chasinglight said:

jrista said:

I'd say that is a good practice. If you are anything like me, you will know when your gear is holding you back. I also have the 100-400. I think the 7D is a fine camera, produces great IQ in most circumstances (which for my bird photography is usually in good to evening light, ISO 200 - 1600), and has great features that support bird photography. The 100-400, when properly tuned with AFMA, produces acceptably sharp images most of the time. It should be noted that at 400mm, f/7.1 tends to be the sharpest, while f/5.6 will be visibly soft. Before getting my new lens, I shot at f/7.1 almost exclusively, sometimes stopping down to f/8 and rarely opening up to f/6.3.

I would tune your lens for your copy of the 7D, and start shooting at f/7.1. You should see individual barbs of each feather (a feather is a central shaft, on either side of which is a vane of barbes, which are interconnected via barbules off each barb...you will RARELY see barbules in a photo, but in an acceptably sharp photo, you should see barbs.) There are three things that will soften the barbs of a birds feathers...distance too great, missfocus, bird motion or camera shake. Distance is usually the biggest problem early on. Depending on the type of bird, either learning the right behavior to exhibit that gets you close, or camouflaging yourself to hide in plain side, are was of solving that problem.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice (all of it, not just what I quoted). I have seen my copy of the 100-400 produce much sharper images than this (such as the one below; AFMA 0). I think actually took this shot of the eastern screech owl at f/7.1. I think I actually started to notice more inconsistency after I used Focal to AFMA the lens a few months ago; this produced a -3. I performed Focal a few times today getting -3, 3, and 1. So I decided to go back to 0 and see how that works out.... could be that I was just trying to over sharpen the knife and instead made it dull...

Click to expand...

Are you using the older version of FoCal, or the newer version released a month ago (from the white, rather than black, site)? I had problems with the older FoCal...it definitely was inconsistent, which is why I tried the AF confirmation dot technique (which seemed to be fairly consistent, just wrong.) I've found that the newer FoCal, which supposedly has some rewritten core code, seems to be much more consistent. When I ran it on my 7D+600mm, it consistently gives me a +1 for a 30 foot distance, and 0 for a 60 foot distance. I've repeated the tests multiple times, and I get the same AFMA each time for those distances (which usually covers the range of distances my subjects tend to be at, with the exception of songbirds...but closer than 30 feet the lens always seems to resolve more than enough detail.)

If you haven't updated to the most recent version of FoCal, I would give it a whirl, see if you get more consistent results. Also, remember to use good light...test chart outside in direct sunlight is usually best.

Sporgon said:

unfocused said:

Sporgon said:

I disagree here...

Click to expand...

I disagree that you disagree.

Seriously, I think we are saying the same thing. 5DIII targeted to a professional market to fit a specific need. D800 targeted to...whom? I've never been sure.

The 5DIII may be $500 more camera, but that's because it has features that make it worth that to a specific market.

Click to expand...

Agreed

I think the 7Dii will follow the same path. Many sports 'pros' use the 7D as a much more affordable 1D -whatever. My guess is the next one will be basically an APS-c 1Dx.

Click to expand...

My guess is the next one will be basically an APS-c 1Dx.

Click to expand...

How great would that be?? A brand new Canon 7Dx! I think I'll preorder mine tonight! 8)

drjlo said:

Skulker said:

drjlo said:

My copy of 24-70 f/2.8 II needs -9 at wide end and 0 at tele end on my 5D III. My Canon 70-200 f/2.8 II needs 0 at either end, and my 100L also needs 0. Some of my fast primes including 35L, 50L, 85L II range between -1 and -3.

A brand new Canon 17-40 f/4L I just borrowed needed -6 at wide and 0 at tele.

-9 seems a tad too much for a $2100 lens, so I'm just wondering what 24-70 f/2.8 II owners have experienced with AFMA (and 5D III)? Is it worth sending in the lens to Canon while still under warranty for calibration?

