October 23, 2014, 07:09:19 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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 971
61
Lenses / Re: 50 f/1.2L problems applicable to 85 f/1.2L?
« on: October 14, 2014, 07:23:40 AM »
Almost all lenses have some degree of focus shift, usually not enough to make an impact.  It's not a problem with the 85L II.

62
Lenses / Re: Stacking drop-in filters?
« on: October 13, 2014, 06:21:42 PM »
Interestingly, I found Tiffen makes "combo" polarizer+ND filters in several steps of ND.  But they are linear polarizers and only come in 138mm!   :-\

Even if they made it in 52mm, there would be no way to rotate the CPL using the drop-in holder...

63
(BTW, the only way to stop getting notified in the new replies list of your activity in threads is to delete yourself entirely from those threads (in case anyone was curious)...

Or Profile > Modify Profile > Notifications, tick the checkbox(es) then click Unnotify.

EDIT: in retrospect, I think you meant the new replies list (link at top right), not actual notifications.  Sorry for the confusion.

64
Harv, you can preorder the 7DII from B&H and get $30 off the boxed LR5.  Would that work?

65
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 13, 2014, 01:20:35 PM »
Advantages of Crop: ...uses the center (and better) part of lens, thus less vignetting, CA, distortion and overall sharpness.

Vignetting and distortion, yes.  CA depends on the type (axial vs. lateral), and can be worse (the typically higher pixel density on crop means CA from the lens covers more pixels).  As for 'overall sharpness', assuming you're framing the same with both, the FF wins hands down.  Pick a lens and compare FF with APS-C on TDP's ISO 12233 crops, the difference in sharpness is substantial.

66
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 13, 2014, 12:12:18 PM »
There's one big advantage of full-frame that a lot of people don't recognize - the variety of zoom lenses starting at 24mm.

Full frame:
24-105/4L IS
24-70/4L IS
24-70/2.8 II
Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC
Sigma 24-70/2.8
Sigma 24-105/4 OS

Crop:
15-85/3.5-5.6 IS
You can use all of those lens on CROP too. It will change the field of view but it doesn't change the lens quality. Actually, you can even say that "There's one big advantage of CROP that a lot of people don't recognize - the variety of zoom lenses starting at 10mm"

Well, 10mm on APS-C is 16mm on FF, and there's a good variety of 16-xx zooms for FF.

The point is that 24-xx is a general purpose' zoom lens that covers wide angle to short tele.  Still, while the difference between 24mm and 28mm is significant, there is a plethora of 17/18-xx zooms for APS-C. 

67
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 13, 2014, 11:25:11 AM »
Hi Neuro,
Crop is a value for money. Are there any advantages in viewfinder other than reach? If we are using the same lens (adjust for the reach by cropping), subject will be bigger in view finder of crop. More focusing points on subjects or bigger subject per focus point for tracking might be advantageous right?

It's still mainly overall cost.  You're correct that using the same lens for a distant subject, more VF magnification and more AF points on subject are an advantage.  But unless you're already at 1200mm (600 II + 2xIII), you're still talking cost savings.  600/4 on FF will beat 400/5.6 on APS-C.  I suppose an argument could be made that the 600 II + 1.4xIII is f/5.6 and allows all AF points, so that on a 7DII vs. the 600 II + 2xIII on a 5DIII which gives just the center point with 4 expansion points.  But at higher ISO (which are often needed at f/5.6 and narrower with subjects like BIF), the FF would deliver better IQ. 

It's anecdotal, but lots of bird photographers who shot with a 7D then got a 5DIII/1D X soon switched to using the 5DIII for birds.  Notably, that includes some people on this forum who'd done some pretty detailed testing to demonstrate the reach-limited resolution advantage of APS-C.

Besides cost (of camera + lens), there can be a size/weight advantage...but 7-series bodies are not significantly smaller/lighter, and with wide-to-normal lenses the differences aren't great.


On the other hand, if someone prefers wider DOF...will find more advantages in APS-C.

Sorry, but that's simply not true*.  It's true that for the same framing, APS-C gives deeper DoF.  So...you stop down the lens on FF and you get the same DoF.  If you need to keep the same shutter speed, you raise the ISO and there's no difference in noise; if you can let the shutter speed drop, you get less noise on FF. 

In terms of DoF, FF allows you to achieve shallower DoF than APS-C if you want it, or the same DoF without penalty if you don't.

*There's an exception, in that if your lens is stopped down to its narrowest aperture, APS-C gives deeper DoF because you can't stop the lens down further.  But by then, diffraction will be softening the images a fair bit, and that will be worse on APS-C at typical pixel densities, so in that case you're trading sharpness for DoF.

68
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 13, 2014, 10:23:58 AM »
The key advantage of APS-C sensors is lower cost.  Crop bodies generally cost less (often far less), and when they don't (e.g. 7DII vs. discounted 6D) they generally offer significantly better features (particularly AF and frame rate).

The oft-cited 'reach advantage' of APS-C sensors isn't much of an advantage.  It's far less than 1.6x in practical terms. 

69
EOS Bodies / Re: AA Filter: Still Relevant, Marketing Ploy, or Obsolete?
« on: October 13, 2014, 12:07:14 AM »
The AA filter is now obsolete.

