December 19, 2014, 01:42:00 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 ... 1003
EOS Bodies / Re: A New DSLR Line from Canon? [CR1]
« on: March 12, 2013, 09:22:39 AM »
Could it actually have both DSLR-like AF and an EVF?

Doesn't the reflex mirror required for phase detection AF force you to use an optical viewfinder?

They could bring back the pellicle mirror, but angled the other way.  Actually, such a system (reverse-angled fixed mirror and EVF only) would remove the geometric limitation on AF point spread, in theory allowing phase AF points to cover a much larger area of the field...

Software & Accessories / Re: 1d X "silent" mode.
« on: March 12, 2013, 09:15:05 AM »
Agreed - the shutter needed to be robust to move at 12 fps and last 400K cycles, I suspect they made it as quiet as they could...

Lenses / Re: Bridge not sharp - why?
« on: March 12, 2013, 03:52:54 AM »
Didn't use mirror lock. It might be helpful in some situations, but it wouldn't have caused this kind of motion blur.

Actually, a 1/20 s exposure is right in the range of shutter speeds (around 1/60 s to 1/2 s) where mirror slap can result in the camera shake-type blur you're seeing. 

For me, overall, I prefer the 24-105L for portrait work, but for more general purpose work, the 24-70L II is probably the better lens, over all.

Not sure whether to be frustrated or grateful after reading this.  ;)  I'm getting the 24-70 II, and had planned to sell my 24-105 this week.  But you've got a great point - the flexibility to go from wide to a headshot is very useful.  I'd not use it outdoors (where I prefer fast primes to blur the background), but rather indoors with a backdrop and monolight+Speedlites in softboxes.  In that situation, I'm stopped down a bit because I've got plenty of light and no need for background blur, and as you say, perfect sharpness isn't usually necessary or even desirable. 

If nothing else, I suppose I should hang onto the 24-105 for a while.

(By the way, I'm grateful - thanks!)

Lenses / Re: 16-35II vs 24-70II IQ?
« on: March 11, 2013, 07:21:47 PM »
The 24-70 II is better from 24mm up, and no good wider than 24mm.  There's a place for both in a kit, and a reason both are part of the 'holy trinity' of zooms.

My recommendation would be the Really Right Stuff TQC-14 with RRS BH-30 LR ballhead.  Much lighter and shorter than the Gitzo, supports at least as much. The RRS TQC-14 legs are similar to the Gitzo 15xx Traveler in size, but leg diameters are like the Gitzo 25xx.  I used mine a few weeks ago for mid-long exposure night shots with a 1D X and 28-300L, rock solid.  Not cheap, but you'll never need another travel tripod again.  I like it because it's very stable, strong, and small enough to fit in a carryon hard case (my Pelican Storm im2500).

If you want something more robust, check out the RRS TVC-2x and BH-40.

Bottom line, RRS makes some of the best stuff money can buy.

Lenses / Re: Polarizing vs ND filter Europe trip.
« on: March 11, 2013, 05:56:23 PM »
ND is for slow shutter speeds - I use a 10-stop for architecture shots as it blurs out people passing by.  A CPL is great for increasing contrast/saturation, reducing glare, and cuts ~1.75 stops of light. Both are useful, in 82mm neither are cheap...

I considered making a backdrop stand, but found the Manfrotto 314B kit to be worthwhile.  I just slide the cardboard tube onto the crossbar, and I'm set.   I could have made one cheaper, but the background stand uses standard light stands I can use separately, and it collapses very compactly, something a (at least my) DIY wouldn't have done nearly as well.

I really like my Manfrotto 1314B background kit.  As BumpyMunky mentions, the kit includes a pair of 8' stands (1052BAC, which are sturdy and air-cushioned) that I frequently use for routine lighting support when I'm not setting up a backdrop.

FWIW, I've got the Backdrop Alley 10 x 12' Chroma-Key Green muslin that is a ways down on the search results linked by Mt. Spokane.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Spec List [CR2]
« on: March 11, 2013, 02:34:18 PM »
since the RAW image has to be acquired and converted to jpg even when shooting RAW only.

When a RAW image is captured, a JPG conversion is done in-camera to create a small preview image, and that JPG preview is saved within the RAW file container.  That JPG preview is what you see on the rear LCD of the camera after the shot, and importantly, it's what's used to generate the histogram data and the highlight alert if you use those features. 

