March 06, 2015, 11:43:53 PM

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 - bluenoser1993

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
1
Lenses / Re: APS-C 60mm or 100mm macro lens?
« on: February 23, 2015, 01:52:18 PM »
I wouldn't shy away from the 60 just because it is a crop lens.  If you think you are going FF in a year or two, just buy used.  Looking at completed listings on Ebay the used copies all sell at a very similar price point.  You'd just be borrowing the lens for a year.  You will lose a bigger percentage on the 60 if you buy new, at least in Canada.  I find the used 60 sells for 250-300 below new retail (plus tax savings), but the 100L only saves you about 150-200 off retail (sorry, I wasn't looking at prices for the non L to compare).

2
Lenses / Re: APS-C 60mm or 100mm macro lens?
« on: February 22, 2015, 11:04:10 PM »
I'm making the same choice currently and have about 90% decided to go with the EF-S 60.  For me, I've tried to put a cap on the number of lenses I own, otherwise I know it will get a little out of hand.  I want to expand my photography so I need to compromise somewhere.  I already have 35, 50, and 135 primes (not willing to give up 135) so the 60 is the best fit by selling the 50.  I find most of my 50 shots are stopped down some any way, so I'm not giving up much and actually getting a better spread plus gaining macro.  It just might be the first practical choice I've made since I bought a DSLR.

Take everything I said with a grain of salt, in the last two months I've bought two lenses, I'm watching a couple 60 macros on Ebay, and will soon be pulling the trigger on the new 100-400 and haven't actually sold anything yet.  Don't tell my wife!  I do have the best of intentions though.  ;)   

3
Lenses / Re: Why does 7D II seem COMPARATIVELY soft with certain lenses?
« on: February 15, 2015, 06:41:49 PM »
In a thread here  http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=24210.15

and in the test-chart sample images available at the-digital-picture, certain lenses seem less sharp, soft in comparison, when mounted on a 7DII and compared with a 1D Mk III.  In particular, the new 100-400mm II

As has already been pointed out you are comparing two different formats.  If on the other hand you compare the 7DII + 100-400II with the 60D + 70-200 2.8II ( a lens that is often referred to as Canon's best zoom and one of the best made by anyone) at 100mm the 7DII combo is easily better wide open and even with the 70-200 stopped down to f4 the 7D 100-400 is still marginally better in corners and mid frame, 70-200 winning the center.  Being compared to a best ever lens on the same sensor format with that kind of result, how good does it have to be to impress?

I wasn't criticizing the lens. Surprised at the difference in quality between formats. I'm buying a 7DII primarly for reach with long lenses (although I'm sure the fast fps will come in handy) in order to use TC's less, or use 1.4 TC more and 2.0 TC less. If the 7D II adds that much CA, I might as well save the money and just use the TC's.

I'm not going to argue that the 7DII is a better camera than the 5DIII, while it may have a couple extra features useful to some, it is not "better" overall.  I can only justify one body, so if I had the 5DIII like you, I'd be looking at the 1.4X option too.  If you are happy with two bodies for unique uses, then look again at the TDP comparison and set the FF image to 560mm and the 7DII to f8.  They are quite comparable and the 7D has all 65 AF points to use and a stop to open up if you need more shutter.  The center point is still available beyond that, with the 1.4X.  Isn't CA one of the easiest lens faults to eliminate in post?

I'll admit to bias, I bought a 7DII in December and I'm happy with it.  I don't shoot small things, maybe that is the difference, it did work very well with a 135L at an NFL game as a fan.  I did not experience the "if the first misses they all miss" as commented here.  I had a couple instances of spontaneous moments when the first shot was not focused, the second improved, the rest of the burst in focus.

