March 03, 2015, 06:37:06 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 ... 684 685 [686] 687 688 ... 1030
Technical Support / Re: 24-105 / 7D slow burst rate
« on: September 12, 2012, 08:15:14 AM »
Low light?  The frame rate drops to ~4 fps in low light (which supposedly allows time for accurate metering).

My 7D + 24-105L delivers 8 fps in good light.

Lenses / Re: 400 2.8L, 500 4L or 600 4L for wildlife
« on: September 12, 2012, 06:24:11 AM »
I am surprised the 400 2.8L II with 1.4x is not as sharp as the 500 f/4.  Was the 1.4x a II or a III?

I was surprised, too. It was the 1.4x III.

Lenses / Re: 400 2.8L, 500 4L or 600 4L for wildlife
« on: September 11, 2012, 08:32:02 PM »
I think twice about it all the time. Not because of the light loss, but the loss of image quality. I know adding the 1.4 Extender will give me more reach and I know I'll have to pay for it when I pull the images up on the computer screen.

It used to be that the bare lens always beat the lens+TC.  Now, that statement needs to be revised to, in some cases within the same generation of lenses, the bare lens will always beat the lens + TC.  The 600 II + 1.4x III is actually a little sharper than the 800/5.6, plus it's got a little more reach and is a heck of a lot lighter, for no additional money.  So, at the point the only reason to go with an 800/5.6 is if you plan to put a 1.4x on that, which will beat out the 600 II + 2xIII.  Likewise, the 500/4 II + 1.4x III is sharper than the bare 600/4 MkI, and also longer and lighter, perhaps making the 500 II + TC a better choice than the older 600 (more expensive, though).  Note that the above assumes the 50% AF speed reduction you get with a 1.4x TC is acceptable (but the superteles focus so fast, 50% slower is still going to be fast).

However, the 400 II + 1.4x is not as sharp as the bare 500/4 MkI.

So, if comparing the current (MkII) lenses, you're better off getting the focal length you will use most. 

Keep in mind that while you can crop, often you cannot back up to get a wider AoV, especially with a long lens where you'd have to back up a lot.  Depending on what you shoot, you may want to have a second body with a shorter lens, like a 70-200/2.8 II to pair with a 400/500, or a 100-400 to pair with a 600.

The 200-400/4 + 1.4x if it ever becomes a reality, is worth considering.  The zoom is convenient - but of course, only if 560mm f/5.6 is long enough and fast enough.  If not, the 500/600 II may be better choices.

EOS Bodies / Re: why no exposure mode visible in viewfinder eos 5 III ?
« on: September 11, 2012, 08:15:30 PM »
Why?   Because it's a 5-series camera, not a 1-series camera.  You could say the same about AF point-linked spot metering, etc.

-I also don't really like that the C1,C2,C3 function doesn't remember the changes you make during shooting (e.g..changing ISO) when the camera falls asleep.

For this one, there's a simple solution.  Set the Auto update set. function on the Tools-4 tab to Enable (see p.333-4 in the manual for the settings that will be updated, ISO is among them).

Lenses / Re: 400 2.8L, 500 4L or 600 4L for wildlife
« on: September 11, 2012, 05:23:52 PM »
Also pondering the use of a 1.4x with both.  With the 2.8 it would yield an F4 at 560mm. Any resolution tradeoff between that combo and the 500mm f/4 outright?  One would think but who knows.(Someone who has tried it and made the comparison).

Check the TDP ISO12233 charts. My sense is that the 400 II takes a bigger IQ hit with the 1.4xIII than the 500 II or 600 II.  The new 500/600 + 1.4x seem equivalent to the MkI 600 and the 800, respectively, while the 400 II + 1.4x seems to fall short on IQ vs. the 500 MkI (and the bare 500 II is even sharper).

Lenses / Re: Which to buy: 16-35 f/2.8 vs. 17-40 f/4...
« on: September 11, 2012, 01:23:51 PM »
16-35 II. Sharper in the corners, and sometimes you need the extra stop.

Lenses / Re: 400 2.8L, 500 4L or 600 4L for wildlife
« on: September 11, 2012, 01:22:14 PM »
Wildlife, likely the 500/4.  Birds, especially small birds, the 600/4 II - IQ with 1.4x III is on par with the 800/5.6, but much lighter plus f/4 if you don't need the reach.

Apple 27" Thunderbolt display, with either a 17" MacBook Pro or 13" MacBook Air connected.

EOS Bodies / Re: Is a 46mp Canon EOS-1 on the Way? [CR1]
« on: September 11, 2012, 04:25:16 AM »
There is no utopia in any one set of design parameters.

Bliss will only come with the last camera ever to be made!  :P

Naaah.  Even then, people will complain.   :P :P

Lenses / Re: Canon 50 F1.2L VS 85 F1.2L MKII Lenses
« on: September 11, 2012, 04:23:25 AM »
Are both the 50 F1.2L and 85 F1.2L MKII lenses weatherproof?

The 50L is, the 85L II is not.

Canon General / Re: Lee filters
« on: September 11, 2012, 04:21:14 AM »
Lots of places.  B&H, Adorama, etc.  But they are produced in very small batches, and frequently out of stock at many retailers.

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Lens case for 70-200 f/2.8 II
« on: September 10, 2012, 06:35:57 PM »
BTW, I took a peek at the Lens Exchange design on the Lowepro website, and I love the concept!  I can see this being very handy for travel also.

The Lowepro system offers a lot of flexibility. The case mentioned above, like their other lens cases, flash pouches, etc., all have their Sliplock fasteners.  Their Toploader cases, backpacks, etc., have loops to hold them.

My order shipped today, too.

But it wasn't for a 24-70 II.

Nor was it from B&H or Adorama.


I'm happy,'s my RRS L-plate for the 1D X, along with about $4K of additional RRS gear.  ;D

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Lens case for 70-200 f/2.8 II
« on: September 10, 2012, 03:44:28 PM »
I have (and like) the Lowepro Lens Exchange 200 AW, often worn in the Deluxe Technical Belt.  The case fits the 70-200 II perfectly (or 100-400 or 28-300, all with a Wimberley P-20 plate on the foot), and the fold-open pouch works (as advertised) to hold a smaller lens, like a 24-105, at the same time as the white zoom, while changing lenses.

EOS Bodies / Re: Is a 46mp Canon EOS-1 on the Way? [CR1]
« on: September 10, 2012, 02:32:11 PM »
In my opinion, if Canon does not launch an cheaper model around 2500-3000€ with 35+MP, they will loose a lot of photographers.

Are they 'losing a lot of photographers' to the D800 now?   ::)

I'm sure there's a reasonable number of photographers who are able to recognize the image quality of D800.

Sure, and I'm among them. But I didn't switch...  Where are Nikon's versions of a high quality 80/100-400, 28-300, and anything like my MP-E 65?

The 14-24 is certainly a nice lens - but 36 MP is hard on that lens' corner performance.

Pages: 1 ... 684 685 [686] 687 688 ... 1030