61
Lenses / Re: 300 f/2.8L and 400 f/2.8 at f/2.8
« on: April 15, 2013, 12:22:33 PM »
Thanks.
I have both version ONE lenses.
I have both version ONE lenses.
May 18, 2013, 10:45:26 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.
62
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: April 15, 2013, 12:21:10 PM »I wouldn't say "poor". May be the OOF sand at the bottom and a bit on the left - to get rid of the bright reflection near the left edge - upper middle part of the picture. Unfortunately the cone is in exactly the "wrong" spot. So as he comes down his behind may have an unwanted appendage. Did you get one of him landing? Sand flying would add motion to the picture.Oh no Crapking, you have to do golf too? It's my least favorite.Lovely shot. How far we're you from the athlete?
Here's a track one with 300 f/2.8L I IS:
Thanks rpt. I was about 30 yards out. I couldn't get any closer. I think I did a poor job of cropping though.
Thanks rpt. Yes sometimes in sports the composition issue can get frustrating. Well, the fact is, I didn't want to be where I was but that's where the officials told me I could go. And not to mention the sun was above and behind the jumper. Yes that cone is annoying. Luckily, I used burst mode on the 1Dx and have the full range of the jumper, which I didn't realize until last night.
Welcome back gary!
63
Lenses / Re: Which supertele?
« on: April 14, 2013, 11:30:07 PM »
I found at least for soccer and football the improvements in the 1DX sensor outweighed the resolution loss. Wildlife is another deal though, as I'm not familiar with focal lengths of 500 and 600mm.
64
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: April 14, 2013, 09:21:24 PM »Oh no Crapking, you have to do golf too? It's my least favorite.Lovely shot. How far we're you from the athlete?
Here's a track one with 300 f/2.8L I IS:
Thanks rpt. I was about 30 yards out. I couldn't get any closer. I think I did a poor job of cropping though.
65
Lenses / Re: Which supertele?
« on: April 14, 2013, 08:08:57 PM »
If it makes you feel any better, the 1DX file cropped to the same FOV as the 1D4 file has higher IQ. You don't lose any reach really, if you shoot RAW.
66
Lenses / Re: 300 f/2.8L and 400 f/2.8 at f/2.8
« on: April 14, 2013, 01:29:06 PM »
So here's another problem. If the subject is coming towards you, and Servo mode can't keep up with that shallow DOF for the 400 lens at f/2.8, the runner will move right out of the focal plane. This is something else I was considering regarding technique.
67
Lenses / Re: 300 f/2.8L and 400 f/2.8 at f/2.8
« on: April 14, 2013, 01:27:09 PM »
Thanks guys!
I will meticulously go through what I've been doing with your ideas in mind.
And holy crap regarding the DOF! See I knew somebody would know this. Thanks.
I will meticulously go through what I've been doing with your ideas in mind.
And holy crap regarding the DOF! See I knew somebody would know this. Thanks.
68
Lenses / Re: 300 f/2.8L and 400 f/2.8 at f/2.8
« on: April 14, 2013, 12:41:22 PM »
Jack,
I will get to your points shortly. I wanted to demonstrate when the 400 does get it right, as in Photo 1, triple jump and when it doesn't as in Photo 2, the Women's 1500m run.
I will get to your points shortly. I wanted to demonstrate when the 400 does get it right, as in Photo 1, triple jump and when it doesn't as in Photo 2, the Women's 1500m run.
69
Lenses / Re: 300 f/2.8L and 400 f/2.8 at f/2.8
« on: April 14, 2013, 12:40:10 PM »Could the AFMA be off on the 400?
No, I tested it. That was my first thought, and so I shot a golf tournament and hit just about 900 out of 900 razor sharp with the lens. Usually with AFMA you get a random distribution of OOF and in-focus shots regardless of what you are shooting. Thanks.
70
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: April 14, 2013, 12:15:52 PM »
Oh no Crapking, you have to do golf too? It's my least favorite.
Here's a track one with 300 f/2.8L I IS:
Here's a track one with 300 f/2.8L I IS:
71
Lenses / 300 f/2.8L and 400 f/2.8 at f/2.8
« on: April 14, 2013, 11:11:40 AM »
I have a technical question to ask the forum. I already have some ideas on what is going on, but I don't really know for sure and wanted to ask, since many of you are so knowledgeable. In advance, thanks.
