October 31, 2014, 04:25:55 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 - AlanF

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 74
1
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II Owners first thoughts
« on: Today at 04:20:12 AM »
So far I love the camera--very fast.  My 70-200 EF f/2.8 IS II with the 2X TC focuses much faster and more accurately than with the 7D.  I'm amazed in the noise improvement.  Will take me a while to get used to the placement of the AF change buttons--I was so used to the 7D after using it for 5 yrs.  Here's a couple of ISO 12800--yes, 12,800!! taken with the 70-200 + 2X  on manual and dev with NO changes in DPP except adding the lens correction.  It think they are pretty incredible for the ISO.  They would have been so ugly before.

Are these 100% crops or are they the whole image resized down 3-4 times.

2
I had missed this thread and started another yesterday - sorry. Anyway, I posted the comparative MTFs of the Tamron and Sigma in

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23442.0

Whatever the reservations about the lens being provided by Sigma, and that it might be a chosen good copy, this behemoth is very good, although not for me.

3
Third Party Manufacturers / Sigma 150-600 Sport vs Tamron 150-600mm
« on: October 29, 2014, 06:58:27 PM »
Lenstip, bless them, have done the first review of the Sigma 150-600mm sport. The MTFs are very impressive, 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. It is 120 x 290.2mm vs 105.6 x 257.8mm. (The 300/2.8 II is 128 x 248mm, 2350g)

It's a better lens than the Tamron but it is too large and heavy for me as it would be easier to carry and pack the admittedly much more expensive 300/2.8. Nevertheless, a very impressive lens.

4

The TDP test has the lens at different distances so that the chart completely fills the frame. That is a useless comparison for comparing the resolution of a lens for a subject at a fixed distance away - the target is 50% further away at 600 vs 400mm in the TDP tests. I have posted images of the iso chart taken at the same distance away using 400, 500 and 600 mm. The Tamron at 600mm clearly outresolves itself at 400mm.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19503.msg366741#msg366741

I took those with 100-400 @ f8 and f6.3 respectively, i guess it is very sharp, maybe not like the big whites but that a different thing.

these are almost 100% crops

For the fun of it, I did a collage of crops of your shots with the 100-400 and some of mine taken at random using the Tamron at 400 and 600mm and the 300/2.8 II + 2XTC. They are all 100% The comparison isn't really fair because yours are on a 600D and mine on a 5DIII. The big white wins hands down, of course. But all the photos are acceptable and enjoyable.

5
There are several comments here about the Tamron being soft at 600mm and slow from individuals who clearly don't have any first-hand experience of the lens and just rely on mythical hearsay or lens test from TDP, which actually shows it sharp at the centre.

I regularly  use the Tamron 150-600, have used extensively the 100-400 L and have the 300/2.8 II.

The Tamron is not soft at 600mm, and it is reasonably fast at AF at 600mm. My first hand experience fits in well with the extensive reviews on ePhotozine and Lenstip. Here is the MTF analysis from ePhotozine, which has measured the values at 600mm to be on the edge of excellent at f/8, and the Lenstip's of the 150-600mm and the 100-400mm, which shows that the Tamron at600mm and f/8 to be similar to that of the 100-400 at 400.

Don't knock cameras or lenses based on hearsay, second-hand and inaccurate information.

No one is saying it's soft at 600mm and f/8, just at 600mm and f/6.3.

The sample images in the links above from fredmiranda.com might indicate otherwise. Isn't it true with most telephoto lenses that wide open and max focal link sacrifices some sharpness?

It really depends on price of the upcoming 100-400mm, and one's willingness to forego Canon L for similar performance across the same focal length.  Tamron looks to be a strong contender.

No, it doesn't have to be true that it softens up at the long end.  Many do, but the better ones don't.  For a telephoto where resolving power is its while reason to exist, this is a major problem for people that lime to get the most from their equipment.

You made a blanket statement it was soft at 600mm, and you didn't qualify it with an f number. The current 100-400 is at its weakest at 400mm. Here is a selection of bird photos that some of us have taken with the lens at 600mm. Soft are they?

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22284.msg426389#msg426389

This I what I said:

I've seen plenty of full-sized shots at 600mm to know that it is soft at 600mm wide-open, even on full-frame.

