April 20, 2014, 04:56:19 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 - heptagon

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10
EOS Bodies / Re: Nikon user Swapping to Canon with a 5D3
« on: September 02, 2012, 06:14:13 PM »
With a 21/22 megapixel camera you can make prints in the range DIN A2 and you can crop in. The pixels on the D800E sensor are very small. If you have small pixel, then you have normally more noise, less light sensivity  and a poorer image quality. Same you get if you put 24 megapixels on an APS-C sensor.
But the pixels of the D800 are better than the Canon pixels. Especially at low ISO they have lower noise.

Sure, but the Canon 1.4x will also AF just fine with an f/4 supertele. My question is will the Kenko 2x allow AF with a MkII f/4 supertele on a 1D X...

Bonus questions:
Will it work at low light? and with the outer focus points?

Bob from lensrentals wrote that the F/5.6 focus points around the center are more accurate than the F/2.8 focus points for some lenses. (Odd, but that's how it is.)

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Has Made its Way To Retailers
« on: September 02, 2012, 03:49:52 PM »
I guess that we need to start rumors about the Mark III now. 
It will have 5th generation IS for sure :D

Pff..the 5th gen IS is going to be a total fail.  I'm going to wait for the 6th gen.

In that case I'm rooting for the 7th gen ;D

Sorry, to break it to you but 7th gen has FX mount.

They have focus stacking, but not bracketing.

... should be trivial to implement, did you do a feature request on the new forum's section?

I didn't but someone else did it for me :)

If they only would provide focus bracketing, i'd use it often.
They've had it for over 2 years.  Great feature for focus stacking.
They have focus stacking, but not bracketing.

Stacking is when you choose a start and end point.

Bracketing is when you autofocus and take additional pictures ad +-1, 2, 3 focus steps from that point on. As far as i know they don't have this feature.

If they only would provide focus bracketing, i'd use it often.

Lenses / Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
« on: August 19, 2012, 01:14:15 PM »
Well, you could also go with the Tamron 90mm macro. It's much cheaper and does take 1:1 images at f/4 pretty well if you need that. Otherwise often you don't really need an 1:1 macro and the 70-200 with or without extension tubes will do the job.


Which has better IQ the 7D+70-200+1.4 TC III or the 5D3+70-200+2 TC III?
How much faster would be the auto focus for the 7D setup?
The 7D has a higher pixel density and the 1.4 TC has better contrast and higher F-stop, so that would mean sharper pictures. I don't know about noise though but i guess after all it will be better than the 5D setup.

Focusing with the 1.4x should take two times as long as without TC and with the 2x it should take four times as long. (from heresay) I have never seen actual measurements on that though. Both setups still might be fast enough for you. If you can pre-focus it's no big issue but if you need focusing shot for shot in a series it might be just too slow.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650 Recall (Again)
« on: August 14, 2012, 04:53:26 PM »
Should I cancel my 24-70 mrk II that I pre-ordered?????
It surely won't fit on a D800.

Lenses / Re: 70-300L or 70-200 2.8 IS II?
« on: August 14, 2012, 02:21:43 PM »
The 70-300L seems better if weight is an concern for hand-holding or travelling. Also it's considerably cheaper without the TC.

You linked to scaled versions of the images but i found the originals in your gallery  :)

It's pretty hard come to a definite conclusion regarding the quality. Also at the shot with the 2x converter a cloud is on the main tower reducing contrast and it seems like some kind of noise reduction is employed. Additionally there may be air turbulences and slight focusing errors etc.

I think most people will be happy with the 1.4x extender on any tele lens F/4 or faster but the 2x extender is only a compromise.

A 50mm shot for comparison. Try scaling it :)

That's quite impressive!

You are right, stopping down  stop may improve the image quality. The 70-200 ii i dont know, but with the 300 2.8 i nearly never had lighting conditions where i get an improvement by stopping down, as motion blur is worse than "lens softness" or "converter softness".

The 70-200 II with 2x extender just doesn't look right at F/5.6 at F/8 there is a big improvement. It's about on the sharpness level of the 400 L F/5.6 when shooting between F/5.6 and F/8.

As far as i know the 300 F/2.8 is already a very sharp lens wide open. But it's hard to actually find the reason for softness at long focal ranges as focusing problems and various vibration sources also play a role.

For me a subject in direct sunlight and the lens on a monopod with IS on and the camera (550D) on iso 400 max worked pretty well but only half of the shots are satisfying. Selecting a higher iso destroys detail and you cannot sharpen the image anymore without adding a lot of grain. So the situations where using a TC actually makes sense are pretty limited.

The 70-200 L IS II with 2x III TC would certainly work but you will need to shoot at f/8 and need lots of light. AF performance also depends on the light level. I don't know of a direct comparison between this combination and the 400 F/5.6 and the 100-400L or the 300L F/4 + 1.4x TC. If you get a good sample of each one, the image quality at F/8 will be satisfying and the prices are in a comparable range.

But long focal lengths are very hard to master and due to light constraints you may not be able to shoot at F/8 anyways and need something faster. Then it might be considerable to start with the 1.4x TC for the 70-200 you already have. This combination is certainly very good at F/4 already.

Using a crop camera is always a better choice than a teleconverter or a mediocre lens.

Only if you can't get further with cropping you might consider getting a longer lens. Before you go for the 400L F/5.6 check if you can live without IS. The 300L F/4 and 100-400L also only have mediocre IS compared to the 70-200 you have.

If needed i use the 2x iii which gives amazing results in good light and for slow moving subjects. With the 2x 8x more shutter time is needed, 4x because of 2 stops less opening and 2x stop because of doubled focal lenght. from my experiance its better to cop a picture than pushing up iso by 3 stops, as iso 1600 looses lots of detail compared with iso 200 on the crop body.

For the 70-200 L IS II you could add another stop to the light requirement for stopping down from f/5.6 to f/8 with extender instead of useable f/2.8 without extender. So that would be 16x more light required. However there might just be enough light for all directly sun-lit subjects. If you can shoot at f/16 without extender, you can shoot at f/8 with extender.

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10