April 19, 2014, 10:56:20 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 - Eimajm

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
31
Lenses / Re: What lenses do you own?
« on: October 02, 2012, 08:41:03 AM »
Sigma 10-20 EX F4-5.6
Canon 24-105L IS F4
Canon 50 1.4
Canon 100 2.8 macro
Canon 70-200 F4
Canon 400 F5.6

Body 7D

Really happy with all lenses and feel I have got a good coverage, 24-105 is the newest addition and is most used when not shooting wildlife.

32
Lenses / Re: New Lenses in January [CR1]
« on: September 27, 2012, 07:26:56 AM »
It will be interesting if a 400mm f/4 IS comes out.  I would think if priced right it should sell very well considering how old the 400/5.6 is and the desire for its replacement.

A 400mm f4 will likely be about $7000.  It will be similar in diameter and cost to a 300mm f2.8 II

I doubt that many owners of the 400 mm f5.6 will be rushing out to buy a 400mm f4.

Really!? I would think this would be the ideal wildlife lens for us 7D owners. The ability to increase focal length to 560mm and to have autofocus (yey!), still very handholdable, an extra stop and the latest IS would be just what I want. Thinking of what i can sell to fund it already...

33
Everyone surely knows than when a product is released it is priced above the market value with the intention of dropping it later. This happens with every new product, those who bought it at the release price are prepared to pay the higher premium. The price drop was expected as is with every other body and lens.

34
Lenses / Re: A New EF 400 f/5.6L Before Photokina? [CR1]
« on: September 07, 2012, 08:17:24 AM »
If it does happen it will shorten my wishlist to 35L, 135L and 180L Macro.

I dont like zooms as their image quality cannot approach that of primes. This holds true if the design year are within months of each other.

Zooms are heavier than primes at the furthest focal length and max aperture.

400/5.6 with IS would be a killer light long lens.

It should sell for the same price of a 70-200/2.8 IS II.

I'd be using it at 400mm all the time so a 100-400 would be useless for me.

My sigma 10-20 at 20 is incredibly sharp as is also my 24-105 and 70-200, there is no descernable difference to my 100mm 2.8, 50 1.4 and or 400 5.6. Modern high quality zooms are excellent and produce ultra sharp images and are no way 'inferior' in image quality to primes. Unless lenses are pushing the extreme boundaries of optical performance and measured in a lab then I'm sure there will a difference but in day to day shooting, nah.

35
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: AI SERVO
« on: August 24, 2012, 07:26:16 AM »
One thing you will find invaluable is rear focusing. This enables you to focus, recompose the shot and shoot   without initiating the focus again.

Arthur Morris explains its use here:
http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2011/09/13/rear-focus-tutorial/

36
Lenses / Re: best wide or ultra wide angle lens for crop sensorh
« on: August 17, 2012, 09:12:15 AM »
I have the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 EX DC HSM which I find an excellent lens, it really is sharp and well built. The Canon is 60% more expensive than the Sigma here in the UK and from comparing images is I didn't think was worth the extra cost. It's my only third party lens but is no way inferior to my Canon lenses.

37
EOS Bodies / Re: 7d - max ISO issues
« on: August 14, 2012, 06:50:36 AM »
Auto-ISO is working fine on mine after upgrading.

38
EOS Bodies / Re: Patents - EF 600 f/5.6 DO & 800 f/5.6 DO
« on: July 12, 2012, 12:25:42 PM »
I doubt youll see a 400 5.6 DO soon as the weight of the current 100-400 is not very great itself, and I very much doubt it would be $1500 seems far too low. The DO is all about portability and is more beneficial as conventional lenses get heavier, the reason why we are seeing patents for the big primes at the moment. As its new technology, its expensive and people arn't going to pay a premium for a 30% weight saving on a lens that is already easily manageable/portable. As time goes on then you may a see a shift with more DO lenses and may even replace conventional lenses if the optical quality is the same, but I feel this is a long way off at the moment. The 400 f4 Do has been relatively successful as it fills a specific niche for those people who dont want the weight of the 500+ but need the reach + TC usage and f4.

39
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Successors [CR1]
« on: July 04, 2012, 03:42:14 PM »
More megapixels for the 70D.... why do you need more megapixels on a prosumer camera?


Useful for cropping when I'm focal-length or magnification limited.

If more pixels weren't useful for this, teleconverters would also be useless, and they are not.  Even our old optics can do well with a 2x TC on an 18MP 1.6-crop sensor, thus indicating that sensor could go to 72MP and still provide benefit even to an old zoom lens (100-400L).

100-400L + 2x on T2i:
http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/T2i__3574%20edited.jpg


That's like saying I'm shooting birds with a wide angle and need the extra pixels for cropping. Not really the right tools for the job.


