July 25, 2014, 08:04:30 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 ... 435 436 [437] 438 439 ... 893
6541
But.....but.....Nikon is "better," isn't it?  DxOMark says so, it must be true.  What am I missing?!?  Oh, wait, I know....REALITY.

So?

Sales numbers are not and never have been an indication of quality.

True.  Betamax delivered better quality as a video recording medium.  Didn't help Sony much in the end, though, did it?   :P

Actually, it taught Sony some valuable lessons and thus BluRay beat HD-DVD.

Fair enough. Betamax 'died' in 1998, and HD-DVD 'died' in 2008.  Maybe 10 years from now, Nikon's sales will too Canon?  Who knows.....

6542
Lenses / Re: 500 x $10K or 600 x$13K
« on: December 30, 2012, 11:30:50 PM »
I'm really interested to see how a crop sensor can measure up to a FF on focal length limited applications.

Me too, and I've been planning to do such a test for a while, but haven't gotten to it yet.  Besides curiosity, I want to determine if there's a point in my keeping the 7D (other than purely as a backup camera). 

6543
Software & Accessories / Re: AFMA advice sought
« on: December 30, 2012, 11:18:05 PM »
Not to hijack the thread, but am I correct in understanding that FoCal does not yet support Canon 6D?

No idea, but if not, you can shoot the images manually then use FoCal to analyze them. That's what I did for 10+ lenses when I got my 1D X.

6544
So we are all in agreement what I put in bold (and increased font size) below is incorrect information?

For the 1D X and presumably the 5DIII, I think so. But...I have a recollection of waiting much longer with previous cameras, so something may have changed (perhaps Canon now extrapolates the noise to save time? Or perhaps my recollection is wrong...maybe I'll pull out the 7D tomorrow and check, if no one beats me to it.).

6545
Lenses / Re: 500 x $10K or 600 x$13K
« on: December 30, 2012, 10:07:08 PM »
I've never done the 'how slow can I go' test, but I normally use a min shutter of 1/250 s.  As for technique, the usual - good stance, elbows against body with the left one braced to support the lens, eyecup against forehead as an additional contact point. The corners aren't as sharp as the center, but that's a relative thing - they're still sharper than most other lenses...

6546
But.....but.....Nikon is "better," isn't it?  DxOMark says so, it must be true.  What am I missing?!?  Oh, wait, I know....REALITY.

So?

Sales numbers are not and never have been an indication of quality.

True.  Betamax delivered better quality as a video recording medium.  Didn't help Sony much in the end, though, did it?   :P

6547
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM
« on: December 30, 2012, 09:43:11 PM »
Yep, that's the one - it's the same foot for the MkII 400, 500, and 600 lenses.

6548
I put a wooden foot rule on the floor. The lens on a tripod, about 3 meters away. DOF was about 1 cm.
Now I did focus on one line e.g. at 20 centimeter.

If I had $1 for every time I've read about someone using that 'method' I'd probably have a 300/2.8 II to go along with my 600/4 II.  ;)

Here's the thing - the AF system is going to lock onto the feature of highest contrast at the correct orientation under the selected AF point. Note that the actual AF point is larger than the little box representing it in the VF (even with Spot AF, it's still slightly larger, although you should not use Spot AF for AFMA).  So, you know that you intended to focus on the thin 20cm mark running horizontally, but your camera saw the higher-contrast feature running vertically across the point - the edge of the ruler.  That feature extends away from the camera, and anywhere along that edge would be 'correct' for the AF system.  No wonder your AFMA 'made things worse'.  That's why the commercial tools use a flat target oriented parallel to the image plane.  Also, you were far too close - AFMA should be done at 25-50x the focal length of the lens.

The best test to see if AFMA is the solution is what AlanF alluded to a few posts back - set up on a tripod, with a flat, high contrast target (a sheet of newspaper taped to a wall, for example).  Activate Live View, and take several shots using Live AF each time (not Quick AF - you should not hear the mirror flip during AF, you want to be using contrast detect AF where the CMOS image sensor is used to focus). Then, turn off Live View and take several shots with 'normal' (phase detect) AF. If the Live View shots are sharp and the regular AF shots are not, AFMA should fix that (and I really do recommend Reikan FoCal, in that case). If the Live View shots are soft, it's likely a problem with the lens, probably meaning a trip to Canon Service.

Hope that helps...

6549
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM
« on: December 30, 2012, 09:19:58 PM »
With lens feet from Kirk, RRS, 4th Gen Design and others which one did you go for for your EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM and why?


The RRS foot, for better balance on a gimbal while retaining handle function.  I eliminated the Wimberley replacement foot as it can't be used as a handle. I'd never heard of 4th Gen Design, but looking them up, I learned that's the maker of the Mongoose side gimbal, of which I've certainly heard. Although the pic is tiny, it looks much like the Wimberley 'foot' - too flat to be used as a handle.  I believe that is a consequence of the Mongoose and Wimberley side gimbal designs. RRS doesn't have that issue, since their side mount gimbal (which I have) can be adjusted horizontally to center the lens, as opposed to the one-piece design of the others.

