-= 7D2 owners unite! Discuss and post photos!

Pondrader stop feeding that fox. He's never gonna want to catch his own dinner again!

There's no way you can get that many good fox shots otherwise.

rgs wrote in post #17410948
Pondrader stop feeding that fox. He's never gonna want to catch his own dinner again!

There's no way you can get that many good fox shots otherwise.

LOL I shoot a ton of keepers every time I go there. I don't bait anything except birds at my feeders at home and gray jays in the park. And if your not getting Keepers maybe you need to spend some time with a guy like me. :-}

Maybe Richard all that wedding stuff as you up to late, you need to get out early and stay late to get the good stuff. Not many will sit in the snow up to there waist for hours to get this stuff. Don't point fingers Richard didn't your mom teach you anything.

Pondrader wrote in post #17410959
Maybe Richard all that wedding stuff as you up to late, you need to get out early and stay late to get the good stuff. Not many will sit in the snow up to there waist for hours to get this stuff. Don't point fingers Richard didn't your mom teach you anything.

Just havin' some fun, man. I love you fox photos. And I do get up early and stay out late.

Jeff you have done incredible fox imagery---and others---but this is my favorite. I think its the ghostly surround.
I do have a request that maybe is in ur area. Wolverine please.

lol its all good Richard I just don't want people thinking Im that kind of a shooter because Im not.

Wolverine mmmmmm I don't think I have ever seen one in my life. but i know some that have but not around where I live. I know there around B.C

Wolverine picture or camera didn't happen.......Nice shots!

Pondrader wrote in post #17411020
Wolverine mmmmmm I don't think I have ever seen one in my life. but i know some that have but not around where I live. I know there around B.C

I've seen one - in a cage in Fairbanks. He was very noisy and trying his best to take that cage apart - and probably anyone outside it if he could. I'm told they are, pound for pound, the world's meanest animal and I believe it. That one was really nasty!

Only one snow here in OKC so far and it was gone by the next day but I did arrive at our zoo early one (warm) day. I got several shots of the Red Pandas some of which are posted on this thread https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=17386063. About the same color as your fox and shot with my new 7D2 but the zoo does make it easier.

Efstratios wrote in post #17410613
Those of you who have owned a 1D4, if weight wasn't an issue, would you say the image quality at higher iso's is better than the 7D2? I returned my 7D2 because I found most of my images came out soft even in good light with a high shutter speed. I'm wondering if a 1D4 might do better.

So I had purchased a 7D2 but ultimately returned it. The image quality in good to decent light was better than my old 70D and a touch better than my 1D3, but I wasn't really happy with how the autofocus performed in low light conditions and most images came out soft in even good light. I'm starting to think that I should get a nice used 1D4 which I'm seeing going on EBay for around $1900. I love the ergonomics of my 1D3, way more than the 7D2.

My main concern with the 1D4 is that it's focus points are cross type for f2.8 whereas for the 7D2 all are cross type at 5.6 and I'll be using either a Canon 100-400 II or a Tamron 150-600 which of course are not fast lenses. So then will the 7D2 focus better with the type of lenses I'll be using or is it possible that the 1D4 will focus better despite not being cross type at f5.6? This concerns me because I wasn't really happy with how the 7D2 performed even in bright light.

The 1D4 is a beautiful camera body and so is the 7D2, especially with it's 1.6 crop factor. I wouldn't trade the 1D4 for the 7D2, but that's not because one is better than the other, it's just the 1D body is just in a class by itself. The 7D2 offers so much and the 1.6 crop factor makes that offering even better. I also have the 1D3 and that still produces some great images, too. Fortunately, I don't have to choose to keep one over the other; they all have and get there use. I just really see a big advantage with the 1.6 crop factor for bird photography; always want the max reach as possible.

