Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Opinion On Image Quality (7D + 100-400L)  
User currently offlinejpmagero From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 176 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 9421 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi - I've been using the above setup (Canon 7D + 100-400L) setup for about a year now and have been quite pleased with the results in terms of basic photography (online/prints). Since trying to get shots prepped for databases such as this one, I've been struggling to get sharp images however, and have generally put it down to my technique / user error so have been trying different things on my own.

I'd mostly been shooting JPG, but now when trying out some RAW images and looking at them 1:1, I see a lot of noise in the image. I've heard that the 7D is generally noisy, but I would have thought that at ISO-100, shooting into a bright sky, I shouldn't see any noise, effectively. To my eye, this is the level of noise I'd expect going past 800 or so, not at 100.

Is that realistic and there is perhaps a defect in my sensor or body+lens combo or settings for that matter? Or I am expecting too much and this is either a) as good as it gets with this combo or b) poor technique and/or setup and I just need to "get better"? Thanks for the feedback. I would greatly appreciate some examples in the replies to compare to my samples below, if it wouldn't be too much trouble. Thanks in advance.

Samples (exif info in screen shot) - let me know if any more info is needed to properly respond. Images are 100% crop screen grabs from Lightroom with no adjustments at all. They were taken between aprox 6-7 PM, fairly brightly lit.






John M - Aussie expat in the US
23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineaussie18 From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 1757 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 9410 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Hi John,

I have been using the same set up for around the last 4 months,Ive found the quality with images are alot better than previous 40D canon body which I should've expected,I have noticed in some images even at around ISO160 that there is abit noise showing but I dont see it as a big issue as there are ways to fix this in photoshop and other editing programs.

I always shoot in JPEG and have taken some RAW images but havn't edited any of them.
Few shots taken with 7D,100-400L


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mark H

ISO 200/F8and only small amount of USM added.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mark H

ISO 160/F8

Cheers Mark


User currently offlinejpmagero From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 176 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 9408 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Thanks...I usually shoot in JPG too, and recently tried to see if going RAW first would help, and all I saw was all this noise to get rid of   .

I guess the downsizing from 18 MPX to less than 1, it could be argued that if not a lot of cropping is required, there should be enough detail in the jpg to work with. There are always exceptions of course.



John M - Aussie expat in the US
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10332 posts, RR: 26
Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 9396 times:

Quoting jpmagero (Reply 2):
Thanks...I usually shoot in JPG too, and recently tried to see if going RAW first would help, and all I saw was all this noise to get rid of

Well that makes sense, as RAW is the image without any processing.

Anyway, regarding your initial questions:

The amount of noise in the images doesn't look awful. A bit of NR on the RAW file ought to take care of most of it. But the airplanes in those 5 photos all look underexposed, which will create more noise, especially in a livery like Southwest's. ISO100 doesn't do much good if it makes you inadvertently underexpose. I'd take 200 and a good exposure over 100 and dark any day.

The other major thing I noticed is that the photos look pretty soft. This will make you have to use more sharpening (even on a resized image), which will exacerbate whatever noise there is. I'm guessing the softness is in large part caused by shooting pretty wide open (all the apertures are between 4 and 5.6). I haven't used a 100-400, but I've certainly heard that you need to stop down to get sharp results (and that tends to hold true for other lenses as well, though maybe not as much). Again, shooting at ISO100 is not helping you here. In good afternoon light, I tend to shoot at ISO200, F8, and 1/500 - 1/1000.



How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently offlinejpmagero From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 176 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 9392 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Thanks...I just realized that in order to compare results between two lenses, I ended up showing examples from the 70-200 lens rather than the 100-400...


John M - Aussie expat in the US
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4858 posts, RR: 25
Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 9385 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 7D is in fact quite noisy. I consider ISO 100 - 400 to be identical with regard to visible noise on a bright sunny day. Oddly enough, it's usually more visibile in bright blue skies. I shoot in RAW and my first step in post processing is to reduce some noise using Adobe Camera Raw (or Lightroom) on all photos I plan to upload here.

