October 22, 2014, 12:02:54 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 - jrista

Pages: 1 ... 97 98 [99] 100 101 ... 298
1471
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the next xD cameras do 4k?
« on: February 27, 2014, 02:19:38 PM »
There is no way the 5D III is being replaced this year. Not a chance. It's a SUPERB camera, and the 5D II lasted closer to four years than three. I don't expect to even see CR2 rumors for the 5D IV until next year, and I don't expect it to hit the streets until the end of 2015/early 2016.

We will see, but no way can I see them waiting until 2016 to replace the 5D3!! And surely some sort of 5D3+ at the very least has got to be arriving late 2014 or early 2015.

Why, though? And what would be upgraded? I mean, if were JUST talking DR, then I really don't see it happening. I understand that DR is important, but it simply doesn't seem logical for Canon to release the 5D IV with the same specs as the 5D III, with the exception of a newer sensor (assuming they even have the DR stuff figured out...Canon is practically non-existent in the world of sensor patents, a world I check up on regularly.)

I am honestly curious...is it just that people expect Canon to release the 5D IV because its "time" to release the 5D IV? Or do people honestly think that the 5D III is overall (not just sensor, but other features) in dire need of an upgrade? The 5D II definitely felt long in the tooth when the 5D III came along. But the 5D III really doesn't feel that way. I don't hear anyone complaining about it, and the only thing anyone really ever asks for is more DR.

Personally, I don't think Canon will be sticking to any kind of timetable here. I mean, the 5D III will only be two years old come mid-March this year. It'll only be three years old by March next year, and at the earliest, I can't see Canon announcing a replacement until Summer 2015, with availability a couple/few months later at the very earliest...and that still feels too early.

I would certainly understand a firmware update late 2014/early 2015, though. Especially with video features.

1472
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: February 27, 2014, 02:07:46 PM »
... I hate to feed your maniacal ego though...

You know, you've been taking little jabs at me like that for days. I'm not really sure what set you off, but so long as you continue to slip little insults into your responses, I really have no reason to spend time responding to your questions. This isn't a thin-skin thing, either. It's simply a matter of principal. If you have a bone to pick with me, pick it, in PMs. Otherwise, just be cordial out in the public forums...that really isn't asking much.

1473
Lenses / Re: Review: Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 Distagon T*
« on: February 27, 2014, 04:40:11 AM »
The Zeiss Otus was the first retrofocal normal lens for full frame cameras and it showed there was a night and day difference compared to the double gauss design.

(snip)

There is no prime that exists that's f/2 or faster below 150mm besides the Otus that doesn't have ridiculous amounts of purple fringing.

If the whole way it got so good is that it's retrofocus, shouldn't the 35/1.4 and 24/1.4 also have those same benefits, since they have to be retrofocus?

The purpose of going retrofocal in a standard prime is so you have more room to put corrective lens elements into the optical path.

The reason why 35mm and 24mm lenses are retrofocal is because there is no other way to do them. You need the focal length to be longer than 35mm when the distance from your sensor to the last optical element is 35mm+.

With a 35mm lens going retrofocal is just barley necessary (Canon can make a 40mm pancake after all for EF with a standard lens design). So you gain a ton of room for aberration correction. The Sigma, Zeiss and Nikon 35mm primes are crazy good for that reason. There is mountains of room to correct everything you can imagine. The Canon 35mm prime is so-so because Canon is lazy and complacent and they didn't feel like updating their 16 year old lens to a modern highly computer corrected design because it was good enough.

With a 24mm lens you don't get the same benefits, as a 35 or 50. Going retrofocal barley gets you enough room to put the basic corrective elements in, which is the same problem as you get with a planar 50mm lens, and because of the wide angles the elements have to be a bit larger so everything is ridiculously scrunched up, which leads to poor performance. To get around this issue Zeiss only makes a 25mm f/2 prime. Going to a slower aperture and 1mm longer focal length gave them just a little more room to correct everything properly, which is why they have the best wide angle prime. Compromising a little on the focal length and aperture was the only way to get the image quality they require.


