neuroanatomist said:

DanN said:

I think the only way this lens is going to sell really well is if it proves to be essentially a 400mm version of the 300mm 2.8 II; that is, a lens with just legendary sharpness. Otherwise, I don't know how you justify the almost $5000.00 difference between it and the new 100-400.

Click to expand...

How do you justify the 200/2L IS, when there's the excellent 70-200/2.8L IS II and the relatively inexpensive but still excellent 200/2.8L II? Twice as much light.

Click to expand...

Well, I personally don't justify it, because never, not once, have I ever contemplated paying $6,000 for a 200mm F2.0 lens. It just isn't the kind of photography I do. But the 200 2.0 apparently does possess the kind of sharpness I was talking about, where it's noticeably better than the less expensive lenses.

More careful testing results.

This afternoon, since there were no birds, I tested the old and new 100-400 lenses at 400mm against the 500 V.1 again. I used the chart from Bob Atkins printed on a 13x19 sheet. There is no doubt in my mind now that the zoom is not quite as sharp or contrasty as the 500. It is close however.
I set up the tripod on a concrete floor, MLU, focused live view with a loupe, remote with 2-second delay with a monopod supporting the camera body itself IS was off, etc. I took several shots with each lens while watching live view for vibrations. It was quite solid and there were none. The various test shots were quite consistent in appearance so I think this is a correct test. The tests showed what would be expected. The 500 is at the top of the heap with best sharpness and contrast, the new zoom is a VERY close second and the old zoom (which is a pretty good copy) is falling behind the new zoom by more of a gap than the new zoom falls behind the 500. CA is also much better with the new zoom. Mystery solved.

too many curve balls here mate.

most manufacturers let you download a pdf of the manuals these days. For a definitive answer try that.

.
Fall Closes Out

Winter begins tomorrow...

The Canon EF lenses launched in the last decade are designed to provide clear images even in 80 megapixel sensors (at least in the sweet spot of the lens). While Canon Cine lenses are designed to provide high quality images at up to 32 megapixel sensors.
High quality images in Cine lenses, means:

*Do not have breath focus, noticeable.

*Making extremely precise manual focus through a ring that rotates 180 degrees about.

*Do not have vignettes, chromatic aberration, barrel distortion, noticeable to the point they need to be corrected in post (as is done in stills photo).

I believe the Canon cine lenses can produce better images than old EF models, but should not reach the sharpness of the Sigma 50mm Art.

meywd said:

adhocphotographer said:

You can check out the rest of this trips worth (3 days) on my website:
http://adhocphotographer.com/211113/5271915/wildlife/kabini-in-december

Click to expand...

Amazing pictures, i read many times of tiger attacks on Indian villages, is it safe to be this close?

Click to expand...

Thanks and yes... there has not been an incident in a national park for decades. the village attacks are mainly due to human encroachment on buffer zones and old tigers too weak to hunt deer. The tigers in the parks are all healthy and don't attack jeeps! It is perfectly safe... it is crossing the roads you need to worry about, not the wildlife!

Why buy a 20 MP camera and then throw pixels away.

I can understand not needing them, but its a expensive camera, and you can never recover the lost resolution if you shoot in mraw. Memory cards and hard drive space are so cheap in relation to the price of the camera that its not a factor. You must still convert to jpg for either mraw or raw, and the image size can be set during that process without affecting the original.

candc said:

Bennymiata said:

And now that Obama is going to warm up relations between the US and Cuba, more Americans can soon go there and enjoy their birds.


Lovely shots!

Click to expand...

and more importantly we will be able to enjoy cuban cohibas without having to import them from switzerland.

great shots glenn, its nice to see you posting here and i look forward to more. your website is a great resource for bird photographers.

Click to expand...

Thank you!

Lawliet said:

dgatwood said:

We don't read out CMOS sensors in the dark when using them for video, so obviously that's not essential. I'm pretty sure the real answer is that it's cheaper to toss a leaf shutter in than to do it right....

Click to expand...

That's where you get the rolling shutter artifacts.

Click to expand...

You get rolling shutter artifacts because Canon's CMOS sensors don't have a global electronic shutter. The way a global electronic shutter works is pretty straightforward: in a single parallel operation, you shift the values of every pixel into a buffer. Then, you read the buffered values at your leisure. There's no rolling shutter problem, because the readout occurs simultaneously across all the pixels.

