stanj wrote:
<sarcasm>
Which reminds me of Art Wolfe, who's this nature photography hack, and who's seen with TCs all the time. My favorite scene with him is shooting his 400DO on a 1Ds2, with BOTH TCs stacked. And in true Art Wolfe fashion, the resulting images truly sucked.
</sarcasm>
Well, you can go against what is known sometimes, and get lucky.
Mel Gross wrote:
---
Well, you can go against what is known sometimes, and get lucky.
Nah, gotta disagree - I use a 2x or 1.4x on my Sigma 120-300/2.8 all the time for sport, and it's easily good enough for publication. (According to my mates who shoot for papers.) And it's pretty normal for them to be running 1.4 on their 400s, sometimes on the 600. (For cricket or football.)
Mel Gross wrote:
Well, you can go against what is known sometimes, and get lucky.
He seems to be getting lucky a lot. If you watch his documentaries, he shoots with such "absurd" combos or "silly" set-ups all the time. Without getting personal, I'd say he's getting a lot more lucky than 99% of the people contributing to this thread. Maybe that should tell us something...
stanj wrote:
He seems to be getting lucky a lot. If you watch his documentaries, he shoots with such "absurd" combos or "silly" set-ups all the time. Without getting personal, I'd say he's getting a lot more lucky than 99% of the people contributing to this thread. Maybe that should tell us something...
i think liquidstone/Romy uses them lots too and he gets good results
i know daniella has used TCs and she has lots of great bird photos
i do see pros use them at sporting events
i sometimes use one myself and when i get paranoid about it and dont use it for most shots when i look back afterwards i kick myself for not having used it more
Yesterday I was at the presentation of the 5D MII.
When the Canon guy started to talk about the video skill of the camera I started crying like a baby...
Gil_W wrote:
It's less pixels. There are 2 sRAW settings, I'm guessing because I don't have the specs in front of me, but one is around 10 pixs and the other around 6.
I expect image quality about as good as my 1Ds but much better in low light. The 21 mp is actually too many for me and I still might back down from this deal even though I am #1 on my dealers list
The image quality shooting macro/close up with my 1Ds and my 100 or 180 is fantastic, better then my xxD cameras and mkIIn. I am hoping for the same quality with the 5DmkII. But the 1Ds and it's image quality is kind of a classic in itself.
I do believe the ability to crop and retain detail at 21mp will be a bonus for us wildlife and macro shooters.
It's less pixels but the source it's always the 22Mp sensor. So, as they explained at the presentation, it's one pixel recorded every 2 pixels seen by the camera, so it's work for the processor to chose the better one. The result is a Raw with a less noise on the image.
stanj wrote:
He seems to be getting lucky a lot. If you watch his documentaries, he shoots with such "absurd" combos or "silly" set-ups all the time. Without getting personal, I'd say he's getting a lot more lucky than 99% of the people contributing to this thread. Maybe that should tell us something...
i can't beleive people actually respond to such nonsense. it is clear that Mel has no idea what he is talking about since almost all of the best wildlife and birds photographers out there use TC's all the time. Art Wolfe, Art Morris, all the guys from Naturescapes all use at least the 1.4 tc a great deal of the time. i know that the 1.4tc is glued to my 500 F4 almost 99% of the time and trust me, the files are super!!
skibum5 wrote:
i think liquidstone/Romy uses them lots too and he gets good results
i know daniella has used TCs and she has lots of great bird photos
i do see pros use them at sporting events
i sometimes use one myself and when i get paranoid about it and dont use it for most shots when i look back afterwards i kick myself for not having used it more
Well it all depends what you're shooting for. A lot of sports shooters use them because they provide quick and easy reach. Probably because they shoot for newspaper. If you're shooting for newsprint, then use all the TC's you want. There's no way to tell if a picture is sharp, based on the size and quality most newspapers are printed at.
The Akihabara Website is reporting that they've received a production copy of the EOS 5D Mark II. Apparently, Canon has begun shipping the camera to the press for review.
The EXIF data from the samples provided by Akihabara show firmware version 4.1.1. The previous pre-production models we've seen all had version 3.6.1.
