October 31, 2014, 03:24:16 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 ... 486 487 [488] 489 490 ... 976
7306
Lenses / Re: Good telephoto option for birds.
« on: February 03, 2013, 11:28:24 PM »
The 100-400 is not as sharp as the bare 70-200 II - but then, very few zoom lenses are.  My 100-400 is slightly sharper than my 70-200 II + 2xIII.  If you didn't already have the 70-200 II, the 100-400 would be a good choice (if you found the one you borrowed soft, it might be a copy issue or need AFMA).  But you'd do fine with the 2xIII on the 70-200 II.

7307
Lighting / Re: Help for Speedlight MT-24 EX / 600EX-RT
« on: February 03, 2013, 11:23:22 PM »
I was not aware of that. MPE filter thread is 58 and the MT24-EX fits it. The 100 macro is 67 so you lose a little on the outsides of that lens. Or is there something else I'm missing?   

The front element of the 100L is smaller than the 58mm ring of the macro flashes, so there's no issue.  There's also a Macrolite 72 for the 180L Macro (also works fine), and even a Macrolite 58 for lenses that lack the groove for the twin/ring lites.  Personally, I use the 58 adapter with the MP-E 65 - I have a B+W MRC UV filter on the lens (for protection - I routinely shove the front of the lens into bushes), and the adapter screws onto the filter so I can mount the twin flash but keep the filter close to the front element.

7308
Site Information / Re: Moderators: You are Too Sensitive
« on: February 03, 2013, 09:58:24 PM »


Indeed, and while I guess US law would apply to CR
Nope, CR is in Canada.   Those who post are responsible for their own posts, but the moderators try to make it a plesant place to carry on reasonable conversations about photography.
They even let some of the US citizens like Neuro and myself post here.  My son was born in Toronto and has a Canadian father, so I guess that makes me part Canadian - eh :)

...and my mom was born in Regina and is still a Canadian citizen with permanent resident status in the US.  Maybe we should start a conspiracy theory about a requirement for a 'Canadian connection'...   ;)

7309
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 70D is Coming, The Future of Pro APS-C is Unknown
« on: February 03, 2013, 08:41:58 PM »
dare we dream - f/8 AF on the center point.

I hadn't dreamt of that yet, since I just assumed it would remain exclusive to 1-series bodies. But that would be pretty cool.... I will start dreaming.

Canon announced that the 5DIII will get f/8 AF with a firmware update due out in April.

7310
Lighting / Re: Help for Speedlight MT-24 EX / 600EX-RT
« on: February 03, 2013, 06:32:55 PM »
And by the way. I doubt you will have success mounting the MT-24EX on the 100L IS. I had that flash, the MP-E65 and I own the 100L IS. It would not fit but I never tried getting an adaptor and I'm not sure you can.

???

Canon Macrolite Adapter 67.  $32, in stock at B&H, Amazon, etc. 

7311
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« on: February 03, 2013, 03:22:15 PM »
@ Neutral - Thanks, and of course, that's absolutely true if the blown highlights are due to saturation of wells with photons prior to application of the user-selected amount of gain (but note that some gain is applied even at ISO 100, since the 'base ISO' of most current sensors is actually a bit less than 100).

But highlights can also be blown by less-than-full photon wells being subjected to too much analog gain as they are read out. That can happen at higher ISO settings (which are often needed for action-stopping shutter speeds or narrower apertures chosen for sufficiently deep DoF at handholding shutter speeds).  In that case, simply reducing the gain (i.e. ISO) by one stop will preserve one stop of highlights, and that's what HTP does at ISO 400, for example.  No change to aperture or shutter speed, so no change in the amount of light hitting the sensor, but rather, a (clandestine) reduction in the analog gain.

7312
EOS Bodies / Re: making a case for that crop body camera
« on: February 03, 2013, 02:15:11 PM »
I haven't done a test, but wouldn't I have a shallower DOF if I used my 5DII with my 100mm macro with the same framing- ie: I'd have to be significantly closer with the 5D?

Yes, at the same f/stop, the DoF would be shallower with FF.   But when you consider diffraction (you can stop down the lens more on the FF sensor before diffraction costs you sharpness), there's no 'APS-C gives deeper DoF' benefit.  Both formats can achieve the same deepest DoF for a given amount of diffraction, but the FF can achieve shallower DoF if desired. Just another benefit to the amazing FF sensor.  ;)

7313
EOS Bodies / Re: making a case for that crop body camera
« on: February 03, 2013, 01:00:05 PM »
Neuro, what do you use as a standard zoom on your 7D? Or do you use a standard zoom on the 7D now?

