August 23, 2014, 02:12:45 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 ... 462 463 [464] 465 466 ... 914
6946
Lenses / Re: Announcement on January 8, 2013? New Lenses [CR1]
« on: December 23, 2012, 05:03:10 PM »
The TS 17 was so soft I had to sell it, the af didn't work on three copies !! Useless...

Damn, the AF on my TS-E 24L II doesn't work, either.  Canon's QC sucks!!!  ::)

6947
Lenses / Re: Announcement on January 8, 2013? New Lenses [CR1]
« on: December 23, 2012, 04:48:42 PM »
I wonder, what kina lenses do you have?
28/1.8 and a 50/1.4

In that case, on what are your scathing comments on the 50L based?  Rented it a few times, perhaps?  Or have you just read lots of reviews?  Personally, I've never used the 28/1.8, but reviews call it soft and 'disappointing' (and the 'kinda ok' 24L II and 35L are certainly sharper). How does that match up with your real-world experience with the 28/1.8? 

6948
Lenses / Re: Announcement on January 8, 2013? New Lenses [CR1]
« on: December 23, 2012, 04:13:36 PM »
the 50L is CRAP.. .. the 85L is the only sub 100mm L that kicks some serious ass..

Interesting.  So, you owned the 50L and, what...chucked it in the bin?  Better bokeh than any Sigma lens and most Canon lenses, but sure...crap.  Maybe intended use, portraits, for example, should be considered?  Naah, you're right it's crap.

You're right about no other sub-100mm L lenses except the 85L being any good, either.  My TS-E 24L II must be crap, too.

6949
EOS Bodies / Re: "Do you want to borrow a 1DX" ?
« on: December 23, 2012, 03:58:03 PM »
I wanted to ask you x owners, he spoke of the x having a setting where if you focus on a particular spot, press the shutter button half way, a bird flys in from left of field, the camera can be set to jump to the bird, focus on it and run off a load of raw images. If true that is utterly amazing.

Sort of, that's one of the priority settings. But...the 5DIII has the same setting. The main AF difference is that the 1D X can do face-detection in phase AF.

6950
Just how different is the IQ delivered by the 135L from the 70-200 f/2.8 @ 135mm?

Probably no different in real-world use.  The relevant differences are f/2 vs. f/2.8 - more OOF blur and more light, vs. the convenience of a zoom and the benefit of IS.

6951
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Macro pics - FF or APS-C
« on: December 23, 2012, 01:20:35 PM »
Ummm...no, it's pixel density as stated, not sensor size.  Compare the 5DII to the 20D, FF and APS-C with the same pixel density - does the 20D have a 'magnification' advantage?  No.

It's about the raw magnification advantage. Not the advantage you get with post processing or digital zoom ;). It's obvious that a recent camera has a higher pixel density, better high-iso performance,... then a very old camera... Do you also compare computers of 1990 with computers you can buy today? No?  ;)

There is NO real (i.e. optical) magnification advantage to APS-C. None. The 'advantage' is only due the usually higher pixel density of APS-C.  A lens will project an image onto the image plane, a FF sensor 'sees' a 36x24mm portion of that image circle, an APS-C sensor only 'sees' a 22x15mm portion of that same image circle.  So, at 1:1, the FF sensor can image a larger subject (e.g., almost a whole US quarter, while an APS-C sensor can't even capture a dime at 1:1).  In fact, 'digital zoom' is closer to the truth than 'raw magnification'. 

The 5DII vs. 20D is a convenient comparison because they have the same pixel density.  If you'd like to compare current cameras, I invite you to explain how the APS-C T3/1100D has a 'raw magnification advantage' over the FF Nikon D800. 

6952
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Macro pics - FF or APS-C
« on: December 23, 2012, 11:16:34 AM »
Just curious Neuro whether for the same framing, will the APS-C at f/6.9 give a much deeper field than the FF at f/6.9? I understand that the DOF will be deeper with the APS-C but then as compared to the FF, at what point (for the same framing) will diffraction become an issue?

For the same framing, APS-C will give the DoF of 1.6x the aperture (= 1.3-stops) on FF, meaning there's no big difference in diffraction for the same DoF, with current sensors.  So, f/7.1 on APS-C gives the same DoF as f/11 on FF (for the same framing with the same focal length, because you're further from the subject with APS-C).  My 18 MP 7D starts to be affected by diffraction at f/6.9 (close enough to f/7.1), and my 18 MP 1D X at f/11.  The slightly higher pixel density of the 5DIII means f/10 or so, but the tradeoff in better high ISO noise (useful for a faster shutter because many macro subjects move, either biologically or from wind) more than makes up for that, IMO B

6953
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Macro pics - FF or APS-C
« on: December 23, 2012, 10:50:07 AM »
An EF-S lens has the equivalent focal length on an APS-C body as an EF lens of that focal length has on a FF body.  Therefore, a theoretical EF-S 50mm on an APS-C body would have the same FOV as an EF 50mm on FF body.  This means that your EF-S 60mm Macro is not like a 96mm lens on FF.

