Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
  

Archive 2012 · Tried the 5Dmk3 and 200-400 at Focus (FOI)
  
 
RobDickinson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · Tried the 5Dmk3 and 200-400 at Focus (FOI)


Bones74 wrote:
Trust me, I started to give the guy funny looks when he made these claims (for the RAW files)... He said "the 5Dmk2 has a two stop advantage over the 5D and the 5Dmk3 has a 2 stop advantage over the 5Dmk2 so the 5Dmk3 has a 4 stop advantage over the 5D" and then he grinned like he was personally responsible for this amazing feat of engineering that may or may not be true Time will tell.


hah so the 5d3 is 16 times more efficient than the 5D?

ISO 400 on the 5d looks like 6400 on the 5d3?



Mar 05, 2012 at 10:37 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · Tried the 5Dmk3 and 200-400 at Focus (FOI)


Bones74 wrote:
Trust me, I started to give the guy funny looks when he made these claims (for the RAW files)... He said "the 5Dmk2 has a two stop advantage over the 5D and the 5Dmk3 has a 2 stop advantage over the 5Dmk2 so the 5Dmk3 has a 4 stop advantage over the 5D" and then he grinned like he was personally responsible for this amazing feat of engineering that may or may not be true Time will tell.


Considering that once you normalize for the way the 5D2 rates ISOs differently than the 5D, that it actually only has just barely 1/2 stop better SNR then applying that translation to his statement means that the 5D3 will be not quite 1/2 stop better in RAW than the 5D2. (although if it has less ugly banding and crap, from a real-world perspective you might be able to add on another 1/2 stop and end up with real world look of almost 1 stop better perhaps, even if it wouldn't measure that way). We will see.



Edited on Mar 05, 2012 at 10:41 PM · View previous versions



Mar 05, 2012 at 10:38 PM
Imagemaster
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #3 · Tried the 5Dmk3 and 200-400 at Focus (FOI)


RobDickinson wrote:
200-400 could be heavy due to material use in pre production models?


Could be heavy because it is a 200-400 f4 with built-in extender, and is not a DO lens. The 400 f4 DO lens weighs 4.3 pounds.



Mar 05, 2012 at 10:41 PM
Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #4 · Tried the 5Dmk3 and 200-400 at Focus (FOI)


RobDickinson wrote:
ISO 400 on the 5d looks like 6400 on the 5d3?


Pull the other one, it yodels.



Mar 05, 2012 at 11:14 PM
PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #5 · Tried the 5Dmk3 and 200-400 at Focus (FOI)


Bones74 wrote:
I got to have a play with one of only two 200-400L's in existence.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/49808929@N00/6810655664/sizes/o/in/photostream/ (please copy and paste the entire URL if you want to see it, and ignore my ugly face )

My mate is friends with a few of the Canon reps so they let us have a few minutes with the 200-400. Flicking the extender into place didnt seem to slow the AF much, if at all and the sharpness still seemed excellent. Its a beast of a lens; It felt heavier than the 400 f/2.8 IS ii, which they also let me handhold and mount
...Show more

Thank you for your report, Stuart...that is very interesting. Zoom optics and its mechanism certainly add weight to a lens. If it feels as heavy as 400 f/2.8 IS MkII, then hand-holding 200-400L is certainly doable, but it will not be enjoyable for most people, including myself.
( I've never had any acquisition plans for 200-400L, since the zoom doesn't fit in with my other lenses.)



Mar 05, 2012 at 11:52 PM
stanj
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #6 · Tried the 5Dmk3 and 200-400 at Focus (FOI)


RobDickinson wrote:
Any chance of a raw preview and even a raw HISTOGRAM! ?!? Please canon!?!


You can get pretty close to a raw histogram by creating a custom picture style with lowest contrast and some other tweaks. This is what I did for my 1Ds3 and 5D2 and it's within less than one f-stop of raw. The previews don't look very hot by themselves, but I don't care since I shoot raw for a reason.



Mar 06, 2012 at 12:18 AM
RobDickinson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · Tried the 5Dmk3 and 200-400 at Focus (FOI)


yes, I do that with my 7D, but I dont see why I should have to.

Does it make sense that I shoot in RAW yet my metrics are from a jpg still affected by picture styles etc?

It is possible, Leica do it on the m9.

