April 18, 2014, 06:21:25 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 ... 409 410 [411] 412 413 ... 842
6151
Ok, I'm getting more and more confused now. What is the talk here about straps? What are they used for (or are these just straps you hang the camera around your neck with...if so, there are specialized versions of those?)

That was me, I think...   ;)  Yes, I am talking about a strap you use to hang your camera from your body, Blackrapid and Carryspeed are alternatives to the neck strap that put the weight on your shoulder rather than your neck (a lot more comfortable); the Spider system is an alternative that clips the camera to a belt, putting the weight on your hips.  If you're carrying around a Rebel and kit lens, the weight isn't such a big deal...but if you hang a body + 70-200/2.8 from your neck, you'll likely end up with some discomfort or worse, and personally I don't like that much bulk dangling on my chest (although there are also chest harness options, e.g. Cotton Carrier). 

Most of the neck strap alternatives attach to the camera via the tripod socket - and that creates an issue for quick-release tripod plates.  There are options that don't use the tripod strap, e.g. BosStrap, but AFAIK they cannot be attached to the lens collar foot, which is a far better way to carry a heavy lens from a strap (better balance).

Personally, I use Blackrapid straps.  I have Kirk 1" clamps (Arca-Swiss type) on the emds of the straps, so I can simply attach the strap to the plates that are on my cameras and lenses, and easily remove the strap when I want to mount to a tripod/monopod.

Also, what are L-brackets...what are they used for?

An L-bracket provides a vertical mounting surface, so you can easily mount the camera to a tripod in portrait orientation, with better balance than using a drop notch on a ballhead, and the ability to do pano shots in portrait orientation.  Great for photos, but I don't think that orientation is very useful for video shooting. 



Just like camera base plates, there are 'universal' and camera-specific L-brackets.  While universal base plates are ok, the generic L-brackets are not so good (they tend either block access to ports on the side of the camera, or stick way out to avoid blocking those ports).

So, will need a bracket for that...figuring one plate for the camera....and brackets for the tripod, monopod (to be), Rhino slider (to be delivered), and Optika steadi cam....


Seems you have one head and one plate, and are about to order at least three more things you want to attach your camera to, and you just got a lens with a tripod collar.  That means you'll soon have 2 attachment points (plates) for 4 different supports (clamps) - and that's the sort of thing where you really want a QR system!

I had many plates and clamps in the Manfrotto RC-2 system, plus 4 Blackrapid FastenR-T1 lugs, and I sold them all when I switched to the Arca Swiss-type system.  But...I have no regrets about switching.  You're basically at the jumping off point now.  So, you're asking these questions at the right time, before you spend a lot of money on one system and then outgrow it. 

Down to specifics, it looks like the fluid head you have can only take an RC2 (aka 200PL) plate - that's pretty common for many of Manfrotto's heads, only their higher end ones can take a non-Manfrotto clamp.

The Rhino slider needs a head (a ballhead, I'd think), and the Opteka steadycam-like accessory needs a clamp.  So in both cases, you can choose your clamp.

The monopod/head you link uses a Manfrotto 501PL plate.  That's a different plate than the tripod fluid head you have, and the two of them are not interchangeable.  So right there, you see...even within the Manfrotto line, you've got two different plate+clamp designs, and you have to unscrew one plate and mount another to go from tripod to monopod (or stack a clamp on a plate, see below).  That completely defeats the purpose of a QR system, IMO, and is why the Arca-Swiss system is better.

You have some choices ahead, and probably more research.  One tip - Kirk makes 'conversion' clamps for Manfrotto.  Their SQRC-3157 is an Arca-Swiss compatible clamp that will take any AS-type plate, and has a Manfrotto RC-2 plate built into the bottom - you could clamp that into your tripod head, then clamp any AS plate into it.  The SQRC-501PL does the same thing for the Manfrotto 501 clamp on the monopod you link.  Both are available from Kirk or from B&H/Adorama.  If you clicked the links, you noticed that unfortunately they aren't cheap (those two conversion clamps together cost more than the monopod/head combo you linked). 

The Manfrotto systems are cheaper, although the quality isn't as good and as stated, they aren't cross-compatible within the lines.  The workaround is to pick whichever of the clamps (RC2 or 501PL) you have more of, then use the plates for that clamp on your camera/lenses.  Assuming that's the RC2, the way to convert between the RC2 and 501PL, for example, is to get a clamp for the RC2 (called Manfrotto 323), then connect a 501PL plate to the bottom of that.  Then you drop that plate+clamp into the monopod head, and attach your camera or lens to the 323 clamp.

Once you decide on Manfrotto vs. an AS system, we can help with clamp choices, etc.  There again, though, the Manfrotto is the 'value' option - the 323 clamp is $33, Kirk/Wimberley/RRS screw clamps are in the $60-80 range, and RRS lever clamps are mostly >$100.

