September 22, 2014, 06:32:50 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 ... 100 101 [102] 103 104 ... 305
1516
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Replacement Mentioned Again [CR1]
« on: March 13, 2014, 01:09:46 AM »
Oooh ... Nessie's been sighted again? Great!
... and ... it will be photographed with a 7D2  ;D
I tried photographing Nessie in 2010 with my 7D but due to low light conditions & limited ISO capability I couldn't capture it ... but the better specd 7D MK II should be able to capture it ;D

That'll be one for Guinness! To photograph Nessie with Nessie! You'll have finally solved the chicken and the egg problem. ;-P

1517
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Replacement Mentioned Again [CR1]
« on: March 12, 2014, 10:36:37 PM »
For me, it's all about pixel density. I have 20/10 vision..I can CLEARLY see the pixels. It's utterly horrid..

I'm at 20/15 w-o correction, and I can see the pixels in my EVF too if I want to concentrate on that.  But it doesn't bother me since I don't expect it to look exactly like an OVF. There's enough information density to be useful for what it is, a composition tool with a rich amount of camera data added.  I don't need to color-proof with it, don't care if it has other limitations you've described, as long as it's fast, responsive, works well in low light and provides the information I need to perform the function it's supposed to.
It does that just fine, and it's even better than an OVF when it comes to low light.  I don't mind a little noise in my low light EVF image when it allows me to see more detail than I could looking thru an OVF.
So, if today's EVFs don't appeal to you, tomorrow's might.
One of the other benefits is I get from an EVF is a much better idea of how a stopped down image will look because I'm seeing it without the effect of a focus screen in an OVF that interferes with how the image actually looks for in-focus to OOF transition areas.

Either way, good EVFs won't prevent you from using them for what they are there for, to compose the shot.  Even the very low rez EVF in my old Panasonic FZ-20 was useful and still truckloads better than trying to compose using the rear display in sunlight.
I have an EVF on my SX-50. It is low res and you can see the pixels.... there is considerable lag. Then look at the EVF on the Olympus u4/3 cameras... It is a world better! /not as good as optical, but getting close. We are very close to hitting the resolution where it is beyond what the eye can see... anyone want to bet that the prototypes in the labs are past that level yet?

This is like the film/digital debate. When digital first came out, the quality was garbage. Over time, the positions reversed themselves. Digital now is far superior to film of the 1990's, but that comparison is meaningless because in that period the quality of lenses has taken a huge jump forward and so have AF systems... in other words, film images shot today WITH THE EXACT SAME FILM are better than film images shot in the 1990's.

The point being, componentry does not exist in a vaccumn... it is affected by all the other facets of the camera.
EVF's are getting better, but many of the improvements are the result of system changes. For example, what kind of dynamic range can you show on an EVF? Improvements in sensor dynamic range have a big impact here...If you have an EVF that can show 10 stops of dynamic range, it will look a lot better maping a 14 stop sensor onto it than it would maping a 6 stop sensor...

Lag time has gone from annoying to you have to look hard to notice it.... how far away is unnoticeable?

EVF's are coming. Is the time now? None of us know. We will not know until it gets released. In the meantime we speculate and discuss.

I've said this before, but, to be smaller than the eye can see at 20/10 vision, you would need 12,000ppi. Yes, twelve THOUSAND pixel per inch. The best these days are around 2800ppi? Shy of three thousand per inch. The problem with 12000ppi is that the pixels are so small that they filter out red light.

So, they may be working on the next generation, but there is absolutely no way they are ever even going to be CAPABLE of creating pixels in an EVF that sits at less than 1" eye relief small enough to never be seen by people with good vision. Hence my argument that with EVFs, people with good vision get shafted.

At some point, maybe around 8000ppi, it will be good enough that I can handle it. But at 2800ppi, it isn't even remotely close (and 2800ppi is for the GOOD EVFs of today.)

If the 7D II gets a hybrid, where I have total control over when the OVF is used, then I'd be happy. If it end up getting some kind of hybrid where you do not have control over when your in OVF mode and when your in EVF mode, I'd be pretty ticked (and I'd just stick with getting a 5D III, and skip the 7D II altogether.)

1518
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Replacement Mentioned Again [CR1]
« on: March 12, 2014, 01:27:58 AM »
And even then...it would require an EVF to function entirely properly...and EVFs have just as long a way to come before they can really be viable replacements for OVFs...

