# 7d mark II as reviewed by Artie Morris



## wjdup101 (Oct 21, 2014)

I think this ongoing blog review of the new 7d II by Artie Morris will be very helpful for bird photographers to make up their minds to buy it or not. Artie is known as one of the top bird photographers in North America and I personally learned a lot from following his blog on the 7d II. Needless to say that I have already ordered mine. He review only a few photos per day in detail. He regularly used the 7d II with his 600F4 IS II with a 2X III TC for an effective focal range of 1920mm. The results are astonishing taken into account the challenge of lens shake at that focal distance. You have to scroll back at least two weeks to start at the beginning of the review. I hope this is helpful. 

http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/


----------



## wjdup101 (Oct 21, 2014)

Oystercatcher by Arthur Morris with the 7d II, 600 F4 + 2XIII TC, ISO 1600


----------



## Quasimodo (Oct 21, 2014)

wjdup101 said:


> Oystercatcher by Arthur Morris with the 7d II, 600 F4 + 2XIII TC, ISO 1600



I have the 2xIII TC, soon the 7DII, and now I only have to figure out how to rob a bank, and to aquire his skills


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Oct 21, 2014)

Quasimodo said:


> and to aquire his skills



The only thing that differentiates Art Morris from a million other photographers is _opportunity_ - he has access (by his own admission) yo lots of tame birds, and the time to exploit them.


----------



## Jim K (Oct 21, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Quasimodo said:
> 
> 
> > and to aquire his skills
> ...



I live in Florida just like Artie but on the East (Space Coast) coast and shoot a lot at Viera and MINWR. Unlike Artie who lives in the center of the state and goes over to the West coast for a lot of his local shooting. And therefore have access to the same tame birds that he does. But my work does not look like his


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 21, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Quasimodo said:
> 
> 
> > and to aquire his skills
> ...


If it is a tame bird, you are not shooting it with a 600mm lens and a 2X teleconverter... and a crop camera for extra reach.... you are using a 24mm lens


----------



## DominoDude (Oct 21, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > Quasimodo said:
> ...



Yes! That's the way to do it!
Don, I've seen others from those neck of the woods feeding Chickadees in the palm of their hands. Is it the cold weather and sparseness of food for them that brings out this behaviour, or is it mostly good and patient training?


----------



## icassell (Oct 21, 2014)

If you are implying that the reason that Artie's images look so good is that the birds are tame, you are dead wrong. He travels all over the world and shoots wild birds with equal aplomb. He is just (?) extremely skilled both in acquisition and processing (as well as being a great teacher).


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 21, 2014)

DominoDude said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Keith_Reeder said:
> ...


Patience and a steady supply of food... and works on more than chickadees....

But as said above, if Art Morris is using 1200mms on a crop camera, he is most certainly not dealing with "tame" or habituated birds. If I am quiet and non-threatening, I can get within 30 or 40 feet of a wild duck... but that is exceptionally close. There are several spots I know where people regularly feed the ducks and you can have them a foot or two away.


----------



## DominoDude (Oct 21, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> DominoDude said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


*nods* Agreed and understood. (Been pecked upon by a Jackdaw I raised when young, and bitten by a Mallard who expected food but got none from me.)

I'm also convinced that Art has all the skills needed to shoot wild birds and do it in a professional way. No pro would slap on a 1200mm combination of lens and TC's for a tame bird that could be shot at MFD with a shorter lens - a pro would know to use the best possible gear at hand, make the best of the situation. I've read his blog and the review of the 7D Mark II, and I have a good impression of him and his abilities to judge the camera properly.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 22, 2014)

He's a great nature photographer, but he does work for Canon. His insights are valuable, but remember he is a Canon Explorer of Light.


----------



## pwp (Oct 22, 2014)

Arthur Morris is a class act, no question. He's Mr BIF...even Sir BIF 
Even so, this is a field report with a beta 7DII from a photographer with declared Canon affiliations.

