7D2 and 100-400 v II are great, but

Nice shots, Gert Bosman. Indeed, that is a good combo.

FF

A good photographer can get fine images with a lot of different equipment; well done. I am often surprised by how good the 55-250 is.

FF

Flying Fish said:

JackM: I love the new 100-400, and did indeed intend to compliment it. But every time I pick up the old 400 f/5.6L for flying birds, I remember why I loved it, and now I have a very hard time even thinking of selling it.

FF

Click to expand...

I'm with you on that... it would be very difficult for me to let that one go. It's so light weight and easy to carry.

Thanks as always, bugbait. That looks like a pretty Anna's male; yes?

Very nice shot and you know that I agree about the difference in equipment. I'm very happy with my 7D and 400f5.6L although at times it would be handy to have a zoom.

Bob

Nice sharp shot, I am surprised at the noise at that iso though.

Fred: I think my poor PP skills apply to all cameras and lenses. I wouldn't blame the 7D for that.



FF

Thanks, steelhead3. The 7D in my hands produces more noise in low light than in bright light at the same ISO and it was heavily overcast that day. But the noise didn't bother me in that shot, and you should blame my poor PP skills.

FF

Flying Fish said:

Thanks as always, bugbait. That looks like a pretty Anna's male; yes?

Click to expand...

Yes, I should of said, it is a male Anna's hummingbird. HSS was not working so limited to 1/250 sec flash, should of dialed down the flash a bit so the chest would have more dimension. Just farting around until I can get a better body anyhow, 4 fps just doesn't cut it. About 30 minutes of PS including repainting in the beak as it was just two ghosting figures.

I spent $927 for the 300mm f/4L recently and have shot just under 3000 images the last few days testing cand quantifying the value of that purchase vs just using the 55-250 STM and putting that money toward a 7D II. I decided to get the 5 month old f/4L and settle with the 70D. Glass being more important than the body, being the most often quoted saw.

I have not culled duplicates and analyzed the images of test chart, color chart, each of my butterflies in my collection both in direct sunlight and in shade with both of the lenses from 10 yards and 6 feet. How is that for a run on sentence?

My initial impressions are that for hand holding it is a wash. Tested and counted to prove to myself my understanding was correct, I do get 40% more pixels on the same surface area of subject and a full stop of light.

But with only 2 stops of IS vs the 4 of the 55-250 IS it is very near a wash when hand holding. With my custom rig shooting straight ahead the L pulls ahead. With a tripod or even a monopod I am getting a good 40% improvement in over all image quality with the L. More chromatic aberration with the L when both profiles are applied with CC LR, maybe not DP 4.

If I had known just how sharp my 55-250 STM copy was I WOULD of passed on the 300mm f/4L even though it was nearly brand new and saved $500 over new, but I would never of paid that anyway, these primes are really built tight. Luckily with Canon it is hard to go too wrong in any direction.

So it is a $200 INDURO ALLOY 8M AT-413 tripod and low mileage 7D and a used 1.4x if I can scrape enough together this spring and the 7D II next winter. Hummers in the wild are so small and so fast in the wild where I like to photograph them and my skills are so meager.

Oops I see I have rambled on too long again. Although sometimes throwing down words here in the forums helps us noodle out the best choices as much as reading advice, or so I like to think.

Bye the way, and you would certainly know a lot better than me, but if I could afford holding onto it, I think I would hold on to the 400mm f/5.6L Fish, if I were you. A pound lighter and perhaps a smidgen sharper just for when you know very much the focal length you will need and that being around 400 or more.

I dig that 39" min focus distance you have with your new lens, that is the main reason I chose the 300L 5 feet over the 400L 11.5 feet was just too much for a lot of my closer work with say damselflies 5 feet with creamy bokeh will be nice.

Flying Fish said:

Fred: I think my poor PP skills apply to all cameras and lenses. I wouldn't blame the 7D for that.



FF

Click to expand...