...you are over-thinking it.

He may be overthinking, but you are flat out wrong.  Focal length is an intrinsic property of the lens, regardless of the sensor.  EF-S lenses, EF lenses, medium format lenses, focal length is focal length, period.  A 60mm lens on APS-C gives the FoV of a 96mm lens on FF.

6954
Technical Support / Re: 5dm3 AFMA Focal results
« on: December 23, 2012, 10:44:24 AM »
If the testing results are so much sensitive to the lighting conditions, then in the real world shooting where the lighting condition can rarely be as ideal as the testing condition, would minor inconsistency in the AFMA results matter at all?  I've done a few rounds of tests on all my lenses and I had hard time keeping my lighting conditions consistent so I got slightly different results every time. It was kind of frustrating. So I ended up picking an average value and moving on.

Neuro, et al I'd appreciate you shedding some light on this. Would +/- 5 units be siginificant enough to make any difference in the real world shooting?

Yes, you'd notice a 5-unit difference, maybe not too much with an f/5.6 lens, but definitely with an f/2.8 lens.  There are always going to be inconsistencies.  Any one shot may be a little off.  A properly calibrated system ensures that's cross many shots, the average is at the correct focus. Having the test setup for AFMA as close to 'ideal' as possible (aligned, well-lit, high-contrast target) ensures your AFMA doesn't introduce a systematic error.

6955
Lenses / Re: Announcement on January 8, 2013? New Lenses [CR1]
« on: December 23, 2012, 10:09:23 AM »
I don't think the old 35L will sell for more than it sells now used (max. 1100 USD).

Did you price the 24-70 MkI before the MkII vs. now?  $900-1100 a few months ago, $1400 today. When the MkII came out, retailers immediately raised prices on remaining MkI stock to full MSRP (well above street price), and used prices followed suit.  Same with the 70-200/2.8 IS, and it was about 2 years (i.e. beginning of this year) that used MkI prices returned to their pre-MkII levels.  So I think it's quite probable the same will happen with the 35L...

So what you're saying is that I can buy a 35/1.4 MkI now and just wait for the 35/1.4 MkII to come out, then sell the 35/1.4 MkI at a nice profit?

God what a bunch of suckers Canon shooters are! :D

Love it!

The above was a forward-looking statement. Past performance is not a guarantee of future yields. YMMV.  But...probably!

6956
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Macro pics - FF or APS-C
« on: December 23, 2012, 10:03:28 AM »
With a 1:1 macro lens on (Canon) aps-c, you get a 1.6:1 FF equiv. magnification.

We have to be careful with semantics when describing macro with a crop sensor. With a 1:1 lens, the image on the sensor is 1:1 regardless of sensor size. Pixel density is the upside of APS-C.

Concerning the OP's calculation, it assumes the same subject distance. In reality, at 1:1 the 100mm will have a greater subject distance than the 60mm.

Yes, it is actually 1:1. But in FF equivalent terms, Canon aps-c gives you a 1.6:1 magnification. Just like you also talk in equiv. focal length, DoF etc. This is just the same. If you want the same picture on FF, you'll need a 1.6:1 macro lens ;).
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_photography

Ummm...no, it's pixel density as stated, not sensor size.  Compare the 5DII to the 20D, FF and APS-C with the same pixel density - does the 20D have a 'magnification' advantage?  No.

6957
Lenses / Re: Announcement on January 8, 2013? New Lenses [CR1]
« on: December 23, 2012, 09:48:19 AM »
I don't think the old 35L will sell for more than it sells now used (max. 1100 USD).

Did you price the 24-70 MkI before the MkII vs. now?  $900-1100 a few months ago, $1400 today. When the MkII came out, retailers immediately raised prices on remaining MkI stock to full MSRP (well above street price), and used prices followed suit.  Same with the 70-200/2.8 IS, and it was about 2 years (i.e. beginning of this year) that used MkI prices returned to their pre-MkII levels.  So I think it's quite probable the same will happen with the 35L...

6958
Lenses / Re: Announcement on January 8, 2013? New Lenses [CR1]
« on: December 23, 2012, 09:29:02 AM »
The plan: wait until 35L II is announced at a very high price, sell 35L for much less than that, but still at least what I paid for it new, then buy 35L II.  :)

6959
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Macro pics - FF or APS-C
« on: December 23, 2012, 09:02:44 AM »
You're overlooking the fact that the smaller pixels of the 60D make it more sensitive to the effects of diffraction.  That starts at f/6.9 on the 60D, but at f/10.1 on the 5DIII. 

Personally, I prefer FF for macro.

6960
You can't really go wrong. Both the 70-200 II and 135L are excellent.  The 135L is a stellar portrait lens, the 70-200 II does very well for portraits on FF and is very versatile.

Pages: 1 ... 462 463 [464] 465 466 ... 914