August 20, 2014, 07:16:10 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 5 ... 19
31
Software & Accessories / Re: Gimbal head or not for Tamron 150-600
« on: June 21, 2014, 05:01:46 PM »
Mack - we could have 300/2.8 II + 2xTC thread, there is now quite a group of us!

Yes it would and there would be some nice images too!
It's a very good combination.

32
Software & Accessories / Re: Gimbal head or not for Tamron 150-600
« on: June 18, 2014, 05:23:11 PM »

If you say you do not need IS, then I believe you and salute your rock solid arms and their strength. However, not everyone has your natural stability. Here is what Bryan from TDP, writes, and he claims to work out regularly with weights.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-600mm-f-4-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

“I relied on IS a lot when using the version I 600 L IS lens - especially when shooting wildlife. I didn't handhold that lens a lot due to its shoulder/back injury-inducing weight, but the tripod-sensing IS system was quite helpful in reducing vibration (including from mirror slap) when shooting from a tripod. Handholding the 600 L IS II is much easier and I am now relying on IS much more frequently to help me get the shot. I find IS to be an extremely valuable feature for this lens.”


For what it's worth I have arms like pipe cleaners and can barely do a push up!
Though a lot of it is down to technique, not strength, most people can support large lenses surprisingly well for short periods. Locally there is quite a petite lady who rarely uses a tripod with her Nikon 500 F4 + D4 - so it can be done!
My problem with IS is that it slows things down, when you have a small bird flitting here and there I have enough trouble keeping up with it - let alone the IS slowing things up! Try it for yourself. Also I believe that IS is not effective at shutter speeds of less than 1/500 sec so it is of limited use for many subjects.
I should state that I use a 1DX and it's ISO capabilities are a significant part of the equation, were I using a different camera this may alter my opinion.
However, regardless of the camera used, I prefer to shoot with IS off and only use it when necessary (in desperation in my case!). It is a very handy feature, to have in reserve.


For rapidly moving birds etc, use Mode 3 on your IS - the IS kicks in only when you actuate the shutter, and Mode 3 was introduced precisely for tracking fast, erratic motion.

I don't understand why you write that IS is not effective below 1/500s. there are oodles of published measurements and examples of IS working brilliantly down to 1/10s or so - just look at the lens tests on TDP. The following link explains Mode 3 and states image stabilization at 1/5s for the 600mm f/4 II:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-600mm-f-4-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx


By shutter speeds below 1/500 sec I mean shorter/faster shutter speeds. At longer/slower shutter speeds IS can become very useful, especially with longer lenses. However with the ISO capabilities of some modern cameras it is becoming less valuable.
I cannot comment on Mode 3 IS as my lenses do not have it. However IS uses a moving element so focus will necessarily be affected, even if only briefly - so I still say IS is a good feature to have in reserve, to be turned on when required.

33
Software & Accessories / Re: Gimbal head or not for Tamron 150-600
« on: June 17, 2014, 07:08:08 PM »

If you say you do not need IS, then I believe you and salute your rock solid arms and their strength. However, not everyone has your natural stability. Here is what Bryan from TDP, writes, and he claims to work out regularly with weights.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-600mm-f-4-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

“I relied on IS a lot when using the version I 600 L IS lens - especially when shooting wildlife. I didn't handhold that lens a lot due to its shoulder/back injury-inducing weight, but the tripod-sensing IS system was quite helpful in reducing vibration (including from mirror slap) when shooting from a tripod. Handholding the 600 L IS II is much easier and I am now relying on IS much more frequently to help me get the shot. I find IS to be an extremely valuable feature for this lens.”


For what it's worth I have arms like pipe cleaners and can barely do a push up!
Though a lot of it is down to technique, not strength, most people can support large lenses surprisingly well for short periods. Locally there is quite a petite lady who rarely uses a tripod with her Nikon 500 F4 + D4 - so it can be done!
My problem with IS is that it slows things down, when you have a small bird flitting here and there I have enough trouble keeping up with it - let alone the IS slowing things up! Try it for yourself. Also I believe that IS is not effective at shutter speeds of less than 1/500 sec so it is of limited use for many subjects.
I should state that I use a 1DX and it's ISO capabilities are a significant part of the equation, were I using a different camera this may alter my opinion.
However, regardless of the camera used, I prefer to shoot with IS off and only use it when necessary (in desperation in my case!). It is a very handy feature, to have in reserve.

