October 20, 2014, 09:42:07 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 ... 21
16
Software & Accessories / Re: UniqBall
« on: September 24, 2014, 05:36:48 PM »
I have been considering the larger version for my 300 and 800mm lenses. Andy Rouse is promoting them over here in the UK and they seem to be getting some very good feedback. I am not certain that I could get on with having to have some friction (to prevent the lens drooping) compared to the free movement of my Wimberley 2.
I would be interested in your observations when yours arrives.

17
More pixels on the bird. That is what I get with crop camera. Pixel density. If I were shooting stuffed birds I would use full frame and the 180 mm macro lens. In real life, it is hard to get enough pixels on the bird.

Curious- I have gone the opposite route!
My main subjects are small birds and I have achieved better results when I moved to larger sensors (Apsc to Apsh to FF). True the cameras have improved in areas other than sensor size but the pixel density has dropped significantly - yet I achieve better results, not to mention the silly ISO levels that I can now use. My 18mp FF sensor is looking sparsely populated compared to the current rash of high MP sensors but, in all the comparisons that I yet have tried, produces better results for me.

18
As I wildlife photographer I don't see too much use for a 7D2 in less than perfect light

That's the problem with describing the newer crop cameras as "wildlife" cameras.  The newer, high MP Canon crop sensors only work well in the best of light.

Reach doesn't matter much if fur and feather detail is obliterated by noise. I think we're at the point now that unless you shoot tiny birds, FF is the way to go for all applications.
+1
Though I should say that I generally photograph small birds (Kingfishers etc) and I am loving the results from my 1DX - significantly better than my 1D4 was and it also (in my opinion) gives a touch more reach despite the lower pixel density.

19
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.

Hmm I have to disagree. After I sold my 7D and 5D2 to get a 5D3 I did miss the 7D reach at times. So I'm not sayng that as a 7D owner trying to defend it. I simply got more detail on birds when I used the 7D a majority of, although not all, the time.

If they cut 6MP off it and made it 12MP the high iso performance would probably only improve by maybe 1/4 stop, being generous, at print view. Does it matter if the 100% view noise is worse? 100% view is not a fair comparison.

If it were only 12MP the reach advantage over the 5D3 would be a lot less and at that point, other than for the fps (of course 10fps vs 6fps is a big difference granted), why not get the 5D3? But what about a used 1D3 or 1D4 at that point? OK, I guess those are bulky.

But I don't see the point in giving up the reach just to, maybe, maybe, get 1/4 stop better SNR. And don't forget the tighter the 'grain' the less objectionable it looks and the more room you have to apply advanced NR techniques (as opposed to the simple filtering of high frequency noise from less MP).

You gain reach when the noise is not a problem and only get a tiny bit more noise, tiny bit, when the noise is a problem.

I have been through the Apsc/Apsh FF cycle and have yet to experience any significant loss of reach - in fact when I changed from the 1D4 to the 1DX I appear to have the same or even greater reach.
I am not too much up on the technical side but if Canon were to produce a 12MP Apsc sensor with the same tech as the 7D2 sensor then I would expect a significant improvement in ISO performance.
As to the "tiny bit more noise, tiny bit" I find the current 7D to be barely adequate under South Wales lighting conditions much of the time (hopefully the Mk2 is better) and at my normal working ISOs it is too soft as well as noisy. Admittedly I am using an 800mm lens so higher shutter speeds are required but my FF 1DX achieves this with ease and gives clean files - I have yet to use NR software with this camera. I just feel that it would be nice for Apsc shooters to have some of the advantages that the larger sensors can give, hopefully without the expense!

20
Lenses / Re: used 300 f2.8 IS or new sigma 120-300 f2.8
« on: September 23, 2014, 03:08:47 PM »
Go for 300MkI. I tried both, and there is quite a bit extra IQ from the Canon. The difference is even more pronounced with 1.4x extender...

Thanks for the reply and suggestion. I will go for the Canon model.  :)

I have one myself - you won't regret this decision.
I often use mine with a Canon 2 x Mk3 extender, whist it is not as good as a 600 F4, it makes a very portable and high quality 600mm.

21
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.

22
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.

23
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!

24
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!

25
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.

26
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?

27
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!

28
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.

29
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!

30
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.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 21