January 31, 2015, 01:04:51 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 ... 418 419 [420] 421 422 ... 1024
Lenses / Re: AFMA 70-300L
« on: July 04, 2013, 05:55:01 PM »
That's a pretty big shift, although it's normal for a lens to require different AFMA at MFD vs. 25-50x (although my 100L does not).  The 70-300L has floating elements to improve sharpness during close focusing, and that might affect AFMA. 

My 70-300L requires +2 throughout the range (70mm, 100mm, 200mm, 300mm at 25x and 50x focal length distance), but I haven't checked it at the MFD.

Guess the only remaining question I have is if (big IF) Canon were to produce a full-frame mirrorless, would it still be compatible with the M-mount? Think I read that they weren't planning a full-frame mirrorless, but plans can change.

Pardon my ignorance on the question, but I like to make sure the lenses I purchase will work on the camera bodies I upgrade to in the future, like avoiding EF-s lenses for my 7D (with a possible exception for the EF-s 10-22mm).

The EF-M lenses have an image circle designed to just cover an APS-C sensor, same as EF-S lenses.

OTOH, I'm a firm believer in having lenses that are optimized for the camera you have today, not a camera you may get someday, whenever and if ever that day comes. At that point, you simply sell those lenses you no longer need.

Next time, I will get a screen capture.

To show what?

But, neither of them are light, and hand holding them is not as easy as some of you on this board seem to think it is.  Doable, certainly, but challenging, YES.  Way too much lens for a small person or a woman to handle, without being on a tri-pod (Wemberley) or at least a mono-pod.....I have had superior luck with my 1.4 III extender with my 600 but I still feel that the 2x, unless everthing is absolutely perfect, softens the pictures more than I want to have to deal with...just my two cents....

I use the 600 II with a 2xIII occasionally. I use it with the 1.4xIII more than the bare lens.  Monopod when hiking, tripod when setting up for a while, handholding 5-10% of the time.

Purchased for infrared conversion...Very pleased also that this bodes well for an M "II" this summer!

Interesting idea. If the I actually find myself using the M enough to warrant consideration of an M II, sending the current one to LifePixel might help justify the upgrade.

Anyone know how the EF-M lenses are in terms of IR hotspots?

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 70D Dual Pixel AF Performance
« on: July 04, 2013, 01:16:16 PM »
So many goodies in this new camera. Makes you wonder why would anyone get a 6d now!

No, it really doesn't.

Lenses / Re: Which lenses for Tanzania? Please advise.
« on: July 04, 2013, 12:01:10 PM »
I'd take the 40/2.8 and the Tamron superzoom.

A few years ago, my wife and I spent close to a month in that region.  A week on Zanzibar (Stone Town and up in Nungwi, great diving up there), close to two weeks in mainland Tanzania (lodge safari with just us and a driver - Serengeti, Tarangire, Ngorongoro, Olduvai Gorge, and cultural activities around Arusha), then a week in Rwanda (mountain gorillas).  It was an amazing trip, and I'm sure yours will be as well. Have fun!

BTW, I totally agree with the earlier pithy comment about Canon dropping the price of the M to get system buy-in.  If nothing else, I'll be getting the EF mount adapter.  If I actually start using the camera as more than a backup, I'd likely want at least one more EF-M lens (I expect we'll see a telezoom like a 50-150mm announced alongside the M II).  Plus, I'll need a case, perhaps a base plate for mounting to my RRS tripods, etc.

At least it's good for the economy...   ;)

...the M and an EF adapter without IS?  Using the adapter, does anyone know if the unit then becomes manual focus only (which I'd think would be a challenge without a viewfinder)?   

With the EF mount adapter, an EF or EF-S lens is fully functional on the EOS M - that includes AF and IS (assuming the lens has IS, of course).

OTOH, I imagine AF'ing a lens like my 85L II will suck the life right out of that little battery...

Canon already gets all of my money so none left to hire a lawyer!  ;)

I hear you...and it seems they just got a few hundred more of mine, too!  :)

Technical Support / Re: Help needes: EOS 7D - noisy pictures
« on: July 03, 2013, 10:10:54 PM »
I have noticed the Jpeg 7D images are much noisier than my 60D images, But I assume that is because of more modern NR being applied with the 60D, and the raw files should be identical in quality, being the same sensor, am I right?

Two things going on. First, the default in-camera JPG conversion of the 60D has more NR applied (but that comes at the expense of some lost detail).  But in addition, the 60D RAW files are slightly less noisy (and I do mean slightly, not anywhere near enough to account for the 'much noisier' images you mention).  That could be the ADC, firmware, etc., but as I said - it's a subtle difference and not one you'd likely notice in everyday shooting of RAW images.

Does anyone know if this camera has a minimum shutter speed setting? And does its auto-ISO work properly?

