February 27, 2015, 10:51:14 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 - johnf3f

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 26
16
EOS Bodies / Re: POLL: How many mp do you want anyway?
« on: January 30, 2015, 04:33:18 PM »
I voted 18. Why? Because I have an 18mp FF sensor and any more MP would be detrimental to my images. If and when Canon (or anybody else) can make a camera that will give me clean images at 8000 ISO and a decent buffer (my camera currently takes 50+ RAW files before slowing) as well as good build quality and FPS at 30/40/50 Mp then they will be interesting. However if this (future) technology was applied to an 18/20 Mp sensor then that would probably still have advantages for me.

17
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: New 6D and M42 lenses capability.
« on: January 24, 2015, 05:49:31 PM »
There is quite a bit of compatibility advice/info here:

http://www.pebbleplace.com/

I am loving my Contax-Zeiss 25 F2.8 on my 1DX.

18
Lenses / Re: Image Stabilizer on 70-200 2.8 for Basketball
« on: January 21, 2015, 06:07:42 PM »
Interested in your observations.
Personally I have turned off the IS on my 4 IS lenses (24-105, 70-200 F2.8, 300 F2.8 and 800 F5.6) and am preferring the results. I am getting quicker AF acquisition and improved tracking - especially on the 300 F2.8 and 800mm. This has resulted in a slightly higher keeper rate, not much but worth it IMO and you always have IS in reserve - just in case!

19
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM Lens Review
« on: January 19, 2015, 03:16:49 PM »
Interesting review, thanks!!

Another review by spanish nature photographer Oriol Alamany was posted here
 http://blog.alamany.com/2015/01/canon-ef-400mm-f4-do-is-ii-review.html.

I think it is a quite interesting lens, unfortunately I won't be even thinking about purchase, if I ever get to buy a big white it will be the 200-400 1.4x because its versatility.

Cheers!!

Thanks for posting - the new 400 DO is looking more and more interesting, pity I can't afford one!

Victor

20
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM Lens Review
« on: January 19, 2015, 03:05:06 PM »
It does seem like the 800mm f/5.6 is pretty pointless now, and a Mark II of it would have to be miraculously better to beat the 600mm II + TC... Unless they do a DO job to the 800. It's the only thing I can think of that would make the 800 focal length attractive. It could be 7 pounds, the weight of the 500mm F/4 II.

In retrospect, it seems odd that the 400mm focal length has been the test bed, as working on the longer lenses would be a better value proposition. Price cannibalization doesn't seem like the concern, as - it being Canon - they could just charge $18k for a 800 DO and make even more of a margin with it.

Try a Canon 800 and you may change your mind! Also, if you are buying used, they are much cheaper than the 600 Mk2 here in the UK. When I bought my Canon 800 there were no used 600 Mk2's on the market but my young mint-ish 800 was half the price of a new 600 Mk2 at the time. As to being pointless well it is, by far, my most used lens and I am delighted with it - far superior the the 600 IS Mk1 that I sold to help pay for it!

That makes sense to me in those circumstances. You actually made me go check out eBay for current 800mm used prices. As it seems now, the best retail price is $13k (gray market), and the best, and rather common, used price is $10k. For the used price to stay up that high, people must like the lens a lot. But I can get a 600mm II for close to that. Perhaps the price differentials are different in UK/elsewhere.

In any case, I have my fingers crossed that there is an 800 II in the works.

At those prices the 600 looks the better bet, so long as you don't mind using extenders. Whist the latest Canon cameras (I use the 1DX) and Mk3 extenders improve AF and, in the case of the 2 x Mk3, IQ I am not certain that I would be totally happy with the 600 Mk2 + a 1.4 extender to equal the 800mm - though I could well be wrong!
Over here (UK) people have been struggling to sell their 800's for decent money. I picked up mine in Jan 2013 for $8600 (in your money at the exchange rates back then), not too bad for an almost mint example in Ripoff Britain! A new 600 Mk2 was the equivalent of over $15000 here at that time.
I would probably prefer to have a 600Mk2 to my 800 but, to me, it is not worth a huge amount more. The larger aperture would be nice but I would be using extenders much more. The improved IS? I am not using the 4 stop IS that I already have so it's irrelevant. The better IQ as a bare lens, weight loss and the minimum focus distance are the attractions to me!

