September 23, 2014, 06:35:01 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 ... 462 463 [464] 465 466 ... 955
Lenses / Re: Which Gitzo: GT3532LS or GT3542LS?
« on: February 07, 2013, 04:51:29 AM »
I guess the only drawback I see with the XLS vs. the LS is its collapsed height. It is over 28" long collapsed, where as the LS is a little over 22" long. If I wanted to travel with the tripod, a 22" one would fit in a carry-on, where as a 28" one would not. At the moment that is the last thing I guess I need to decide on.

Neither would do well as a carryon, and either would fit in a checked suitcase.  That's actually why I have two tripods - the TQC-14 with BH-30 ballhead in its quiver bag fits inside my Storm im2500 carryon hard case, and is quite suitable for anything up to and including a white zoom (70-200/2.8, 100-400, 28-300).  It would hold the 600 II, but if I were to travel with that, the TVC-33 would go in checked luggage.

Lenses / Re: TS-E lens
« on: February 06, 2013, 08:48:13 PM »
I don't know if you are still interested in the TS-E 17mm hack, but B&H just got a shipment of the Lee 82mm wide angle adapters.  The adapters are hard to come by. 

Thanks for the heads-up. Not sure how many they got in...but they now have one fewer available.  ;D

Lenses / Re: Which Gitzo: GT3532LS or GT3542LS?
« on: February 06, 2013, 04:10:11 PM »
Pretty amazing though, that those tripods can handle that much weight...I mean, we have to be talking greater than 100 pounds there, in both cases for both brands.

Well, yeah - but either the guy hanging from the Gitzo is extremely short, or judging by it's height that Gitzo is at least a 3-series and rated to hold at least double what the RRS travel legs are rated for...   :P

Seriously, you can't go wrong with either brand. 

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS USM (I)
« on: February 06, 2013, 03:22:34 PM »
A 400 II would be great; the 400 MkI is a big, heavy beast (12.5 lbs) that cannot really be handheld.  IMO, the 300 is a better choice, especially given that you're shooting with 18-22 MP and can probably afford to crop a bit if needed.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D7000 replacement in April...
« on: February 06, 2013, 03:18:52 PM »
Sorry guys, I have not been around for a couple of days so now I see the "D7000 replacement in April..." topic and open, read last two pages without seeing anything about the D7000 or its replacement. Going to read from the beginning to see how the topic developed...

Here's how:

Q: What was the weather like in Stockholm last week?

A: Sunny, and when I underexposed by 4 stops to capture the detail of the sun shining down on the Storkyrkan then pulled up the shadows by 4 stops to see the cobblestone detail of the Slottsbacken, the Canon 5DIII failed miserably with banding and noise, but fortunately I had my D800 with me - and look at this perfect shot!


Lenses / Re: Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS USM (I)
« on: February 06, 2013, 03:17:05 PM »
Is there any sports photographers out there who can ansver if the 300 will be sufficiant to shoot soccer?

I currently use 5D MK III and also have a 7D.

Yes, it will be sufficient.  More than sufficient, actually.

Lenses / Re: Which Gitzo: GT3532LS or GT3542LS?
« on: February 06, 2013, 02:55:20 PM »
Note that the RRS universal base is rated for 35lbs while the base made to go into their RRS TVC-34 / 33 is only rated for 25lbs.  Big difference.

But...keep in mind that RRS' support ratings can be just a little bit conservative.  For example, their TQC-14 travel tripod is rated to hold 25 lbs, just like the leveling base on my TVC-33.  Here's RRS' owner showing us what 'just a little bit conservative' means:

I've done this with my own TQC-14, by the way.  :)  Anyone want to try that with Gitzo 254x legs?

Lenses / Re: Which Gitzo: GT3532LS or GT3542LS?
« on: February 06, 2013, 12:58:06 PM »
Yeah, the RRS tripods are almost always backordered.  Be aware that they're also conservative on their delivery estimates - they usually say 2-3 weeks, often takes 1 week or less to ship.  The bigger 'problem' is that while you can try Gitzo in a local shop, RRS only sells direct so unless you live near San Luis Obispo, it's buy-then-try. 

If I were 6' tall, I'd definitely want taller than a 58" platform...even with the added height of the gimbal, your VF would still be a few inches below eye level at full extension - not as comfortable during use.  For that reason, I'd consider the 3542XLS instead of the 3452LS (although that's really a tall set of legs!).  XLS too tall, LS too short, TVC-34L would be just right.    ;)

I have the RRS leveling base, I don't find that it hampers stability at all (in fact, I have the clamping version of the base, with dovetails on the bottoms of my gimbal head and ballhead so I can swap them easily).  For a ballhead, the leveling base is not really useful (except for shooting panos with the ballhead), but for the gimbal it makes setup a lot faster and easier - most noticeable when I've set up in a spot, then need to move a few feet away, no need to muck about with the legs, just unlock the leveling base (with the lens mounted), re-level, and lock it back down.

