March 05, 2015, 02:03:11 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 - docsmith

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 24
Lenses / Re: First Image of the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Lens
« on: November 06, 2014, 10:18:58 AM »
If this is correct, I really have to hand it to Canon.  They find niches to differentiate their products.  Size and (assuming) weight.  Using lenstip numbers, I bet the optics (center frame) are ~38-42 lpmm.  Very good, maybe a bit better than the 70-300L.  But not so good that they compete with the Big Whites (e.g. 300 mm f/2.8 II ~46 lpmm).  Maybe not as good as the Sigma 150-600S @ 600 (assuming fall off with TC). 

But the market for this lens....size and weight.  I have the Sigma 150-600S pre-ordered since day 1 (still waiting), but I have to say, Canon may get me to cancel.  Even if this is slightly worse than the Sigma 150-600S @~560-600 mm, the portability of this lens will likely tip the scales for me.

Simply great product differentiation.  This lens could actually create a niche.  Smallish, lightweightish telephoto zoom.

Show me the price, and MTF charts (w and w/o 1.4 TC).

Lenses / Re: First Image of the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Lens
« on: November 06, 2014, 08:41:58 AM »
Looks interesting...but show me the MTF charts and price.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II Owners first thoughts
« on: November 04, 2014, 07:57:42 PM »
Both RAW ISO 400.  Techradar scored the 5DIII a 26 while giving the 7DII a 30.  I don't see it.

Those numbers look correct to me.  See how far left you can go and still count the correct number of lines (counting 9, instead of 11, means aliasing, and doesn't count).

I see what you are saying.  I will say, while I can count the lines further with the 7D2, I still like the 5DIII image (constrast, etc) better.  Even after cropping and resizing the images.  Granted, this is at the pixel peeping level.  In a way, I am very impressed at how comparable they are.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is the 7D MK II Really Selling Well?
« on: November 04, 2014, 07:23:23 PM »
Considering this is Canon's first new dSLR in awhile, I wouldn't be surprised if they have their factory cranking out 7DIIs.  Also considering the discounts we are seeing on the other top end dSLRs, those sales are likely starting to wane, so they may have the capacity at the factory.

But, of is all speculation.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II Owners first thoughts
« on: November 04, 2014, 10:28:12 AM »
Roger just made me even more impressed with the 7DII.  Everything I am seeing indicates that it is a heckuva camera.

One quick thing, I was looking through Techradar's scores and I was originally very impressed that the 7DII was beating the 5DIII and 6D in their resolution charts.  But, then I started looking at the actual images....and I think they must have switched scorers as I still go with the 5DIII image (as expected) where they actually rated the 7DII higher.

Both RAW ISO 400.  Techradar scored the 5DIII a 26 while giving the 7DII a 30.  I don't see it.  Other comparisons were similar.

High ISO IQ....I am hopeful for 1/3-1/2 stop improvement from improvements to the microlenses/etc.  I am very interested to see how much of the improvements to the 7DII are due to this and not the actual sensor.  I wonder how much of an improvement we would see by removing the bayer filter altogether. 

Then I am hopeful for ~1/2 stop improvement in QE.  Right now Canon is ~50% QE.  If we can get into the 75-85% range, that would be remarkable.

I wonder how much improvement can be gained at high ISO from things like onchip digical converters.  I think that would help low ISO a lot, but I haven't seen any speculation on high ISO.

So, maybe up to a stop improvement?  Maybe. 

Ha.....maybe this is becoming a thing.  I was just at a wedding (as a guest as I am no pro) and kept noticing how close and intrusive the videographer was.   Standing right in front of the alter as procession came in.  So intrusive that the bridesmaids and groomsmen actually had to move around the videographer and separate early.  Close enough to the cutting of the cake that I am surprised that they didn't get frosting on their lens.  It all worked and I haven't heard the bride complain, but I felt for the photographer.

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: October 31, 2014, 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. 

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 24