September 23, 2014, 10:43:46 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 4 ... 955
EOS Bodies / Re: Am I the only one excited about the new 7D mk2?
« on: September 22, 2014, 02:22:19 PM »
They are all cross type, however Canon throttles AF speed at f/5.6 relative to f/4 or f/2.8. Even on the 61pt system, even when using only the center points, AF speed slows when I slap on a 1.4x TC onto my 600/4, vs. just using the 600/4. Additionally, at f/5.6, the chances of "hunting" increase. Canon's AF system caters towards looking for a closer subject first when the scene is out of focus by more than a certain (unspecified) amount. So, if I need to photograph a bird in flight, it's FAR better to use an f/4 lens, which is likely to lock on directly immediately, than f/5.6, which is going to hunt forward first if I'm not already close to focus on the bird.

Maybe the 65pt system changes that, but it looks like the same general firmware as the 5D III and 1D X, so I suspect it'll behave the same.

No, Canon does not throttle AF speed at f/5.6 relative to f/4 or f/2.8.  Yes, when you put the 1.4x TC behind your 600/4, AF slows down.  But that's not because the combo is f/5.6, it's because of the TC.  By design (firmware), a 1.4x TC drops AF speed by 50%, and a 2x TC drops it by 75%.  If you put the 1.4x behind the 200mm f/2, you'll have a 280mm f/2.8 lens that activates all 61 AF points including the 5 dual-cross points on the 5DIII/1D X...and still focuses 50% slower. 

The 'hunting' you describe also appears to not be specific to the max aperture or the AF points, but rather to lens or TC combo.  For example, the 100-400L @ 400/5.6 hunts with a busy background, whereas the 400/5.6L locks on much more effectively in that scenario. 

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Sensor cleaning
« on: September 22, 2014, 07:56:39 AM »
Self clean right at startup is normal.  A half press of the shutter cancels it in progress if needed.

EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 22, 2014, 07:31:40 AM »
Some people just can't understand or accept that their own needs and values aren't statements of fact with which everyone must agree. 
Interesting statement. So, turning the argument against yourself, are your needs and values statements of fact, or are they merely your opinion? Do you have a problem accepting that your needs and values, and how you express them, are not shared by Everyone else? Do you represent a majority or a minority?

My opinions are just that - opinions.  Everyone is entitled to their own, obviously.  I tend to value mine above those of others (after all, they're mine for a reason!), although I certainly listen to the latter.  Everyone is also open to having their opinions criticized.   I have no expectation that anyone else must share or accept my opinions...they're opinions.  I do expect people to at least acknowledge facts...I provide supporting evidence in many cases.

I use in that sense I'm part of the majority of dSLR buyers.  In many other ways, I'm in the minority...and that's fine by me.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D MK2 RAW Files
« on: September 22, 2014, 06:31:21 AM »
Pretty much every new camera requires an update to RAW conversion software.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma Opens Up About Their Roadmap
« on: September 22, 2014, 06:29:50 AM »
A 24-70 f/2 would be very nice!

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma Opens Up About Their Roadmap
« on: September 22, 2014, 06:14:35 AM »
Sigma’s next DSLR will...
Sigma is not interested in developing a new mirrorless interchangeable camera for now.

The dSLR is dead. Long live the mirrorslapper!!   ::)

EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 22, 2014, 06:11:37 AM »
Well, except that you now accept all the claims that Risedal guy made - rather hurtfully to you pity souls - b/c ultimately he was right. But you just don't want to talk about it.

Did I get that about right? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

No, you got wrong. 

Oh, and here's yet another wedding image I was processing from my 5D3 that I decided to throw out b/c by the time I corrected the 3EV vignetting of my 24/1.4 and then added 1.5 stops (b/c I underexposed by 1.5 EV to save the sky/clouds above my subjects), I had this wonder junk overlaid over my image:

I don't know about you, but I just don't deliver that to clients. My D810 wouldn't have even had the smudge related with this noise, b/c it wouldn't have had any(thing but shot) noise to begin with with even a +5 EV push (that's verified; I'm not making it up).