I'll be using my 7DII for all sorts of commercial work where APS-C cuts it, but I'm really looking forward to the totally nerdy, pixel-peeping, technical excesses from the meanest independent camera reviewers on the planet.

What is becoming clear from the handful of beta-reports published so far is that 7DII performance is brilliant. What is not yet clear is the cold hard technical output/image quality from properly processed RAW files. Only then the dust will settle and we'll be able to get on with actually working with what is shaping up as a bargain-priced, high performance camera.

-pw


----------



## garyknrd (Oct 22, 2014)

Wow, he is switching from a 1D series to a 7D II. Can't wait to see his shots with it in the next few years.


----------



## sanjosedave (Oct 22, 2014)

I only "discovered" Artie this evening.

He touts that DPP is better than ACR for processing RAW files

Anyone agree/disagree? 

I've never heard of anyone, even a Canon Explorer of Light, highlight DPP


----------



## HankMD (Oct 22, 2014)

garyknrd said:


> Wow, he is switching from a 1D series to a 7D II. Can't wait to see his shots with it in the next few years.



Does he ever shoot high ISO shots, or only in good light? 

I am an amateur who sometimes shoot high-elevation birds (above 2500-3400 meters), including some small, fast-moving songbirds that thrive in thickets inside forests. I would have very, very few shots without resorting to ISO 3200 or higher. 

It is therefore critical that the 7D II perform better than mark I, maybe not as good as 6D but close.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 22, 2014)

sanjosedave said:


> I only "discovered" Artie this evening.
> 
> He touts that DPP is better than ACR for processing RAW files
> 
> ...



In my experience so far...

* ACR has a clear edge in resolution and rendering fine detail.

* DPP results in less noise at high ISO.


----------



## Steve (Oct 22, 2014)

sanjosedave said:


> I only "discovered" Artie this evening.
> 
> He touts that DPP is better than ACR for processing RAW files
> 
> ...



Yeah DPP handles noise a lot better and I find I can do more sharpening and detail extraction from DPP converted TIFFs. The end result is much better IMO. You can buy a $50 email from Artie about how to do it or you can just play around with it yourself but converting from DPP and using photoshop to do noise reduction, sharpening, etc results in much better finished files.

As for how Artie shoots birds, he's pretty clear about his methods in his book. He has a number of go to places around the US and elsewhere where shooting birds is much easier because of their concentrations, like Bosque del Apache. He makes it sound like he has a regular year-round circuit following migratory schedules. He also shoots a ton from baited setups, which is really the only way to get great shots of smaller birds. You still need to use a long lens for this even if you are only 15-20ft away. A lot of his raptor shots are from photo ranches in Texas where the owners regularly set out bait and perches and then charge people several hundred dollars a day to shoot from hides. In a lot of ways, he's kind of lazy in that he doesn't go out searching for rare species or generally go out of his way too much. That said, he's also really good at what he does and lots of other people shooting from the same positions and setups wouldn't get the same shots. That also said, his constant, nonstop shilling of products and workshops and his full throated defense of his photo buddy who plead guilty to violating the endangered species act (for ramming his boat repeatedly into snail kite nesting grounds) makes me think he is more concerned about monetizing wildlife than preserving it.


----------



## Vincwat (Oct 22, 2014)

Is it just me or his Blog is a mess!? I like the info, but I have rarely seen a blog that is so uncomfortable to read...
About DPP 4, someone recently told me how good it was. I will try it.

Vincwat


----------



## AlanF (Oct 22, 2014)

Arthur Morris a doyen of bird photographers, and he is not afraid of changing his mind with changing times. Note that he is now using the 300mm/2.8 II with extenders, which he does also on FF whereas in the past he thought it was too short. Just remember - using these combinations that a 300mm on a crop has twice the aperture as a 1.4 TC + 300mm on FF with similar resolution or a 300 + 1.4xTC on crop is similar to a 300 + 2xTC on FF. The extra stop on the crop makes a factor of 2 in iso and the absence of or smaller TC gives for better IQ.

