July 22, 2014, 08:25:24 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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 891
EOS Bodies / Re: DSLR ? - thinking out loud ....
« on: July 13, 2014, 06:06:31 AM »
As for the DR and color, that's precisely why I want an EVF: I want to compose using what the sensor can see, so I have a better idea of the final image.  This is another plus for EVF.

So you want a better idea of what the in-camera JPG conversion will look like, if displayed on an uncalibrated monitor with low resolution and a poor color gamut?  Sounds like a big minus for EVF to me, particularly for anyone who shoots RAW...

I'm surprised, you don't usually make bad arguments.  You have invoked the "it is thus and ever shall be" argument.  I'm saying I want an improved Live View through the viewfinder, and I believe it's achievable in the next few years.  I'm not saying current EVF is adequate.

You said more than merely 'improved live view', you said you want the EVF to allow you to, "...compose using what the sensor can see," in terms of color and DR.

RAW data is 14-bit, displays and EVFs are generally 8-bit - that's a significant gap in color and DR.  The highest-end professional video editing displays and EVFs support 10-bit color, and I suppose you are suggesting that displays will catch up...but high-end cameras (I have some in the lab) use 16-bit ADCs, and those will also show up in mainstream consumer imaging down the line. 

You are apparently assuming display technology will improve while image capture technology remains stagnant...sorry, but that's the bad argument here.  Both are improving (and will likely continue to) in parallel, and given the already large lead that image capture has in terms of bit depth, it's highly unlikely that you'll ever be able to look through an EVF and 'see what the sensor sees'.

That's a consequence of the etched screen (which refracts light well from a steep illumination angle) vs. the non-etched transmissive LCD. 

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]
« on: July 12, 2014, 06:30:59 PM »
If the focus ring was at the other end of the push/pull barrel so it didn't get turned accidentally, and if the IS was worth anything, it would be a far more pleasant lens to use.

Have you used the 70-300L?  The design places the focus ring next to the body, the zoom ring further out. That's reversed from other L lenses, and means your hand (well, mine at any rate) reflexively grabs the focus ring when intending to zoom.  A real PITA, and if the new 100-400 has a similar design, it would be unfortunate.

The 6D lacks the transmissive LCD for AF point display that the 5DIII has, so like the 5DII it has an etched focus screen and can illuminate the AF points in AI Servo.  If you are in One Shot, the 5DIII's AF points illuminate if the appropriate setting is enabled.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]
« on: July 12, 2014, 03:54:05 PM »

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: Canon EOS 7D Body $794
« on: July 12, 2014, 03:36:35 PM »
Glad I sold mine when I did...

Lenses / Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« on: July 12, 2014, 02:58:13 PM »
So again, neutronomist, you resort to personal attacks rather than providing any sort of argument of substance and I'll take that as you raising the white flag rather than being able to mount or sustain any sort of credible argument.

Thanks for playing.

Now all the protection filter does is give the vendor selling you kit something to make a good margin on: it optically serves no purpose with modern lenses and digital sensors.

So, I didn't bring up the weather sealing requirement?  See post #7.  Or state that outside of backlit scenes there is no optical disadvantage?

Thanks for trolling.

Protection filters do just that – protect.  That serves an important purpose.  If you choose not to use them, good for you.  But saying they serve no purpose other than vendor profit is incorrect. 

What are the odds of front element damage if no filter is used?  Low.  Perhaps not too different from the odds of contracting an STD from having unprotected sex with a stranger.  At least a scratched lens is better than syphilis... 

EOS Bodies / Re: Unknown lenses with Canon Explorers
« on: July 12, 2014, 01:41:10 PM »
With rational thinking, I do believe that these are typos, but aren't I and S too far apart to be a typo? 3 and 5 okay, but I and S, it's like the other side of the keyboard...

Not an accidental key press as much as force of habit.  If you type a lot of lens names, you're typing "IS" a lot more than "II"...

Lenses / Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« on: July 12, 2014, 12:13:40 PM »
Disclaimer:  my feedback was from a quick F/8 shot against a white wall with no peripheral illumination enabled. I checked at 1x in the corners and saw no hard obstruction in the field of view at 16mm.

Bryan/TDP tests using an F-Pro filter and quantifies the vignetting with Imatest.  He shows no effect of the filter at 16mm f/4.