I'm not a sharpness nut, except on telephoto lenses, where it's common to crop like crazy.  When I can properly frame, I find my 17-40L and 24-105L to be quite excellent.  But on telephoto, it's not uncommon for me to crop 2x into a shot that was shot with a 2xTC on a 1.6-crop camera.  That's only 15% of the size of the image circle, enlarged to a full-frame.  That requires critical resolving power.Have a look.  This is the Tamron against itself (400mm versus 600mm).  There's a substantial difference.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

The TDP test has the lens at different distances so that the chart completely fills the frame. That is a useless comparison for comparing the resolution of a lens for a subject at a fixed distance away - the target is 50% further away at 600 vs 400mm in the TDP tests. I have posted images of the iso chart taken at the same distance away using 400, 500 and 600 mm. The Tamron at 600mm clearly outresolves itself at 400mm.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19503.msg366741#msg366741

6
There are several comments here about the Tamron being soft at 600mm and slow from individuals who clearly don't have any first-hand experience of the lens and just rely on mythical hearsay or lens test from TDP, which actually shows it sharp at the centre.

I regularly  use the Tamron 150-600, have used extensively the 100-400 L and have the 300/2.8 II.

The Tamron is not soft at 600mm, and it is reasonably fast at AF at 600mm. My first hand experience fits in well with the extensive reviews on ePhotozine and Lenstip. Here is the MTF analysis from ePhotozine, which has measured the values at 600mm to be on the edge of excellent at f/8, and the Lenstip's of the 150-600mm and the 100-400mm, which shows that the Tamron at600mm and f/8 to be similar to that of the 100-400 at 400.

Don't knock cameras or lenses based on hearsay, second-hand and inaccurate information.

No one is saying it's soft at 600mm and f/8, just at 600mm and f/6.3.

The sample images in the links above from fredmiranda.com might indicate otherwise. Isn't it true with most telephoto lenses that wide open and max focal link sacrifices some sharpness?

It really depends on price of the upcoming 100-400mm, and one's willingness to forego Canon L for similar performance across the same focal length.  Tamron looks to be a strong contender.

No, it doesn't have to be true that it softens up at the long end.  Many do, but the better ones don't.  For a telephoto where resolving power is its while reason to exist, this is a major problem for people that lime to get the most from their equipment.

You made a blanket statement it was soft at 600mm, and you didn't qualify it with an f number. The current 100-400 is at its weakest at 400mm. Here is a selection of bird photos that some of us have taken with the lens at 600mm. Soft are they?

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22284.msg426389#msg426389

7
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon PowerShot SX60 HS
« on: October 27, 2014, 03:29:55 PM »
As I mentioned in another thread, I tried out the SX60 and compared it with my SX50. The SX60 in RAW was much noisier. The SX60 looks good, but for my purposes of bird photography, I won't upgrade because the SX50 with its 12 mp sensor gives better IQ.

8
There are several comments here about the Tamron being soft at 600mm and slow from individuals who clearly don't have any first-hand experience of the lens and just rely on mythical hearsay or lens test from TDP, which actually shows it sharp at the centre.

I regularly  use the Tamron 150-600, have used extensively the 100-400 L and have the 300/2.8 II.

The Tamron is not soft at 600mm, and it is reasonably fast at AF at 600mm. My first hand experience fits in well with the extensive reviews on ePhotozine and Lenstip. Here is the MTF analysis from ePhotozine, which has measured the values at 600mm to be on the edge of excellent at f/8, and the Lenstip's of the 150-600mm and the 100-400mm, which shows that the Tamron at600mm and f/8 to be similar to that of the 100-400 at 400.

Don't knock cameras or lenses based on hearsay, second-hand and inaccurate information.


9
Time has passed this lens by - it is two years to late.

The 150-600 zoom is the new kid on the block...

Indeed, and like much of America's youth, the 'new kids' are big and overweight.  The retracted 100-400L is the size of a 70-200/2.8, a very convenient size for a 400mm lens.  Considering the optical improvements going from original to MkII of the 70-200/2.8 IS, a new 100-400 should be excellent.  Mount a 1.4x TC behind it, you'll have a 140-560mm f/8 lens that will AF on recent higher-end bodies, deliver great IQ, and be a heck of a lot more portable than those "I'm not fat, I'm big-boned" new kids.  ;)

How quaint. You recommend using a lens 2/3 of a stop slower, thus requiring the use of a higher ISO with an f-stop that requires many autofocus compromises.

