July 29, 2014, 06:15:49 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 ... 412 413 [414] 415 416 ... 896
6196
Lenses / Re: What nd filter density (combinations) do you use?
« on: January 24, 2013, 08:57:36 AM »
Good points above.  The 'Maltese cross' artifact with variable ND's gets worse the darker you go and the wider the AoV (it's caused by uneven polarization, like you see with a CPL on a UWA lens).  Since one of my main uses for a 10-stop ND is to blur people out of city scenes, often shot with the TS-E 24 or 16-35, I've avoided a variable ND.

Although sometimes it's bright enough to use Live View with exposure simulation, normally you'd set composition and focus, meter, then screw on the ND, adjust exposure, and shoot.  A stable ballhead is a must (a little camera shake won't hurt a 30 s exposure, but you don't want to shift your composition. Probably not applicable, but a rotating front element won't work.

6197
Lenses / Re: Advice for shooting pictures of eagles
« on: January 24, 2013, 08:14:25 AM »
Eagles are big, and if you're close in the blind you may find that the DoF at 400mm f/2.8 or 560mm f/4 is actually too shallow.  There's no issue with diffraction on the 1D X up to f/11, I'd try the f/5.6 - f/8 range.

6198
Lenses / Re: 200mm F2 IS OR 135mm F2
« on: January 24, 2013, 07:55:37 AM »
If you can afford it and have room to use it (outdoors or a large indoor space), get the 200/2!

6199
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS-1D X Firmware Specifcations
« on: January 24, 2013, 07:51:51 AM »
Ahhh, now I see the issue.  Yes, that's true - I suppose it's a result of the transmissive LCD.  The older cameras you mention have the AF points etched onto the focus screen - they're always 'on' and because of the etching, when illuminated, the light hits them in such a way that pretty much only the selected AF point lights up.  With the transmissive LCD, when it's illuminated the selected AF point(s) are 'lit' but to a lesser extent the whole VF glows red. That is a bit distracting, sort of like wearing rose-colored glasses or suffering from a bad hangover.  ;)  That glow also mucks with the metering, which is why it turns off after AF lock, and why the AI Servo 'fix' is the illumination blinking on/off rather than steady.

Personally, while the transmissive LCD has some drawbacks, I think those are outweighed by the benefits of AF point display flexibility, on-demand grid display, etc.

6200
Lenses / Re: What nd filter density (combinations) do you use?
« on: January 24, 2013, 06:49:26 AM »
1.  I have 3-stop and 10-stop filters.  If I had to choose just one for nature/architecture it would be the 10-stop.  The 3-stop is great for shooting fast primes wide open for outdoor portraits, and it does 'ok' for moving water if you stop down a bit.  But for architecture shots where you want to blur out people, 10-stops is what you want - 6-stops likely would not be enough to get you to the 30-60 s exposure time. In fact, I didn't bother with an 82mm 3-stop (I have 72mm and 77mm), I just have a 10-stop in 82mm (also in 77mm).

2.  The only real-world drawback might be increased optical or even mechanical vignetting, depending on the lens.  For example, with the 16-35L II, stacking an F-Pro ND and a Slim CPL will add 2-stops of optical vignetting at 16mm f/5.6, and cause mechanical vignetting at 16mm f/2.8.  OTOH, I often stack my 82mm Slim Käsemann CPL on my 82mm 10-stop ND on a TS-E 24L II, no problems there.

3.  My 10-stop NDs are uncoated.  If there has been MRC versions available when I bought them, I'd likely have done so (in fact, when I bought my 82mm 10-stop, the only one even available as a screw-in was from Schneider Optics, B+W's parent company). But, it hasn't been an issue.  The coating makes cleaning easier, but you're not going to have to clean an ND too often.  The main benefit of a multicoated filter is to increase transmission by reducing reflection (an uncoated UV/clear filter will cost you 8-10% of the light, a multicoated one loses <1%).  But the whole point of an ND filter is to lose light...  Yes, in theory there may be some extra flare (due to reflections between the front element and the back of the filter), but the coatings on the front element minimize that, and I haven't found it to be a real-world problem.

Hope that helps...

6201
PW and Canon RT can't trigger each other.  Different freqs, different protocols.

You'd need the 600EX-RT on a Flex TT5 to trigger it. Or, go all Canon with an ST-E3-RT or a second 600 on the camera to trigger the 600 (but the 580 can't be radio triggered without a 3rd party trigger, or at all by the ST-E3).

6202
Software & Accessories / Re: Rucksack Camera Bags
« on: January 23, 2013, 10:57:56 PM »
I like the Lowepro Flipside series (I have the 300 and 400 AW) - the opening is against your back, quite secure.