I tested my 300 f/2.8L I IS vs. my 400 f/2.8L I IS yesterday at a track meet. I felt that I had more OOF shots with my 400 and wanted to see if that was really true or not. So I set up at the end of the back straightaway, and shot runners running towards me (from curve up to about 20-30 yards away from me). I set the lenses both to f/2.8.
I shot with the 300 and the hit rate was unbelieveable. The faces were razor sharp almost everytime. My settings were 1/5000, f/2.8, auto ISO. I was in Servo mode on a 1DX.
I then shot the same settings and the hit rate was much less with the 400. A lot of the focus was missed (can see another area in focus just slightly to the right or left on another runner) or the faces were just soft and there was no real apparent focal point anywhere in the photo. However, it did hit a lot of photos, and again, those were incredibly sharp.
I did realize of course that with the 300 the runners are closer to me when I fire the shutter, vs. the 400, which could matter.
Is DOF (f/2.8 is pretty thin) more difficult to manage at longer focal lengths? Remember up until this year I had only used a 300 for sports and didn't buy the 400 until last July. Is IS more of an issue, even at 1/5000? Does the lens focus slower or not as accurately as the 300? I was thinking it's not AFMA since when I shoot golf with it I never have any OOF shots, ever. Of course they are not moving much in golf, so I'm afraid the track problem could be my bad technique with the 400.
Just thought I'd ask since of course as you can imagine, it's sort of frustrating. Thanks a lot!
I tested my 300 f/2.8L I IS vs. my 400 f/2.8L I IS yesterday at a track meet. I felt that I had more OOF shots with my 400 and wanted to see if that was really true or not. So I set up at the end of the back straightaway, and shot runners running towards me (from curve up to about 20-30 yards away from me). I set the lenses both to f/2.8.
I shot with the 300 and the hit rate was unbelieveable. The faces were razor sharp almost everytime. My settings were 1/5000, f/2.8, auto ISO. I was in Servo mode on a 1DX.
I then shot the same settings and the hit rate was much less with the 400. A lot of the focus was missed (can see another area in focus just slightly to the right or left on another runner) or the faces were just soft and there was no real apparent focal point anywhere in the photo. However, it did hit a lot of photos, and again, those were incredibly sharp.
I did realize of course that with the 300 the runners are closer to me when I fire the shutter, vs. the 400, which could matter.
Is DOF (f/2.8 is pretty thin) more difficult to manage at longer focal lengths? Remember up until this year I had only used a 300 for sports and didn't buy the 400 until last July. Is IS more of an issue, even at 1/5000? Does the lens focus slower or not as accurately as the 300? I was thinking it's not AFMA since when I shoot golf with it I never have any OOF shots, ever. Of course they are not moving much in golf, so I'm afraid the track problem could be my bad technique with the 400.
Just thought I'd ask since of course as you can imagine, it's sort of frustrating. Thanks a lot!
72
EOS Bodies / Re: Big Megapixel Development Announcement in the Fall? [CR2]
« on: April 12, 2013, 12:30:22 AM »
Yeah, because the 5D2 sensor and the 1DX sensor are the same. No improvement whatsoever.
73
Lenses / Re: Which Lens ... 24-70 II or primes?
« on: April 10, 2013, 08:20:57 PM »Depending on how low the light is you usually find yourself shooting with, I'm inclined to suggest that IS matters (unless you're using a tripod), and may more than make up for any otherwise perceptible differences between the lenses involved. So, if you want a 24-70 2.8 zoom I would suggest the newish Tamron instead; with the amount saved over the Canon you could buy the new Sigma 35 1.4 or get a head start on another fast prime ....
Yeah. Pro you get the 24-70L II lens. If you're not a pro and don't really need to spend a ton of money, I probably wouldn't get it either, especially if you already had primes in that range.
In the 24-70L II's defense, I sold my 35L and 50L after purchasing it because yes, it is THAT good. It is actually the sharpest lens below 135 that I've used.
74
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: April 10, 2013, 12:24:33 AM »
400 f/2.8L I IS: