December 21, 2014, 08:30:16 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 - johnf3f

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 24
1
Not Macro but I really love my Contax-Zeiss 25mm F2.8. It is rated as the worst of the the Contax-Zeiss lenses so I am looking forward to getting some of the others!
There can be some compatibility issues - there is a lot of useful information here:
http://www.pebbleplace.com/

2
Software & Accessories / Re: Gitzo GT5532LS is on sale on B&H
« on: December 20, 2014, 05:13:30 PM »
The issue I have with it is that it is only 4' 9" tall, so even with another 9 inches for head and camera, it will not come to my eye level on level ground, and on uneven ground, even lower.
 
For that kind of $$$, it really ought to be 6 + ft tall.

Well, I'm 5'10" and it should be almost perfect for me. A very popular RRS TVC-33 is also around 4'9" and it seems it works just fine for many people. On the other hand, for a tripod that can hold 88lbs $869 doesn't seem to be that much. But that's again very personal, some people may agree and some may not  ;)

I am 5' 9" and use a Gitzo 3530 LS which is 58 1/2" tall and almost never fully extend it. With a Wimberley 2 head it is more than tall enough for me. A friend (who is 5' 11") uses an earlier model 3 series Gitzo which is about the same height and a Jobu head without issues. I think you would be quite happy with one of these.
One thing I would question though is the need for a 5 series Gitzo. Firstly forget Gitzo weight ratings they are meaningless. Mine is rated at 18 kilos (39lbs) yet is quite happy supporting 240lbs (me!).
More to the point, whilst the 5 series Gitzo tripods are supremely rigid and have excellent vibration damping - do you need it? I am, currently, using the longest lens that Canon make (800mm F5.6 L IS) and my 3 series 3530LS is more than up to the job. I have tried a couple of 5 Series tripods and could find no advantage in practical testing - note I VERY rarely normally use IS. Given that I normally cart around the 800mm + a 300 F2.8 L IS and associated bits and bobs the lighter weight (and more than sufficient rigidity) of a 3 series makes it a better buy in my experience.

3
Lenses / Re: Impressions from the EF 16-35mm f4 L IS USM
« on: December 18, 2014, 10:52:56 AM »
These days I rarely use my IS at all (well once this year) on any of my IS lenses.
Whilst I fancy the 16-35 F4 very much I struggle to think of a use for the IS for my photography, I don't use it on my Canon 800 F5.6 L IS even when hand holding so on a 16-35?
Still if people want it then Canon would be silly not to include it!

I recently spent 3 weeks in Europe traveling all over. Inside catherdals and many places tripods weren't allowed or to much of a hassle with so many people. And let me tell you the IS on the 16-35 worked wonders for getting hand held shots in extremely low light. Without it Theres know way I would've gotten those shots hand held at the slow shutter speed I needed.

Coincidentally I was in France in September doing very similar things! I was using the 24-105 and 17-40, I can't quite afford the new 16-35 yet! When in France these sort of shots are compulsory as far as I am concerned. Admittedly I do use a 1DX so I can let the ISO rise quite a bit before it concerns me.
As stated, these days, I find very little use for IS, I am not saying it is not handy occasionally but I am getting more keepers on my long lenses without it and have little/no use for it on short lenses. As such I would speculate that the 16-35 F4 might have been an even better (and slightly cheaper) lens without IS and the extra element + bulk that it involves. Either way it seems to be a lovely lens and I will be investing in one as and when I can afford one!

4
I am using the Kiwifotos plates on my 70-200 F2.8 L IS and 300 F2.8 L IS lenses and cannot fault them. Given that the 100-400 ii extends when zooming I would get a slightly longer plate than the 86mm one I use on my 70-200 - have a look here:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/KIWIFOTOS-100MM-QUICK-RELEASE-LENS-PLATE-UNIVERSAL-ARCA-SWISS-CANON-LP-100-/171011109531?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item27d10e729b

They fully match the quality of my Wimberley and Kirk plates.