However what's required in order to deal with it when and where it happens is an image review that is able to display it so that you can look at what you've captured and re-shoot if required rather than needing to wait when you get home and discover it when it is too late.

Or even add moire detection (like there is highlight detection), even if it cannot be eliminated by in-camera processing.

So the AA filter is obsolete, but you need a way to detect moiré immediately after a shot is taken (so you can defocus and reshoot) or else it's too late...but the AA filter is obsolete. 

Hooblebooblegobblegook. 

I think the second statement makes more sense than the first.

70
Lenses / Re: Stacking drop-in filters?
« on: October 12, 2014, 11:40:34 PM »
I wonder if there's a way to affix a cut gelatin ND of the desired strength to the DI CPL?

71
It's insulting and it's personal. And when I say that, I'm not referring to the technical facts. I've been wrong on a couple recently. Fine, I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong. That's a trait I don't think any of you exhibit, though.

Well, no one can dispute your willingness to admit when you're wrong – like an opinion, that's a personal belief.  But I will point out that less than 24 hours ago, you refused to admit that you were wrong about a simple, rather trivial fact:

...the kind of wicked pincushion you'll get at 11mm.

You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means. 

Good grief. I know what it means.

Maybe it's not pincusion distortion... Whatever the hell you want to call it... whatever

"I know it...well, maybe not...whatever," not what I'd call admitting your mistake.  Especially since in your subsequent post, you were back to insisting you knew what pincushion distortion meant.  You soon deleted that post...I'm sure you remember it though, it's the one where you got insulting and personal by calling the people pointing out your mistake a group of violent criminals. 

72
The crux of the 'problem' is when people give an opinion that is personal and state that opinion as a spurious fact.  Consider the following sets of examples:

  • "Canon sells more dSLRs than any other manufacturer."
  • "A Canon dSLR best meets my needs."
  • "Canon dSLRs are the best."

  • "Current Canon sensors have less low ISO DR that their competitors."
  • "The IQ of current Canon sensors doesn't meet my needs."
  • "Canon sensors have poor IQ."


In each case, statement (1) is simple fact, generally not disputed.  Statement (2) is a personal opinion, and completely valid whether or not others share that opinion.  Statement (3) is that personal opinion stated as a spurious fact.  Statements like #3 are generally untenable, yet people who make statements like that tend to get defensive when their statements are rightfully questioned. 

Stating your opinion as opinion is fine...stating your opinion as fact will draw a challenge. Defending that opinion as fact just makes you look foolish.  Restating that spurious fact over and over in thread after thread will not only draw a challenge, it will piss people off.

Well done, you described the basics of newbie trolling.
You throw in a few #2's and get interest in what you are saying, then you drop in a #3 to explode the topic.
A thread will really get moving when you have a troll on each side.

People who post #3's are not required to provide back-up or proof to establish a statement. I think that bothers many in this forum as they are well educated and are in a profession that they have to provide proof to back up their work.

In this forum I can say "Lenses made by Nikon are not as good as those made by Canon". It is my choice whether I give hard proof, no proof or even respond at all to whoever questions the comment. Many find it frustrating when someone chooses not to offer proof.

Statements like #3 are opinions, they cannot be 'proven'.  Instead, certain people post exhaustive evidence supporting a #1-type statement (which is already generally accepted), and they think it 'proves' their #3-type statement...which remains merely their opinion.  Disagreement with that opinion leads them repost (and often re-re-re-re-post) the same or equivalent proof of that already-accepted fact that, as expected, fails to prove their unprovable opinion.

73
Don, the problem seems to me to be that people give an opinion that is personal or state a spurious "fact", and then get defensive when that opinion is questioned, they take it personally so the cycle begins.

I'd say 'and' instead of 'or'.  The crux of the 'problem' is when people give an opinion that is personal and state that opinion as a spurious fact.  Consider the following sets of examples:

  • "Canon sells more dSLRs than any other manufacturer."
  • "A Canon dSLR best meets my needs."
  • "Canon dSLRs are the best."

  • "Current Canon sensors have less low ISO DR that their competitors."
  • "The IQ of current Canon sensors doesn't meet my needs."
  • "Canon sensors have poor IQ."


In each case, statement (1) is simple fact, generally not disputed.  Statement (2) is a personal opinion, and completely valid whether or not others share that opinion.  Statement (3) is that personal opinion stated as a spurious fact.  Statements like #3 are generally untenable, yet people who make statements like that tend to get defensive when their statements are rightfully questioned. 

Stating your opinion as opinion is fine...stating your opinion as fact will draw a challenge. Defending that opinion as fact just makes you look foolish.  Restating that spurious fact over and over in thread after thread will not only draw a challenge, it will piss people off.   

74
Lighting / Re: Flash equipment for Portraits & Events
« on: October 12, 2014, 08:28:39 AM »
Step 1:  buy and read Syl Arena's Speedliter's Handbook

75
Are the anti-DR guys the only one hurling insults? From my perspective, the insults are originating from both sides, but maybe I'm just crazy.

Personally, I'd consider being labeled a "thug" insulting. 

thug
THəɡ/  noun
1. a violent person, especially a criminal.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 971