That's also why telephoto lenses are so incredibly good. There is a ample room within the optical path to add elements to correct for anything and everything.

Having room to correct aberrations has a large effect on image quality, that's why wide angle lenses on mirrorless cameras (which have more room because they have no mirror) are so insanely good. Sony's 10-18mm and Canon's 11-22mm cheap consumer mirroless wide angle zooms are sharper wide open on crop than any pro wide angle zoom available for any Canon camera at any aperture, full frame or crop.

+1000

Excellent stuff! Spot on!

1474
Landscape / Re: Waterscapes
« on: February 27, 2014, 04:34:50 AM »
I think some have very narrow definitions of what a Landscape, Waterscape, Nature photograph etc. is. To me the picture in question definitely falls into the Waterscape category and I find the thread more interesting to follow, because I don´t just get water horizons with rising or falling suns. Where are the limits to what is acceptable? People? A rowing boat? Boat, but without engine? A building? ...

According to Webster (biggest dictionary I know), Waterscape is defined as "A picture or view of the sea or other body of water" and the picture in question is clearly "a picture or view of the sea" ...

Technically speaking, you can define anything to be as broad or narrow as you want it to be. According to webster's definition, they don't seem to include waterscapes that aren't "bodies" of water...ocean, sea, lake. Rivers, creeks, brooks, waterfalls, etc. are generally not considered "bodies" of water.

I truly do not believe I am being narrow in my definition here. The image I recently commented about is clearly "industry" to me, industry that just so happens to be on a body of water. That isn't a water SCAPE to me...SCAPE, like a landscape. I've been a nature photographer for a long time. I've participated in photography sites like DeviantArt for years, and managed groups there. I've NEVER encountered a definition of "waterscape" that included industry or sports as the primary subject.

I'm happy with anything where the water is the primary subject. If there are row boats or bridges or background city or what have you, as long as it's part of an artistic landscape scene where water is the primary subject, I have no problem with it. I'm not being exceptionally picky here...however the industry and images that were primarily watersports really don't fit the bill, IMHO.

Personally, I actually like industrial photos. Some people are exceptionally good at them, and they have their own aesthetic appeal. I just think that, and watersports, should get their own threads. ;)

1475
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: February 27, 2014, 04:22:53 AM »
So, I FINALLY got some clear sky for a period of several hours, and was finally able to create a nicer image of Horse Head and Flame Nebulas:


See at my blog

Integration of 1h 30m of subs. Not really enough to reduce noise to an acceptable level, I need about 5h total to really reduce noise. But I was able to stretch and enhance the nebula detail quite a bit!

Stack of 30x180s @ ISO 400. Canon 7D, EF 600mm f/4 L II as telescope. Calibrated with 30 flats and 100 bias.

See full size image at AstroBin:



Nice work.  So there's no tracking device, correct?  This is the full size image?  So it's a crop of the image?

Oh yes! There is tracking. Very accurate tracking, actually. I used an Orion Atlas EQ-G equatorial tracking mount, along with the ADM D-type side-by-side tandem saddle, in which my 600/4 II lens was mounted with a custom dovetail plate, and the Orion SSAG (StarShoot Auto Guider) was mounted next to it. The SSAG does autoguiding...it finds a star, then sends special instructions to the mount to keep that star in the exact same place at all times.

There is a total of 1 hour and 30 minutes exposure time here (it's called integration time, as it is not a single exposure, it's a calibrated stack of images). That was achieved by stacking 30x 180 second individual exposures, each of which were calibrated with a master flat frame (to reduce vignetting) and a master bias frame (to eliminate fixed sensor noise). There is no way you could do that without tracking. Tracking, and guiding, is essential to keep the shutter open that long without stars trailing (at 600mm, stars trail by 1/3rd of a second exposure without tracking). Tonight, I was able to get my mount aligned and guided well enough to get 0.08 RMS R.A. axis tracking precision, and 0.10 RMS Dec. axis tracking. I had minimal guiding corrections, once every several seconds at the most frequent, which is really very good. When guiding is worse than that, stars end up getting larger, sometimes misshapen. The stars in this shot are pretty round.

