Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera 
Thread started 06 Jan 2016 (Wednesday) 21:02
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Nikon is Feeding Canon its lunch....and them some

 
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
8,075 posts
Likes: 2739
Joined Oct 2015
     
Jan 07, 2016 22:17 |  #91
bannedPermanent ban

I like the push/pull zoom on the 100-400L. Curious what CPL you guys are using. I had B&W, can't remember which one, but I paid about $130 for it. It killed contrast and slowed the AF. Maybe I need a better CPL. Still have the lens, not the filter.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
snerd
Senior Member
Avatar
662 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 187
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Oklahoma
Post edited over 4 years ago by snerd.
     
Jan 07, 2016 23:01 |  #92

Bassat wrote in post #17849330 (external link)
I like the push/pull zoom on the 100-400L. Curious what CPL you guys are using. I had B&W, can't remember which one, but I paid about $130 for it. It killed contrast and slowed the AF. Maybe I need a better CPL. Still have the lens, not the filter.

That's odd............... B&W filters are among the best out there.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
7,726 posts
Gallery: 141 photos
Likes: 1452
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Post edited over 4 years ago by AlanU.
     
Jan 07, 2016 23:23 |  #93

Bassat wrote in post #17848924 (external link)
I hear that drivel a lot. Mostly generated by folks with no first hand knowledge of the 100-400L, I'm guessing. Lots of interweb chatter about how fantastic the 70-300L is. At the wide end, it is phenomenal. At the long end it is a dog (optically) compared to the original 100-400L. The the 100-400L is better at 300mm, at any aperture, than is the 70-300L. The 100-400L is as good at 400mm as the 70-300L is at 300mm. Want consumer glass? Look at the 55-250 (any flavor) or the 70-300 non-L. The 100-400L outclasses both of them, handily. The push/pull zoom of the old lens is faster and more intuitive than any twist zoom will ever be.

The 100-400L does have it share of issues. It can't take a (any!?!) filters. The IS is of little use, but some is better than none. No doubt, the 100-400L II is a superior lens. The long end is phenomenal. The IS works. But the price tag is a deal-breaker for lots of folks. When I paid $1600 for my new 100-400L about 4 years ago, I thought it was overly expensive, but there was no competition. Now that it is going used for about $700, it is a steal.

I loved the push/pull system. The only thing I couldn't appreciate was the very unpleasant bokeh. My copy was incredibly sharp for a Mk1 version (confirmed by one of my hardcore wildlife shooter friends). I did a small amount of wildlife and 1/4 mile documentation at the track. I had the lens for many years but the IQ kept it in my cabinet.

I sold it at an incredible loss. There was absolutely no desire for this mk1 lens even before the Mk2 was not even available in my local area. The IQ was the worst out of any lens I've ever owned.

I'd rather buy the panasonic/leica 100-400 f/4-6.3 lens (equiv to 200-800mm) for my M/43 camera or even a cheap 100-300 variable aperture zoom. The IQ will be decent with the cheap 100-300 lens. I'm really curious to see what the new 100-400 will perform.

You know when things get "interesting" when I'm willing to shoot M43 if your talking about older 100-400L image quality. It was a logical move for Canon to finally update to the 100-400L mk2.

Canon never listens and they follow their agenda.

Here I am smack talking Canon LOL and today I go out and buy a brand new supplemental 16-35L f/4 IS to my current 16-35L f/2.8 mk2 LOL!!!

Canon......we are waiting .......


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 85 mkII L | | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji - gone
Sony 2 x A7iii w/ Sigma MC-11 adapter | GM16-35 f/2.8 | Sigma 24-70 ART | GM70-200 f/2.8 |Sigma Art 24 f/1.4 | Sigma ART 35 f/1.2 | FE85 f/1.8 | Sigma ART 105 f/1.4 | Godox V860iiS & V1S

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Avatar
10,365 posts
Gallery: 479 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 26705
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
     
Jan 07, 2016 23:43 |  #94

AlanU wrote in post #17849386 (external link)
I loved the push/pull system. The only thing I couldn't appreciate was the very unpleasant bokeh.

The Canon 100-400 II has the same peculiar bokeh.

I'd rather buy the panasonic/leica 100-400 f/2.8 lens...

That would be a nice lens!


Sony RX10 IV, Canon 7D2, Canon 90D, assorted Canon lenses
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK
Donate to POTN here

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
13867
Member
Avatar
204 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 168
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Eastern Washington
     
Jan 07, 2016 23:49 |  #95

AlanU wrote in post #17849386 (external link)
I loved the push/pull system. The only thing I couldn't appreciate was the very unpleasant bokeh. My copy was incredibly sharp for a Mk1 version (confirmed by one of my hardcore wildlife shooter friends). I did a small amount of wildlife and 1/4 mile documentation at the track. I had the lens for many years but the IQ kept it in my cabinet.

I sold it at an incredible loss. There was absolutely no desire for this mk1 lens even before the Mk2 was not even available in my local area. The IQ was the worst out of any lens I've ever owned.