When the issue is portability, yes.  The 1D X and 100-400L with 1.4xIII mounted fits in a Lowepro Toploader Pro 75 AW or even a regular backpack – it's a very portable combo. At 560mm f/8, the IQ of the 100-400 is similar to the larger, heavier Tamron at 600mm.  If I want to compromise portability instead, I'd bring the 600/4L IS II which is 1.33-stops faster, has better AF and much better IQ, and can go to 840mm f/5.6 or 1200mm f/8 (still with better IQ than the Tamron at 600mm).   

Or I'd buy the 300/2.8, which is about the same length as the retracted Tamron 150-600 (and shorter and lighter than the Sigma 150-600), and with the 2xIII is 1/3-stop faster, has better IQ and better AF.  Sure, it's more expensive...but you always have to compromise somewhere.  Personally, the higher cost isn't a big concern.

As you know, I use the 300/2.8 II + 2xTC as my 600 of choice but I am also happy with the Tamron 150-600 when I need a zoom or less weight and volume. I found that the AF on the 100-400 + 1.4xTC was hopeless on the 5DIII whereas the Tamron is quite good. I'd be very tempted if Canon came out with a short retractable new 100-400 of higher quality for portability.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: 7d mark II as reviewed by Artie Morris
« on: October 22, 2014, 05:19:17 AM »
Arthur Morris a doyen of bird photographers, and he is not afraid of changing his mind with changing times. Note that he is now using the 300mm/2.8 II with extenders, which he does also on FF whereas in the past he thought it was too short. Just remember - using these combinations that a 300mm on a crop has twice the aperture as a 1.4 TC + 300mm on FF with similar resolution or a 300 + 1.4xTC on crop is similar to a 300 + 2xTC on FF. The extra stop on the crop makes a factor of 2 in iso and the absence of or smaller TC gives for better IQ.

I am really looking forward to seeing more data on the 7DII, and will get one if the IQ has improved. Already, my 70D using the 300/2.8 stands up quite well to my 5DIII, so I am hopeful.

11
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7Dii AF performance
« on: October 17, 2014, 02:50:33 AM »
The AF on the 7D was its weakest link.  It had real problems with the 300/2.8 II + 2xTC, which is the reason I sold it for the 70D, which focuses well. There has been considerable comment here about the weakness of the 7D AF.

12
Reviews / SX60 HS
« on: October 15, 2014, 04:04:26 PM »
The first reviews are trickling out, e.g, http://cameras.reviewed.com/content/canon-powershot-sx60-hs-digital-camera-review

It handles better than the SX50, it is reported. The local shop had one in today, which gave me the chance of a few shots side-by-side with the SX50. The evf is a real improvement and seemed more responsive, but I was more interested in the IQ at 1365 on the SX60 vs 1200mm.

I used iso 320 and RAW. Unfortunately, DxO doesn't have a raw converter for the SX60 yet but the latest DPP for Powershot works. The SX60 was very noisy, much noisier than the SX50, and the SX50 gave better results.

13
It's the thrill of the chase for an amateur like me, getting surrounded by nature and enjoying it. And, depending on the capriciousness of wild beings, maybe next time I will get a great shot.

14
Yesterday, I tried out the 70D with the 300/2.8 II + 1.4xTC III. It was good at f/4. But, for reach limited subjects, the 300/2.8 II + 2xTC III was even better.

Do you mean that the 2xTC on FF is better than a 70D+1.4xTC? And what about a 70D vs 1.4xTC on FF?

I posted earlier an example where 70D with the 300/2.8 II + 1.4xTC III was as good as 5DIII with the 300/2.8 II + 2xTC III. I meant here that 70D with the 300/2.8 II + 2xTC III was better than 70D with the 300/2.8 II + 1.4xTC III in a highly reach limited situation.

I haven't compared 70D plus 300/2.8 II vs 5DIII with the 300/2.8 II + 1.4xTC III.

15
Yesterday, I tried out the 70D with the 300/2.8 II + 1.4xTC III. It was good at f/4. But, for reach limited subjects, the 300/2.8 II + 2xTC III was even better.

An interesting point I read on TDP from a conversation with Chuck Westfull. You read regularly that the 1.4xTC III slows down focussing speed by 50% and the 2x by 75%, but in practice they do not. Addition of a TC actually speeds up focussing because the glass has to be moved through shorter distances and so the 50% and 75% reductions are there to bring them back to the speed of the bare lens.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 74