October 25, 2014, 03:32:26 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 ... 973
Technical Support / Re: An error occurring randomly
« on: May 10, 2013, 08:15:50 AM »
It is certainly NOT endorsed by Canon so I'd take your advice with a pinch of salt.

True, but sometimes Canon's guidance needs a pinch of salt, too. The manual for my 600 II instructs me to send the lens to Canon to replace the tripod foot with the monopod foot. Apparently, a hex key and four screws are too complex for us normal folks to handle.  ::)

Find a different angle or clone the reflection out in post (Photoshop, etc.).

Lenses / Re: Sport lens - low budget
« on: May 10, 2013, 07:34:06 AM »
200/2.8L II.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: [advice] My last tripod
« on: May 10, 2013, 07:31:17 AM »
I've used my TVC-33 in pretty harsh conditions (on a beach as a hurricane approached, in the rain with windblown sand and salt spray).  Water definitely gets in the leg tubes on the RRS - those 'ocean locks' on the Gitzo look nice.  The RRS legs (like Gitzo, although not sure about the Ocean series) are field-strippable and easy to take apart to rinse/dry.

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 09, 2013, 08:43:05 PM »
That is just blur, not compression, not background compression, not a change in perspective. With a longer lens from the same place with the same aperture the background will blur more, simple as that.

Your friends terminology is also incorrect, perspective is only about the relative sizes of the objects within the frame, and that is only determined by the distance from those objects. The background is more blurred in my 200mm shot, but the fences and tree are the same size in relation to the woman. If you look at the branch going across the right hand edge of your images, the 400mm shot is much more blurred, but the branch is the same size and angle in the 100mm shot. The same elements are contained within both frames, the fov and angle of view are the same.

Exactly.  As for having a lot of friends who also misuse the terminology in the same way that you (jrista) do, well...I know a lot of people who write 'a lot' as one word, but that doesn't make 'alot' correct, either.

So, Neuroanatomist, have you got your 800mm yet?  ;D

There's no point - the 600 II + 1.4xIII (which I do have) delivers 840mm f/5.6 that's physically lighter and has better IQ than the 800/5.6.  Similarly, the 600 II + 2xIII is longer, lighter, and has better IQ than the 800 + 1.4x.

It's not surprising that Adorama (and others) are having trouble selling the 800L.

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 09, 2013, 07:19:39 PM »
I'm not sure I agree.

Going off of your own link, in my scenario the Grebe is the blue bottle in the distance, not the pink bottle in the foreground. That blue bottle DEFINITELY changes in each frame, as does its relationship with its surroundings. The apparent distance between the pink bottle and the blue bottle is the kind of change I am talking about.

You can disagree, but you'd be wrong.  Please read the linked post again, in its entirety. The blue and pink water bottles are not my example, they're wikipedia's, and they are confusing because while the focal lengths are prominently labeled, distances aren't stated - and the distance is a covariant.

Scroll down to the beer bottles - those are my examples. Look just at the left column - those images have decreasing focal lengths but the same distance, and thus the perspective is identical. The 100mm shot could be 600mm for the grebe, and the 50mm shot analogous to a 300mm lens - if you're the same distance from the grebe, the perspective will be the same, whether the foreground is a loon or open water.  To change the perspective as you see in the right column of beer bottle images, you'd need to be wading out into that 10' deep water. Bring your A1400 if you want, or your 600mm lens - in either case, it'll be the changing distance that's altering the perspective of the shot, not the camera/lens you're holding while treading water.

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 09, 2013, 06:17:40 PM »
...from the exact same spot on shore. No question in my mind that I could have gotten a better perspective

Well if it had been from the exact same spot, it would have had the exact same perspective!  :)

The longer lens changes perspective. Remember, bird size and depth compression change by a factor of (Longer/Shorter)^2 when you change lenses. If you go from a 400mm lens to a 600mm lens, the bird gets 2.25x larger in the frame, and the background compresses by the same factor. Anything that "stretches out behind the bird" would stretch in a different way...and on top of that, it would be softer, more aesthetically appealing.

So no, same location, different perspective, with two telephoto lenses of different focal lengths.

Sorry, but no.  The ONLY thing that determines the perspective is the distance to the subject. Not focal length, not aperture, not sensor size/FoV. Distance from image plane to subject. Period.

EDIT: dug up a previous post showing the difference between changing focal length vs. changing distance:


EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 09, 2013, 04:44:33 PM »
If I do get the photo, I'd be better and more unique than yours. How many photos do you see of them close up? Not many, but It would make a better photo.

So assuming we both get the photo, the A1400 would produce a better photo.

Is it inconvenient to wade water, possibly damage equipment and risk life for the shot? Sure, but many many photographers do just that. Some even camo themselves to get close.

The 600L is convenient but does it make better photos? not really. A photographers drive? Always.

Ok, you win.

The awards for obstinacy and foolishness, I mean.  Your photo, in the extremely unlikely event you got it, would suck in comparison.

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 09, 2013, 03:51:34 PM »
Arguments don't matter, they're only an inconvenience.  ::)

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« on: May 09, 2013, 03:44:47 PM »
I heard something on the radio yesterday - along the lines of techno electro pop fusion. It was created de novo on a computer, no instruments were used at all.  The DJ called it a song. I bet if I'd Shazam'd it, I'd have found it on iTunes.  Was it music?  Is the person who produced it a musician or a programmer?  Does it matter? 

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 09, 2013, 03:36:40 PM »
If better gear makes photography more convenient, then gear matters.  To say gear doesn't matter, it's a convenience, is an oxymoron.   Unless convenience doesn't matter...in that case, why aren't you using emulsion-coated glass and a plate of flash powder?

But you can call it convenient if you want.  Your posting history clearly indicates that gear matters to you.

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 09, 2013, 03:02:15 PM »
The gear doesn't matter, its just a matter of convenience.

Repeating your fallacious argument doesn't make it cogent.
What about an insinuation that drools with repetition?  Does it perhaps make a cogent argument more cogent?


Let me put it like this - RLPhoto has been clamoring up, down, and sideways for an EF 135mm f/1.8L IS for months (his recent poll, and IIRC, he even photoshopped a mockup of one).  Why not just use a 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus or even an old manual focus FD 135mm f/3.5?  Because...gear matters.   

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 09, 2013, 02:27:35 PM »
The gear doesn't matter, its just a matter of convenience.

Repeating your fallacious argument doesn't make it cogent.

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 09, 2013, 01:11:04 PM »
I love being devil's advocate.  ;D

The gear doesn't matter, its just a matter of convenience. That's how I feel about equipment.

Fine, but a proper devil's advocate should present a cogent argument...otherwise, you're merely being contrary and argumentative.

Pages: 1 ... 412 413 [414] 415 416 ... 973