April 19, 2014, 01:21:34 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - neuroanatomist

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 843
1
Software & Accessories / Re: Chuck a 5dmk iii in a rucksack
« on: April 18, 2014, 08:33:03 PM »
What about the LensCoat BodyBag - it says it fits the 5DIII and they have ones that cover the lens (regular or telephoto, too, and ones that cover the body with any lens.  See here


I have a couple of the Pro versions for my 1D X, one for the body only (works with the 40/2.8 'body cap'), and one standard zoom for body with 24-70 II.  They work well.

2
Software & Accessories / Re: The best tripod ...
« on: April 18, 2014, 08:21:47 PM »
I'm in the same boat. I want a new tripod to hold the gear I'm using but I seems to not be able to find the balance between lightweight and holding capacity and price. Although all of these combined usually equal expensive.

Stable. Lightweight. Inexpensive. You can have up to two of those characteristics in a tripod, but not all three. 

3
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Calumet Store Closing Sale
« on: April 18, 2014, 06:27:16 PM »
The guy is losing his job anyway... the least he could do is throw you a bone.

The first guy is...the 'manager' is employed by the holding company that's doing the asset liquidation. 

4
To clarify, "Best at FL+aperture" refers to the Lens Score, which is based primarily on 'performance in 150 lux illumination' (like a dimly lit warehouse).  The Lens Score is only secondarily influenced by the optical metrics (sharpness, CA, etc.), despite those metrics being listed under the Score. That's why almost all lenses are 'best' wide open, even though the optical metrics are rarely highest at max aperture.

Consider that the Sigma 50/1.4 A is not 'best at 50mm f/1.4', but at f/2.  Since giving up a full stop of light is obviously not better for 'performance in 150 lux' that suggests that one or more of the secondary factors measured for the Sigma 50/1.4 A at f/1.4 were sufficiently bad to counteract the loss of a stop of light.  Or it could be that DxO just screwed up their testing, it certainly wouldn't be the first time.

5
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Calumet Store Closing Sale
« on: April 18, 2014, 04:12:43 PM »
I can confirm that the Calumet store in Cambridge, MA is officially open for (going out of) business.
Were there decent prices on gear or was it like the early days of circuit city going out of business and everything is 8% off today, 9 percent off tomorrow and so forth and so on.

Discounts were 20% or higher on most stuff, the issue was selection.  They had few Canon lenses and bodies, lots of Tamrac bags but only three Think Tank and one Kata.  If you want 3rd party batteries, Promaster UV filters, and off-brand lens caps, you're in luck.  Lots of PocketWizard stuff, too. 

I picked up a couple of Honl snoots/gobos and a roll of white seamless paper.  There was a 300/2.8 II in the Rentals window, I inquired about it and was told $3600 (!!!), I pulled out a credit card immediately, but the guy needed to check with the manager if that was a MkI or MkII price, and the manager said none of the rental stuff was for sale. 

6
Canon General / Re: "MAP" pricing....How long will it last????
« on: April 18, 2014, 08:19:32 AM »
I think I understand why they try to enforce MAP pricing. They are trying to protect their dealer network; not necessarily the large retailers, but the smaller shops that can't compete on volume and can't stay in business on the small margins that internet dealers accept.


...MAP pricing does not affect the manufacturer's price to the retailer. When Canon or Nikon or Sony enforce MAP pricing, they aren't earning any additional profit, the higher margin goes to the retailer. They continue to sell the product to the retailer at the price they've always sold it.

I don't think Canon really cares about a 'dealer network' including smaller shops.  According to the owner of a local store (not a chain) I was talking to a bit over a year ago, in addition to Canon's MAP policy, they also cut margins (i.e., raised wholesale prices), adding back via 'discounts' for volume and for pre-payment, both of which are hard for an independent shop to meet, but benefit large online retailers.

He said that was pretty much the last straw for him. In fact, that was what brought me in. He was liquidating much of his photo gear and shutting down his print lab, leaving just the broadcast side of his business - essentially B2B with no effort on the consumer end. He said he'd still sell Canon video-oriented dSLR gear (5DIII and up, fast lenses), and he's not expecting a significant profit from those sales. 

7
Lenses / Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« on: April 18, 2014, 06:51:39 AM »
The dreamy effect can be approximated with post-processing effects...but it's never quite the same. This is a fairly specific effect, one that must be done with optics to get the full effect in all it's aesthetic glory.

Maybe an analogy to another set of effects – use of a polarizing filter – that can be partially but never fully replicated in post-processing, and that require optics to achieve, would help? 

No, probably not.  ::)

8
EOS-M / Re: How do you carry your EOS-M?
« on: April 17, 2014, 10:09:39 PM »
My ER-E1 was under $30. (¥2900) bought on amazon.jp - is it really $50 in the US? Seems a bit steep. Usually stuff over there is cheaper.

It's not available from retailers in North America, has to be bought from HK (e.g., DigitalRev) or the UK.

9
Lighting / Re: Cobra flash (edit:speedlite) softboxes for portraits
« on: April 17, 2014, 10:06:57 PM »
@PBD, do you have any luck optically triggering flashes inside an Apollo-type softbox?

