April 19, 2014, 05:48:24 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 ... 408 409 [410] 411 412 ... 843
6136
Lenses / Re: Normal Lens or High-End Compact?
« on: December 05, 2012, 09:42:41 AM »
Has anyone ever used so many emoticons strung together?  *wink*

IMO, the EF-S 17-55mm is the best general purpose zoom for APS-C.  But primes will often give better IQ (there are exceptions) and almost always thinner DoF, etc., since f/2.8 is the fastest zoom available. 

The IQ from your T1i and a 17-55mm will far exceed what you'd get from a high-end P&S in almost all cases.  I do have an S100, but that's only for times when it's just not feasible to bring the dSLR (the S100 fits in a pocket, which is why I have no real interest in a G-series, etc., although the Sony RX-100 is tempting for the larger sensor in the same size chassis).

6137
EOS Bodies / Re: No RAW support for the 6D in DPP.....shame
« on: December 05, 2012, 09:38:51 AM »
The FACT is on the 6D Canon download page, there is no DPP software, only Photo Stitch.

Yes, and that FACT is true for just about every RAW-capable camera that Canon releases.  For example, my PowerShot S95 came with DPP v3.9 on the included disc.  That version added some nice features, like the * to ***** ratings and unsharp mask in the RAW tab.  But, it was close to 2 months before that version became available for download from Canon - and it was 3.9.2 by then. 

I think the pattern is that a new version of DPP ships with newly-released cameras (as it must, otherwise it would be unacceptable and shocking, as you stated), but the download is not available until that new version is further updated.

6138
Lenses / Re: APS-C lens mm are correct
« on: December 05, 2012, 09:33:20 AM »
Is ultimate performance and resolution of APS-C going to be more limited than FF because the light is focused/concentrated through a smaller area of glass in the lens on APS-C than FF- ie, APS-C will start to show up limitations of the optics themselves before FF? (disregarding issues such as CA and drop in resolution away from the centre of the image circle which may be more pronounced on FF due to the larger image circle)

No - what you're describing is purely an effect of pixel density, independent of sensor size (although it's generally true that comparing sensors of a similar generation, the APS-C sensor will have a higher pixel density).  From a resolution standpoint, a larger sensor will deliver higher resolution (in terms of line width/picture height) simply because the height of the picture is greater.

It seems this thread is moving toward the high density 7D sensor vs the low density 5D II or III sensor debate.

Agreed - let's not go there.   :-X

6139
  • Is the B+W UV Haze a "good" filter to choose for the 17-40 and 24-105?
Highly recommend B+W (I have them on almost all my lenses), make sure you get the MRC or Nano versions of the UV/Clear filters.   For a dSLR, there is no difference between UV and clear, so get whichever is cheaper where you shop.  If there's a chance you'll be stacking another filter on top, get the XS-Pro mounts - that's a thin mount that still has front threads for the lens cap or another filter.

  • Should I consider a CP filter for my 24-105?
I think so - a CPL is one of the filters where the effects cannot be reproduced in post processing (others are ND and grad ND).  Since the 24-105mm and 17-40mm both take 77mm filters, you can use the same one on both.

  • If I put a CP on my 24-105, is that just for outdoor photography would I remove it for indoors, take it off and on depending on conditions?
Yes, you'd generally remove it indoors, with some exceptions, and not always use it outdoors.  A CPL will cost you about 1.75-stops of light, so there are lots of times when you won't want to use it.  But even indoors, it can be used to cut reflections from glass/water, etc.

  • Would I stack a UV with a CP filter?
Generally, no - stacking filters is not a great idea, although the optical hit is slight with high quality filters, why do it if you don't need to?  More importantly, sometimes filters get stuck together.  That's less likely with B+W's brass mount rings, but it can still happen.  Get a set of filter wrenches, just in case ($5 plastic item from B&H/Adorama/etc.).  I do sometimes stack the CPL on a UV (which I have on most lenses), if I'm in a hurry to get a shot.  If I'm setting up a landscape shot on a tripod, I've got time to swap them instead of stacking them.

