Why you should buy quality glass.

[bwana]

Yes, same combo as this one I took a while back.

 

[Yogotta B. Kidding]

Thanx....
Have to admit havent taken photos at that kinda shutterspeeds.... from all the reviews I have seen the 7D is a superb piece of kit. Have to admit tho if I had a choice between the three pieces of equipment I would opt for the 300/2.8

 

[bwana]

Thanx....
Have to admit havent taken photos at that kinda shutterspeeds.... from all the reviews I have seen the 7D is a superb piece of kit. Have to admit tho if I had a choice between the three pieces of equipment I would opt for the 300/2.8

I still prefer my 1DMk3 but those picture just happened to have been taken with the 7D.

 

[Yogotta B. Kidding]

Really interesting statement. Why do you then use a less preferred camera? If those are not moneyshots then I can understand you use whatever is closest. I would have imagined one would use the best equipment available for the job.
Since you own a mk3, how bad is the focus tracking? There ppl saying its not up to scratch and only really corrected with the mk4. Your view?

 

[froot]

People like to dismiss the 2xTC out of hand but as far as I'm concerned it's well worth the price.

EDIT: speaking of the 2x TC here's a shot I took the other day. Shot in jpg (hey, I was working ok ) with just a bit of cropping but nothing else.

Yeah for sure. We didn't buy one back in the day because 1.4x = one stop, 2x = two stops.... and didn't know any better or from experience.

That's a pretty decent photo. I'm assuming you had a rather large amount of incoming light? Looks like the sun was pounding

 

[bwana]

Really interesting statement. Why do you then use a less preferred camera? If those are not moneyshots then I can understand you use whatever is closest. I would have imagined one would use the best equipment available for the job.
Since you own a mk3, how bad is the focus tracking? There ppl saying its not up to scratch and only really corrected with the mk4. Your view?

Don't get me wrong - the 7D is more than capable of doing the job - fast frame rate, good AF, and all that - the 1D is just that much better (especially when it comes to cranking up the ISO). I actually started off that day with the 1D but later on decided I'd like the extra reach from the APS-C sensor (960mm vs 780mm) for shooting down the wicket.

There may have been a problem with the AF when the 1D first came out but they obviously sorted it out by the time I got mine because it is fantastic. The internet really did a number on the 1D. The people saying it's not up to scratch probably either never used one or never figured out how to set the camera up.

Yeah for sure. We didn't buy one back in the day because 1.4x = one stop, 2x = two stops.... and didn't know any better or from experience.

That's a pretty decent photo. I'm assuming you had a rather large amount of incoming light? Looks like the sun was pounding

It's worth the extra stop - especially on that lens. There was plenty of light but I'd have just pushed up the ISO if there wasnt.

 

[HJF]

Really interesting statement. Why do you then use a less preferred camera? If those are not moneyshots then I can understand you use whatever is closest. I would have imagined one would use the best equipment available for the job.
Since you own a mk3, how bad is the focus tracking? There ppl saying its not up to scratch and only really corrected with the mk4. Your view?

Those people probably don't own one. My 1D MK III was from the batch before they fixed the supposedly massive problem. I never had issues with it and recently took it in to have the fix done as it's done for free. Now it's simply fantastic, even better than before.

When the focus tracking was "bad" it was still way better than the 7D.

I recently did a job where I used the 1D, 7D and 5D MK II and what struck me most is just how much cleaner higher ISO images are coming from the 1D and 5D. The 7D is still good but I was a little dissapointed.

 

[koffiejunkie]

For those who know what I'm about to rant about, cover your ears

I recently did a job where I used the 1D, 7D and 5D MK II and what struck me most is just how much cleaner higher ISO images are coming from the 1D and 5D. The 7D is still good but I was a little dissapointed.

Now wouldn't it be great if the 5DmkII had the same AF as the 1D, or at least the same as the 7D?

