Printable View
Here is another recent image from the yard ..... a little more saturated !! I was lucky to get a sharp image at 1/250.
1DMKIII
300mm 2.8L IS USM + 1.4TC II
ISO 1000
f/7.1
1/250
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/15/7536.343V9933.jpg[/img]
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJphoto
That would make me cry [:'(] I wouldn't give mine up unless I just had to. I know I don't need mine that much but it sure is nice to have a supertele that isn't the size of a rocket launcher to carry around. But if I had to just keep one it would be the 500mm.
I saw those two pic's and noticed you used the 1.4x. It made me remember last year when I bought mine, after about a week I decided it was time to try the 1.4TC and I was pleasantly surprised. I saw the two pics and I thought he is just finding this out to. To me I do not see hardly any degradation, at least not enough to matter on the big prints I like to do.
I see you are using the 7D. After some discussion in the forum, I bought a 7D to use with the 500mm, rather than the 5D MarkII. I am still not sure it is the right choice. The pics out of the 7D have to be worked in Post Process more to make them equal to the croped version out of 5D. Once worked they can be as good and even slightly superior. The AF of the 7D is not as great as of an improvement as one might expect from all the hype, for stationary pics I find the 5D to maybe even be slightly better. But the real negative I found with the 7D is the loss of DOF and I didn't expect this one. To capture a small bird close up you have to narrower aperture to have the same DOF as a 5D Mark II, which means you loose a stop of light, and this often ends up having to use faster shutter speeds. With the 500mm if you think about anything hand held it is all about shutter speed. The shutter rate and the crop factor are positives though for the 7D. So I am still debating about the 7D and 500mm F4L combination is the best way to go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast Glass
Here's my version using a more subtle setting in DxO but stil shows some color (needa RAW to do more)...
[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/15/3683.3125_5F00_bird_5F00_DxO.jpg[/img]
I hope you don't mind! I know I'm not very good at it but thought I'd give it a try!
You guys are making me want to gostand outside in 5 degree weatherand wait for a bird to appear ...and it takes ALOT to get me to want to do that!
Denise
good thoughts and information
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
I have been having a really good time with my 300mm, everything is great but the reach. I often had to crop a lot, that maks my pictures has more noise and less details. but to get rid of this such a good lens is hard, but have you ever thought about trade it to a 200mm 2.0 since you have the 500mm too?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
yes I just found out that Canon has a nice 700mm 5.6 out there but,
I didn't have a lot of chance to try BIF yesterday(with 1.4TC), if it's also good(AF performance) for BIF, it really worth the money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
agreed, that's why I always think about a 1D body, but like I said before, I hate spending 4 grands on a body, maybe a 7D II is a solution!
thanks HD for sharing you thoughts, appreciate it!
Denise, I like your version .... just need to get the purple cast out of the background ... well done IMHO.
JJ : I saw a used 1DMKIII at Adorama
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJphoto
Yes, but really its probably not a focal length I think I would use much. Maybe if some of my kids and grandkids were involved in indoor sports I would consider it. I had the 500mm F4L when I bought my 300mm F2.8, I really didn't think I would need the 300mm that much but I B&H listed it for $3700 used and it was a +10 so I thought I would take a chance. I take it out sometimes because it is a lot more compact than the 500mm. I have decided not to use the 7D on the 300mm, to just keep the 300mm for the 5D Mark II. I can put the 300mm in one of those sling packs I have, not a full blow back pack like the 500mm, so its more compact. Plus not much degradation at all with the 1.4, so if you go to the local park where all the birds come up to you its somewhat handy.
If you think about it though, with the 300mm and the 500mm you have 420mm and 700mm covered with some really nice IQ as well. So we can skip buying the 400mm and 600mm lenses, all we need is the 800mm F5.6L Is and we would have all the ranges covered. The new II series tele's prices are putting a cramp in this plan though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joel Eade
Thats what I figured, in overcast light the colors are a lot more flat and undersaturated than in sunny 16 lighting....[:)] But my version is definitely a little more saturated than real life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joel Eade
Well you'll here one more good thing about it, it's awesome! The noise reduction and color redering is the best that I have tried so far. Here is a link to the trial version to get you started http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/trial_version. Hope you like it.[Y]
John.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joel Eade
I really like it. A while back, I compared DxO to DPP.
Conropl, those are two fantastic shots to start with. Welcom to the forum and thanks for sharing them with us. You did a good job on the exposure for the eagle - it can be hard to retain the detail in both the white and dark feathers. The owl is beautiful.
JJ, every time I look at your latest pictures I have to go and check the current deals on the 500mm lens. Sadly, the price here has just gone up £100 due to a tax rise. Until I get one, I have to remind myself what's possible with a kit lens and larger subjects, in this case kittiwakes shot handheld from an inflatable boat in Hornsund, Spitsbergen.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5130/...c1d1d4b7_z.jpg
5D Mark II, EF24-105mm f/4L IS USM @ 105mm, f/8, 1/250s, ISO 100
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5249/...a142dea5_b.jpg
5D Mark II, EF24-105mm f/4L IS USM @ 82mm, f/8, 1/400s, ISO 100 tightly cropped
No changes were made to the white balance, the ice really was that blue. I increased the blacks a little on the close-up shot.
Andy, those shots are FANTASTIC. If you you got your hands a 500 or 600 you would give Nate a run for his money!
John.