April 20, 2014, 09:06:03 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 ... 495 496 [497] 498 499 ... 843
PowerShot Cameras / Re: Canon S110 Rumor...
« on: September 14, 2012, 06:42:47 PM »
I still have both of these models and just bought the Sony RX100 about a month ago from Digital Rev in China. Got to admit, the RX100 IQ is spectacular.  It's fast and has many more usuable features than my beloved S100.

I also have both the S95 and S100 (well, the S95 lives in my wife's purse).  I'm considering getting the RX100 - thanks for the feedback! 

Not neck, shoulder instead. Blackrapid works very, very well.  I routinely carry a 1-series or gripped body with a large white zoom (70-200/2.8L IS II, 28-300L or 100-400L).

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 1dx Color
« on: September 14, 2012, 05:14:26 PM »
I'm assuming you mean the Auto WB. "Too cool" is subjective.  It's cooler than the 5DII, IMO - but that could be viewed as the 5DII being "too warm". 

Based on shots of an X-rite ColorChecker Passport, the 1D X AWB is more accurate than the 5DII - that seems more like 'the 5DII is too warm' instead of 'the 1D X is too cool.'

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Canon S110 Rumor...
« on: September 14, 2012, 05:10:43 PM »
Oh gosh I hope not...f/2.0 - f5.9.

That's the same lens as the S100...

Lenses / Re: Which Macro?? Please help!
« on: September 14, 2012, 05:08:39 PM »
I'd say the 100mm non-L USM Macro.  If your budget is higher, I think the ideal product photography lens is the TS-E 90mm f/2.8.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50 F1.2L And EF 35 F1.4L Sharpest Settings
« on: September 14, 2012, 03:15:35 PM »
The 50L has focus shift - as you stop down from wide open, if back focuses, but at some point (which is dependent on subject distance) the thicker DoF overcomes the back focus.  So, if plotting the sharpness of the 50/1.2L based on autofocus (assuming it's AFMA'd normally, i.e. at f/1.2), I'd expect it to be sharp at f/1.2, then get progressively softer as you stop down until somewhere in the f/2.2-f/3.5 range, then get progressively sharper again, peaking at f/4 or f/5.6 then dropping again after f/11 when diffraction sets in.

...I have no hesitation in saying that I am glad that I bought the ultimate tripod combination...

Excellent choice.  Of course, I may have a slight bias in that statement, since UPS just delivered a TVC-33 with clamping leveling base, BH-55 LR ballhead, PG-02 LLR gimbal head, MC-34 monopod with MH-02 Pro tilt head, 1D X L-bracket, B91-QR flash bracket, and a few miscellaneous items, all in a nice big box to my office.

I have only one regret...my office is in Boston, and I'm in Pennsylvania and won't be back to my office until Tuesday.   >:(

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 6D Specs Leaked?
« on: September 14, 2012, 02:11:31 PM »
cpw has an image of the 6D.

I'm not saying it's fake...but, look at the '6' in that image, and compare it to the '6' of the 60D and 600D.  The font for the 60D and 600D nameplate have an identical '6', and it's different from the '6' in the image of the 6D posted above.  Just sayin'.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 6D Specs Leaked?
« on: September 14, 2012, 01:44:25 PM »
... Nikon seems to understand what the consumer wants better than Canon.

Do they?  For the past several years, Canon has outsold Nikon in the dSLR market segment, and the gap has been widening, not narrowing.  Will that trend change? Maybe...but there are no data yet, so any statement to that effect is bs at this point.

While you may be right that Nikon better understands what 'the consumer' (or perhaps you, anyway) wants to buy, reportedly Nikon's service is the pits - and that's something that matters in the long run.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 6D Specs Leaked?
« on: September 14, 2012, 11:31:47 AM »
I do have a question for everybody saying Canon should just put the 7D's AF system on a full fram sensor. Surely the AF system would only cover a very small portion (center only) of the bigger sensor? So essentially a 19 point AF system for a FF sensor would be a completely new AF system?

Probably.  But actually, not as much smaller as you might think!   If they compensate for the larger frame, it means developing a new sensor.  If they don't, it means the 6D would have more AF points, and better ones, but the area coverage would be a bit less than that of the 5DII, as you can see in the attached image (5DII in blue, 7D in black, not adjusted for the relative sizes of the image sensors). 

The AF area coverage of the 5DII was already not a strong point.  When they released the 5DII, they touted the fact that the horizontal point spread was the same as the 1DsIII, conveniently ignoring the fact that the vertical spread was a full row shorter.  The 7D's AF sensor on the 6D would mean the loss of a horizontal row, as well. 

But even though those outer points would not be very far from the center, they'd be better than the 5DII's AF outer points...   ::)

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Arrived
« on: September 14, 2012, 11:25:09 AM »
So Canon did not set out with the objective of making the mark II standard zoom lighter and smaller? They've used a similar design as the 24-105 IS, the new hood looks flimsy.

I'm sure they did, but since the manufacturer-specified weight does not include the lens hood, a smaller and lighter hood would not help them achieve a smaller and lighter lens, technically. 

I, too, would prefer the old design, in that the hood is effective across the whole focal range, not just at the wide end as it is for the new lens (and almost every other zoom lens out there, eleven non-extending zooms like the 70-200's).

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Arrived
« on: September 14, 2012, 11:07:22 AM »
It would appear that Canon opted for this smaller petal-shaped hood in an effort to minimize weight. I much prefer the fixed larger hood on my 24-70 mark I, it gives one a greater sense of protection too

It's not about weight, it's about optical design trade-offs.  The original 24-70 has a reverse zoom - extending as the AoV gets wider.  That allows a hood to be attached to the fixed part of the lens.  The 24-70 II has a typical zoom design where the focal length gets longer as the lens barrel is extended.  If you used a hood like that of the original 24-70 with such a design, a wide angle shot would have the hood blocking out much of the frame.  I assume Canon had valid (optical) reasons for abandoning the reverse zoom design - for example, I've often wondered if that design accounted for the original 24-70's excessive field curvature. 

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 6D Specs Leaked?
« on: September 14, 2012, 09:15:03 AM »
11 AF Points, f/2.8 Cross-type in the center

Weak.  Very weak.

Software & Accessories / Re: BG-E11 weight
« on: September 14, 2012, 08:18:33 AM »
It's just a question of balance.  Yes, the 1D X is much lighter than a gripped 5DIII.  But just as the 1D X eliminates some weight from the hand, it also eliminates more money from your wallet.  If you choose the gripped 5DIII, just leave the money you save in your wallet, in your back pocket, and it will be a nice counterbalance.   :P

EOS Bodies / Re: Lens Correction Data for the 24-70 2.8 II
« on: September 14, 2012, 08:13:15 AM »
Lens profiles don't come with firmware, beyond the default pre-installed set you need to load them onto the camera using EOS Utility (assuming the 24-70 II package is available, but I'm pretty sure it is if you've got the latest version of EOS Utility).

Pages: 1 ... 495 496 [497] 498 499 ... 843