December 20, 2014, 11:53:09 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 - jthomson

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12
Reviews / Re: Photozone review of 100-400 L II
« on: December 19, 2014, 03:03:21 PM »

Lenses / Re: Canon 100-400 ii Image Quality Review Posted at TDP
« on: December 18, 2014, 05:36:01 PM »
I was skeptical that this lens could live up to the hype.  It appears the hype was justified:
Roger at Lens rentals disagrees. He just posted a comparison of the old and new 100-400mm and there isn't that much difference between them.
He also posted on the 400 DO. Which appears to be significantly better than the mark 1.
Hopefully Roger will get some Sigma 150-600mm's soon and run a comparison between them,the Tamron and the Canon 100-400mm II

Lenses / Re: 6D and BIF
« on: November 22, 2014, 09:42:25 AM »
Thanks to all!  Now it is clear why I suck so badly at BIF.  Clearly my next step is a 7D II.  After that, a fast lens (as clearly advised by jrista and strongly implied by AprilForever).  And practice.  Thanks again.

BIF is not easy. Not by a long shot. I've been doing bird photography for a few years now, and BIF is definitely my weak spot. I've kind of stopped practicing, as I just don't have the lenses for it. A FAST lens is a big plus, so I really think the 70-200 f/2.8 is going to be a good lens to have, with or without a 1.4x TC. If you have the money, the 300 f/2.8 is great. I am not sure about the 500/4 on a 7D II (that's an effective ~810mm focal length...that's really long, makes for a pretty narrow FoV...I have a hard enough time with BIF at 600mm on the FF, let alone 800mm+). I think a 500/4 on a FF would be still seems a little long to me, especially if you do not already have good BIF skills (if you had good BIF skills, I think it would be excellent, you'll get a lot more detail...but learning on it would be tough, just keeping the bird in the frame would be tough with a 7D II.)
The 70-200 f2.8 is a lousy lens for BIF.  It is way too short.  Same with the bare 300mm f2.8.  The 300mm f2.8 with the 1.4x will work but it is starting to get heavy.
The premiere lens for learning BIF is the 400 mm f5.6L. It is has the needed reach, especially on a crop camera, is fast focusing and is light weight.  Once you have practiced you can move up to the heavier 500mm f4L or the 600mm f4L that you see the serious bird photographers shooting handheld.
Funny thing, I've never heard a bird photographer claim that a lens was too long,  too heavy or to long a MFD, yes, but otherwise the longer the better.

I think your question applies to photography in general now, not just wildlife.

Why's that? As one of the other big photo business segments weddings and portraits tend to look inherently different, an architecture/product/... all have different content as ordered by the client. To me, wildlife photogs seems to be among the most endangered species as w/o further amendments, the content never gets outdated.

Unfortunately as you point out, wildlife photography has become a measuring contest of one's financial power (having the latest gear) as well as their availability to be out in the field almost everyday.

Yes, the latter cannot be helped I'm afraid to say :-o ... but one other catch of wildlife tele shots is that if you manage to get a great shot with your 600mm, the less wealthy photog can still get lucky and get a better shot with his/her cheaper 300mm as long as the subject doesn't eat you. So i reckon there's more in it for beginners, unlike with sports where you have to sit at the edge of the field and simply have to have a 1dx+600mm.
I don't see the inherent difference in wedding photographs  one bride in a white dress looks pretty much the same as another.  Portraits - same thing one guy in a suit looks like every other guy in suit. 

Personally I focus on birds and there are still hundreds in North America that I have not yet had the opportunity to photograph and there are thousands more world wide.  I do it for fun not profit.

Canon General / Re: DRones vs. anti-DRones: how to resolve the controversy
« on: September 25, 2014, 07:19:56 PM »
Anti-Canon = everything Canon does is bad.
Canon fanboy = everything Canon does is good.
Neutral = Canon is best at many things but not everything.

Ok, so that makes me Neutral.   :)

No, you are :

Neuro = CR GEEK

Lenses / Re: Prime tele lenses with EF mount
« on: September 25, 2014, 02:21:51 PM »
People prefer zooms.

I can easily understand it. But zooms have also huge disadvantages especially with a x4 range:

The primes are not as complex as a zoom and could really be optimized and for wildlife photography you are anyway at the longer focal length you have at least 95% of the time.