The only real problem is the field isn't entirely flat. I tried to flatten it, but that ended up making the corners bright, so I need to figure out how to fix that.

Regarding crop, it isn't quite the same as with standard photography. Since this is a stack of multiple frames, the total image size after stacking is usually larger than a single frame. The image near the edges is usually pretty ugly with stacking artifacts, so you usually crop inwards to get rid of that junk. After cropping, this image was still actually slightly larger than a standard 7D frame (5184x3456). I downsampled that by 50% when uploading to AstroBin, so the full size image you see there roughly represents the full 7D frame, even though it's 1/4 the size now.

1476
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: February 27, 2014, 03:04:28 AM »
So, I FINALLY got some clear sky for a period of several hours, and was finally able to create a nicer image of Horse Head and Flame Nebulas:


See at my blog

Integration of 1h 30m of subs. Not really enough to reduce noise to an acceptable level, I need about 5h total to really reduce noise. But I was able to stretch and enhance the nebula detail quite a bit!

Stack of 30x180s @ ISO 400. Canon 7D, EF 600mm f/4 L II as telescope. Calibrated with 30 flats and 100 bias.

See full size image at AstroBin:


1477
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: February 27, 2014, 03:00:29 AM »
I hope it's not inappropriate, but my last astro effort (and my only one recently) was the following. California Nebula, suburban/semi-rural site, UHC filter. I've been repeatedly astounded how bright this is in ultra widefield (~14mm) shots, so I decided to go closer. But no flats, which seem to disagree with this lens (pity), and no darks cos I forgot. Still...

Nice shot. It looks a little overprocessed...saturation is a bit harsh, and the stars have that funky halo around them. I'd pull back on the processing a bit, reduce saturation...and that would actually probably help bring out more subtlety in nebula detail.

Out of curiosity, how long was the exposure?

Ah, the haloes are due to using a very wide aperture with the UHC filter, which they're not meant for. I get big red haloes round the medium-brightness stars, so I use 'remove colour fringing' in Lightroom, but that does leave these grey haloes, which isn't what I'd prefer, but it's a limitation of my setup at present. I'd like to stop down to reduce this, but I can't afford the light loss, as my tracking won't go beyond 1-2m mins per subframe. Also using this lens wide open creates all sorts of weird colour casts across the image, so it needs a bit more processing than the 100L Macro, for instance. The upshot is you get a lot more faint stars.

I rather like the saturation, though I can understand why some would tone it down. It's always a tough balance. This is 113x1min exposures at f/1.2 (50D @ ISO 1600)

You should look into getting Astronomy Tools. It's a set of PS actions that might help you with your halo problems. It's pretty cheap, around $20.

1478
Landscape / Re: Waterscapes
« on: February 26, 2014, 11:48:01 PM »
North Sea, UK sector


Sigma 150-500, at 500mm

Interesting photo. Like the watersports stuff, however, I think it would be best if we could keep the industry off this thread. It was really meant to be waterscapes...landscape photos that are primarily about the water in them, like brooks and creeks and cascades and waterfalls, rivers & lakes with mountain or landscape backdrops, coastlines (lighthouses, docks, and piers are ok), etc.

I was really looking for the artistic side of watery landscapes, not sports and oil rigs. I don't mean to be callous, but there are so many beautiful photos that you guys could be posting, like the one just posted by ckwalker near Galveston, TX. THAT is what this thread is supposed to be about! :P

Seems as if you like being negative.  Maybe that is keeping people from posting waterscapes in your thread?  I'd never post one of mine here, I know it wouldn't be up to your standards!

It isn't a matter of standards, it's a matter of subject. Oil rigs aren't a waterscape. Windsurfers aren't waterscapes. That's all I'm saying. Just trying to keep the thread on topic. No need to be insulting.

Was making an observation, it was hardly an insult.  Not that you are this thin skinned, though.

I can however understand not wanting a shot like this though, I mean...it kind of looks like it would be used in a poltical action type ad against pollution, or promoting the EPA or something. 

Have you shot any waterscapes in the last few weeks or so?

