August 30, 2014, 02:39:30 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 - sagittariansrock

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 84
1
Lenses / Re: EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS versus EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II
« on: August 27, 2014, 01:14:38 AM »
The vII is better, but the vI is no slouch.
Having said that, I have always had less than expected results with AI servo from my 7D (with BIF), although that might well be my technique.

Haven't tried BIF with my 5DIII, and with the 5DII and 5Dc, KIM (kids in motion) sucks some times.

2

1Dx is at least 1 stop better for noise compared to 5D3.

Is that true - DxO rates the 1DX only 0.28 stops better (http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-Canon-EOS-1Dx___795_753 )? And Ken, bless his heart, Rockwell, rates both very similar ( http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/comparisons/5d-mkiii-vs-1dx.htm#iso  )? Perhaps someone who has both could enlighten.

I think Ken Rockwell says the 1D X is half a stop better than the 5D III, although someone with both cameras like FEBS might know better.

3
Lenses / Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« on: August 26, 2014, 08:58:13 AM »
maybe this will help a bit
Lisa Holloway 500px profile

almost all of her portrait work are done using 200 f/2 wide open, enjoy!
Thanks for the link.  My GAS just shifted to another state.

Told you long back you have a vacant spot in your shelf with 200/2 written on it ;)

4
Isn't it usual for the American football pros to use a 400/2.8 and 70-200 combo? Considering football (aka soccer) has approximately the same field size, wouldn't that work better?

Yes that's fully correct. This is indeed the most used combination until a year ago. Then several sport shooters did find the quality and the flexibility of the 200-400 1.4x that high that there is really a change now. There are several photographers, depending on the place next to the field, that only use this 200-400 instead of a combo with the 70-200. I think (not counted or any statistics, but just from looking at the games) that during the last World Championship in Brazil almost, from Canon side, the 200-400 gets close to 50%. It's a real game changer that lens.


That's interesting. So people are finding the lens useful enough to give up the wide end (all of 70-200) of the range as well as a full stop of exposure?
I thought the real use of the 200-400 was in wildlife and distant daylight sports. Good to know that the lens is so versatile. You must be enjoying yours a lot :)

5
Isn't it usual for the American football pros to use a 400/2.8 and 70-200 combo? Considering football (aka soccer) has approximately the same field size, wouldn't that work better?

6
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Placing an order today (I think) - need advice
« on: August 26, 2014, 04:07:43 AM »
The 70-200 II is optically close to perfection, and takes TC's remarkably well, even the 2x. However, the 1.4x and 2x mk III TC's won't physically mount together. You'll need an extension tube (so you'll likely lose infinity focus), and the camera won't get the correct info about focal length or aperture reported to it.

Also the optical degradation will be significant. You'd be better off using the 2x TC and cropping in post if such a narrow AoV is required.

+1.
Also, it becomes unbelievably cumbersome to use.
If you think you will use the longer FLs a lot, why not get the excellent Tamron instead of either of the TCs? It would only be another $ 100 or so.

7
FOR SALE Photo Equipment / Canon 500D Close up lens 77mm
« on: August 25, 2014, 11:32:30 PM »
500D Close up filter- 77mm
With box and case, in perfect condition.
$ 100 sold locally, $ 110 shipped to CONUS (all inclusive)
Username sagittariansrk in Fredmiranda (20 'Great' feedback) and deepsbid in ebay (50+ positive feedback)

8
Sorry.. I didn't quite get why you didn't like the 560B.
I tried it and liked it a lot- if I ever upgrade my monopod that's what I'll get.
And I tried both swivel and ball heads on a monopod- a swivel head is much easier to control.

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 24, 2014, 05:49:45 AM »
ISO 12800 and 1/30th second at F2.8 on a 60D with a 100F2.8L. This was taken in a venue where flash was not allowed.... and before anyone jumps on me for not using a FF camera under such conditions, this was a test of the camera pushed to it's limits... and I had a 5D2 sitting on the table in front of me.

Processing was minimal.... white balance and top noise slider in Lightroom.

What is scary is that the Sony A7S can do this at ISO204,800!

I wouldn't be happy with this level of noise reduction. Looks too smoothed for my taste.
Of course, I noticed it only when I opened the full sized image. Looks fine within the thread.

10
I guess this is where subjective opinions differ. I tried the 85/1.2 L II on my 5D classic, and the AF speed seemed to be perfectly acceptable (no, not close to the 135L or the 70-200 II, but expecting that isn't very realistic).

I did try the original 85L on my 5DIII, and it was a lot slower (to the point it didn't seem worth the 1K it seems to command on the used market).

11
Technical Support / Re: Another my Stupid question = Sensor Sizes
« on: August 24, 2014, 12:30:22 AM »
Pixel size is irrelevant. SNR, and therefor dynamic range (assuming you have no other source of noise than what is inherent to the image signal itself) and noise are ultimately relative to total sensor area. That's it.

If that is so, what is stopping Canon from making a 46 MP FF camera with the same sensor tech as, say 7D?
I am not really an expert on this, but I think every pipeline (pixel-->signal processor) must add its own bit of noise. So noise from 4 1x1micron pixels > noise from 1 2x2 micron pixel.
It also has a bearing on processor power, but that's another topic.
Maybe an expert can chime in on this?

12
EOS Bodies / Re: 6D MKII
« on: August 23, 2014, 08:08:54 PM »
I'll settle for any 6D II, don't care about the features as long as it allows me to buy the current 6D (which will suit me fine) for a lower price...

13
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 23, 2014, 08:06:53 PM »
Particularly like the built-in RT function... damn, I want it...

The more recent rumor update suggested that the -RT master would not be a feature, it'll be optical master only.

Oh, I don't really care about the 7D II.
All I want is a compact RT master built-in. Almost caved in and got the 90EX for $ 42 today, but remembered how crappy forum members had admitted it was, and how it's GN is worse than a pop up flash.
Maybe the 6D II will have an RT master? Or a 280EX-RT?

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 23, 2014, 01:58:29 PM »
Other than the wifi, the features look great.
Particularly like the built-in RT function... damn, I want it...

15
I would buy a hypothetical 85/1.4L. Heck I would buy any 85/1.4 that doesn't have the AF issues of the current Sigma.
In fact, I have been holding out for an 85/1.4 (well, not entirely true- I did try to get the 85/1.2 II refurb'd when it was on sale, but maybe the two narrow misses was due to a reason...)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 84