September 23, 2014, 04:25:19 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 ... 433 434 [435] 436 437 ... 954
6511
Lenses / Re: Future of STM and USM
« on: March 19, 2013, 09:59:59 PM »
What lenses have both USM and STM versions?  I think we'll keep seeing the relatively inexpensive consumer lenses (which are micromotor, not USM) updated to STM to align with the video AF capable consumer bodies (Rebel/xxxD, -M and -B). USM will remain the AF motor of choice for higher-end lenses.

6512
every time someone mentions the D800 is the better landscape camera some people here behave like kids.

No it's not. My dad's camera can beat up your dad's camera anyway.  :P

Seriously, though...anyone with some common sense should acknowledge that, at least from the standpoint of sensor-based IQ.  But it's a tool, that's all.  If I need to drive in a nail, the best screwdriver in the world isn't going to help me much.

6513
Lenses / Re: Why some lens says "macro"?
« on: March 19, 2013, 07:47:26 PM »
The 8-15mm fisheye zoom achieves 0.39x mag!

6514
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Picture quality questions 6D.
« on: March 19, 2013, 07:46:13 PM »
I think we're at cross purposes here, neuro. I was talking about the Perfect Clear software referenced by the OP.

My bad, sorry!  I do agree - I'd stay away from a 'one button' image editor.  Reminds me of iPhoto's 'enhance' function - a black box with a sparkly-rainbow-magic-wand icon.  :P

6515
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 100D Detailed Specs Appear
« on: March 19, 2013, 02:32:21 PM »
Let me explain.  No, there is too much. Let me sum up.

There is a horse named Dynamic Range.  It is dead.  Please stop beating the dead horse.

6516
Lenses / Re: Why some lens says "macro"?
« on: March 19, 2013, 02:27:50 PM »
There's no real rhyme or reason.  For example, the 24-70/2.8L has the 'macro' designation on the barrel (and in the distance window) and it delivers a 0.29x mag.  The 24-70/2.8L II does not have 'macro' printed on the barrel, it delivers a 0.21x mag.  Lots of lenses with macro printed on them are in that range.  The old 24-85 lens has an MFD of 20" and only reached 0.16x yet has the 'macro' designation.

As stated above, it's marketing.  I think Canon prints it on the lens if they think they can get away with it, either because the lens focuses kinda close or because it gets a reasonable mag, but sometimes neither (for some consumer lenses), and sometimes they leave it off (which I expect they did intentionally with the 24-70/2.8L II because the max mag took a big drop with the redesign of the lens, and to distinguish it more from the forthcoming-at-the-time 24-70/4L IS.

6517
Lenses / Re: Canon 300 2.8 and 500 4.5 used help
« on: March 19, 2013, 10:51:43 AM »
Club, paperweight, hat stand, take your pick.

It's possible local shops can repair them, but not very likely IMO, due to lack of parts.

6518
Lenses / Re: Canon 300 2.8 and 500 4.5 used help
« on: March 19, 2013, 10:35:12 AM »
The prices are reasonable. But you'd be spending a lot of money on a gamble. Both of those lenses are electronic manual focus lenses (focus-by-wire like the 85L).  That means if the AF motor goes out, the lens cannot be focused. Canon no longer services those lenses nor produces parts for them.  Personally, it's a risk I wouldn't take.

6519
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: 430 or 600 reach
« on: March 19, 2013, 09:20:17 AM »
Exact distances depend on focal length (really, the flash head zoom setting), aperture and ISO, that's why the spec is a 'guide number'.  But the 600 will light a subject at a greater than a 430, 40-50% further as stated.  With long lenses (>300mm), consider a Better Beamer.

6520
Lenses / Re: Suggestions for Zoom Lens for Canon Mark 5D Mark iii
« on: March 19, 2013, 07:31:56 AM »
not listed - 70-300L

I thought about that, but the OP lists outdoor portraits as a main intended use, and for that the wider the aperture, the better. An f/5.6 lens isn't ideal for portraits.

6521
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Picture quality questions 6D.
« on: March 18, 2013, 09:38:30 PM »
I can't imagine many self-respecting photographers wanting 12 image parameters (not all of them necessarily flaws) all changed automatically. It's no good for anyone wanting control over post-processing.

You seem to be implying the user has no control over the process, which certainly isn't the case. Sure, there are default presets, as with just about any similar software.  You can modify any or all of the parameters on a per-image basis, create your own presets, etc.

If that's right, it isn't at all obvious from their website.

Lots of options.  This is just the FilmPack plugin, not the myriad of settings in DxO Optics Pro.

6522
Lenses / Re: 600mm f/4l IS for $5k - good price?
« on: March 18, 2013, 05:32:49 PM »
It might be too good...

6523
Software & Accessories / Re: B&W vs Dorr ND1000 Colour Cast
« on: March 18, 2013, 05:32:07 PM »
...does colour cast vary from sensor to sensor within a camera range ?

Not as far as I know.  My 77mm B+W and 82mm Schneider filters both have a warm tone on multiple bodies.

6524
Lenses / Re: Suggestions for Zoom Lens for Canon Mark 5D Mark iii
« on: March 18, 2013, 02:50:09 PM »
For a general purpose zoom, the 24-105L on FF is excellent.  For a tele zoom, the 70-200/4L IS is also excellent (IQ on par with the 70-200/2.8L IS II). 

Heidi, which is more important - a general purpose lens or a telephoto zoom?

How about used?  There are a couple of 70-200/4 IS on my local Craigslist for a bit over $800, and 24-105's list for ~$700-800 and I expect often sell for a little less.

6525
Technical Support / Re: Black Speck in Viewfinder
« on: March 18, 2013, 12:29:41 PM »
Rocket blower will take care of it.

Pages: 1 ... 433 434 [435] 436 437 ... 954