 

[HJF]

For those who know what I'm about to rant about, cover your ears



Now wouldn't it be great if the 5DmkII had the same AF as the 1D, or at least the same as the 7D?

Yes, it's the only real gripe I have with the 5D, that craptastic autofocus. It's basically exactly what's on my 20D :| But you get used to working with it, what you can and can't do. Outer focus points essentially a no no. The images you get from it make it oh so worth it to work around the autofocus.

 

[koffiejunkie]

Yes, it's the only real gripe I have with the 5D, that craptastic autofocus. It's basically exactly what's on my 20D :| But you get used to working with it, what you can and can't do. Outer focus points essentially a no no.

That alone was enough for me to buy the 50D instead - well, my budget and the 40D accessories I had played a part too. Nevertheless, I use the outer focus points heavily.

 

[bwana]

Now wouldn't it be great if the 5DmkII had the same AF as the 1D, or at least the same as the 7D?

It would be amazing since the 5DMk2 predates the 7D by about a year.

 

[Rouxenator]

Thats why I only use a Canon lens on my camera.

Oh, wait, its built into the camera.... high five!

 

[MadMailMan]

The 100-400 is one lens I have no desire to own - give me a new 70-200 f/2.8 II and I'll make up for the range with a set of TCs.

But sometimes there isn't enough time to pull the lense off put on a TC and then refit. I really think the 100-400 is the ginger haired child in the Canon house. I don't think it's all that bad.

Taken from a moving vehicle on a (dirty sensor) 20D.

 

[bwana]

But sometimes there isn't enough time to pull the lense off put on a TC and then refit.

And if you had needed a 70mm. . . all the time in the world wouldn't make the 100-400 into that.

 

[koffiejunkie]

Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L II USM

Speaking of quality glass, I've been lusting over the 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM ever since I hired it. But it's a bit more than I can stretch my budget to at the moment without some justification (other than "I want it"). And going through al my images, I found that most of my shots was at or near 200mm anyway. So I picked up Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L II USM. Two snaps for your pixel peeping pleasure:

1/2000, f/2.8.........................................................1/640, f/8​

Both were shot in RAW, and simply exported to JPEG - no alterations made. If I add Aperture's default 0.5 intensity, 1 radius sharpening, it gets even sharper. Also, there is a slight haze on the f/2.8 shot. I don't see this in all my shots, so I'll assume that it's because I was shooting without the hood.

Overall, I'm very happy with it. Focus is quick and silent, it's sharp, colours are nice, there seems to be nothing in the way of abberations or distortions. It fits in my bag, and, oh, it's black. I also tried some focus tracking - birds in flight. I guess I need and even faster shatter, since almost all my shots had shutter blur, but most are perfectly in focus.

My only two complaint is that, to my disappointment, the aperture blades are not rounded. So bokeh from around f/4 onwards looks like that from the plastic fantastic.

 

[bwana]

Pics look nice koffiejunkie but that said I'm not really a fan of primes.

 

[koffiejunkie]

Pics look nice koffiejunkie but that said I'm not really a fan of primes.

I don't blame you, given the weight of the 300mm and 400mm f/2.8 primes But this one was such a good deal, it was hard to say no...

 

[bwana]

I don't blame you, given the weight of the 300mm and 400mm f/2.8 primes But this one was such a good deal, it was hard to say no...

It's not the weight is the limitations of the fixed focal length. I've often considered swapping my 300mm for the sigma 120-300 f/2.8 and my ideal lens, if canon would make one, would be a version of Nikon's 200-400mm f/4 - both of which weigh more.

 

[koffiejunkie]

It's not the weight is the limitations of the fixed focal length. I've often considered swapping my 300mm for the sigma 120-300 f/2.8 and my ideal lens, if canon would make one, would be a version of Nikon's 200-400mm f/4 - both of which weigh more.

Maybe get a D3s as a second body?

 

[bwana]

Maybe get a D3s as a second body?

I did actually consider that but I'd also need a second nikon body for redundancy and that just isn't really feasible.