January 31, 2015, 12:57:49 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 - bluenoser1993

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
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. :(


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.

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"

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.

7D      -2
7DII   +2

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.

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.

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

 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

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 :)

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.

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.

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.

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.


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! 

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  :'(

Lots of interesting comments and suggestions, glad to see others are also plagued with similar decisions.  A change is always good for a different perspective as well I think.  If it wasn't for my wife (and young family) I'd probably continue to just fill up my closet, but having that to keep me in check has added the element of carefully thinking out my purchases and trade offs between different kits.  fortunately, lenses chosen carefully do hold their value well with Canon.

I liked the idea of 17-55, 70-200/2.8, 100-400II, 1.4X.  That's a great range, and close to the same net value (based on used prices of my primes), but I would miss using the f/1.2 to f/2 range.  Portraits by candle light and by the campfire are a nice change of pace that often have a memory attached instead of just a pretty face.  :)

I'm away from home, but the plan is coming together.  Just need to get back and package up the 7D + 10-22 (still working on the buyer to take the 24-105 as it's cash and saves the listing).  The 17-55 and 135L are in the mail, and I've decided to keep the primes I have for now and skip the 85mm and see if I'm happy with the coverage.

7DII (to order yet), 17-55/2.8, 35L, 50L, 135L, 70-200/2.8 IS II  + 2xIII pending reviews of the 100-400II

Assuming the new 100-400 is all we hope it to be and the swap occurs with the f/2.8, I may some day have to choose between the 35L and 50L, and trade one for the 70-200/4 IS.  I'll be that one guy in the world to have made that trade between the 70-200's :-\   

The 70-200 2.8 IS II seems to sell pretty well, so I'm not too worried and will definitely hold onto it until satisfied with the performance of the 100-400II, with plenty of reassurance to my darling that only one will remain.  Seeing as she still takes photos on her phone more often than with the M I bought her, she might not be able to tell the two of them apart ::).....  I'll say no more about that.

Good comment regarding the MTF information with the 1.4x attached.  It looks very good on the MTF, but I hadn't thought about the diffraction at f8 keeping you from attaining the theoretical.  At f8 that is only getting started, so I'll keep my fingers crossed.  I'm still hoping that the resulting 560mm will be better than the 400mm I'm getting on the 70-200.  If the testing shows it isn't, then that will probably cause an all stop on the changes I'm making on the long end of my kit.  Depends how good it is with just the lens.   

Some good comments regarding the prime choices.  The evolution in thinking is that I want the 135L to replace what  I loved most about the 70-200 2.8, extreme sharpness across the whole frame and the low light ability I'd lose with the 100-400.  So that lens was a priority for me, and it has the AF speed to match.  That left a big gap in focal length coverage from 55 to 100, so the 85 was more of an add in to cover it and it's pretty cheep.  Maybe I'd be better off keeping the 24-105 and skipping the 85 1.8.  The thing is that I can see going for a hike/bike ride with the 17-55 and picking one prime to compliment.  I don't see me leaving the house carrying both 17-55 and 24-105.

Maybe the right way to go is stick with the plan above, but retain the 35L and skip the 85 at first.  If the gap doesn't bother me, great.  If it does, then maybe add the 70-200/4.  I think that would be a good supplement to the 100-400.  I'm not saying that I never carry the 70-200/2.8, but more often it accompanies a driving destination (or close to home).  I see the 100-400 being the same, so a 70-200/4 may end up getting in the back pack more often.  I haven't used a 7DII yet, but from all accounts it has gained some ISO performance (amount to be argued), so going from a 2.8 to 4 on the 70-200 won't really be  performance loss.  Provided I never compare the two, I'll never know what I'm missing.  :D   

EDIT:  Plan above meant in the first post of the thread, not the first paragraph above.

Thanks for the boost of confidence, I respect all of your opinions.  I've learned quite a bit from your posts since I've been visiting here the last couple years.  Should have listened more to the advice about buying lenses for the body you have, not the one you might have some day, and skipped the 24-105.  I've slowly come to grips with the fact that I enjoy reach, but just can't swing the long whites.  A 7DII is never going to compete with a FF, but from what I see the banding issue seems to be addressed, which even from my amateur view was enough to bother me on the original. 

I know I will miss the 70-200 2.8, but I'm sure the 100-400 II will be great.  Maybe I'll eventually add a 70-200 f4 if it just isn't working out not have a mid-long zoom - it's almost as good image wise.

I'd really like to wait and see some reviews, I haven't placed the order yet.  Any advice on popular new releases as to how many months before supply and demand start to leave units on the store shelf, or at least a reasonable delivery time?  I don't really need it until the spring, as late as May/June maybe.  Would you recommend ordering soon for that date, or is there still time?  I realize I'm asking a crystal ball question, but in relation to other big release items from Canon.   

I bought a 7D as my first DSLR mainly because of what I read about the 70-200.  I loved the idea of the 2.8 plus it allowed me to add a 2xIII for what I thought would be occasional use.  Well, with 4 kids and my wife all in sprint canoe and kayaking the 2x is on more than not, and frankly still not enough lens often.  I love using the 70-200 alone, but find that if it isn't at 200, it is mid-range wide open and has made many of my favorite candids of the family.

The announcement of the 100-400 II has had me constantly in deep thought about my entire lens line-up (wouldn't my employer love to know that).  Ultimately owning both these zooms would be great, and it isn't so much a financial decision, but if I ever want my wife to smile at me again, there is only room for one of these in my house!  So I'm going with the advise I've read over and over here, buy the lens for the focal length you need, and for me that is the 100-400.

At the other end of things, when I have the 24-105 mounted I more often than not wish I could get wider, and when the 10-22 is mounted I always wish I could reach a little further.  Also, 90% of the time the 10-22 doesn't get below 16. 

7D, 70-200 2.8 IS II, 2x III, 10-22, 24-105L, 35L, 50L

7DII, 100-400 II, 1.4x III, 17-55 f2.8, 50L, 85 f1.8, 135L

The process has already begun, the 7D is sold (at an obvious loss, but not bad as it was a used purchase), the 10-22 is sold and I replaced it with a 17-55 for even money.  The 35L will be tough to let go, but it is mint and I should be in money when I swap for a used 135.  The 17-55 is obviously no 35L substitute, but with IS it can actually get non action shots in lower light, and I need the 135L to not miss the 70-200 soooo much.

Am I making crazy moves?  I see it as a reduction in flexibility, but covering more of the range I need with zoom, while covering the remaining areas I gravitated to with the current zooms with quality primes.

All comments or suggestions welcome.       

Pages: [1] 2 3 4