Yeah, sad that all those so-called professional photographers using Canon deliver their clients such crap.  It's just astounding that they manage to barely stay in business, I'm sure no one using Canon is successful as a photographer.

You've proven that Canon sensors can't make a good image, much more effectively than Mikael.  Great job teaching us poor yokels who are still using such incapable cameras.

EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 22, 2014, 05:57:47 AM »
lamenting Canon's supposed lack of DR and extolling the virtues of Exmor

See there you go again. Here you try to bring up doubt that Canon is behind in DR or that even if they are that it could ever mean anything. And yet when you finally get called out and backed into a corner as in your post later on, you are like "who me? fanboy? nobody here ever tries to admit that Exmor doesn't have more DR"

So which is it??? You try to have it both ways for everything.

There is a difference between 'Exmor has more DR than Canon' and 'Canon doesn't deliver enough DR'.  There's a difference between 'Exmor allows better low ISO shadow pushing than Canon' and 'Canon sensors deliver poor IQ'. In each case, the former is a statement of fact that is generally accepted here, the latter is a judgement based on an individual's personal needs and values.  Some people just can't understand or accept that their own needs and values aren't statements of fact with which everyone must agree. 

That's not 'having it both ways', that's the ability to distinguish between fact and opinion. 

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Which Canon L Lens for 7D Mark II?
« on: September 21, 2014, 10:05:44 PM »
  • Night Sky Photography
  • Head Shots
  • Weddings
  • Maternity
  • Couples
These two list above points to the full frame 6D for sure.

In fact, all of them point to the 6D being the better choice. 

I guess my problem is that in light of the 7DmII and the 5DmIII I feel like I am getting robbed on features and the AF system just seems substandard at this level.  Of course the price point for the 6D is right. 

That does seem to be Canon's strategy.  The 6D delivers excellent IQ particularly in low light, the 7DII delivers top AF and speed.  If you need both, that's the 5DIII...and it actually costs a bit less than the other two combined.

I do have 4 and 6 year olds that will be getting into sports and ballet which a 5DmIII would do well but I think the 6D would be questionable.

Low light action is best served by excellent AF and a FF sensor...and fast lenses.  None of that is cheap.  In gymnasium lighting, I often need ISO 6400 or 12800 to get a 1/640 or 1/800 s shutter speed to freeze motion...and that's with an f/2.8 lens wide open. 

With the exception of your kids activities, the 6D is the ideal choice.  Although the 6D's AF isn't up to the level of the 5DIII or 7DII, good technique can help there.

I really think a FF body is a better option for your needs; initially asked about lenses, and they're important too.   

Important lens characteristics include:

  • Night Sky Photography - wide angle, fast aperture (but for the moon you want the longest lens you can get, and it can be slow)
  • Head Shots - short/medium telephoto, fast aperture
  • Weddings - standard zoom, f/2.8 preferred; telephoto zoom, f/2.8 preferred
  • Maternity - standard zoom, f/2.8 preferred; short/medium telephoto
  • Couples - standard zoom; telephoto zoom (neither need be fast, you'll be stopped down to at least f/4 for sufficient DoF

To have the optimal lenses for a diverse array of subjects means several lenses (which is why I have 5 zooms and 9 primes!).  The aperture suggestions above are based on ambient lighting; if you're going to set up a home/portable studio (backdrop + stand, flashes or monolights + modifiers), you'll be stopped down a fair bit and slow lenses are fine.  Don't forget that some of the non-L primes deliver excellent IQ, and with session work (headshots, maternity, couples) you'll have time to move so the flexibility of a zoom isn't critical.  The 85/1.8 is one of the best values in terms of IQ/$.  The Samyang 14/2.8 would likely work well for night skies.

Given your budget and needs, do consider refurbs (assuming you're patient but quick, desirable refurbs come up periodically and sell out fast).  A refurb 5DIII is $2700, a refurb 24-70/2.8 II is $1700.  You could start with f/4 zooms, and move to f/2.8 versions later.

Here we can read:
There's a link to a price list. $3.995 for most of them, which is pretty much what an Otus cost ...

