-= 90D owners unite! Discuss and Post Photos

MatthewK wrote in post #18937087
You keep referring to it as "my reach progression", as if it's something that needs debunking.

I put the term in quotes because I don't believe in "reach"; not because I thought that the scenario was unrealistic or not worthy of evaluation. I understood what you seemed to mean as something with legitimacy, even if it wasn't actually anything I would call "reach" per se.

The concept is very good, as a frame of reference. You're on a ship, sailing away from a play being performed on a stage facing the leaving ship. You go through combinations of body, TC, and the zoom to keep shooting the play stage as long as possible, and shutter speed needs are the same, but do not allow base-ISO exposure. Where we differ is that you want to hang onto the 5D4, using a TC, where I would be quicker to switch to the bare 90D, most likely. It's a bit of work, but I could chart in a spreadsheet what the open entrance pupil is with the various combos for every angle of view, but I am pretty sure that the 5D4+1.4 would give a small benefit, if any.

Well, it's a few hours later after I typed that, and I decided after I did to actually do the spreadsheet chart. What you see is the FOV-equivalent 35mm focal-length on the X axis, and the diameter of the entrance pupil in mm on the Y axis. The ascending trends have 3 steps because there are 3 f-numbers used by the 100-400L that I based the f-numbers on. The peaks are where the zoom is at max focal length, and the descending curves are what the equivalent entrance pupil would be as you go into the cropped zone. As these curves drop, pixel count for the crop drops quickly, too. The three ascending segments are f/4.5, f/5, and f/5.6 for the blue and yellow (5D4 and 90D), and the segments are f/6.3, f/7.1, and f/8 for the orange (5D4+1.4). So, for the somewhat small increase in entrance pupil for the orange vs the yellow over most of the overlapping range, the AF is more challenged and there are optical imperfections introduced by the TC. Also, it seems that Canon may have made the 90D AA filter very weak and non-standard, making the 90D potentially a little sharper.

So, personally, I would not think about using the 5D4+TC option. I love TCs, but they are often a necessary evil, but sometimes they aren't necessary.

John ... I'm shocked.. If you are on a ship then you need to take into account swell, the current and the tidal currents and the wind and all those other factors coming into play. And God forbid it's choppy out!!!! And what happens when you are in a trough? Or sliding down a 25 ft swell against the wind...

I'm dissapointed!!

John Sheehy wrote in post #18937259
I put the term in quotes because I don't believe in "reach"; not because I thought that the scenario was unrealistic or not worthy of evaluation. I understood what you seemed to mean as something with legitimacy, even if it wasn't actually anything I would call "reach" per se.

The concept is very good, as a frame of reference. You're on a ship, sailing away from a play being performed on a stage facing the leaving ship. You go through combinations of body, TC, and the zoom to keep shooting the play stage as long as possible, and shutter speed needs are the same, but do not allow base-ISO exposure. Where we differ is that you want to hang onto the 5D4, using a TC, where I would be quicker to switch to the bare 90D, most likely. It's a bit of work, but I could chart in a spreadsheet what the open entrance pupil is with the various combos for every angle of view, but I am pretty sure that the 5D4+1.4 would give a small benefit, if any.

Well, it's a few hours later after I typed that, and I decided after I did to actually do the spreadsheet chart. What you see is the FOV-equivalent 35mm focal-length on the X axis, and the diameter of the entrance pupil in mm on the Y axis. The ascending trends have 3 steps because there are 3 f-numbers used by the 100-400L that I based the f-numbers on. The peaks are where the zoom is at max focal length, and the descending curves are what the equivalent entrance pupil would be as you go into the cropped zone. As these curves drop, pixel count for the crop drops quickly, too. The three ascending segments are f/4.5, f/5, and f/5.6 for the blue and yellow (5D4 and 90D), and the segments are f/6.3, f/7.1, and f/8 for the orange (5D4+1.4). So, for the somewhat small increase in entrance pupil for the orange vs the yellow over most of the overlapping range, the AF is more challenged and there are optical imperfections introduced by the TC. Also, it seems that Canon may have made the 90D AA filter very weak and non-standard, making the 90D potentially a little sharper.