I am really looking forward to seeing more data on the 7DII, and will get one if the IQ has improved. Already, my 70D using the 300/2.8 stands up quite well to my 5DIII, so I am hopeful.


----------



## DominoDude (Oct 22, 2014)

sanjosedave said:


> I only "discovered" Artie this evening.
> 
> He touts that DPP is better than ACR for processing RAW files
> 
> ...



All my postprocessing is done in DPP and only DPP. I've tried and tested Oloneo for some processing during its beta phase. (A wicked program with some quirks and awkwardness.)


----------



## whothafunk (Oct 22, 2014)

Vincwat said:


> Is it just me or his Blog is a mess!? I like the info, but I have rarely seen a blog that is so uncomfortable to read...


I thought I was the only one. Agree, his blog is a freaking riot.


----------



## krisbell (Oct 22, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Quasimodo said:
> 
> 
> > and to aquire his skills
> ...



Have to agree with you Keith, and to counter a few other comments, I dont see why he wouldn't use a 600 with 2x TC on a crop to illustrate what his technique and equipment is capable of, _particularly_ if the bird is semi-tame, and especially if he then links these items of equipment to affiliate sales sites. 

I spent 1 day in Florida this year and got half a dozen keeper shots in that single day - birds are abundant and incredibly tame and it makes for extremely easy wildlife photography. I'm not saying Mr Morris is a poor photographer (far from it - he is very accomplished) but I certainly dont see anything special in his work, he is simply a competent photographer out there shooting with good equipment, in good locations, with numerous photographic subjects a hell of a lot.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 22, 2014)

krisbell said:


> I spent 1 day in Florida this year and got half a dozen keeper shots in that single day - birds are abundant and incredibly tame and it makes for extremely easy wildlife photography. I'm not saying Mr Morris is a poor photographer (far from it - he is very accomplished) but I certainly dont see anything special in his work, he is simply a competent photographer out there shooting with good equipment, in good locations, with numerous photographic subjects a hell of a lot.



Like real estate...location, location, location. On the Anhinga Trail in the Everglades, the birds for which it's named are now so habituated to humans they perch on the boardwalk railing...UWA bird photography. 

Those of us who don't live in Florida or New Mexico, and have limited opportunities for travel, must work harder locally.


----------



## wtlloyd (Oct 22, 2014)

re: nonsense spouted here from people who have never met Artie Morris, never taken a workshop from him and seen first hand how he works, don't follow his blog or exhaustive postings/comments on BirdPhotographers.net...

I think I'm glad I come here for rumor and not fact or I'd think some of these comments had basis in reality.

Clueless.


----------



## krisbell (Oct 22, 2014)

wtlloyd said:


> re: nonsense spouted here from people who have never met Artie Morris, never taken a workshop from him and seen first hand how he works, don't follow his blog or exhaustive postings/comments on BirdPhotographers.net...
> 
> I think I'm glad I come here for rumor and not fact or I'd think some of these comments had basis in reality.
> 
> Clueless.



wtlloyd - I have no idea why having met the guy helps me judge his photography but for what its worth I do occasionally check out his blog - does this qualify me to pass judgement on his pictures!?

I feel I should explain that I for one was not having a go at his method or personality, purely his output and only then in the context of him being a perfectly competent shooter rather than a "great nature photographer" or "class act" or "Mr BIF...even Sir BIF". I also think the comments regarding his blog site being a little messy and loaded with sales links are fair...but I suppose I need to have gone out to dinner with him, and bought a few books and a bunch of 7DII raw files from him to go as far as pass judgement on his blog?


----------



## 2n10 (Oct 22, 2014)

krisbell said:


> wtlloyd said:
> 
> 
> > re: nonsense spouted here from people who have never met Artie Morris, never taken a workshop from him and seen first hand how he works, don't follow his blog or exhaustive postings/comments on BirdPhotographers.net...
> ...



