1D Mark II vs Fuji S2 Pro: A Revisit

[DwightMcCann]

About my very first post here was asking for help because I didn't think my new 1D Mark II was up to my Fuji S2 Pro for live performance images. I have gotten a lot of assistance from POTN and worked with the camera (and manual) for a few months. Two nights ago there was an accident that badly damaged my 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM ... mostly the IS from the look and sound of things. It will go back to Canon for surgery next week. But, I had a shoot last night and needed something in that 100-200mm range so I pulled out the Fuji and Nikon glass to shoot Starship and Mickey Thomas. Well, at least it was light (as in not heavy.) First thing I noticed was that there weren't enough controls. Then I noticed that it was really, really, really, really slow and that it wouldn't always shoot when I pushed the release, probably because it wasn't focused. Then I noticed it would stop after seven images (I had forgotten that!) Then I noticed that each image took ages to go to the CF from the buffer ... my 1D Mark II with Sandisk Extreme III blazes, if I don't shoot at least five or six frames before I glance at it they are transferred before I can press any buttons.

OK, I thought, but I remember how beautiful the images were from the Fuji ... those great skin tones and saturation and how crisp the images were. Well, I got a rude suprise today while processing them ... they are noisy, not particularly crisp, and need more sharpening and don't seem to take other adjustments well either ... the images, jpgs from the camera same as I do with the Canon, are simply more fragile.

So, it is now going to be a lot easier to sell off the Fuji and Nikon glass and accessories as soon as I can get a backup system which I think will be a 20D and 100-400mm L.

And I gotta' admit that this was all quite a surprise to me ... it took a lot of senior moments for me to think that the Fuji S2 could compare.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Dwight.. sorry to hear about your lens damage.. but it is interesting to see your 180 on this...

I recall your first posts in detail.. and I know the frustration you were having.

the lesson for all of us is that even the most seasoned photographer can stumble over new equipment... something that we often forget. These digitsals just "behave" differently from one to another.. in some cases VERY differently.

When I picked up my MkII for the first time.. even after using a 1D "classic" ...I was taken aback as to how different it behaved from my previous cameras.

As for the spped.. yep.. I know that feeling too.. after spending a year using only the MkII and 20D (both faaaaaast) I have been shooting some Infra-Red stuff with a converted D60....

You want to talk about slow? One shot in RAW means a required break before the second shot! :lol:

Anyway.. hope you get your 70-200mm back soon...
For your back up.. take a good long look at the 135mm f/2L and the 85mm f/1.8 USM... I used to shoot events with the 70-200mm f/2.8 as well.. but I am preferring those two primes now for most applications.

[DwightMcCann]

CDS, it's amazing what you can learn from a little adversity, eh? As for backup, my style requires something at least 200mm. I often use the 70-200mm with a TC. My 300mm f2.8 is great but makes everything a head shot ... I love those but only about 30% of the time. I do expect that I will get a few smaller primes as I move along. But the 100-400mm sounds like the first backup lens along with the 20D and hopefully by this time next year I will have a 1Ds Mark X as well as a longer prime and new tripod setup. :-) And yes, I remember that you were involved in getting me on the right foot. The next thing I need to do is get into using the Adobe RGB rather than sRGB!

[Rob612]

The next thing I need to do is get into using the Adobe RGB rather than sRGB!

Yes, that's something we all should do. I do not know why, but I feel it really hard.

I do not have the 100-400 but it seems to be an excellent choice. As far as the 20D, I love mine. Sorry for your accident with the lens, but let's put it in this way: its the chance to get a backup ;)

[DwightMcCann]

Ain't buyin' equipment fun! :-)

[Loaded]

Dwight i was forwarded this and your other links about your transformation and learning curve.. I am on the same thing right NOW and am in the midst of doing the same thing and have the same issues. NOW i shoot ONLY raw. All the time, I shoot better, and composition is much better.

[DwightMcCann]

Loaded, welcome! I NEVER shot RAW although I have no religious objection to it. I shot mostly Live Performance images, normally 300-600 frames at an event, and just don't want/need to take the time for all that post processing. With the unusual and strong lighting that I shoot, RAW really offers very little. OTOH, if I ever get to shooting portraits/landscapes or other artistic images I expect to venture into the RAW camp.

If there's any questions that you have that I may be able to answer, please feel free.

BTW, I'm just about to start selling off my Nikon equipment!

[cecilc]

But the 100-400mm sounds like the first backup lens along with the 20D ...

Hi Dwight ...

I have the 100-400 and I love it .... but aren't you a little concerned that it might be a little too slow for concert work. The lens is "rated" at 4.5-5.6, but it's only a 4.5 lens right at the 100mm mark. Anywhere off that 100mm mark and the lens turns into a 5.6 ....

I use it all the time for outdoor work with plenty of light .... field sports, mostly.

I'd be fascinated to see how you implement that 5.6 lens at a concert.

[DwightMcCann]

Cecilc, come over to http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=81761 ... where I am answering questions about what I do. I have a couple of shots with the 100-400mm in the thread. And I think others might be interested, too.

[gmen]

Dwight... sorry to hear about the damage to your 70-200.

Hope those CPS guys can turn it round quickly for you. I'd be inclined to agree with cecilc that the 100-400mm may not be the best lens for concert work (not that I'm a regular concert shooter)... but have you considered the 135mm f/2L? It fits nicely in the 70-200 range and is (arguably) even sharper than the glorious 300mm f/2.8L. It also accepts the 1.4x and 2x extenders. I frequently pull my 135mm out of the bag instead of the 70-200.... just a thought...

--- Gavin

[DwightMcCann]

Gmen, I'll consider anything ... and that 135mm f2 sounds great! But the lighting is so good at the casino that I have used the 100-400mm quite successfully whereas I would probably never try to use it at the Maverick Saloons. So, the 135mm will probably have to wait for a few other purchases although I am now adding it to my list! Again, come to http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=81761 and perhaps we can discuss it with a few other interested parties.