December 18, 2014, 09:38:02 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 5 ... 79
31
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 70D/7DII vs 5DIII + TC
« on: December 09, 2014, 12:01:58 PM »
Another totally irrelevant crop vs ff test. I thought these had died long ago with the 7D vs 5D II debate.
You are making the assumption that in camera firmware is the same and that sharpness set to 0 on one camera is the same as 0 on another.
It doesn't account for camera shake in the real world which can quickly negate any benefit of the smaller pixels.
Neither is the real world a flat wall and evenly lit.

These kind of tests oversell what you can really expect. If you want to find out what the real difference is set up the test in a real world situation with real world conditions. Outside with 3 dimensional subjects in real conditions that you normally shoot, processed to the best of your abilities.

Enough bashing your test, I would say so far I have found from testing mine that the 7D vs 5D II debate has narrowed since the old tests a few years back. The crop factor is closer and worth consideration but so far I am leaning toward the negatives of a crop sensor being to great. The biggest negative is the loss of light and high ISO noise, this translates in the real world to a slower shutter speed. Slower shutter speed translates in to additional camera shake.

Your comments are the totally irrelevant contribution.
1. They were taken in RAW with no in-camera sharpening or noise reduction, and your comments about assumptions about camera firmware are out of place.
2. The focal lengths used with crop are 1.4 x shorter than on the FF so the effects of shake are the same on both.

I have also done similar tests with real birds in real situations with the same results. As someone else wrote, you test under controlled conditions and use what you have learned from those in the field. If you ignore such tests, then the loss is yours.

32
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 70D/7DII vs 5DIII + TC
« on: December 09, 2014, 10:35:25 AM »
I am not saying the 7DII will be better than the FF for all bird photography but it does have advantages under particular circumstances, and wider circumstances than just "bright light". For example, the 7DII with a 400 DO II will be at least as good as a 5DIII with a 300/2.8 + 2xTC under most conditions, and weigh less. A 7DII (or 70D) with a 100-400 II at 400mm will be better than a Tamron 150-600 at 600mm on a 5DIII, and weigh less and be smaller. A 600mm II on a 5DIII or 1DX will be better than all of those for image quality - but it is too heavy for me as a hiking lens.

33
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 70D/7DII vs 5DIII + TC
« on: December 09, 2014, 07:28:36 AM »
Looking at http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Comparisons/Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II-ISO-Noise.aspx the 7D ii at 6400 (giving it a 1 stop start vs a 1.4x on FF) vs the 5DIII at 12800 looks comparable, with the 1Dx ahead.

34
EOS Bodies - For Stills / 70D/7DII vs 5DIII + TC
« on: December 09, 2014, 06:16:10 AM »
This is not yet another of the endless crop vs FF (famous last words) but a focus on a particular situation, which is of interest to some of us nature photographers who slap TCs onto our telephotos and plug them into a 5DIII or 1DX. How well would we do if we use the 7DII or 70D instead of a 1.4xTC, or a 7DII or 70D + 1.4xTC vs 5DIII + 2xTC?

The answer will depend to a large extent on how sharp the bare lens is because the crops are very intolerant of soft lenses. So let's do this for really good lenses. The addition of a 1.4xTC will cause a small degradation of image but cut the light for a factor of 2 on the FF, compensating for the smaller pixels in the crop sensor. First is a photo (100%) crop of my favourite medieval brick chimney. The 300mm/2.8 II + 1.4xTC III on my 70D at iso640 is at least equal to my 300mm/2.8 II + 2xTC III on my 5D III at iso1250.

Below, are centre crops from the standard chart (printed out on rough photocopy paper). Again, The 300mm/2.8 II + 1.4xTC III on my 70D at iso640 is at least equal to my 300mm/2.8 II + 2xTC III on my 5D III at iso640.

Two further points. The 300mm/2.8 II + 2xTC III on my 70D has lost some IQ, and it is probably worth sticking to the 1.4xTC. The Tamron at 150-600mm at 400mm on the 70D is quite good and is much better than at 600mm on the 5DIII.

So, these tests have made up my mind for me. I am going to use the 100-400 II on a 70D or 7DII as my hiking/birding lens. I think that the new 400 DO II on the 7D II will be better than the 300/2.8 + 2xTC on the 5DIII for hiking/birding. Let's wait and see.

35
Photography Technique / Re: Yet another crop vs full frame thread
« on: December 08, 2014, 04:13:42 PM »
I have tested my 7D and then 70D exhaustively against my 5DIII, using the 300mm f/2.8 II, ± TCs, 100-400mm L, Tamron 150-600 etc. First, I have never had such a rubbishy image as from the OP's 5DIII with the 300 - something is really wrong. Secondly, you need a lens as sharp as the 300/2.8 to get the best out of the crop. As soon as you use a softer lens, the crop goes to pot. the 100-400 on the crop was always disappointing but was pretty good on the 5DIII. The 150-600 on the 5DIII is pretty good, but at 600 on the 70d, disappointing. Just look at the DxO charts on the lenses on the 7/70D vs 5DIII. The 300/2.8 loses little on going from ff to crop, but the 150-600 falls apart.

36
The 400 DO could be one heck of a sharp lightweight big prime - being Canon's second stab at it.

I mean an ultra sharp 400 and a very good 560 with 1.4X TC - probably far better than the 300/2.8II at 600 with 2xTC.

We shall see in due course.....