  • I know that normally you don't put a CP on a wide angle, but what about the UV?  Does that have an impact?
As mentioned, the issue is uneven polarization of the sky, starting at ~24mm (on FF like your 5D).  But sometimes the effect isn't bad, and also, sometimes the sky isn't in the shot - a CPL is great for boosting the saturation of fall foliage, removing reflections in waterfalls and the ocean, etc., and in those situations the uneven polarization is less evident, often not even noticeable.

For the CP, I think I would probably go with the B+W 77mm Kaesemann Circular Polarizer MRC Filter, but I'm open to suggestions.  Especially if that is overkill, I see that Tiffen has a CP for $38 on B+H, is the extra money worth it?
The B+W K√§semann CPL is excellent (I have them in 77mm and 82mm, and I have the slim ones just in case I need to stack).  IMO, putting a cheap filter in front of your L lens isn't wise.

6140
I don't know about 'mortal enemies' - dead customers don't buy much.  :P  But the rest of it is pretty much correct.

6141
Lenses / Re: APS-C lens mm are correct
« on: December 05, 2012, 08:17:09 AM »
This interests me- does the FF sensor (or APS-H for that matter)- without getting too technical- deliver better IQ due to its larger area and greater light gathering ability (and presumably larger pixels) or does it also have something to do with the FF sensor utilising more of the surface area of the optics in the lens- hence APS-C sensors being more demanding on lenses because they focus the light through a smaller area of glass?

Mostly the former, And mostly due to the larger total area of the sensor, which gathers more total light.  Actually, performance at the edges of the image circle is worse on all lenses.   There is no differential advantage when comparing an EF lens on full frame to an EF-S lens on APS-C, but an APS-C sensor uses 'sweet spot' of an EF lens.

6142
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: File name and color space settings in 5D3
« on: December 04, 2012, 11:06:05 PM »
Why? Because that's how Canon wrote the code. It's in the manual. The default IMG-nnnn becomes _MG-nnnn with AdobeRBG set.

How to correct?  Use a batch file renamer after import if it bothers you, else leave it alone.

6143
Neuro gave a great analogy of DPP a little while ago I couldnt find it perhaps he'll chime in and remind us :)

Someone commented that DPP was 'a joy to use' and my response was, "IMO, DPP is a joy to use in much the same way that a visit to the dentist for a root canal is a pleasant experience."   8)

I also prefer the output of DXO Optics...

Agreed.  DxO's workflow isn't nearly as bad as DPP, but for me it's still not an all-in-one solution.  Where DxO fails (almost as badly as DPP) is image triage and library management - tasks that have gotten even more challenging with the 1D X (spot-on AF and 12 fps mean a lot of very similar shots to choose from).  DxO doesn't have a loupe tool (in Optics Pro, anyway - their new distortion correcting app ViewPoint has a loupe, so I have hopes that will make it into Optics Pro in a future release), previews are slow to load even on a fast machine, etc.  I do triage in Aperture, and use Aperture to mamage my libraries, too.  But I think DxO does a better job at RAW conversions than DPP, ACR, or Aperture.  (And yes, I totally get that my workflow would not be feasible for someone with a deadline for processed images - LR seems the way to go, for that.)

6144
No, I still don't understand your dissatisfaction, Canon won't make the receiver you covet, there is no reason for them too as if they did it would cannibalise sales of any new lower powered units, like the rumoured 450EX-RT.