I'd rather buy the panasonic/leica 100-400 f/2.8 lens (equiv to 200-800mm) for my M/43 camera or even a cheap 100-300 variable aperture zoom. The IQ will be decent with the cheap 100-300 lens. I'm really curious to see what the new 100-400 will perform.

You know when things get "interesting" when I'm willing to shoot M43 if your talking about older 100-400L image quality. It was a logical move for Canon to finally update to the 100-400L mk2.

Canon never listens and they follow their agenda.

Here I am smack talking Canon LOL and today I go out and buy a brand new supplemental 16-35L f/4 IS to my current 16-35L f/2.8 mk2 LOL!!!

Canon......we are waiting .......

Hummm... thought the panasonic/leica was 100-400mm f/4-6.3.

CB




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
7,726 posts
Gallery: 141 photos
Likes: 1452
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Jan 07, 2016 23:58 |  #96

Archibald wrote in post #17849398 (external link)
The Canon 100-400 II has the same peculiar bokeh.That would be a nice lens!

I was told the 100-400II had similar guts to the Old Mk1. That bokeh really seemed rough for a lens dressed in white fitted with a decorative red ring!! That's a serious bummer but if you look at the versatility it's an OE Canon lens with good reach.

I messed up the specs on the panasonic leica 100-400. It's a variable aperture lens :(

I'd be so eager to see the Panasonic GX8 w/ 20mp sensor w/ 100-400 f/4-6.3 vs a 7dmk2 with new 100-400 II.

Canon will be stuck with the 7d2 for a while. Nikon is truly pumping out good stuff!!


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 85 mkII L | | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji - gone
Sony 2 x A7iii w/ Sigma MC-11 adapter | GM16-35 f/2.8 | Sigma 24-70 ART | GM70-200 f/2.8 |Sigma Art 24 f/1.4 | Sigma ART 35 f/1.2 | FE85 f/1.8 | Sigma ART 105 f/1.4 | Godox V860iiS & V1S

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
7,726 posts
Gallery: 141 photos
Likes: 1452
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Jan 08, 2016 00:00 as a reply to  @ 13867's post |  #97

yes my bad... i just corrected my incorrect info.


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 85 mkII L | | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji - gone
Sony 2 x A7iii w/ Sigma MC-11 adapter | GM16-35 f/2.8 | Sigma 24-70 ART | GM70-200 f/2.8 |Sigma Art 24 f/1.4 | Sigma ART 35 f/1.2 | FE85 f/1.8 | Sigma ART 105 f/1.4 | Godox V860iiS & V1S

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
idkdc
Goldmember
Avatar
2,838 posts
Likes: 251
Joined Oct 2014
     
Jan 08, 2016 00:29 |  #98

AlanU wrote in post #17849409 (external link)
I was told the 100-400II had similar guts to the Old Mk1. That bokeh really seemed rough for a lens dressed in white fitted with a decorative red ring!! That's a serious bummer but if you look at the versatility it's an OE Canon lens with good reach.

I messed up the specs on the panasonic leica 100-400. It's a variable aperture lens :(

I'd be so eager to see the Panasonic GX8 w/ 20mp sensor w/ 100-400 f/4-6.3 vs a 7dmk2 with new 100-400 II.

Canon will be stuck with the 7d2 for a while. Nikon is truly pumping out good stuff!!

Bokeh seems fine to me even compared to my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. Might just be peculiar post-processing on other's images that you're seeing. I see it as more of a landscape lens anyways.


Nikon Z7 / D850 | Canon C200 / 1DXII | Fujifilm XT2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Avatar
10,365 posts
Gallery: 479 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 26705
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
     
Jan 08, 2016 00:30 |  #99

AlanU wrote in post #17849409 (external link)
I was told the 100-400II had similar guts to the Old Mk1.

Similar guts?? No. It has an entirely new design in and out. But like its predecessor it has a peculiar bokeh that sometimes shows as doubling or a ropy effect. Here is an extreme example, posted previously to a different thread. (Arboreal Canada Goose.)

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.
Photo from Archibald's gallery.


Sony RX10 IV, Canon 7D2, Canon 90D, assorted Canon lenses
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK
Donate to POTN here

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tdlavigne
Senior Member
Avatar
364 posts
Likes: 108
Joined Mar 2015
Location: Los Angeles, CA
     
Jan 08, 2016 02:22 |  #100

I don't really see how Nikon is "feeding Canon its lunch" so to speak...

The D5 is nice, yes....but it's brand new, not even available. The 1Dx is old technology. Wait until the 1DxII arrives and it'll at the very least be an even playing field again, or it'll leapfrog the D5...and then the D5"s" will leapfrog the 1DxII and so on and so forth.

Same with the D500...Canon has the 7DII and other than some questionable 4K implementation I don't see the Nikon being a clearcut winner in any area. 1,000,000 ISO? Gonna look like crap. Marketing nonsense for both bodies (I don't care how good the D5 is...3 million ISO is going to be garbage).

