Canon 5D Mk II

[FISHiEE]

eccles: I wouldn't exactly say I don't have the right setup for a mobile approach. I don't often do macro and other wildlife in combination so my 100-400 + camera comes to about 2.2KG as your own telephoto setup. Macro setup about 3kg with a monopod included. I stick a tripod on my back (1.5KG maybe) and in my camera bag (just a toploader that can take body and 100-400 setup) may carry from time to time flash, tubes and tc. Portable HD, spare batteries and card travel with me always. That setup is good for carrying around all day 12, 14 or more hours if necessary so I think I have the right setup

[eccles]

The weight I quoted for my setup included monopod as well. I just stuck the whole thing on the kitchen scales and weighed it. The Canon 100-400 is apparently a fine lens, but at more than twice the weight of the Sony reflex, light it is not. It is close to my Sigma 100-300 F4 in weight and though I can carry that around with monopod for a couple of hours if need be, the reflex is like a breath of fresh air by comparison. Having said that, it's largely academic unless you're seriously considering changing systems or starting from scratch; if you have a set up that you like and you can take the pictures that you want then that's the main thing. But people have been saying that they don't want to carry around heavy 500mm lenses so they don't do bird photography. In that case, for a new user wanting a carry around birding setup, the Sony system is the solution and is unique.

Regarding IS for chasing motorbikes, be aware that image stabilisation doesn't help with motion blur, only camera shake. Some lenses have single direction stabilisation which might help with panning during relatively level road races but with motocross for example, only a fast shutter speed will do.

[FISHiEE]

Dunno what the sony 500 weighs. My canon is 1.3KG for the lens. I know the 500F4 is about 4KG or something which I would like to think is handholdable but haven't tried it. That's close to £5K now though! The other alternative, for canon at least, is the 400 F5.6 + 1.4x less than a grand but no IS.

Most new canon IS lenses have single direction as well as double direction IS. I know the 70-200 has it. That is what you want for motorsport/birds in flight etc. Nikon lenses (perhaps not all) can detect if you are panning and enable single direction IS automatically.

For motorsport, and BIF, you don't want to freeze the action totally. Generally it's panning at as low a shutter speed as you can get away with to freeze the subject and blurr the background. Cars/bikes sharp with blurred background/wheels to indicate movement. I try for between 1/100 and 1/200s on my 100-400. You should be able to gwet away with under 1/100 on the new 70-200. Maybe slower. That would produce gorgeous blurred backgrounds. I only ever shoot at road races not up and down motorcross etc. but I guess the same rule applies. You follow the bike whether it goes horizontally or vertically. The bikes go round lap after lap so you can get the hang of the panning movement for a particular corner/jump after a couple of laps and you get umpteen bikes to practice with every lap

Motorsport is the only photography situation where I want low light for low shutter speeds ... I guess that's where ISO 50 of the 1d MKIII or 5DII would help a bit. Need a circular polarizer for my 100-400 which would then fit my sigma 150 too

Unless of course it's a big smash up when you want to freeze more of the action

[FISHiEE]

Can anyone remember what the original topic of this thread was? I think we're getting worse than DPReview here

[eccles]

Need a circular polarizer for my 100-400 which would then fit my sigma 150 too

Ah, I'm glad you brought that one up. What is the benefit of a polarizer? I know it helps skies and haze but in the days of film I had one and hardly ever used it. Lots of people say they have one so there must be more to it than that.

The topic was the 5D Mk II, and most people suggested that it wasn't worth replacing their favourite crop format camera for one. I think..

BTW, talking of panning, I took this panned shot of Michael Schumower a year and a half ago.

