Topics

16

Lenses / Canon 200-400/1.4x vs. 600/4 II

« on: March 29, 2012, 01:19:59 PM »

This isn't really a vs. question as I am well aware of the utility of these two lenses.  I have long wanted a telephoto and am thinking of finally saving for one. These two lenses are at the top of my list but as it will take me awhile to save up I really only have the possibility to buy one.

The following are the major uses I am planning:
- Bird and wildlife photography. I love to photography all types of birds.  I also enjoy photographing mammals - though they are more difficult to come across.
- Zoo photography. For the most part these are the only mammals I often get to see other than squirrels.
- Sports.  Both my sons love playing baseball.
- Travel. Once in awhile we travel somewhere interesting such as Peru or Africa.  Although for this particular case rental is an option, it is nice to have something I am used to.

Note that I will be using these with a FF 5D3.  I do own a 7d but will likely sell it soon.

First, I am aware that no one has had the opportunity to use either of these lenses, but let's assume they are both excellent optically and that the 200-400 is sharp even with the extender (for $11k it better be).  Therefore it comes more down to utility.

What I really like about the 200-400/1.4x is the flexibility.  It should make a great safari lens and zoo lens.  For sports, the focal length is right where I need it.  The zoom capability should also help greatly as kids run around the bases.  The smaller size also makes this a very useful travel lens.  I also like the presumed close focus distance (assuming it has specs similar to the Nikon 200-400).  Occasionally I manage to get quite close to a bird and I enjoy taking closeup shots of leaves from a distance.

The main disadvantage of the 200-400/1.4x is the length.  For most birds on a FF I would prefer more.

What I really like about the 600/4 II is the focal length.  On my 7D, my 70-200/2.8 II + 2x III gives me an effective 640mm and it is barely enough.  I would certainly love to go higher and the 600/4 II would give me an 840/5.6 that is still very sharp.  I also like that the new model is much lighter - making it easier to deal with.  Generally with birds I find the focal length I need is the max I can do, so the zoom isn't as useful.

The biggest disadvantages of the 600/4 are that the length is a bit too long for baseball (though as my kids get bigger I will be forced to stay further away) and it is heavier and more difficult to port around.  The 200-400 is light enough that I may take it on trips where wildlife is not the main focus, but the 600/4 would like accompany me only on serious safaris.  Of course, for safaris I can always rent the 600.

Still, most of my bird photography is not done on vacation but is done almost every day.  My office is within walking distance of an area that has quite a few birds and I take walks there every day during lunch.  Therefore, whichever lens I pick up will likely be used at least twice a week.

Therefore, I like the flexibility of the 200-400 but also like the length of the 600.  Given my needs, which would you go for?

17

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Cancelled my 1D-X order

« on: January 23, 2012, 01:01:42 PM »

After much deliberation (some of it on the forums here) I decided this morning to cancel my 1D-X order. For those who are on the waiting list at Adorama this should be good news as I was among the first to preorder there.

The final straw was simply the following two realizations.
1) I already have the ability to take good photos. There's nothing about the 1D-X that will radically improve my photography in any way. While I'm sure it's a nice camera, I would not expect those who pay attention to my photography to notice the difference.
2) From a "photography progression" standpoint, it is far more worth it to invest in equipment that allows me to take photos that I am currently unable to.  For example, two recent purchases (within the last 30 days) that I have made include high speed photography triggers and the 8-15 fisheye.  Without this equipment the following two photos would not have been possible.

http://500px.com/photo/4506025

http://500px.com/photo/4466164

Therefore I cancelled my preorder and moved the rest of you up a bit.

I must admit that the following did not help from a rumor standpoint (though the above two points were what made the decision).
1) The main thing I wanted in the 1D-X was high ISO support. If the 5D3 does this then that will work for me. Still, I will not preorder the camera but will instead wait for it to actually be released before deciding.
2) I am a bit worried that the 1D-X is a rush job. The fact that none of us have seen full res images seems to indicate that the firmware is not finished enough where Canon feels full res images are indicative of the final product. Rumors of battery issues and the glaring omission of F8 AF also seem to indicate that Canon rushed this camera to meet the D4. Given that Canon had huge AF issues with the 1D3 and many photographers are not happy with the AF capabilities of the 1D4 in low light, I do not have much confidence that Canon can produce a high quality camera that is rushed.  Maybe the camera is all that, but I'll let other photographers do the $6800 experiment.

18

EOS Bodies / Is it worth picking up the 1D-X?

« on: December 22, 2011, 01:43:51 PM »

I was very excited at the announcement of the 1D-X and I quickly put a preorder in, but I admit that I am now having second thoughts.

First, I am not a professional photographer by trade. I do take a lot of real estate photography - which pays for my equipment.  For real estate I use a TS-E 24 II, TS-E 17, and occasionally a TS-E 90. From a pro standpoint therefore the AF doesn't do anything for me.  The 7 shot bracketing is nice, but I can get by counting like I do today.

