March 01, 2015, 10:49:47 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] 4 5 ... 26
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......

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!

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.

Lenses / Re: Impressions from the EF 16-35mm f4 L IS USM
« on: December 23, 2014, 04:31:58 PM »
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 find this very odd. Canon is not likely to drop the price anyways, and its always a net benefit. Always. Im confused anytime someone would 'complain' about it...just doesn't make sense to me. (Sounds kind of photog snobby)

PS- no IS on 800mm....sir i think you are really a statue  :P :P

My problem/concern with IS is the "dead" piece of glass in the optical path and the fact that IS slows down AF, it can upset tracking as well.
Now I am not worried about AF speed on a 16-35 but I can't help feeling that this lens might not have been a tad better (IQ wise) without it. I could well be wrong but these are just my thoughts. I agree though - Canon will NOT drop the price - it is just not in their vocabulary! Whatever the 16-35 F4 is a cracking lens and I want one!

As to the "Statue" point - no I am not. I am a 56 year old, arthritic, unfit, overweight, smoker, drinker, diabetic and lazy slob! So if I can hand hold the Canon 800mm at 1/500 without IS (almost) anybody can! It does take a little practice though.

Lenses / Re: Impressions from the EF 16-35mm f4 L IS USM
« on: December 22, 2014, 05:59:55 PM »
OMG! I am a complete idiot (not even an amateur!) my 800mm is an F5.6!!!!@!!!!!! I really wanted the F2 model but couldn't afford the Range Rover to put it on! What an ill informed comment about F2.8 (pretty slow lenses) comment!
Back to the 16-35 F4 L IS. To me IS has it's uses but they do not occur very often, mainly because I am quite happy to shoot at ISO 8000 or a touch higher. Given the ISOs that I can now use then most of the time IS is merely a dead piece of glass between my sensor and my subject and anything extra between you and the subject is never good.
Having said that the new 16-35 F4 looks like the perfect wide lens for me, I just think it could have been a touch better without IS.
Just my 2p.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: m42 Lenses on 5D MKIII (and 6D)
« on: December 21, 2014, 05:50:50 PM »
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:

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.

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!

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:

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

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!

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.

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?

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.

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

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!

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 26