Colorado is still in the heart of winter. Not much in the way of open water these days. I've been focusing my photographer efforts on the deep night sky, so I'm up all night and asleep during the day anyway. A lot of our mountain roads are still in poor shape from the terrible rains we had last Sept, and snows are still quite heavy up there (feet), so I don't venture into the mountains much for any kind of landscape photography these days...probably won't until the snow has melted.

1479
Lenses / Re: Review: Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 Distagon T*
« on: February 26, 2014, 11:45:35 PM »
The thing that really caught my eye in this review was it's wide-open focal plane performance. Not only is it much sharper center frame than any other 50mm, but the corner performance!! HOLY HELL! That truly blows my mind.

1480
Landscape / Re: Waterscapes
« on: February 26, 2014, 10:37:18 PM »
North Sea, UK sector


Sigma 150-500, at 500mm

Interesting photo. Like the watersports stuff, however, I think it would be best if we could keep the industry off this thread. It was really meant to be waterscapes...landscape photos that are primarily about the water in them, like brooks and creeks and cascades and waterfalls, rivers & lakes with mountain or landscape backdrops, coastlines (lighthouses, docks, and piers are ok), etc.

I was really looking for the artistic side of watery landscapes, not sports and oil rigs. I don't mean to be callous, but there are so many beautiful photos that you guys could be posting, like the one just posted by ckwalker near Galveston, TX. THAT is what this thread is supposed to be about! :P

Seems as if you like being negative.  Maybe that is keeping people from posting waterscapes in your thread?  I'd never post one of mine here, I know it wouldn't be up to your standards!

It isn't a matter of standards, it's a matter of subject. Oil rigs aren't a waterscape. Windsurfers aren't waterscapes. That's all I'm saying. Just trying to keep the thread on topic. No need to be insulting.

1481
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D vs. 70D: Which has better image quality?
« on: February 26, 2014, 07:16:01 PM »
It sounded like the op already had the 300mm f/2.8 L and both TCs.

Nope, the "op" I'm refering to is the one asking the question a few posts above, he's just got the Sigma: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19381.msg372844#msg372844

Oh. Well, that wouldn't be the "Original Post" then, as (at least as far as I know), that only refers to the "original" post that started the thread. :P

Given that, there is really no reason to buy another lens...they already have one of the best lens setups they can get. Moving to a 70D from a 7D would indeed help IQ. It is more than just the 2mp. The FWC has been increased by a fairly considerable amount (30%!!), and because of the weaker AA filter (which could pose a problem for close up shots of birds where their feathers are super clear, but I get the feeling the OP won't be getting that close) the overall image will be sharper.

That's about what I wrote, but only before I looked at the iso crop chart and saw how crappy the Sigma really is at 500mm :-o ... but I guess we cannot really say unless someone actually takes some sample shot on both 550d & 70d with this lens.

Oh, yeah. The 150-500 is definitely not great wide open. I'd sell that, and buy the Tamron 150-600 instead. FAR better results, although it still isn't going to be a 300/2.8 L + 2x TC.

If you have to shoot wide open with the 150-500, then it really doesn't matter what camera your using. The lens is so aberration limited at max aperture that your better off stopping down to f/8 for diffraction limited performance.

1482
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: February 26, 2014, 04:47:52 PM »
The day you can say, with complete confidence and clarity, that it's your lens or your camera that are preventing you from achieving the quality you expect, that's the day you should buy the necessary replacement part.

Alternatively, you could just go out and buy top of the line gear, such as a 1D X and 600mm f/4L IS II.  Then you can be certain that only you are preventing you from achieving the quality you expect.   ;)

Yes, well, that is generally my personal approach...however I ran into the limitations of the 7D and 100-400 in about four months. I bought the 600/4 II already. Now it's just a matter of getting the body. I'd get a 1D X, but I already put a bunch of money into astrophotography equipment, so it'll be the 5D III instead. :P

If someone has money to burn, that's certainly my recommendation....however for everyone else...use your gear until you fully understand it, and can properly elucidate WHY it's holding you back. ;)

