January 31, 2015, 05:05:38 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
16
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D & 1.4X -or- 7D Mk II?
« on: November 15, 2014, 08:16:46 PM »
I have a 7D as well, but quite a different spectrum of lenses.  I had been careful with all lens choices (except a 10-22) to be sure I was lining myself up for my future FF upgrade I was sure I was going to do. Turns out I'm quite satisfied with the DOF I get with the crop and my uses tend to require more reach, fast shutter, and great AF.  So coming to realize this I'm very excited about upgrading to a 7DII because it is a perfect match to my uses around water sports given my budget.  As someone already mentioned, the 7DII alone is more versatile, and when the 6D eventually gets upgraded, it will be cheaper to buy a 6D body then any L glass and will put a whole new perspective on everything in your kit.

One question about your 135, as I've thought long and hard about that one.  Great for tight portrait, but on a 7D/7DII I think it would be the poor man's 200 f2 for sports.  What's your primary use for it, and is it the best you could imagine for that.

17
I'll be the first to admit to not being an MTF expert, but based on the released information at the tel end without converters it appears to be about on par with 70-200 2.8 IS II.  Adding the 1.4x the 100-400 II is reduced in the center slightly, but by mid frame it is still on par with the naked 70-200!  Can this be accurate, or am I just that bad at reading the info?

18
In addition to these two lenses, I wonder how big the increase in 70-200 IS II on the market will be?  I'm sure I'm not the only one to have bought it with a 2x because it seemed like a versatile option to the very old 100-400, but then discovered 2.8 wasn't really required for my use and not completely happy with the 400 the combo provides.  As soon as I see image quality of the new 100-400, my 70-200 is for sale.  I'm excited about the new lens bare, as well as with 1.4x on a 7DII.  Provided the price is still good for the 70-200, I don't want that much of a hit after only 2 years of light use.   

19
Lenses / Re: First Image of the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Lens
« on: November 07, 2014, 11:03:17 AM »

Focal length markings: If the first photo we saw is right, then the ring between the zoom and focus rings may be a zoom lock in the manner of the current 100-400. Since that ring rotates against the focus ring, has no fixed position, so you could not put markings on that ring. My thought is the markings are on the top of the extending barrel, just like the current 100-400.


Good point about the rotating locking ring, and the markings may well end up on the top in production models, but the angle of the second picture is such that it should be just slightly visible.  Maybe down the other side of the barrel as that would work with the right hand operation of DSLRs?

20
Lots of comparisons regarding signal/noise ratios, DR, and resolution.  If banding has been eliminated, isn't that something that the 7D was criticized the most by many?  How quickly we forget.

21
Lenses / Re: First Image of the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Lens
« on: November 06, 2014, 05:13:52 PM »
Second  look (who am I kidding), after several looks I noticed there are no focal length markings, which by reference to 70-200 and 70-300 layout should be visible wrapping over the top.  Excitement fading  :'(

It is probably racked all the way around to the short focal length setting and the last mark is top/center in that position and not visible from this particular viewing side.

Agreed. If you look at the comparison picture from ahsanford on page 4 of this thread, the top view of the 70-300 shows that the numbers go down the side of the lens that we do not see in this leaked 100-400 image (when zoomed all the way out).

Good to see some "the cup is half full" attitudes, I tend to go with "the cup is too big", but in this case I'm looking forward to some big glass. :D

22
Lenses / Re: First Image of the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Lens
« on: November 06, 2014, 03:42:31 PM »
Second  look (who am I kidding), after several looks I noticed there are no focal length markings, which by reference to 70-200 and 70-300 layout should be visible wrapping over the top.  Excitement fading  :'( 

23
Lenses / Re: First Image of the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Lens
« on: November 06, 2014, 12:30:45 PM »
This will make for tough choices.  I bought 70-200 2.8 II primarily so I could have the 2.8, but also to use with 2x III on my 7D and still have AF.  This is for shooting paddling from dry land.  Not so satisfied with this - still not quite enough reach, but for other uses the 70-200 has made a lot of my favorite shots.  Now upgrading to 7DII, i'm tempted to sell the 70-200 plus 2x and get the new 100-400 plus 1.4x if the sharpness is there.  Maybe then add a 135 f2 later, as that falls in the range of where I've gotten my favorite non-sporting shots (+- 20mm to make up with feet).

The plus, will never have to explain to parents around me why I can't see the other end of the lake with something so big!

