December 19, 2014, 10:21:18 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 - Jackson_Bill

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 20

After the announcement of the 7D MkII, I decided to rent a 5DMkIII for the weekend and see difference for myself. i was expecting to be blown away by the incredible performance difference in high ISO performance. I was expecting to be left wanting to get a 5D after my testing. But that was not the case.

I agree. But be careful, Marsu42 will be calling you a well-off enthusiast

I've been using the 7D since it came out and I just recently purchased a 5Diii based on all the comments that ff is much better than the APS-C. My experience - not so much.

A common fallacy if you ask well-off enthusiasts, I'm afraid.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D vs 7D mark II
« on: December 11, 2014, 04:32:09 AM »
Given the op's camera use, leaving aside the relative merits of 6D vs APS-C, would there be much point in getting a 7DII rather than the less expensive 70D?  I suspect the real world image quality differences are trivial or negligible.

Good point.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D vs 7D mark II
« on: December 10, 2014, 07:44:48 PM »
I've been using the 7D since it came out and I just recently purchased a 5Diii based on all the comments that ff is much better than the APS-C. My experience - not so much. Yes, the 5Diii is better at high iso, which is important for conditions when the light is low and a high shutter speed is needed but for static things like landscapes and night photography, I think the 7Dii would do the trick.

For wildlife photography with my 7D, I use evaluative metering and use the quick control dial to compensate based on the conditions/scene. I find that to be a fairly quick way to adjust.
And I almost always have some postiive compensation dialed in to ETTR to some extent.

In your survey, I didn't see a simple "Evaluative" option. Doesn't the 7D use all the focus points (the scene) in evaluative metering unless you hit the AE lock?

Animal Kingdom / Re: The 1200mm Sharpness Test
« on: December 08, 2014, 03:10:04 PM »
What's the consesnus on the 1.4x II vs the 1.4x III? I own a 1.4xII and 500 f/4 IS USM and I leave the 1.4 in the closet. The loss in resolution is very discernible.

Lenses / Re: What distance to be at for AFMA
« on: December 02, 2014, 02:47:05 PM »
It does depend a lot on the distance you normally use a lens at.  However, most lenses tend to front focus as you get near mfd, so unless that's where you use it, be sure to check at multiple distances.  My new 35mmL varied AFMA considerably with distance, requiring as much as +17 for distant objects.
I had to actually change it for close objects.  I sent it to Canon under warranty, they adjusted it on their reference body, and from then on, it was great.

thanks much to you and neuro.
I've come up with adjustments for my new 24-70 f/2.8 II of +17 on my 7D and +15 on my 5Diii.  I'll have to check at various distances. I may need to send that to Canon.

Animal Kingdom / Re: Your best animal shots!
« on: November 29, 2014, 08:45:32 PM »
backyard moose

Lenses / Re: What distance to be at for AFMA
« on: November 29, 2014, 08:39:30 PM »
I test at 25x and 50x the focal length, so that's 10 and 20 meters.

Does the AFMA change with distance? In other words, if you set the AFMA at distance X, will it still be correct at distance 2*X?
 I ask because I do my AFMA with a DIY setup and I like to get closer to the target to take advantage of the thinner DOF. The thinner DOF makes it easier to see how much back or front focus there is.

No problem for the tripod.
1. Canon specifies a lower operating temperature around freezing for their cameras. I've had my 7D in much colder than that, but YMMV.
2. Beware condensation! Put your gear in a plastic bag before you bring it inside.

Photography Technique / Re: Game Ranches for photography
« on: November 19, 2014, 09:35:40 AM »
I'm not out to piddle in anyones pond, but I prefer to shoot in Mother nature. ...
I, too, have never photographed animals in zoos or game ranches, in part because the photo is only part of the experience. My wife and I have learned a lot about animal behavior watching the critters.
That said, a recent event around Grand Teton National Park brings another series of questions into play. What impact do wildlife photographers have on the wildlife? Grizzly 760 was one of the more photographed bears in Yellowstone/GTNP. He was exposed every year of his life to dozens, if not hundreds, of photographers (of which I was one, I'll admit) and became completely acclimated to them. Large crowds have watched him eating his way along a roadside for hours.
He was captured and moved a couple of years ago (hence the collar and his number) and returned to the Yellowstone/GTNP area. He was captured and moved again this year. This year, a couple of issues led to him being put down. So, the question is - do photographers acclimate wild animals to humans which then lead them to being shot by hunters or put down by Game and Fish? Would it be better to be taking photos on ranches?