21
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM Lens Review
« on: January 18, 2015, 05:33:39 PM »
It does seem like the 800mm f/5.6 is pretty pointless now, and a Mark II of it would have to be miraculously better to beat the 600mm II + TC... Unless they do a DO job to the 800. It's the only thing I can think of that would make the 800 focal length attractive. It could be 7 pounds, the weight of the 500mm F/4 II.

In retrospect, it seems odd that the 400mm focal length has been the test bed, as working on the longer lenses would be a better value proposition. Price cannibalization doesn't seem like the concern, as - it being Canon - they could just charge $18k for a 800 DO and make even more of a margin with it.

Try a Canon 800 and you may change your mind! Also, if you are buying used, they are much cheaper than the 600 Mk2 here in the UK. When I bought my Canon 800 there were no used 600 Mk2's on the market but my young mint-ish 800 was half the price of a new 600 Mk2 at the time. As to being pointless well it is, by far, my most used lens and I am delighted with it - far superior the the 600 IS Mk1 that I sold to help pay for it!

22
Lenses / Re: Usefulness of IS on Big Whites?
« on: January 18, 2015, 05:18:46 PM »
Do you need an excuse to pack up once the light's gone and head out to the pub for a pint of fresh Welsh ale? I would be there too were it not for a large body of water in the way...

None whatsoever!

23
I tried the L not long after it came out and was suitably impressed, it is a lovely lens!
However so is the non-L. IQ wise I could find no difference in real world usage, I shoot from a tripod so IS was of little consequence though the 3 position focus limited might be handy if and when I am not focusing manually (rare). The extra build quality is nice but it doesn't affect the images and 3rd party lens hoods (for the non-L) are cheap so no great advantage there.
If you are primarily shooting Macro from a tripod then I would (and did) go for the non-L version - it is simply excellent for the money. If you are doing more general photography and, especially, handheld Macro then the L is the better option in my opinion. They are both excellent lenses but the L version is more adaptable/versatile, the difference is not worth the price for my personal uses but it may well be for yours.

24
Lenses / Re: My New "L"
« on: January 16, 2015, 03:47:06 PM »
No kidding, my first L was the 70-200 F2.8 mk II.   I was blown away with the quality of pictures it could produce compared to my 70-300 IS USM.   Now I've got the itch and expect to have a total of 3 L's added to my kit this year.
Ouch, that's not a good one to start with.  Killer IQ, build quality, IS, etc.  My first L was the 135 f/2, which is understated, but proved to be equally addictive :).  Only bankruptcy can save me now  ;) :o ;D ;)

Especially because you got infected with the 800 that you have rented  8)
The 800mm is a both beauty and the beast - and my biggest crush :-[

Been using my Canon 800mm F5.6 for  years now, all I can say it OOOOOOOOH!
Never put one on your camera - you will be smitten!

25
Lenses / Re: Usefulness of IS on Big Whites?
« on: January 16, 2015, 03:28:36 PM »
Unlike the others I very rarely use the IS on my Canon 800 F5.6 L IS. Whilst I will use it if needed I haven't actually taken a shot in anger (with this lens) using IS since Jan 2014.
Since using the 800mm lens without IS I am getting a higher hit rate (especially on moving subjects like BIF) and faster AF. The differences are only slight but they are there. The above also applies to my 300 F2.8 L IS etc.
As you can see from the other posts most prefer to use IS - I do not, even when hand holding, though it is handy to have in reserve if the light is really bad!

You also don't have the MkII version(s) of the lenses.

They don't make it yet! I did try a 500 F4 Mk2 in mode 1 and it seemed the same as mine though I didn't try it for long enough to make any conclusions.

You mentioned the 300/2.8, of which there's a MkII.  I've done some formal testing of IS on vs. off, there's no effect on sharpness IF the IS system is fully active.  If you just mash down the shutter, IS is in the process of 'spinning up' when the exposure happens, and that can decrease sharpness (can be worse than handholding).