Hope that helps...

6152
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Would switching to FF hurt my macro??
« on: December 03, 2012, 11:00:01 PM »
For macro, ff is better, because you get the detail. But since you loose the 1.6x crop factor, you have less zoom, so you may disturb bugs, and, you technically loose magnification, since your t2i gives you a (example 100mm macro) 160mm 2.8 with minimum focusing distance of x. With ff, you'll have a 100mm zoom, and the same x focusing distance.

Technically, no.  A 100mm macro lens focused at the MFD will project the same sized image on both a FF and an APS-C sensor.  There's no additional real magnification, the smaller sensor is just capturing a smaller portion of the image circle.  Depending on the pixel densities involved, the APS-C sensor may (and likely will, for a newer APS-C camera) put more pixels on the target.  But if that means more magnification, then a 5DIII has more magnification than a 6D, because it has a higher pixel density.  If you compare a FF 5DII to an APS-C 20D with a 100mm macro lens at 1:1, the subject would be the same size in both images, because the pixel density is the same for the two sensors.

6153
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's roadmap
« on: December 03, 2012, 10:31:52 PM »
Just to share.  This shows Canon's roadmap most explicitly.

http://blogs.reuters.com/fullfocus/2012/11/30/best-photos-of-the-year-2012/#a=65


Dude, all I see are a bunch of pictures of stuff.  What does that have to do with Canon?   :o

</sarcasm> in case that wasn't clear to anyone...

6154
EOS Bodies / Re: Downgrade to crop
« on: December 03, 2012, 10:21:29 PM »
Sometimes I feel that APS-C users (myself included) always have to make do somehow; the decisions feel much harder to make when buying lenses. The grass looks so much greener on the FF side...

Ummmm, sure. Tell that to my wallet.  The one with a whole lot less green in it, after buying a 600/4L IS II to get similar framing on my 1D X as the 100-400mm on my 7D.   :P

6155
Lenses / Re: APS-C lens mm are correct
« on: December 03, 2012, 10:11:57 PM »
APS-C lens mm are correct

Well, at least your thread title was correct.  ;)

Like I stated, focal length is an intrinsic property of the lens.  They don't print 29-216mm on the 18-135mm lens because that would be a lie.  The fact that the FF equivalent figures are used in marketing is partly because bigger sounds better (as pointed out above) and partly historical, when everyone was new to digital and coming from the original FF 'sensor' aka 35mm film.

Here's one more for you to wrap your head around, Tristan944: the 'crop factor' applies to aperture, too, in terms of depth of field for the same framing. Because of the narrower AoV with APS-C, to take the 'same shot' (e.g. fill the frame with a 6' tall subject), at any given focal length you must be further from that subject with an APS-C camera compared to FF. That increased distance means deeper DoF, by a factor of 1.6x (which is a linear measure, when converted to a base-2 log it's 1.3-stops).  So...the real FF equivalent of your 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 lens would be a hypothetical 29-216mm f/5.6-9 lens (in terms of DoF; sensor size doesn't affect exposure, since that's determined by light per unit area of sensor, independent of sensor size). 

6156
Lenses / Re: APS-C lens mm are correct
« on: December 03, 2012, 09:06:31 PM »
Focal length is an intrinsic property of the lens, regardless of the sensor at the image plane. Focal length is the distance from the rear nodal point (an optical point that may or may not be within the physical space of the lens) and the image plane.  An APS-C sensor samples a smaller portion of the image circle, so it will give a narrower AoV than a FF sensor. EF-S lenses project a smaller image circle, sufficient for APS-C but insufficient for FF - but that doesn't change their focal length.

preppyak, the 17-55 and 10-22 are at least as good and probably better than 24-105 and 17-40 in terms of IQ. EF-S rules!

Not exactly. They are better if you are talking about using all of them on the same APS-C body. But if you compare the EF-S lens on APS-C to the L lens on FF, the latter will deliver better overall IQ (although worse in some measures, especially distortion).

6157
Lenses / Re: APS-C lens mm are correct
« on: December 03, 2012, 08:56:07 PM »
Consider this scenario. The view and angle through the viewfinders for the following two scenarios will be identical:
Canon 7D with the 18-135mm zoomed to 18mm.
Canon 5D with an 18mm Full Frame only lens.

If you had no idea what camera I handed you, and gave you these two configurations, the image through the viewfinder would be identical and you wouldn't know which configuration I gave you.

100% WRONG.

In that scenario (EF-S lens at 18mm on APS-C vs. EF lens at 18mm on FF), the FF viewfinder (and captured image) would show a much wider angle of view.

If you are at 18mm on APS-C and 29mm on FF, then what you see in the VF will be the same.