1483
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the next xD cameras do 4k?
« on: February 26, 2014, 04:45:42 PM »
Your impression of the 5D release schedule is not accurate. There is a nice chart here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_5D) showing the release cycles for all of Canon's DSLR products. As you can see, if they follow the same release cycle they have for the previous 3 iterations of the 5D, we should be seeing a new 5D soon. The 6D and 1D will be coming a bit later, if they follow they release cycles they have been using for the last decade. So, a 5D later this year, and 6D and 1D revisions coming out in the first half of 2015. The 7D is long overdue, and probably the reason for that is the increased importance of video. The 70D likely acted as a stop gap since they would have been aware of the impending video revolution, so the 7D may have been delayed to catch the cusp of that.

Whatever your opinion, if Canon do what they have always been doing, we should see almost all lines undergo a revision in the next 9-12 months.

That chart actually shows almost a 4 year gap between 5D2 and 3. This is basically accurate as the 5D3 was released in the first half of 2012 and the 5D2 was in the middle of 2008. I know this because I owned both from their respective release times. Based on that time line, we won't be seeing a 5D4 until the beginning of 2016. That is not 9-12 months from now. Pretty sure that makes me right, and inevitably, you wrong.

Furthermore, 1-2 years in tech time is pretty huge. The point most of us have been making is that it is not going to happen right now or "soon." Unless you consider "soon" to be 1-2 years from now which would then make it a difference of opinion as to what "soon" actually is.

As I've stated before, I don't think it would necessarily be a stretch to see it in AT LEAST a year which is definitely not "soon" in my book.

Plenty of other outside factors would have to change in order for this to happen (with Canon) in the non-Cinema xD lines.

As others have mentioned, storage is still a major issue. Yes, the necessary cards are already available, but they are nowhere near affordable for the majority of the market which is who will have to be on board before 4k makes it to those lines.

What the chart shows is that they average a three year release cycle for their mid to high end products. Sometimes a bit longer, sometimes a bit shorter, but mostly it is three years. The three year mark for the 5D3 comes up at the end of 2014, which is approximately when rumour has the third DSLR showing up for this year.

What you appear to believe is that Canon will buck their routine upgrade cycle and do nothing because competitors are introducing the next technology, and Canon does not want to impede their commercial success. I disagree with that. I believe that Canon will stick to the formula they have used since their first digital camera was introduced and I believe that they will meet competition by introducing products that can take those competitive products head on. I believe that Canon is in this business to make money, and I do not think that they will see it as being in their best interests to stand aside and watch their competitors take market share while they do nothing. Call me crazy, but doing something like that seems like pretty stupid business practice and I don't believe that Canon are stupid businessmen/women.

SDHC/XC cards currently on the market are quite capable of handling the sorts of storage a 4K camera's compressed file would require. There are 4K cameras being released this year that we already know about that use SDXC cards for storage, so why will this be impossible for Canon to do? The cameras can't do 4K raw, but that is irrelevant since the internal storage is in compressed formats. Uncompressed output from HDMI can be recorded to an external device if you need that, and that technology is already available in current generation cameras. That would not be an impediment to release.

There is no way the 5D III is being replaced this year. Not a chance. It's a SUPERB camera, and the 5D II lasted closer to four years than three. I don't expect to even see CR2 rumors for the 5D IV until next year, and I don't expect it to hit the streets until the end of 2015/early 2016. The 1D X won't be replaced any time soon, either...it's just too good a camera. It would be unwise for Canon to release new models for at least another year and a half (especially considering the 1D X didn't actually hit the streets until the better part of a year after it had been announced.)

There is no hard "schedule" here. Canon has no obligation to release new models on a set schedule. If you want to find a trend out of only three 5D line releases (two time spans), the "trend" is that Canon is increasing the time between releases. It was almost exactly three years between the 5D and 5D III. It was almost three years six months between the 5D II and 5D III. If that "trend" holds true, then we won't be seeing the 5D IV until March 2016 (almost exactly four years since March 2012, when the 5D III actually hit the streets.) That fits exactly in line with what I'd expect, given how good a camera it is. The only improvement I hear people demanding for the 5D III is more DR, but it really just doesn't seem like enough of an upgrade to release the 5D IV. Such an upgrade would have to be more substantial.