A global electronic shutter is significantly better than a focal plane shutter in every way. Even focal plane shutters exhibit a small amount of roll, whereas a global electronic shutter behaves more like a traditional round leaf shutter outside the focal plane, exposing the entire sensor at once and ending that exposure at once. And unlike either leaf or focal plane shutters, global electronic shutters are almost infinitely fast, so you can stop worrying about flash X-sync speed.

And, of course, they're more reliable....

neuroanatomist said:

As readout electronics and speed improve we will eventually get to a global electronic shutter for dSLRs, but we're not there yet.

Click to expand...

We should be there. There's no reason you can't do global electronic shutters with CMOS. Several companies have been building CMOS sensors with GES for years. It has nothing to do with speed, and everything to do with simply deciding that the GES is worth the extra sensor fabrication cost and complexity.

neuroanatomist said:

Also, as I stated previously, Canon dSLRs do not use leaf shutters.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I meant focal plane shutter. Terminology fail.

I agree Richard. We have followed the same path. I'm keeping my 7D for sports and wildlife, and my recent 6D purchase seems to have been the perfect choice for a second body. I'd like to have the 5Diii but can't justify the additional expense without actually making money. I decided at the last minute, holiday deals were too good to pass up.

At first the build quality difference seemed significant. I didn't realize how beefy the 7D was before I started to handle the 6D (disclaimer: my last real camera was 30 years ago, a Nikon F3), and it did feel a bit plasticky, but this was only in rotation of the main dial. It's all good now.

I don't miss the joystick at all, I've adapted well to the user interface on the 6D. Sure it would have been nice to be more consistent with the 7D but everything is as accessible and fast without it.

I've used alternate AF points and had no problem with still subjects, but I've always been stuck in the focus and recompose methodology so don't really have a need for others. Nice to have and happy they aren't as bad as some say. I haven't had an opportunity to test tracking, but if I ever have the need I'll probably use the 7D anyway.

The one disappointment with the move to FF is that in my opinion the 24-105mm kit lens is a bit of a let down. I find the 15-85mm I use with the 7D to be a much more reliable lens for sharp images. I've tested three so far with the same results. This lens is an L only in build quality. I have a few primes in this range and the 16-35mm f/4 so I have a workaround, and will still use the 24-105mm for general walk-around purposes but will continue to have low expectations.

Congrats on the new purchase and Happy Holidays to you.

Not bad!
I envy you with the 65 MP-E. I am using a reversed fd 28mm with extension tube for now. I am a beginner in this.
Do you focus stack, if yes short or long? For the fly for example, how many shots did you use?

Wow! Just wow!!! Only 1200$ for that kind of lens?!
Matt Granger tested it out at Photokina and he was very pleased.
This is going to be serious competition for the Nikon 14-24 and a no-brainer for every Canon shooter searching for a fast UWA!

Click said:

Thank you for sharing Mr Surapon.

Have a great day Sir.

Click to expand...

+ 1

LewisShermer said:

pdirestajr said:

Wait, there is a MASSIVE difference in image quality between the 5DII and 5DIII?! Since when??

Yes the 5DIII has improvements across all features (mostly the focusing system), but I don't know if image quality is really one that is massively changed. Used right, the 5DII has fantastic image quality.

Click to expand...

The difference is absolutely HUUUUUUGE, it's crazy. I used to shoot weddings (just friends and relatives at first) on a 60D which had great image quality, I made a bit of money so bought a 7D for the bigger view in the eyepiece... unfortunately the image quality wasn't as good so I just used it as a back up to the 60D in the end. I then made enough to buy the 5Diii and a few quality lenses but it messed with my head using the same lenses on both a full frame and a crop so I bought a 5Dii as my back up... I went in blind and just used it as I would the 5Diii (a mistake on my part) and the images were an absolute wreck compared to the 5Diii. I guess it could be just like preferring Kodak film to Fuji though. VC to EC... those old choices we had to make back in the day...

I sold the 5Dii straight away and re-bought the 60D & I never want to look at a 7D again...

Click to expand...

