February 27, 2015, 10:36:42 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 ... 419 420 [421] 422 423 ... 1030
EOS Bodies / Re: So I made the jump to FF - now what?
« on: July 08, 2013, 10:18:15 AM »
How do people feel about the 135L with an extender?

It takes the extender ok, but it will lose to the 70-200L f/2.8 IS II in IQ/IS.  If you don't have 70-200L zoom, then 135 + extender is a good way to extend the focal length range.

Do you think it is better than the 70-300?

The 135L + 1.4x is definitely not better than the 70-300L (but it's pretty similar to the 70-300 non-L).

Animal Kingdom / Re: First Alaskan Pic
« on: July 08, 2013, 10:13:45 AM »
There's still something 'painterly' about the full size image, when I view it on Flickr. Here's a screenshot. Does it look like this to you, in LR?

EOS Bodies / Re: 70D or 6D
« on: July 08, 2013, 10:06:41 AM »
Yes, good reading. I have been referring to it for years. Did you get to the "total light" part of it?

Apparently not.   ::)

I know there are probably pertinent threads for this, but...do any of you use a squeeze bulb blower on your camera's sensor?  I'm already noticing tiny dust spots...pretty sure they don't warrant a wet swabbing just yet.

Absolutely.  That's the first step in sensor cleaning - try to blow off the dust without touching the sensor.  Use one like a Giottos Rocket Blower, Visible Dust Zeeion blower, etc., that has a valve or filter to prevent sucking dust into the blower and adding dust to your sensor instead of removing it. 

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to select ISO (tutorial)
« on: July 08, 2013, 09:03:07 AM »
I don't see any dif. between 100ISO and 400ISO outdoor-daytime shooting.

Which makes perfect sense, because the data from Bill Claff, as well as the video shooters doing tests with the lens cap on, are showing only read noise.  In bright light, photon shot noise is the dominant factor.

In fact, that brings up a good point about the above discussion. Knowing about the phenomenon described, and whether or not it affects your camera, is more important than the reason behind this phenomenon.  But it's just as important to know when it is a factor, and when it really doesn't matter at all.

EOS Bodies / Re: The Next EOS M Camera(s) [CR1]
« on: July 08, 2013, 12:34:12 AM »
The 20mpx dual sensor flagship model with EVF sound like the camera made just for me!
I'll have one with a 20mm pancake please...

Sure, that'll be $1,200.00, please...    ;)

Animal Kingdom / Re: First Alaskan Pic
« on: July 08, 2013, 12:13:24 AM »
Nice shot, great timing. 

I'd have preferred it at a wider FoV - not cutting off those extending wings.  Looks a bit backfocused, and probably a little more DoF would have been good as well.

Not sure if it's a new Flickr thing (compression), or something about the post processing, but the full size image has an almost oil-on-canvas-filter look that my T1i images didn't have.  I see it even on the in-focus regions, so I'd guess it's not a 100-400L bokeh issue.

Looking forward to seeing more!

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to select ISO (tutorial)
« on: July 08, 2013, 12:00:24 AM »
I wonder if you have Canon's documentation on this?

Canon doesn't publish such documentation.  But consider - we have an observation by the video crowd that multiples of ISO 160 are cleanest, and that's backed up by Bill Claff's measurements.  There are two hypothesis to explain that observation, one that multiples of 160 are cleanest because they're multiples of base ISO (which was suggested to be ISO 160, but could easily be ISO 80), the other that the are cleanest because they're pulled from the next-highest real multiple of base ISO, i.e. 100, 200, etc.  DxOMark's measurement data are reliable, and they measure the base ISO of the cameras in question as ISO 80, not ISO 100.  That supports the first hypothesis, and means ISO 100 is, in fact, pushed from ISO 80.   

Also, what do you think about the Dynamic range of iso 160 vs 100?

Based on Claff's data, DR is highest at the same multiples of ISO 160 that are least noisy - a win/win, IMO.  As with noise, the 1D X has a smooth curve for DR vs. ISO, not jagged like other Canon cameras.

As Mt. Spokane stated, this concept is useful for a planned shot with setup time, less so for fast moving situations.  In the latter case, Auto ISO is often a useful option, and even if you restrict the ISO setting to full stops (which I do, simply because it makes setting the ISO faster), Auto ISO will use the 1/3-stop increments.  Personally, I'd take a little more noise in a shot with ISO 500 to missing the shot because I was trying to set ISO 640 instead.  Fortunately, with the 1D X I don't have to worry about it, since the curve is smooth (and at all ISO values except 160, the 1D X has lower read noise than the 5DIII).