I would probably use the 16-35 II...if I needed a standard zoom for the 7D.  But since I don't use the 7D at all anymore, it's a moot point.  ;)

7314
EOS Bodies / Re: making a case for that crop body camera
« on: February 03, 2013, 12:44:40 PM »
Yes, I realize the FF equivalency. This is getting off topic from the OP's original post, but I've read numerous times online that the 17-55 is sharper. I don't have a 24-105 to compare it to.

I do. The 17-55 is sharper on the same crop body. What is even more amazing that it compares well to the 24-105 even at f/2.8 (and the 24-105 at f/4).

But the 17-55 on crop is softer than the 24-105 on FF. Not a huge difference, but it is easy to see. I have one  comparison on my site, and of course, there is also TDP, PZ, etc.

I also had both, and Plamen is absolutely correct.  That's why I sold my 17-55.

7315
Lenses / Re: Resistance to Larger Filter Size, Kills Great Lenses?
« on: February 03, 2013, 12:36:06 PM »
This thread is just silly.  There is no reason whatsoever for a 24-70/2.8 IS to have or need a larger front element than a 24-70/2.8 non-IS.

Which is why, upon reflection, I asked for some evidence from the OP.  I wonder if he can produce some...   ::)

7316
EOS Bodies / Re: making a case for that crop body camera
« on: February 03, 2013, 11:58:01 AM »
Other than the first two reasons listed, the main reason I couldn't part with it was my EF-S 17-55. I love that lens so much that I had to keep a body to use it with.

I hear this a lot.  In case you didn't know, the FF equivalent of the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 is a hypothetical 27-88mm f/4.5 lens (adjusted for AoV and DoF for same framing), so the 24-105mm f/4L kit lens is longer, wider, faster, still has IS, and will deliver sharper images on FF than the 17-55 on APS-C.  The better ISO performance of FF (>1.5 stops from 7D to 5DIII) more than makes for the loss of a stop of shutter speed.  The only thing you're theoretically giving up is the high-precision center AF point...and since the center point of the 5DIII is reportedly more accurate than the center point of the 7D, and the 5DIII has overall superior AF, it's not much of a sacrifice.

My advice: sell the 17-55 (I did), and probably the 7D, too.

7317
Animal Kingdom / Re: Open up and Say Ahhh...
« on: February 03, 2013, 10:27:36 AM »
Great shots of some ugly (but very tasty) fish!

7318
Lenses / Re: Resistance to Larger Filter Size, Kills Great Lenses?
« on: February 03, 2013, 10:05:42 AM »
ditto, it would be a badass looking lens with the 95mm filter size

I just got the business idea of dslr tuning - make it appear more impressive by adding false elements to the front, dummy buttons to the back for a more difficult pro-look, a *double* red ring as a chick magnet ... just like car tuning with spoilers, lower chassis and broader tires (that actually slow you down) :->

Sort of like that pimped-out nifty-fifty!


7319
Lenses / Re: Resistance to Larger Filter Size, Kills Great Lenses?
« on: February 03, 2013, 09:49:29 AM »
It's well known, based on patents, photographs of prototypes

Out of curiuosity, can you provide links to patents or pics of a prototype 24-70/2.8 IS lens?

7320
Lighting / Re: Help for Speedlight MT-24 EX / 600EX-RT
« on: February 03, 2013, 09:36:48 AM »
Yes, you can add a second 600EX, with one on-camera and the other as a slave, or get both off-camera by connecting one with an OC-E3 cord (or 3rd party copy).

You mention the high cost of the MT-24EX, but RRS gear isn't cheap, either.  To get the pair of flashes out to the subject, you'd need another mount and a pair of extenders, plus a lens collar plate - close to $500 in RRS gear, plus the cost of the 600EX-RT.

I would probably not be inclined to buy an MT-24EX for use with just a 100L, but it's the right choice for an MP-E 65mm, and since I got the twin-flash for that, I also use it with the 100L.  I considered getting the RRS setup above, a second mount plus a second extender (I had one already to get the Better Beamer further off-axis with the 600L) for the twin light, but I think that setup is limiting in terms of flexibility.  Instead, I opted for a pair of Wimberley F-2 brackets.

So...my current 'ultimate' macro lighting rig is the MT-24EX in the hotshoe with the twin heads each on a Wimberley F-2 bracket to light the subject, and the 600EX-RT on the RRS bracket w/ extender as an optical slave to light the background.

Pages: 1 ... 486 487 [488] 489 490 ... 976