Is my copy of 5D III partly at fault here, as the body seems to need Minus AFMA on lenses, never positive. The body is out of warranty, but should I send in both the 24-70 II and body to Canon for calibration together (does Canon even calibrate a specific lens+body combo?).

Any help would be appreciated.

Click to expand...

As long as you can get it setup what does it matter. Some people seem to get so worked up about the number and dream up reasons to be unhappy.

Click to expand...

A lot of the concern is due to future resale value, ease of sale given full disclosure, etc.

Click to expand...

So you,re worried that someone else will be worried that a lens camera combo will be outside limits. Not much chance of that coming true due to manufacturing tolerances. I for one am very glad AFMA is on my camera.

Yes it is UniWB. It basically give the camera WB adjust coefficients of 1.0, 1.0, 1.0, which means WB is NOT applied at all.

Then you use flattest tonal curve by choosing Neutral picture style, then dial down the contrast to lowest, sharpness to lowest (to remove sharpening halo)

Then the histogram will be a lot better resembling what the RAW records.

Of course the output JPG will be garbage, all green and stuff. But if you enable highlight blink, you gets RAW blinks too!

There will still be a bit of discrepancies between UniWB histogram/blinkies and the real RAW data but at least it's a lot closer.

Oh, while you are at it, don't forget to shoot a white card in the scene to restore WB in post.

weixing said:

Anyway, I found a website that had publish some UV filters test result with transmission and absorption curve:
https://ww2.chemistry.gatech.edu/~nmakarov3/INTERESTS/Photo_Filters/index.htm

Interesting to see the EF 50mm 1.4 lens also block UV light...

Click to expand...

IIRC, Lenstip also tested transmission of many UV filters with a spectrophotometer.

It's interesting that the 50/1.4 blocks some UV, but not surprising. Standard microscope objective lenses don't transmit UV all that well, so for applications with UV fluorophores, we use objectives specifically designed for better transmission down to ~340 nm.

Powder Portraits said:

Something is up with the CPS points. 30D is still 1point, but 40D, 50D, EOS 1D Mark II N, EOS-1D MARK II, EOS-1D and other are listed as 0 points. Here's the kicker the EF 200-400mm f/4L USM Extender 1.4x is also listed as 0 !

Click to expand...

For some reason the 200-400 dropped from 12 pts to 0 pts. Not sure why - I asked CPS about this but did not get a satisfactory reply

AcutancePhotography said:

When you click on the "know more" did it come up with any "small print" mumbo jumbo?

Click to expand...

Nope nothing showed up but I called up my local canon dealer after I got the mail and he said the 600ex-rt was free with the 24-70 kit and it was valid till last month.

Now I called up Canon edge global customer care support and they told me that the offer is still live and its available with both 24- 105 and 24-70 kit with a limited stock and its been kept covert for canon edge members only.

I got confused after hearing that so I wrote a letter to Canon asia and I am expecting a call from their office soon. Will let you guys know as I receive the confirmation from their office.

mrsfotografie said:

birtembuk said:

mrsfotografie said:

This is really starting to get ridiculous, who needs a 1200 mm equivalent in a body that's impossible to hold still??

Superzoom compacts have moved away from usefulness to marketing gimmick IMHO.

Click to expand...

Got one here to complement 5D3 and 60D. As Mt Spokane says, not very ergonomic but light, inconspicuous, pure fun. I use it 95% of the time at 1200mm handheld.

Click to expand...

My girlfriend has a Panasonic Lumix FZ-50 which has a 12x zoom and 35 - 420 mm equivalent and is f/2.8 - f/3.7. It takes fabulous pictures given enough light, but so far the 420mm equivalent has been enough reach. What's lacking in this case is more wide angle, something that she's missing a lot. So we're actually looking at something new.