We all have opinions and a right to share them in a nice manner preferably. 

I can not blame people for their comments on the commercial nature of his site. It needs to pay for itself and he needs to make a living.

I must admit at first I found his blog a bit difficult to follow but once you do you can become acclimated to his style.


----------



## wtlloyd (Oct 22, 2014)

Nice that you have an opinion.

Here, I googled this for you:

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1CKMB_enUS568US568&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=artie+morris+I+suck+at+bird+in+flight




krisbell said:


> wtlloyd said:
> 
> 
> > re: nonsense spouted here from people who have never met Artie Morris, never taken a workshop from him and seen first hand how he works, don't follow his blog or exhaustive postings/comments on BirdPhotographers.net...
> ...


----------



## Quasimodo (Oct 22, 2014)

While I am certainly no expert on nature photography, nor in one of its many aspects, namely BIF, I have read books by people who excell in these areas, as for instance Ole Jørgen Liodden. Reading about how photographers like him plan photos, studying the animals patterns, seek out locations, wait for many days for the right shot to present itself, is far away from dilletant work. 

However, the question as I see it is not whether Artie Morris is this or that, but whether he is in a position to give insights, and valuable comments on this specific topic, given his experience. 

G.


----------



## krisbell (Oct 22, 2014)

2n10 said:


> We all have opinions and a right to share them in a nice manner preferably.
> 
> I can not blame people for their comments on the commercial nature of his site. It needs to pay for itself and he needs to make a living.
> 
> I must admit at first I found his blog a bit difficult to follow but once you do you can become acclimated to his style.



2n10 you are quite right - it was simply my opinion and I apologise for not sharing it as nicely as I could have done. On re-reading my own post it does come across as overly aggressive when it really wasnt my intention, I was simply trying to add balance to what was in my mind a strange justification from another poster.

wtlloyd - thanks for sharing the link and a nice image of a condor in flight. I appreciate his humility but once again and in the nicest possible way, I was not passing judgement on the man himself (to which a workshop or meeting with him would most definitely help) but purely his output and this link provides nothing to dissuade me of my opinion. He came away with a perfectly decent shot of a relatively slow, extremely large bird after using superb, top of the line equipment and, in his own words, having "lots of great chances" at getting the shot.


----------



## KBStudio (Oct 22, 2014)

Extensively tested LR5(ACR 8) versus DPP 3.14.15.2 and LR5 easily out performed DPP. But than I don't sell books to photographers nor do I get compensated by Canon. The files I worked with were commercial interiors shot at ISO 100 up to ISO 3200. Once you figure out DPPs clunky interface, you can produce nice results but with limited tools. LR5 can convert the same files with more lower middle tone values than DPP and you get tools that allow much more precise control over the whole image.

As to the merits of Art Morris, like and old friend said many many years ago, you will make more money off of photographers than you will with photography... His is the latter. 

As for the 7D Mark II, I too do not like what I have seen so far in terms of IQ. My first response is the "Kit" lens used by most reviewers is, well, not to good. I am hoping! When the first production models are tested by uncompensated professionals and their evaluation of the IQ is published. It will be decision time.


----------



## krisbell (Oct 22, 2014)

Quasimodo said:


> While I am certainly no expert on nature photography, nor in one of its many aspects, namely BIF, I have read books by people who excell in these areas, as for instance Ole Jørgen Liodden. Reading about how photographers like him plan photos, studying the animals patterns, seek out locations, wait for many days for the right shot to present itself, is far away from dilletant work.
> 
> However, the question as I see it is not whether Artie Morris is this or that, but whether he is in a position to give insights, and valuable comments on this specific topic, given his experience.
> 
> G.



Hi G, all said and done I think Artie Morris is in an excellent position to provide insights and valuable comments - but his position as a salesman of Canon products means we should treat what he says with some degree of caution.

