Canon 7D Mk II

[stratman]

................. by the way how is YOUR asthmarism getting along? seems to be an outbreak of foot and mouth, but then a liberal dose of down grading is the solution to unhealthy predispositions and lurking compulsions and Disney Syndrome
......nice talking to you I'm off to uncalibrate my screen and printer for the third time this morning, I FOUND the random button on my munki, .jpg on my camera and printer manages colour.....I no longer stress over colour management and its SUCH fun, almost like playing with Hipstamatic on my iPhone 4...Crikey! there I go, now I have contracted asthmerism, foot in mouth AND photography for the masses too, perhaps i'll take a cold shower instead, have a Danish Nutella sandwich and find some traffic to play in till this bout of nose in the air passes, poor 'ol @Smile is the latest to come down with asthmerism, he now goes Gray Market for his morning 'Brekky fix.

Feeling yet?................... now I feel better, cerebral laxative great cure for..............., and , and , and

Definitely some of your best passive aggressive writing. As far as I am concerned, there can only be one supreme Oddball (rent, borrow, buy or steal the movie Kelly's Heroes) and you are it. The interloper, AKA "too many negative waves" Moriarty, is but a passing fancy.

 

[3dogs]

Definitely some of your best passive aggressive writing. As far as I am concerned, there can only be one supreme Oddball (rent, borrow, buy or steal the movie Kelly's Heroes) and you are it. The interloper, AKA "too many negative waves" Moriarty, is but a passing fancy.

 

[palombian]

Back on track:

I used the camera during the holidays without much thinking, and I can say it is the first Canon crop where you don't have to worry about noise all the time. I have usable indoor shots at ISO 5000.

Tried also (after microfocus adjust) my 400/5.6 and 100-400 with 1.4 extender. The AF at f:8 is fast and reliable, and with stopping down to f:11 both lenses are very sharp. In bright sunlight it makes a cheap and light 560mm tele (896 with the crop factor). ISO 640 and 800 are still good for birds.

I am thinking about selling both lenses and buy the 100-400 II.
It will cost me a lot more without a real gain in sharpness.
Arguments pro are the 4 stop IS, and that I only have to carry one lens (with the very short MFD it even could replace my 180 macro for butterflies and dragonflies).

 

[3dogs]

Back on track:

I used the camera during the holidays without much thinking, and I can say it is the first Canon crop where you don't have to worry about noise all the time. I have usable indoor shots at ISO 5000.

Tried also (after microfocus adjust) my 400/5.6 and 100-400 with 1.4 extender. The AF at f:8 is fast and reliable, and with stopping down to f:11 both lenses are very sharp. In bright sunlight it makes a cheap and light 560mm tele (896 with the crop factor). ISO 640 and 800 are still good for birds.

I am thinking about selling both lenses and buy the 100-400 II.
It will cost me a lot more without a real gain in sharpness.
Arguments pro are the 4 stop IS, and that I only have to carry one lens (with the very short MFD it even could replace my 180 macro for butterflies and dragonflies).

I have that lens, and i have owned it for about five years. In that time I have packed it, carted it and VERY infrequently used it. I do mostly landscape so one would think, as I did, that this would be ideal for all manner of images, including your favourites...........Please hire one BEFORE you buy or sell anything.
The glass is great, the FL seems ideal, IS is awesome BUT..........slide and twistlock FL is a 100% pain...forget snap shooting birds in flight, not going to happen CONVENTIONAL spin-zoom and focus great.

You will be more practiced at shooting long than I am, I hate it. The 70-200 a dream, 400 on the very heavy 100-400 is pure poison.

 

[Emulator]

Isn't the 70-200 F2.8L IS MkII USM heavier than the 100-400. I use a monopod these days and leave it set to 400.

 

[palombian]

The 100-400 and 400 5.6 are among the lightest 400mm's.
That's the main reason I stay with a crop camera, and the 7DII is a step forward in reach and light.
Not a cheap body, but I hope to avoid the purchase of a big tele.
I like strolling around and shoot handhold, not aligning among 50 other guys with their guns on tripods.

 

[3dogs]

Isn't the 70-200 F2.8L IS MkII USM heavier than the 100-400. I use a monopod these days and leave it set to 400.

First up must fess up to not reading the OP properly.....100-400 II is a new and improved lens, second, as a seasoned user @polombain is well aware of what he is about, so on that score I am backing right off.

Couple of years ago carried a 70-200 F2.8 up and down Kings Canyon in the outback.....all I will say is NEVER again...In general the L lenses do not like IS turned on when Mono or tripod is used, maybe incorrectly that led me to conclude that without IS I may as well save and buy a non IS lens like the F2.8 300mm, for which I am now saving up, and expect to swoop on one in my next life when my disposables and the asking reach paritySupposedly, static mounting causes the IS to malfunction initially and develop long term premature wear to some parts...... thats from professional users, they have wimberly, and the genuine article costs as much as a camera!!!!! needless to say I don't have one. I'm not going to vouch for that IS performance information, tho I have seen it in the lens Instruction Booklet too.

Staying on track, I started out with a 40D and the 100-400 made some tack sharp images for me. Birding is not my thing, I am a packhorse person carrying FAR too much gear to a site then plonking myself down at a chosen spot and working that spot to death from every angle then moving on. Birding to me is a specialists game, and the 100-400 has plenty of credibility there and in wildlife. Given the features of the 7DII I am thinking that this will be much, much easier to wield and use and in the hands of @polombain I am expecting some awesome shots soon?

 

[Emulator]

As you can see from the even a monopod can require IS.

Oh what it is to be young and fit like palombian!

 

[palombian]

As you can see from the even a monopod can require IS.

Oh what it is to be young and fit like palombian!

Thanks for the compliment. As far as I can deduce I am only 2 years younger than 3dogs.

But I am weighing my gear every year.
I even removed 2 sections from the legs of and old Manfrotto 190B tripod to reduce the weight to 1.2 kg (only to be used on your knees).

 

[3dogs]

Thanks for the compliment. As far as I can deduce I am only 2 years younger than 3dogs.

But I am weighing my gear every year.
I even removed 2 sections from the legs of and old Manfrotto 190B tripod to reduce the weight to 1.2 kg (only to be used on your knees).

Carrying the weights is not the problem so much. At Kings for example I carried a graphite tripod with 5D ii and the 70-200 f2.8 slung over my shoulder whilst also carrying a backpack. The ascent into Kings is notorious...heart attack hill.......
I turn off IS, use ball mount tripod, mirror lock up and trigger to avoid shake. I admit to contributing self inflicted challenges being a) lowest practical ISO and b) having an almost fanatical adherance to f8-f11, the sweet spot on most if my L lenses (24-105, 70-200, 100 f2.8, 100-400 + for and some reason I still cant fathom, a 24 f4 prime??)
For me its the sheer MASS and handling involved with the 100-400 or 70-200 f2.8. Most of my shooting is done either very early, or very late and my dislike for physical BULK steered me towards f4 lenses.
My efforts at birding have been woeful to say the lest due to shake or oof !! That is where I am assuming that the more sport oriented 7D ll will shine. Its the features, rather than the format of the 7D II that attract me most. From memory my avatar was shot with the 70-200 f4 and the copy I have remains one of the sharpest lenses I own.