6158
use the single center point.  Take your focus, keep the shutter pressed 1/2 way down and recompose your shot.  It will keep the original focus

Great advice, if you like backfocused shots.  Of course, f/4 or f/5.6 usually gives sufficient DoF to mask the focus error...

6159
@ Halfrack - thanks!!!

6160
The OP's monopod thread mentioned a 70-200/2.8. I have a question for users of the CarrySpeed and/or SpiderHolster - how well do they work (if at all) when attached via the lens tripod collar?  Also, does the CarrySpeed plate twist?

The only method I can think of is to use the Spider clamp or the same Kirk clamps with the bracket or pin on the backside.  Still have that paranoid if it isn't tight fear though.

What do you mean by 'twist' with the CarrySpeed plate?

Makes sense, thanks.  Seems with the SpiderHolster, you'd just hang by the body plate, regardless.  Since I use an RRS L-bracket, I'll give their AS clamp some thought.

By twist I mean rotate in the tripod socket (it shouldn't do that).  The RRS plates/brackets have a lip that wraps over the edge of the camera bottom to prevent twisting.

6161
It seems like CarrySpeed is the only one making a strap + plate for the Arca-Swiss set (F-1), while SpiderHolster has an addon plate that makes their plate Arca friendly (I just use the CarrySpeed F-1 plate with the SpiderHolder).  Spider also has a Arca clamp attachment that allows you to hang a RRS type setup off their belt.

The OP's monopod thread mentioned a 70-200/2.8. I have a question for users of the CarrySpeed and/or SpiderHolster - how well do they work (if at all) when attached via the lens tripod collar?  Also, does the CarrySpeed plate twist?

6162
EOS Bodies / Re: Downgrade to crop
« on: December 03, 2012, 06:30:11 PM »
However in this situation, we are reproducing the same sized image from the same area of sensor, ergo the dof is the same.

That would be true with film, but it's not true with digital.  Besides focal length, subject distance, and aperture, DoF is also affected by CoC.  So, the crop sensor actually gives a (slightly) shallower DoF when the first three factors are all constant.



I am sorry but you are looking at this wrong. The CoC is the same size for both images, think about it, the pixels don't know how big the sensor is and once you crop it doesn't matter how big the sensor was, it only matters how much you use, a FF camera cropped down to the size of a crop camera is exactly the same and I used the same area from both sensors. The CoC is only relevant with regards reproduction percentage, or how much you enlarge something, if the subject is the same size on the sensors (which it is) and the print/screen is the same size (which they are) the CoC is the same size (assuming the same aperture). I have cropped both sensors so effectively they are the same size, same reproduction size and same subject magnification, the DOF is the same.

CoC follows the same rules for film and digital, it is just the distance at which a point becomes a circle.

Sorry for the confusion, but I was talking about shooting both sensor formats at 1:1 lens magnification, no cropping involved.

6163
Amazon isn't the place. B&H and Adorama carry Kirk, Wimberley, and most others. Really Right Stuff is sold only directly on their website, but their gear is excellent.

6164
EOS Bodies / Re: Downgrade to crop
« on: December 03, 2012, 03:19:10 PM »
However in this situation, we are reproducing the same sized image from the same area of sensor, ergo the dof is the same.

That would be true with film, but it's not true with digital.  Besides focal length, subject distance, and aperture, DoF is also affected by CoC.  So, the crop sensor actually gives a (slightly) shallower DoF when the first three factors are all constant.

If you'll print 24x36" and hang on your wall, the 7D wins
So an un-cropped 5d3 file printed to 24*36" has no real world win over a 7d? Or, have I lost something in the ambiguity?
Daniel, that is quoting out of context. Neuro was comparing a cropped 5DII image to a 7D's.

Correct - I am talking about the situation where you're 'focal length limited' and using a crop sensor for the greater (apparent) reach, whereas if you had a FF sensor you'd have to crop the image to the FoV of the APS-C sensor, to get the desired framing.  Doesn't matter if it's 5DII or 5DIII - in both cases, the cropped FF image will be similar in IQ to the APS-C image, but have fewer MPs. 

If you can get closer or use a longer lens (or you decide to show more of the background), the FF camera will 'win' and that's exactly what I stated in my post.

6165
Software & Accessories / Re: B+W ND filters from 2filter.com
« on: December 03, 2012, 03:12:40 PM »
Schneider Optics is the parent company of B+W (has been for years).  You seem to be suggesting the B+W 'brand' is going away, and they will be labeled Schneider Optics?  I hadn't heard that...

I ordered a Schneider Optics filter from 2filter, customer service was great (it was an uncoated 10-stop ND, and that was the only 82mm 10-stop available before the B+W one was (re-) released).  But B+W has a 10-stop MRC now (even 82mm), so if you order a B+W one, that's what you should get.

Pages: 1 ... 409 410 [411] 412 413 ... 842