September 22, 2014, 08:36:14 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 ... 20
1
From what I have read the 7D2 is nearly there.
Not in the reach department - even the very best APSC sensors offer very little reach advantage and bring along a number of disadvantages such as ISO performance etc, etc.
Canon could have mitigated this by dropping the MP count about 6mp from the 7D - but instead they increased it by 2mp! As I wildlife photographer I don't see too much use for a 7D2 in less than perfect light - but, to be fair, I will give one a go.

2
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: f8 AF question or the 7D and 1D4
« on: September 04, 2014, 01:48:54 PM »
It would appear that your extender is of the non-reporting type as it should not work with that lens and the 7D which will not AF below F5.6.
The 1D Mk4 is designed to AF at F8. The AF will slow down quite a bit but I found mine accurate with a Canon 2 x extender on 300 and 600mm F4 lenses.

3
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Guessing Game- Canon or Nikon?
« on: September 04, 2014, 01:43:24 PM »
Good points Valvebounce and Canon1, I think I just assumed that this thread was going to degenerate into a squabble like so many others have. Hope it doesn't!

4
Lenses / Re: I'm terrified of my EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS II
« on: September 03, 2014, 06:26:10 PM »
The 70-200 F2.8 is far from a heavy lens - you will get used to it very quickly. I normally carry mine by the lens foot as I simply can't be bothered to faff about with extra straps that only end up getting in the way.
Just enjoy it's wonderful IQ and the weight will soon disappear!

5
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Guessing Game- Canon or Nikon?
« on: September 03, 2014, 06:17:10 PM »
Sorry but this thread would only make sense if one were posting unedited RAW files taken under controlled conditions. Once processing is allowed we are looking at the skill of the person processing the image not just the capabilities of of the camera + lens.
I really don't understand the constant Canon vs Nikon squabbles - for my uses Canon is better but for many others Nikon is a better choice.
So the best advice is choose - don't waste time on endless and pointless discussions which resolve nothing and inform nobody.

6
I have used flip locks in the past and do not consider them suitable/trustworthy for tripods and mono pods. Both the Gitzo and Sirui twist locks are far superior and much easier to use, as well as being MUCH more secure.
As a complete inverse to your experience I have used twist locks in the past and find them slower and less trustworthy. I have used flip locks now for 15 years and wouldn't consider going back to twisties. Too slow when the pressure is on. What exactly is it that you find makes twist-locks MUCH more secure?

I've had twisties "sink" but never had a flip-lock sink under weight. Another advantage of a flip-lock is you have a visual confirm of the full-lock position. With a twistie, there is no visual cue. I've had legs on my twist-lock Gitzo tripod sag unexpectedly, but never my big flip-lock Manfrotto 075B. I'm a flippin' fan!

-pw

The Manfrotto 075B is indeed a pretty sturdy piece of kit though do remember to check the tension of the flip locks periodically! A couple of years ago during a Gear evening a colleagues 400 F2.8 + 1D3 required catching when two of the locks on his Manfrotto 075 started to slip - the twit hadn't tightened them for a while - so his fault.
As to Gitzo locks - I have an old Gitzo G1329 Mk2 (requires much more twisting force than my 3 newer ALR models), my Grand Nephew can and has tightened these leg locks sufficiently to support my 100 + Kilo weight, it's his 3rd birthday very soon! Was the Gitzo you tried faulty?

7
Don't worry too much about pixel density - pixel quality/performance is much more important.
I went from APSC (1.6 crop) to APSH (1.3 crop) to one of the lowest MP full frame cameras on today's market at 18Mp (Nikon do some 16Mp full frame bodies). My most used lens is a Canon 800mm F5.6 L IS so according to many commentators I am losing 480mm compared to 1.6 crop and 240mm compared to 1.3 crop. Am I missing the loss of reach? To put it mildly - no!
My previous camera (a Canon 1D4) made the likes of the 7D look somewhat wanting and my current (relatively low MP) 1DX is significantly better in this and all other respects than the 1D4 was.
The only advantages of the APSC cameras is that they offer decent/good quality images in a lighter and cheaper package - probably why they are so popular!

8
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7DMk II or the 1DMk IV
« on: September 01, 2014, 07:06:39 PM »
Another vote for the Canon 500 F4, it is a bit of a lump but if you need extenders on 400mm this is the only practical choice that I know of.

9
Lenses / Re: 400 f/2.8L II IS: Took the plunge...
« on: August 30, 2014, 04:28:09 PM »
Any Canon 400 F2.8 is a great piece of glass if it suits your needs.
I used to have the original EF 400 F2.8 L (a mere lightweight at 6.1 kilos), yes it was an old battered lens but the images were top notch!
The current model is less than 4 kilos and has updated optics - if 400mm is your bag then you will be very happy!
I note you use a 1DX, given it's iso capabilities, I would suggest turning off the IS as auto-focus and tracking will be even faster - if that's possible! Since January I have used IS on one of my lenses only once and then it was only to stabilize the image in the viewfinder, even with my Canon 800 F5.6 I find IS to be more of a hazard than a help most of the time with the 1DX.

This is very interesting. I've never heard that before. Does anyone else find IS interferes with AF? Is this just a 1Dx issue?