[FISHiEE]

I circular polarizer will loose you about 2 stops of light, cuts out reflections on non-metailc surfaces(I'm not sure why they say not metalic!). Water is a prime example, but also waxy leaves in harsh sun etc.. Makes a very niticeable difference to colours in landscape shots in sunshine. It also boosts the tone in blue skies in harsh sunlight too. You can also turn it the opposite way to exaggerate reflections and make colours look really crap too if you wish lol

It makes a massive difference to my landscape and especially waterfall shots (there I gain 2 stops longer exposure, the colour boost and loose the reflections. I'd also stick in front one or two nd filters to give even longer exposures, especially in bright light). I am thinking it would also boost colours quite dramatically in butterflies as they are often shot in bright sunlight.

I'm at home not work so can't ftp and then imbed images, but here's a link to a waterfall with a polariser. Unfortunately I don'ty have to hand, or generally keep, an example of without it. Notice the lack of water reflections, not just the water itself, but the wet rocks too. Also colours are really punchy. Long shutter speed allows for a nice but of motion blur too :

http://www.ephotozine.com/u18805/gallery/781848

And a panning shot at 1/100s though I notice with my not that great (though maybe this shot makes me think otherwise now) 28-135 which only has 2-way IS. It was Brands Hatch where you get quite close to the cars so couldn't use the 100-400. Had to shoot F11 to get the low shutter speed which isn't great when you're trying to blur the background hence the Circular Polarizer would be handy. Might cut some reflections. Nd filter might be better actually as for panning it might be a bit of a pain getting the rotation of the polarizer right for the point you want to take the shot, and you may want to vary that point. With a circular polarizer jou adjust the rotation of the fliter depending on your angle to the sun and with panning that angle could be different for each shot.

http://www.ephotozine.com/photo/851922/large

And one where you want to freeze the action

http://www.ephotozine.com/photo/800687/large

[Gruditch]

Great shots Fishiee, nearly all my lenses now, require the same size filter, and I have loads of filters, unfortunately they were all for my old lenses, and they don't fit.

The weight issue:

The cut off point, for what I would consider light for a lens, would be about 2kg, and I suppose it is down to the individual, to decide what they find comfortable to lug about all day. I personally find the 100-400 light, and never get tired of carrying it, especially as I don't need a tripod.
The 100-400 is not light in comparison to my 24-105, but compared to a serious wildlife lens, like a Canon 600 F/4, it's light.

Reflex lenses;

http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-FD-500-8-Refl ... 240%3A1318

Unique, no just old hat.

Gruditch

[eccles]

Unique, no just old hat.

Pay attention, Gary.
The Sony Reflex lens autofocuses, and except for the original Minolta version that it's based on, is the only production reflex lens that does or ever has done so. That is what makes it unique. And on Alpha mount DSLRs it is image stabilised as well. A Minolta HS G lens it is not, but I've got shots wandering around with it that I wouldn't have got with any other lens, or indeed any other system.

Thanks for the clarification and examples, Fishiee. I'm not exactly sure I like the waterfall without reflections, but it's an interesting effect with the intentional blur as well. I hadn't thought that butterflies might benefit from a polarizer. I wonder if anyone else uses one for butterflies?
My Michael Shumower shot above was intentionally shot at 1/20 second to blur the background, so I understand the technique. Whether I could uplevel mine to match that super race car shot of yours is another thing.

[FISHiEE]

eccles: I think the car goes a tad faster than the lawn mower so you can get away withy higher shutter speeds for the blurred background. to keep the main subject sharp. an F3 car for example would have an equally blurred background at 1/400 I expect but easier to keep the main subject sharp.

Some shots I found showing the effects of the circular polariser. Only water related though. Couldn't find a landscape I'd not deleted the bad version of. In each case both shots were taken with the polariser fitted. First with it not rotated to cut out reflections, the second I rotated to cut them out. Often because I've just changed composition and forgotten to rotate the filter for the first shot! In the last example it shows how it only cuts off the reflections in one direction depending on the angle of the filter. In the first the fall has reflection but not the river itself in the foreground. In the second it is reversed. Personally I mush prefer the shots with the reflections taken out. Brings out the colours in the rocks etc. much better and gets rid of the horrible highlights. There's not much colour in these shots to show how it can really make that shine unfortunately.

