Great shots as always Peter! The EOS 1DX + 400 II seems to be a fantastic combo! As always however, the difference is made by the photographer behind the camera...
PetKal wrote:
Nils, I still have some reservations about JPG image files done with 1DX.
I'm sorry to hear that. I only use raw, so unfortunately I don't have any advise for you. Have you tried to disable Auto Lighting Optimizer, High ISO speed NR and Highlight tone priority? And have you tried to turn JPEG quality all the way up to 10?
I don't know, but some trial and error is probably the only way forward?
Peter; stunning images for sure. Love it when you go fishing.
Question for you; From what I read, the 400 2.8 did not loose much weight when Cannon made it a II series, yet you indicate it is much better.
Can you share what I am missing here?
Thanks for your help and best wishes.
have I entered some alternate reality or something. This thread has actual viewable photos from PetKal, not just comments from other people saying "great photo".
(Must now embarrassingly confess that I've never seen a photo from PetKal before today)
Stoffer wrote:
I'm sorry to hear that. I only use raw, so unfortunately I don't have any advise for you. Have you tried to disable Auto Lighting Optimizer, High ISO speed NR and Highlight tone priority? And have you tried to turn JPEG quality all the way up to 10?
I don't know, but some trial and error is probably the only way forward?
Thank you, Nils, I have disabled just about everything that interferes with the simple manual mode. However, I have got a bunch of JPG + RAW files which I need to process and then do some more pixelpeeping.
3iron wrote:
Peter; stunning images for sure. Love it when you go fishing.
Question for you; From what I read, the 400 2.8 did not loose much weight when Cannon made it a II series, yet you indicate it is much better.
Can you share what I am missing here?
Thanks for your help and best wishes.
3iron wrote:
Peter; stunning images for sure. Love it when you go fishing.
Question for you; From what I read, the 400 2.8 did not loose much weight when Cannon made it a II series, yet you indicate it is much better.
Can you share what I am missing here?
Thanks for your help and best wishes.
Thank you. The 400 f/2.8 IS MkII became a lens which an average adult can shoot handheld in moderation, say for about an hour. The MkI was a lens that an average adult can use handheld for about 5 minutes. The difference in weight is significant.
In fact, 400 II is easier to shoot handheld than 500 f/4 IS MkI although they are both 4 kg. The reason for that is that the 400 is shorter, with a center of gravity closer to the camera.