Having said that, I'm considering a Fastpack for an upcoming trip where I plan to bring my 17" MBP.  Rather than the older type, I'd get a Fastpack DSLR Video 250 or 350.  You can ignore the 'video' part. The new series offers three improvements, IMO - a tripod attachment, a rain cover, and the laptop section loads from the top vs. the side.

I'm debating between the 250 and the 350.  It's always hard to judge online - I recommend taking your gear into a shop if possible.  For example, the Flipside 300 isn't supposed to hold a gripped body, but it does. The Fastpack DSLR Video 250 states 'pro dSLR (without grip) and 24-70' but based on the stated depth a gripped body will fit - I just need to know if an attached 28-300L will fit, despite what the specs say, and if my 17" MBP will fit in the 'holds a 15" notebook' pocket (measurements say yes, reality may be different). 

6203
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS-1D X Firmware Specifcations
« on: January 23, 2013, 06:27:17 PM »
 :-[

6204
From your other thread:

Sorry, but you're worrying over nothing. Put the filter on the lens, the hood will fit just fine.

FWIW, for both the XS-Pro and F-Pro mounts, in all the sizes I have (58mm, 67mm, 72mm, 77mm, and 82mm), the outer diameter of the filter is the same as the outer diameter of the same-sized lens cap. If the hood fits over the lens cap (it always does), it fits over the filter.

6205
Sorry, but you're worrying over nothing. Put the filter on the lens, the hood will fit just fine.

FWIW, for both the XS-Pro and F-Pro mounts, in all the sizes I have (58mm, 67mm, 72mm, 77mm, and 82mm), the outer diameter of the filter is the same as the outer diameter of the same-sized lens cap. If the hood fits over the lens cap (it always does), it fits over the filter.

6206
Pricewatch Deals / Re: What is the best place to sell your equipment?
« on: January 23, 2013, 03:46:26 PM »
I use Craigslist.  Meet in a public location (Starbucks, etc.), get paid in cash.

6207
Lenses / Re: Step-up Ring, Filter...
« on: January 23, 2013, 03:44:10 PM »
@dr croubie - how does the little STM motor like that stack?   ;)

6208
Hi,
 Awesome info.!! Do you know if the Canon hood would fit the B+W 77MM XS-PRO UV MRC-NANO? The reason I ask is due to B&H stating that it may not fit.

That's a generic warning.  The 17-55's hood will fit fine with the filter in place, on and off.  B&H is warning that the actual filter is slightly larger (less than 1 mm) than the 77mm threads.  The filter for the 17-55 is the EW-83J - it's mount diameter is 83mm, plenty of space!

6209
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: ISO 50
« on: January 23, 2013, 01:41:47 PM »
In the end, from a factual PoV:

  • HTP does not in any case UNLESS the one-off case where the starting point is ISO100 lower absolute photometric exposure. At set ISOs 200-800 it does however increase the electronic noise pollution in the finished image somewhat in Canon cameras.
  • Exposure is exposure is exposure, and exposure sets the photon noise level in the image. It's set by the scene light emittance modulated by shutter speed and lens T-stop (aperture + losses), and actually also for all practical considerations: QE of the sensor. Not by ISO - though the ISO setting can change aperture and/or shutter speed when the camera is in auto- mode (anything but "M" mode), it's a secondary effect. ISO changes setting, setting changes exposure.
  • ISO in digital cameras is a translating factor between exposure (exposure x QE = cell charge) and raw file ADU value.
  • The amount of headroom available in a camera can NEVER be higher than when the camera is used on base ISO (ISO100 in the case discussed here) - Since the highest DR is always at base ISO, unless the construction is seriously flawed (actually totally botched!). This means that ISO200 + HTP has the same 'potential' headroom, since the actual physical amplification is set at ISO100, not 200
  • ISO50 (or more generally "lower than actual base ISO") settings are useless for raw shooters, but may be of some use for jpg shooters.

The only point I'd add to your astute summary is to correct the following:

• HTP does not in any case UNLESS the one-off case where the starting point is ISO100 lower absolute photometric exposure.

Assuming you're in an auto-exposure mode where the camera can change the aperture/shutter speed, enabling HTP lowers actual exposure any time the selected ISO is lower than 200, i.e. by 1/3-stop if ISO 160 is set, by 2/3-stop if ISO 125 is set, and by 2-stops if ISO 50 is set.  But only at ISO 100 is the amount of lowering equal to one stop, i.e. 'half the photons'.

6210
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: ISO 50
« on: January 23, 2013, 12:28:03 PM »
So who am I, Oprah?!?   :o

Pages: 1 ... 412 413 [414] 415 416 ... 896