October 26, 2014, 05:54:16 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 ... 485 486 [487] 488 489 ... 974
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« on: February 02, 2013, 03:18:32 PM »
But what's to stop him from making a comeback with the familiar - "you do not understand" / "you have no clue" BS?

That would indicate to me that he found those three yes/no questions too difficult to answer…   ::)

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« on: February 02, 2013, 03:05:51 PM »
have you noticed one thing, Mikael is quiet, with thoughtfulness , little bit of thinking he  probably understands now he is wrong

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« on: February 02, 2013, 02:24:35 PM »
no Im saying by exposure after 400 iso you have create a head room by 2 stops compare to 100iso
what is so difficult to understand Neuro! = exposure after 400 iso = halving the hitting lights twice compare to 100iso

Hypothetical example: I shoot jpg. I am taking a picture of a forest scene. I am in Av mode, and I set f/8 to obtain the desired DoF, and I chose ISO 400 to get a 1/100 s shutter speed at metered exposure to avoid camera shake, because I foolishly left my tripod at home. Please note, I couldn't care less about what exposure settings would be at ISO 100, 50, or 3200, that's tangential and irrelevant - I choose f/8 and ISO 400 for the reasons I stated.  I take a shot, look at the review image, and see blinking highlight alerts where I want detail of the sun-dappled forest floor. I've read that HTP can preserve my highlights.

If that scenario is confusing, I'll summarize - with HTP off, I set the camera in Av mode, f/8, ISO 400, and the metered exposure gave a 1/100 s shutter speed.

Answer these questions about what happens when I set HTP to Enable:

1) Does my selected aperture of f/8 change?
2) Does the camera-selected shutter speed of 1/100 s change?
3) Does the amount of light hitting the sensor change?

Please, no hand-waving, no 'please read my earlier posts', no repeating what you've posted before, no referring to what may happen at some other ISO setting that I didn't select and don't care about - just answer those three, simple questions with a yes or a no.

Lenses / Re: Considering Super Tele Options
« on: February 02, 2013, 01:38:10 PM »
With regard to field sports and wanting the 300 2.8 II, would that be on a full frame or your 7D?  Do you expect a 400 to be too long on a full frame to be used in that capacity?

On FF. Since getting the 1D X, the only times the 7D has been used are when I loaned it to someone as a backup camera for a wedding shoot, and to take a few comparison shots vs. the 1D X. Those comparison shots confirmed my belief (based on a more detailed 5DII vs. 7D comparison), that a 1D X image cropped to the FoV of the 7D has equivalent IQ (and better IQ at high ISO), so I'd only be giving up megapixels, and 7-8 MP meets my usual needs (up to 24x36" prints).  So, at this point, I see no need for my 7D.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« on: February 02, 2013, 01:04:25 PM »
are you for real?  then you have to adjust the time/f-stopt to the  metering of the subject or you are either over expose or under expose

Ahhh...now I finally understand. Mikael's cameras have infallible metering systems.  Snowscapes, fields of yellow flowers, black cats...in all cases, the metered exposure is perfect, so he can always let his camera make exposure decisions for him, so he can use ISO changes to adjust his aperture and shutter speed for him. That must be nice.

Some of you don't have a clue what discussion is about

2. 400 iso the head room is created by two stops , it means halving the hitting light twice to sensor

Indeed. You are stating now that at ISO 400, enabling HTP results in Half The Photons hitting the sensor, making it crystal clear that YOU (still) do not have a clue.

Lenses / Re: Considering Super Tele Options
« on: February 02, 2013, 12:40:54 PM »
The 600 II is sharper than the 400 II + 1.4x, the 600 II + 1.4x is sharper that the 400 II + 2x, and the 600 II + 2x is 1200mm, still quite sharp, and will AF on the 5DIII after the firmware update due in April.