So are primes so bad at all?
Personally I prefer primes, I shot mostly with a 400mm f5.6L until i upgraded to a 500mm f4L.
But walking around with the prime you rapidly become aware that most people shoot with the 100-400mm, (which costs a couple  of hundred more than the prime) or with the Sigma 50-500mm or 150-500mm.  If people are only going to have one long expensive lens they are going to get the zoom for its versatility.
Long primes are great for nature, but not so good at the zoo or airshows

EOS Bodies / Re: Am I the only one excited about the new 7D mk2?
« on: September 25, 2014, 06:38:15 AM »
First meeting of my photography club this week and the talk was all about the 7D2. Lots on pre - order at the local camera store.  One member said he was number 150 on the list.  I would say that most are upgrading from 7D.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: POLL: What's more important, gps or wifi?
« on: September 25, 2014, 06:24:43 AM »
Which has caused my old brain to start wondering why nobody has reverse engineered the WFT-E7A and produced a cheaper model.  There are off-brand battery grips, selling for a fraction of the cost of a Canon.  Surely it wouldn't be too difficult to manufacture a wi-fi unit which sold in the $300.00 range....or perhaps it is too difficult which is why I'm never heard of one.

I assume the latter - look at the disastrous performance of Yn's rt flash transmitter clone which obviously made them delay their whole line of announced rt flashes.

It's true that wifi is standardized and it should be easier to implement, but sub-par radio performance is annoying and will make a lot of people buy the more expensive, but working model. With battery grips it doesn't matter as much for non-critical shooting if you can buy 3x-4x clones for the price of 1x original.

I don't think it is a technical problem.   DSLRcontroller and the TL- MR3040 work well on the android system and the cost is about $50.  Camranger does the same at a higher price point.  No one has cloned the canon unit because it just isn't that good. 

Lenses / Re: HERE COMES THE BRAND NEW EF 50mm f/1.4
« on: September 25, 2014, 05:48:41 AM »
The year of the lens! :-[

Lenses / Re: Prime tele lenses with EF mount
« on: September 24, 2014, 12:06:33 PM »
People prefer zooms.

Lenses / Re: Inexpensive standard walk around lens question
« on: September 24, 2014, 05:32:12 AM »
The only bundle that I have seen 7DII is with the EF-S18-135. In fact this costs 300 more than body only 7DII.

Where is a bundle 7DII with 24-70 f/4 IS available and sold in this price?
Canon Canada has a special offer on the bundle that prices the 24-70mm f4L at $399 CDN

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: POLL: What's more important, gps or wifi?
« on: September 19, 2014, 08:28:38 AM »
I went for the GPS.  Having the photo come up on the map view in Lightroom is nice.  Wi-fi would also be nice but i really don't use it that often.  I prefer to tether the camera.

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: CF Cards Vs SD Cards
« on: September 18, 2014, 09:59:52 AM »
Yup...enough with the fear mongering. 

I've been shooting CF cards for 15 years and not once have I bent pins or messed up the mechanical interface in any way.  I've had exactly one card go bad in all that time (of hundreds I've owned), and that was when one fell out of my card wallet and got run over by a fire truck.
+1 Seriously.  Unless you jam the card in the wrong way or something, it doesn't happen.  I've been using CF cards for 15+ years as well with no issues.  I've never had a card failure, either and they are tough as hell and have been through many wash cycles :D in my pants.  I've only had 1 SD card failure, but find the size a bad thing in terms of them being easier to lose. 

If the CF cards are faster in the 7DII, I'd go for them as you're going to need all the speed you can get with that camera!

Roger at lensrentals reported that one  of his main repair issues with the 5D3 was bent pins on the CF card slot.
Canon also apparently made some modifications to the slot  as this stopped being an issue.  One reason not to be an early adopter.

Personally I've trashed  three SD cards, but never had a problems with CF cards.  My original my 16 mb CF card from 1999  is still in use in a photoframe.

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: CF Cards Vs SD Cards
« on: September 18, 2014, 09:44:10 AM »
Guys, thank you all so very much.

I've decided to buy a CF card but probably after a few weeks of experience with the SD cards I have.

I'm so excited about this 7Dii  ::)

Watch B&H and Adorama.  Cards do go on sale.  I picked up some 1000x Lexars in a 2 for 1 deal.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5diii to 7dii?
« on: September 18, 2014, 09:31:32 AM »
I would stick with the 5D.... You might be able to sell it to cover the cost of the 7D alone, but not have enough for a prime (other than a 50 1.8 at best).

There would be at least enough for the 40mm pancake. ;)
Might also stretch to a stack of pancakes,  EF-s 24mm and EF 40mm,  hold the syrop. ;D

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12