Lenses / Re: Which Gitzo: GT3532LS or GT3542LS?
« on: February 06, 2013, 10:09:36 AM »
Really Right Stuff TVC-34L.  ;)

Personally, I have a TVC-33 that I use with my 1D X + 600 II, and I've got ~6" of extra height for the VF relative to eye level for me (I'm 5'7").  So I'd suggest going taller than a 58" platform height for you, so you can extend a leg longer if on an incline, etc.   The RRS TVC-34L goes to 68.5"

With today's tripod construction, the impact of a 4th leg section is minimal to nonexistent - you're much better off getting the height you'll need.

For use with a gimbal head, I'd also strongly consider getting a leveling base.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D7000 replacement in April...
« on: February 06, 2013, 09:54:41 AM »
As always, if you want to 'prove' your point, it helps to design your 'test' with a bias toward your desired outcome (such as ETTL vs. ETTR).

Pixel peeping is good for comparing lenses, printing very large, or heavy cropping.  Normal sized prints will be just fine with most lenses.


If you're going to take two photos, one with a lens like the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II @ 85mm f/4 and one with the 85mm f/1.8 @ f/4, print them both at 30x45", hang them side-by-side on your wall and ask people to compare them, you'd better buy the 70-200 II. 

If you're just going to take pictures, get the lenses that are suitable focal lengths for your needs and that fit your budget, and go take pictures.

If and when the 7D II comes out and it overtakes the 5D III...

I'm pretty sure we'll see a 7DII.  But 'overtakes the 5DIII' is a pretty big IF.  Technological improvements in sensor manufacturing are wonderful, but overtaking the 2.6-fold larger light-gathering area of a FF sensor is a tall order for APS-C.  Can it be done?  Yes...but the relevant question is can Canon do it?

But if it comes even close (e.g., within one stop of the current FF on ISO noise, which is better than the 1.3-stop difference purely based on sensor area), that will make for a difficult choice, especially if Canon also opts to give the 7DII a much-improved AF system (accuracy/consistency of the 1D X/5DIII, >20 cross-type points) and 10 fps...

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 70D is Coming, The Future of Pro APS-C is Unknown
« on: February 06, 2013, 09:00:28 AM »
Now that I have that out of my system, I'm hoping you guys can point out the error in my thinking here:
Given the "focal-length-limited" scenario above, and assuming good light (I know, that usually (or should I say almost always) isn't the case but speaking theoretically here), you want a 16 x 20 print and you crop the FF to the 1.6 dimensions to get equal subject sizes on the final print. I think that gives you 216 pixels per inch for the 18 MP APS-C vs. 150 for the 22 MP FF crop. Doesn't that give the APS "reach" some advantage?

For a 16x20" print, probably no discernible difference.  For a 30x4-" print, yes, the higher resolution of the uncropped APS-C image would be a benefit (again, assuming you're shooting at low ISO and with a fast enough shutter so noise and subject motion don't compromise your image).

As far as slapping on the teleconverter, I already did that with the 7D.

But also consider that on the 1D X today, and on the 5DIII in a couple of months, you can slap a 2x TC on an f/4 lens and still have AF, whereas you are limited to a 1.4x TC with the 7D. 

Would you all be so enthusiastisc about FF bodies if that new 7D ends up have 22MP, with comparable stats of course?

Probably yes.  Going back to jrista's accurate statement, "I would say the lens is the most important IQ factor. The AF system and frame rate are second. The image sensor is third," you could use the same lens on the 7DII, but it would depend on the 7DII's AF system, frame rate, and high ISO performance.  A 7DII with a 1D X/5DIII-like AF system (say, 40-ish points with 20+ crosses), 10 fps, and a new sensor fab yielding a stop or more of real (i.e. RAW, not JPG-engine based) lower noise...that I would be enthusiastic about. 

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Confirms 70D; Future of Semi-Pro DSLR is FF
« on: February 06, 2013, 08:47:58 AM »
I fear that it's not just the 0.5um process but Canon generally lacks behind sensor technology.

Canon is simply forced to push their customers to FF because they cannot compete in the APS-C arena (or in general with DSLR bodies with high pixel density=small pixels).

With equal pixel size Canon cannot compete with sensors using more inventive technology...

Defiine 'compete'.  Last time I checked, none of the manufacturers you're discussing sell naked sensors to consumers - they all sell cameras.  Since Canon sells more cameras than any other dSLR maker, I'd say they're winning the competition.

EOS Bodies / Re: 1DX - The Workhorse?
« on: February 05, 2013, 09:45:30 PM »
Try that but replace the bishops with an angry bride-zilla and see how much skin you lose...or if you ever get a call back for more work ;)

No worries. Archangel says bigger is better, right?  If the 1D X is impressive on its own, just think how much more impressive it would be inside a big ol' sound blimp.


Pages: 1 ... 462 463 [464] 465 466 ... 955