More help please

[rapidfire]

I have a EOS 7D which on the whole I am very pleased with but I am intrigued when people refer to the 'low noise' or 'grain' you get at high ISO because I jumped to the 7D from a
450D and unless I've bought a duff camera or am doing something wrong it is pretty grainy all the way up the ISO and certainly noticeable when viewing photos at their maximum size as taken !
I had to send the first 7D I bought back to Warehouse Express as it was faulty and the power kept cutting out but these things happen and they exchanged it for me without a problem.
With all this talk of grain/noise free pictures I am starting to wonder if I havn't got another bad one.
What do you reckon?

[chris-p]

I would suggest you post a couple of examples...

[rapidfire]

Hi Chris.
Thanks for the quick response and good point. I will sort an example or two of what I mean if I can.
- Very nice pictures you've taken sir! I have a long way to go I see.

[rapidfire]

Actually Chris, thinking about it I do have two or three shots under Rapifire in the gallery section which may give some idea ?
Cheers for help
John / rapidfire
P/S they have not been Photoshopped much as that is something else I am learning at present!

[chris-p]

I've had a quick look at the shots in your gallery and they don't look particularly noisy to me.

Most of the technical issues in any of your shots are mainly from the 18-270 lens which isn't particularly sharp. I'd suggest that a better 70-300mm zoom would help a lot (the AF will probably be better as well). It's also difficult to tell without seeing the shots at 100%.

[rapidfire]

Many thanks Chris. I have to say that is a relief.
What about the prime f2.8 300mm Canon L series I am toying with and pretty much decided on please - any thoughts on that although I realise you are a Nikon man yourself.
Cheers
John

[chris-p]

I've never used one (or the Nikon equivalent). Results should be excellent from that sort of lens, but you certainly pay for it.

Depends on what other lenses you've got and how much money you have/want to spend!

[rapidfire]

I have the Tamron 18 - 270 and the Sigma 150 - 500 APO both of which where rated highly by Photoplus magazine which is what prompted me to buy them.
I must admit that the L series lenses are expensive as you say but this is now my main hobby being quicker than painting which is what I used to do and just as frustrating!
Please correct me if I am wrong but I would think that you very much get what you pay for in the lens department so I don't mind paying if it will improve my shots because then I will know the poor result is down to me and not the equipment.
As I am looking towards retiring in the next 5 years hopefully and assuming I am lucky enough to see some retirement I would like to have the kit and the experience of using it to make the most of what free time I may be given which is why I appreciate the help of the likes of your good self.
John

[chris-p]

You do get what you pay for but, as with most things, I think there are some caveats.

The questions you have to ask yourself are "what am I paying for?" and then, most importantly, "what don't I get for my money?". Take the Tamron 18-270 as an example. It costs around £420 (I think off the top of my head) you get the flexibility of a "cover all bases in one package" lens. What you don't get is absolute top end image quality. When you read a review in a magazine you have to consider what they're rating the lens on and what they're comparing it to.

If you apply the same logic to the 300mm f/2.8 then you're paying for the best build quality, finest optical layout and medium/fast aperture that Canon can offer you. What you don't get is (rather obviously) a focal length range, portability and flexibility.

The question of whether a lens like this would improve your shots is impossible to answer. I understand the logic of having the best kit meaning that it must be the photographers error but many would say that, if thats the case, why not learn to better use what you've already got.

When it comes to cost, thats a very personal thing. Only you can answer whether it's worth your money. You could always rent one for a while and see...

[OldBoy]

Originally Posted by rapidfire

Many thanks Chris. I have to say that is a relief.
What about the prime f2.8 300mm Canon L series I am toying with and pretty much decided on please - any thoughts on that although I realise you are a Nikon man yourself.
Cheers
John

That lens costs almost £4,000 and it's usually used for wildlife, but you don't say what you want to photograph? I use Nikon kit myself so can't comment on Canon lenses directly, but you may be better off getting the Canon 300mm F4, as I use the Nikon version but both don't have IS/VR. This would leave you enough money to buy a Canon 24-70mm F2.8 plus the 70-200mm F2.8 IS and a 1.4 extender. With this range you would cover everything you might wish to photograph.