So, personally, I would not think about using the 5D4+TC option. I love TCs, but they are often a necessary eveil, but sometimes they aren't necessary.

Hosted photo: posted by John Sheehy in
./showthread.php?p=189​37259&i=i115103259
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

This ant finds those graphs quite interesting

I am actually glad I sold my 90D

John Sheehy wrote in post #18937259
I put the term in quotes because I don't believe in "reach"; not because I thought that the scenario was unrealistic or not worthy of evaluation. I understood what you seemed to mean as something with legitimacy, even if it wasn't actually anything I would call "reach" per se.

The concept is very good, as a frame of reference. You're on a ship, sailing away from a play being performed on a stage facing the leaving ship. You go through combinations of body, TC, and the zoom to keep shooting the play stage as long as possible, and shutter speed needs are the same, but do not allow base-ISO exposure. Where we differ is that you want to hang onto the 5D4, using a TC, where I would be quicker to switch to the bare 90D, most likely. It's a bit of work, but I could chart in a spreadsheet what the open entrance pupil is with the various combos for every angle of view, but I am pretty sure that the 5D4+1.4 would give a small benefit, if any.

Well, it's a few hours later after I typed that, and I decided after I did to actually do the spreadsheet chart. What you see is the FOV-equivalent 35mm focal-length on the X axis, and the diameter of the entrance pupil in mm on the Y axis. The ascending trends have 3 steps because there are 3 f-numbers used by the 100-400L that I based the f-numbers on. The peaks are where the zoom is at max focal length, and the descending curves are what the equivalent entrance pupil would be as you go into the cropped zone. As these curves drop, pixel count for the crop drops quickly, too. The three ascending segments are f/4.5, f/5, and f/5.6 for the blue and yellow (5D4 and 90D), and the segments are f/6.3, f/7.1, and f/8 for the orange (5D4+1.4). So, for the somewhat small increase in entrance pupil for the orange vs the yellow over most of the overlapping range, the AF is more challenged and there are optical imperfections introduced by the TC. Also, it seems that Canon may have made the 90D AA filter very weak and non-standard, making the 90D potentially a little sharper.

So, personally, I would not think about using the 5D4+TC option. I love TCs, but they are often a necessary eveil, but sometimes they aren't necessary.

Hosted photo: posted by John Sheehy in
./showthread.php?p=189​37259&i=i115103259
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

I'm still trying to figure out what all that text means, or how it actually applies in real life.

cdmazoff wrote in post #18937276
John ... I'm shocked.. If you are on a ship then you need to take into account swell, the current and the tidal currents and the wind and all those other factors coming into play. And God forbid it's choppy out!!!! And what happens when you are in a trough? Or sliding down a 25 ft swell against the wind...

I'm dissapointed!!

You may be in a calm bay, and even if things are rough, all systems would experience the same thing. If you'd raise the shutter speed on one, you'd need to raise it on the others, too, and wait until you're on a crest for all systems as well.

MatthewK wrote in post #18937087
You keep referring to it as "my reach progression", as if it's something that needs debunking. Go ahead and waste your time with that, I just do what works for me, and if I can get the shot I want with a 5D4 + 1.4, I'll do that vs. switching over a crop sensor camera. If I need more reach, I'll switch to the 90D... not sure why that's tough to understand

I don't think there's a wrong answer on this, it totally depends on the subject / situation and expected results.

If $$$ was no object, I think I'd probably have the 500 F4 II + 5dIV type of setup for walk around, I do however wish Canon would make us something like the 500 PF from Nikon as that would be a nice weight savings for all day use.

robamy wrote in post #18937287
I am actually glad I sold my 90D

Reading the last few pages of highly educational facts and figures I'm glad I didn't buy one in the first place or I'd have had to compliment it with a 5D4, it seems.

Come on Canon, give us what we do want, at a price we can all afford

markesc wrote in post #18937386
I don't think there's a wrong answer on this, it totally depends on the subject / situation and expected results.

If $$$ was no object, I think I'd probably have the 500 F4 II + 5dIV type of setup for walk around, I do however wish Canon would make us something like the 500 PF from Nikon as that would be a nice weight savings for all day use.

