March 06, 2015, 03:37:16 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 ... 408 409 [410] 411 412 ... 1030
6136
Why they removed it on the ST-E3 is baffling. 

Not really, the ST-E3-RT is a radio based wireless transmitter, the ST-E2 is a wireless communication device that uses light to transmit information, the ST-E2 has to have a light emitting tube, so enabling AF assist is comparatively easy with no additional hardware costs. The ST-E3-RT, does not need a light emitting tube to fulfill its primary function, radio flash control, adding AF assist is no small job and would necessitate addition hardware and costs.

Not really.  The AF assist lamp on the ST-E2 is separate from the xenon flash tube that's used to trigger remote flashes. There's no reason it couldn't have been added to the ST-E3...except to induce people to spend twice as much on a 600EX-RT as a master, if they want an AF assist lamp. 

6137
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: EOS-M sharper than 6D?
« on: July 18, 2013, 02:04:33 PM »
Time to stop testing and start calling Canon Service...

6138
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS M Stock & Shipping Update
« on: July 18, 2013, 02:02:12 PM »
The EOS M + 22mm kit is now in stock at B&H.

Yes, for $349. 

6139
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: EOS-M sharper than 6D?
« on: July 18, 2013, 12:59:12 PM »
Another possible reason - cheap UV filters.

He used the same lens for both cameras.  I sort of think he would have mentioned putting on a cheap UV filter for the 6D shots and taking it off for the EOS M shots, don't you?  ;)

6140
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D Mark II composition movement
« on: July 18, 2013, 11:55:43 AM »
...I noticed that even though I didn’t recompose my shots, something in the camera is moving and altering what I see through the view finder, this happens more often when shooting portrait rather than landscape.

Is this something you've tested and is it reproducible (not talking about just reviewing previously-taken shots)?  If you set up on a tripod and take a series of shots, does the composition change?

6141
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: EOS-M sharper than 6D?
« on: July 18, 2013, 10:56:08 AM »
Is there any chance we're seeing vibrations from mirror slap in the 6D's large mirror?

Not in the Live View shots.

6142
PowerShot Cameras / Re: IR Remote for Canon Sure Shot SX50HS?
« on: July 18, 2013, 10:43:53 AM »
Manual: http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/0/0300008700/01/pssx50hs-cug-en.pdf

No IR input directly.  You can use a remote RF trigger connected with an E3-type plug - look for one compatible with a Rebel/xxxD body, there are several available from Satechi, hähnel, Vello, etc.

6143
multiply d800 pixels with FWC  and you get the same  as 1dx

(a new question to discuss?)
then please keep your self  to the subject, so it not will be a new head room or BSI/FSI discussion

Really?  1 pixel = 1 well.  1 well holds a given number of electrons.  That number is different between the D800 and the 1D X.  If you multiply the number of electrons that fill one well by the number of wells, you're not talking about FWC any more.

You want to discuss something else?  You were the first to bring up FWC in this thread.  Now that you've shown you don't understand the concept of FWC, by all means, let's move on. Even if you won't, I will.  It's just not worth trying to explain to someone who refuses to admit when they're obviously wrong about a simple fact.  ::)

6144
Whats matter is how many electrons can be hold before saturation/read out = and it is the  the same from the two.

Mikael, does the D800 have the same FWC as the 1D X?

6145
why not, d800 has the same FWC as 1dx but 36 Mp
The best  SLR sensor on the market  today
I'm sorry, but that is a bold faced lie! The D800 has a full well capacity of 44k, while the 1D X has a full well capacity of 90k. That is a TWO FOLD difference between the two, bub!
Indeed.  But let's not allow facts get in the way of the same restated DRivel from the DRoll DRones who DRool over DR.   ::)

D800/E is already 36Mp with 14.5 stop DR... without the ISO tricks
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: DxOMark's Scores are useless, biased Bovine Scat.

from the whole sensor area you get exactly the same FWC  from 1dx and d800

Full well capacity.  You keep using that phrase.  I do not think it means what you think it means.

From the whole sensor area?  Tell me...what is a 'well' in FWC?  How does the 'whole sensor area' affect the number of electons a well can hold?