I would be great if those prices are like the prices listed on Schneider Optics' website for their B+W filters.  For example, the XS-Pro 77mm Clear lists for $211, but sells at B&H for $79.

Assuming that analogy is not too complex for you, are you suggesting that there's no difference in file size or data content between a 12-bit and a 14-bit RAW file?
Given that file size is generally proportional to megapixels, I don't see how that helps.

So you are suggesting that there's no difference in file size between a 12-bit and a 14-bit RAW file. 

I haven't seen Samsung specs, but Nikon allows a choice between 12- and 14-bit, and the lower bit depth allows a deeper buffer in terms of number of shots.

Nikon D810 uncompressed RAW, 12-bit: 55.9 MB
Nikon D810 uncompressed RAW, 14-bit: 73.2 MB

That's a file size increase of ~30% going from 12- to 14-bit. 

You really should stop trying to argue technical details, you succeed only in making yourself appear inept. 

EOS Bodies / Re: Sample Images From the EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 21, 2014, 02:17:01 PM »
Btw other "main" advantages of aps-c include macro shooting and of course reach

Well, sort of, kind of, sometimes.

For macro shooting, with APS-C you get more working distance for the same framing, but also less sharpness.  If you match magnification, with APS-C you get more pixels on target (because in most cases pixel density is higher) but smaller FoV and shallower DoF (or you stop down more and diffraction costs even more sharpness).  So for macro shooting in general, it's basically a wash (personally, I prefer FF for macro).

As for 'reach', unless you've got a 600/4 + 2x, you're still talking about a cost advantage (size/weight, too...but that's also buying you better IQ).  Even if you're at 1200mm, APS-C's greater pixel density is only advantageous at lower ISO and if you want to print large.

While a higher pixel density (generally found on smaller sensors) is an advantage in certain specific use cases, there are generally trade-offs associated with those benefits.  That's why I state lower cost as the main advantage (but that can certainly be a big advantage!).

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Which Canon L Lens for 7D Mark II?
« on: September 21, 2014, 12:50:31 PM »
Consider Canon refurbished.  Fully tested, same 1-yr warranty.  6D + 24-70/2.8L II comes to $3200, and that's an excellent core wedding kit.  Add the 70-200/4L IS for just over $1K more. 

Strange because when people calculate MP/sec, it is generally fps * MP/f and the bit depth never comes into it.

You could calculate CM/w (cartons of milk per week), but if you want to compare milk consumption between households, you need to know the volume of the carton.  Assuming that analogy is not too complex for you, are you suggesting that there's no difference in file size or data content between a 12-bit and a 14-bit RAW file?

FWIW, I agree that the NX-1 has great data throughput, and that it can make sense to sacrifice a couple of bits of data for a higher frame rate (in fact, the 1D X sacrifices far more than that to go from 12 to 14 fps).  But none of that is relevant to the point I was making.  You brought it up because you wanted to argue.  Feel better now?

I'm kind of curious how many people enable the "14fps mode". Then again I imagine that all of the sports shooters that have no time for dealing with CR2 files do enable it.

I imagine if you understood the other limitations of the 14 fps mode on the 1D X, you'd understand why many sports shooters would not want to choose that option.  But we already know that technical details aren't your forte.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Which Canon L Lens for 7D Mark II?
« on: September 21, 2014, 10:18:27 AM »
I'd say neither.  Instead, if you're set on getting the 7DII consider a high quality EF-S general purpose zoom.  The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 is IMO the best general purpose zoom for APS-C.  As pointed out above, a 24-xx L-zoom does not give a wide angle FoV on APS-C, which really limits it's utility as a general purpose zoom.  Personally, I found the 70-200 II to be an awkward range on APS-C, although I love it on FF.

I'd echo the sentiments above that for 'weddings and other events' the 6D would be a much better choice than the 7DII.  If you're going to be a paid shooter at those events, you'll need a second body as a backup (your T2i could serve for that initially).

What lenses do you currently have besides the EF-S 18-200mm?  What's your budget for this venture?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 955