I'm not sure what Canon was thinking with the tripod collar on the 600 II, and the 500 II seems even worse. Basically, the Canon foot is too far forward. It's fine with just the body, but when you put a 1-series or gripped body with a 2x TC, the center of mass is right under or very slightly behind the mounting screws on the tripod collar.  The problem is the Canon foot sweeps forward, and a Wimberley P-50 doesn't sit back far enough.  The Kirk foot is designed just like the Canon foot, with the forward sweep.  The RRS foot can be used as a handle, and actually extends slightly behind the mounting screws on the collar.  With the 2xIII and 1D X, the back edge of the foot is flush with the back of the 80mm RRS clamp on the gimbal at the balance point. So, with the Kirk foot or a Wimberley P-50 plate on the Canon foot, the back edge of the foot/plate would be inside the clamp - probably still plenty stable, but I'd prefer to use the full extent of the clamping surface.  Alternatively, with it flush the intrinsic tension/resistance of the head would probably compensate for it being slightly off-balance - but I'd prefer it to be properly balanced.

Probably more detail than you wanted...   ;)

6550
Software & Accessories / Re: AFMA advice sought
« on: December 30, 2012, 08:48:10 PM »
1) do you have to buy a new program for each body ( their website asks you to order for a specific body). My camera is a 5D II, but I have and am still borrowing a 1Ds III for the last three years. Hence would I need two payments and two programs for those. The questiens becomes even more pertinent if I finally Get the 1Dx.

2) does the program do the callibration for you? (Of course you need to set it up and so forth) But will it set the appropriate values for you in the camera, or would you still have to go through with shooting many shots,to narrow the gap down as with the solution i have today?

You can have several bodies, I think up to 5 of them at a time, and you can remove ones you don't have anymore and add new ones later.

Depends on the body. For newer ones (2012), you have to make the AFMA changes yourself, due to Canon's SDK, but FoCal tells you the next value to set as it iteratively refines the calibration (far fewer shots that I'd do manually), and gives you the final value(s) to set. For older bodies it does fully automatic calibration, including setting the final value if you choose.

6551
I am stating that assuming who is better than who on the basis of sale figures is absolutely ridiculous, and that indeed this is oversimplifying. I agree, something children do frequently.

So, what objective measure would you propose to determine 'better' - bearing in mind that's a rather subjective term. Which is the 'better' candidate in an election?  Depends on who you ask, what their needs are, and how well those needs are likely to be met by that candidate.  But after the election, there's a winner and a loser. Which is the better camera?  Depends on who you ask, what their needs are, and how well those needs are likely to be met by that camera.  But like a tally of votes, a tally of sales separates the winner from the loser.  Fortunately for everyone, those who chose the losing camera brand aren't required to live with the features of the winning camera brand. Heck, even the Green Party Pentax supporters get their own way.  :-X

6552
Alas, Nikonistas will say that us Canonistas all over the world live in a false reality... the number of cameras sold does not make one the better camera.

 :)

Ahhhh, so the majority of people are intentionally buying inferior cameras, or are not savvy enough to determine what's a better camera.  If that thought is what lets you sleep at night.....

No, they're not savvy enough. Even shop assistants who advise people are not savvy enough.

By definition, masses of people can't be made of experts. It's quite clearly a paradox.

In fact, if we go by the number of units sold, then the 18-55 IS and the 50/1.8 are likely to be considered as the best lenses ever. Or in the same way, if Canon sells more rebels than 1DX, then Rebels are better.

Quite a childish way of reasoning.

Quite an oversimplification, something children do frequently, although in that case it's usually not intentional obfuscation.  Obviously, the market as a whole is segmented - a large customer base at the low end choosing between Canon xxxD vs. Nikon D3xx/D5xx, fewer choosing between Canon 5D-series vs. Nikon Dx00, Canon 1-series vs. Nikon Dx, etc., and in aggregate, more buyers preferred Canon.

You own choice may have landed you in the minority, that's perfectly fine.  Denigrating others whose choice puts them in the majority...well, that seems childish to me.

6553
Lenses / Re: 500 x $10K or 600 x$13K
« on: December 30, 2012, 06:39:37 PM »
Photography is also a hobby for me.  I had this choice to make over last summer, I chose the 600mm II.  The extra 100mm is useful to me, and performance with the 2xIII is very good. I can carry the lens on reasonably long hikes (on a Blackrapid strap), and handhold the lens. I've shot birds in flight at 1200mm handheld with the 1D X.

6554
Software & Accessories / Re: AFMA advice sought
« on: December 30, 2012, 05:42:07 PM »
So, am I clear in understanding that once you have FoCal you no longer need Lens Align? In other words, does FoCal's software determine your micro adjustment settings without any need for a pitched scale (FoCal's printed target is all that's necessary to get the job done)?

Correct.

6555
Alas, Nikonistas will say that us Canonistas all over the world live in a false reality... the number of cameras sold does not make one the better camera.

 :)

Ahhhh, so the majority of people are intentionally buying inferior cameras, or are not savvy enough to determine what's a better camera.  If that thought is what lets you sleep at night.....

Pages: 1 ... 435 436 [437] 438 439 ... 893