My 2cents regarding the DPP question - I have used it a few times (largely in part due to what Artie Morris, amongst others, have written about it) but cannot find any advantage from an image-editing perspective of DPP over ACR (quite the opposite). The only advantage for my workflow that DPP has over ACR is that it shows you where the focus point on the camera was for each shot.


----------



## wtlloyd (Oct 22, 2014)

Not raging here, but I need to point out that you missed the purpose of my google results link...that link opens to multiple instances where Artie has blogged that he is a poor at best BIF shooter - it's a notorious shortcoming of his that he praises others for unreservedly...yet you referred to him as "Mr BIF or even Sir BIF".
So you really know nothing.
It's easy to be an armchair critic. "Oh, if I were there and had all that great equipment, I could do it too".
I've been there, had great equipment, and it wasn't all that easy. 

And you probably wouldn't like him if you met him, he's a classic Type A New Yorker. But he sure knows his stuff, and he is almost certainly the hardest working nature photographer in the business.




> wtlloyd - thanks for sharing the link and a nice image of a condor in flight. I appreciate his humility but once again and in the nicest possible way, I was not passing judgement on the man himself (to which a workshop or meeting with him would most definitely help) but purely his output and this link provides nothing to dissuade me of my opinion. He came away with a perfectly decent shot of a relatively slow, extremely large bird after using superb, top of the line equipment and, in his own words, having "lots of great chances" at getting the shot.


----------



## krisbell (Oct 22, 2014)

wtlloyd said:


> Not raging here, but I need to point out that you missed the purpose of my google results link...that link opens to multiple instances where Artie has blogged that he is a poor at best BIF shooter - it's a notorious shortcoming of his that he praises others for unreservedly...yet you referred to him as "Mr BIF or even Sir BIF".
> So you really know nothing.
> It's easy to be an armchair critic. "Oh, if I were there and had all that great equipment, I could do it too".
> I've been there, had great equipment, and it wasn't all that easy.
> ...



Hi wtlloyd - I think _you _missed _my _point, my references to "Mr BIF or even Sir BIF" were made by another poster and I was quoting them (hence the use of quotation marks). Furthermore, I acknowledged his humility regarding that particular skill. 

Despite your rather ridiculous 'you cant comment because you havent purchased a workshop from him' type argument I have tried to be civil, but you on the other hand have called me "Clueless" and that I "really know nothing". Have you met me, or been on one of my workshops to make those judgements?


----------



## wtlloyd (Oct 22, 2014)

You run workshops?
All I could find was this:

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1CKMB_enUS568US568&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=kristian%20bell


----------



## jvhigbee (Oct 22, 2014)

I thought this forum was about equipment not personalities! I appreciate the photos to look at as PART of my evaluation of the 7DII.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 22, 2014)

jvhigbee said:


> I thought this forum was about equipment not personalities! I appreciate the photos to look at as PART of my evaluation of the 7DII.



ad Hominem is what happens here far too often. 

Sometimes it feels like we are only one post away from bringing in mothers in to the discussion. :-\


----------



## jrista (Oct 22, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Quasimodo said:
> 
> 
> > and to aquire his skills
> ...




I'm sorry, but it's more than simply opportunity. Art has decades of experience and insight that far fewer than "millions" of other photographers have. If you actually read his blog on a regular basis, and read his books, you realize the depth of his experience. If I had all of Arties opportunities, I'm certain I would get better photos...however getting excellent photos every single time is another story. There are subtleties within subtleties within subtleties about bird photography that you learn when Art starts critiquing your work (which is something I do, over on BPN.) You start learning how nuanced getting every single aspect of a bird photo, from lighting and composition down to head angle and eye pointing and everything else.


I'm a decent photographer, and one of those "millions" of other photographers out there who don't very often have the opportunities that Art has. I know for a fact, though that even if I had them, I'd be missing a LOT of the subtleties.