The 100-400 is tricky. Air quality and temp (heat haze) plays a huge role in quality and sharpness. Distance from the subject, amount of cropping, and aperture are important factors. I know many here will disagree, but when using this lens I boost in-camera sharpening all the way up to 7.

Some examples... 7D + 100-400L

ISO 800 f/8

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ryan Pastorino



ISO 200 f/8

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ryan Pastorino



[Edited 2012-07-29 19:49:46]


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineJRowson From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 359 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 9319 times:

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 5):
The 7D is in fact quite noisy. I consider ISO 100 - 400 to be identical with regard to visible noise on a bright sunny day. Oddly enough, it's usually more visibile in bright blue skies. I shoot in RAW and my first step in post processing is to reduce some noise using Adobe Camera Raw (or Lightroom) on all photos I plan to upload here.

This is something I agree with. I was really struggling with noise on my 7D when shooting jpg. Blue skies at iso 100 were ending up very noisy and a cause for rejection. I never used to shoot RAW but have taken the plunge now and the results are interesting. I now shoot raw, overexpose a little more than I used to. I then use the noise reduction in ACR, and only a little but the noise reduction is quite significant compared to jpg shooting. I also see less banding than I did when I was shooting jpg. I find using the noise reduction in ACR to be a much more acceptable result than say using noise ninja in photoshop itself.



James Rowson. Canonite and lover of all things L. JAR Photography.
User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 767 posts, RR: 16
Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 9311 times:

I agree that the 7D is disappointingly noisy in the blue channel (though all things are relative - I'm comparing to the 5D and 1D). Had the 7D not been outstanding in other respects, I would have given up on it! However its such a useful camera that I've perservered with it, and have found that

a) it is extremely intolerant of any under-exposure ... there is simply no room for error in the shadows (unlike, say, the 5D) so exposure need to adjusted accordingly.

b) the blue channel noise is probably partly due to the pixel density which just has to be lived with. However a very small amount of noise reduction applied in ACR does help a lot.

As to sharpness - well based on the Exif data you supply, I think those pics look a bit soft for that lens. It could be technique (these are crops - do they include the point of focus?) If you are using all focus points, the camera may not be focusing where you think it is! It could also be that the lens is front or back focusing slightly - it is worth doing some focus tests with the lens in controlled conditions and seeing if you need to use the mirco-adjust facility on the 7D. I had a similar sharpness issue with my 500 - a microadjustment was the solution.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlinejpmagero From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 176 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 9291 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ckw (Reply 7):
do they include the point of focus

no, these are mostly outside the focus point.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 3):
the photos look pretty soft
Quoting ckw (Reply 7):
those pics look a bit soft for that lens...seeing if you need to use the mirco-adjust facility on the 7D

good point...I agree and will do some controlled tests with this body and some of the lenses I use often to see if the focus needs adjustment. I tried taking off all in-camera sharpening/contrast, etc as that seemed to "enhance" the noise in jpg mode, and a result was that all images looked soft and washed out. Depending on the shot, I'll add it back in some, but seems to be NR works better with out it, but as Ryan mentioned above, he sharpens all the way up to 7 with good results so further testing/adjustment needed there.

I realize those shots are mostly underexposed, the reason I left it at ISO-100 was to show the high level of noise in what was a bright sky. I thought that at such a low ISO, there should be next to no visible noise, but it seems like that's not the case.

Thanks!



John M - Aussie expat in the US
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10332 posts, RR: 26
Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 9256 times:

Quoting ckw (Reply 7):
a) it is extremely intolerant of any under-exposure ... there is simply no room for error in the shadows (unlike, say, the 5D) so exposure need to adjusted accordingly.

I find the same on my 50D. Although it's cleaner at ISO100 and 200 than my 1000D was (with proper exposure), it gets a whole lot noisier fast if you underexpose.

Quoting ckw (Reply 7):
I had a similar sharpness issue with my 500 - a microadjustment was the solution.

I also used the microadjust function on my 50D with my 70-200, as sharpness was a bit lacking when I first got the camera. Seemed to solve the issue.