EOS Bodies / Re: So I made the jump to FF - now what?
« on: July 07, 2013, 11:30:55 PM »
Neuro, my 70-200 stays vertically in my bag and takes the same space as any other "normal" lens. The 70-300 would not fit in my bag, I guess.

Must be a deep bag.  The 70-300L is about 1" shorter than the 70-200/4L IS, and with the hoods reversed, they are about the same diameter.  So the 70-300L will fit vertically in more bags than the 70-200/4 IS, and if the 70-200 fits vertically, the 70-300 will, too.  Unless your bag somehow exists outside of normal space in defiance of the laws of physics...

EDIT: beaten to the punch with a detailed spec comparison...

Noticed price @ digital monster for "Canon EOS 6D 20 Megapixel Digital SLR Camera - Body Only" - $1,288.00

No physical address listed on their website, just a contact web form and a toll free number.  Domain name holder hidden behind a proxy. Their Verisign certificate is for "Digital Monster Incorporated" and a little digging turned up this:


DIGITAL MONSTER, INC is a company categorized under Real Estate.

364 SEASIDE AVE APT 812 New York, New York, United States, 96815

Ummmm...yeah...that seems legit.

Seems like a good deal

P.T. Barnum would have liked you...   ;)

EOS Bodies / Re: The Next EOS M Camera(s) [CR1]
« on: July 07, 2013, 10:13:21 PM »
Assuming any relationship between the last fact and all those preceding, without correcting for all of the other variables, is simply...

Going to be done be nearly everyone because a) it's human nature, and/or b) it's just plain fun.


EOS Bodies / Re: The Next EOS M Camera(s) [CR1]
« on: July 07, 2013, 09:47:51 PM »
A "basic" model more basic than the current EOS-M? Will Canon sell the "basic" model at USD200?

Of course not, because it'll have the NEW (to mirrorless) Hybrid CMOS II sensor (aka the T5i/SL1 sensor). Plus a new scene mode or two.  ::)

EOS Bodies / Re: The Next EOS M Camera(s) [CR1]
« on: July 07, 2013, 08:39:37 PM »
I just posted a few hours ago in the $299 EOS thread that it seemed like a silly purchase; since Canon would likely be replacing it with a dual-pixel AF markII version.

I guess I was spot on with that prediction.

Sounds spot off, to me. Maybe I'm biased because I bought one for $299. But, if this rumor is true (it's CR1, just the new 100-400 has been for what, 4 years?), the next M will be an 18 MP minor update (T5i/SL1 sensor), and the 20 MP dual pixel CMOS will follow that...but when?  And 'aimed at the FF Canon shooter' sounds like a $900-1000 camera, to me.  So, $299 really doesn't sound 'silly' especially when the camera + 22mm pancake only costs $85 more than the 22mm pancake alone.  That way, the next M can be bought with the kit zoom (since the best way to buy a kit lens is in a kit), and even selling the body for $150 you'd come out ahead...  Or you'd have a cheap body for IR conversion - one almost ideally suited for it as any lens can be used.

Just my $0.02 (or $299, as the case may be).

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to select ISO (tutorial)
« on: July 07, 2013, 07:34:01 PM »
Couple of clarifying points:

1. Despite the statements in the first linked article, DxOMark shows that when Canon dSLRs that show the behavior described are set to ISO 100, the real (empirically measured) ISO is 80, meaning ISO 160 is exactly one stop above the real base ISO.  So, while the phenomenon is real, the linked author's explanation is wrong (and the one he debunks is actually closer to the truth!).  ISO 100 is noisier than ISO 160 because ISO 160 is native analog amplification, and ISO 100 is digitally pushed from the base ISO 80. ISO 125 is even noisier because it's pushed further, and so on up the ISO range.

2. This doesn't apply to all Canon dSLRs - if you look at the 1D X plot from Bill Claff (second link in your post), it's smooth, not jagged (although the base ISO is still 80).  This makes sense given that it's the same sensor used in the flagship HD-DSLR, the 1D C.  The sensor on the 1D X / 1D C has better amplification circuitry than most other Canon sensors.

I've been very happy with the Zagg InvisibleShields on my iPhone (and my wife's), and the ones on our daughters' pair of iPads have done a great job of protecting the devices from the 'attentions' of a 3- and 5-year old. 

Having said that, I ordered a Zagg protector for my 7D, and the piece for the top LCD wasn't cut correctly.  I returned it, and did not try another.

Pages: 1 ... 419 420 [421] 422 423 ... 1030