In terms of my hobby work, I primarily shoot nature and insects.  My primary lenses for this are the MP-E 65, TS-E 90, 100/2.8 macro IS, TS-E 24 II, and 70-200/2.8 II.  In almost all cases - even with the 70-200 - I shoot in MF.  Therefore, for this scenario the AF doesn't matter much. The better viewfinder though will be very nice.

I currently shoot all of these with a 5D2.  The biggest improvement the 1D-X will give me is high ISO.  However with rumors of a high ISO 5D3 coming out sometime (probably EOY 2012) that would probably suit my needs as well as a 1D-X (if it truly uses the same sensor).

The one area where I do need AF is sports.  In spring my two sons play baseball and for that I use a 7D + 300/4 and 70-200/2.8 II.  As they play during the daytime the light is usually quite good and the 7D does a very good job.  Otherwise I tend not to use my 7D as the high ISO sucks.

Finally I take a great number of photos travelling.  For this scenario I take both the 5D2 and 7D and often have both cameras out at the same time.  I typically put the 70-200/2.8 II on the 7D and the TS-E 24 II on the 5D2.  If I go through with the 1D-X I would carry only that camera as I would sell the 7D + 5D2.  For examples of places traveled to we did Uzbekistan+Tajikistan this year and have trips booked to Dubai and Tuscany next year.

The biggest argument for the 1D-X is I typically push ISO when travelling and taking hand held macro shots.  The improved ISO would greatly help here, as would the better viewfinder.  On the other hand, if I am patient enough to wait for a high ISO 5D3 then that should work just as well.

Generally I have always pushed buying glass over buying cameras, but I almost have the glass I want.  The only lenses I really want are the 8-15 fisheye (which I will buy in March whether I pick up the 1D-X or not) and a good telephoto.  The problem is for the $4000 I would save by not picking up the 1D-X now (rest of the money comes from sale of 5D2 + 7D) there really isn't a decent telephoto out there.  The ideal lens would be the new 200-400/1.4x, 400/2.8 II, or 600/4 II but all of those are well beyond the budget.  Of course I could always just keep saving until I do have enough.

I find myself therefore a bit conflicted.  On the one hand a 1 series camera has always been a bit of a 'holy grail' to me and I have always wanted one.  On the other hand I am not sure it is truly worth the expense.

19

EOS Bodies / When will Canon 1D-X release?

« on: December 22, 2011, 01:21:16 PM »

I was wondering if anyone has heard anything more solid on whether the 1D-X will actually release at the end of March.  Currently I am not so sure.

- Canon themselves have said the camera will be released in Japan at the end of March.  How long does it usually take between the Japan release and the US release?
- I have not seen any reputable sites with a price yet.  Only on B&H can I search for it, though I know Adorama has it in their system (because I have a preorder).
- I have yet to see a single professional give their opinions after using it in the field.  I know people who have used one at a trade show, but haven't heard of anyone reporting on it from the field.
- I have yet to see a single image from the camera that gives an idea of the high ISO capabilities.  All of the images so far have been too small.

My suspicions thus far are that if we do not see the last three items fulfilled by the end of January, then we're probably looking at mid-summer.

20

EOS Bodies / New 1DX review with AF info

« on: October 31, 2011, 11:21:58 AM »

Thought I would post this - http://www.ronmartblog.com/2011/10/hands-on-canon-eos-1d-x-lots-of-photos.html

Not a huge amount new here but there are some details on the RAW buffer that I haven't seen elsewhere and some thoughts on the high ISO capabilities.

21

EOS Bodies / The irony in it all

« on: October 16, 2011, 05:46:37 PM »

Just thought I would share a rather humorous thought.

For the last several years, Canon users have been lamenting Canon’s pursuit of more MP.  While Canon users have been grudgingly happy with their cameras + lenses, there has always been a bit of yearning when confronted with the high ISO capabilities of cameras like the D3s – why can’t Canon come out with a camera like that?

Meanwhile, Nikon users have been generally happy with their cameras but I have heard a bit of grumbling that it’s about time Nikon come out with a camera with more than 12 MP that costs less than $8,000.

So Nikon is now rumored to come out with a 36 MP D800.  From what I have seen, many Nikon users are furious – that this camera simply has too many MP and low light performance and disk storage space will suffer.

In turn, Canon is now rumored to come out with an 18 MP camera that exceeds the D3s in most ways everyone cares – better high ISO, more fps, 50% more MP, and better AF.  The general feedback from the Canon crowd is this is the worst decision Canon has ever made.  18 MP is simply too few for a next generation sports camera.

Of course, these are just rumors and neither camera is guaranteed to actually surface (though in Canon’s case we’ll know soon).  It just really seems like camera manufacturers can’t win…