I didn't mean to offend. What I said was unclear. A 7Dii would allow you to use the newer software DPP 4 with the ability to use DLO allowing a potentially "better" post-processing solution. That has nothing to do with your skills! I'm sure your skills surpass my meager ones. I had just bought a 50D or I'd be using a 7D myself. :>)

Flying Fish said:

JackM: I love the new 100-400, and did indeed intend to compliment it. But every time I pick up the old 400 f/5.6L for flying birds, I remember why I loved it, and now I have a very hard time even thinking of selling it.

FF

Click to expand...

I love mine although I haven't had it long. I selected it over the new 100-400 ii because of the weight. My 700-300L is actually a little heavy for me. Between it and the 400 5.6L I pretty much have my bases covered.

Seems very noisy to me!

I imagine a 700-300 lens would be pretty heavy...

Seriously, I agree, you're well covered.

FF

Fred: Thanks. You didn't offend at all. My PP skills really aren't good. I need to work on that. I've seen spectacular images from a 7D at high ISOs--1600 at least--and again, what I do is really primitive.

FF

Flying Fish said:

Sam K: That is a really good question.

Click to expand...

No it isn't. He knows perfectly well what we mean by "keeper" in the context of this discussion - any photo you don't have to trash because the camera did something wrong - he's just trying to sound like a heady artist. Or if he really didn't know what we meant from reading the context, I'd say he's being obtuse.

JackM said:

Flying Fish said:

Sam K: That is a really good question.

Click to expand...

No it isn't. He knows perfectly well what we mean by "keeper" in the context of this discussion - any photo you don't have to trash because the camera did something wrong - he's just trying to sound like a heady artist. Or if he really didn't know what we meant from reading the context, I'd say he's being obtuse.

Click to expand...

What bird flew up your behind?

It was a serious question with no agenda behind it. I really don't know what people consider "keepers" and why. If you don't want to answer it, fine, but keep your "analysis".
--
Sam K., NYC

“A camera is a tool for learning how to see without a camera.”
-Dorothea Lange

Flying Fish said:

Sam K: That is a really good question. When I'm photographing birds, my first cut is whether the image is sharp; properly exposed, or at least well-enough exposed to get a decent image; and well-enough framed to get a good image from. I delete those that don't meet those criteria. Then I start again, and yes, you're right, I delete most of the rest because they are boring or otherwise not worth keeping. I guess I was calling the ones that made the first cut "keepers," because the more of those I get, the more real keepers I get. Thanks.

FF

Click to expand...

Fish, BIF may be one of the most demanding subjects in terms of tracking, and getting a high number of in focus shots for the "first cut" is probably a big issue for you.

I shoot indoor tennis and dance, which are also quite difficult. I find, however, that my "keeper" rate has less to do with shots that are technically problematic than those just not interesting enough to keep. I usually use a high enough SS to stop action (though sometimes some action blur looks good), keep subjects in the frame, and usually can fix exposure issues in PP.

So, for me, most cameras (like 60D and 70D) work just fine for my purposes. "Keepers" mostly depend on whether I've somehow managed (or are lucky enough) to capture the right moment. YMMV

Anthony N: Maybe that's one reason my PP skills are poor. I don't see much if any noise in the image at normal size (not at 100%). However, some of my 7D images do look noisy to me.

FF

skanter said:

What bird flew up your behind?

Click to expand...

I don't like it when people try to sound aloof or superior or more philosophical than others, which is what you sounded like.

skanter said:

It was a serious question with no agenda behind it. I really don't know what people consider "keepers" and why.

Click to expand...

Really? You couldn't tell from the context of this thread and the original post that a "keeper" in this discussion was merely a technical keeper - any shot where the camera did its job? I'm surprised.

JackM said:

skanter said:

What bird flew up your behind?

Click to expand...

I don't like it when people try to sound aloof or superior or more philosophical than others, which is what you sounded like.

JackM said:

It was a serious question with no agenda behind it. I really don't know what people consider "keepers" and why.

Click to expand...

Really? You couldn't tell from the context of this thread and the original post that a "keeper" in this discussion was merely a technical keeper - any shot where the camera did its job? I'm surprised.

Click to expand...

...and I don't like when people make insulting and deprecating assumptions about me like you did. Another poster thought it was "a very good question". So, again, which species flew up your behind?