Sticking to the categories defined in this post, I am a 7D upgrader, so I can't compare the experiences of FF shooting.  My plan had been to go to 5DIII when the IV was released, but the f8 AF included on the 7D was the deciding factor.  I can't justify the big whites, and 400mm just didn't make the objects big enough for AF to work very well on the 7D (distance not size related).  I'm looking forward to picking up a 100-400 II before summer paddling season and seeing what it can do with the 1.4x.  I already have the 2x, so I'll keep that too and try it for fun with the live view on stationary/slow things.   

4
Lenses / Re: Why does 7D II seem COMPARATIVELY soft with certain lenses?
« on: February 15, 2015, 04:20:51 PM »
In a thread here  http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=24210.15

and in the test-chart sample images available at the-digital-picture, certain lenses seem less sharp, soft in comparison, when mounted on a 7DII and compared with a 1D Mk III.  In particular, the new 100-400mm II

As has already been pointed out you are comparing two different formats.  If on the other hand you compare the 7DII + 100-400II with the 60D + 70-200 2.8II ( a lens that is often referred to as Canon's best zoom and one of the best made by anyone) at 100mm the 7DII combo is easily better wide open and even with the 70-200 stopped down to f4 the 7D 100-400 is still marginally better in corners and mid frame, 70-200 winning the center.  Being compared to a best ever lens on the same sensor format with that kind of result, how good does it have to be to impress?

5
Landscape / Re: Please share your snow/ Ice Photos with us in CR.
« on: February 04, 2015, 05:15:22 PM »
Halden, Norway in 2013.  -15C that evening.

canon 7D + 35L @f/11, 25sec, ISO200

6
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The Canon EOS-7D Mark II AF Grid Void
« on: January 29, 2015, 03:08:53 PM »


The old truth floated back into my consciousness yesterday - generally, you get what you pay for. :(

Jack

While I agree for the most part and would apply that sentiment to the overall picture quality that can be obtained with the given camera choices, not necessarily for given functions of the cameras.  When the first 7D came out cheaper than the 5DII, the 7D had the superior AF.  The AF from 1DX and 5DIII is proven tech, but it would seem canon tried to test some changes to it on the 7DII before then releasing a further advanced system in the coming FF releases.  As mentioned above I think they will get it performing as it should with some firmware changes.  Perhaps rushed out to market before fully tuned.  If you want conspiracy, then perhaps the improoved performance will be released after the new FF bodies are out with the next generation AF and the performance levels will be realigned between model lines at there price points.

7
I believe I understand what you're saying, but for example, if two lenses are both +5 on body A, if the only change is to use body B and it is found one of those lenses is now 0, my guess is that the other lens would also be close to 0, not +10.

EDIT: added "close to"

8
I have slowly been getting time to AFMA my lenses using Focal on my 7DII, after upgrading from 7D.  I've noticed something that is strange to me, but maybe it is normal and I will ask this experienced group.  These are the only two cameras I've ever had with this ability.  The change in AFMA is not going in the same direction with all the lenses.

35L:
7D      -2
7DII   +2

50L:
7D       -4
7DII     -11 (-12 the first attempt but program crashed before saving report)

70-200 2.8II @70:
7D      -1
7DII   +4

70-200 2.8II @200:
7D       0
7DII    +6

I do have some others that were AFMA on my old body that I'll eventually get the time to compare and see the trend.  The 35 and the zoom seem consistent enough, but the 50 going the other way by such a margin seems odd to me.  Should I be concerned?  I used Reikan FoCal in both cases.  The old 7D seemed very down the middle, with everything I had for lenses falling in the +- 5 range and better.

As a side note, I hope Reikan come out with an upgrade again soon.  I had managed to AFMA a couple lenses before a trip, but only because I read the result right before the program crashed.  The only way to stop wasting time and shutter count was to work in manual mode, not terrible, but not as convenient.

9
I just travelled to San Francisco and only took my 7DII, 135L, and 17-55 f/2.8.  Even though I was going to a football game, I left the 70-200 2.8II at home.  I found it a great combo from the front row (would have been short farther back) and I really appreciated not having the 70-200 with me when we landed late in Toronto and were running to the next gate with camera bag in hand!

f/2 does throw the background out of focus, but anyone that watches this sport knows exactly what is in the background.  A studio isn't going to catch the coach and QB on the sideline the last time they play together.  The attached is unedited at f/2.

