jeremy_wakefield

Hah! Disadvantages of phone typing and spellchecker. Apologies. I meant "I know there's a Pallette Gear set that is pretty easy to set up". Yes I mean that MIDI controller - used with DAWs to make music - but capable of allowing you to use actual buttons, sliders, and dials to control image editing software too.

Hi I am very keen to use a midi controller to make adjustments in and capture one and Affinity. Has anyone any firsthand experience of setting this up and can anyone point me to simple tutorials which are helpful. I did have a look at a few on YouTube but to be honest I must be incredibly dense because I couldn’t fallow them and it sounded very complex. I switched off after a few minutes. If you can help I would really appreciate that. I know there’s a pal letter gear set that fire it but it’s very expensive so I’m just looking for a way to set up a regular controller. Thank you very much

I would love to be an excellent photographer myself, but can't afford that, I'm afraid ;)

Thank you for your comments. Since my posting, I believe he's pretty much made up his mind to take the Canon. He's not a total newb and knows a bit but I was trying to interfere, erm help him, decide. I imagine the truth is either will be absolutely excellent for his needs. Thank you for reassurances too :)

Hi My nephew is getting into photography and is looking for a DSLR. He has the choice between the above two cameras. He has the option of either at reasonable prices. He played with them yesterday and likes the feel of the Canon slightly better than the Nikon and says he wants to buy this. The Nikon is slightly cheaper, though not massively and he's not invested in either system. I was urging him to go with Nikon though, as the D810 seems better for landscape to me, and this is one of his main interests along with wildlife. I have a Canon myself but for him, Nikon seemed a better bet. I was really basing my thoughts on resolution, lack of AA filter, and dynamic range. I'm not sure if I'm right though. Obviously it's up to him but I did feel he might be making a mistake. I thought I'd ask for your views for his consideration rather than just listen to me banging on

Hi. I've now bought the 400mm f5.6 and the Tamron 100-400 zoom. I couldn't resist the prices I got them for. I have found both to be very good. The IS on the Tamron is outstanding and I am using the 400mm handheld with high shutter speeds and finding it light and fairly easy to handhold. When I tested them on a tripod the IQ was excellent on each lens. So far so good. I also got my hands on a 1.4 EX II used and though I've only tried it on the 400mm in good night, results with that were also very good.

Thanks, Laura. I'm coming to the conclusion that I will have both. I use a mirrorless for general photography so the DSLR is really only for Birds but having the zoom and the prime would complete all I need it to do. I can have both now for a reasonable price and I will go for it. Thanks for your help

I had a go with both these lenses. With the particular two I have access to, I found the Canon to be a fair bit superior in IQ at 400mm. Even when I used the Tamron at 300mm the Canon image was better. Mind you the Tamron was pretty good too. These were tested on a support. Handheld, obviously at lower shutter speeds, the Tamron had the edge with it's IS, however I doubt I'd use this lens for birds at such slow speeds so IMHO the Canon is ahead of the game here. However, I'm tempted to get both. Mad? Maybe I am, but here's why I'm considering this. I can get a really really good price for both these lenses which amounts to the selling price for a new Canon lens alone. I can use the Tamron for focal lengths other than 400mm and for handholding in lower light. When I want the last drop of IQ I can use the Canon, because at 400mm I can see a fairly clear difference. I suppose the thing is the Tamron is pretty good in all areas and really would do me alone. The question is whether or not it's worth me having an expensive one trick pony for the quality output as required. I will sleep on it for a couple of nights, but I'd welcome your views.

Thanks Gary. Good tip. I am going to try the 400mm f5.6 next week and also the Tamron 100-400. According to images on the digital picture site, the Canon beats is easily on FF 5ds R but on 7dmk2 there is little difference at 400mm. Interesting so I might end up saving myself some cash. Thanks for everything and I will update you on progress.

Thank you for your helpful advice. I am pretty new to this type of photography so it is most welcome. I went out the other day and found getting BIF in focus extremely difficult. As you say, I need to practice. I imagine using a TC will bring it's own set of problems so for now, I'll stick with whichever lens I end up with and keep at it until I know what I'm doing, then I can look at adding to my gear.

Actually one thing I haven't considered but perhaps should is how well each of these will take a teleconverter on a crop frame camera like the 7dmk2. I guess I could rent one of these too but I'd be interested in anyone's view of the Canon 400 with 1.4EX II on crop frame

Good advice, Laura. Thank you. I will try these out and make a decision then. Marcus, you make a good point about the Tamron which I had more or less discounted. I will try that out as part of the process.

I am also wondering if the AF on the Tamron would be up to the Canon's standards. It seems IQ is pretty good but my experience with 3rd party is that the AF often lets the side down a bit. Might be fine with the Tamron. Some reviews suggest it is, whereas others say not.

Hi Marcus Ian. Yes my options are sadly limited a little bit by weight. It might be one of the few choices available. The only other item was the Tamron 100-400 but I felt sure the Canon would outperform that lens. I might be wrong of course

Although looks miles better on the 1Ds Mk III

Yes I noticed that site too and you're point is well made. It looks great on the high res camera and it looks a lot better on the 7d than the 60d too. I have looked here and there and the lens seems highly recommended by just about everyone on a 7dmk II. Mind you is it likely his technique is that bad? Maybe so. On a larger question, does the 'sweet spot" theory no longer hold credence?