At 560, it is rather unlikely to be "far better than the 300/2.8II at 600" because the 300x2 is only slightly behind the native 600. I was toying with ordering the 400 DO II but think the 300 with the 10-400mm II will be more flexible and generally useful. But, if the 400 at x 2 is good, I might change my mind.

Shipping of the 100-400 in the UK will be in two batches - late Dec and early Jan.

37
Animal Kingdom / Re: The 1200mm Sharpness Test
« on: December 07, 2014, 05:17:47 PM »
There is a whole a group of who use the 2xTCIII on the 300/2.8 II. There is not a noticeable difference between the sharpness of that combo and the native 600/4 II, aside from the loss of a stop or two.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=748&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=4

The 600/4 II + 2xTCIII is very similar to the Tamron 150-600mm, which though frequently criticised, does sharpen up nicely as well.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=748&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1

 

38
Animal Kingdom / Re: The 1200mm Sharpness Test
« on: December 07, 2014, 03:44:14 PM »
Jon
My technique is:
1. Use DXO prime to wipe out noise, and don't spend ages on each one with paint brushes etc.
2. If you have the bird against a light background, don't use more than 1 pixel radius on sharpening otherwise you will get a halo, which is annoying to those who notice such things.

I think your final image looks unnaturally bright.


Unnaturally bright? I'm not sure I understand that...the processed image is actually darker overall than the original. Contrast was increased slightly, globally and locally, and saturation was boosted slightly. Other than that...I think it got darker overall, not brighter.

To be more precise, the colours look a bit too bright or vibrant.

39
Animal Kingdom / Re: The 1200mm Sharpness Test
« on: December 07, 2014, 05:34:42 AM »
Jon
My technique is:
1. Use DXO prime to wipe out noise, and don't spend ages on each one with paint brushes etc.
2. If you have the bird against a light background, don't use more than 1 pixel radius on sharpening otherwise you will get a halo, which is annoying to those who notice such things.

I think your final image looks unnaturally bright.

40
Animal Kingdom / Re: Owls and Swans in flight - 7D mk II
« on: December 06, 2014, 10:41:21 AM »
Not to distract from the beauty of the photographs, but flying swans are among the easiest targets as birds in flight because they are huge great lumbering things that slowly sail across the sky and are not a difficult test of AF. As someone wrote elsewhere, it's the chickadees (tits) shooting between trees or a diving kingfisher that test skill and the cameras AF. Apparently, the 7D II comes up trumps for this.

41
Lenses / Re: Review: Sensor Performance of the 7D Mark II
« on: December 06, 2014, 12:57:29 AM »
Sory guys. I'm being really sloppy tinight. Tonight. I have had very servere chronic insomnia for countless years...well over a decade. I go through periods where I just don't sleep for days, and I'm going through one now. After a while, you kind of feel like your drunk, even though your not... The nafter that, if you still haven't slept...yeahhh.......things get really really werid..............

So that's how you have time to do astrophotography?

42
Lenses / Re: Review: Sensor Performance of the 7D Mark II
« on: December 05, 2014, 09:26:42 AM »
Roger
It is great to have you join the forum.
Alan

43
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EOS 7D Mark II by DigitalRev
« on: December 04, 2014, 02:05:26 PM »
WEX has offered me a very good part exchange price on my 70D so it looks like it will be the 7DII for Christmas or Hanukkah or whatever excuse we need! My standard setting for birding is iso 640, so I don't care what the iso 100 sensor score is. The 7DII is really up there for higher iso and seems to have great AF. The AF of the 7D is what killed it for me. The 70D is very, very good, but I miss the 3 custom settings.

44
Lenses / Re: Lens Fungus - Advice Needed
« on: December 03, 2014, 05:07:53 PM »
Have it clean then sell it. It will never be optically the same ever again.

Absolutely wonderful for the poor sucker who gets caught buying it. The fungus will come back.

45
Side-by-side comparison of the Tamron vs Sigma

http://www.kruger-2-kalahari.com/tamron-vs-sigma-150-600.html

Claimed to be a fair comparison on Safari in Madikwe, but were the odds stacked against the Sigma as it was on a 12 mp D3S and the Tamron on the 36 mp D800? Probably not as the photos all appear to have the big game filling most of the frame and at reduced size where you wouldn't be able to tell any differences! However, both lenses stood up well to the conditions. The Sigma was described as being good on the jeep but the Tamron was good for walking around. I can handle the Canon 300/2.8 2xTCIII combo which is as heavy as the Sigma. However, the Tamron is that much easier at a kilo less. I am hoping that the new 100-400II on the 7DII will be a much lighter combination with a similar reach as it is good at f/5.6, with a 1.4xTC in reserve.

ps
Another review, complaining about the weight

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/lenses/sigma-150-600mm-f5-6-3-dg-os-hsm-s-field-test

What I hadn't realised is that it has a big metal lenshood, which will add to the weight. Given the extra length of this lens with the extra weight in front, it will be difficult to hand hold, especially with that leverage against you.

The Canon 300/2.8 II is
128x248mm
2350 g
But plus
+ hood + camo + 2xTC = 2900 g (weighed on my kitchen scales)

Sigma 150-600
121 x 290.2 mm (unextended)
2860 g.
But I guess the hood weighs another 300 g.

It's worth noting that the IS on the Canon is just so much better, e good 4 stops. The Tamron is 3 stops in my hands, and the difference is noticeable at 600mm when you are handholding and focussing in. Lenstip have the Sigma at only 2-2.5 stops, about the same as the old 100-400.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 79