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: November 14, 2014, 06:25:47 PM »
western grebes in May

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: November 14, 2014, 06:14:11 PM »
Western Grebe- Clear Lake 28 May 2010 © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal Photography, on Flickr

Nice reflections.
I think I'd call those Clark's Grebes.
If you took the photo in May they'd be in breeding plumage and the black on the head covers the eye on the Western Grebe.

Ya'll are a bit too technical for a simple guy such as myself. I am usually limited by reach shooting wildlife with my 400 f5.6 on a 5D3. I know there are better lenses out there but that lens fits my needs pretty well other than being a bit short. Performance with a tele can be a challenge as there is no IS, f8 focus speed etc. If the 7D2 yields images that out-resolve images from my 5D3 cropped (8mp?) or the 5D3 with a 1.4x tele (with all of the issues that brings) I assume I come out ahead. So far that seems to be the case. The fact that the 7D2 is in many ways a more robust camera for outdoor work is just icing on the cake. Am I missing something? I get that full frame has advantages if/when you fill the frame but that just isn't always possible when photographing wild animals.

This is exactly right. There is a reach benefit to a camera like the 7D II. A lot of vocal members here strongly push the notion that because of the bigger pixels, FF cameras like the 5D III or 1D X can be enlarged and have better quality than the 7D II. When it comes to noise, it was a fine line in the case of the 7D (and other 18mp APS-C parts), however there has clearly been an improvement on the 7D II high ISO noise. Maybe not by stops, but a third to two thirds of a stop.

More important than now much noise you have, though, is the simple fact that smaller pixels resolve more detail. More reach is all about detail. Grabbing an 8mp crop out of the 5D III is never going to result in the kind of sharpness or detail you can get out of a 7D II.

There are other benefits, though, to using a sports crop instead of a full frame when you are reach limited: Maximum lens aperture. You nailed it on the head here.

With the 5D III, you can always slap on a TC, but when you do, you lose a stop to two stops of maximum aperture. That in turn affects the number of AF points you can use, how sensitive they are, whether they are cross type or not, and how fast AF occurs. A 5D III with say a 400 f/4 +1.4x TC is going to lose the ability to use f/4 capabilities of many AF points, and the AF speed will drop. A 7D II with the bare 400 is going to have effectively the same reach, but it will be able to use all of it's 65 AF points, in full cross type mode, with more light than the 5D III.

So you get the AF improvement on top of the increased spatial resolution. Since you are reach limited, there is no full-frame benefit to cropping the FF, you aren't gathering more light in total, just more light per pixel. You can always downsample the 7D II image to the same dimensions as the cropped 5D III image, and your noise will drop while concurrently the image will get sharper. This fact should be more recognizable with the 7D II, with it's higher resolution sensor and slightly newer sensor technology, than it was with the 7D (which, to this point, is generally what these debates have revolved around...whether the 7D had a "real" reach benefit or not.)

Well said, guys

Technical Support / Re: Question about " FORMAT" of the memory cards.
« on: November 06, 2014, 06:45:01 PM »
Hello Surapon,
Only recently have I been in the position to worry about this problem, having recently bought a 5Diii to go along with my 7D.
According to the 5Diii manual:
"If the card is new or was previously formatted by another camera or computer, format the card with the camera." The 7D manual says the same thing.
So if your question was regarding using the 5Diii to format all your cards, I'd say no, you should not.
I haven't had a problem when I used a card formatted in the 7D that was completely erased (rather than formatted) in the 5Diii but I suspect that if there were protected images on the card (which formatting erases) it might confuse things.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7d mk2 seems very soft?
« on: November 04, 2014, 06:44:20 PM »
So far I'm not happy with my shots.  They all seem soft.  I have been messing with my settings though and not having LR is a major drawback.  I've never had jpgs out of a camera so I'm not sure if in camera settings are doing something or what with the jpgs. 

Detail is missing from bird feathers and while AF is spot on, all of the shots are soft.

I don't have the 7Dii but with my 7D and 5Diii I've noticed that the default sharpness settings are lower than I would normally use. I suggest you shoot some RAW files and use DPP to convert to jpg.
If it still looks soft, check your MFA.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 20