October 30, 2014, 09:49:39 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 - dslrdummy

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8
I have too.

There is a big jump in price, the 400 Do would be perfect if its image quality was better than the 100-400mm for its weight and size.

Im guessing the 500mm F4 II is the most popular for birding? being longer than 400 and nearly a KG less? and more than F2.8 is needed for wildlife for decent DOF?

Ive been doing the same and with the high ISO capabilities of the 5DMKIII justifying at the cheapest £6000 more than the 400 F5.6 when its IQ is stellar and comparable to the other big whites although a few stop slower, no IS and its weight is 1/3 any of the big whites. IS isn't necessary when shooting at such high shutter speeds but its nice to steady the viewfinder!!

If only they made one with IS…. It would be perfect.

I went to the Farne islands this weekend and there were plenty of guys with the big whites but they were laden with massive tripods with gimbal heads and looked nakard! Just seems a pain in the ass to shoot with, difficult to track as the closer the birds came overhead you and the camera body need to go really low almost crouching on the ground while attached to a tripod and your just not free when using  tripod.

After having my 40D and battery grip with 24-105mm and 5DMKIII with 70-200mm II and 2x extender strapped to my shoulders and my bag on all day with 8 hours of shooting my arms were tired. Im 26 and a pretty fit strong guy so I hate to think what they were like carrying the big lenses and tripod all day.

Another issue I saw was where we were was very close to the cliffs and about a foot over the fence was a huge drop. The cliffs weren't particularly flat obviously and the guys were having trouble getting the tripods stable enough to shoot, then when the light changed and they needed to move position it was like a mass migration, there was me just laughing away to myself.

Also while on the boat the lenses were too big for them to quickly get the lens set up and shoot where as the guys with the 100-400, 70-200mm with extenders, 70-300mm, 400 and 300mm primes managed to get up and shooting really quickly, so there are pretty big positives to being mobile.

Another question is how come they can make a really nice compact 300mm F4 IS and not a 400mm F4 IS that isn't DO, I suppose the reason is it would be smaller cheaper lighter and make the 2.8s less attractive?

Obviously I would love one, a 300 F2.8 400 F2.8 or a 500 F4 who wouldn't but there has to be some kind of balance between weight, usability, size and price. Which keeps bringing me back round to the 400 F5.6…

I think the 200-400mm would be my perfect lens is the best of both worlds but its still 3620g and massive!

It makes me wonder even more when I was shooting with the 70-200mm F2.8 II with just a MKII 2x extender and the IQ I've been very surprised with, I wasn't expecting brilliant results but they really are pretty good… The AF did hunt a little but was still pretty impressive with the 5DMKIII.

This is a 100% crop from that combo.

Puffin, Farne Islands, Seahouses by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

5DMKIII 70-200mm F2.8 IS II 2x extender MKII, F7.1, 1/2000, ISO 640

Obviously I don't really have any experience with the big whites so these are just observations of one trip. So any thoughts are most welcome :)
The sharpness of that shot is very impressive - better than I can get from the 70-200 with 2x extender.
I was also very happy with the IQ of my 400 5.6 but I sold it a month ago and replaced it with a 300 2.8ii, my first big white. I personally think the 300 is a huge upgrade in IQ and obviously speed and for me, even as an amateur, worth the 'investment'. Shot it at a football match on Saturday for the first time and mostly wide open and was staggered at the results. Almost makes me look like I know what I'm doing. Can't wait to try it with the extenders. The step up from 300 is a stride too far for me though and I'll rest here (for now).

Lenses / Re: 300 2.8 IS Mk1 v Mk2
« on: June 23, 2014, 10:20:16 PM »
You might want to look at this new thread of photos with the 300 and the 2x started by one of our CR regulars....

Thanks for the heads up.

Lenses / Re: 300 2.8 IS Mk1 v Mk2
« on: June 23, 2014, 08:41:21 PM »
Just pulled the trigger. My 300 f/2.8ii will hopefully arrive this Friday. Very excited as it's my first super-tele. Will post my impressions of it with the 2xiii if that is any help.

I seem to recall the 200-400 f/1.4 + 1.4ext was "tested' at the London Olympics - presumably not because the photographers who prefer faster lenses necessarily chose to but because that's what their employers/sponsors gave them to shoot with. I know at least one (Jeff Cable) who used it because he was asked to although he prefers shooting at f/2.8. It's not outrageous to suggest the same could happen with the 7Dii, not as a primary body perhaps but as an extra body.

Surely if it's there it's because Canon has asked a selected pro or pros to trial it. Presumably they would and could do that along side their other paid work, possibly as their third body?

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Speculation [CR1]
« on: June 18, 2014, 08:06:59 PM »
Presumably the rumour is meant to be "announcement" in the Fall not 'release'.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Speculation [CR1]
« on: June 18, 2014, 07:48:19 PM »

I spoke to someone who said that their brother's mother's cousin's ex-boyfriend's lover said that it would come in pink.

Pink?  What's the point of that?  At least white would lean towards arctic camouflage  ;)

Pink would provide camouflage among the herd of unicorns where the 7DII is found.
Or flamingos?

Lenses / Re: Tanzania with minimal gear
« on: June 16, 2014, 12:19:51 AM »
Follow up to this post, as my trip approaches...

The tour company sent me a packet with more info.  We will be doing some touring in Range Rovers, but will also be walking a few miles a day over uneven terrain.  We will sometimes be traveling in small planes, so there are strict weight limits.  44 lbs. for the provided duffel bag, and 15 lbs. for the carry-on.  I plan to put all my camera gear in the carry-on. 

