September 17, 2014, 09:58:07 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 ... 411 412 [413] 414 415 ... 949
so how long would you shoot in the rain with your 1dx neuro lets say heavy rain i have used my 1dx in heavy rain with no problems yet though but only for say 10-15 minutes.

I've been out in wind-driven rain (and sand) for a few hours, shooting birds at the beach with the 1D X and 600 II as a hurricane was approaching.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon Refurb 400mm f/5.6L $910
« on: April 11, 2013, 10:48:45 AM »
Okay, so is it safe to assume that since your still wanting to get the EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Super Telephoto lens that it has some advantages to the other two lenses correct?  Not trying to be funny in asking this question. Just trying to learn more.

I don't see where Mt. Spokane suggested he personally wanted the 400/5.6L.  My take was that he was posting the listing on the refurb site as a public service, in case others are interested.

Lenses / Re: Which Lens ... 24-70 II or primes?
« on: April 11, 2013, 10:46:43 AM »
family / children:  better with prime lenses
landscapes: better with a 24-70

Interesting.  I have the opposite viewpoint, mostly.  My kids move fast - a zoom offers the flexibility I need to capture them from arm's length to across the yard.  For landscapes, I have the camera on a tripod and time at my disposal.  TS-E 24mm and mucking about with gran ND filters?  No problem. 

But my question is does fresh water cause corrosion that quickly it was under water for at least 10 seconds

'Fresh' water isn't.  There are all sorts of minerals, fine particulates and chemicals in 'fresh' water.  Yes, it will cause corrosion.  Plus, the water that got inside didn't disappear when you pulled it out of the river - it stayed in there until it evaporated.

FWIW, there's a subatantial difference between being splashed (or rained on) and being submerged, as far as water resistance goes.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]
« on: April 11, 2013, 09:58:10 AM »
Nikon is approaching the problem of maximising profit by providing products that give maximum benefit to the photographer that cares about the quality of their photograph in the belief that this is the #1 priority for camera purchases.

See, I just knew there was a reason for the oil spatters on the D600 sensor.  Nikon cares about the quality of the photographs. 

Tell me...does that strategy apply to their lenses, too?  If so, why is a Sigma lens an oh-so-significant 2% better?  I suppose because Nikon tried but failed.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]
« on: April 11, 2013, 09:34:53 AM »
A 2% difference.

Well, if that's not grasping at straws, what is?   ::)

You're assuming that all Canon turn-a-rounds were speedy...

True.  But Roger Cicala's repair data indicate an average (in the USA) of 6 days for Canon vs. 26 days for Nikon.  Or, since you seem to like percentages, 433% longer for a Nikon repair in the US, on average.

Or in other words, Canon seems to be ignoring the photographer and going for the consumer (which kind of agrees with your statement above.)

Oh, I see.  Consumers don't care about IQ, but Photographers do, so they should all be using Nikon.  Wait, did I say that?  Somehow, I don't think so...

If you think Nikon has better sensor DR because they aren't 'ignoring the photographer', you're being terribly naive.   Canon and Nikon are publically traded companies.  Neither of them 'care about photographers' except insofar as photographers are consumers that buy their products.  Canon and Nikon care about profit.  In some countries (the US being one), it goes beyond caring - publically held compaines are legally obligated to maximize profit.  Canon just seems to be doing a better job at that, based on corporate reports.

It's not that it is poor but rather that there has been no improvement and it isn't as if there are no problems that need fixing.

No, there are problems that you want fixed (and so do I, admittedly).  Important distinction.  But they can clearly outsell Nikon despite those 'problems' so the only voice that matters - the market - has decided there no need to fix anything.

Lenses / Re: $1000 budget, need lens recommendation for Canon t1i
« on: April 11, 2013, 09:18:01 AM »
but I think you can skimp on the tripod.

The Manfrotto 294 with midi ballhead IS skimping on the tripod.   ;)  But at least it's going to be useful - a super-cheap tripod + pan-tilt head likely won't be used at all.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]
« on: April 11, 2013, 08:54:36 AM »
No, not grasping at straws, just simply considering all of the lenses that are available for a camera. If you want to limit yourself to only those lenses that the camera vendor makes, fine, but don't impose those restrictions on others.

There are many fine lenses that are made for use on Canon/Nikon that are not made by Canon/Nikon.

The grasping at straws part was more about the fact that considering the Sigma 35/1.4 gets you barely a marginal improvement, as I said - throwing away 13 MP instead of 14 MP.

If I was going to have a grudge, it would be because of something it them taking 4 tries to Canon's lens repair service to fix the IS in a 70-300 IS USM (non-L).

"Yeah we fixed it", "No you haven't, try again." "Fixed it this time.", "Put on a camera and it didn't work, try again." la la la

And with Nikon, that might be <wait 4 weeks> "Yeah we fixed it", "No you haven't, try again."<wait 4 weeks> "Fixed it this time.", "Put on a camera and it didn't work, try again."<wait 4 weeks> la la la

No, the point of me saying this is because lots of people are arguing that "Canon cameras sell well, so obviously 18MP is enough" or "... so obviously the DR isn't important." In a sense they're right, but it appears that it isn't the IQ that is selling the camera - it is the bells and whistles.

In a sense?  No need for a qualifier there.  As I've stated before, people buy cameras not sensors.  Their reasons for choosing one camera over another are as varied as the people themselves.  Canon recognizes that people buy cameras, not naked sensors, and they design their cameras accordingly.  The fact that they continue to outsell Nikon across the lineup quite clearly indicates that they know what they're doing in terms of camera design (including the sensor). 

