« on: Today at 11:08:01 AM »
My first BIF with the 100-400 II on the 7D II, iso640, f/5.6, 1/2000
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.
This is all beside the point anyway, as all it takes is ONE step, or even to stand up or start standing up, and your target could flee. Birds of the heron family in particular, for example, are extremely skittish birds. If you manage to get close enough to get a decent shot at all, then smaller pixels are going to be a bigger friend to you than getting closer. I can't count how many times just seeing my head barely rise over the top of a ridge was enough to make every heron and egret in the area fly off. Hawks are similar...they can be perfectly content with you sitting there watching them if your not moving. The moment you stand up, they'll leap off their perch and fly right over your head! (I've had this happen a few times.) Deer are content to get right up in your face so long as your sitting on the ground...stand up, they'll dance around and huff a few times, then wander off. Outside of wearing a ghillie suit, even in camo deer will spot me. If I stand up, they at the very least stand rigid and take notice. Start moving towards them, and they will often bolt.
It's not necessarily always as easy as taking a few steps closer to your target.
I have a startling inability to walk on water so zooming with my feet rarely works.....
Obviously you need a duck boat with a blind on it. The old FF with a boat blind vs the crop on the bank debate.
Then there is the opposite question, how do the animals react when you have to get up and run away from them because you are framed to close with a crop body.
Thanks for the tests and so far so good though I am hoping 400mm is as stated at longer distances.
Would be great to see comparisons with the Mk1 and 400 f5.6 prime
Anyone who has the 400 5.6 and the new 100-400 - which one is superior at 400?
I don't have either but the shots I've seen taken with the 100-400 and 400 both I would say the 400 is superior in sharpness and light transmission. However the 100-400 gives you the zoom capability. Though how much are you really going to use it at less than 400?
If you already have the 400 5.6 I would say keep it unless you really need the zoom for what you shoot.
Sorted out the problem why 400 mm seemed soft. The focal length of the 100-400mm at that distance from the target was 370mm, compared with a true 420 for the 1.4x300 with the prime. The smaller focal took the size of the central rings of the chart below what could be resolved. So, I repeated the shots at 400mm (= 370mm) closer to the target so the image is the same size as that from the 420mm. The rings are now very nicely resolved (phew!). Here are the comparisons with my usual procedure. RAW, DxO 10, PRIME noise reduction, exported into PS. On the left there is zero sharpening, on the right 0.9 px at 100% USM.
I am much happier now.
...so at what distance did you actually take your readings?
If the effective focal length is reduced from 400 to 370 it looks as if it is at close range.
AlanF sorry to hear how unwell you are, not able to work! Reminds me of my kids years back.
I am not feeling well this morning so took first photos of birds rather than work!
These are all 100% crops, f/8 at 560mm iso 640 on the 5DIII. DxO prime followed by 0.9px USM at 100% (not necessary but that's my routine).
What's impressive is the Robin was at 1/50 s and the crow at 1/60 s. I took several shots and they were all keepers at those times. The IS is stupendous.
Looks like they may have focused a couple inches forward of the subject. (See the gutter on the crow, and the branch for the squirrel).