The 7D2 owners (some) had bad experiences with the body, but I can assure you that had they sent them to Canon for an AF adjustment, they would be extremely happy. Many chose to play the lottery game (trading for another) which was pretty much fruitless. I've have focusing issue with the 1D4 and the well known AF issue with the 1D3 and I can tell you that sending to Canon and letting them adjust the camera's AF is the best thing to do. My 7D2 front focused, but for the most part was ok after Maf the lenses, but I sent it to Canon anyway and they confirmed the problem, adjust the AF and it AF tons better now. Like I said, that's the best thing one can do is send to Canon. For me it was worth the small set back to get a better functioning camera.

If you can do without the 1.6 crop factor then the 1D4 is a great choice.

Side Note: I will always say the 1Dx was an overpriced camera body and that I refused to give Canon $7k for it; put that into better glass instead. There will be a 1Dx fire sell shortly and I may give up the 5D3 to supplement it then.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

rgs wrote in post #17411060
I've seen one - in a cage in Fairbanks. He was very noisy and trying his best to take that cage apart - and probably anyone outside it if he could. I'm told they are, pound for pound, the world's meanest animal and I believe it. That one was really nasty!...

Them and the Badgers are some scary jokers.

Methodical wrote in post #17411143
The 1D4 is a beautiful camera body and so is the 7D2, especially with it's 1.6 crop factor. I wouldn't trade the 1D4 for the 7D2, but that's not because one is better than the other, it's just the 1D body is just in a class by itself. The 7D2 offers so much and the 1.6 crop factor makes that offering even better. I also have the 1D3 and that still produces some great images, too. Fortunately, I don't have to choose to keep one over the other; they all have and get there use. I just really see a big advantage with the 1.6 crop factor for bird photography; always want the max reach as possible.

Is it really so-called "reach"? Personally, I don't like terms that imply untruths. All that a crop factor does is fail to record areas of the focal plane that the FF can record, and magnify the lens greater in the optical viewfinder (making the viewfinder darker than in a FF camera). It puts the focus points over a smaller area of the scene, and might help people with poor vision to see the subject better, being magnified more. As far as optimal captured subject quality is concerned, "reach" has no value. My 3.1MP Canon D30 qualifies as having greater "reach" than the new 50MP Canon FF camera(s) allegedly coming soon, but it can't do anything better than it or my 6D, in any situation. I will always get more detail of the same subject, and from the same distance, with the same optics. The term "reach" implies to me a change of perspective, like a lens so long that the front element is much closer to the subject than it is to the photographer's eye, but that would be a completely different composition. Using "reach" for a perspective that implies great distance is kind of contradictory, IMO.

There is always a little more risk when being one of the first adopters.

Even though the 1D4 is a few years old, it has less read noise at high ISOs than the 7D2 if you use the entire frame, so not only the build quality, but the high-ISO quality is better if you have the right lens for the task, to mostly fill the frame with your composition (you need to accept a shallower DOF than on the crop, though). It can not, however, compete with the 7D2 noise-wise when cropped 1.26x; it has the same read noise at high ISOs as the 7D2, slightly more photon noise, and significantly more noise (and less DR) in the shadows of base ISO. Most assessments of "better IQ" in the 1D4, I believe, are based on "PQ" (pixel quality), which is not an indicator of IQ at all. This does not only happen with 100% pixel views on the monitor; it also happens when your viewing software resizes a full image or a crop that you've made to fill the monitor or a GUI window on the monitor, if the nearest neighbor method is used . When the nearest neighbor is used (or any similar method which does not weight the old pixels properly when creating the new ones), it just strips almost-evenly-spaced columns and rows out of the image, and the remaining pixels fill the spaces and move together. In the case of these two cameras, you have 20MP in the 7D2 image, and 16MP in the 1D4, so if you resize both to the screen with nearest neighbor, the 7D2 image drops more of its pixels resizing to 1.5MP, and if you are comparing the 7D2 to a 1D4 cropped to APS-C, the 7D2 image is eroded more.