Right on Chris, it depends on situation, which I suppose I didn't convey when I suggested earlier going through a progression of combos, to a shooter who was going into a situation with a lot of unknowns. Find the right combo for the situation, preferably one where you can avoid cropping, which allows you the most flexibility and capabilities to best capture your intended subject. I cannot fathom how John Sheehy thinks that's bad advice, but whatever, different drummers and all that....

When I shot with the 500 f/4, the lens was the center of my system, and I treated the 5D4, 80D, 1.4 and 2.0 TCs as merely means to an end to get the exact framing I wanted. Over time I found that I was using the 80D + 500 more than any combo because I seemed to naturally find myself framing at that FOV, and that eventually became my preferred setup. The 5D4 + 500 + 1.4 was a stop slower, and the photos required more cropping, which I want to avoid whenever possible, but I really loved the malleability of the 5D4 files in post. So, my thought process turned to: how can I get that similar ~800mm FOV on the 5D4 so that I can get the best files to work with? That's where my upgrade path took me to the 600 f/4 world. With the 5D4 + 600 + 1.4, I'd be at 840mm. Perfect.

See, a progression... and it had NOTHING at all to do with entrance pupils or whatever gobbledygook he's on about. I'm sure he'll be along with more pie charts and Venn diagrams to help me see why I'm wrong

With the 90D and 600, I'll be at 960mm f/4, which may be too much reach for general use, but I just have to see first hand. This will be the final bookend of my years-long reach progression. With the upcoming winter, where there's no foliage and less light to contend with, the extra reach and wider f/4 aperture may prove beneficial. If I end up getting along fine with the Nikon D500 + 500PF, I'll probably move on from the Canon birding gear. Yet, if we see a 500 f/4 DO, you can best bet I'll be first in line for that baby!

---------------

I won't wax poetic about the the D500 + 500PF combo here, as my thoughts on that can be found over in the 500PF thread, but I will say that, hands-down, it is easily the best, most enjoyable birding setup I've shot with to date. I haven't tried the 90D + 600 yet though

Interesting Matthew,

When I used to shoot 1D (1.3 X-factor) with the 500mm f/4, I rarely used a T-Con. Yes I would reach for the 1.4x, 2x and even stack (you used to be able to stack them with the MK II versions) if the situation provided, but my "normal" was most certainly bare lens.

All this talk about NOT using the 1.4X with the 5D4, and it's not being of use is amazing to me!
With the 5D4 in Africa, I had the 1.4x on all the time! This was a first for me, but it was also the first time I really was using that lens with an FF sensor. 500mm on FF plus 1.4x is VERY close to the framing/field of view of the 1D's 1.3 Xfactor with the 500mm.

On the 5D4's FF using bare lens seemed short out of the box after over a decade shooting 500mm on 1.3x.

If anyone can actually show me how that 1.4XIII on the 500mm f/4L IS II, mounted to a 5D4 was in some way reducing image quality or hurting my "reach progression" all I can say is my images certainly did not show it.

Photo from CyberDyneSystems's gallery.

Photo from CyberDyneSystems's gallery.

Photo from CyberDyneSystems's gallery.

Photo from CyberDyneSystems's gallery.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18937616
Interesting Matthew,

When I used to shoot 1D (1.3 X-factor) with the 500mm f/4, I rarely used a T-Con. Yes I would reach for the 1.4x, 2x and even stack (you used to be able to stack them with the MK II versions) if the situation provided, but my "normal" was most certainly bare lens.

All this talk about NOT using the 1.4X with the 5D4, and it's not being of use is amazing to me!
With the 5D4 in Africa, I had the 1.4x on all the time! This was a first for me, but it was also the first time I really was using that lens with an FF sensor. 500mm on FF plus 1.4x is VERY close to the framing/field of view of the 1D's 1.3 Xfactor with the 500mm.

On the 5D4's FF using bare lens seemed short out of the box after over a decade shooting 500mm on 1.3x.

If anyone can actually show me how that 1.4XIII on the 500mm f/4L IS II, mounted to a 5D4 was in some way reducing image quality or hurting my "reach progression" all I can say is my images certainly did not show it.