24

 I need more! You see, I have grown and you have remained static. You're not willing to change. You sit idly by while my new friend, Nikon, keeps growing.

Wow ! You must indeed be a man among men ! I've been in photography over thirty years and rarely can I keep up with the mk II. Be aware your new love may just be after your wallet, especially as she is so young and you no doubt, are a tad older  ;)

Sporgon, that was brilliant!

25
Lenses / Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« on: April 18, 2014, 09:24:38 AM »
Excellent examples from the Nikon lens.  Does it's adjustable range take it further in regards to the affect than the 50 1.2?

I am disappointed that there wasn't a rebuttal to the $46,000 lens, it had the potential to be very entertaining.

26
Thanks for the help everyone.  I've decided to order the 1" Kirk and the Sunwayfoto (Gitzo replacement clamp)  from B&H.  I liked the RRS stuff a lot and started an order, but it was $76 more to start for the two QR clamps and the shipping options where the deal breaker at another $30 with an uncertainty of USPS or UPS charging me brokerage fees entering Canada.  I was already placing an order at B&H with shipping at only $9 and it remained the same price when the QRs where added.

Did RRS have a QR clamp to convert your Gitzo? Are you also getting an L-Bracket to attach that 1" kirk to with your  sling strap? Maybe look at a Kirk also or eBay - lots of L-Brackets show up there.

Yes.  I added a B2-Pro clamp with reducer bushing  to  a GH1780 (no QR), screws to the disc and pretty much covers it.

Like dcm mentioned, the RRS would thread onto the flat plate that is in my picture above, but for a cleaner look I had intended to thread the column on the ball to except 3/8 screws or reducer.  The center of the column is drilled already to except a level and there is plenty of material to open the hole up the extra bit required for the 3/8 thread.  I may still do that some day, and put the sunwayfoto on the lightweight traveler head that came with my Gitzo tripod.

ScubaX, I'm going to order the Kirk bottom plate when I place the order for everything else since it was available at B&H so I can combine the shipping (not free to Canada) and it actually looks more fitted than the RRS for a 7D.  I thought about an L, but decided against the extra cost because I would like to get a 5DIII when the price drops further.  If used are showing up, maybe that's an option.  Thanks for mentioning it and I'll have a look.  When the time comes, I probably won't sell the 7D anyway, as the selling price will be pretty low.  Perhaps it will be a great gift someday for my oldest son who is making some really cool stop-motion and better photos than me with nothing but an ipod - gear can't replace imagination! 

27
Thanks for the help everyone.  I've decided to order the 1" Kirk and the Sunwayfoto (Gitzo replacement clamp)  from B&H.  I liked the RRS stuff a lot and started an order, but it was $76 more to start for the two QR clamps and the shipping options where the deal breaker at another $30 with an uncertainty of USPS or UPS charging me brokerage fees entering Canada.  I was already placing an order at B&H with shipping at only $9 and it remained the same price when the QRs where added.

28
Thanks everyone, taking the time to dig up the photos was a big help.  The Sunwayfoto is a good find, funny it never came up from googling.  It represents a very easy option.

I did a little exploratory on my Gitzo and attached a photo below.

Turns out the center hole is just a bit smaller than needed for tapping a 3/8 - 16 hole.  It can easily be drilled and tapped and the reducer used if need be for a 1/4 screw.  In the case of RRS clamp, one of the small holes on the Gitzo ball is in just the right place to screw in one of the small cap screws first and it can engage the keyed opening beside the center hole of the RRS to prevent turning.

The modification is a little more work, but the B2-Pro II looks pretty sweet and may be worth it.

I like how clean the 1" Kirk is for the sling.  The B2FABN looks handy, but the camera can just as easily have a safety line to the strap.

29
Neuro, with the Kirk clamps does the moving side of the clamp have a slightly thinner profile than the fixed side so that if the clamp were sitting on a flat surface the moving side would have clearance under it?  I ask because my tripod head did come with a flat disc so I have the option to replace the clamp with the disc and screw on the camera.  This could allow me to screw on a 2" to 2.5" Kirk clamp for half the price of the questionable new Gitzo D system as long as the clamping side doesn't end up screwed down tight to the disc with the rest of the base.

30
I downloaded this attachment from Gitzo (I hope my attempt adding the attachment works) which is the operating instructions.  It shows the use of other brand plates, but I agree it would be risky without hearing from people that have tried it.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4