Non-pro question: I only thought filter rings were a threat to obstruct the field of view with an abrupt black corner.  But can they also create a more gradual darkening like shooting a lens wide open?

Yes, a filter can increase optical vignetting without causing mechanical vignetting, depending on filter thickness, lens design and selected aperture.  For example, on the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, stacking up to two F-Pro filters has no effect at f/2.8, but adding an additional XS-Pro filter causes mechanical vignetting at f/2.8, and ~1 stop of optical vignetting (but no mechanical vignetting) at f/5.6.  With the 16-35mm f/2.8L II, stacking an F-Pro and an XS-Pro results in ~3/4-stop more optical vignetting at f/2.8 and ~1/2-stop at f/5.6, two F-Pro filters gives mechanical vignetting at f/2.8 and ~1.5-stops optical vignetting at f/5.6. 

Software & Accessories / Re: Canon BG-E13 Flimsy Tripod Mount
« on: July 12, 2014, 11:59:59 AM »
So maybe the grips don't exactly replicate the ergonomy that the pro bodies offer.

No, they certainly don't.  The 1D X is lighter than a gripped 5DIII, for example, and I find my 1D X more comfortable to hold than the gripped 7D and 5DII it replaced.

Software & Accessories / Re: DxO Optics Pro 9 released
« on: July 12, 2014, 11:42:59 AM »
Well, at least they tried to ignore that there is a thing such as Adobe or Lightroom, and this has changed now.

Not really, they have had FilmPack plugins for LR and CS for years.

Aperture? The program recently abandoned by its manufacturer? Well, we might have you join the LR users group at last then

Doubtful.  I suspect Apple's replacement app (Photos) will meet my needs for library management.  Does Lightroom have face detection?  I find that to be a handy feature, a few clicks and I can build a slideshow/movie of one of my kids, for example...

Software & Accessories / Re: A little help with DxO please.
« on: July 12, 2014, 11:40:26 AM »
On the Mac, in Preferences > General there's a tickbox for "Automatically show the DxO Optics Modules download window."  On the DxO Modules menu > Download missing DxO Optics Modules, there's a tickbox at the bottom to "Automatically show this window."

I believe the database does store your adjustments.  Personally, I don't keep the files in DxO anyway, so after I finish editing a batch, I select all the images and use File menu > Sidecars > Export to save a copy of the edits for each RAW file in the folder with the images.  Then, I can simply Import the sidecar(s) for images I want to revisit later.

EOS Bodies / Re: Unknown lenses with Canon Explorers
« on: July 12, 2014, 11:36:05 AM »
I think it indicates typos. 

"EF24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM" is the EF24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, and "2x EF-S17-35mm f/2.8 IS USM" is clearly meant to be the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM.

Software & Accessories / Re: Canon BG-E13 Flimsy Tripod Mount
« on: July 12, 2014, 11:31:48 AM »
Both the battery grips for 6D and 5D III have longitudinal battery trays for the LP-E6s, instead of vacant space. So the BG-E13 should have been less wobbly in theory.
I see what you mean. Sort of a pillar between the upper and lower surface will increase the rigidity significantly, especially if it was connecting the tripod mounts.

Is it the grip itself that is distorting/wobbling?  I always thought it was the connection between grip and body.  If you hold the body and grip in your two hands, you can move them and see the grip 'wiggle' on the body.  I prefer the ergonomics of a grip, and was annoyed by the need to remove it for maximum stability on a tripod, that was one of many reasons I moved to a 1-series body.

Lenses / Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« on: July 12, 2014, 11:29:32 AM »
The XS-Pro mount is slim, but with a front thread.

According to TDP, a standard B+W UV (F-Pro) does not cause additional vignetting, and it's cheaper...

+1 and confirmed. 

I just tried a standard (i.e. not slim) 77mm B+W UV on my new 16-35 F/4L IS and it does not vignette, even at 16mm.  I'd buy the standard one for best lens cap attachment.

This is the exact one I tried:

BWUVMC77      77mm UV Haze MRC 010M Filter

For me, that means not buying one at all, as I have at least one (maybe 2) surplus 77mm F-Pro MRC UV filters.  One came from the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, which surprisingly for a telezoom lens does have additional vignetting with an F-Pro mount, so I replaced it with a 77mm XS-Pro.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 891