10
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: December 21, 2014, 11:20:25 AM »

[/quote]
 Seems we buy this great equipment around the holidays, then have NO time to shoot it.    Hey dad, take me here, hay grampa take me there, and then Genie -- did you pick up 'XXX' for "YYY & ZZZ" yet !!   All I want for Xmas is TIME to play with MY new toys ---   Have a great holiday everyone ...    M44  & Genie
[/quote]

LOL, not a grandpa yet, but do have 4 kids.  Know exactly what you mean, in fact just got asked to make a sandwich while typing this.  I have a 7DII in the house  two days now, with 0 frames taken :-[  Finally going to head out with the gang to an old fort/park and will take the camera along.  Have to combine duties :)

11
Thanks for the ideas, with the time of year and 4 kids I may or may not have the time to play with my new toys.  I haven't had a chance to fool around with the distortion correction in the 7DII yet.  If I don't find the time to experiment, I think I'll just stick with what I know what works for now.  Come to think of it, the RAW files will give me a chance to process it both ways and compare the results from the same set of shots.

12
Just wondering if anyone has tried using the in camera lens distortion correction (or CPP) for a sequence of shots planned to be used in stitching software (i'm using ptGui) as compared to just using straight out of camera files?  I'm guessing it adds one more opportunity for image degradation, as the software will still have to correct for the FOV distortion, but I'm wondering if starting with distortionless images will help the elements within the final picture be more true to form.

I'm going to the final 49ers game of the season and want to do a pano from my seat of the stadium/side line activities  ;)/and a shot that includes a play on the field that will be the centre of the stitch.

With NFL rules the easiest thing is to have the 7DII hanging on my shoulder with the 135L mounted and the pancake 40mm in my pocket.  I'll be in row 1 around the 25, so the 40 should be able to capture a whole play as long as I do it while occurring in a strategic part of the field.

One of those things that you only get one chance at.  I think I'll use high speed and snap a few shots of each frame to ensure I get choices for better blending of frames.

13
Lenses / Re: 70-200 or 100-400 conundrum.....
« on: November 21, 2014, 12:32:15 AM »
One further thing to consider is the tracking of AF for the wildlife use.  The 70-200 with the 2x will leave you with a single point which is fine for stationary targets or slow movers.  The 100-400 will leave you the full spread of focus points so your AF can still track - sorry I can't remember which body you said you had, this will make more difference depending on body.  It doesn't just come down to IQ difference, and I agree with what others have said, the 70-200 with the 2X attached isn't that great to hold.

14
Lenses / Re: 70-200 or 100-400 conundrum.....
« on: November 20, 2014, 10:26:32 AM »
Hi Davet4, like you, this is a hobby for me as well.  There has been lots of advice regarding the 70-200/2.8 and getting it first.  This is sound, provided it is first and you intend to eventually have two lenses of this sizable investment that have large overlap - granted one being f/2.8.  Well I went with the 70-200 and a 2xIII to use with my 7D (soon to become a mark II), and you can see the thread I started about the decision to replace it with the new 100-400 as long as it tests as well as expected.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23729.0

I can't justify to the "Boss" having both and the 400mm with using the 2x just isn't meeting my needs.  Don't get me wrong, a lot of my favorite pictures come from this lens when used alone, but I'm hoping the 135L I just picked up for $760US (a 2011 in mint) will handle the shots that I liked the most from the focal length I used the most and the added benefit of another stop.

It's a tough choice, good luck! 

15
Lenses / Re: What's your favourite focal length?
« on: November 19, 2014, 04:46:13 PM »
Which of your children do you like more?  :-\


It depends on the time of day and how long since the last meal - the order changes.

First you have  :), later it's  >:(, then it all ends in  :'(

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5