But...the 600mm is on the long side for sports.  I shoot birds/wildlife a lot, so for me the 600 II was the best choice.  If you shoot sports more than wildlife, the 400 may be better - it can be made longer with TCs. Do keep in mind there's an AF speed penalty with TCs - a 50% drop with a 1.4x and a 75% drop with a 2x.  If you plan to mostly use an extender, get a longer lens (the only current exception is the 600 II, since that plus the 1.4x beats the 800/5.6, and the 600 II + 2x beats the 800 + 1.4x).

Once my kids are old enough for field sports (2-3 years, I guess), I can see adding a 300/2.8 II to my kit.

Lenses / Re: Need advice on telephoto zoom Lens
« on: February 02, 2013, 12:26:14 PM »
The 70-200/4L IS, 70-300L, and 100-400L are all excellent.  Your choice should be determined by whether you need 200mm, 300mm, or 400mm.

The 70-300 non-L seems to be listed on my local CL frequently, in the $300-350 range (higher sometimes, but I highly doubt those sell). 

Reviews / Re: Kirk Security Strap review
« on: February 02, 2013, 10:15:28 AM »
I think you're talking about the dovetail on the bottom of the clamp when you refer to adding to the profile? I agree, that seems like a great feature. But, the 'lens plate' question I had is about using the clamp with an AS plate on a lens (tripod collar, like on a 100-400 or supertele), where the plate is oriented 90-deg relative to a camera body plate, and with no swivel on the clamp, that means the strap has to twist to accomodate that.

But - looking at it again, I'm asking a flawed question. Sorry for the confusion! The clamp is actually oriented to hold a collared lens plate on the axis of the strap.  It looks like with a camera plate, the natural hang would have the back of the camera facing your body - is that the case? 

Thanks again!

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« on: February 02, 2013, 07:39:51 AM »
Change TO HIGHER iso means shorter time/f-stop compare to  earlier iso,  higher iso, GO  from 400 to 800 = shorter time or more f-stop =halving the hitting photons increase amp gain

CHOSE Lower the iso means go from 800iso to 400 iso =1 STOP  longer exposure time or open up 1 F-stop = let DUBBLE  photons hit the sensor   = decrease the amp gain
Changing iso = TIME/F-STOP   CONTROL THE  numberS of photons TO HIT THE SENSOR

It is very  difficult to discuss with people who do not understand the most basic things

SO again, point out where Im wrong

@J.R. - hopefully I can clarify what Mikael 'Half The Photons' means with the above 'explanation', which I find confusing and incomplete.

Changing ISO does NOT alter the amount of light hitting the sensor.  The part he leaves out (and I think it must be intentional obfuscation at this point) is that his statement applies only in an autoexposure mode (P/Av/Tv).  For example, if in Av mode you switch from ISO 400 to ISO 800, the camera will then adjust the shutter speed one stop faster to give the same exposure, and it's that change in aperture that results in less light hitting the sensor. If you change ISO in M mode, there is no change in the amount of light hitting the sensor. 

EDIT: I see that rpt has already corrected Mikael's incomplete explanation.  @rpt - FYI, the 'explanation' also fails in Av or Tv if at the end of the range, e.g. in Tv mode, switch from ISO 800 to ISO 400, but the lens aperture is already wide open (unless Safety Shift is enabled, then the camera would force a slower shutter speed).

Lenses / Re: Help me choose between the two: 70-200 f2.8 IS or 17 TS-E?
« on: February 01, 2013, 08:42:18 PM »
5D Mark III | 7D | 17mm TS-E f/2.8 | 24-70mm f/2.8 L | 50mm f/1.2 L | 70-200mm f/2.8 II IS | 100mm f/2.8 Macro | ST-E3 | (x3) 600 ex

New additions?  Congrats!  ;D

(Note - the TS-E 17mm is f/4.)

Reviews / Re: Kirk Security Strap review
« on: February 01, 2013, 07:40:14 PM »

"A built in clamp....... Minimal failure points and foo. How does it stack up?"

Pay attention Neuro, an engineer is talking about "minimal failure points."  That means this is BETTER than your combination of pieces loctited together creating multiple failure points that you believe is even stronger.