Since it has no stabilisation, if I give it to my kids to use, I want to be sure that it doesn't drop the shutter speed too low in low light, but instead can adjust the ISO as needed. I'm teaching them photography, and my DSLR is a little heavy. But it's also an older DSLR (500D), and doesn't have a min shutter speed setting, and its auto-ISO is useless in the non-auto modes (it just picks ISO 400 every time).

Can you also tap the touchscreen on this camera to take a photo focused on where you tap it?

Lastly, what sensor is this M the same as, the T2i's?

No idea on most. Honestly, I just jumped at this unexpected deal without doing a huge amount of homework, but that's commensurate with my primary intended use (backup camera for travel).

But FWIW, the sensor is the exact same one found in the T4i/650D.

I find it interesting that this lens being made specifically for the M is still marketed with a FF focal length.  This lens cant be used on any other camera so why did they decide to spec 22mm f/2?  This is not really what you get with the camera in use.

Sounds like maybe grounds for a class action law suit.  I got 100 bucks back from John Deere because they underspec'd the engine on my lawn tractor!

Why? Because focal length is an intrinsic property of the lens.  With the 22mm pancake lens, the physical distance between the rear nodal point and the image plane is 22mm (with the lens focused at infinity).  That's the definition of focal length. The sensor behind the lens, the flange focal distance, what bodies are compatible or not, none of that matters.  If Canon were to print an 'APS-C corrected focal length' (e.g. 35mm on the EF-M 22mm pancake), that would be a lie (so they'd have to print 'FF equivalent' or something on the lens as well).

But you can try to sue Canon if you want...maybe spend that hundred bucks on a shyster who'll be happy to part you from your money.  I'm sure Canon would get a nice chuckle from the effort...   ::)

Technical Support / Re: Help needes: EOS 7D - noisy pictures
« on: July 03, 2013, 09:36:07 PM »
As I stated give it a try or ask Canon.  That might get to the bottom of it.  What you quoted is that 3rd party software will ignore the setting.  It doesn't state that the camera has not already monkeyed with your image.  That is a carefully worded quote including the part about "most" software.

I have tried it - it has no effect on the RAW files (at least, not on the 7D where I tested it long ago, and not on the 1D X).  It's worded that way because there's probably some esoteric RAW converter out there that will try to do something in response to the HINR flag in the metadata. The article also states, "Don’t expect the High ISO Noise Reduction you may have set in-camera to have any effect with most third-party software programs."  That's what I see empirically - no effect.

So, while I'm certainly open to seeing evidence to the contrary, I rather doubt you'll be able to produce any (and conveniently, it's quite easy to state, 'it's not worth the effort').  If you really did see a difference long ago, I expect that was with DPP, ZoomBrowser, etc., which as stated, do try to mimic the in-camera JPG effect of setting HINR.

Honestly, the reason to leave it off is that it clobbers your shooting speed at high ISO even in RAW, because the camera performs the computationally-intensive HINR for the JPG preview image that's embedded in the RAW file.

Technical Support / Re: Help needes: EOS 7D - noisy pictures
« on: July 03, 2013, 09:09:16 PM »
As far as HTP and HINR is concerned, I am the source and now turn both off due to the effects it produces on RAW images.  There are a couple of options in the FW that affect raw images and those are two if them.

In that case, I'd like to respectfully ask 'the source' for some evidence.  I believe that the only in-camera setting that affects the RAW image data is long exposure NR, since the dark frame is subtracted before the RAW data are written.  I don't think HINR affects RAW image data.

FYI, 'the real source' (aka Canon) agrees with me, and disagrees with you.  They state that while some Canon software will try to replicate the effects of in-camera HINR (DPP, not so well, but it does try), "Virtually all third-party RAW file software programs, such as Adobe’s Camera Raw™ software, will ignore in-camera settings such as High ISO Noise Reduction....Don’t expect the High ISO Noise Reduction you may have set in-camera to have any effect with most third-party software programs."

As for HTP, that also doesn't affect the RAW image data directly, although I suppose you can reasonably say it does, since you're getting a RAW exposure that's a stop underexposed relative to the ISO you picked.  Like HINR, it also sets a flag in the metadata, but HTP also 'lies' in the metadata, recording ISO that's one stop higher than was actually used to expose the shot.  For example, if you set ISO 400 with HTP, the camera really exposes at ISO 200, but records ISO 400 in the metadata and then applies a tone curve to the JPG file to boost the shadows by a stop - that underexposure is how it preserves highlights (and of course, you also get an extra stop of shadow noise as a consequence).  Most RAW converters recognize the flag, and try to duplicate Canon's HTP tone curve with their own version (DPP uses Canon's version, obviously, but unlike HINR, 3rd party converters don't just ignore the metadata flag).  RAW apps like rawnalyze just show you the 1-stop underexposed file.  Point is, IMO rather than setting HTP, you're better off just exposing to preserve the highlights yourself, then boosting shadows in post yourself, where you have more control over the process.

Pages: 1 ... 418 419 [420] 421 422 ... 1024