October 31, 2014, 06:15:35 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 - docsmith

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21
I have a 5D3 and a 7D, and can't imagine why you are not still shooting the 7D at times.  The 5D3 certainly has low light advantages, but in the day, the 7D is still a very capable camera.

I am a bit like the OP.  I have both the 7D and 5DIII.  But since I bought the 5DIII, after a series of tests, the 7D has collected dust.  I really do need to sell it.  This isn't meant to disparage the 7D, it really is a remarkable camera and served me well for almost 3 years.  But, I get why the 7D sits on a shelf when you own both.  If you are not reach limited, I would rather have the 5DIII, and, at least from what I concluded, usually even when you are reach limited, I preferred the images from the 5DIII.  Even though the 7D is a great camera, I like the images off the 5DIII better.  You lose 1 fps.  That really can't be too much of a factor. 

Anyway, I am interested in what those that own both the 7DII and 5DIII end up doing.  I am considering the 7DII as a way to get that extra reach, hoping that the IQ/noise control/etc is now good enough that I no longer prefer the 5DIII images even when reach limited.  So far, I have been very pleased with what I've seen from the 7DII. 

Back to the OP, I, personally, haven't seen enough to have an opinion, but I am glad you started the thread.  I think a number of us upgraded from the 7D to the 5DIII.  Some may consider going back to the 7DII or supplementing your kit with the 7DII.  It is a good question.  But I wouldn't expect the answer to be black and white.  This is going to be about marginal differences and preferences.  Right now I am trying to not get caught up in the wave and to wait for some good reviews (TDP, DXO measurements---not sensor score, sensogen, etc).  I am very happy with my 5DIII and only have issues with bird photography, which is only a small part of what I shoot.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II Owners first thoughts
« on: Today at 06:56:51 AM »
Congrats to all the knew owners.  All the shots I have seen here and in other forums are impressive.

But keep'm coming. 

No, all you do is pick twenty or so lenses at random, test them and pick the best ones, and send those out to reviewers. I'm sure manufacturers have time for that. They're not looking for the very best one they have ever made, just one of the better ones. If there is significant variation, this makes a big difference.

Huh...then why did they send lenstip a 150-600S that looks so bad and FF edge at shorter focal lengths?  And why did Canon send lenstip a 70-300L that was bad at FF edge for 300 mm compared to what was seen with other reviewers.

There might be some selectivity, but I doubt it is very robust, if it exists.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 150-600 Sport vs Tamron 150-600mm
« on: October 30, 2014, 06:34:59 AM »
and beat the Tamron. But it is a monster, heavier than the Canon 300/2.8 II + 2xTC. It weighs 2860g vs 1951 of Tamron.

...and 70-300L and 100-400L.  Granted, not by as much as I was hoping, given it's size and weight.  There is sample variability, I am hoping as a few more reviews (TDP/Lensrentals/etc) come in that the 150-600S is even a bit better.  But, it is better at 600 mm than the Tamron, than the 100-400@400 mm, or the 70-300L @ 300 mm (center is a tie or may ever so slightly go to the 70-300, but edges to the Sigma). 

Yes, this is a big lens.  But, unless I see the unicorn of the 100-400L II with great MTF charts, I am planning on keeping my preorder of the 150-600S to test it out.  I have a feeling it will fit in my kit nicely.

BTW, also check out the rest of the review.  Really good performance in all the tests including AF.  Only vignetting was flagged as an issue.

Not to digress too far, but regarding copy to copy variability, TDP has the 70-300 @300 with much better edges than the 100-400 at FF edges.  Opposite of the lenstip data:


Lenses / Re: More EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Talk [CR2]
« on: October 28, 2014, 10:03:35 PM »
Hope it is true.  A smaller, lighter 100-400 II would be great. I'd prefer push pull, but the twist zoom won't make much of a difference to me.  The key will be the IQ, especially with a 1.4TC.  Whatever gives me the best IQ 400 mm and greater (that I can afford) is what I will end up with.

The lenstip review is in on the 150-600S.  Better IQ (but not by much) at center and mid-frame than the Tamron 150-600, and Canon 70-300 and 100-400L.  Some issues at FF edge with IQ, especially at 150 and 300 mm.

So, for me, Canon needs to beat that.