----------



## 2n10 (Oct 22, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> jvhigbee said:
> 
> 
> > I thought this forum was about equipment not personalities! I appreciate the photos to look at as PART of my evaluation of the 7DII.
> ...



So true, but not just this forum. I see on other forums that I frequent and even on ones that I make a quick visit while doing research. The anonymity afforded by the internet has greatly eroded the civility that we would normally use if meeting face to face.


----------



## 2n10 (Oct 22, 2014)

jrista said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > Quasimodo said:
> ...



+1, he has great compositions and looks to his shots even though many are a little on the high key side to my taste. Reading his comments just from the 7D2 posts on his crop and composition choices shows just how much he considers when taking photos.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 22, 2014)

2n10 said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > jvhigbee said:
> ...



I suspect that there are some posters on this forum that don't have a lot of experience with actual people.


----------



## jrista (Oct 22, 2014)

2n10 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Keith_Reeder said:
> ...




Yeah, there is a depth of consideration, for sure. The amazing thing is he seems to consider all those things in seconds or less. He also knows how to rebase his exposure every time he moves the lens or the light changes...and his techniques for doing so are amazing, but remembering to do all those things myself, every time I press the shutter button, is not easy. I still forget to rebase my exposure when pointing from one subject to another, where the lighting has likely changed. That sometimes results in hot or blown highlights that are difficult to recover with good detail. There are thousands of little things, nuances, that you have to think about and get correct, all in the timespan of a bird indicating they are going to do something interesting, pointing the lens, basing then adjusting exposure, and actually taking the shot at the right time such that you get everything right. I cannot think about all those small factors and nail it every time. I don't exactly have a lot of throwaways...however I rarely if ever get a photo I could call "Morris-level quality"...VERY rarely.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 22, 2014)

krisbell said:


> ...I think Artie Morris is in an excellent position to provide insights and valuable comments - but his position as a salesman of Canon products means we should treat what he says with some degree of caution.



It's important to keep such motivations in mind. For example, his recommendation of the 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2xIII over the 100-400L...it doesn't make much sense from an optical, AF, or handling standpoint…but it makes perfect sense from the standpoint of financial gain for Artie Morris.




krisbell said:


> My 2cents regarding the DPP question - I have used it a few times (largely in part due to what Artie Morris, amongst others, have written about it) but cannot find any advantage from an image-editing perspective of DPP over ACR (quite the opposite). The only advantage for my workflow that DPP has over ACR is that it shows you where the focus point on the camera was for each shot.



DPP does have a major, albeit temporary, advantage – if you buy a camera body just after it is released, DPP is the only RAW converter that will handle the files. For me, the wait is a little longer since DxO not only has to update their software to handle the new files, they also have to test all the lenses in combination with the new body to generate their lens plus camera specific modules.

Displaying the selected AF point(s) is not unique to DPP. I use Aperture for library management, and it also displays the selected AF point(s).


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 22, 2014)

Funny how this thread has become all about Arthur Morris, with a little DPP thrown in. What was the title?


----------



## Old Sarge (Oct 22, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> krisbell said:
> 
> 
> > ...I think Artie Morris is in an excellent position to provide insights and valuable comments - but his position as a salesman of Canon products means we should treat what he says with some degree of caution.
> ...


I must be having a major comprehension problem today. Why does it make "perfect sense from the standpoint of financial gain for Artie Morris"? What am I missing here? Is it because the combo (70-200+2xIII) makes Canon more profit allowing them to keep Mr. Morris employed?


----------



## Vern (Oct 22, 2014)

YuengLinger said:


> Funny how this thread has become all about Arthur Morris, with a little DPP thrown in. What was the title?


+1, I was actually hoping for a little discussion of his results with the 7D MKII from some well-informed members of the forum.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 22, 2014)

YuengLinger said:


> Funny how this thread has become all about Arthur Morris, with a little DPP thrown in. What was the title?



