December 21, 2014, 10:08:55 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 ... 411 412 [413] 414 415 ... 1005
Lenses / Re: Does it make sense to keep my EF 100mm f2.0?
« on: June 24, 2013, 12:14:38 PM »
I don't like the slowpoke AF of the macro, compared to the 100f2. The 100f2 focusses instantly!
i read the EF 100mm F2.8 IS L macro is pretty fast focusing?
It's all relative.  Compared to the 85L II, the 100L is a speed demon.  But it's a lot slower than most other L-series lenses.
but the EF 100 f2.0 is not an L lens... but it is still noticeable faster?

Yes, it is.  The 85/1.8 is also faster, and much faster than the 85L.  For L-series lenses, I think the three slowest ones are the 180L Macro, the 85L, and the 100L Macro.  The 100L Macro also seems to hunt for focus more frequently than many other lenses, especially in dim light. 

It's also worth noting that despite being an f/2.8 lens, the 100L is in 'Group C' meaning on the 1D X/5DIII it doesn't activate any of the high-precision f/2.8 cross points.  But not to be outdone, the 180L Macro is in Group G, so while it's an f/3.5 lens not only does it not use the f/4 crosses, it can only use 33 of the 1D X/5DIII's 61 AF points. 

Bottom line, don't look to a macro lens for excellent AF.  Which is ok for me, because I'm almost always manually focusing for macro shooting, anyway.

Lenses / Re: Does it make sense to keep my EF 100mm f2.0?
« on: June 24, 2013, 12:01:45 PM »
I don't like the slowpoke AF of the macro, compared to the 100f2. The 100f2 focusses instantly!
i read the EF 100mm F2.8 IS L macro is pretty fast focusing?
It's all relative.  Compared to the 85L II, the 100L is a speed demon.  But it's a lot slower than most other L-series lenses.

Software & Accessories / Re: Gimbal heads - Benro or Wimberley?
« on: June 24, 2013, 10:28:14 AM »
Further digging suggests the latest Benro GH3 has a tiny bit of slop in the connections compared to the non-dismantleable (is that a word?!?) GH2. I guess that's to be expected, fewer parts means more robust structure.

Not necessarily.  My RRS gimbal is dismantleable, and exceptionally robust.

still undecided on whether to go hard or soft on my first ND Grad though  :-\

A soft edge tends to be more versatile - there aren't to many straight lines in nature...

Foundation Kit, a 0.9 soft-edge ND grad, the Big Stopper, and if you plan to shoot straight horizons (ocean, etc.), a 0.6 or 0.9 hard-edge ND grad.  If you'll shoot sunsets on the horizon, consider a 0.9 reverse-grad ND (e.g. Singh-Ray).

Don't forget a circular polarizer.

Fine if you want to use the CPL solo or with a solid ND.  Not so easy with a Lee holder if you also want to use a grad ND.  Your options there would be to either get a second foundation kit and the tandem adapter putting the CPL in the outer holder, or the 105mm adapter insert and a 105mm CPL (B+W, etc., usually pretty expensive in that large a diameter).

Lenses / Re: EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x Review from TDP
« on: June 24, 2013, 09:35:13 AM »
A stellar lens, certainly.

One interesting (and concerning!) note from the review: "Canon does not advise shifting the extender into place until IS turns off and all memory card writing ceases. The Canon rep I talked to strongly advised against doing this and suggested that a service visit may be required of a lens that has been used in this way. Apparently electronics are at the root of the potential problem. Since the entire fly-by shown above lasted less than 4 seconds, the horse would have been gone before the card writing completed."  Since it takes a brief but noticeable time for IS to shut off, and a card write after a burst can take several seconds, I could see this being an issue when shooting with the lens. 

Be careful, folks!  Also, if true it could be a real hassle for lens rental businesses... 

Lenses / Re: Does it make sense to keep my EF 100mm f2.0?
« on: June 24, 2013, 09:34:14 AM »
I don't like the slowpoke AF of the macro, compared to the 100f2. The 100f2 focusses instantly!

Yep - if you shoot indoor sports or the like, the extra stop and faster AF of the 100/2 make it a better choice.

Lenses / Re: 24mm options...
« on: June 24, 2013, 09:29:20 AM »
Since you list buildings, I'd go with the 24/1.4L II, budget permitting.  It has the least amount of barrel distortion of the three lenses you list, and although it's a bit soft away form the center wide open at f/1.4, stopped down to f/2.8 or narrower it's as sharp or sharper than the other lenses you list.  The only area where the 24/1.4L II is worse is vignetting, (over three stops wide open), but that's also much less of an issue when stopped down.

Software & Accessories / Re: Gimbal heads - Benro or Wimberley?
« on: June 24, 2013, 09:09:58 AM »
...I ended up getting the RRS full gimbal head (  I also got some adapters so that I can quickly swap the BH-40 and gimbal head.

As always, RRS is an expensive option, but I love how the system works.

+1.  I went with the RRS PG-02 LLR side gimbal for my 600 II (their recommendation).  I also have the BH-55 LR, and I use the leveling base with clamp and dovetails on the heads to easily swap them.  Although not needed for a ballhead, a leveling base is very useful with a gimbal head.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: How do you carry your tripod?
« on: June 24, 2013, 07:08:41 AM »
I store my RRS tripods and monopod in their very nice, custom-sized quiver bags.  I often use those for car transport, but not for walking around. I use the tripod attachment on my Lowepro Flipside 300 and 400 AW with my travel tripod (RRS TQC-14 w/ BH-30 LR), and that works great.  But, it wouldn't really work with my full-sized tripod (RRS TVC-33 w/ BH-55 LR or PG-02 LLR gimbal) - only one leg (vs. two) would fit in the pocket, and the tripod would stick up way too high.  I do attach the TVC-33 to the side attachment of the (much taller) Lowepro Lens Trekker 600 AW II, and that works well (bigger pocket, fits two thick legs).