The Kirk Security Strap wasn't part of that discussion.  My original point was that the BR lug Loctite'd to an AS-type clamp was more secure than the BR lug directly screwed onto a camera/lens attachment point, and I stand by that point.  Yes, it's one more connection, technically, but the Loctite doesn't count as a practical possible point of failure.  In that comparison, the parts of the BR hardware - carabiner, pin, etc. - are identical between the two setups, and the sole difference is the directly screwed in lug vs. the clamp in between.  Since unscrewing of the lug which is subjected to torsional stress during use is a much more likely occurrence than unscrewing of a Loctite connection or a clamp screw not subjected to torsional stress, the latter is more secure (despite having one more 'countable' potential failure point).  My own empirical evidence backs that up.

By the way, a good engineer would understand that it's not only the number of possible failure points that matters, but each points' probability of failure.  If an engineer working on a project of mine (I do hire them, on occasion) told me that three connection points each with a 0.0000001 failure rate is 'less secure' than one connection point with a 0.001 failure rate because fewer possible failure points automatically means more secure, I'd certainly 'pay attention' - and I'd immediately fire that engineer.

The Kirk Security Strap clearly is an even more secure setup.  There's no carabiner, no pin, etc., so of course it's more secure.  I'm a bit concerned about the idea of using the screw as a 'stand off' from the body, as that would seem to carry the risk if the screw know being loosened as it rubs. Not sure if that's a real issue, in practice - but it's something I'd watch for (and just switching the orientation would solve the problem).

The other issue is convenience - not sure if there are tradeoffs there with the Kirk strap.  The issue of a lens plate was mentioned - the BR swivel allows 90-deg rotation for body vs. lens plate, not sure it the twist of the Kirk strap would be an issue (likely not).  Also, my BR strap works in conjunction with a backpack (a full pack - shoulder straps with sternum strap, and a hip belt), because the strap does not need to move/slide to raise the camera.

FunPhotons - thanks (again!) for the great review. I'd love to hear your thoughts on lens plate use and backpack compatibility.

PowerShot / Re: Best Low Light Pocket Size Camera
« on: February 01, 2013, 05:48:19 PM »
I have an S100... It was the first that series with Digic5. The S95 has Digic4 which I believe makes all the difference. There is far less noise in low light situations,

That's primarily the CMOS sensor in the S100, vs. the CCD sensor in the S95.

RE the LX7 or m4/3, those aren't pocketable, IMO. If I want good low light performance and I'm taking something that won't fit in my pocket, that something might as well be the 1D X with the 35/1.4L.

PowerShot / Re: Best Low Light Pocket Size Camera
« on: February 01, 2013, 03:36:09 PM »
Thanks everyone.  Doesn't seem like any thoughts on the S110? 

The S110 seems very nice, easier on the wallet than the RX100 but when talking about low light, you need high ISO and the much bigger sensor of the RX100 is a substantial advantage.

Actually, if you're considering the S110, I'd say save money and get the S100.  The S100 was a big jump from the S95 (CMOS vs. CCD, wider and longer lens), while the S110 isn't a big jump at all (same sensor and lens, ergonomically a step back, IMO - don't know why they dropped the little front grip, but I'd get the Franiac mod for the S110).

I have the S95 and S100, if I had to replace the S100 it'd be the RX100.

PowerShot / Re: Best Low Light Pocket Size Camera
« on: February 01, 2013, 01:44:56 PM »
IMO, anything larger than the S95/100/110 isn't really pocketable.  IMO, cargo pants and coat pockets don't count.  Best would be the Sony RX100 - biggest sensor in a truly pocketable camera, and the lens is f/1.8 on the wide end. 

Site Information / Re: Site issues, or my computer?
« on: February 01, 2013, 01:43:27 PM »
Working fine for me with Safari on a Mac and IE8 on a Win7 PC.

Pages: 1 ... 485 486 [487] 488 489 ... 974