34
Lenses / Re: Traveling to the UK/Ireland
« on: June 16, 2014, 08:07:37 PM »
Hope you enjoyed your trip.

35
Software & Accessories / Re: Gimbal head or not for Tamron 150-600
« on: June 16, 2014, 08:00:29 PM »
In simple terms, if you have a very sharp lens, then every small blurring event, such as minute camera shake, will be noticeable. If you have a very soft lens, then a minute amount of camera shake would not be noticeable in the overall blur. So, you would be crazy to hand hold a 600mm f/2.8 II with IS off, or more sensibly a 400 mm f/5.6 at a low shutter speed. However, a Tamron 150-600mm at 1/1000s with IS on would not register any camera shake.

As Weixing write there is no wrong or right way, but you can have accessories that are overkill for a particular lens.

I have only used the IS on my Canon 800 F5.6 L IS for a couple of shots this year - all my other shots (both hand held or on a tripod) have been with the IS turned firmly OFF. Why - because I get faster AF and a higher hit rate, especially if subjects move. Given the lighter weight and better balance of the Canon 600 Mk2 (that you quote) + the extra stop of light and it is hardly a chore to use hand held and there is certainly no need to turn on the IS in anything but poor light - my 800mm is not as good in this respect being F5.6. Note I am not a bodybuilder - I am a 55 year old arthritic Diabetic. These lenses are not that difficult to manage!

To the OP.
I do not claim to be an expert, but I have primarily used long (400mm +) lenses for quite a while. When the light is good you can keep the shutter speeds up and manage quite happily without support. IS/OS etc have their uses but are no substitute for a decent tripod + head. If you get cheap support you will rapidly outgrow it and end up spending more in the long run. It's up to you, but I would suggest you get good support from my experience.

36
Software & Accessories / Re: Gimbal head or not for Tamron 150-600
« on: June 16, 2014, 07:11:19 AM »


Bear in mind that the Tamron is not the sharpest lens on the block, but is sharp enough and provides more fun per $ or ounce than most telephotos. One of its greatest advantages is its light weight and zoom. You nullify these by adding massive expensive gear that might get the best of a supersharp heavyweight that outresolves the sensor but might not increase the sharpness of a less refined lens.
[/quote]

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this point.
Whilst I don't think a 5 series Gitzo is necessary a good Feisol 2/3 series (or similar) with a decent Gimbal would net the best results without spending silly money.
Whatever the price or weight of the lens, it is the focal length that matters. You state that the Tamron is not the very sharpest lens going, surely this makes getting the very best out of it even more important?
If light levels are good then no support is necessary, but that isn't always the case.

37
Software & Accessories / Re: Gimbal head or not for Tamron 150-600
« on: June 15, 2014, 06:26:47 PM »
Just my 2p!
I am having to disagree with some here - sorry!
If you are going to use the Tamron, at 600mm, then you must treat it as a 600mm lens to get the most out of it. The fact that it is very light is, if anything, a disadvantage when shooting as the Canon/Nikon 600mm behemoths damp down  a great deal of vibration by sheer weight!
You will need top quality support (tripod) and a top quality head. I would not go for a Ball Head as you will VERY quickly find it VERY frustrating. With a ball head positioning/framing will be difficult and moving subjects will be out of the question. A Gimbal (such as the Jobu Jr recommended above) is probably the best compromise. Unfortunately, if you change focal lengths, then the balance will alter - but it is still the best solution.
Make sure you have a good, very rigid, tripod (forget the weight ratings) that will support your lens and not shake all over the place with these sort of focal lengths - sorry but that means an expensive tripod!
Be prepared to spend more on your tripod and head than you did on the lens if you want to get the most out of it.

38
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7d2 IQ thoughts.
« on: June 15, 2014, 05:57:18 PM »
We will all just have to wait and see!
Canon are not going to produce what I want ( a 10/12mp high ISO, fast apsc camera) as too many people out there are convinced that the current 18mp+ apsc sensors gives more "Reach" - I have tried them - they don't really, well just a little but with a whole host of compromises, in the real world larger sensors win hands down.
Let's hope the high MP fans don't win and that they (Canon) actually produce a useful upgrade over the 7D!
Many will disagree with me - that's fine - but I have tried them all (Canon's and the better Nikons) and the larger sensor lower MP cameras produce the goods. High (12mp +) small sensors are just too much of a compromise.

39
Lenses / Re: What was your first L lens?
« on: June 10, 2014, 08:43:49 PM »
First was the 100-400, then 17-40. However it was just the start of a slippery slope!
I am currently running the following "L" lenses 17-40, 24-105, 70-200 F2.8 IS, 300 F2.8 IS and 800 F5.6 IS, no wonder I am skint!
The first step is admitting you have a problem, the second step is...where's my credit card? There's a new L lens coming out...I'm sorry, what were you saying?
 ;D

I don't have a problem - I am just an addict who does not want a cure! The credit card is fine, I have no debts but a 600 Mk2 - possibly a 300 F2.8 Mk2 and loose the 17-40 + 24-105 for a 16-35 F4 and 24-70 Mk2.......
well maybe I won't be out of debt for long!