The FZ-200 looks great, 'only' 24x optical zoom (25-600mm equivalent) but it is full range F2.8!!! What's missing is the manual controls of the lens that the FZ-50 has. That really was/is a special superzoom camera.

Click to expand...

I have an FZ-50 too and I love it- if it wasn't so noisy I'd probably still be using it more regularly. It's got better ergonomics than entry level DSLR's. Although the LCD seems so TINY now.

I know there's probably physics involved blah-dee-blah but I really can't fathom why there isn't even a 1/1.7" birdge/superzoom (or even better, something like Nikon 1 series). Once you get past the miniaturization constraint of most point and shoots, it seems like there would be a way to get something reasonably sized.

To me there seems to be something wrong with the "S" lens results. When comparing it to the "EX OS" version it is as good wide open and bare.. but with extenders its way worse in the centre and better in the corners. Something fishey with that. Here is the comparison @600.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=803&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=844&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=1

I would expect the "S" to give better IQ with a Canon 2x III than the APO Sigma 2x.

There seems to be rave reviews every where about this lens. Another thing to remember is this lens costs much less than a Canon 300 2.8 II or 200-400 so I would never expect to get equal results. But for 3K, if I could get 85% performance of Canon supertele in a similar focal length than that suits me just fine.
Personally if I was thinking of a 300 2.8 to use primarily with extenders I would go with a SH Canon 300 2.8 IS or wait to see if a Sigma 300 2.8 OS comes along in a couple of years which should give better quality with extenders. Thats what I will be doing for now anyway since I dont have the funds right now to upgrade my Sigma 300 2.8.

By the way I think the 120-300 S should be dubbed the "Sexma"

Zv said:

CarlTN said:

Axilrod said:

Wow are there really people complaining about the 135L and linking comparisons with the 200 f/2!?!?!? $6k vs $900, I'd hope to god the 200 f/2 was better for costing 5x more.

I thought the fact that the 135L is one of Canon's sharpest lenses and best values was just common knowledge, never ever seen anyone complain about it. And test charts can only tell you so much, try real world use and then come back and complain. I mean for you to say that I can only believe you've never actually used one.

Click to expand...

+1, but again it's possible there is some sample variation...even with a Canon L lens.

Click to expand...

Hmmm could be. I've not noticed all that much purple fringing, perhaps wide open in a brightly backlit situation you can and even then in the corners. Nothing like my 85 1.8 did! That thing drove me nuts!

I absolutely love love love my 135L. I mostly use it between f/2.2-2.8 which gives amazing results. I do wish it had IS but it's not a big deal. You can get sharp shots at around 1/125s. Does take away some of the low light advantage. Then again people don't stay very still and IS can't really help with that!

I recently used it on my 7D and the IQ was just outstanding. So good in fact I mislabeled my images as from "5D2" on import!

Click to expand...

+1

Quick update, for what it's worth:

Gave the 24 a reasonably wide range of subjects and finished a shoot on a 1Ds Mark II body, and the accuracy and performance were remarkably improved, even in pretty significant low light situations. I'm thinking this lens is just too sensitive for a lesser camera body's AF system. The 1Ds II's AF is even a little dated compared to, say, the 1DX, or what have you, but regardless, there was a CLEAR difference in performance. I haven't sat down and played with the DVD cases like I did before, to test the exactness of the accuracy, but I'll do that soon...

Haven't gotten a chance to give it a whirl on the 5DIII yet, but when I do, I'll let everyone know.

paul13walnut5 said:

I had a mark 1 that lost infinity focus and couldn't be repaired unless I could source a donor lens with a different fault.
By that point I threw the towel in, optically there is no difference in any case.

I wouldn't buy a mark one now, mainly because of the parts issue, 23 years is a lot of iris movements etc...

They have become a cult item, fair enough, i just kind of think if you are going to spend 50% more for build quality then why not go that little bit further and get improved build, improved focus, improved bokeh, improved max aperture and pick up an in warranty in production servicable 1.4 instead?