Saying 'it isn't the IQ that is selling the camera' is an unrealistic over-generalization.  The problem is that some people seem to suggest that simply because the sensor in a Nikon camera offers a couple of extra stops of DR, that means the IQ of the sensor in a Canon camera is unacceptably poor.  It's that sort of attitude that raises hackles around here, and for good reason - it's complete crap.  If you want to peddle that line of BS, try a Nikon forum...I'm sure you'd be welcomed with open arms. 

I sold my 24-70 2.8 L II, my 70-300 L an my 70-200 2.8 L IS II last buy the magic 200 2.0 L.

That would be a little extreme, for me.  But the thought did occur to me that by selling my 35L, 24-105L and 28-300L, and 100-400L, I'd be better than half way to a 300/2.8L IS II.  :-X

Lenses / Re: $1000 budget, need lens recommendation for Canon t1i
« on: April 11, 2013, 08:33:20 AM »
I would guess that 25% of the time, the camera will be used indoors where there isn't great light and a flash won't be possible to use.  I'm worred that the 15-85 won't be any improvement over the kit lens in that type of shooting situation.

No, the 15-85mm will not help you there.  The 50/1.4 or 50/1.8 would be good...if a short tele is what you need in those situations.  Else, consider the 35/2.

Here's my suggestion:

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 $499 (better IQ than the Sigma 17-50 and cheaper, too).
Canon 50mm f/1.8 II $109
Canon Speedlite 430EX II $254
Manfrotto 294 tripod w/ QR ballhead $135

Leaves you $3 from your $1K budget.  :)

Macro / Re: Mp-e and 100mmL sharpness
« on: April 11, 2013, 07:29:30 AM »
I find the 100 L a lot more easier ... another interesting think which I was not aware of was how long the MP-E 65 lens barrel zooms out at 5x Macro ... I always thought it was tiny lens.
Did you know that the 100 L gets "shorter" as you focus closer?  Not on the outside, but on the inside. Although it's a 100 mm lens when focused at infinity, when focused at 1:1, it's actually approximately 68 mm in focal length.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon Refurb 400mm f/5.6L $910
« on: April 10, 2013, 10:45:18 PM »
Yes, I have both.  I much prefer to use the 100-400L at 400mm.

Same here.

Lenses / Re: Help: 24-105L making faint noises
« on: April 10, 2013, 10:43:34 PM »
I too had a similar query when I got the 100-400, that lens make a fairly loud and audible clunk when the IS is activated.

Try the 300/4L IS sometime - an even louder clunk you can hear and feel, and during operation the IS is sort of a low growl.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]
« on: April 10, 2013, 10:33:13 PM »
Can you elaborate, please? I mean, if you were to take a hypothetical 25.6 MP FF sensor and use scissors to trim it by a factor of 1.6 in each dimension, you'd end up with a 10 MP APS-C sensor. Using the same lens, there should be no difference how it resolves before and after trimming, right?

P-Mpix isn't a measure of resolution, although resolution is a contributing factor.  Resolution ≠ sharpness.  A true measure of spatial resolution involves a physical distance.  Usual units are line pairs / mm (LP/mm). For a spatially normalized measure in LP/mm, the higher density sensor will outresolve the lower density sensor. 

However, that's a per-unit basis - and that's not how we look at images.   MTF50, a commonly used measure of sharpness, is reported in line pairs / picture height (LP/PH).  In that case, the greater 'height' of a FF sensor means higher values.  You can see that on - when you compare a lens on FF vs. APS-C, the MTF50 values will be higher for the 5DII tests than the 50D tests, despite the higher pixel density of the 50D.  This isn't just a numerical phenomenon - take a look at the TDP comparison of two 18 MP sensors, the 1D X vs. the 7D (same lens, the 200/2L IS at f/4).  The 1D X is producing a noticeably sharper image.

P-Mpix isn't exactly measuring sharpness, either.  It's basically a measure derived from subjective quality factor (SQF), which simply put is an MTF measurement that's adjusted to match human perception (the psychophysical basis is that humans percieve some spatial frequencies better than others, and viewing distance is relevant to perception of sharpness, too). 

That difference you see in TDP's ISO 12233 crops can be measured by SQF, and that's basically what P-Mpix is telling you.  For example, the Canon 300mm f/2.8L IS II that delivers 22 P-Mpix on the 5DIII achieves only 14 P-Mpix on the 7D.  In fact, the 300mm f/4L IS at $1400 delivers better perceived sharpness on the 5DIII than the $7000 supertele lens on the 7D.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]
« on: April 10, 2013, 05:47:45 PM »
Aomething is not right with these numbers.

For example, Canon 40D's 10 MP sensor would be 25.6 MP, if enlarged to FF size (10 * 1.6 * 1.6). Similarly, 7D's-FF equivalent sensor would contain 46 MP.

Yet, 7D shows markedly better resolution than 40D in combination with the same lenses. In fact, with quite a few lenses, not only the very best ones.

So, if these systems benefit from increased pixel density from 25.6 to 46 MP FF sensor equivalent, how can the best lenses be the limiting factor at 21-22 MP? Or am I misunderstanding something?

Pixel density isn't the only factor - sensor size matters.

Pages: 1 ... 411 412 [413] 414 415 ... 949