With the exception of the D750 which Canon doesn't really seem to have a direct competitor to (Nikon has IIRC 5 FF bodies, while Canon has 3) they both seem about the same.

And this is coming from a current Nikon user FYI. Wake me once Nikon finishes the refresh of all their lenses (ie. DX primes, a 24-70 that is sharp, new 105/135/180 primes, wider tilt-shift, etc). Right now the DX lenses are "meh" other than the telephotos...so unless you're into birding or sports the D500 seems wasted....unless you're looking forward to more 18-55mm lenses ;)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PeterAlex7
Member
159 posts
Likes: 40
Joined Dec 2015
Post edited over 4 years ago by PeterAlex7.
     
Jan 08, 2016 07:19 as a reply to  @ post 17848605 |  #101

We are talkin about body aren't we?

Canon lens line up is excellent, cover any range and purpose, and also superior on quality.
But canon's body, nowadays, is like, "we shouldn't have to do our best, people love us, they'll like all things(body) we've created, no need to worry."




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
THREAD ­ STARTER
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
11,358 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 3135
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
Jan 08, 2016 07:53 |  #102

tdlavigne wrote in post #17849541 (external link)
I don't really see how Nikon is "feeding Canon its lunch" so to speak...

The D5 is nice, yes....but it's brand new, not even available. The 1Dx is old technology. Wait until the 1DxII arrives and it'll at the very least be an even playing field again, or it'll leapfrog the D5...and then the D5"s" will leapfrog the 1DxII and so on and so forth.

Same with the D500...Canon has the 7DII and other than some questionable 4K implementation I don't see the Nikon being a clearcut winner in any area. 1,000,000 ISO? Gonna look like crap. Marketing nonsense for both bodies (I don't care how good the D5 is...3 million ISO is going to be garbage).

With the exception of the D750 which Canon doesn't really seem to have a direct competitor to (Nikon has IIRC 5 FF bodies, while Canon has 3) they both seem about the same.

And this is coming from a current Nikon user FYI. Wake me once Nikon finishes the refresh of all their lenses (ie. DX primes, a 24-70 that is sharp, new 105/135/180 primes, wider tilt-shift, etc). Right now the DX lenses are "meh" other than the telephotos...so unless you're into birding or sports the D500 seems wasted....unless you're looking forward to more 18-55mm lenses ;)


I am hoping you are right. That would mean that Canon would have a sensor that would compete with the Nikon/Sony sensors in darks and shadows.....which would be very welcomed by the professional community. We have been **** about it for 4 yrs now.

The chatter I have read, which means most canon readers have also read, said a new sensor is in the works that will be a game changer.....Hoping that is so

But Nikon changed the game with this release. Hopefully canon has an answer. 150 + focal points that work will be impressive, 99 Cross points is impressive, The D4s is already good at 20K iso and if they PU another 1/2 stop or more, thats game changer technology.

As it stands today, we are a full stop behind in ISO performance, light years behind in AF Features, and in the stone age with dark/shadow detail and ability to shoot in extreme dark conditions.

I stand by what I said.......Canon just got fed its lunch

waiting and hoping


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
omer
Goldmember
Avatar
1,181 posts
Gallery: 65 photos
Likes: 168
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Israel
     
Jan 08, 2016 08:18 as a reply to  @ umphotography's post |  #103

+1
Its about time we see better sensor with equal d/r to Sony
That is the main issue for me 65 af points or 200 is not really that important (for me)


_______________
My Flickr http://www.flickr.com/​photos/omfoto/ (external link)
_______________

80D | 7D | M6 | 15-85 | 70-300 L | Sig 10-20 | 50 1.8 |100 2.8 macro|28 F2.8 | efs24| efm 15-45| efs 55-250 stm |270EX | 430EXII |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
idkdc
Goldmember
Avatar
2,838 posts
Likes: 251
Joined Oct 2014
     
Jan 08, 2016 08:54 |  #104

I thought the 5dsr sensor was already a huge improvement in shadows. No reason to think the 1DX ii won't be better.


Nikon Z7 / D850 | Canon C200 / 1DXII | Fujifilm XT2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,667 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 6311
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
Post edited over 4 years ago by TeamSpeed. (2 edits in all)
     
Jan 08, 2016 09:43 as a reply to  @ idkdc's post |  #105

Nothing Canon has right now has the clean shadow pushing that the Sony sensor has. This is very simply due to the design of the sensor and ADC differences between Sony and Canon. In order for Canon to leapfrog Nikon/Sony, they will have to redesign their sensor. All they have done up to this point was redesign the micro lenses a bit, and put in better processing post capture to remove noise in the raw, or at least to get rid of pattern noise.

Supposedly due to some patents that were filed, Canon may very well just have that in their labs right now. With their concept of each sensel reading twice per shot, each time at different ISO amplifications, the DR and noise issues could be greatly reduced.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

97,087 views & 414 likes for this thread
Nikon is Feeding Canon its lunch....and them some
FORUMS General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is ViciousKing
965 guests, 285 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.