They said point and shoot cameras don't have enough range for wildlife.  They recommend a superzoom camera, or a DSLR with a mid-range zoom (up to 300mm) and a fast prime for low-light shooting. 

Based on the comments in this thread, I am going to try to bring two bodies.  Both so I have a backup, and so I don't have to switch lenses in the field.  I have a 5D Mark II.  I was going to convert it to IR, but I think I'll hold off until after the trip.  I plan to buy a 5D Mark III, and will bring that, too.  Electricity will be unreliable, so they recommend bringing extra batteries.

I'm still deciding on lenses.  The lens I bring when I bring only one lens is the 24-105.  But I'm thinking I might want to go longer and wider.  Maybe my 16-35mm F/2.8 instead of a fast prime, and my 70-200 f/4 plus 1.4 extender.  Not as fast as the f/2.8, but so much lighter.

I usually use prime lenses when I need reach, so the 70-200 the longest zoom I have.  Well, I have a Sigma 150-500mm, but it's too bulky for this trip.  I am considering buying a zoom lens for the trip. 

I think the 28-300mm will be too heavy.  The 70-300mm and the 100-400mm are possibilities.  The 100-400mm might also be too heavy, though it has the advantage of being compatible with the Canon extenders.

I am planning to buy the Pocket Rocket card holders as Vivid Color recommended, and the B&W filters (once I nail down what lenses I'm bringing).  And I'm stocking up on memory cards.

Still considering what other cameras I'll bring.  I have a point and shoot Lumix I use as a backup and when I don't want to bring all my gear.  (I'm planning to leave my smartphone at home.)  And a SX50 HS.  The superzoom might come in handy, though I am generally not thrilled with the image quality.  I also have a point and shoot Lumix that's been converted to infrared.  I love IR photography, but I doubt I'll have time on this trip for the long exposures needed when using an IR filter on a regular camera.
Having done the safari this time last year (Botswana/Zambia), my advice is to remember to enjoy the moment, not just the photography. You can go to a Zoo to photograph animals up close, but it's being with them in the wild that makes it so special. Breath it in. Post some pics when you get back.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Mea Culpa! - The World Cup in Brazil
« on: June 13, 2014, 05:43:57 PM »
In that rain the 7Dii 'pre-production' bodies, if there are any there, will want to have serious weather sealing.

A once die-hard Nikon fan, Andy Rouse, tried out the 1D X not long after it's release. Andy is a world renown, well respected wildlife photographer, and he really is phenomenally good. The guy loved the 1D X over the D4 SO MUCH that he whole heartedly ditched his Nikon gear, bought a PAIR of 1D X cameras,

I trust you know Andy was paid to switch. Some thing all major camera brands do as part of their advertising strategy. I doubt he has bought any Canon gear at all (just assuming here as I do not know the specifics on how these deals work);
"I was recently appointed a ‘Canon Explorer’ ... I’m an ambassador for the brand..."
Check out his website - he bought his two 1Dx's.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony RX100 MIII
« on: June 10, 2014, 03:18:37 AM »
I have version 1 and it is a great little camera - for stills and video. Three things I miss are all in the version III: built-in evf, tiltable screen and faster lense at the long end.

EOS Bodies / Re: Reports of EOS 7D Reaching End of Life [CR2]
« on: June 04, 2014, 10:28:13 PM »
I seem to recall people were predicting it would appear at the Winter Olympics in various pre-production forms, but nothing came of it. I will believe this one when someone says they have seen it. Meanwhile, I'm saving for it and the Sigma 300-600 sport.

EOS Bodies / Re: New Full Frame Camera in Testing? [CR1]
« on: May 28, 2014, 03:17:01 AM »
the colour accuracy of a file when viewed on a laptop screen is highly dependent on the ability of the screen to represent colour itself and without being able to use the images on a calibrated screen, the colours seen on some random laptop mean nothing.

I'd be almost prepared to call this rumor a hoax.

Would be interesting to know what laptop was used, which model and make of screen it had and what was used to calibrate it etc.

There are a few ways they can improve the 1D X but I do not think we will see a new one for a quite a while yet.

Maybe it is the 7D II and the body is just to throw everyone, I mean they could hide a 7D Mark II in a 1D X but you could never hide a 1D X in a 7D!  :D
Maybe the 7Dii has a built-in grip and has dropped the flash, which means it could superficially at least resemble a new (although likely smaller) 1D.

I've waited a long time for Nikon to recapture the lead on Nikon and their 36 mp camera. And now I read that Nikon will introduce an upgrade to the 800e in June.  Why am I not jumping ship?  I do have a lot of canon glass and have been a local customer. I own the mk III and 6d and I love the images .BUTT, COME ON ALREADY cCanon. Get your stuff together!

the D800 update is marginal.. so what?

if you complainers really need more MP and more details.. buy MF... i have.

I wish I could afford MF,,I should of done it years ago..But I their is economics and loyalty involved here,,,especially when I have 5 canon lens, a 5dmk III and a 6d ,not to mention other canon accessories.

And when you want to print to 40x60, its an issue..36 Mp would give that edge i needed. I should have jumped to nikon when the 800e came out,,but I didn't because I was convinced Canon would not sit idly bye trying to figure out how to recapture the glory days of the 5D Mk II.. That was a great camera at the time!!
And before that the 5D, the first "affordable" full frame dslr.

Lenses / Re: The Next \
« on: May 20, 2014, 08:53:24 PM »
My 400 f/5.6 is plenty sharp - did well on safari last year - but would consider upgrading if the new lense has the measure of improvement optically that you would be entitled to expect after all these years. Pleased to hear they are reverting to a conventional zoom. 100-400 and 7Dii should make a great pairing - but that's about the price of a 1DX :-\

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8