I'd say today's better EVF's are already more than adequate.
My pretty new Fuji XT1's EVF is a pleasure to use, more than adequate resolution and the high frame rate greatly reduces the lag compared to the older Xe bodies.
Combine that with the great low-light gain-up ability Canon's have and these things already see better in the dark than we do.
One more development iteration and OVF has serious competition.

the only thing I don't like about it...
I keep bringing the camera up to my eye to frame a possible shot and have to remember to turn it ON first... (I'm always in battery conservation mode)
And that's still the 2nd shortcoming... using an EVF still eats a lot of power.  I see this being a major consideration when I'm in the wilds for a few days.

For me, it's all about pixel density. I have 20/10 vision with my contacts in. For all the EVF's I've tried, I can CLEARLY see the pixels. It's utterly horrid, IMO, and not a single EVF, even sony's best, has ever even remotely compared to an OVF for me. And that's just one of the problems. They all seem to have relatively low color fidelity...they can't finely differentiate colors, as if they are low bit depth (probably are, in order to handle the refresh rates). They always seem to have a bit of posterization as you transition from highlights to shadows, especially when the transition is more abrupt than gradual.

IMO, these things are 100% entirely unacceptable. I guess most people don't see them, like most people don't see the pixels in an Apple Retina screen (Apple's Retina is NOT high enough resolution for someone with 20/18 vision, let alone 20/10...although some of Samsung's latest screens are finally getting there.)

EVFs have a long way to go before they can be acceptable to the broadest market. People with normal or less than normal vision are probably fine, as they apparently cannot see pixels all that much. But the number of people with better than normal vision combined with the number of people who have corrective lenses (like myself) that give them better than normal vision are currently getting shafted by the underlying poorer quality of EVFs.

1519
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Replacement Mentioned Again [CR1]
« on: March 12, 2014, 01:23:40 AM »
I also hope it gets full 5Dmk3 AF
I'd be disappointed if it did.... I'm hoping to see the emergence of a new AF system that will set the standard for years to come...

If the improvements were incremental changes, it would have been out by now. The delays could mean something completely different.

You mean set a standard higher than the 61pt AF system? I think that one will be hard to beat. I've never seen an AF system lock on so fast, consistently, and easily as Canon'a 61pt AF system. What exactly would you improve in it? It certainly isn't broken, and certainly isn't something to be disappointed about if it found it's way into the 7D II.

When it comes to DPAF, that is an entirely different kind of AF for an entirely different purpose. As someone who uses PDAF for the very vast majority of his photography, I don't see DPAF taking over any time soon. While it is certainly cool technology, it's really just the beginning of the leg up that mirrorless needs to BEGIN to compete with what PDAF units currently offer. I think its going to be a few iterations, especially the one where it becomes QPAF, before we see sensor-based AF reaching the level of consistency, speed, and performance of PDAF.

And even then...it would require an EVF to function entirely properly...and EVFs have just as long a way to come before they can really be viable replacements for OVFs...

If the 7D II gets the 61pt AF system, I'd personally be ecstatic!

A 62pt AF system would be vastly superior.
To my mind, the biggest advantage Canon has is the AF system in it's higher end models.... the 5D3 system is certainly nothing to be sneezed at... but think about how it could be improved... Think about recognizing a bird and tracking it through trees! I have a p/s that can recognize and differentiate between a cat and a dog.... surely a DSLR with two higher end processors can do better? The 7D2 might be the camera that takes AF to the next level... and what about linking exposure to focus points? What about using the split pixels to vastly improve DR?

There are a lot of things that could happen and I eagerly await to see which ones they give us.... It should be an interesting release... certainly more than a mode dial that goes all the way around. :)

When it comes to locking onto and tracking subjects through trees, I do that now with my old 7D and its 19pt AF system. Achieving that is largely a matter of tuning the AF system...getting the right tracking jump rate and using the right point size. The 61pt AF system is far more capable than the 7Ds, and tracking through trees has not generally been a problem for me. Locking on can be tricky, however the 1D X with it's subject identification capabilities using the new metering sensor handles it pretty well. The 1D X also locks onto animal faces...it seems to recognize the general shape of a face, even if it isn't human, and is even capable of doing it in profile.

These kinds of things aren't new, and aren't limited you your P&S. Now, there has always been the metering/AF split between the 1D line and everything else. The advanced integrated meter has always been a "premium" feature. That's a canon thing...they may or may not ever change that, but that is certainly not a limitation of the hardware.