5
Lenses / Re: The New Nikon 20/1.8
« on: December 15, 2014, 06:36:16 PM »
Just buy an adapter and put it on your Canon. True it will be fully manual but that really isn't much of an issue at these focal lengths.
You will need one that allows aperture adjustment but they are pretty cheap!

6
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Buy another 1DX?
« on: December 15, 2014, 06:25:59 PM »
How do you feel about your existing 1DX?
If you feel there is something lacking or deficient then it may be better to wait. I am very happy with my 1DX and cannot see any way to make significant improvements on it - but then I said that with my 1D4! Whatever happens your existing camera/cameras will not suddenly take bad images because the Mk2 is out.

7
Lenses / Re: Yet another DXO Interpretation Time video with Tony Northrup
« on: December 14, 2014, 06:41:17 PM »
Like an idiot I actually watched the video to the end! As always he seems very plausible whilst talking absolute bol&oc$s.
So he is telling me that I should delete all the lovely sharp, detailed images I got with my FF camera and 300, 400,600 + 800mm lenses and keep the crap images I got with crop cameras on the same lenses?

8
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Question for 1DX owners
« on: December 09, 2014, 05:54:17 PM »
Well as the nicest "large" print I have yet seen (6ft 6ins x 2ft 6ins) was shot on a 6MP camera I am pretty happy with 18Mp on my 1DX.
I would prefer not to have higher MP as it will impact on factors such as ISO performance and frame rate. When it doesn't then I will probably go there but until then I prefer lower Mp.

9
Dear Johnf3f, please provide us with the filter brand and model of the filters that you're talking about that degraded the images of your photos so that we can better understand your experience. I personally use B+ W filters with nano coatings and have found no image degradement to take place. Or if there is one, I certainly can't see it. You're certainly entitled to your own opinion about using or not using filters, but when you make sweeping statements about filters degrading images, then please provide us with additional specific information so that we can at least avoid those specific filters. And I will confess to a bias for using filters. Years ago, I fell down some brick stairs outside and landed on my SLR camera. The filter was a cracked mess but the lens was undamaged.

I re-read my post and I think I could have phrased it a bit better! I stand by what I said but it does come across as a bit of a sweeping statement - not my intention.
Firstly I am not anti filers, I wave recently completed my 100mm filter kit at some considerable expense! They have their place in my kit but are only used when necessary, and (as I understand it) UV and Skylight filters are not needed on DSLRs.
The main brand that I used was Hoya as it was pretty much all that was available locally, though I did have a couple of Kood filters. If memory serves the Hoya filters were in the Pro1 and standard ranges. I still use Cpl filters (when needed) from Hoya.
Putting anything in front of your lens is bound to affect image quality, though how noticeable this is depends on the quality of filter and the sort of image being taken also whether the photographer is concerned about it or not! One thing that is unavoidable is increased susceptibility to flare - this simply unavoidable with a flat piece of glass and can significantly limit you shooting options.
I appreciate concerns about damage protection, but having seen the damage that the filter can cause to a lens dropped onto a relatively soft surface (not one of mine thank goodness) it can work both ways.
It is interesting that when Canon introduced their Mk2 SuperTele lenses they omitted the front filter element

10
Software & Accessories / Re: Tripods - CF or Aluminum...?
« on: December 07, 2014, 06:18:39 PM »
...
I finally opted for the aluminum tripod for one simple reason:
 - Aluminum bends (up to a point)
 - CF breaks...

As I also go rock/ice climbing with my gear, my pack tends to "crash" (more often than I'd like) into things.. Like a huge slab of rock...
...

Yah, I've had times when I've slipped on a rock somewhere and the tripod has ended up crashing into rocks with me on top of it and I was glad I didn't have a CF tripod.

Thanks for that post! I have, unfortunately, been in the same situation several times - having slipped on wet rocks and ice. All I can say is that I thank god I had the sense to buy decent quality carbon fiber tripods! Despite my ineptitude, poor balance and 240lbs weight I have yet to even mark one of my Gitzos despite quite a few mishaps - though I have damaged them a little getting them in and out of the house! I did manage to junk my last aluminium tripod when using it as a walking pole, whilst crossing a river, and I didn't even fall - it just bent with about half my weight.
As always dilbert if you decry a product I will buy it as then I know I will be getting the best!