Interesting that you found that to be the case. I will certainly be having a good look but I have read so many glowing reports of this lens I was expecting good results, even on the 7dII. I'll need to test it carefully. It does tick the boxes for me and though I could go for the 100-400mkII it's the weight that puts me off it. I have pretty painful arthritic fingers and wrist issue which makes it not viable. The 150-600 would be even worse re the weight for me which is a deal breaker. If I needed that 600mm reach i was hoping a 1.4 EX might do it for me, but obviously the IQ would plunge again. Here's one review which was very positive about FF but less so on APS-C here: I was really quite interested in the less good performance on APS-C sensors. Has the "sweet spot" idea bitten the dust?

Hi I'm after a general purpose lens for my newly found interest in Bird Photography. I know little about this area of photography but I want it to be able to do BIF as well as general birding use. I settled on the 400mm f5.6 prime as everyone seems to love this lens. I know it has no IS and is obviously limited by it's fixed focal length but I'm good with both of these and also the weight which is important to me. Anyway, I came across this review where he suggests it doesn't do all that well on cropped frame bodies and as I will be using a 7dmk2 I was interested. It seemed to contradict everything I believed about camera bodies and lenses because I was under the old belief that on a cropped frame camera the "sweet spot" of the lens was utilised. I'm a bit confused. Now I'm wondering if I could do better than this lens. I'm also wondering what happened to the "sweet spot" theory. Thank you for any advice you can give me on this subject.

<p>Seems to me that this problem crops up lots of times because a few "trainers" are giving people wrong information. It is then propagated by people who have not actually tested it thoroughly and becomes a theoretical debate based on not much practical experience.<br /> In many cases the differences between pointing at the light source and pointing at the camera will not be dramatic and differences are "finessed" by the photographer who assumes he is simply adjusting to taste<br /> A common error people make is believing that pointing the light at the camera means you are measuring light coming from that (the camera's ) direction. this is not true. What you are getting is an accurate measurement of all the light from every angle which is falling on the subject <em>and which the camera can see from it's position.</em> That is what you want to measure.<br /> If you point it at the key then you miss everything else that is contributing to the exposure. You then have to start faffing about as Pete has described above adjusting by however much you need to, in order to overcome the false reading you have introduced. If you need to do that, then why bother with the meter in the first place.<br /> For decades the correct way is to point at camera position but now we have the internet and everyone has a theory we're getting confused.<br> EDIT of course you may or may not decide to over/underexpose for artistic effect and that is a discretionary affair</p>

<p>Grabbed a couple of YN560 IIIs and they work well enough. Optical with Canon is good and PW Plus II is also good. I haven't tried them in earnest but as long as they don't fall apart or stop working them they will do the trick</p>

<p>Hi Craig. Yes that's probably the most sensible way to go. <br> Good tip re the Fuji info on strobist. Thanks I will follow it up </p> <p>Thanks</p>

<p>Hi</p> <p>I have two camera systems. for some time my main one has been based on Canon FF cameras, (currently 5D3 bodies) and lenses and the other on a Fuji X system.<br /> I use the Canon for weddings and portraits, but as I get older weight is an increased issue with this system. Also I'm winding down and I don't shoot many weddings now so I'm moving towards a Fuji system and concentrating on family and event stuff ( non - wedding ).<br /> Anyway, I have 2 Canon 600 EX RT and one Canon 430 EX II flash units. I either use one of these on a Canon body E-TTL or else shoot in manual flash off-camera with either the Canon of Fuji. I don't find them good for on-camera use on Fuji and I trigger them with PW Plus IIs<br /> I'm looking for a couple of cheap flashes to use as additional lights for background off camera manual flash and also to be able to fire at greater distances than i get from the Canon wireless system. Even using an STE3 with the 600 EX RTs I don't always get the distance i want using them outside.</p> <p>I'm wondering if a couple of YN560s might be good options for this. I can either use them alone with YN triggers ( ore my Plus IIs) for distance, or let them fire on optical triggered by Canon flashes for additional lighting at closer range. I'm minded to get this kit which is cheap. Is there a better way to go?</p> <p>Thanks</p>

<p>Thanks for the advice Ellis and Joe.<br> Seriously, is there a likelihood of the FCC coming down on me for bringing them?i<br> I don't want to get my gear confiscated or spend hours in customs or something?<br> Maybe it's an odd question but it's my first trip to the US and I don't really know what the situation is re the FCC</p>

<p>Hi</p> <p>I have two Plus II units and a Flex TT Canon. All are European models working in the European Frequency. I will be going over to the US in a week or two and wonder if I can use these models there.</p> <p>Thanks for helping</p>

<p>Thanks Ellis. I will make the necessary adjustments. Although I knew about the JPEG situation in the LCDD, I don't usually find the blinkies to be unreliable but in this case the contrast and nature of the light obviously did expose the shortfalls. I will have a look at your article. Thanks.</p> <p>Hi Joe. Yes I get that about the light ratios cumulative effect and I'm pretty good with studio settings. i reckon it's the LCD characteristics for which I hadn't made sufficient allowances</p>