February 27, 2015, 08:14:52 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.

Topics - bluenoser1993

Pages: [1]
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.

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.

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.       

I have a Gitzo GH1780QR head that I like because it is pretty secure and it is a very light combination with my carbon Gitzo tripod that folds small.  I also have two plates which is enough as I only have one white lens with a foot (70-200 2.8 IS II).  I want to ditch my 7D neck strap and go with a sling, but want to avoid screwing/unscrewing the connector to use the tripod.  I happen to have a second Gitzo head that I replaced because it doesn't have a separate pan lock, and the ball lock was a bit small.  I'm thinking of removing the clamp from the head, drilling out one of the 3 small mounting holes and treading it to accept a Black Rapid FastenR.

Because the Gitzo plate can engage the clamp in all 4 directions, the clamp can align with the camera body instead of projecting into your face like some of the Arca-swiss type clamps do when used with a sling (at least it looks like it would - no experience with it).  It also has the nice double lock system so I would feel secure with that.  The only worry I have is that the plate has a pretty small foot print and I wonder if the torque from the body/lens bouncing off my hip would be enough to make it spin and consequently loosen the screw in the bottom of the camera.

Just trying to make use of the parts I already have, but don't want to risk the camera gear.  Anyone have experience using the Gitzo GS5370C style plate with a sling, or just general experience with slings attached to a QR system to know if this is a risk?   

I just got FoCal Pro to run through my lenses on a 7D and the most disappointing part was when I ran out of lenses and tests to run, it is some great software.

The manual states that the QoF numbers are not comparable from lens to lens, but if the lenses are run through back to back with the same lighting, target print, etc, would you you be able to compare your own lenses?  Reason being, I'm looking for my best lens to do some panoramic stitching on an upcoming trip and want to get the best combination of image quality vs number of frames required.  My 35L scored just under 1900 @f5, 24-105 @ 24mm scored just under 1600 @f5, and 10-22 set to 18mm scored about 1430 @ f5.6 and 6.3. (the 10-22 was the biggest beneficiary of FoCal, needing -7 AFMA at both ends of the zoom)

I was leaning toward to 35L before the testing because of best distortion control, but on a 7D I may end up doing two rows of pictures to get enough sky/foreground.  If the numbers above mean anything, then two rows of landscape instead of a single row of portrait on the 35 might be the way to go, but capturing evening light over water the lighting will change quite rapidly near the equator and speed might be more important that ultimate image quality.

I haven't picked the pano software yet, but it looks like they are all pretty good at correcting distortion, but at image quality price I'm sure.  I'm hoping to get at least one large print worthy image of the family sailing vacation.  A location portrait with the family to be found in it somewhere, rather than the typical family shot over the fireplace.

Any advice welcome.


Lenses / 70-200 f2.8II + 2xIII on 7D vs 300 f4 + 2xIII on 5D3
« on: February 02, 2013, 02:54:26 PM »
I currently use a 70-200 2.8 IS II + 2xIII with my 7D when the reach is required.  This is maybe 10% of the time I use that lens at most and is why I went that route.  When I do need the equivalent 640mm, it is for shooting my 4 children all involved in water sports (human powered, so focus speed not as much of an issue).  With that range I still need to crop some times, but as I'm a hobbiest the long range superteles are not justified, and stand out to my wife as obviously being very expensive.  Once the kids are at a more competitive level I may rent once in a while for fun. 

I would love to upgrade to a 5DIII this summer, but the 600mm focal length gets very expensive in FF, with the exception of the 300 f4 when I already have the 2xIII.  Virtually everyone on here seems to say once you go 5DIII or 1DX the 7D collects dust.  I could not justify keeping it and would sell it and the only EF-S lens, the 10-22.

Now lots of people love the 300 f4, but it gets bashed when discussing using it with 2x.  However, I think the bashing isn't completely justified, it is being compared to more expensive lenses.  When I compare the ISO 12233 against the Sigma 120-300 2.8 that is 3 times the price, the Sigma is only comparable in the center with or without converters, for example.

On the ISO 12233 charts the 24-105 can be compared between a 60D and FF, the lenses in question can not.  Obviously it is not as sharp on a 60D/7D sensor.

So the question is, even though the 70-200 combination will get the best image to the image circle, will capturing that image on the 7D sensor degrade it enough to be about equal to the 300 f4 combination image captured on the 5DIII sensor.  Equal image at almost equal focal distance, and hence still relatively equal cropping ability.

I'm hoping to benifit from the obvious upgrade for 90% of use without loosing quality at 600 mm with the suggested option.

WOW, that took way more words than I thought it would! 

Pages: [1]