...I expect the 100-400II to be very solid, very sharp, 4 stop IS, weather sealing, etc.  They may have the size and weight advantage, but it will be interesting to see comparisons of the different 150-600's vs the 100-400II + 1.4TC.

Don't underestimate the value of that size and weight advantage.  The Tamron and Sigma C both have 95mm filter threads.  I expect the Canon to be 77mm or 82mm.  I also expect it to be much shorter in overall length.

The Tamron is 10.1 inches long without the hood.  It's 4.2 inches in diameter.
The 100-400L is 7.4 inches long without the hood. It's 3.6 inches in diameter.
The 70-300L is 5.6 inches long without the hood.  It's 3.5 inches in diameter.

If the new one (if it exists) is really over 2 1/2" shorter and over half an inch smaller in diameter, that's a big difference in storage and usage.

Don't forget the 150-600S, at 11.4".

Then add weight into the mix:
100-400L: 2.9 lbs
Tamron 150-600: 4.25 lbs
150-600S: 6.25 lbs

If the 100-400L II plus 1.4TC is similar (or better) to its current size and weight it will have a huge advantage in those respects.  The key will be optical quality/AF speed/accuracy/etc of that combination against the different 150-600s.  But I travel a lot, I'd prefer a smaller size and weight.  But, also, I think too much is made of the size and weight of the Tamron/Sigma (especially the Tamron, the Sigma is getting up there).  But I've measured my bag and they'll fit.  And the Sigma won't be as hand holdable as a ~3 lb system, but I am sure I could do it.

When you consider that you need 4 (or more) times the $s to beat the Tamron 150-600, it is a wonderful deal. I expect a new 100-400 will beat it, but at 2.5 to 3 X the $s.

The Tammy remains the most bang for the buck on long lenses.

I expect any new 100-400L to be much better than the old 100-400L.  But I am not sure it will "beat" the Tammy at 400 mm.

Check out the Tammy @ 400 mm vs the 200-400 @ 400:


Sure the Canon is "better" but that comparison has always impressed me given the price difference.

Here is the Tammy vs the current 100-400L:

Sharper, less CA.  Canon's problem is that the Tammy is very impressive from 150-400.  Maybe Canon can "beat" it in the center.  Lenstip makes the Tammy seem more "beatable" (Lenstip has the Tammy at ~35 lppm @ 450 in the center, which is good, but beatable).

But, I am assuming the Sigma 150-600S is even better than the Tammy.  We'll see.  I expect the 100-400II to be very solid, very sharp, 4 stop IS, weather sealing, etc.  They may have the size and weight advantage, but it will be interesting to see comparisons of the different 150-600's vs the 100-400II + 1.4TC.

EOS Bodies / Re: It's just me but...
« on: October 26, 2014, 12:39:09 PM »

Anyone else feel this way.

Hoping that 2015 will be Cannon's "Year of Revolutionary New Cameras, sensors, Focusing, and all things that make other camera companies wet their panties".

I am pretty excited about the 16-35 f/4 IS and 400 DO II.  I haven't bought or preordered either yet, but both are under consideration.  I've read enough to know that the other releases are generating at least some interest.

But I wouldn't hold your breath.  I do not think "Shock and Aw" is Canon's plan.  They seem to be more focused on releasing solid, very dependable, very capable and very useful products.  They are likely setting themselves up for after the rush to digital is over (which it is).  Unless you spend too much time on internet forums, these are all good things.

I will say, improvements to the sensor is, IMO, the area where Canon can make up the most on its competition with the next generation of releases.  Because of this, to me, it is almost expected.  But how much and what time of improvement is the question.  Of course, I am still waiting on measurements of the 7DII sensor and am hopeful they have enhanced low ISO performance (high ISO seems to be 1/3-2/3 of a stop improvement).  But low ISO appears to be cleaner, to my eye, I am just waiting on the measurements to tell me how much cleaner. 

Simply put....there is now decent competition in the supertele zoom marketplace.  It is good for us consumers.  Two years ago, the 100-400 II would have likely been a no brainer for me.  Now, it is not.  I have the 70-200 II plus 2x TC.  This is now in my bag for almost every trip and for most events as it is a truly great lens from 70-200 and is decent with the 2x tc.  It will be tough for a 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 to displace it from my bag for general purposes because of that.  So that leaves more specialized purposes, likely when I am specifically going to shoot birds or something else at distance.  At that point, is 400 mm enough when you have three zooms that go to 600 mm?  As this is becoming more of a niche lens for me, weight is less of a concern.