I agree. White the 5D2 can produce excellent images, the 5D3 does have a huge IQ improvement. Couple this improvement in IQ (cleaner/sharper looking pixels, better ability to pull shadows, MUCH lower color noise at high ISO, better luminance noise at higher ISO) with a far superior AF system and your keeper rate is much much higher.

Tinky said:

Anybody tempted?

Click to expand...

Definitely not - the 50/1.8 build quality (two pieces of glass helpd together by a cheap plastic barrel) will be still horrible, as will the noisy an imprecise af motor. I had bad experiences esp. when the zoom mechanism pushes the interior outside - bump against anything, and that's that.

That isn't salvaged by the bokeh going from "horrible" to "below average", in the best case to be expected, that is. This one is build and designed for the local Asian market.

Tinky said:

Of course, the f1.4 is possibly of more interrest once they get round to shipping it...

Click to expand...

Indeed, a 50/1.4 clone at a very cheap price would be tempting to have around just for the low light capability when in a pinch (like night time photography). For everything else, there are better options around nowadays unless you're on an ultra-low budget and don't worry about af precision.

However, as this has to be imported from China I'd have to pay 20% vat plus 20% customs (Germany/EU), so unless you try to circumvent customs altogether it isn't such a great offer anymore vs. a used Canon 50/1.4 bought locally. And it's not like there would be any good warranty service to be expected from Yn.

Re: What would you choose to compliment a 50mm prime?

Ripley said:

My understanding is that the 70-300mm L doesn't have as good IQ as the 70-200mm L IS wide open. I'm not too concerned about f4 versus f4.5 or 200mm versus 300mm, I would just want the best IQ of the two.

Click to expand...

I didn't use both, but looking at the tdp chart's I'd say it depends on the focal length and the individual copy of your lens - there's always a lot of variation. If your are set upon pixel peeping (I'm not saying there's something wrong with it) the internal zoom might be calibrated better, ymmv.

However, the 70-300L is one of the most underestimated lenses for this very reason. When it was released, the opinions were "Well, you'll get similar test chart iq from a much cheaper lens", but over the last years this has turned around and it's considered to be a very good lens with an excellent sharpness/bokeh/price/weight/bulk tradeoff. That's why I'd recommend at least testing both in a shop in your own hands and getting the feel, then comparing some non-test chart shots.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=738&Camera=453&Sample=1&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=404&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

The Mark II is the successor to the original 7D, look at the review: http://d800vsd810.com/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii-review/

Marsu42 said:

Pookie said:

It always produces the finest images. I own the 100L and it's a great lens too but the 135 is far better in almost every case I need.

Click to expand...

How's that (and very nice shots, btw)? That's an unusual opinion from someone owning both, so could you please elaborate what it is you need, i.e. where the 135L is "far better" than the 100L?

Click to expand...

I found the bokeh of the 100L more busy than that of the 135L, which made me forego the L macro and choose the non-L macro in addition to the 135L.
So, for portraits (especially head shots) the 135 would be a better choice.
For any fast action, the 135L focuses faster, even with the 100L FL delimiter applied.
Finally, the f/2.0 is a full stop faster for low-light photography of moving objects.
So the poster's case might easily be one of the three above.

Tried the old and new 100-400 and 500 f/4 version 1

I will be doing more testing over the next few weeks. Results are impressive from the newer lens.

East Wind Photography said:

jrista said:

Keith_Reeder said:

I've been shooting my 7D Mk II for about a month now, and it's spectacularly good: the image quality improvements over the 7D leap out, and (I'll post some examples tonight) at say 4000 ISO (and above), conversions from Photo Ninja are ***literally*** noiseless at 100% view.

Click to expand...

Literally? Really?


You want to provide some visual evidence to back that up, buddy? I just love these internet anecdotes lacking any form of physical evidence whatsoever, especially when they seem to go against the laws of physics.


Can you provide a direct conversion, no additional edits, full size 100% crops no scaling at all, to demonstrate what "literally noiseless" means in your vocabulary?

Click to expand...

I would have used the term virtually. I used 12500 the other day for a soccer game. That would not have been possible on the 7d. After post processing the images were about as good as the 7d at 800. The noise cleans up much better than the old model.