Given that Arthur Morris is referenced in the title of the thread, and DPP is the only raw converter that works with 7D Mark II files, I'm not sure there has even been a significant digression…


----------



## 2n10 (Oct 22, 2014)

jrista said:


> 2n10 said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



I have the same issues you do. Half the time I am just happy to get a recognizable shot. :-[


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 22, 2014)

jrista said:


> 2n10 said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...


+1
For me, I get lucky.... for Morris, since every shot can't be getting lucky, there must be a skill involved far beyond my abilities.


----------



## Roger Doughty (Oct 22, 2014)

I find the "Arti" bashing not only irrelevant to the topic but profoundly disappointing and a disservice to the photography community as a whole. I have spent untold hours implementing both his "free" advice and gladly purchasing his fee based literature. My pictures by any objective measure are light years ahead of where I would be without his help. I for one am grateful for his hard earned and generally freely shared expertise.

He doesn't know me. I have never had the opportunity to take one of his classes. But I gladly make my purchases through him knowing that if enough of us don't support him he can continue making a living and blessing our lives by doing what he loves.

I can only hope he doesn't read this thread.


----------



## jrista (Oct 23, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> krisbell said:
> 
> 
> > ...I think Artie Morris is in an excellent position to provide insights and valuable comments - but his position as a salesman of Canon products means we should treat what he says with some degree of caution.
> ...





There are plenty of reasons to recommend the 70-200+2x combo over the 100-400L, and making an extra buck off Canon isn't the best, not even remotely. For one, it's more versatile, especially in poorer light (you can pop off the TC and creep up closer, if needed, with an f/2.8 lens instead of being stuck at, AT BEST, f/4.5 @ 100mm). 


There is also the whole design aspect. A lot of people, and I would even go so far as to say a majority of people, don't like the 100-400L push/pull design. I personally like it, but it is an oddity overall. I believe lot of people prefer the classic dual ring design, one to focus one to zoom. That alone is probably more than enough reason for Art to recommend the 70-200+2x combo over the 100-400L. 


There is minimal to no loss in IQ between the two options. The 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II is a newer lens design, with better IS functional up to -4 stops, vs. the 100-400mm design IS which is at best functional at -2 stops. The MFD of the 70-200 is much closer (47.2" vs. 70.9") than the 100-400mm. 


The 70-200mm focal length, especially with the fast max aperture, also makes it a much more versatile general purpose lens than the 100-400mm. You don't see many wedding photographers using the 100-400 (if any), however the 70-200's are a staple. The 70-200 with TCs can nicely round off a kit that is comprised of a fairly minimal set of lenses. Many photographers could get away with nothing other than the 16-35mm, 24-70mm & 70-200mm, or maybe some alternative with a couple wide primes.


The only real major drawback of the 70-200 f/2.8 L II with TCs vs. the 100-400mm is weight. The latter is quite a bit lighter weight than the former (without the TC). Overall, however, the 70-200 is a vastly superior lens. I see absolutely no reason why Art would recommend the 70-200 just to pad his own pockets. He doesn't strike me as that kind of individual...and his reputation is probably one of the most valuable things he has. I don't see him destroying that to make an extra buck from Canon by pushing a more expensive lens. I don't think expense has anything to do with it...I think the simple fact that the 70-200/2.8 II is a better lens period, even with the 2x TC, is the reason he pushes it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 23, 2014)

Perhaps I'm being too cynical, but having owned and used both options, while the 70-200 II is excellent and versatile, the 100-400L was a much better option for bird photography IMO.


----------



## eninja (Oct 23, 2014)

2n10 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > 2n10 said:
> ...



Happy to hear, that photography still about skills. I wonder lately, if just anyone can get the exposure right every time (with regards to covering an event). If yes, I may just forget doing part time taking photo.

I was scolding myself, when I shoot group photos and I forgot to increase aperture value, or my ISO was more than enough, since I want to nail ETTR. Or forgot to increase shutter speed, when its dancing time. Jeez this is basic..

But good the focus still there.


----------