10

Not that it will help the 50L much, but you might want to report the data for the two lenses tested on the same camera, instead of different cameras.  Either drop the Sigma to 18 P-Mpix for the 1DsIII, or raise the 50L to 16 P-Mpix for the 5DIII.  Or just leave it alone if you'd prefer to artificially bias the data in favor of the point you're making.

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Fixed

You'd think DxO could code the site so the same camera was selected by default.  But no...

11
Lighting / Re: Cobra flash (edit:speedlite) softboxes for portraits
« on: April 17, 2014, 09:40:31 PM »
Many softboxes have an internal diffusion panel.   The size limit I suggested was less about even filling, more about not having enough power with a single hotshoe flash in a large modifier.

You can use a larger umbrella than a softbox, but softboxes control spill better, so a larger umbrella will put less light on your subject. 

I have a Lastolite 12x48" Hot Rod Stripbox, $160 and works great.  When looking at softboxes (including stripboxes), be aware that many require a speed ring / adapter to be bought separately, and an umbrella swivel if you want to mount it at an angle on the light stand.  The Lastolite one comes with the hotshoe flash mount and a swivel.

12
Compared to the 50/1.2L

NameCanon 50/1.2LSigma 50/1.4A
Sharpness1421
Transmission1.4TStop1.7TStop
Distortion0.4%0.1%
Vignetting-2.4EV-1.5EV
Chr Aberration20µm6µm

Not that it will help the 50L much, but you might want to report the data for the two lenses tested on the same camera, instead of different cameras.  Either drop the Sigma to 18 P-Mpix for the 1DsIII, or raise the 50L to 16 P-Mpix for the 5DIII.  Or just leave it alone if you'd prefer to artificially bias the data in favor of the point you're making.

13
Lighting / Re: Cobra flash softboxes for portraits
« on: April 17, 2014, 08:59:51 PM »
"Cobra flash" is not a term in common use in the English language, the reference (in the topic title) may have confused people?

Regardless...to your questions:

1) Probably not, at least not with soft light.  A Speedlite-sized softbox (see #3) would need to be relatively far away to light a full body portrait.  Closer and larger = softer light.  A head shot, at most a torso, would be fine.

2) Fine for fill, light doesn't need to be as soft.

3) I'd say 600 sq in or smaller, so up to a 24x24" softbox, a 30" octabox, or a 12x48" stripbox would work (and actually, that last one might do ok for a full body portrait, placed close to the subject).

4) Can't answer, sorry...no experience with continuous lighting.

Hope that helps!

14
EOS-M / Re: How do you carry your EOS-M?
« on: April 17, 2014, 08:16:23 PM »
I did see your post and the strap looks nice but for $50 I'd rather spend the money and get the tiny Leica Time strap. Now if we could only convince Luigi to make a half case for the M like he has for the G10 ...


Those are some nice straps!

15
Sure there's noise, but I was making a point about the low light autofocus ability of the center point, to myself (I shot this in January).  The 5D3 and 1DX, would not have autofocused at all in this light.

The image was shot at 1/13 s, f/1.8, ISO 25600.  That equals -2 EV, which is within the AF specification for the 5DIII and 1D X.  So either you're statement highlighted above is wrong, or you are saying that Canon is lying about the specifications for the 5DIII and 1D X.  Which is it?


And of course the bubble level is not razor sharp.  But consider the conditions.  1/13 of a second, at a distance of 4 inches, no image stabilization.  The point is, the bubble level is in the plane of focus.  You can try to deny it, but I'm sorry, it is.

I don't believe that plane of focus passes through the bubble level, although I'll accept that the bubble is within the DoF.  As I'm sure you know, the 'plane of focus' is an infinitely thin plane parallel to the image sensor (ignoring field curvature), and the DoF is the region in front of and behind that plane that remains acceptably sharp, defined by a set of arbitraty criteria.  With your settings the DoF should be 50/50 in front of and behind the focal plane.  Since the index mark behind the bubble is more in focus than the lettering in front of the bubble, the plane of focus is actually behind the bubble, and the DoF extends forward to include the bubble and backward to include the index mark.  That's consistent with the backfocus caused by focus/recompose.

The other point is that the bubble level certainly doesn't appear sharp - nothing in the image really does.  That supports my earlier contention - you are at -2 EV, still within the specification of the 5DIII and 1D X for low light AF, and you are struggling to get a usable image at that light level.  In half as much light, the 6D could still autofocus…but you can't open up your lens another stop, you'd get more camera shake at 1/6 s, or far worse noise at ISO 51200, and basically have an unusable shot (and it's a stretch to call the existing shot usable).  As I stated, the benefit of -3 EV over -2 EV for AF sensitivity is really, really limited in applicability.   


In any case, you have almost no experience with the 6D, thus your contributions to this thread are less valid, than those with more experience with the camera.

What does that say about the validity of your statements regarding the 5DIII and 1D X?  I think we have an answer to that already, given your inaccurate claim above.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 843