Perhaps we get some kind of interim update in 2015...the 5D IIIn....with an improved sensor....maybe.


The comment about the GH4 being the fire that would spur Canon into action and put 4k in all their cameras is what originally spurred the debate. There is no question that 4k is around the corner. How far off that corner is is up for debate...some seem to think were right on top of it, but from a consumer consumption standpoint, it's still a few years off...sometime 2016 at the earliest is when I think people will begin to regularly buy 4k TVs and might start getting 4k computer screens and would then actually be able to utilize the 4k video they are taking with their phones (assuming they ARE taking 4k video...I suspect 1080 and 720 will remain the video choices of consumers for a while yet, due to smaller files, quicker upload times.)

The GH4 is not going to spur Canon into action. That's been the debate in this thread for some time, and I completely agree with John here. Canon just isn't threatened by Panasonic. They aren't even really threatened by Nikon, who is their largest competitor by market share! Canon will do what Canon does on Canon's timetable. For those who don't like that, you might as well pick up a 4k "camera" from some other manufacturer, because Canon won't make a broad move into 4k until they are sure to make a boatload off of the feature.

As far as high end DSLRs go, Canon may bring 4k to the 1D X an 5D III via firmware. Their sensors are high enough resolution, and for standard cinematic frame rates, they have enough bandwidth for compressed 4k. When it comes to RAW 4k, I really do not expect to see that from any lower end Canon DSLR that currently exists, and I suspect it will end up being relegated to Cinema EOS and Magic Lantern. But as others have already mentioned, to handle RAW 4k, you need significantly greater storage throughput, so that is unlikely to happen until the next generation of high end DSLRs. I figure there is a 50/50 chance the 7D II will get it...depends on whether the rumor about it being more video-heavy are true or not.

If you follow what is happening among their camcorders and not just DSLRs, it is quite clear that there was an abrupt change of direction in the first half of 2013. They released the G20, and then a few months later the G30, which was almost the same camera as the HA20/25. The release cycle should have been the G20 in 2013, with advanced features in the HA20/25 in 2013 as well. Then, in 2014 the innards of the HA20/25 would trickle down to the enthusiast consumer in the form of the G30. But instead the G30 came out in 2013, mere months after the G20. That does not make sense, the only reasonable explanation is that their development cycle for 4K was accelerated in response to probable competition from Sony and Panasonic, so the G30 was sent to market early to recover investment (since it was not going to sell when competing against camcorders like the AX100)

You can't just look at DSLRs in isolation, you have to look at in the context of what is happening in the broader video market since that is going to have a big impact on the design and type of DSLRs being released.

You've switched to an entirely different market now. Camcorders ARE VIDEO DEVICES. The expectation for a video device in a video market getting 4k capability is far higher than the expectation for photography devices in a photography market that happen to also have video features to get 4k capabilities. DSLRs are still first and foremost still photography devices. There may be some broader market concerns, but to say that all Canon DSLRs should suddenly get 4k capabilities because Canon's camcorders did? Well, that is applying FAR too much weight to the video capabilities of Canon's photography devices. It's an added bonus, but the very vast majority of DSLR users use their cameras for photography. There are some specific models that have a history of use as low-end cinematography equipment, namely the 5D II and III, but that is kind of a niche use, and the 5D II was somewhat unique in that it brought a FF sensor capable of shooting video with high quality lenses to a market segment that was desperate for such an offering. Today, that isn't so much the case, there is heavy competition in the midrange 2k and 4k cinema market, and prices are becoming more and more reasonable.

As for what a "reasonable" expectation is, it really depends. What did Canon announce when they released the G30? From what I've read, the G20 and G30 are pretty different cameras. The former has a higher resolution sensor, the latter has twice the zoom range on the lens. They definitely don't sound like the same camera to me, so the fact that they both exist in the market at the same time indicates the G30 is not so much a successor as an alternative.