Regarding linking "exposure" to focus points...do you mean link metering to AF points? Again, that's been done, it isn't new technology, it's just one of those things Canon relegates to the 1D line. Otherwise, I don't know what you mean by linking exposure to focus points.

As for split pixels improving DR...I don't believe that is possible. Those pixels receive the same amount of light. Split or a single pixel, the amount of light is the same. Now, assuming you are thinking "read one at ISO 100, the other at ISO 800". That isn't really going to help. It's HALF a pixel. For both ISOs, if you only read half of each pixel at a given ISO, then your halving the signal strength. Noise is the SQRT of the signal, so noise will jump considerably.

For example, at FWC ISO 100 on the 70D you get 26726e-, but at half the pixel, you would only get 13363e-. Your noise at 26726 is 163.5e-, and at 13363 it's 115.6e-. Your signal was halved, but your noise as a ratio of the signal only dropped by 30%. Your ISO 100 "half" image is 41% noisier than if you had used the full pixels. Similarly, at ISO 800 your saturation point is 4055e-. Half that you get 2027.5e-. Noise wise, you have 63.7e- at max saturation, and 45e- with a half pixel. Noise as a ratio of the signal dropped by 30%, but your half-pixel ISO 800 image is once again 41% noisier than if you had used full pixels. It would basically be like using ISO 200 instead of ISO 100, or ISO 1600 instead of ISO 800.

This is just referring to the noise intrinsic to the signal...it has nothing to do with read noise.  So, assuming you can use this to reduce the impact of read noise on dynamic range...well, you've considerably increased noise levels by only reading half a pixel...so your probably going to end up with a net...nothing. No gain, no real loss. Maybe you get "cleaner" noise, but dual pixel designs aren't going to be the magic bullet for increasing Canon sensor DR.

1520
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Replacement Mentioned Again [CR1]
« on: March 12, 2014, 12:23:54 AM »
I also hope it gets full 5Dmk3 AF
I'd be disappointed if it did.... I'm hoping to see the emergence of a new AF system that will set the standard for years to come...

If the improvements were incremental changes, it would have been out by now. The delays could mean something completely different.

You mean set a standard higher than the 61pt AF system? I think that one will be hard to beat. I've never seen an AF system lock on so fast, consistently, and easily as Canon'a 61pt AF system. What exactly would you improve in it? It certainly isn't broken, and certainly isn't something to be disappointed about if it found it's way into the 7D II.

When it comes to DPAF, that is an entirely different kind of AF for an entirely different purpose. As someone who uses PDAF for the very vast majority of his photography, I don't see DPAF taking over any time soon. While it is certainly cool technology, it's really just the beginning of the leg up that mirrorless needs to BEGIN to compete with what PDAF units currently offer. I think its going to be a few iterations, especially the one where it becomes QPAF, before we see sensor-based AF reaching the level of consistency, speed, and performance of PDAF.

And even then...it would require an EVF to function entirely properly...and EVFs have just as long a way to come before they can really be viable replacements for OVFs...

If the 7D II gets the 61pt AF system, I'd personally be ecstatic!

1521
Reviews / Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« on: March 11, 2014, 11:48:43 PM »
You mean Whinnie the Pooh was He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named  ???     ?

BOY I am gonna get me one of those Zeiss Otus 58 1.4s !! Have you seen what that lens has done for his photography ?

Who said "gear doesn't matter" ?  :-X

You guys do realize he used the name Nalle Puh on multiple occasions previously, right?

And I agree, the Otus was like his "yellow sun"...it supercharged his photography.

1522
Reviews / Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« on: March 11, 2014, 11:43:36 PM »
[Wonderful...the cat is out of the bag, and you know what they say about herding cats...

This is what they say about cat herding....

LOL :D

1523
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Replacement Mentioned Again [CR1]
« on: March 11, 2014, 11:09:10 PM »
I have been thinking about this lately and am going to make a controversial prediction:

I believe the 7DII will have the highest resolution of any Canon DSLR and I think it is entirely possible that future APS-C bodies may actually end up with more resolution than high-end full frame DSLRs.

Reasoning: The strength of the APS-C format (in addition to cost) is the perceived extra "reach" of the 1.6 crop factor. Crop sensors will never match the high ISO performance or dynamic range of a full frame sensor. But, what Canon demonstrated with the 70D is that they could increase the resolution of the sensor without sacrificing ISO performance or dynamic range.