Quoting jpmagero (Reply 8):
I realize those shots are mostly underexposed, the reason I left it at ISO-100 was to show the high level of noise in what was a bright sky. I thought that at such a low ISO, there should be next to no visible noise, but it seems like that's not the case.

Understood, just be aware that more noise will be visible in an underexposed image.



How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 767 posts, RR: 16
Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 9204 times:

Quoting jpmagero (Reply 8):
I realize those shots are mostly underexposed, the reason I left it at ISO-100 was to show the high level of noise in what was a bright sky. I thought that at such a low ISO, there should be next to no visible noise, but it seems like that's not the case.

As I understand it, there is no 'fixed' level of noise associated with a given ISO setting. Visible 'noise' is a result of the strength of the input signal in relation to the electronic noise caused by camera operation. If you underexpose at any ISO, noise will increase because the input signal is that bit weaker allowing the camera noise to become more visible.

Of course noise does increase with ISO as well due to the input signal being amplified. However it is quite possible for an underexposed image at 100 ISO to show as much noise as a correctly exposed image at 400 ISO.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlinejpmagero From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 176 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 9109 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ckw (Reply 10):
If you underexpose at any ISO, noise will increase because the input signal is that bit weaker allowing the camera noise to become more visible.

I see...I had thought (apparently incorrectly) that at a low enough ISO, there would be no noise. If the image was underexposed, it would simply be dark, not noisy, and that the noise would appear if I increased the exposure in post.

The images were taken in the early evening before sunset with a lot of direct sun-light, but I know that's not the brightest light, so will try some more at high-noon and see how those come out.



John M - Aussie expat in the US
User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 767 posts, RR: 16
Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 9098 times:

Quoting jpmagero (Reply 11):
at a low enough ISO, there would be no noise

No, there is always noise - just the heat of the camera internals can create some noise.

Quoting jpmagero (Reply 11):
noise would appear if I increased the exposure in post

you are not wrong here - increasing the exposure will increase both the image data AND any noise. The only error you made is assuming that there is no noise at base ISO.

If it helps, think about audio - the same signal to noise rules apply - if you record a source with low levels, any noise generated by the recording system (hum, tape hiss etc.) becomes much more audible. Record at high levels, and the noise is effectively masked. Of course in both sound and vision, there is a limit to how high a level the recording medium can handle. In both cases, setting the optimum levels (exposure) is the key to the best possible quality.

Back to the original point - noise on the 7D - the problem is that the "recording system" seems to be inherently noisier than some cameras at low ISO - I think it is due to more densily packed pixel sites. However, relative to older cameras, I think noise performance improves at 800ISO and above, which I suspect is due to improvements in how the internal firmware handles noise when the input signal is amplified (or maybe the amplification process is cleaner).

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlinejpmagero From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 176 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 9090 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Mark,

Quoting aussie18 (Reply 1):
I always shoot in JPEG and have taken some RAW images but havn't edited any of them.

Do you apply any in camera sharpening, or contrast correction with those shots? Or do you leave it all for post?



John M - Aussie expat in the US
User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2934 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 9079 times:

Quoting jpmagero (Reply 13):
Do you apply any in camera sharpening, or contrast correction with those shots? Or do you leave it all for post?

On the 50D, I played around with in camera sharpening but quickly came to the conclusion it's better leaving things neutral and doing everything in post.

Darren



Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlinejosuek6 From Costa Rica, joined Oct 2006, 12 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 9074 times:

Hello,

I've been using my 7D + 100-400 for more than a year now and personally I have no complaints. It is an excellent camera and paired with an L lens is just wonderful. The camera does have a different learning curve than others, at least in my opinion. I only shoot RAW as the control you have when editing your pictures is by far bigger than with JPG files.

As many have mentioned, the camera does have a bit of noise in low ISO's but I've found this not to be a problem when applying Noise Reduction in Camera RAW. When sharpening images in Photoshop, I usually do a "selective sharpen" leaving the sky or other background elements untouched so that only the main subject is sharpened. I've found this to be really helpful in reducing the amount of noise in my images.