In the end, I really hope the rumor is true.  I'll pick the lens that gives me the best image from 300 mm to 600 mm (and beyond) that I can afford.  While I suspect that it will likely be the 100-400II, I am no longer convinced.  I wait for the MTF charts.  Hopefully I see those before I have to return my pre-ordered 150-600S.

Eventually, I hope to get a big white...but right now I need to be looking at $3k or less.

Well, of course it is coming in November....I ordered the Sigma 150-600S.  It will be announced just after my 30 day return window expires.

Not discounting others experiences with the 50A, just saying that my 50A AFs just fine with a 5DIII using the center point or the side points.  After reading this thread, I went and tested it again, and still no more variation than any other lens. 

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 19, 2014, 05:39:38 AM »
But again, If someone could take on the challenge of making the ultimate objective guide to crop vs. FF ... Thank you in advance :)

Even though I think Tayassu did a good job at summarizing the arguments, I'll take a stab at it too.  The differences are, truly negligible.  But negligible is a relevant statement.  And it will be relevant to the photographer and circumstances.

Generally speaking, FF should be better in most ways where sensor/pixel size matters.  The numbers are in, at equivalent ISO, current generation FF sensors have better noise, more DR, more tonal range, more color sensitivity, etc, etc.  The other numbers are also in on the fact that at the same focal length, current generation crop sensor cameras can use more pixels to define a subject because of a narrower FOV (ie pixels on target). 

But, in most circumstances, a photographer cares about framing/perspective and would not shoot both a FF and cropped sensor camera at the same focal length.  Which is why, in most circumstances, the benefit of a FF are more relevant.

But, ultimately, any difference is nibbling at the edges.  In the center of the photography world (good light, reasonable distance to subject, etc), both can take great pictures.  But, as you move from the center of the photography world to the edges, the differences may become relevant.  To what extent depends upon the circumstances and photographer.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 17, 2014, 12:18:29 PM »
There are several ways to look at the "reach" benefit.  The way I look at it is the number of pixel defining any particular subject.  I've always heard that the human eye can differentiate 75-150 pixels per inch at normal viewing distances and that magazines require/prefer a minimum of 300 ppi.  So, say you want a minimum of 75 ppi to define every inch of your frame, with the FF sensor and that 500 mm lens of yours, you have a range of 85 ft with the 5DIII but 130 ft with the 7D. 

This fits my general experience.  In this example, less than 85 ft, FF would be better, in this middle range (85-130 ft) the 7D would be better and then greater than 130 ft, neither is providing the desired resolving power but are likely "comparable."  Of course, those are absolute numbers and in the real world it is more minor shades of gray.  But in my tests (which were not robust, more of me shooting trees at different distances with the same lens and different bodies), I was able to convince myself that there was a "middle range" where crop was better than FF (EDIT--I should stress, this was at a pixel peeping level and is likely the definition of neg.li.gi.ble).  Granted, that was mostly regarding having adequate resolving power.  The DR/Noise/Color sensitivity/etc do not stop being beneficial, but you do need adequate resolution.

As for the files.  You have both cameras.  Take a few pictures and play with them.  Try adjusting highlights/shadows/color saturation/sharpness/etc.  I still use a crop sensor body (EOS-M) and can tell the difference in PP.  For example, in a similar shot, I tend to limit myself to lifting shadows +25 on crop, but +50-60 on the 5DIII.  Above that, in some shots, is where I start to not like the effect.

If you are always shooting wildlife far enough away that you are reach limited on crop, I don't blame you for preferring crop.  That is only <20 percent of what I shoot.  I am usually not reach limited.  Which is why I likely find the "L" glass better suited to FF.  24-x on crop isn't very wide.  A 16-35 lens is a 26-56 FF equivalent.  Which isn't much of a zoom range.  The EFS 10-22 (which I had), 17-55 and 15-85 (what I used on my 7D) are optically great, but not up to the standards of the 24-70 II  and do not have the build quality of the "L" lenses. 