The higher resolution 70D sensor performs at least as well as the 7D sensor in these areas. And, some argue it actually performs slightly better.

I am fully aware of the argument that a full frame sensor can be cropped to the same framing as an APS-C sensor without losing much perceived resolution.

But, that argument breaks down in cases where the photographer is distance limited and must crop the crop, so to speak. I'll leave the math to those who are more adept than I am, but just point out that a 24mp APS-C sensor can have half of its pixels cropped out and still produce a 12mp image.

Focusing on higher resolution at the top end of the APS-C line allows manufacturers to better differentiate the two formats for enthusiasts and professionals. Both formats function just fine for general purposes, but if you want to shoot under the most challenging lighting situations, full frame is the better bet. If you are a portrait or studio photographer shooting under controlled conditions, the larger format is better.

But, if you are a nature photographer or a sports photographer and you need to reach as deeply into the scene as possible without getting eaten by a bear, drowned chasing waterfowl or crushed by a 250 lb player, and need to do it at 8-12 fps, then you need a high-resolution, high performance crop frame camera that has sufficient headroom for you to crop even further when necessary.

I've long said Canon and Nikon don't want to convert everyone to full frame, they want instead to sell everyone two bodies. One way to do that is to play to the strengths of each format and differentiate them at the high end.

We all know that the worldwide camera market is struggling. Nikon and Canon need to find ways to increase their sales. It's far easier to get an existing customer to buy more than it is to find a new customer. Differentiating the two DSLR formats offers the hope of greatly expanding sales using the existing base of customers.

Makes sense to me....

Give me a 25-30 megapixel crop camera for more pixels on target and give me a 16-20 megapixel FF camera for 3 stops better ISO performance... I would rather have two good tools than one mediocre general purpose tool.

Agreed!

1524
Reviews / Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« on: March 11, 2014, 08:28:26 AM »
It is so interesting to see all the excuses.
One company has  lower DXO scores due inferior read out and higher noise, less QE , lighter CFA . less good electronic  signal chain = older  sensor tech  that was at the peak 10 years ago  and before other companies start to make cmos sensors.
Now some people here  are busy with trying to trivialize measurements as DR, low read out noise, high color resolution because Canon can not keep up in the sensor development with others.
And that is what DXO shows today
There we go ::)



Given the antagonistic writing style and that the member/posts have been removed I guess the serial pest that shall not be named has been back again lol  Good efficient work mods!

Aye. He's been around for a while...he just kept his mouth shut until now. Wonderful...the cat is out of the bag, and you know what they say about herding cats...

1525
Reviews / Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« on: March 10, 2014, 02:30:12 PM »
Why the DxO bashing?

The bashing are performed by insecure  brand owners.
here are all details about DXO meassurements regarding sensors

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/DxOMark-Camera-Sensor2/DxOMark-Score

Interesting reading.  You may notice that the article's author, Peter van den Hamer, goes on to describe some of the problems with DxO's sensor analyses, such as the low ISO bias of the sensor score (one reason I call them Biased Scores = BS), the fact that measuring color depth (i.e. chroma noise) at low ISO is basically meaningless (and yet it's a major factor in the Sensor Score), their confusing nomenclature for the subscores (e.g. Sports Score), etc.

He also takes issue with DxO's refusal to divulge the way they calculate the overall score.  He has come up with an approximation which he suggests is usually to accurate to within 1-2 points: DxOMark_Sensor_Score = 59 + 4.3*(ColorDepth-21.1) + 3.4*(DynamicRange-11.3) + 4.4*log2(ISO/663) -0.2.  He also states, "My guess is that the actual formula is non-linear and may use (under some conditions) coefficients of 5/5/5 rather than 4.3/3.4/4.4."  His suggestion that the 'master formula' which DxO uses may be modified under some conditions further supports the claim that DxO's scoring is biased.

Couldn't have said it better. They are biased. That's the problem. Has nothing to do with the brand affinity of the readers (well, not this one, anyway).

1526
Reviews / Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« on: March 10, 2014, 05:20:29 AM »
JRista and Neuro -- does any other opinion really matter on this topic?

How do both of you measure performance of lenses & sensors?