I have noticed that your sample images are a bit soft, most likely they are a bit out of focus. For aviation photography, I shoot using AI SERVO and using 4 center autofocus points and found this to be the perfect match for my shooting style. I've noticed that using all autofocus points for aviation photography might lead to out of focus pictures, so I always avoid this. Also, I generally shoot between f/6.3 and f/8. In case I need to go lower than f/6.3, I prefer boosting the ISO and removing the extra noise later in Photoshop. The lens is great, but below f/6.3 it gets a bit soft in corners so I try to avoid that.

Here you can find some pictures I've taken with the 7D + 100-400 combo:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Josué Saavedra


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Josué Saavedra


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Josué Saavedra



Cheers, Josué.


User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4858 posts, RR: 25
Reply 16, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 9070 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ckw (Reply 12):
I think noise performance improves at 800ISO and above, which I suspect is due to improvements in how the internal firmware handles noise when the input signal is amplified (or maybe the amplification process is cleaner).

I agree.

Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 14):
On the 50D, I played around with in camera sharpening but quickly came to the conclusion it's better leaving things neutral and doing everything in post.

When dealing with a somewhat soft lens lens, in camera sharpening helps get that original crisp and sharp. Back to my comment above, I turn in camera sharpening to 7 when using the 100-400 but that is mostly for preview purposes on the LCD. I shoot in RAW and in addition to noise reduction in my first step of post processing, I also adjust sharpness in that same ACR tab. This is all done to the original to get a crisp clean "tack sharp" image before sending it to PS. I use USM at the end only to the resized photo.

Quoting josuek6 (Reply 15):
I generally shoot between f/6.3 and f/8. In case I need to go lower than f/6.3, I prefer boosting the ISO and removing the extra noise later in Photoshop. The lens is great, but below f/6.3 it gets a bit soft in corners so I try to avoid that.

Interesting. With that lens I can't shoot aviation at f/6.3 unless I'm extremely close and doing a tight composition. I generally have to be at or above f/8 for best results.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlinejpmagero From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 176 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 9038 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

All - thanks heaps for the replies and advice.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 9):
I also used the microadjust function

I tried this and after some tests, found that my 100-400L needed a +13 adjustment. Not sure if it was always that bad and I just never noticed, or if this is something that changes over time. Either way, the results with that adjustment are noticeable in the LCD, and I'll soon post a couple examples from earlier this evening once I download.

Quoting josuek6 (Reply 15):
I shoot using AI SERVO and using 4 center autofocus points

I was using the single center focus point, but tried this and the results seem pretty good. Will post results soon. Cheers.



John M - Aussie expat in the US
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10332 posts, RR: 26
Reply 18, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 9037 times:

Quoting jpmagero (Reply 11):
The images were taken in the early evening before sunset with a lot of direct sun-light, but I know that's not the brightest light, so will try some more at high-noon and see how those come out.

It's not the brightest, but it's much better light than midday! Better colors, much less harsh.

There's no reason you can't get a bright enough exposure in the late afternoon/evening. I'd say use ISO200, a narrower aperture, and post some new images. I doubt there's a whole lot of difference noise-wise between 100 and 200.

Quoting jpmagero (Reply 17):
I tried this and after some tests, found that my 100-400L needed a +13 adjustment. Not sure if it was always that bad and I just never noticed, or if this is something that changes over time. Either way, the results with that adjustment are noticeable in the LCD, and I'll soon post a couple examples from earlier this evening once I download.

Can certainly change over time.

Quoting jpmagero (Reply 17):

I was using the single center focus point, but tried this and the results seem pretty good. Will post results soon. Cheers.

I've always used the center point only. It is a hindrance sometimes, but haven't fooled around with different settings yet.



How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 767 posts, RR: 16
Reply 19, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 9015 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 18):
I doubt there's a whole lot of difference noise-wise between 100 and 200

Sadly I think there is in the case of the 7D - which is unfortunate because I'm find the extended highlight function available on some cameras (including the 7D) quite useful. However this is only available at ISO 200 and higher.

Don't get me wrong - I think the 7D is a great camera - so good that when I had to choose between trading in a 1D3 or the 7D to get a 5D3, I opted to trade in the 1D3. Bottom line was that in most situations, the 7D was simply more likely to get the picture I wanted than the 1D3. The tradeoff is a little more work in post to get the image up to (my) standard.

