1DX + 400 f/2.8 IS MkII Gone Fishing
/forum/topic/1153732/1

1      
2
       end

Stoffer
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Total Posts: 563
Country: Denmark

PetKal wrote:

Here's my stunt boy in his entirety.(1DX + 400 f/2.8 IS MkII)

No photoshop background, that is our trees turning golden yellow in the fall (water reflection).


Great photos, Peter! And I really love the golden colors in that one.

Wow, I need to try that 400mm F2.8L IS MKII.



Dreamliner
Registered: Jul 11, 2007
Total Posts: 320
Country: Greece

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
Registered: Sep 06, 2007
Total Posts: 24074
Country: Canada

Thank your for your feedback, Stoffer and Dreamliner.

I've got another conventional perspective fishing picture from the same shoot.



Stoffer
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Total Posts: 563
Country: Denmark

Another great shot! Are you starting to like your 1D X better, Peter? I remember you wasn't too happy about the jpegs SOOC?



joakim
Registered: Apr 06, 2008
Total Posts: 1417
Country: Sweden

Excellent photos Peter! My favorite is the last one of the first set, it's more like a portrait taken with the 85/1.2 than a bird photo.



PetKal
Registered: Sep 06, 2007
Total Posts: 24074
Country: Canada

Nils, I still have some reservations about JPG image files done with 1DX.



PetKal
Registered: Sep 06, 2007
Total Posts: 24074
Country: Canada

Thank you, Joakim.

I also like to photograph their intense & insanely focused stare.



Stoffer
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Total Posts: 563
Country: Denmark

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?



3iron
Registered: Apr 06, 2005
Total Posts: 452
Country: United States

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.



longisland.km
Registered: Jun 05, 2007
Total Posts: 265
Country: United States

What the...

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)

Nice shots.



PetKal
Registered: Sep 06, 2007
Total Posts: 24074
Country: Canada

Stoffer wrote:
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?


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.



artsupreme
Registered: Feb 27, 2005
Total Posts: 1689
Country: United States

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.


It lost a ton of weight, 3.3lbs



PetKal
Registered: Sep 06, 2007
Total Posts: 24074
Country: Canada

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.



Focus Locus
Registered: Apr 25, 2006
Total Posts: 813
Country: United States

Where are the pictures? Do you have to have special membership to see them now?

(It's been a while since I've visited the forums, so forgive me if any new policy has been covered and I missed it)



1      
2
       end