I settled for the plastic fantastic.

Click to expand...

Actually from what I've heard the 1.4 is not really that reliable, with stuck focus rings for instance. History shows the Mk I to be remarkably durable, so it's worth having a unit that hasn't seen that much use over the years (hooray to my sublime copy )

Nothing wrong with the plastic fantastic by the way, given its low pricing (but still I prefer the Mk I).

jdramirez said:

RAKAMRAK said:

That is a good steal. Heck, that is even better than a steal..... that is almost a bank robbery.... enjoy....

If I was in the market for a full frame I could grab a 5DII for $1300 bucks today (saw on craigslist just now)...... seems interesting. Or for that matter a 7D for $800.

Click to expand...

it is funny... I never liked the 7d when it was a 1500 dollar camera, but now that it is a 7-800 dollar camera, where do I sign up.

Click to expand...

South Western CT is bundled under the "NY City" area and it's crazy how much they want to buy for and how much they want to sell for. Either that, or the stuff doesn't stay up longer then a few hours . . . I'm not sure which.

Good for you, either way.

I got my refurbed 7D yesterday (looks new) from Adorama all for $889 w/1 year warranty (through Adorama). I was waiting to see what the MK2 would yield, but at this price point, I couldn't resist. The AF on this thing is totally crazy. It's like the starship enterprise, no wonder people have been excited about it.

Since I got into my 60D @ $850 new in October 2010 and they're going around $500 now, I really can't complain.

try setting it to P mode and see if it works there. If it doesn't then you probably have a problem with your camera but if that works fine it's probably down to your settings. The small built in flash will generally prefer as wide open aperture as possible and a shutter speed of less than 1/200. Crank up the ISO a little to get more oompfh out of it.

From a video perspective an ideal studio would be matte black on the ceiling and walls, matte grey floor.

The set area can be dressed with colorama or curtains etc, but really you don't want light bouncing off anything it shouldn't be, especially anything that will introduce a colour cast.

BozillaNZ said:

I've completely dismantled my 1D Mark III to fix a mirror problem. Whole set of images:

Click to expand...

made my day ;D

Hi, sorry I haven't gotten back for a while. Been busy settling back here in Sweden. Those are very kind words from you guys.

Brett, hope you went out shooting some film and challenge your creativity.

Graham, I have thought of a couple of other projects based in town here. Especially one that I hope to realise as soon as I get back to work in a few weeks, I will spend some time walking the streets on Sundays putting it together over the course of a few weeks. I have another hobby which is golf, but won't find much time for it now. I did some stuff back in Asia, shooting courses and wrote a few articles that I got published (with some of my photos). Hope to get some more of that done, but the only work I've done on that has been in Asia.

Shutterwideshut, thanks for your words. Interesting about Manila. I've been there only once and it was on a quick business trip. Staying at Shangri La Edsa, ten minutes limo ride to the office and then back for a couple of days. Was alone so I didn't really fancy going out in the evenings. But the town looked interesting and I hope to be able to go back one day. You have inspired me and advised med on the long exposures. However, Sweden is located far north and this time of year the sun sets very late and rises very early (3.30 or so) so to catch the golden hour is not that easy. I am normally asleep by then. And I haven't invested in those expensive 10 stop filters you got so daylight is pretty much out of the question for me when it comes to long exposures. I'll wait a couple of months for it to get darker.

Take care all and thanks for the nice words and interesting discussion.

thanks
J

Normalnorm said:

Pi said:

sdsr said:

... the Panasonic equivalent of a 70-200 2.8, the 35-100 2.8, weighs 13 oz.

Click to expand...

That is a f/5.6 eq. lens. The closest comparison is the Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0, which is more than twice (!) the weight and the price of the equivalent 70-200/4 IS, longer, and not as good.

The m43 14-35/2 is 28-70/4 eq., and it is a heavy $2.3K monster. The overpriced Canon 24-70/4 IS looks like a bargain next to it, and it is considerably lighter and smaller, not to mention wider and better.