1484
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D vs. 70D: Which has better image quality?
« on: February 26, 2014, 03:55:53 PM »
By increasing sensor or lens resolution, regardless of which one is doing better, will still increase output resolution. (And we are still quite far away from diminishing returns yet, so increasing sensor resolution is still the cheapest way to increase output resolution.)

I admit I don't understand what you're saying, paying €1100 for 2mp has to have big effect, or it sounds like diminishing return to me. But I understand you're saying this body upgrade will have make an actually visible difference on the long end of the said Sigma lens? Well, in that case I admit I have to take back my recommendation to get a better lens instead and the op should go ahead and confidently buy a 70d, sorry.

It sounded like the op already had the 300mm f/2.8 L and both TCs. Given that, there is really no reason to buy another lens...they already have one of the best lens setups they can get. Moving to a 70D from a 7D would indeed help IQ. It is more than just the 2mp. The FWC has been increased by a fairly considerable amount (30%!!), and because of the weaker AA filter (which could pose a problem for close up shots of birds where their feathers are super clear, but I get the feeling the OP won't be getting that close) the overall image will be sharper. Noise is at it's worst with soft detail. When detail is sharper, noise becomes harder to differentiate from real detail, so from a PERCEPTUAL standpoint, it doesn't appear as bad (even though in statistical terms, it may be just as bad or worse.)

So yes, I really do believe the OP could see an IQ improvement by moving to the 70D from the 7D. It doesn't sound like much, but there are several improvements with the 70D that should make it worth it.

As for the comment about there not being any good inexpensive 400-500mm zooms, I beg to differ. The Tamron 150-600mm has been tested and demonstrated to be quite good for it's class.

Indeed, this lens is so recent I didn't even know it - thanks for the information, last time I looked everything above -400mm zooms was either not affordable or crappy.

AlanF did a review here on the forums, and along with official testing elsewhere, it sounds like the lens is quite good for it's class: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19503.0

Still, if the OP already has the 300/2.8 L and TCs, then I see no reason to move to a different lens...he already has some of the best, period.

1485
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: February 26, 2014, 03:07:26 PM »
Hi Jack.
I'm here to try to learn, thought my problem was my camera, then people post beautiful pictures using he 7D so now I think it might be my lens, Sigma 150-500, anyone got any really good pics from one of these to prove it is me not the gear!  ::) ;D

Ferris, how did you even get the 2400mm effective lens to stop quivering as your heart beat while you tried to frame it, (I'm guessing it's not hand held) come to that how did you know where to point it in the first place, must have been a fair way away almost out of sight? Beautiful pic none the less. It would seem the 7D is capable of great pictures in the right hands, I'm not for one moment suggesting the camera made the shot, if that was the case I'd have pics like that too! 

Like Mackguyver said lots of great pics from everyone else too.

Cheers Graham.



My usual suggestion so that we're not just looking at pretty pictures we could see virtually anywhere, please add interesting/useful information such as the lens used etc. ;)  I think most of us are here to learn how we might improve.

Great shots everyone.

Jack

Here is the simplest bit of advice I can offer. If you don't know how to tell if it is your equipment that is your problem, then it is not the equipment (yet). The day when you are 100% absolutely certain that your lens or your camera body is holding you back, then, and only then, should you upgrade.

There are certain aspects of a lens like the Sigma 150-500, or the 7D, that will diminish the quality of your images compared to better equipment. However you should be able to elucidate exactly how and why your equipment is diminishing the quality of your work before you start looking for more expensive gear. Even with a 150-500 and 7D, once you have the skill, you should be able to make some great photographs.

They may not adhere to all the little nuances of your artistic goals, the backgrounds may not be blurry enough or things may just not be sharp enough when viewed larger on a screen...but overall, for the kinds of smaller sizes and crops we usually post online, your current equipment should serve you quite well once you have a good handle on how to properly use it.

The day you can say, with complete confidence and clarity, that it's your lens or your camera that are preventing you from achieving the quality you expect, that's the day you should buy the necessary replacement part.

Pages: 1 ... 97 98 [99] 100 101 ... 298