11
Oops, I unintentionally started another filter vs. no filter debate LOL.

The manual for the lens states (verbatim) "to ensure dust and water resistant performance, attach a Canon PROTECT filter (77mm)"...

I take it's either a shameless plug from Canon to sell their own filters, or they advise a filter will be needed to complete dust/water sealing.

I confess I am a purist ("no additional glass element on a thousand dollar lens for the sake of IQ"). But at this time I personally heed Canon's statement - I don't want dust or water to seep in the front element.  ;)

Which lenses? I have never had dust ingress into my 17-40 or 24-105. I have had them quite a while (also the 17-40 was far from new when I bought it back in 2005) - zero issues with waterfalls and shooting in coastal spray.
If others wish to spend (waste) their money on these things then that's fine - it keeps people in work! Don't be fooled into thinking these filters will improve your photography or the life of your lenses - they won't.
I posted merely to try and help others not to waste money, degrade IQ and increase flare. I did not want others to fall into the same trap as I did, but if you insist that they help then go with it, I did for a while but they don't - I learned...............

12
Lenses / Re: 300 or 500I or 500II or 7D2... HELP!
« on: December 06, 2014, 06:47:05 PM »
Having used the 3 lenses that you quote and owning the 300 F2.8 IS Mk1 I would suggest the following:

The 300 F2.8 Mk 1 IS or Mk 2 lenses are simply superb - the Mk2 being a touch better, but I think you will probably end up using extenders most of the time which will compromise IQ a little and make you more dependent on contrasty light.

500 Mk1 or Mk2? The Mk1 is a lovely lens but the Mk2 is significantly lighter (about the same as a 300 F2.8 + 2 extenders) and is so sharp that you may hurt yourself! Also the 500 Mk2 works significantly better with the 2 x Mk3 extender than the Mk1 does with either the 2 x Mk2 or Mk3 extenders. Though the Canon 500 F4 L IS Mk2 is a bit short for my uses I would love to have one due to the extra mobility it offers. It can be carried for a fair distance without the encumbrance of tripods, backpacks, heads, mono pods etc..etc + it is quite easy to hand hold. If you want reach and mobility this lens is the best compromise out there, regardless of brand.

7D2 - difficult! There is a lot of tooing and frowing on the interweb about this camera. I know 2 professional wildlife/sports photographers who have been testing this camera for Canon. 1 is a Beta model and the other a production model and they both state that it is the best APSC camera that they have, yet, tried. However it has it's limitations. This is what they tell me. Firstly it is not great on batteries - no big deal they don't die on the spot - just carry a spare to be sure you won't be caught out on a long day's shooting. AF is very good, acquisition and tracking are excellent - probably on a par with your 5D3 or maybe a touch better. IQ, whist great for apsc, they prefer the Canon FF cameras so you are probably better off where you are with the 5D3.  The big difference is ISO your 5D3 is significantly better here - important with longer lenses.

Reach - these are my personal observations. Most of my photography is very reach limited which is why I went for the Canon 800 F5.6 L IS. Whilst I can usually get fairly close to most of my subjects I like frame filling detailed images. To date I have been disappointed with APSC cameras, though I haven't had a really good go at the 7D2. Whilst the subject appears much larger in the viewfinder I am getting better images with my FF camera (1DX). Yes I do loose some reach, but it is nothing like the 1.6 crop factor would suggest. The 1DX certainly equals, or exceeds the 1D4 (owned both) so there is not much in it when compared to 1.6.

Just my thoughts/experiences. I hope there is something useful to you in there.

13
I don't have the 16-35 F4 (saving for one!) but I do have a number of Canon lenses ranging from the 17-40 to the 800 F5.6 L IS.
In answer to your question about did I buy UV/Protector filters, yes I did! What a complete waste of money! I learned a lesson there but it cost me! Mine are gathering dust.
If you want mine you can have them for the price of postage, but being an honest person, I would have to state that the only thing you will be getting is poorer IQ by putting more crap between you and the subject.
As far as I can gather the 16-35 is an excellent lens, as I said it is on my will but soon list, so why would you want to spoil it?