[eccles]

Interesting; thanks for that.
It reminds me that several of my lenses have front elements that rotate when focussing, which is a bit of a problem with polarising filters. But I have a 24-105mm Minolta that I was considering selling but the front element doesn't rotate on that one. I think maybe I should hang onto it.

[FISHiEE]

I guess. I forgot about lenses that do that, though for landscape shots such as this you could compose, focus then alter the filter... nedless to say you don't take these without a tripod as exposures are several seconds so that should be quite easy.

I am fortunate not to have any lenses with rotating elements so this isn't a problem for me. Would also be a pain for graduated filters too I guess.

[Gruditch]

Pay attention, Gary.
The Sony Reflex lens autofocuses, and except for the original Minolta version that it's based on, is the only production reflex lens that does or ever has done so. That is what makes it unique. And on Alpha mount DSLRs it is image stabilised as well. A Minolta HS G lens it is not, but I've got shots wandering around with it that I wouldn't have got with any other lens, or indeed any other system.

Ahh, so it's a re-badged old Minolta lens, brought out of mothballs to fill the hole, while the Sony technicians continue to work on their 500 F/4.
And surly you mean you get Super steady shoot, not Image Stabilization.
Nicking our grey lens colour, and our IS, whatever next.

BTW, looks like Jessops are in real trouble.

Gruditch

[FISHiEE]

I think jessops have been in real trouble for a long time... Shame as they are the only camera shop anywhere near me

[eccles]

so it's a re-badged old Minolta lens

Correct. A well established design, same as your 100-400mm which is a VERY old Canon lens.
But hey, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

WRT Jessops, I know they had to close several stores last year, but are there new problems with them?

[Rogerdodge]

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/ne ... 76840.html
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/ne ... 76895.html

[Gruditch]

If this economic crises goes on for as long as they predict, then sadly I think, Jessops hasn't got a chance.

In Andover, ( a dump of a place ) there was a great camera shop called Simmons's, they were tucked up a little alley way, in a secondary position. When Jessops opened in the centre of town, Simmons's was doomed, I never really forgave them for that. What goes around comes around I suppose.

Gruditch

[FISHiEE]

Yeah the 100-400 is old and could do with a bit of an update... still a mighty fine lens though. Has served me very well for the last 3 years or so

Andover - may be a bit of a dump but has one of the best falconry centres in the country there and Thruxton is a bloody good day out for the BTCC etc. too. Then stop in the mayfly pub on the river test on the way back, have a bite to eat and a drink and feed the monster trout and chub

And I think a lot of camera shops will be in trouble with the 30% or more price rises to most gear in the last couple of weeks. I can sell most of my gear 2nd hand at a profit now and that 70-200 is soon gonna be more than my 100-400. I should have blown the cash sooner dammit!

[Gruditch]

We were given a warning that the prices were about to go up, hence four new lenses.
Also got quite a bit for my 120-300 F/2.8 Sigma, so that softened the blow a bit.

I notice that you mentioned several places around the Andover area, but could find no good attributes for the town it self.

Now you mention it, I think I might go to the Hawk Conservancy this weekend, wonder if they would be interested in taking a bl@@dy noisy Barn Owl, and a European Eagle Owl with an attitude, off my hands.

Gruditch

[Rogerdodge]

Now you mention it, I think I might go to the Hawk Conservancy this weekend, wonder if they would be interested in taking a bl@@dy noisy Barn Owl, and a European Eagle Owl with an attitude, off my hands.

Wiggy and Mags are the only reason I visit you two!
Please don't get rid of them.
(You didn't think I actually LIKED you did you?)

Roger

[eccles]

Gary, is your eagle owl a female? Thing is, there's a male that has set up home in Bristol near the university. He's been doing a great job in keeping down the pigeon, rat and squirrel population and I'm sure would appreciate a mate.