I often carry the monopod (RRS MC-34 w/ MH-02 Pro) on a Lowepro belt, attached with a Maxpedition Universal Light/Baton Sheath.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Weak LP-e6 battery
« on: June 24, 2013, 06:19:39 AM »
I try as far as possible to completely discharge the LP-E6 in camera (so it will no longer power the camera) before I recharge it, though I'm not sure if this really makes much difference to battery life/ recharge performance.

If anything, that's worse.  Li-ion batteries are better used frequently but lightly. Frequent full discharges will actually reduce overall longevity.

Canon General / Re: How ready is your camera gear usually?
« on: June 24, 2013, 03:28:12 AM »
It's all in my walk-in closet in the master bedroom (my wife has her own walk-in closet). Not 'packed' because the gear is stored in four Storm hard cases for protection.  But one case holds the 1D X with the 24-70 II attached, another case holds the other 'go to' lenses - 70-200 II, holy trinity primes (35L, 85L II, 135L) and the 100L Macro, and a third larger case holds the remaining lenses (UWA zoom, TS-E, MP-E, supertele, etc.).  The fourth case holds flashes, PWs, filters, etc.  Many of the closet's shoe cubbies are put to good use, holding various lens cases, flash brackets, straps, wired/wireless releases, lens cleaning supplies, etc. Tripods, light stands, softboxes, backdrops etc., are all in there, too.  A selection of bags is right next to the Storm cases, from the small Toploader Pro 65AW for just the body with standard lens attached, a few backpacks, to the Lens Trekker that holds the body with the 600 II. least your main body plus most/all your lenses...

Sorry, but without a couple of Sherpas, that's just not going to happen...   ;)

Software & Accessories / Re: How good is Reikan FoCal?
« on: June 24, 2013, 01:07:51 AM »
My frustration with the program is beyond words.  So I just keep putting out there that when you use FoCal, you still need a way to verify the AFMA such as with a spydercal.  Dont "trust" that FoCal has worked as expected.  You need to verify what it's produced and at that point you might as well just use SpyderCal or LensCal in the first place.

How do you verify your SpyderLensCal results?  Personally, I never found that 8-10 shots were enough with a LensAlign Pro.

As I said, I get equivalent results with FoCal and LensAlign when I do compare them, but the LensAlign is a lot more work.  Perhaps it's that digital image analysis (of microscopy images) was part of my day job for many years, but I know that a properly-written algorithm can pick the sharpest image from a group better than a human eye, particularly when the images are close. Gauging the edges of the DoF on the angled ruler was not always obvious (particular with slower lenses at longer distances).  I'll also take a quantitative analysis over a qualitative analysis any day of the week.

I'm honestly not sure why you're getting inconsistent results with the setup you describe.  But perhaps I am getting consistent results because of how I use FoCal - for image analysis only.  They do seem to have worked toward predictive algorithms with each release, so that fewer shots are required per test.  It may be that their algorithms aren't all that predictive - undersampling with a system that has both systematic and random error can easily lead to erroneous results.  Since I got the 1D X before there was any FoCal support, I was forced to use Manual Mode - and I found it easy and very robust. I still do it that way.  Granted...I know that I'm oversampling (a lot), but my curve fits are solid, and the conclusion is visually evident.  Before FoCal, I wrote a Matlab script to do a similar analysis - FoCal is easier, with a nice front end GUI (something I have no idea how to code), and it works on jpgs instead of requiring conversion to tifs.

My setup is pretty simple - I leave a target taped to the basement wall (I've got enough room down there for up to a 300mm lens; outdoors I tape a target to the fence), set up the camera on a stable tripod, align as best I can (using the camera's level and my eyeball alignment), and shoot two shots per even AFMA value over |10| (defocused in opposite directions) and three shots from -10 to +10 (two defocused opposite then one without defocusing).  Setup takes less than 5 minutes, taking the 83 shots per test takes about 10 minutes.  It's quite obvious what the correct result should be, based on the curve. In the software, I can click on any point on the plot and see the image from which the data point was derived.  What's to verify?

Lenses / Re: 100L vs. 135L
« on: June 23, 2013, 08:15:18 PM »
The diff between 0  and +1 by 12points(880 vs 892, x50 in distance) through Reikan FoCal, I wonder the human can see this diff? I rather leave my @ zero ;)

Perhaps not.  But AF systems aren't perfect - take a bunch of shots, and while a properly AFMA'd lens will result in spot-on focus on average, any given shot may be a bit off. By ensuring the AFMA is correct, you're ensuring that the shots that are a bit off are less off. 

In my opinion the 100L is better than the 135L at everything, except that the 135L is F2 one extra stop a more creamy bokeh. No Macro capibility on the 135L though. They are both super sharp.

My 135L focuses a lot faster than my 100L. That makes it a better choice for action, so for me it's more than just the extra stop of light.

Lenses / Re: Beginner lens
« on: June 23, 2013, 07:56:47 PM »
Unless you absolutely need f/1.4, I'd get the 40/2.8.

Pages: 1 ... 411 412 [413] 414 415 ... 1005