dwweiche wrote:
Probably not... The EXIF says this was shot at f7.1 and 250-mm focal length. That is not a weak operating point for this lens. If there is a weak point, it is f5.6 @ 400-mm, but not f7.1 at 250-mm. That's not an extreme operating point for this lens.
I have tested my lens 2 month ago Stativ Liveview 10x focusing to 15 Meters
Its the opposite weak point @ 250 better at both ends full open...
I do not think 7D is outresolving my 100-400. when you take pics from a great distance air haze is important with sharpness. I have not here pics I take to my wife with it last sunday, but I assure they are insanely perfect, like the flag posted by susi or the radio, even wide open. but when you shoot from 10 meters is different from shooting at 29°Celsius over a 45°celsius runway at 250meter far.
then we are speaking about focus performance and 7D is good. No way. From 1000 shots I had more % keepers than I had normally with my mk2N even if to my eyes I can say they are on par..
OK I'm not a pixel peeper but usually when I try to understand an equipment I keep all the settings at 0. If you sharp that image it becomes sharp.
However I do not want to convince nobody here. Each one can take its conclusions. This was a real test, not one with tripod, mirror on and so on...with some conditions I was not able to change.
I am really happy with it so far even if I think I'll use Mraw as raw are really heavy and I do not need them.
However, few people is saying it but I think the new metering system is a big improvement on canon line up.
always at 0 setitng only converted and cutted here at work with helicon focus... I have nothing else here...sorry
last but not least consider also some camera shake, it was really windy yesterday.
what I am trying to tell is that in AF performance 7D is good. other variables like sharpness, camera shake, haze are not linked with it, in my opinion.
Sorry if I'm redundant and also I have problem with my english to try to explain myself.
ciao gp
PS: hey digitalbug30d why you quoted my last post and nothing more?
dehowie wrote:
I'd like to know how far away that F-15 was from the shooter as the softness to me simply looks like atmospherics caused by warmer temperatures.
The 100-400 performs fine on my 1DsMk3 but i have a pile of shots like thatEagle shot that are caused by warm air and shooting ovewr long distances.
I do air stuff as my number one thing and seen stuff lie this plenty of times so not even considering it camera related..
that' what I was speaking of. Sorry I didn't notice your post before...
i am an amateur guy shooting with a 30D and some good canon glass.
want to upgrade to a more recent camera model as i have been experiencing some problems with the 30D.
these are mostly AF wise and some other minor things i can ignore / fix by postprocessing.
the AF of my camera does have serious problems in low light situations especially with moving objects. even fast lenses donīt solve this condition.
the 7D looks very attractive to me, nonetheless i have taken a look towards a D300S as well.
as the press / web donīt seem to have published a direct comparison, does any of you have real world experience with both of these cams, especially in regard to AF performace (speed, precision, tracking)?
Marc, I think they are on par now (I know there are many differences like video or other things) about main performance (IQ/AF/responsiveness). If you have good glass canon lenses I'd stay with 7D now. I waited the 7D to come back to APS-C format. 1D are great but very heavy and big to travel (battery charger and batteries are a pain in the ass).
I've always been jelous of my friend's D300.. but wednesday we were taking pics together and now it's his turn.. really.
I'm not a canon guy that say canon is the best no way. And neither him about nikon.
Just D300 was the best APS-C (camera for what we shot) out there until 7D came out, now it's 7D. Next year will probably nikon again... but for me 7D is the right camera.
this is my opinion obviously
Got to love 7D's ability to take high ISO shots with ease.
I've been shooting with 1Ds3 for now and cannot say it's easy to work with its RAW at ISO1600 it is noisy.
This image was at ISO3200. Processed in LR and then in PS with NIK's DFine.
Shot with the new kit lens 15-85 IS.
-mirek
For clarification 1Ds3 cannot do ("natural") ISO 3200.
The max is 1600. You can extend it to 3200, which I never do.
You can push 7D to 12800, which is substantially more.
And I haven't yet tried this in the field.
-mirek
I've noticed a number of examples of planes shot at fairly long range in this thread. Any time you increase the distance from camera to target, atmospheric variables come into increasing play.
For example, shooting down a long straightway at a race track with a long lens will nearly always produce poor results, due to heat thermals coming off the track. And the poor results have absolutely nothing to do with the resolving power of the lens or the focusing capabilities of the camera. Nada.
Another example is astrophotography. It doesn't matter how sharp your lens is, how well focused your target is (infinity), or how many megapixels your sensor can resolve. At long shooting distances, mother nature TRUMPS everything. Just ask any serious astrophotographer. That's the premise behind Hubble. Get the lens out of harms way (our atmosphere).
So, while I'm not discounting there may be a learning curve with the 7D AF, and that there may very well be some lemons out there due to QA issues, let's temper our analysis and try to remove as many external influences as possible.
I'd suggest testing the 7D AF with subject matter no more than 300 feet away (an end-zone to end-zone football distance). I believe that's where 98% or more of the real-world use cases will occur, and this will give us more repeatable results to compare.
A question to the birders and BIF photographers: What is your experience with typical shooting distances? At what point do you start to have to account for atmospherics interfering with the final sharpness of your images?
ausmr wrote:
For clarification 1Ds3 cannot do ("natural") ISO 3200.
The max is 1600. You can extend it to 3200, which I never do.
You can push 7D to 12800, which is substantially more.
And I haven't yet tried this in the field.
-mirek
I thought you said that it wasn't easy to work with 1Ds3 files at ISO1600 because they are so noisy...
Well, the 7D has more noise at ISO1600. That's the part I didn't get.
I use a 1Ds3 and 5D2. At ISO3200 the 5D2 only has a slight noise advantage. The 5D2 has almost a stop more noise advantage over the 7D. Bottom line, even at ISO3200 the 1Ds3 should be cleaner than the 7D.
BTW I am fully aware of the advantages of ISO's beyond ISO3200. I use my 5D2 at ISO6400 with great result very often. And even though it is great that the 7D goes to ISO12800, I wouldn't want to use it beyond ISO3200. ISO6400 is too noisy IMHO. YMMV
That is a RAW shot converted via LR with no changes to anything! Its too noisy! I don't expect it to be really sharp, I mean it is f1.2 but the noise is driving me NUTS!
I think everyone is looking at the HIGH ISO performance and neglecting the low ISO.
MikeRichards wrote:
That is a RAW shot converted via LR with no changes to anything! Its too noisy! I don't expect it to be really sharp, I mean it is f1.2 but the noise is driving me NUTS!
I think everyone is looking at the HIGH ISO performance and neglecting the low ISO.
This is worst than on 1D mkII ISO wise.
Maybe its only usable at ISO 100, 800, 1600 and 3200...
I think the sensor might just be less forgiving...unless you NAIL exposure and focus, the noise is terrible (even at low ISO's). If you nail focus and exposure dead on, it looks really good.
I think the case I posted earlier might be an issue of focus being off a tad or being a bit soft due to the 1.2 f-stop.