As for DxO the comment that there lens measurements are not that great they should be straight forwards. MTF readings if the same device is used don't recognise a manufacturer just a reading. On a projector the graticule is the same and its straight forwards seeing lateral aberrations / colour fringing etc, pin cushioning / barrel distortions etc. and whether the lens has even field illumination.

I measure what I own by the quality of my results, especially when I've reach the point where I am pushing the limits of my equipment. It's at the limits when you truly and fully understand the quality of something.

I gauge the presumed quality of what I intend to buy by absorbing and discerning every potential scrap of information on said intention from every possible source man has devised. ;) Never base your decisions on a single source, that'll just get you into trouble. Use as many sources of information as you can find, and always keep a critical eye on the details (especially the hidden ones.) Don't take anything for granted, be skeptical until you see actual evidence for any argument or conclusion offered by a reviewer. (The Digital Picture reviews are an excellent resource, he is a great reviewer, and he always offers both subjective as well as objective data to back up his claims.)

It helps to have at least a basic theoretical understanding of cameras and lenses as well. There are limits to how useful your average lens test can be, regardless of who does it, because output resolution (the measurable resolution of images used to gauge the performance of each lens) is limited by the lowest common denominator...these days, that is usually the sensor. Many lenses are capable of resolving FAR more detail at faster diffraction-limited apertures than you might otherwise glean from the average lens review, because the upper bound on resolution is the sensor. There is no such thing as lenses outresolving sensors or sensors outresolving lenses...the two work in concert to produce a photograph, and the resolution of the photograph is the RMS of the resolutions of the lens+sensor. Increase the resolution of either, output resolution increases...however increase the resolution of the least capable, and output resolution will benefit most. IF your sensor can only resolve 50lp/mm, it doesn't matter how good the lens is....120lp/mm, 170lp/mm, 250lp/mm...your standard lens test will always show the "lens" resolution is less than 50lp/mm. Because it's sensor bound! If there was anything to know about lens reviews, that would be it.

In the end, the technical specifications are really, ultimately, not nearly as important as reviewers often make it seem. Photography equipment today is so vastly superior to nearly everything we had in the past (with the possible exception of large format film digitized with high end, high resolution drum scanners), we are utterly spoiled by the highly accessible and easily usable equipment often available at our fingertips on a moment's notice.

Here is another approach. If you cannot entirely describe in both technical and artistic terms exactly why any given piece of your current equipment is holding you back, then your not ready to move to the next level. When you know your equipment backwards and forwards, and fully understand every advantage and disadvantage, every pro and con, and can clearly define your NEED for something more...then and only then should you upgrade, but at that point you should have the skill to filter the useless technical jargon from the useful technical gems. When you can clearly articulate your need for larger pixels or a larger frame/FOV or thinner DOF, then you have a clear reason to upgrade. If you don't know why larger pixels are better, you might find it useful to push your skill with smaller pixels or a smaller sensor until you see how and why they may be holding you back. (Sometimes that realization can't be realized in a box...it's often helpful to compare your art to others art, especially the art of those that inspire you...ARTISTIC comparisons can often help you glean a deeper understanding of WHY one technical tidbit or another has value.)

It's pretty rare that the minute technical details that organizations like DXO putter around with actually have any real meaning to people's ART. It may have meaning to some people's addiction to collecting the most advanced technological gadgetry known to man...but when it comes to art, there are millions that make do just well, hell far more than "well", with lowly little devices like a Canon 350D. Art is the expression of what you see in your head. Technology sometimes makes it easier to realize that vision, but when it comes to digital, more often than not, more important than the hardware is the software, and more important than the software is how you use it. Just go digging through 500px sometime. The volume and quality of works with 90+ ratings made with equipment many of us today would label "UTTER CRAP" is astonishing. It's how you use what you have, not necessarily what you have.

Technology is not the artist, it's just the brush. Don't get too wrapped up in the technology. Sometimes you just need a lens and a camera, and to let you ideas flow.

1527
Lenses / Re: Canon 600mm f4 IS II Vs Canon 200-400mm w/1.4x TC
« on: March 08, 2014, 12:38:33 PM »
I would purchase the 200-400 simply because I like the flexibility of zoom. It woul be a wonderful addition on my 70-200

I zoom with my feet. ;-)

I chose the 600 II when I bought a big lens. Would make the same choice today, especially given that it is just as good as the EF 800 f/5.6 with the 1.4x TC attached (840mm f/5.6) and has the option to use the 2x TC for 1200mm f/8.
If I had the money, I'd go with the 600II as well. It seems like you never have a long enough lens....

