October 30, 2014, 02:35:10 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 - AlanF

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 74
16
Here's the test, my favourite medieval chimney, ca. 900x700 100% crops side by side. Left is the 70D, 420mm at f/4 iso640, right is 5DIII, 600mm f/5.6 iso1250. Identical processing of both.

The 7D was not as good as the 70D in my hands. If you look at the 60D @420mm with the 300mm/2.8 vs 5DIII at 600 mm; and then compensate for the poorer performance of the 60D by comparing the 70D with the 60 on the 200mm f/2 on the TDP site, it looks as if the 70D and hence the 7DII are as good as the 5DIII in general in this comparison.

By the way FEBS, I am the treasurer of FEBS so watch your bank account!

17
Total simpleton here that has tried gamely to follow the logic of this thread. I accept the circa 20% difference but can someone put this in laymans terms for me....I currently have a 5DIII with 300mm and 2x converter. However, with a 7D2 I could achieve slightly greater 'reach' with a 1.4x - in this instance would a 7D2 with 300mm and 1.4x be a better option than a 5dIII with 300mm and 2x converter? I am reach limited more often than not and I guess the other benefits of the 7D setup include higher FPS, lighter weight and faster aperture.

I've done the comparison 70D + 300mm f/2.8 II+ 1.4xTC III f/4 vs 5DIII + 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTC III f/5.6.

There is  little to choose between them, if anything the 70D was sharper. The extra stop compensates for the extra noise on the 70D - I used iso 640 for the 70D and 1250 on the 5DIII, and the 300mmx1.4 TC combination has a slight inherent IQ edge over the 300x2TC. So, I think the 7DII with the f/2.8 II+ 1.4xTC III or the new 400mm f/4 DO would be a very nice set up.

Thanks for getting me to look at my old images (I had deleted them from Dropbox and had to recover them). It's made me change my mind about getting a 7DII as for the particular case of the 300mm f/2.8 the crop looks as if it will outperform the 5DIII.

18
United Kingdom & Ireland / Re: Hello...Anyone else from the UK?
« on: September 22, 2014, 08:24:47 AM »
from a little quaint rural village just out side Glasgow....... Ruggie!!!  ;D

Were you No! or Yes!?

19
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Which Canon L Lens for 7D Mark II?
« on: September 21, 2014, 05:15:45 AM »
Is this a spoof question? There seem to be quite a few such questions from people with just one or two postings, and it is making me suspicious.

20
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D or 7D MK II
« on: September 20, 2014, 01:07:07 PM »
  If Nikon hadn't patented the crop in the camera I'd just switch the 5D to crop mode for wildlife and have the camera I want.

Does the Nikon give any extra reach in crop mode? Or is it the same as doing crop of FF in post?

21
Lenses / Re: Wildlife lens setup
« on: September 20, 2014, 11:42:10 AM »


I don't see the point of lugging around all that glass in the 100-400, when I would also want it at 400 ..
So light weight prime for me would always win.



The 100-400 weighs only 110g more than the 400 prime, 1360 vs 1250g. The difference  in weight is not that big a deal.

22
Lenses / Re: Wildlife lens setup
« on: September 19, 2014, 06:43:29 PM »
No no no no no! Noooooo. IS is so important for wildlife. Many many great wildlife activity and sightings happen in low light and IS is paramount in those situations…. Not all wildlife photos are hunting cheetahs! And it gets worse in ever green forests like India and Costa Rica…

Nah, its helpful but really once you get down to the point that IS becomes necessary the movement of the bird will blur the shot.  Its extremely difficult no matter what equipment you have to shoot in heavy forest.  You really need to use a flash in those cases, both for illumination and to freeze motion.

+1 to Sanj. The little birds etc don't move perpetually but do have periods of keeping still, which is why you can get sharp shots at 1/15s etc. IS is very useful and expands the range of what is possible. I could not go back to non-IS now.

23
Lenses / Re: Wildlife lens setup
« on: September 19, 2014, 11:40:33 AM »
Of the lenses listed, I would go with the 400 5.6 or the Tammy.  Maybe check out the Sigma 150-600 once that starts shipping and getting reviewed. The 400 is great for beginners and really gets you to focus on fundamentals to get shots. Its light enough that it isn't a burden to hike with and handhold. Its just enough reach to force you to learn how to approach. I really liked my time with this lens. The Tammy and, I would assume, the Sigma would both be pretty great I think, but I've not used them. I think if they'd have been around when I was starting out I would have loved to have that kind of cheap reach.

I post on a bird site that is an absolute stickler for sharpness.