I routinely need a zoom lens for shooting at long focal lengths because I'm shooting aircraft and they move quickly.  They move so quickly that handholding is required.  How many handholdable fast autofocus zoom lenses does Canon make longer than 400mm?  It's common for me to crop to 800-1200mm equivalent focal length, and those extra pixels are a big help.

Now, if Canon wants to make a nice, affordable, handholdable 100-1200 f/4-f/5.6, I'm all for it but I don't think that will happen any time in the foreseeable future as we don't even have materials that could meet those specs.


Well you are shooting at the same field of  view of pros I follow who shoot FF with 600s they crop minor for composition. Perhaps you need to improve your technique rather than 'need' more pixels. Shooting planes miles in the sky and cropping to way over 50% of the image is never going to give quality no matter how many pixels you have.

40
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Successors [CR1]
« on: June 30, 2012, 05:43:21 AM »
More megapixels for the 70D.... why do you need more megapixels on a prosumer camera?


Useful for cropping when I'm focal-length or magnification limited.

If more pixels weren't useful for this, teleconverters would also be useless, and they are not.  Even our old optics can do well with a 2x TC on an 18MP 1.6-crop sensor, thus indicating that sensor could go to 72MP and still provide benefit even to an old zoom lens (100-400L).

100-400L + 2x on T2i:
http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/T2i__3574%20edited.jpg


That's like saying I'm shooting birds with a wide angle and need the extra pixels for cropping. Not really the right tools for the job.

41
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Successors [CR1]
« on: June 29, 2012, 08:47:32 AM »
More megapixels for the 70D.... why do you need more megapixels on a prosumer camera? Its unlikely  enthusiasts are going about printing bigger than A3. Stop with the megapixels and put the R&D into better noise and DR not trying to cram more photosites on when its not needed.

42
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 70D & EOS 7D Mark II Speculation [CR1]
« on: June 01, 2012, 07:42:36 AM »
It would also go some way to redress the only real criticism of the current 7D, namely; not great low-light performance.
Are you aware of a better-performing cropper in low light?

There isn't one - certainly not the D7000/Pentax K-5.

Bigger pixels do not make for better low light performance - this is uninformed internet hogwash for which there isn't a single Real World example that I'm aware of (although there are innumerable examples that disprove the notion) - and my 7D will happily produce fantastic low light/high ISO images all day long.


This appears contrary to the opinion of Canon in their white paper on full frame sensors.

"Regardless of format, full-frame sensors are all about image quality. The most
obvious advantage of full-frame sensors is the ability to combine high resolution
with large pixel sizes. Compare two sensors with the same number of pixels, one a
full-frame unit and one smaller. The pixels of the full-frame sensor are larger. Each
larger pixel has a greater surface area available for gathering light. More light
collected means less amplification needs to be applied to the output signal of each
pixel for the purposes of readout and image processing. Less is better here
because magnifying low-level signals inevitably entails picking up and increasing
noise that will then have to be removed as thoroughly as possible in a later step...."

"...In the extreme case of low-light photography and ISO ratings of 800 and above,
high signal-to-noise ratios give full-frame sensors a great advantage. In bright light
with low ISO settings, the abundant charge storage of Canon’s large CMOS pixels
avoids oversaturation."

43
Lenses / Re: !00mm macro L or non L
« on: April 04, 2012, 08:29:30 AM »
I have the non-L version and have IS - my tripod. Do you need IS? - well how much do you want to ditch the tripod - if you don't like carrying a tripod around or it affects your creativity then get the L lens. Simple as that.

44
Lenses / Re: Canon 400mm f5.6 L lens - upgrade needed.
« on: March 16, 2012, 09:04:19 AM »
I don't see an upgrade of the 400mm F5.6 ever being made in its current form. It's always been a direct competitor to the 100-400 and with a rumored upgrade for this without the push pull zoom it makes no sense to upgade in its current format.

Perhaps they will introduce an 400 F4 (recent patent) which would sit below the 200-400 and 400 DO? I could see 400 F4 being a nice upgarde for APS-C cameras for wildlife photographers which will give equivalent framing of 560mm with a 1.4x tc with working AF.

45
Lenses / Re: 300L 4.0 or 400mmL 5.6
« on: February 06, 2012, 07:23:05 AM »
I went through the same process when deciding this over a year ago.

It really depends on what what type of wildlife she is shooting. I use a 400mm f5.6 as I mainly shoot birds and I went for an uncompromised 400mm for this reason and am very happy with it. For for a general wildlife lens including dragonflies, large butterflies 300mm will be better than the 400mm due to the higher magnification ratio at MFD and you'll have IS. A 1.4x tc can be added for that extra reach if needed. So discounting the 100-400mm, which is also an excellent general wildlife lens I would plump for the 300 with a 1.4tc. From the reviews of all the lenses they are produce excellent images, the only downside of the 400mm is you need very good light to handhold at low ISO as it does not have IS.

Jamie Medford

 

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4