July 28, 2014, 09:53:43 PM

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 ... 896
1
Next is the 400mm but I can only get to about 60'. Will that be good? It is certainly beween the 25x and 50x (45.72x).

That will be fine.

2
How far is the camera from the target at each FL?

3
EOS Bodies / Re: One other hoped-for feature on the 7D2
« on: Today at 06:46:45 PM »
This is kinda schisophrenic, to put some of settings in manual mode to auto mode, and then still with manual mode wanting other settings to compensate for this mixture. You really don´t know what you want, right?
You can do what you want in AV or TV modes. With manual, you are in charge, you have nothing to compensate, and if they allowed some glitch or stupid customers request of auto ISO at manual mode, than it will be everything messed up.

Couldn't disagree more.  M mode with Auto ISO is like aperture and shutter priority.  I select the DoF I need and the necessary shutter speed to stop (or show) motion, and I get a metered exposure in rapidly changing light.  Being able to apply EC to bias the metering is plus.

4
Also, WB is only one part of the WB control, Tint is the other.

When I shoot tethered I can do an in camera custom WB and it looks good, if I then go into DPP whilst tethered I can re WB that image with the additional Tint control and it shifts, sometimes quite a lot.

But the tint issue in AWB is one I never really did get my head around, if WB just does blue to yellow, then tint, with green to magenta, is every bit as important, particularly for things like stadium gas lights and fluorescent lamps and the multitude of colours they now come in.

Yes, tint is important.  The in-camera Auto WB applies both a color temperature and a tint value.  For example, an image open in DxO on my desktop right now and taken in mixed lighting (tungsten with daylight from a large window) shows As Shot values of 4298 K for the temperature and –27 for the tint (a bit green-shifted, the slider runs from –100 green to +100 magenta).

As far as I can tell, Canon's DPP doesn't show the tint value for RAW images or allow you to edit it...but it's recorded as part of the AWB saved in the RAW metadata.  RAW converters that are more functional than DPP allow you to view and adjust the tint as well as the color temperature.  Just one more reason I don't like DPP...

5
I know WB is supposed to give you "true", even valued, white black and gray tones, but there is no doubt that in camera it doesn't, all my AWB tungsten shots have an orange colour, and I am happy with that...

AWB, like auto exposure, kinda seems to put you in the ball park most of the time, but it doesn't actually know what you are trying to do as a photographer.

Exactly.  Well, almost - orange really isn't in the ballpark with white, it's somewhere in the next town over.  I sometimes leave indoor shots a bit warmer than neutral, but I don't like them orange.

6
I'm wondering what the light source was, if it was fluorescent, that might be the issue.

Still an AWB issue, though.  It's not a shutter speed vs. light cycle frequency issue, since 1/60 s would encompass a full cycle. 

But...1/60 s isn't always enough to fully eliminate the blur from random motion of even a 'posed' subject, so that could be a factor.

7
As for the AWB result, what colour was the light? If it was tungsten then the Canon is a more accurate representation of the actual colour of the scene, the NIkon has removed the colour, take your pick.

Sorry, but it's auto white balance – the idea is to render a white/neutral object in the scene as white/neutral in the image, not to render it as 'the actual color of the scene'.  Under tungsten light, AWB on most Canon bodies will render a white object as orange.  That's a WB fail (even if it's by Canon's design - they should put that tweak into a Picture Style, not AWB).

8
Aside from the WB, what you're seeing is due to comparing a very good lens to a mediocre lens.

9
You've demonstrated that Nikon's 85/1.4, which is among Nikon's very best performing lenses even wide open, is sharper than Canon's 50/1.4, which is not a particularly sharp lens, particularly wide open.  You make no mention of performing an AF microadjustment/fine tune, which can be critical for sharpness with fast primes shot wide open.

You've demonstrated that Canon's AWB is poor...something most of us know already (although it's better on the 1D X than any other Canon camera I've used).

I'm not convinced you've learned anything beyond the obvious...

10
EOS Bodies / Re: One other hoped-for feature on the 7D2
« on: Today at 12:08:20 PM »
Recent bodies, I believe including the 70D (not certain) have a functional Auto ISO in M mode (although only the 1D X allows EC in that case).  I expect the 7DII will have it as well.

11
Your numerical list has them in descending order of image quality. 

I sold my 200/2.8L II after getting the 70-200/2.8L IS II, and although I have both the 135/2L and the 1.4xIII, I don't use them together.

12
A "softbox" made from "robust ABS plastic"?  Wouldn't that be a hard box?   ;)

Still small though! Unless you like harsh light.

Exactly.  The 'softbox' is barely larger than the bare flash head, and the bounce door is about the same size as the flash head.   Since light softness is proportional to the apparent size of the light source (relative to the subject), I can't see this being more than minimally effective as a diffuser or bouncer.  The only thing that looks like interesting and useful functionality is the gel cassette, which means no cutting/velcro are required. 

I think it's main advantage is the lead-off line:  "A next generation flash modifier worthy of being seen on any camera..."  In this case, function doesn't follow form. 

13
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D now marked as DISCONTINUED at Amazon
« on: Today at 08:25:19 AM »
It's getting painful reading everyones post on the  continuous saga of the 7D Mark ll.'s release date. Relief Date for me.

If only it would be a 'relief date'.  But if history is a guide, it will be many threads complaining about this feature or the lack of that feature.  Then someone will test the DR.......

14
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 27, 2014, 11:41:15 PM »
Look, I'll be easy on you and give you the chance to respond to one request at a time.

* Please explain how DxO is accomodating [f]or more clients more important to them.

First, you can explain why you think it would be a good idea for you to take remedial courses in reading comprehension and logical reasoning.

Wow, you are behaving true to form for a politician in evading answering a question with a completely unrelated statement. Is that your real job? Oh, in case you're wondering, I asked first and then you started with the evasion tactics. What are you trying to hide? Why don't you want to explain this?

Let me repeat:

* Please explain how DxO is accomodating [f]or more clients more important to them.

I don't have to wonder, I know what I wrote, what you wrote, and when.  You obviously do not.  You didn't ask first, you asked after I had already indicated that I don't believe is DxO is in collusion with Nikon (although it certainly is a possiblity, just a remote one).

Let me repeat, you need to learn how to comprehend what you read.  I'm done replying to your inane comments in this thread.

15
Lenses / Re: Lenses in the 20mm range
« on: July 27, 2014, 10:41:28 PM »
Budget?  By all recent accounts, the Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS is excellent and would meet your needs quite well.  Alternatively, if you have time to set up and converging verticals to correct, the TS-E 17mm f/4L is also an excellent option.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 896