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 17, 2014, 07:04:58 AM »
I have the simple answer to this one.  Hand me a FF camera (6D, 5DIII, 1DX) and tell me that I can never shoot crop again and I will be ok with that.  Give me a crop camera, even one as capable as the 7D/7DII, and take away my 5DIII and tell me I can never shoot FF again and I will beat your %$#^@   *&%$#.  That is the difference.  How many here feel differently? 

Granted, they're both cropped heavily but tell me what I'm doing wrong with my new 5Diii, please, 'cause I'm not seeing that much difference.

Well, in addition to comparing two heavily cropped images, the 5DIII shot at 1/800 f/7.1, ISO 800 (+1) and the 7D at 1/640, f/5.6, ISO 400 (+0.7).  The images you are comparing should be the situation where the 7D beats the 5DIII because you used the same lens, are "reach limited," and you gave the 7D an extra stop of ISO (1.3 with the push).  And yet, you are "not seeing that much difference."  The different DoF could have also be a factor.

This is almost exactly what I found, even at the same ISO setting.  In real world cases where the 7D should be beating the 5DIII, they were very comparable.  I did actually create a few conditions where I thought the 7D was slightly better.  But, when I took all the different types of conditions that I shoot, the 5DIII really pulled away for me.  The obvious example is high ISO conditions.  Compare shots from ISO 800 on up and tell me which you prefer?  Even in your example, I like the colors from the 5DIII image a bit better.  Granted that can be adjusted in post.  Speaking of post, have you seen how much better the 5DIII files respond to PP compared to the 7D files?  It isn't even so much that you can push the files further (although you can), it is that I like the response of the file better.   

Honestly, I do not want to prefer the 5DIII.  It is more expensive and, except for photography, I tend to prefer "value" items.  So, I'd prefer to still be using the 7D.  But, I shot ~35,000 shots through the 7D.  It is a great camera.  But I do prefer the 5DIII.

If I were to line up the reasons it would go something like this (comparing the 5DIII to 7D):
  • Comparing similar images in the shooting conditions I typically shoot, preferred the 5DIII or found them to be even in the vast majority
  • 5DIII files can both be pushed further in post and respond better to adjustments made
  • While both can use Canon's lens lineup, the majority of L lenses are better suited to a FF sensor (possible exception of the super telephotos)
  • AF is better, especially in low light
  • I prefer the bokeh from the 5DIII under similar conditions
  • I prefer the colors of the 5DIII
  • I prefer the noise of the 5DIII, it is a finer grain that is easier to treat in post
  • and, of course, I have found the 5DIII has better high ISO performance

Of course, some of that is because the 5DIII was released 3 years after the 7D and had newer technology, etc.  I have been watching the 7DII closely and while I am still waiting for reviews of RAW files form production copies of the camera, it seems that it has narrowed the gap in several of the above areas.  Considering I am now invested in FF, all that likely means to me is that I am looking forward to similar improvements in the 5DIV.

But, as you have both cameras, if you could only have one, which would you take?  For me, it is FF and the 5DIII.  Lee Jay picked two 7DIIs. 

None of this is meant as a put down of cropped sensor cameras.  They are incredibly capable.  I continue to see great pictures taken with them and, depending on what you shoot, may be all anyone needs.  But, I find the FF sensor to be incrementally better.  I am sure MF is incrementally better above that, and crop is incrementally better than 1" sensors and so on.  It really gets down to which incremental (or ne.gli.gi.ble) improvement do you want before your needs/wants are satisfied.  While I posted to this thread a couple of times, this is not a topic I get worked up about.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 16, 2014, 09:32:32 PM »
I have the simple answer to this one.  Hand me a FF camera (6D, 5DIII, 1DX) and tell me that I can never shoot crop again and I will be ok with that.  Give me a crop camera, even one as capable as the 7D/7DII, and take away my 5DIII and tell me I can never shoot FF again and I will beat your %$#^@   *&%$#.  That is the difference.  How many here feel differently?

I do.  I use both formats, choosing the one best for the situation.  For speed and focal-length-limited situations, I use crop.  For low light and best image quality when I am not focal length limited, I use full-frame.

My post was supposed to be a bit lighthearted, but that actually is not an answer to the question. If you where forced to pick one format, FF or crop with the current bodies available, which format would you pick?  For me it would be the 5DIII and FF and no contest.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21