April 19, 2014, 01:00:14 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 ... 843
7291
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 60D actually doesn't need AFMA?
« on: September 27, 2012, 07:28:54 AM »
Just to point out, though...AFMA also applies to the focus confirmation for manual focus.
We discussed that as well.  He commented that his 50 f/1.2L had back focus, which translates to imprecise focus with the focus confirmation.  His preference was to use the precision focusing screen; he did not pay attention to the focus confirmation.

His 50L might have had back focus, but might not.  What it does have is focus shift, which is back focus when you stop down from wide open, that varies with the aperture selected.

7292
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 60D actually doesn't need AFMA?
« on: September 27, 2012, 06:20:47 AM »
I met a guy last weekend that has a lot of fast L glass.  He does not care about microadjustment because he focuses all of his lenses manually with a precision focusing screen.  The point is that for some, no camera needs microadjustment.

Just to point out, though...AFMA also applies to the focus confirmation for manual focus. 

7293
Lenses / Re: 24mm on a crop body?
« on: September 26, 2012, 08:34:38 PM »
Not anymore.  I did use the 24-105L on a 7D, and found it too narrow an AoV for many indoor uses, but good as an outdoor walkaround lens (but I had the 10-22mm if I needed UWA).  Still...my primary general purpose zoom of choice on the 7D was the EF-S 17-55mm.

7294
EOS Bodies / Re: 3dx?
« on: September 26, 2012, 08:32:44 PM »
Source of that rumor?  Canon Rumors.

7295
Unfortunately, the ultra long range forecast calls for overcast skies that night.    :P

7296
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 60D actually doesn't need AFMA?
« on: September 26, 2012, 07:28:04 PM »
...once you have that function and use it ...  then you cant live without it...

That, I believe, is why the 60D doesn't have it.  Canon Marketing decided Rebel/xxxD upgraders wouldn't miss a feature they never had, and the 50D upgraders who couldn't live without it would be pushed to the 7D.

7297
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 - problem?
« on: September 26, 2012, 07:08:10 PM »
If indeed that's how it works...

That's how Canon says it works.  So...feel free to start continue raging now, if you like.   :P


7298
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 - problem?
« on: September 26, 2012, 06:51:55 PM »
Just to be clear - you must push in the button and hold it in while turning the dial - push and turn, not push then turn.

7299
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 - problem?
« on: September 26, 2012, 06:32:30 PM »
Did you try pushing the mode dial lock release button (center of dial) before turning it?

7300
EOS Bodies / Re: Who said Canon sensors suck?!?
« on: September 26, 2012, 03:58:19 PM »
anyway i have sooooooo many shots to edit and am growing tired of this thread, so i will go

Lair, liar, pants on fire.



Am I serious this time?  Hmmmm...better have a fire extinguisher handy and look down - right now - just in case.

7301
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Adobe RGB or sRGB please?
« on: September 26, 2012, 03:16:04 PM »
Actually, if shooting in Adobe RGB matters, you've already dumbed it down a lot, because that means you're shooting JPG.  If you're shooting RAW, color space is irrelevant - you can set it later.

You are right, I set mine to Adobe RGB but use raw, so it really made no difference.  I use Lightroom 4 which has a prophoto gamut that is even wider.
 I can do a soft proofing to my printer / paper profile and bring the colors into gamut as required.

You know, this has me thinking (a dangerous pasttime, I know...).  I've often made the argument that the in-camera jpg settings do matter if you shoot RAW, indirectly, because the in-camera settings are applied to the JPG preview image that's reviewed on the LCD and used to generate the histograms.  So, to the extent that you make exposure decisions based on the preview image, histograms, or blinking highlight alert, those JPG settings matter. 

I wonder...what is the gamut of the camera's LCD, would sRGB vs. Adobe RGB make a difference in color channel saturation, a difference in the histogram or highlight alert calls, etc.?

7302
EOS Bodies / Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« on: September 26, 2012, 03:08:27 PM »
 :P

7303
EOS Bodies / Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« on: September 26, 2012, 03:08:09 PM »
ATTENTION everyone else (you know who you are):  The above post may or may not fall into the category of humorous, flippant, sarcastic, or sardonic.  You decide. 

7304
EOS Bodies / Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« on: September 26, 2012, 03:07:56 PM »
ATTENTION LetTheRightLensIn:  Be advised that heretofore and forthwith, some of my posts in this thread and in other past and future threads, on this forum and on other forums not to be named, may contain content that is for entertainment value only, with no expressed or implied informational content.  Futhermore, be cognizant of the fact that posts which are intended as humorous, flippant, sarcastic, or sardonic will often in no way be explicitly labeled as such.  Moreover, you are hereby notified that such humorous, flippant, sarcastic, or sardonic posts are not in any way, shape or form to be construed as being personally directed at you, nor will or should posts of the aforementioned nature be deemed to require a response, reply, riposte, or rejoinder.

7305
EOS Bodies / Re: Who said Canon sensors suck?!?
« on: September 26, 2012, 02:57:55 PM »
What if you have a 1MP FF sensor with 10D technology and a 40MP FF sensor with 1DX technology.  Comparing them directly you are comparing noise at two different power scales as if the scales were the same.

The problem isn't the what, it's the how.  I'm not questioning the need for or the benefit of normalization.  What I'm saying is the way DxOmark is doing the normalization is flawed, because it generates normalized data that are impossible.

DxOMark is generating impossible data with their analytical method.  Either they don't know this, in which case their qualifications to analyze data must be questioned, or they do know this and have chosen not to change it, in which case their rationale for failing to adopt proper methodology must be questioned. 

Personally, I suspect they are aware of the issue, and have chosen to do nothing about it because of 1) the cost and time to re-analyze all of their prior data with a new normalization procedure and 2) the ramifications (i.e. embarrassment) of having to explain why such a change is necessary.

OK, so to sum up:

  • If you're the sort of photographer who routinely screws up by drastically underexposing your images, get a Nikon.
  • If you're the sort of photographer who routinely screws up by drastically overexposing your images, get a Canon.
  • If you're the sort of photographer who routinely screws up by drastically underexposing many of your images, and also by drastically overexposing the images which you didn't underexpose, get both a Nikon and Canon (ok, I suppose you could learn how to expose properly).
  • If you're the sort of photographer who routinely doesn't screw up the exposure, you should be out taking pictures instead of reading this thread.  So go.

weak

you know better
and that the DR game is about a LOT more than just fixing up mistakes (even ignoring that, your summary is very misleading, which I suspect you also know)

really weak, I know you know better than that

C'mon, do I really have to put <sarcasm> or <tongue-in-cheek> or <yuk it up, these are the jokes> tags all over my posts?  Really?!?

Pages: 1 ... 485 486 [487] 488 489 ... 843