I disagree - I understand the dissatisfaction just fine.  People are also dissatisfied that the 5DIII is too expensive, that the 24-70/2.8L II doesn't have IS, and that leprechauns don't bring them pots of gold and supertele lenses.  :P

The reality is that Canon is a business, and their obligation is to deliver value to their shareholders.  It's absolutely correct that if Canon released such an RF receiver, it would drastically cut into sales of the new flash units - clearly, that's not in their financial interests.  They want people to invest in their new systems, it means more revenue for them.  My personal hypothesis is that such a receiver is already designed and ready to go, and Canon will produce/release it at some future time, when sales of the 600EX-RT and new 450EX-RT have slowed significantly.  But maybe not...  Personally, I'd like such a receiver - that would enable me to trigger a monolight/speedlite combo setup w/o resorrting to PWs.  But I understand why Canon hasn't made one for me.  While they're at it, an MT-24EX-RT would be great, too.

6145
Lenses / Re: APS-C lens mm are correct
« on: December 04, 2012, 10:23:52 PM »
The 10-212 is a good lens, you paint it too shabby IMHO.

Not my intent, sorry...the 10-22mm is a great lens, IMO.  Do note that I called out distortion specifically, that's notoriously difficult to control in a FF ultrawide lens, and much easier to control with the smaller elements used in an EF-S lens.

The EF-S 17-55mm, 15-85mm, and 10-22mm lenses all deliver optical performance that is on par with many L-series lenses, and in fact, those lenses all outperform 'sort of equivalent' L-series lenses when comparing both on the same APS-C camera (e.g. the 17-55mm is better than the 16-35L II and 24-105L when comparing all of them on a 7D - and I know this from both test charts and personal experience).  But when you put a different camera into the equation, and compare an EF-S lens on APS-C to an L-series lens on a recent FF/APS-H body, the larger sensor confers some IQ advantages.   So, for example, the 16-35L II on a 5DII will deliver better overall performance (although barrel distortion is definitely worse) than the equivalent framing of the 10-22 on a 7D (again, from both charts and my own real-world experience having used both combos).  The IQ of the 10-22mm in the 7D is already very good, it's just that the 16-35 + FF is slightly better.

You can see an aspect of that in the real world (sort of) with people who've popped off the rubber piece on the 10-22's lens mount and used it on a 1DIV - the 10-22 delivers images on the APS-H that are better than those from an APS-C body.

6146
Canon General / Re: soon to be a 'Canon/DSLR newbie' here!
« on: December 04, 2012, 10:13:01 PM »
I saw another kit lens/bundle (I don't know which is which really) which had a 17-85mm that only had like 80euro difference from the 18-135mm kit.

No, take the 18-135 over the 17-85 - the latter is an older design, IQ is not quite as good as the 18-135mm. 

6147
I think the point is that the 580EX II can already receive from (and transmit to) a 600EX-RT, using optical triggering.  I see your point regarding the ST-E3-RT, but not the 600EX-RT.  With the new flash, Canon offered good backward compatibility, not abandonment.

6148
EOS Bodies / Re: April 2013 firmware update for EOS 5D Mark III
« on: December 04, 2012, 06:32:24 PM »
Af @f8 eh?  Now I NEED a 600/4 and a 2xTC.

I ordered the 2xIII the day they announced the 1D X firmware update.  ;)

6149
Can't speak to the 17-40mm, but I've tested the 24-105L.



Basically, no extra vignetting with an F-Pro mount, even an F-Pro + XS-Pro is fine (meaning you could stack a slim CPL on an XS-Pro filter).  Very slight (<1/3-stop) increase in optical vignetting with 2 F-Pro mounts, and mechanical vignetting with 2 F-Pro + XS-Pro.  You may or may not be able to stack a standard CPL on an XS-Pro without mechanical vignetting.

Even on the 16-35/2.8L II, an F-Pro UV is ok. 

6150
Sounds like a release analogous to the 600 - a 450EX-RT released in some markets, and a 450EX also release in certain markets due to restrictions around RF frequency usage.  As was pointed out above (several times), the 600 flash exists in both an -RT and a non-radio version, although the latter is not available in all markets.

Pages: 1 ... 408 409 [410] 411 412 ... 843