I think my statement "I find IS to be more of a hazard than a help most of the time with the 1DX" probably wasn't the best way to put it! Basically what I have found is that all my IS lenses focus a touch quicker and seem to track better with the IS off. This was on a 5Dc, 1D4 and 1DX. The difference that the 1DX makes is that IS is needed far less due to it's ISO capabilities.
For reference I don't have any Mk2 lenses so I don't have the "Mode 3" that has been mentioned. My IS lenses are the 24-105, 70-200 F2.8, 300 F2.8 and 800 F5.6 - the 800 F5.6 shows the most noticeable improvement. The difference is not night and day but it just locks on that bit quicker and seems to hold on to the subject a little better.
I am not knocking IS, far from it, it is just that now it is something I keep in reserve for when it is really needed.

Ooh, okay. I've never turned it off on the big lens, but AF speed isn't usually paramount for me. Thanks for clarification! :)

Just try it and see - after all it costs nothing and you can always turn it back on!

10
Lenses / Re: 400 f/2.8L II IS: Took the plunge...
« on: August 29, 2014, 05:00:34 PM »
Any Canon 400 F2.8 is a great piece of glass if it suits your needs.
I used to have the original EF 400 F2.8 L (a mere lightweight at 6.1 kilos), yes it was an old battered lens but the images were top notch!
The current model is less than 4 kilos and has updated optics - if 400mm is your bag then you will be very happy!
I note you use a 1DX, given it's iso capabilities, I would suggest turning off the IS as auto-focus and tracking will be even faster - if that's possible! Since January I have used IS on one of my lenses only once and then it was only to stabilize the image in the viewfinder, even with my Canon 800 F5.6 I find IS to be more of a hazard than a help most of the time with the 1DX.

This is very interesting. I've never heard that before. Does anyone else find IS interferes with AF? Is this just a 1Dx issue?

I think my statement "I find IS to be more of a hazard than a help most of the time with the 1DX" probably wasn't the best way to put it! Basically what I have found is that all my IS lenses focus a touch quicker and seem to track better with the IS off. This was on a 5Dc, 1D4 and 1DX. The difference that the 1DX makes is that IS is needed far less due to it's ISO capabilities.
For reference I don't have any Mk2 lenses so I don't have the "Mode 3" that has been mentioned. My IS lenses are the 24-105, 70-200 F2.8, 300 F2.8 and 800 F5.6 - the 800 F5.6 shows the most noticeable improvement. The difference is not night and day but it just locks on that bit quicker and seems to hold on to the subject a little better.
I am not knocking IS, far from it, it is just that now it is something I keep in reserve for when it is really needed.

11
Come on folks!
Quoting all the whizz bang factors and theoretical pro's and cons means precisely nothing!
Get out and shoot some shots with the various sensor sizes and see which works for you.
The last comparative trial I did was to try a friends 7D on my Canon 800 F5.6 L IS, at the time had just bought a 1DX and still had my 1D4. All cameras were set the same for metering. shutter speed, aperture etc. As expected the 7D and 1D4 made the subject (a co-operative Moorhen) larger in the frame but the 1DX gave significantly more pleasing images. Note the bird was stationery so not an AF test.
True this was far from a scientific experiment but who cares - I certainly don't! Since moving to exclusively full frame I am getting more keepers and better ones at that, yes I do have to crop a little more with my 1DX but the files hold up much better than the other 2 cameras.
Try them out for yourself and see and if you prefer camera X then go for it. For me, being focal length challenged, I prefer the results that I am getting with my full frame camera, after all it is only 90% reach - that other 10% makes all the difference!

12
Never owned a 1D3 but a friend of mine did until recently. He used a bunch of Sandisk Extreme 3 8GB SD cards simply because they were cheap and faster than any CF cards in that camera. It would appear that the 1D3 is the only dual card format camera that is actually faster with SD rather than CF!

Yep, this is true. The 1D3 is much faster writing to SD cards than any CF. I wish Canon would drop this annoying dual format memory card malarkey. Just give us two super fast CF slots in the Pro series and an SD in the consumer range.

They have in the 1DX and it works well. With my 1D4 I could get 23-25 RAW files before the buffer filled at 9fps. With the 1DX I get 30+ with a Traanscend 400X CF card (same card as I used in the 1D4) and 50+ files with a Lexar 1000x at 10 fps.
Good improvement - pity about the price!

13
I have found little difference in reach when changing sensor size, though I have noticed improved IQ.
I don't carry out scientific comparisons I just go out and see which performs better.
I do most of my photography with the Canon 800mm so if there were much of a difference this is the lens to show it up!
Now if Canon/Nikon made a low MP APSC camera to the same standard as the 1DX/D4 then the situation may be different!

14
Lenses / Re: 400 f/2.8L II IS: Took the plunge...
« on: August 26, 2014, 08:35:54 PM »
Any Canon 400 F2.8 is a great piece of glass if it suits your needs.
I used to have the original EF 400 F2.8 L (a mere lightweight at 6.1 kilos), yes it was an old battered lens but the images were top notch!
The current model is less than 4 kilos and has updated optics - if 400mm is your bag then you will be very happy!
I note you use a 1DX, given it's iso capabilities, I would suggest turning off the IS as auto-focus and tracking will be even faster - if that's possible! Since January I have used IS on one of my lenses only once and then it was only to stabilize the image in the viewfinder, even with my Canon 800 F5.6 I find IS to be more of a hazard than a help most of the time with the 1DX.

15
Never owned a 1D3 but a friend of mine did until recently. He used a bunch of Sandisk Extreme 3 8GB SD cards simply because they were cheap and faster than any CF cards in that camera. It would appear that the 1D3 is the only dual card format camera that is actually faster with SD rather than CF!

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 20