14
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: buying suggestion: a 5D3 or 1Dx?
« on: December 05, 2014, 07:01:25 PM »
So again I've never had a wobble or flex issue.  If the grip screw is tight it's as solid as the 1dx in my opinion.  Obviously if the screw is loose then it can cause a problem.  You also have the option of removing the grip which buys you clearance when using a large tele on a gimbal mount and saves on weight when on extended hikes.

So, it's your opinion that two separate pieces held together by one central, hand-tightened thumbscrew is as solid as a single, integrated piece of metal?  Ok, you're certainly welcome to your opinion...even if all anyone has to do to demonstrate the opposite is attach an accessory grip 'securely', then hold grip in one hand and body in the other and feel the flex.  It might not be a problem for you (you stated your tripod use is primarily with collared lenses), but the flex with an accessory grip that isn't present with the integrated grip of a 1-series dSLR is simply an engineering fact.

Oh, and be careful not to over-tighten that grip thumbscrew.  Not sure about the 5DIII, but both the 7D and 5DII Canon grips were prone to stripping out if over-tightened, meaning a permanently attached grip (or a trip to Canon service).


Onto the battery front, you claim to get 2x-3x the battery life of an e6 based camera.  That would put the 1dx to about 2000 to 3000 shots per charge and that's pretty absurd.  You can extend the life by turning of image preview and not chimping but you still won't get 3000 shots per charge.  Probobly not even half that. 

Actually, what I intended to be claiming was that I often get 2-3x the CIPA standard rating for my 1D X, and I used to get 2-3x the CIPA rating for my 7D and 5DII; looking back, I have to apologize for the ambiguous wording.  Still, it's true that I get 2-3K shots (sometimes more) on a fully charged LP-E4N in my 1D X.  Maybe you didn't get more than 1-1.5K shots on a battery in your CPS loaner experience.  As I stated, a lot depends on usage patterns. 

What's absurd is the suggestion that I can't read and understand the battery info screen on my own camera.  When shooting primarily bursts or shooting rapidly in succession when doing a round of AFMA on my lenses, I've had >2,000 shots on the battery with 60-70% of its capacity remaining.  Thanks for sharing another of your opinions, but this one is wrong, too.

 ::)

Don't quite get the "Roll Eyes" post.
A few friends of mine bought Canon Battery Grips for various Canon cameras, all of them showed considerable flex and one died 1 month outside guarantee. I can't speak for the reliability of the others as I haven't seen any of them using a battery grip for some time - does that tell you something? It speaks loudly to me.

As to battery life I shot the Weston Super Mare Air Show back in September and, just checked the folder, 2437 frames left 2 bars on the battery meter. That was with my old LP-E4 battery (from my 1D4) in my 1DX - lens was a Canon 300 F2.8 L IS with and without extender. I then used it for a few wildlife shoots (lots of sitting around with the camera on for hours but few shots) and re-charged it when one bar was left. A 5d3 with a LP-E6 is going to better that?
I thought you knew better than to post twoddle like that - ah well I was obviously mistaken, my bad.

15
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: buying suggestion: a 5D3 or 1Dx?
« on: December 05, 2014, 11:05:38 AM »
I've never had any wildlife/birds scared off with the 1D X shutter (although I've startled a few kids at school events!).  I have never shot wildlife from a car or a boat with my 1D X (or any dSLR, for that matter), always hiking/walking in the field.  I also don't use blinds
I'm not surprised. Shooting from a blind is precisely when noise matters. If you're walking and the birds &c have already seen you, they won't be startled by shutter sound.

I mainly shoot from blinds/hides (wooden hides make a great sounding board for a tripod mounted 1DX!) even Kingfishers ignore me at 7 meters or so. At a hide where I often photograph songbirds, I have to use extension tubes to reduce my lenses 6 meter MFD, I am ignored as well.
I normally shoot between 1 and 3 frames at a time but will let rip if it looks like something interesting is going to happen and have yet to have an issue.
As previously stated I think the 5D3 is a better bet for the OP's needs, but not mine.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 24