Gallery photo:
posted by CyberDyneSystems originally in forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Gallery photo:
posted by CyberDyneSystems originally in forum: Wildlife

Gallery photo:
posted by CyberDyneSystems originally in forum: Birds

Gallery photo:
posted by CyberDyneSystems originally in forum: Wildlife

The 1.4 extender on the Canon 400DOII is very good. I would not know why it should be any worse on the 500mm f4. At f5.6, conventional viewfinder AF is also still very good. 500mm + 1.4ex is my preferred focal length for birding.

Ray.Petri wrote in post #18937498
Reading the last few pages of highly educational facts and figures I'm glad I didn't buy one in the first place or I'd have had to compliment it with a 5D4, it seems.

Come on Canon, give us what we do want, at a price we can all afford

Well, you'd have to consider what part of the graph I posted your photography would fall on. Many people fall on the right end or beyond the right, where the 90D keeps giving detail. This was about a zoom, which favors a larger sensor, too. With a 400/5.6 prime, the 5D4 only would give better IQ when it allowed a wider angle of view that you needed; none of the graph trends to the left of their peaks would exist; only the peaks and their MP-decimated decline to the right. The 5D4 would be a downgrade for me, for most of what I shoot with my 7D2 and now my 90D. I will probably replace my 6D FF (which I use for very wide angles and when I want minimal DOF) with a 83MP R camera, if it is released.

John Sheehy -

Now that you've had some experience shooting with the 90D, would you mind posting some sample shots of yours, preferably at various settings?

John Sheehy wrote in post #18937259
I put the term in quotes because I don't believe in "reach"; not because I thought that the scenario was unrealistic or not worthy of evaluation. I understood what you seemed to mean as something with legitimacy, even if it wasn't actually anything I would call "reach" per se.

The concept is very good, as a frame of reference. You're on a ship, sailing away from a play being performed on a stage facing the leaving ship. You go through combinations of body, TC, and the zoom to keep shooting the play stage as long as possible, and shutter speed needs are the same, but do not allow base-ISO exposure. Where we differ is that you want to hang onto the 5D4, using a TC, where I would be quicker to switch to the bare 90D, most likely. It's a bit of work, but I could chart in a spreadsheet what the open entrance pupil is with the various combos for every angle of view, but I am pretty sure that the 5D4+1.4 would give a small benefit, if any.

Well, it's a few hours later after I typed that, and I decided after I did to actually do the spreadsheet chart. What you see is the FOV-equivalent 35mm focal-length on the X axis, and the diameter of the entrance pupil in mm on the Y axis. The ascending trends have 3 steps because there are 3 f-numbers used by the 100-400L that I based the f-numbers on. The peaks are where the zoom is at max focal length, and the descending curves are what the equivalent entrance pupil would be as you go into the cropped zone. As these curves drop, pixel count for the crop drops quickly, too. The three ascending segments are f/4.5, f/5, and f/5.6 for the blue and yellow (5D4 and 90D), and the segments are f/6.3, f/7.1, and f/8 for the orange (5D4+1.4). So, for the somewhat small increase in entrance pupil for the orange vs the yellow over most of the overlapping range, the AF is more challenged and there are optical imperfections introduced by the TC. Also, it seems that Canon may have made the 90D AA filter very weak and non-standard, making the 90D potentially a little sharper.

So, personally, I would not think about using the 5D4+TC option. I love TCs, but they are often a necessary evil, but sometimes they aren't necessary.

Hosted photo: posted by John Sheehy in
./showthread.php?p=189​37259&i=i115103259
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

EXIF says you shot your chart at f/9... looks a little fuzzy, might be getting some diffraction eating away at the IQ there.

In all seriousness though, my goal is to shoot bare lens whenever possible, but adding the purported 10% IQ hit from the 1.4 TC really means nothing to me, never noticed a decline in IQ.

Chris1966 wrote in post #18937632
The 1.4 extender on the Canon 400DOII is very good. I would not know why it should be any worse on the 500mm f4. At f5.6, conventional viewfinder AF is also still very good. 500mm + 1.4ex is my preferred focal length for birding.

I absolutely loved the focal range of the 400DO II + 1.4 on the 80D. Would definitely be setup I'd love to revisit it w/ the 90D, with the Spot-AF.