It's worth knowing, because many people think that the in-camera settings are totally irrelevant if recording RAW images - that's mostly true (long exposure NR is an exception), but if you make exposure decisions (e.g. ETTR) based on the histogram, the settings for Picture Style (contrast, etc.), ALO, HTP, white balance, etc., are all applied to the JPG preview image and the histogram data/blinkies, and that can affect your exposure decisions.  Some people actually use a modified Picture Style that makes the JPG image more closely resemble the RAW file in terms of exposure. 

Lenses / Re: Need to test my lens for sharpness
« on: March 11, 2013, 11:56:36 AM »
Its possible the ball head on my giottos tripod isnt the right thing to be using with a 5dMK2 and the canon 70-200 2.8, maybe its just not rigid enough (even with mirror lockup), yes the tripod mount is on the lens collar.

Quite possible...there's a significant difference in stability between a good ballhead and an 'okay' ballhead (and I'd put Giottos in the second category).  Also, the tripod itself may be part of the problem, for the same reason.  I was doing some focus testing a few weeks ago for some people in my camera club - in one case, two people side-by-side with 5DII + 24-105L, one with a Promaster (rebranded something else) tripod/ballhead, the other person borrowed my RRS TVC-33 + BH-55.  In Live View, the difference in stability was substantial. 

Lenses / Re: Need to test my lens for sharpness
« on: March 11, 2013, 11:47:01 AM »
If the instructions said bright even illumination, then if the home user doesnt do that, thats their own fault. You cant legislate for idiots.
The best standard is who ever is the test place for these things ie... these guys manage to put up test shots i dont see anyone doubting their test shots.

How long is a warranty on a canon 70-200 2.8 MK2 hopefully over a year?

True.  I have the same type of charts that Bryan (TDP) uses (the Applied Image QA-77) - but as I stated above, you need a frame-filling chart for resolution many 'home users' do you think would be willing to pay $600-$1000 for a test chart?

The Canon warranty is one year (in the USA, at least).

Lenses / Re: 400 mm f/2.8 L Mk I
« on: March 11, 2013, 11:44:18 AM »
I have an opportunity to sell version 1 of the 400 mm f/2.8 L, at a profit! Not sure whether to go for 400 mm f/2.8 II or 200-400 (but second option entails a wait of n months and a cost of n euro!). Ideas?

Given the choice between a vaporware lens and the 400 II, I'd pick the latter.  Unless you require the flexibility of the zoom for framing, the prime will almost certainly offer better IQ and it will be a stop faster, plus you can use a 2x TC if necessary.

Lenses / Re: Tilt Shift Lenses - Looking for Advice
« on: March 11, 2013, 11:36:00 AM »
So... comparing the version II of the 24 mm TS-E and the 17 mm TS-E... which is actually sharper and has better image quality?
The TS-E 24L II is slightly better.  But if you need wider....

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Spec List [CR2]
« on: March 11, 2013, 11:09:16 AM »
It is kind of surprising that you get jpeg but not raw in the highest speed mode. This suggests that is it _some_ (e.g. bus) bandwidth that is the limitation, and not the number-crunching needed to develop into jpeg.

As suggested above, the reflex mirror seems to impose the 12 fps limit as MLU is needed for 14 fps.  The fact that only jpgs are written at 14 fps does suggest a limitation in the write capabilities, since the RAW image has to be acquired and converted to jpg even when shooting RAW only.

Lenses / Re: Need to test my lens for sharpness
« on: March 11, 2013, 11:05:21 AM »
Wouldnt it be nice just to have a standard chart we can all print out, set up at X distance with X standard settings and compare our image with a known best image.
Why is it so difficult.

Reikan FoCal does something along those lines with their aperture sharpness test (everyone is using the same target, and the software determines the settings so they are standardized), with the aggregated results reported online.  But the idea is complicated by the fact that setups will vary - particularly, many people shoot test targets without bright, even illumination.  Also, where would the 'known best image' come from?  Reviewers generally only test one, sometimes 2-3 copies.  Roger Cicala (lensrentals) tests many copies of some lenses, there's often quite a bit of variation. 

I suppose the bottom line is that if you buy a lens, and you're not happy with the resulting images, you should exchange it or send it to Canon.  BTW, Canon does have reference bodies and lenses, so they can determine if your lens isn't up to spec, and correct it if that's the case.  You might want to send your 70-200 II in (and if it's still under warranty, it'll be free).

Pages: 1 ... 485 486 [487] 488 489 ... 1003