Ultimately all cameras make compromises, and in the case of the 7D its pixel count over image quality. Personally, on the crop sensor, I would have preferred 12mp instead of 18mp, but I'm probably in the minority.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlinescopedude From Indonesia, joined Oct 2010, 53 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 8955 times:

I use 60D which has similar sensor to 7D. IMO, the highlight DR is also not very good, so I have to turn on HTP (highlight tone priority) which makes ISO200 the lowest. As expected, the noise is also more visible (either due to HTP or ISO200). BUT - with sharp lenses like 70-200 series or 70-300L, I could use less USM (USM also sharpens the noise, btw) and usually in ACR I only need to adjust the NR to 25. It won't remove the noise completely but enough if the image resized to 2000 px wide or less.

I'm thinking of getting the new 5D3, because even 5D2 exhibits quite some noise in the shadow - not much better than my 60D.

I had a D7000 for a brief period, and I'm impressed by the DR and noise of this camera. It's APS, but needs much less NR. problem is I still prefer the overall image from my 60D  



5D2, 650D, 70-200/4 IS, 70-300 L, 135 L
User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 767 posts, RR: 16
Reply 21, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 8926 times:

Quoting scopedude (Reply 20):
I'm thinking of getting the new 5D3, because even 5D2 exhibits quite some noise in the shadow

The 5D3 is an amazing camera, and there are many reasons for getting one, but in terms of image quality its not a huge leap from the 5D2 ... maybe 1/2 to 1 stop noise improvement in RAW. Shadow noise is still there if you need to pull shadow detail from the image in post. It is a bit better, but nothing like what can be acheived with the Nikon 800.

I look at the 5D3 as a 5D2 that just works really well!

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4858 posts, RR: 25
Reply 22, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 8923 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ckw (Reply 21):
The 5D3 is an amazing camera, and there are many reasons for getting one, but in terms of image quality its not a huge leap from the 5D2

Since image quality is most important to me with my desire to upgrade to full frame, that is the reason why I chose to go with the 5D2 right now instead of the 5D3. I keep hearing IQ that much better than the 5D2. It just means I need to keep my 7D around for speed, but having a second body is never a bad thing anyway!

And I've always felt the 5D2's ability to pull detail out of shadows is ridonkulous. Especially compared to the 7D...

[Edited 2012-08-02 02:49:18]


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 767 posts, RR: 16
Reply 23, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 8914 times:

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 22):
Since image quality is most important to me with my desire to upgrade to full frame, that is the reason why I chose to go with the 5D2 right now instead of the 5D3

Which makes perfect sense - I figure you're getting pretty much the same image for a much lower price tag ... though I think at very high ISO you do begin to see a greater difference with the 5D3.

Basically the money for the 5D3 goes in to the "shell surrounding the sensor" - no question, its the best package you can get from a Canon short of a 1Dx - you're paying more for the ability to capture the image rather than the image quality. Depending on how you intend to use the camera, this may or may not be worth the extra - there are plenty who have opted not to upgrade ... some waiting (hoping) for a high MP (40mp) 5D.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Opinion On Image posted Sun Apr 16 2006 20:30:13 by LukasMako
On The Market For A 100-400L? posted Sun Apr 24 2005 00:37:39 by DLKAPA
Canon 7d OOC Image Quality posted Tue Apr 10 2012 07:46:11 by talylyn
Update To "Tips On Buying A 100-400L" posted Sat Jan 28 2012 22:13:21 by atomother
Tips On Buying A 100-400L posted Fri Dec 30 2011 22:01:51 by atomother
Canon 7D +100-400 AF Problem posted Tue Jun 19 2012 17:42:52 by tom3
60D+ 100-400L posted Thu Nov 3 2011 08:27:55 by LH234
Advice On Image Capture Technique posted Wed Dec 8 2010 08:32:13 by andre323i
Canon 100-400L Assistance Please. posted Wed Oct 6 2010 04:40:38 by JakTrax
1DMK3 AF Settings (100-400L) posted Sat Sep 11 2010 12:24:58 by samuel32