You can zoom with your feet, but many time you can't because of terrain, water, or common sense (a 24mm lens and a grizzly bear are not a good combination). For those cases you either need a long lens or a bear-proof suit.
https://www.nfb.ca/film/project_grizzly/

Indeed. I zoom with my feet while using one of Canon's longest lenses. The longest, when you factor in the 2x TC. My point was that there is no reason to get the 200-400, the 600 is longer in every case, and still just as flexible because, well, you can "zoom" with your feet. ;)

1528
Reviews / Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« on: March 08, 2014, 02:35:27 AM »
I'm unsure if this deserves a new topic, so I will post this here.

I was just casually looking through my Facebook feed and saw a new DxO Mark post. It compares the Sony Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* FE 24-70mm F4 ZA OSS to the Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM and the Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED (link).

I've noticed a few times that certain lens scores do not match up with the actual sub ratings they receive. This latest post takes that a step further. The Sony lens receives a higher score than the Canon, yet in the sub-ratings (sharpness, transmission, etc), the Canon beats it in every category.

Being a trio of zoom lenses though, the rating varies also by focal length (plus of course aperture). DxO Mark's data however also only proves that the Canon copes throughout its range better than the other two. Notice the Canon's graph has less a smaller red zone than the other two here.

Does anyone know what's going on here?

Edit: I also just noticed the Nikon has 1 point more than the Canon, even though it also has a worse score in every measurement!

DXO "scores" should be ignored. DXO scoring is weighted, and how they weight (especially for lenses) is difficult to discern or else completely unknown. It seems rather clear that they have certain brand affinities and brand aversions. DXO seems very averse to Canon, despite the fact that, as you say, their lens measures clearly show that Canon lenses perform exceptionally well and should technically "score" higher.

The general rule of thumb with DXO is to simply ignore the scores, and read the measurements. There is still some danger in that, however, as not all their measurements are actually measured. Many are derived mathematically from actual measures, which implies a certain amount of assumption goes into many of DXO's measurements...an assumption of ideal behavior (which, for anyone familiar with reality, is rarely ever ideal.)

Two key "measures" you should steer clear from are the T-stops for lenses (the way it is used, it rates lenses by absolute transmission, and does not normalize the results for comparison...hence the reason a 50mm f/1.8 beats a 600mm f/4, despite the fact that the latter is a vastly superior lens.) The other is Print DR for sensors, as even though it is called a measure, it is not. It is a weighted derivation based on the actual underlying DR measurement: Screen DR.

Last, beware that DXO has been known to change their scoring mechanisms behind the scenes without being clear why, when, or how...so sometimes information changes without prior disclosure, and god only knows why.

DXO information needs to be taken with a healthy dose of salt. It isn't always reliable.

1529
Lenses / Re: Canon 600mm f4 IS II Vs Canon 200-400mm w/1.4x TC
« on: March 07, 2014, 09:42:00 PM »
The point I am making is that I believe the 2 canons are the best but the tamron is very close behind and will give you undiferentiaded results under most conditions so anyone on a budget should take a good look at it.

The Tamron is better in the center compared to the 100-400+1.4x. It is similar, but with different aberrations, midframe. The only place it really performs more poorly than the Canon 100-400 is the corner. And arguably, the center is the most important place in a lens like this for the primary target audience (i.e. birders/wildlifers w/ 7D|70D.)

For the price, the Tamron is an excellent lens, and I honestly think Canon will have a tough time competing with it with the current 100-400mm lens. Once Canon releases a 100-400mm II, then I think things might shift a bit back towards the 100-400mm lens being the better performer (albeit at a shorter focal length.)

1530
Lenses / Re: Canon 600mm f4 IS II Vs Canon 200-400mm w/1.4x TC
« on: March 07, 2014, 09:32:06 PM »
I would purchase the 200-400 simply because I like the flexibility of zoom. It woul be a wonderful addition on my 70-200

I zoom with my feet. ;-)

I chose the 600 II when I bought a big lens. Would make the same choice today, especially given that it is just as good as the EF 800 f/5.6 with the 1.4x TC attached (840mm f/5.6) and has the option to use the 2x TC for 1200mm f/8.

Pages: 1 ... 100 101 [102] 103 104 ... 305