What site is this? I'd like to see some moderated/judged wildlife shots

Birdpix.nl

The mods are so tough! But, I learned a lot from the rejections and the odd criticism from the mainly Dutch members. 

24
Lenses / Re: Wildlife lens setup
« on: September 19, 2014, 07:10:39 AM »
The Tamron 150-600mm is easily sharp enough at 600mm - if it wasn't I would always use the 300mm II + 2xTC. I post on a bird site that is an absolute stickler for sharpness. They used to reject loads of my efforts with the 100-400mm for insufficient sharpness but my latest ones at 600mm with the Tamron are invariably accepted and several getting on to the special lists.

25
Lenses / Re: Wildlife lens setup
« on: September 19, 2014, 06:59:23 AM »
You are spoiled for choice.

If you sit in a hide (blind) and use a tripod and have lots and lots of money, the 600mm f/4 II or the 500mm II are simply incredible. The I series are nearly as good, much cheaper but heavier.

If you don't mind less reach but more flexibility and be able to hand hold, and also have lots of money, the 300mm f/2.8 II plus 1.4 and 2xTCs or as seems likely the brand new 400mm DO II plus TCs are outstanding. (I don't get tired walking with and holding the 300mm f/2.8 II). The series I 300/2.8 is not as good with the 2xTC but still amazing native or with the 1.4xTC.

If you have much less money I would recommend the Tamron 150-600mm which is incredible value and as good as the 100-400mm L where they overlap and has the extra reach and better IS (I am very pleased with mine). The 100-400mm L is a very good lens and small, but you must check it out first as there are some bad ones out there. The new Sigma 150-600s are as yet untested, and the old 150-500 is not good at 500mm. The 400mm f/5.6L is a nice lens, very sharp and fast focussing but you are limited in its use as it doesn't have IS. The 300mm f/4 IS is very sharp but it is a bit short and it is not as sharp with the 1.4xTC as the 400mm native, but again it is very good value and has IS.

I started with the 400mm f/5.6 L, loved it, but changed to the 100-400 L as it was more useful to me with its IS and zoom, then did the 300mm f/2.8 II, which is my favourite, and now use the Tamron for travel as it is very good and more portable.


26
This advisory makes Sigma's USB dock look that much better,

Why is it better to pay for an accessory, when Canon has included the ability to update lens firmware directly into all recent bodies?  That's how I updated the firmware on my EF 40mm f/2.8 STM. 

Granted, if you need your supertele firmware updated (happily, mine came with the updated version), you need to send your lens to Canon...but that's their business decision (and they pay shipping), not because it's not possible for customers to update lens firmware.

Also, this advisory is over two years old.  This 'update' doesn't change anything.  All they updated was the way they stated the affected serial numbers from 'xx0xxxxxx' to specify the first two digits, most likely to avoid confusion because they've now made enough copies of at least one affected lens that the second digit incremented up.

Thanks Neuro for letting me know that this is the update I got two years ago!

27
Lenses / Re: Lens 'resolving power' vs sensors.
« on: September 18, 2014, 06:35:13 AM »
Whoa..... all of this technical talk is confusing me. Let's imagine that canon releases a 36mp full frame dslr,  will that render my "less" resolving lenses such as the 35mm 1.4L, 16-35ii and 85mm 1.2L to doo doo?
I've heard that the 24-70ii and 70-200ii are high resolving lenses and shouldn't have a problem. I wonder what happened on the Nikon side with using the same lenses on the D800 hmmmm.....

Course not! But, leaving the lens cap on and putting a pinhole through it wouldn't reap the full benefit of the high megapixel count though.

28
Camera Body Gallery / Re: Birds, Birds...with EOS 1Dx and 5D III
« on: September 18, 2014, 05:50:10 AM »
It is ruined by the writing across it!

29
I know I'm in the minority, but I sure hope the 100-400 replacement is a push-pull zoom.

Ditto

Guess there is 4 of us...at least.  I am hoping for a push-pull.
5 of us. 

30
Lenses / Re: Lens 'resolving power' vs sensors.
« on: September 17, 2014, 06:16:48 AM »
The theoretical resolution of the 12.1 mp 1/2.3" sensor of the SX50 is 323 lp/mm (1.54 µ pixels).
The theoretical resolution of the 16.1 mp 1/2.3" sensor of the SX60 is 371 lp/mm (1.34 µ pixels).

But, the Airy disk diameter for f/6.5, the widest aperture at telephoto lengths, is 8.7 µ, and the SX50 becomes diffraction limited at f/2.5 and the SX60 at f/2.2. The system is mainly diffraction limited, not sensor limited

In other words, there is no real gain in resolution using the 16.1 mp sensor and it will be noisier!

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 74