Click to expand...

Aye, I'd have used 'virtually' as well. To be literally noiseless would mean the image was devoid of noise, which is physically not possible. You can never have zero noise...you CAN reduce noise to the point where it may not necessarily be visible at a cursory glance, you can reduce noise to the point where you have to zoom in and scrutinize to see any. If you REALLY put some effort into it (i.e. stack 1000 frames of a still subject) you might even be able to reduce noise to the point where you cannot see it with the naked eye...however the image is still going to have noise. You can't eliminate it...only reduce it. ;P

East Wind Photography said:

Yep there was noise...yep there was loss of some detail. But it was a soccer game and I was able to shoot at 1/1000 second and faster. Next time I will target M42... A real test.

Click to expand...

M42 is a great dynamic range test...that thing is such a beast when it comes to DR...from the brightest spots in the Trap to the dimmest outer regions it's gotta be pushing 18-19 stops or so.


I would say a better test is something with lower surface brightness. Maybe California Nebula. THAT would be a real test of the 7D II. Elephant Trunk would be another good one. There are actually probably a bunch of dim targets in Cepheus that would make a good test of the 7D II (like Iris).


I've been poking around with the math, and I am not really sure that the 7D II's low dark current is really going to be a benefit this time of year (at least, not in the northern hemisphere). The cold at night keeps the sensor cool enough that read noise dominates, and there is only a small difference in read noise with say the 7D. For any given exposure, you have about 0.6e- less read noise with the 7D II, however that only amounts to a few ADU at higher ISO. Say ISO 1600, 2.4e- 7D II vs. 3.0e- 7D.


The dark current levels of either camera at 30-40°F is low enough that you barely accumulate that much dark current noise for the kind of exposures you'll use at ISO 1600 anyway. Your going to be exposing the background sky to about 1/3rd of the histogram most of the time, 1/4 at the very lowest (but to 1/3rd is recommended for best results). At either of those levels, you are going to so totally swamp the read noise and the dark current noise on either the 7D or 7D II is going to produce the same results during cooler temperatures (winter, early spring, late fall), as were then talking about a several hundred ADU signal level. That's going to swamp read noise and dark current noise, and any amount of banding as well.

If I only had $500 to spend on a used possibly broken 24-70mm f2.8f I would buy the Tamron 28-75f2.8 for less. If I had $1000 to buy a used Canon 24-70f2.8f L I would buy the Tamron 24-70 VC for a little more.

I would either save for a Canon 24-70 f2.8 L II or buy the Tamron 24-70 VC. Both are better than a mark I 24-7f2.8 L according to everything I have seen and read. The Mark II is simply better by all accounts. The Tamron 24-70 VC, is at least as sharp (probably more) and offers IS.

Triggyman said:

If you want prime:

EF 35mm f/2 IS USM and/or the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

If you want zoom:

EF 24-70 f/4 IS USM (if you are living in Canada it's on sale at $799 - about $600 off from regular price).
or
EF 24-105 f/4 IS USM

If you don't want "L" lenses, the you could consider the new 24-105 STM but I am not sure if it's available already for purchase.

Click to expand...

I'd stay away from the non L 24-105 on FF

YuengLinger said:

The focus by wire makes it an oddball, for sure. Remembering to put it into manual, retract the barrel, turn off the camera, then flick back the AF switch to on before putting the lens away took a while to become automatic!

Click to expand...

It is a little different

Re: AYDINLATMADA ENERJİ TASARRUFU ve YÖNTEMLERİ NELERDİR.

tolusina said:

silverled said:

Ülkemizde üretilen toplam enerji kaynağının %25‟i Çeşitli aydınlatma hizmetlerinde kullanılmaktadır.çevremizde oldukça sık olarakKullanılan akkor flamanlı ışıklı ampuller elektrik akımının %95‟ini ısıya çevirerek, sadece şok küçük bir kısmını ışığa dönüştürmek suretiyle aydınlatma imkanı sağlamaktadır.E27,GU10,MR16,G13, duylu 12V,24V,220V ampulle aydınlanan yerlerde bir takım olumsuzluklardan biride sıcak iklimlerde ampullerden kaynaklanan ilave ısı sıcaklığını azaltmak için klima kullanımı ihtiyacının daha fazla artmasıdır demektir. www.silverled.netSon zamanlarda oldukça gelişmiş olan kompakt T5,T8 LED Floresanlar gereksiz ıısınmalara meyil vermediği gibi Tasarruflu ampule göre yaklaşık olarak 5 katı daha fazla verimli aydınlatma sağlamaktadır.Örnek verecek olursak , 100 Watlık gücünde bir lambanın sağladığı ışık miktarına eş değerde SMD 2835,5630,5050 veya 5730 modelinden 20 Watt‟lık mercekli LED Ampulden daha çok verim sağlamak mümkündür. Verimli ve markalı olan lambaların diğer bir avantajı kullanım sürelerine bağlı olarak normal piyasadaki ampullere göre çok daha dayanıklı olmasıdır.

Click to expand...

Google translates from Turkish............

25% of the total energy produced in our country "i kullanılmaktadır.çevre us quite often in various lighting service olarakkullanıl 95% of incandescent light bulbs, electric current" in turning the heat, just the possibility of light by converting a small part of the light shock sağlamaktadır.e27, GU10, MR16, G13 , cap 12V, 24V, 220V light bulb lit in place to reduce the extra heat caused by the heat lamps in hot climates, one of a team is more negativity increased use of air conditioning is needed. www.silverled.netso time in highly advanced compact T5, T8 LED Fluorescent unnecessary ıısın mAlArA we be saving as gradient to give the light bulb according to yield approximately 5 times more efficient lighting sağlamaktadır.örnek 100 watts power equivalent to the amount of light provided by a lamp, SMD 2835, 5630.5050 or 5730 model from 20 Watt "health lens can provide a more efficient LED bulb. Another advantage of efficient and label depending on the lamp lifetime is much more durable than regular bulbs in the market.
---
Doesn't look photography related, maybe it's spam?

Click to expand...

Thousand Thanks, dear friend Mr. tolusina.
Yes, It is a good Information too, NEW ADVANCE LED light = use less energy and last longer than regular Light, But NOW = Higher cost compare to standard light.
Yes, Sir, As my professional Architect, I start to use New 2X2 and 2X4 ( Feet) Lay in Ceiling Lighting Fixture LED, name "RAB" design, and Made in USA= 12 Years Warrantee, With Dimmer ability switch. That save the energy up to 80% of T8 Flourescent Lighting Fixture.
http://www.rabweb.com/index.php?source=bing

Nice to talk to you, Sir.
Surapon

takesome1 said:

Don Haines said:

jrista said:

This is all beside the point anyway, as all it takes is ONE step, or even to stand up or start standing up, and your target could flee. Birds of the heron family in particular, for example, are extremely skittish birds. If you manage to get close enough to get a decent shot at all, then smaller pixels are going to be a bigger friend to you than getting closer. I can't count how many times just seeing my head barely rise over the top of a ridge was enough to make every heron and egret in the area fly off. Hawks are similar...they can be perfectly content with you sitting there watching them if your not moving. The moment you stand up, they'll leap off their perch and fly right over your head! (I've had this happen a few times.) Deer are content to get right up in your face so long as your sitting on the ground...stand up, they'll dance around and huff a few times, then wander off. Outside of wearing a ghillie suit, even in camo deer will spot me. If I stand up, they at the very least stand rigid and take notice. Start moving towards them, and they will often bolt.

It's not necessarily always as easy as taking a few steps closer to your target.

Click to expand...

+1

I have a startling inability to walk on water so zooming with my feet rarely works.....

Click to expand...

Obviously you need a duck boat with a blind on it. The old FF with a boat blind vs the crop on the bank debate.

Then there is the opposite question, how do the animals react when you have to get up and run away from them because you are framed to close with a crop body.

Click to expand...

Well, that one's easy. Switch to a shorter lens, drop a TC, or use a zoom. I think a 150-600 would be an ideal pairing with a 7D II these days...and give you all the versatility you need for framing. Opening up your FoV isn't really an issue, there are options. You can also just wait for your subject to move off a bit to get better framing. There are plenty of easy ways to deal with a subject that is too close. If you really had to, you could crawl away to get farther. I've never had an animal run because I was moving away from it. ;P