Messages

16

Lenses / Re: Please help me decide between the EF 300 f/4 L and the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 L

« on: December 15, 2012, 02:54:49 AM »

For wildlife, the 300 F4 L IS. For "events" (speaking engagements, equestrian, school sports) the 70-300 L.

Be careful of sample variation. My 300 F4 L IS needed to go in four times before it was right (bought new from Adorama).

When that lens is "right", it's the best bang for buck wildlife lens that Canon makes. I know many wildlife photogs who sold their 300 2.8's for the F4 version, claiming relatively similar results, but far less weight and increased portability. The 600 F4 and 300 F4 is a popular pairing.


This was taken with the 300 bare, no processing, pretty much the straight RAW file at ISO 1600 handheld.




-----------------

http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/

17

Lenses / Re: Zoom vs Primes?

« on: December 15, 2012, 02:39:08 AM »

Here's what I prefer after years of shooting:

Scenario A - Nature Travel:  Zoom all the way. Good luck driving ten miles in a blizzard to get closer to that mountain range. Or that rainbow, or backing up to get those stormy skies and that river. The 24-105 L is IMHO, on both crop and FF, the greatest nature travel lens you can buy.

Scenario B - Urban shooting: Prime. Faster when the buildings block the sun. Light, portable, inconspicuous.

Scenario C - Indoors: Prime. There's no substitute for 1.4 -2.0.

Scenario D - Wildlife: Prime. If Canon's 200-400 is as sharp as the 500 or 300, I'll change my mind. For whatever reason, wildlife photos just look richer with a good prime lens.   Also, I'd much rather shoot at F4 than 5.6 when you get into those dark shrub/forest backgrounds.

Scenario E: Wide angle landscape: Zoom. I know the primes give better detail, but shooting this way is a pain. Nikon showed you can have amazing wide angle sharpness, hopefully Canon can match. I love prime lenses, but I really dislike shooting landscape with ultra wide primes. Lots of tripod maneuvering, adjusting, cropping, cloning, etc.

Best of luck with your decision.  You may want to consider renting a couple primes and zooms to help make your decision.


---------------

http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/

18

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 35 f/2 IS Resolution Test

« on: December 15, 2012, 02:25:15 AM »

Interesting post, CR. so Canon managed to produce a slower and softer lens for the same price. Ouch.

In theory I like Sigma lenses (and own one), but had issues with customer service warranty work. Still, the results don't lie.

On the other hand, I'm a sucker for IS and primes. The 35 F2 would be a fun lens for low light shooting and video work...I could see it on the camera most of the time when indoors. I'd probably go with the Canon for the intangibles.

-------------

http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/

19

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Information

« on: December 03, 2012, 11:23:07 PM »

A few posters make a good point: Why not just get the 500 or 600?

Well, sometimes you miss shots with a prime. A good example would be a bird flying right at you. Bears with cubs are another reason why a zoom would be superior. Also, the built-in TC offers a big advantage. Changing a TC in the rain or snow is awful.

I like the "look" that primes give for wildlife. But if this lens can be as sharp as the 300 or 500, while offering the ability to pull back to 200mm to get those hooves or cubs in the frame, then it's going to be a popular lens. If it's not as sharp as the primes, then it's in serious trouble.

----------------------------------------
http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/

20

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Information [CR1]

« on: November 30, 2012, 07:21:55 PM »

Pleasant enough, but I doubt it would pull me from my 7D. A big improvement in low ISO dynamic range and noise would do it.



http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/

21

EOS Bodies / Re: First Round of EOS 7D Mark II Specs [CR1]

« on: November 27, 2012, 03:27:53 PM »

No, it doesn't.  The extra pixels are capable of showing the blur that was already there in more detail.  Reducing the pixel count just hides that blur inside the blur due to poor sampling.

Advanced Diffraction calculator for different sensor types:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

22

EOS Bodies / Re: First Round of EOS 7D Mark II Specs [CR1]

« on: November 27, 2012, 01:01:12 AM »

For the billionth time, more pixels does not mean more noise.  In fact, given the same basic sensor performance, more pixels means less noise (given the same total sensor area, of course).  This is because bigger pixels do nothing but simple block averaging while noise reduction software uses far more sophisticated approaches to reducing noise than that.

Think of it this way - a perfect sensor would record each photon's location.  This is sort of equivalent to "infinite" pixel count.

There are a couple factors here. Hand-holding ability suffers when pixel density is too high, reducing the 7D's effectiveness as a hand-held wildlife camera. The people I shoot with have had to make the adjustment, and it's kind of a bummer. On top of that is encountering diffraction earlier on. Problematic for landscape shooters.

There are several drawbacks to cramming more pixels on small sensors. You can take as many shortcuts as you like, but eventually physics will emerge victorious, thus the booming full frame market.....

23

EOS Bodies / Re: First Round of EOS 7D Mark II Specs [CR1]

« on: November 26, 2012, 07:39:07 PM »

<li>24.2mp APS-C Sensor</li>

I hope this isn't true. I'd actually like to see Canon knock back the MP on the 7D II to 15 or 14.  While I really like my 7D, the noise levels at ISO 100 are not what I'd classify as "ideal".



http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/

24

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wild grizzly bear, Glacier National Park

« on: November 25, 2012, 03:04:39 PM »

It was either another bear or a new species - Bearapillar!

 

25

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon unveils 24.1MP D5200 DSLR with optional WiFi

« on: November 25, 2012, 02:48:31 PM »

Most people can't tell the diiference between a 256kbps mp3 and a CD, 98% of people can't tell the difference between 320kbps mp3 and a CD, no one can tell the difference between FLAC and CD.

I definitely notice a difference in sound quality when hooking my iPod to my stereo and playing lossless formats compared to my CD's. I'm guessing it's the DAC's and the cable.

I try to choose a CD every time when at home. For road trips, I bring my iTouch and about 30 compact discs.



http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/

26

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: What would you do? Crop or FF

« on: November 22, 2012, 06:32:39 PM »

I've been contemplating swapping out my 7D for this 6D or the 5D III. I had two reservations:

1. Low ISO dynamic range versus the latest Nikon offerings
2. Auto focus

I'm not really keen on in-camera jpegs at high ISO, but rather taking a look at the RAW file.


http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/

27

Landscape / Winter approaches

« on: November 14, 2012, 12:50:51 PM »

http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/

28

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wild grizzly bear, Glacier National Park

« on: November 14, 2012, 11:05:18 AM »

Okay, mystery bear revealed. I've taken a lot of grizz images, but this one is probably my favorite:




http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/

29

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wild grizzly bear, Glacier National Park

« on: November 11, 2012, 12:05:51 AM »

Good eyes

More photos forthcoming, with mom and mystery bear in the cliffs (but first, I need to actually process those images, lol).




http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/

30

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wild grizzly bear, Glacier National Park

« on: November 09, 2012, 07:44:25 PM »

Hey, tell us a little about the equipment used to take the picture....please?

Hey everyone, thanks for the kind words.

The photo was taken with a Canon 7D and a 300 F4 L IS + Canon 1.4x II TC. Here are some stats:

spot metering
iso 400
420mm
1/800
F10
AI Servo + AF expansion center cluster
+5 micro focus adjust

I agree that the key is to get the claws nice and sharp in the image. I was pleased with the image out of camera (bears are elusive, so this is a rare thing). Very little processing was applied.



http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/