I really think that in a few lucky places in the world, the camera will hit store shelves before the end of the month --- about two to three weeks before the USA.
The Akihabara Website is reporting that they've received a production copy of the EOS 5D Mark II. Apparently, Canon has begun shipping the camera to the press for review.
The EXIF data from the samples provided by Akihabara show firmware version 4.1.1. The previous pre-production models we've seen all had version 3.6.1.
I really think that in a few lucky places in the world, the camera will hit store shelves before the end of the month --- about two to three weeks before the USA.
Anyone else find the Quicktime video sample on that page a bit jerky? The 720p version is perfect though. My comp never had problems playing back any of the other full res samples before by the way.
It has the same white box marked "Sample" as the pre-prod copy I tried. This is probably still a pre-prod.
Did the site specifically say it's a production camera?
Rubber Soul wrote:
And in other news...
The Akihabara Website is reporting that they've received a production copy of the EOS 5D Mark II. Apparently, Canon has begun shipping the camera to the press for review.
The EXIF data from the samples provided by Akihabara show firmware version 4.1.1. The previous pre-production models we've seen all had version 3.6.1.
I really think that in a few lucky places in the world, the camera will hit store shelves before the end of the month --- about two to three weeks before the USA.
orangefirefish wrote:
Well it all depends what you're shooting for. A lot of sports shooters use them because they provide quick and easy reach. Probably because they shoot for newspaper. If you're shooting for newsprint, then use all the TC's you want. There's no way to tell if a picture is sharp, based on the size and quality most newspapers are printed at.
I've printed 24"x36" from a shot taken with a 500 f4 + 1.4x TC (40D), and feather detail is still very good when seen from 10 inches away.
wow, if they still aren't shipping a production to those guys yet then this thing is really NOT going to have any sort of early arrival. forget about the late october, 1st week november. oh well. i'm more and more thinking baout sitting it out now all teh stuff i wanted to do over the next few months ends in a few weeks.
Liquidstone wrote:
It has the same white box marked "Sample" as the pre-prod copy I tried. This is probably still a pre-prod.
Did the site specifically say it's a production camera?
miccullen wrote:
Nah, gotta disagree - I use a 2x or 1.4x on my Sigma 120-300/2.8 all the time for sport, and it's easily good enough for publication. (According to my mates who shoot for papers.) And it's pretty normal for them to be running 1.4 on their 400s, sometimes on the 600. (For cricket or football.)
And I soppose that you and others who do this often print ro 16 x 24 or larger?
I did say that up to about 11 x... is usually just fine. That would be a double spread. Magazine work is, as you know, not as critical as actual fine art quality printing.
stanj wrote:
He seems to be getting lucky a lot. If you watch his documentaries, he shoots with such "absurd" combos or "silly" set-ups all the time. Without getting personal, I'd say he's getting a lot more lucky than 99% of the people contributing to this thread. Maybe that should tell us something...
My reply to you is the same as I gave to miccullen. You're not paying attention.
The Akihabara Website is reporting that they've received a production copy of the EOS 5D Mark II. Apparently, Canon has begun shipping the camera to the press for review.
The EXIF data from the samples provided by Akihabara show firmware version 4.1.1. The previous pre-production models we've seen all had version 3.6.1.
I really think that in a few lucky places in the world, the camera will hit store shelves before the end of the month --- about two to three weeks before the USA.
That looks very much like a production model, given the manuals are even in there now!
skibum5 wrote:
i think liquidstone/Romy uses them lots too and he gets good results
i know daniella has used TCs and she has lots of great bird photos
i do see pros use them at sporting events
i sometimes use one myself and when i get paranoid about it and dont use it for most shots when i look back afterwards i kick myself for not having used it more
Canon, and other manufacturers will tell you quite openly that converters degrade the quality noticeably.
The end results depend on what you're shooting, how far you stop down, the final destination of the images, final size, and how they are being used.
I'm not saying that they can't be used, just that they do degrade the quality.
As so many here have been talking about minor differences in quality as though it was very important, the fact that converters do degrade it, is important.
Is anyone here denying that that they DO degrade the quality? That would be strange!.