40
1. To me 18MP is plenty - I wouldn't mind more but only if there was NO compromise in ISO performance.

2. I am not having issues with DR, more is obviously better just not a particular issue to me.

3. I am finding the usable ISO range on my 1DX great, again more would be better especially below ISO 50.

4. Mirroless cameras are of zero use to me. When they can AF fast, have a viewfinder/screen that I can use in real world lighting conditions, balance properly on large lenses and have a decent size battery - then I will be interested.

5. Switch brand? Only Nikon offers the sort of lens range that I mainly use - tried a couple (with D800e and D4) - staying with Canon for foreseeable future.

6. Don't find much use for IS on my 800mm F5.6 - on a wide angle? No thanks - it just adds another (dead) element that serves no purpose for me and IS slows down AF..

7. No idea - so long as it works I am happy!

8. DSLR's have Video?

9. Err no.

41
Lenses / Re: What was your first L lens?
« on: June 10, 2014, 03:12:48 PM »
First was the 100-400, then 17-40. However it was just the start of a slippery slope!
I am currently running the following "L" lenses 17-40, 24-105, 70-200 F2.8 IS, 300 F2.8 IS and 800 F5.6 IS, no wonder I am skint!

42
Children please stop squabbling!
If Canon don't make the high MP camera that you think you want/need the go buy from someone who does. It is pointless going on ad infinitum about what they don't make, if you really want 30+mp go buy it and stop whingeing. If there are enough of you then Canon will change their products - though when you discover (as I have) the advantages of more modest MP sensors we will welcome you back.

Yes that's right I am quoting myself!
I wish to retract this post as I feel it detracts from this thread, sorry for posting it folks.

I am having so much fun reading the complete ** here that I don't want it to stop! I am having a great laugh at it - please continue! It is a bit disappointing to read the lack of knowledge/experience of many posters (and I don't claim to be an expert) however it is quite amusing so please don't stop.

43
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM Lens - Sharpness
« on: June 07, 2014, 06:57:33 PM »
Unfortunately I had to sell my Canon 300 F4 IS as I also have the Canon 300 F2.8 IS and couldn't afford to keep both. Whilst my 300 F2.8 is better in all respects (except weight and price) the difference is surprisingly small.
I originally bought my 300 F4 as I was looking for more reach than I had with my Canon 100-400 (yes read that again). A cropped image from the 300 was better than I could get from my 100-400 at max focal length. A friend of mine (after trying my 300 F4 and a couple of others) made exactly the same switch for the same reason - reach.
I never bothered much with extenders on my 300 as I had the 600 F4 IS, though my friend, mentioned above, has had good results with both his Canon 1.4 Mks and his 2 x Mk3 (in very good light).
What the above boils down to is that our two 300 F4 L IS lenses are very sharp by any standards and the images could stand far more cropping than we expected. For reference the cameras used were a 1D3 and two 1D4's.
It is an old design and not perfect (the IS is clunky so just turn it off!) but there is absolutely nothing wrong with the optics.

44
Fourteen stops. HAH! I fart in the general direction of your fourteen stops! And Laugh. MUHAHAHAHAHAAAA!

I think the message taped to an Arrow & shot into the Chest may have had more impact & been more pointed   ;D

Love those Movies.

Me too! :D

Obviously not a Troll as he didn't say " I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!"

P.S. a friend of mine was an extra in the battle scene at the end of the film.

45
Lenses / Re: Need a 600mm. Don't want to pay for one
« on: June 06, 2014, 05:04:42 PM »
There might be a bit of a wait for the Tamron.  Orders placed in mid March at B&H haven't been filled yet.  I'm also on the waiting list at the local camera store.  At this rate I might save enough for a big white before the Tamron ships. Been thinking the 300 f/2.8L IS II was the next step for me since already have the extenders, just thought I'd be waiting until a year or two after I got the Tamron.

Honestly if the Canon 300 F2.8 L IS Mk2 is a bit of a stretch (it ain't cheap!) then have a look at a used Mk1. IQ wise there is little between them, yes the Mk2 is better but it takes a Guru of heightened enlightenment to really see the difference.

Not entirely true. Without tc's I would agree with you, but once you add a 1.4 and especially a 2.0 tc, the difference in iq between the 300i and 300ii is significant and immediately noticeable. AF performance is also significantly improved on the mark ii over the mark I.

Interesting - I didn't really see much in it, and then only by pixel peeping, though I would definitely agree on the AF improvement on the 300 Mk2 + Mk3 extenders over the Mk1 with the same extenders.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 19