DonGut wrote:
Certainly the details don't disappoint. I suspect there isn't any discernible difference other than our over critical eye!!!!!
Don
Thanks, Don. I agree with you hard to tell the difference
Socrate
---------------------------------------------
morris wrote:
I feel yesterday's set appeared a bit more detailed yet there are so many variables when shooting in the field I can only say that both setups work very well. Super photos in any case Socrate
Morris
Thanks Morris. Hard to judge the sharpness from a web sized image. Looking at the raw files my impression was that the MkIV looked just a bit more sharp to the naked eye.
---------------------------------------------
Imagemaster wrote:
Great shots and the 7D2 images certainly do not look any sharper to me than these.
Tony
They don't, Tony. As said before, looking at the raw files I got the impression that the MkIV were a bit more sharp. But that is just my impression based only on my personal experience
Socrate
---------------------------------------------
mitesh wrote:
You're putting on a masterclass, Socrate
Those sanderling and willet IF shots are simply amazing!
Hi, Mitesh. Thanks for the kind words. I've been enjoying your posts as well lately
Socrate
---------------------------------------------
surfnron wrote:
A super set Socrate. Lots of great detail make this set a standout. The sharpness and detail in the GBH shots is over the top ~ Ron
Thanks Ron. That GBH is one of my friends. Seems like every time I go to the beach with the camera it comes to me asking to take some portrait shot of him/her. And you sure don't need a 400mm. for that
Socrate
---------------------------------------------
crteach wrote:
Love those in-flight shots!! Excellent job!
Glad you liked these
Socrate
---------------------------------------------
Schlotkins wrote:
Really nice shots. I would love to see some controlled focal length limited tests of the 1DX, 7DM2, and 1DIV. My guess is the 7D2 would win unless it was at a crazy ISO but I'm not sure...
Chris
Thank you. I don't know about the 1DX, but between the 7Dii and the MkIV is a tight race. Personally, if I had to take only one camera with me, would the 7DII for the reach.
Socrate
arbitrage wrote:
Another great set. Looks like the 1D4 and 7D2 are very close to each other. Probably comes down to how the AF performs and maybe some operational preferences. Also the extra reach of the 7D2 would likely help in some situations. What I can say is that 100-400II is now on my shopping list. Still not sure about the 7D2.
Thanks for sharing both these sets.
Geoff
Thank you. I agree with your assessment, Geoff. It is going to take a lot more shooting to tell the difference between the two cameras and even than it might be still hard to tell. The extra reach is what makes me "reach" for the 7DII though. My next project is to try on the 5DIII.
Socrate
mark fadely wrote:
Okay, thanks Socrate. The new 100-400 II is tempting to me, but only if it could match the 400 5.6 AF speed at 400mm. So I guess I'll stick with the prime.
I think you are making the right choice, Mark. The 100-400 LII solves my problem to have two carry bodies with me for my shooting as the 400/5.6 could be too much here in FL
Socrate
I just wanted to add that I too was quite taken with your results with the 7Dii combo Socrate, but now, having seen the MK IV results, it feels like a dead heat. The common denominator is you. I suspect I'd like your results with almost any camera married to the new 100-400.
Sharona wrote:
Nice, images and thank you as I'd be using this on my 1D4 so it's really nice to see. Looks like the new 100-400 is a worthy lens if one uses those focal lengths, which I do. May I ask how much processing/sharpening was necessary? I am not asking as an insult or anything of the sort - I had the old lens and I needed to "massage" my images quite a bit, especially those shot at 400 in crappy light!
Thanks again - SHaron
Thanks, Sharon. Fair question Sharpening is always very subjective so what is a little sharpening for one could be too much for another person. I do most of my editing in ACR and a bit of "make up" in PS including sharpening for the web. They didn't take much editing at all as lighting conditions were fairly good. As far as sharpening is concerned I use an action and then use the opacity slider to my taste depending on the subject.
The sharpening I used on these was applied to the whole image, not just the subject, as I need to do some times, and that should tell that it wasn't much as the sharpening would be apparent on the smooth bg. I should also add that I purposely sharpen these a bit more than I usually do to better show the quality of the lens.
I should also mention that these were taken a very low ISO and they didn't need any NR, which helps the sharpening.
I hope this helps.
Socrate
This comparison is far more more useful that the controlled tests that people often use to evaluate gear. I want to know how the gear performs in the real world, with moving birds; These examples do just this. The 1DIV looks a whisker crisper to me, but if you mixed up the images, I probably couldn't tell which image came from which camera. More than anything else, you show that people who know what they're doing can get good shots with any decent rig.
Herb Houghton wrote:
great set Socrate. These appear sharper than the 7D II shot thread imo. The mark IV IF's also appear to have better separation from the BGD, especially willet and piper shots, maybe aperture settings were different as well ?
Thanks, Herb. As said hard to judge sharpness from a web sized image, but I got the same impression looking at the RAW files. When it comes to IQ the MkIV is a bit ahead of the 7DII, no doubt
Socrate
---------------------------------------------
canon.eos30d wrote:
Beautiful set, Socrate. Tack sharp on the IF shots.
- Tam
Thank you, Tam
---------------------------------------------
Kathy White wrote:
These are really beautiful. Every single one. Loved them. I certainly envy you the weather and sunshine to test in. It's horrible here right now
Thank you, Kathy. Glad to hear you liked these. I wish I could send you some of the FL sunshine to your place We need a bit of rain here.
Socrate
---------------------------------------------
jfwoodman wrote:
So between your results using both the 7D2 and Mark4, I'm going to guess you are very happy with the 100-400 II? These sure look good to me, Socrate.
Jim
Thanks Jim. Yes, I believe I will keep it
Socrate
---------------------------------------------
can0nfan2379 wrote:
Great set -- both this one and the 7D2 one. To my eye, I'd give the nod for detail and contrast to the 1D4.
Thank you for the comments and for offering your opinion
Socrate
Kathy White wrote:
I went back and forth between the 2 cameras and honestly they are super close.
Yes, they are Kathy. I believe what makes hard to tell the difference is the nice lighting conditions. Probably poorer lighting conditions would help in telling the difference. However, I'm not complaining
Socrate
onegreatcity wrote:
I just wanted to add that I too was quite taken with your results with the 7Dii combo Socrate, but now, having seen the MK IV results, it feels like a dead heat. The common denominator is you. I suspect I'd like your results with almost any camera married to the new 100-400.
Thank you! You are very kind. As said before the lighting condition gave me a big hand
Socrate
Shasoc wrote:
Thanks, Sharon. Fair question Sharpening is always very subjective so what is a little sharpening for one could be too much for another person. I do most of my editing in ACR and a bit of "make up" in PS including sharpening for the web. They didn't take much editing at all as lighting conditions were fairly good. As far as sharpening is concerned I use an action and then use the opacity slider to my taste depending on the subject.
The sharpening I used on these was applied to the whole image, not just the subject, as I need to do some times, and that should tell that it wasn't much as the sharpening would be apparent on the smooth bg. I should also add that I purposely sharpen these a bit more than I usually do to better show the quality of the lens.
I should also mention that these were taken a very low ISO and they didn't need any NR, which helps the sharpening.
I hope this helps.
Socrate...Show more →
Very much so, Socrate. Thank you! Looks like we sharpen/process similarly - ACR and actions. I'm excited to try out this lens. I'll likely borrow one before I buy, but it sure looks promising! Thank you again for your answer!
socrate,
these are awesome.
to my untrained eye, the differene is in the bokeh. Again, I am no expert, but that changes the perception of the sharpness of the subjet, IMHO