For example, an APS-c crop from the 1D4 is about 10.5MP. So, resized to 1.5MP with nearest neighbor, the 7D2 loses ~18.5 of its 20MP, and the 1D4 loses only ~9 of its 10.5MP, leaving ~7.5% and ~14% of the original pixels, respectively. This makes the 1D4 look sharper while actually capturing less detail, and it makes the 7D2 look 1/2 stop noisier than it really is, relative to the 1D4 on-screen (because the same number of pixels are displayed, but each pixel from the 1D4 comes from a larger sensor area). The heavier aliasing in the 1D4 version masks noise more, as you can't separate aliasing from noise easily.

So, I am very, very skeptical of "user experience" that says the 1D4 has better "IQ", because there are many people who don't know what IQ really is, and many people who don't know when IQ is actually relevant.

The real benefits of larger sensors is that you can elect to shoot with a lower f-number and shallower DOF, to break out of the range of "equivalence" with smaller sensor, to get more total light captured with the greater sensor area, and the fact that you can resolve more "line pairs" (or real-world equivalent contrasted details) across the larger sensor with any given lens, but that goes out the window when you are FLL (focal-length-limited). You have more jump room, too, for a shaky camera, or an active subject.

John Sheehy wrote in post #17411541
Is it really so-called "reach"? Personally, I don't like terms that imply untruths. All that a crop factor does is fail to record areas of the focal plane that the FF can record, and magnify the lens greater in the optical viewfinder (making the viewfinder darker than in a FF camera). It puts the focus points over a smaller area of the scene, and might help people with poor vision to see the subject better, being magnified more. As far as optimal captured subject quality is concerned, "reach" has no value. My 3.1MP Canon D30 qualifies as having greater "reach" than the new 50MP Canon FF camera(s) allegedly coming soon, but it can't do anything better than it or my 6D, in any situation. I will always get more detail of the same subject, and from the same distance, with the same optics. The term "reach" implies to me a change of perspective, like a lens so long that the front element is much closer to the subject than it is to the photographer's eye, but that would be a completely different composition. Using "reach" for a perspective that implies great distance is kind of contradictory, IMO.

There is always a little more risk when being one of the first adopters.

One of these days I'm going to stop saying "back in the film days" but I guess today is not that day. My first foray into digital photography was with a D60 that produced some still usable images and convinced me to leave film. But that first time I treated the sensor like film. I soon found that digital and film were NOT the same - at all. Mistakes I made at first were because of the assumption that it was nothing more than electronic film.

In those days, when I shot with my Pentax 67, I was sure that my IQ was far better than any 35mm just because of the larger film. I knew that my 6x7 Velvia, if cropped to 35mm, would produce, essentially, the same thing as 35mm Velvia. Bigger was better - always - even if it might be harder to work with and more expensive. And the limitations of my MF prime lens focal lengths could, largely, be remedied by some cropping (which I would not even consider with 35mm). Besides, with 35mm, I would still only use primes because the zooms (with a few very expensive exceptions) were just not good.

Cropping a FF file to equal the filed of view of a crop file will NOT produce equal files. The differences are not 1 to 1. The 7D2 does give greater reach (or permit shorter focal lengths for equal field of view) for less expense and weight and (usually) greater DOF.

Unlike when I used 6x7 (or 4x5) almost all of the time and avoided 35mm whenever possible, I have not yet gone to a FF camera. I don't know if I ever will. I considered a 6D before buying my 7D2 but decided that, overall, I wanted to get the most up-to-date crop camera (I came from a 50D) and then, maybe, my next purchase would be a FF. I'm sure that bigger is still better but I am also sure it's no longer a simple equation and, like most thing digital, not like film.

Shooting into the sun; tracking mode 2

Rocky Rhode wrote in post #17412246
Shooting into the sun; tracking mode 2

That's pretty good tracking.

Quite a bit of flare on the right, probably caused by a UV filter on the lens.

Imagine, trying to get sharp shots on the side of a steep hill in a dark/dense forest at 1/80th of a second at 800mm equivalent. What a nightmare !!

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/r34U​HE