You stated, "d800 has the same FWC as 1dx."  Now you're stating, "from the whole sensor area you get exactly the same FWC  from 1dx and d800."  I was beginning to think you understood this stuff.  I was wrong.  See...unlike some, I can admit it.   ::)

6146
why not, d800 has the same FWC as 1dx but 36 Mp
The best  SLR sensor on the market  today
I'm sorry, but that is a bold faced lie! The D800 has a full well capacity of 44k, while the 1D X has a full well capacity of 90k. That is a TWO FOLD difference between the two, bub!
Indeed.  But let's not allow facts get in the way of the same restated DRivel from the DRoll DRones who DRool over DR.   ::)

D800/E is already 36Mp with 14.5 stop DR... without the ISO tricks
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: DxOMark's Scores are useless, biased Bovine Scat. 

6147
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: ND filters /waterfalls on 5D3
« on: July 18, 2013, 08:40:43 AM »
What are most people doing with the 5D3 and 10 stop ND filters?

I have not really used ND filters much, and will be travelling to a waterfall-rich area soon and don't want to blow it by making a bunch of noob mistakes.

3-stop ND and a CPL work well for most waterfall shots.  Sometimes a 6-stop if it's a very bright day.  You probably don't want to be shooting at f/22 - I'd stay at f/11 or wider.

As others have stated, with a 10-stop you have to focus and meter before putting on the filter (and if you have focus linked to the shutter button, set the lens to MF - personally, I use back-button AF so that's not an issue).  It's not difficult to do with a screw-in 10-stop filter, but the Lee system makes it easier since you just need to drop the Big Stopper into the slot.

6148
... meaning the exchangeable screen for lesser cameras also has zero effect for f2.8 lenses, but only for f2.5 or faster? I was never able to research how large the effect of the screen is for what aperture, and unfortunately you cannot try these in a shop.
At 2.8 there is a slight benefit in real DoF, maybe just due to more definition between in and out of focus. However the viewfinder is slightly darker even at 2.8. Although they are called  'manual focus' screens I've found them to be beneficial only with very fast primes: f1.2 - 2, so they are more of a 'fast prime' screen really.

Chuck Westfall has stated, 'faster than f/4'.  Personally, I don't see a lot of difference at f/2.8, but there is some.  It's not really enough to change how I'd compose a shot, but at f/1.2 or f/1.8, the difference is very noticeable. 

6149
He must have a special camera. He is looking through the viewfinder while Live View is on?
Nice catch.  Maybe he's blind...

Not blind, just stu...  No, my mother raised me better than that.   :-X

6150
DoF does not rely solely on optics, so badgerpiper's  statement is false. DoF relies on apparent aperture (optics) and subject magnification (optics, reproduction size and viewing distance).

Thank you very much that you are so persistent explaining it, simple /me really learned a lot in this thread from you and the links you posted, esp. http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/light.htm#dof

I was mislead by the dof calculators that output a precise dof range, I never read the fine print :-> ... but on the other hand I knew that the apparent dof changes drastically with perceived image size (like from camera display -> large lcd and your distance from it) which actually requires you to take multiple shots of the same scene with different apertures to have the dof *you* want for every output situation you have in mind. The CoC explains this and having read about it I don't know how I could have ever thought dof would only depend on optics :-p

You are so so welcome.

For another mind numbing factoid related to dof, we all think DSLR's are WYSIWYG when shooting wide open, however look through a fast lens (>f2) mounted on your camera, then take a picture and compare the dof of the image to the scene through your camera. The image will have much narrower dof, focusing screens have an aperture! It is around f2.8 so when you shoot wider than that you get much shallower dof than you expect. As a follow on to this it is impossible to accurately manually focus an ultra fast lens with our standard focusing screens.

Yep - the stock screens are laser microetched to make them brighter with slow lenses, and that's the consequence.  Not only are you getting the DoF of ~f/2.8 through the VF, you're getting that brightness even with a faster lens.  You can see the effect of this with bodies with a transmissive LCD (7D, 5DIII, 1D X) - with a fast lens (f/1.2-1.4), the AF point display is a sort of washed out gray, not black.  As you stop down with the DoF preview button pressed, the VF doesn't get dimmer, but the transmissive LCD gets progressively darker until ~f/2.5, then the whole VF starts getting darker, too.

Pages: 1 ... 408 409 [410] 411 412 ... 1030