Got 3 lovely frames of a Bittern a few weeks ago. Closest I have ever got to one and the light was as good as it gets! I had time for 3 frames at 10fps (1/1000 sec, F8 at 250ISO), I wonder how many I would have got if I had to wait for the IS to fire up?
Don't get me wrong I feel that IS can be a good feature, it is just that I am not finding much use for it and I appreciate the extra responsiveness I get without it. I am sure that if I moved to a 500/600 F4 Mk2 the IS would be better but being a 1 stop faster lens then I would have even less use for it!?!?
If I can't get 1/500 sec with my F5.6 lens (enough for handholding) at useable ISO on the 1DX then it's time to pack up and go for a pint of Cwrw Tri! You might like the Cwrw Tri - it is a locally brewed dark beer. :)

26
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Difference in image from APS-C to FF
« on: January 15, 2015, 05:42:25 PM »
Ps.  After that, if you like dark beers try a Sam Smith's Imperial Stout.  In the bottle, which has gold foil over the top, it looks a bit darker than a Guinness ES.  But after you remove the foil, you see that unlike the brown Guinness bottle, the Sam Smith's is clear glass.

Cool.  I love dark beers and it has always been a small hobby of mine to seek and find obscure ones.  Thank you.  My wife is about ready to kill me right now because I've been watching the New England game with my "6 pack."  Sam Smith's Imperial Stout, I will have to try that.  Where do you get the Foreign Stout?

I first had the Foreign Extra Stout when I ordered "a Guinness" in the cafe/bar at the Hotel Muhabura in Ruhengeri, Rwanda.   But about a year ago I ran across some 4-packs in the liquor store next to the Whole Foods in the town where I live, so obviously it can be ordered in the US.  Maybe ask your local store?

Watch that Foreign Extra Stout it makes your eyes go funny!
Note there are a number of versions, I prefer the one brewed in St James' Dublin. It is also made in:
"FES is produced at Diageo owned breweries in Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Uganda, Seychelles, Malaysia and Jamaica.[23] In addition, it is produced under licence in 39 other countries.[23][24] Diageo has brewing arrangements with the Castel Group to license brew and distribute Guinness in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Gambia, Gabon, Ivory Coast, Togo, Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali and Guinea" according to Wikipedia.

27
Lenses / Re: Usefulness of IS on Big Whites?
« on: January 15, 2015, 05:33:07 PM »
Unlike the others I very rarely use the IS on my Canon 800 F5.6 L IS. Whilst I will use it if needed I haven't actually taken a shot in anger (with this lens) using IS since Jan 2014.
Since using the 800mm lens without IS I am getting a higher hit rate (especially on moving subjects like BIF) and faster AF. The differences are only slight but they are there. The above also applies to my 300 F2.8 L IS etc.
As you can see from the other posts most prefer to use IS - I do not, even when hand holding, though it is handy to have in reserve if the light is really bad!

You also don't have the MkII version(s) of the lenses.

They don't make it yet! I did try a 500 F4 Mk2 in mode 1 and it seemed the same as mine though I didn't try it for long enough to make any conclusions.

28
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM Lens Review
« on: January 14, 2015, 05:10:51 PM »
It is beginning to look like they got it right with the new DO - I am really fancying one, pity about the price!
Given the weight and size savings I think Mackguyver is right  600 F4 DO would be a wonderful option. It makes me ponder if an 800 F4 DO might be practical? I could never afford one (if it were made) but I can dream......

29
Lenses / Re: Usefulness of IS on Big Whites?
« on: January 14, 2015, 05:05:26 PM »
Unlike the others I very rarely use the IS on my Canon 800 F5.6 L IS. Whilst I will use it if needed I haven't actually taken a shot in anger (with this lens) using IS since Jan 2014.
Since using the 800mm lens without IS I am getting a higher hit rate (especially on moving subjects like BIF) and faster AF. The differences are only slight but they are there. The above also applies to my 300 F2.8 L IS etc.
As you can see from the other posts most prefer to use IS - I do not, even when hand holding, though it is handy to have in reserve if the light is really bad!

30
Software & Accessories / Re: Lexar Pro CF 1000x vs 1066x?
« on: December 30, 2014, 03:42:02 PM »
A lot of people had read/write issues with the 1000x cards, myself included.

make sure you use a UDMA 7 card reader

Do you know what these issues are? Where can I find further information?
I have been VERY pleased with the performance of my Lexar 1000x 32GB card in my 1DX, but if there are potential issues I would like to know about them.
I would be grateful for your help.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 26