns the AF ring with it.

Second, the IS is so bad, it's nearly useless.  It can even be worse than useless (see below).

Third, from 300-400mm wide-open with the IS on, the position of the IS elements greatly affects the results.  The results can be great if the elements happen to be in the middle, or horrid if they aren't.  In practice, this means 300-400mm with IS means f/8, and since the IS is good for *maybe* 1 stop, it's no better than f/5.6 with the IS off (for which the optics are quite good).

I suspect they fixed all this nonsense in the new version.

40
Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 09, 2014, 11:49:54 AM »
No, I'm being realistic. It won't perform as well as you assume it will with respect to AF and optical quality. It just won't.

You have no idea what I'm assuming.

So I'll tell you.

I'm assuming it will perform better optically than the old one did with two 1.4x TCs attached.  And this is the old one with two 1.4s.



I'm also assuming that it will AF at least as well at 560mm and f/8 on a 7D2 as my 70-200/2.8L IS II does with a 2x TC III on my 20D (for which I use only the center AF point as well).

41
Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 09, 2014, 09:19:08 AM »
This kind of lens really isn't made to play well with TC's.  Even on bodies that AF at f8 it will be slow, hunt and no doubt need to be stopped down even more to produce barely acceptable image quality (for anyone who is very critical). Shooting bare at 400mm will produce far more " in focus" images, with better iq after cropped in post, and won't require full sun to shoot in.

Shouldn't be a deal breaker if it can't accept tc's....

If it can't take TCs, I won't ever consider it again, same as the 70-300L.

As I said... It just depends on how critical you are with respect to image quality (and camera/lens performance for that matter). For many people, a tc on a f5.6 lens is good enough. For me, and others with lower tolerance thresholds for soft images, these combinations are just not acceptable.

You're assuming it will be lousy optically.  You know what they say about assuming.

42
Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 09, 2014, 08:02:21 AM »
This kind of lens really isn't made to play well with TC's.  Even on bodies that AF at f8 it will be slow, hunt and no doubt need to be stopped down even more to produce barely acceptable image quality (for anyone who is very critical). Shooting bare at 400mm will produce far more " in focus" images, with better iq after cropped in post, and won't require full sun to shoot in.

Shouldn't be a deal breaker if it can't accept tc's....

If it can't take TCs, I won't ever consider it again, same as the 70-300L.

43
Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 08, 2014, 04:57:53 PM »
So this lens can use the 1.4 and 2.0 TC?

1.4x = I would assume so, but it is not confirmed.

2.0x = I assume it will fit but your AF won't work.  MF only.

Or live view/dual pixel.

44
Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 08, 2014, 03:40:04 PM »
I said it many years ago, but I'll repeat it here.

The 7D2 + 100-400L II + 1.4x TC is pretty much the ultimate in handholdable reach.  Assuming it's as good as it should be, and that it works with the 1.4x, as it should.

45
Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 08, 2014, 03:36:21 PM »
No mention of TC compatibility, but I'm guessing the Canon TCs will mount and work.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 84