I could use UniWB too, but why should I? It sucks.



Mar 06, 2012 at 12:24 AM
Bones74
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · Tried the 5Dmk3 and 200-400 at Focus (FOI)


PetKal wrote:
Thank you for your report, Stuart...that is very interesting. Zoom optics and its mechanism certainly add weight to a lens. If it feels as heavy as 400 f/2.8 IS MkII, then hand-holding 200-400L is certainly doable, but it will not be enjoyable for most people, including myself.
( I've never had any acquisition plans for 200-400L, since the zoom doesn't fit in with my other lenses.)


You're welcome Peter The lens did feel like you were moving a lot of glass around inside. The 400 2.8 definitely felt more balanced on a 1Dmk4. As good as it might be when Canon do finally put it into production, it will probably the same price as a new mk2 prime. Most of the guys who could afford such a lens will go for the prime, I think. Cheers



Mar 06, 2012 at 10:41 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



dolina
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · Tried the 5Dmk3 and 200-400 at Focus (FOI)


Looking through your flickr account I find it odd that they are still displaying the Series 1 super teles.

Edited on Mar 06, 2012 at 11:04 AM · View previous versions



Mar 06, 2012 at 10:56 AM
Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #10 · Tried the 5Dmk3 and 200-400 at Focus (FOI)


Bones, is the 200-400 f/4 physically longer than the 400 f/2.8 mk II? If so this could explain the impression of heavier weight; the lens will be placing a greater torque on your arm, meaning more fatigue sooner. Still unless it's noticeably longer, say 50mm+, it shouldn't be too bad, as the weight is considerably less.


Mar 06, 2012 at 10:59 AM
Ralph Conway
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · Tried the 5Dmk3 and 200-400 at Focus (FOI)


howard wrote:
You sure have the arms for this lens


+ 100
And the chest! Wrong stuff for me. I shoot handhold only and I am about 50 now. A little late to become a second "Arnold". :-(



Mar 06, 2012 at 12:13 PM
Bones74
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · Tried the 5Dmk3 and 200-400 at Focus (FOI)


dolina wrote:
Looking through your flickr account I find it odd that they are still displaying the Series 1 super teles.


I didnt pay much attention to the other lenses. Definitely a 300 ii and a 400 ii. If I recall the 800 is there and a 600, not sure of the series



Mar 06, 2012 at 12:21 PM
Bones74
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · Tried the 5Dmk3 and 200-400 at Focus (FOI)


Pixel Perfect wrote:
Bones, is the 200-400 f/4 physically longer than the 400 f/2.8 mk II? If so this could explain the impression of heavier weight; the lens will be placing a greater torque on your arm, meaning more fatigue sooner. Still unless it's noticeably longer, say 50mm+, it shouldn't be too bad, as the weight is considerably less.


Sorry, I cant say for sure. I've had a look around for 200-400 dimensions but haven't found anything yet. The extender adds a good 50-70mm so it could be longer than the prime.



Mar 06, 2012 at 12:30 PM
gocolts
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #14 · Tried the 5Dmk3 and 200-400 at Focus (FOI)


Pixel Perfect wrote:
200-400 3.1-3.2kg, 400 mk II, 3.9kg


I have a new Sigma 120-300 OS, and at 2.9kg it's very much hand-holdable for me. However, I believe some of the feeling of extra weight comes down to the need to zoom...my old 300 f/2.8 felt lighter than the Sigma, simply becasue all I had to do was put a hand under it and aim...with the Sigma that support hand has more to do, which is why the 200-400 might have felt heavier than the new 400. IMO.



Mar 08, 2012 at 03:48 AM
fraga
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · Tried the 5Dmk3 and 200-400 at Focus (FOI)


gocolts wrote:
with the Sigma that support hand has more to do, which is why the 200-400 might have felt heavier than the new 400. IMO.


That is a very good point.
Weight distribution, as mentioned before, also plays a major role.
As an example, the 200mm 1.8 definitely feels heavier than it really is.


Edited on Mar 08, 2012 at 11:19 AM · View previous versions



Mar 08, 2012 at 11:04 AM
fraga
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · Tried the 5Dmk3 and 200-400 at Focus (FOI)


Double post. Sorry.



Mar 08, 2012 at 11:07 AM
1      
2
       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password