Click to expand...

The aperture equivalences are only valid if you are interested in equalizing narrow depth of field.

Click to expand...

And noise. And AOV.

Many people and most pros like a fast lens to be able to use a higher shutter speed. The DOF issue in no way affects that.

Click to expand...

Nothing else does. If you are not shooting with a phone or a P&S, you can choose whatever speed you want.

As for the price of any lens, it is either worth it or it isn't. I would gladly pay $2500 each for the f2 Olympus lenses if they would focus quickly on an OM-D. Not only would I be able to shoot wide open at good shutter speeds in dim light but I would also have the advantage of being able to have two people in focus in the frame.

Even though those lenses are large, the comparable lens in terms of true speed will never be made for a FF body.

Click to expand...

"True speed"? What prevents you from getting the same DOF on FF?

eml58 said:

CarlTN said:

eml58 said:

1st Cheetah Kill, Serengeti near the Grameti River, don't think this Lady was doing much more than 70-80Kph, so still had a gear in reserve, This mother Killed every single Day as she had 3 Cubs around 18 Months Old she was teaching & feeding as well as her self, Mothers, where would we all be without them.

1Dx 200-400, shot @ 560mm f/5.6 & 1/1600th ISO800

Click to expand...

I too like this one. How much of the image is cropped, if any?

Click to expand...

Hi CarlTN, Cropped top & bottom only to give the Image more length, overall perhaps 10% of the Image has been cropped, most of my shots of this Kill included only the Cheetah, at 12 fps the sequence still only included the victim in 3 frames, that's how fast the Cheetah was moving, the Thomson's Gazelle was doomed the moment the Mother Cheetah decided he was on the Menu. Once she Killed she stepped back and kept a look out for Lions & Hyenas while her 3 Cubs fed, only when they were filled did she then feed herself, remarkable Animal Behaviour.

Click to expand...

Thank you, and that's a nice story. I've seen cheetahs on the various animal channels. On Nat Geo Wild, they aired a show done by two brothers (can't think of them right now), shot a few years ago. They were on the Serengeti. The mother cheetah climbed on top of their truck to watch her cubs play.

distant.star said:

.
I want to know how you found one in stock. I've been looking for a week or two, and it's never in stock. You must have found the lucky minute.

My fastest ever shipping experience was with a computer software program in 1993. I ordered it a 2AM from a place near Columbus, OH. At 9:30 AM a FexEx driver knocked on my door and handed it to me. Amazing what can happen when you combine credit cards and jet aircraft!

Click to expand...

Mine was ordering a router interface card from California. An hour later it was delivered... and I was 3800 kilometers, 3 time zones, and one international border away...

neech7 said:

US buyers also have the option of buying online from Canada:

http://www.henrys.com/78480-CANON-EF-M-11-22MM-F4-5-6-IS-STM-LENS.aspx

Click to expand...

Henry's sent me a tracking number today ;D

Interesting thing is that Canon appears (from the 70D) to be counting pixels as output pixels (or individual payer pixels), not as per how many photosites are read. Which I think is a good thing, it just makes sense.

Yes very nice. Haven't been back to visit this thread in awhile. Can't wait for the temperatures to be a little bit cooler to get back out and photograph the wild horses near me. Hopefully before the BLM decides to round up the three herds that are just down the road from me. Some of the stupid neighbors are saying some of the horses have been a nuisance and have complained to BLM. The whole community is in an uproar and BLM will prevail and do what ever they want to!!!!

RLPhoto said:

8D :-D :-| :-(

Click to expand...

I just pre-ordered mine... :

why don't you just downloard the drivers from the cannon support page and use them.
Most canon scanners also will respond to the standard twain drivers in adobe products.

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/support/consumer/scanners/canoscan_series/canoscan_8800f#DriversAndSoftware