August 30, 2014, 12:23:46 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 ... 495 496 [497] 498 499 ... 921
7441
Lenses / Re: Unable to AFMA 70-200mm 2.8 is II
« on: November 27, 2012, 10:16:59 PM »
Could you repost with the settings and draw a circle around where you think it should have focused?

Or better yet, open it in DPP, turn on the AF point display, and take a screenshot. 

One more test - compare live view AF with viewfinder AF - if the former is sharper, it's likely an AFMA issue, and if both are front-focused it's likely a lens quality issue.

Note that your test scene is not really ideal, either.  If you have a few lenses, I really think Reikan FoCal is the way to go for doing AFMA.

7442
Software & Accessories / Re: TVC-24L similar
« on: November 27, 2012, 10:08:51 PM »
If I go with PCL-1 panning clamp and

would that be strong enough to hold let's say 70-200 with 2x III ?

Definitely strong enough.  It would hold my 600/4L IS II.

The only thing that's missing at the moment is the way to connect my black rapid to the L-plate.
I saw many options with a clamp, but for me the best way would be if L-plates screw could be replaced with black rapid ones.

There's no easy way to replace the screw for the L-bracket with a BR lug, although I have read of at least one person (with access to a machine shop) who thinned down the bracket at the point and used a BR FastenR-T1 instead of the regular hex screw - not sure I'd recommend that.  My 1D X L-bracket has a completely flat base, meaning no way to mount to a clamp with a larger screw, and looking at the 70-200 II plate (below), there's probably nowhere for a lug to recess into the plate when it's attached at the proper position (the screw slides fore-aft along the track, but the rear lip needs to sit against the back of the tripod foot for the anti-twist, so the screw will be close to the two inward protrusions).  The L-bracket for the 5DIII has a single protrusion like the ones on the lens plate below, meaning no way to use anything but the hex screw.  There have been rumors that BR will release an Arca-Swiss lug as a counterpart to the FastenR-T1 for Manfrotto, but they're pretty slow to release things, and even if they actually announce one, there will likely be a long lag until release - it was many months for the FastenR-T1 (and I was eagerly waiting, since I used Manfrotto RC-2 plates at the time).  Plus, in the situations above, I can't see how one could be designed.   ???

Personally, I find the clamp solution to work very well.  Partly, that's because I have two camera bodies and six lenses with collars and lens plates - that would be a lot of lugs.  It's very easy to move the strap from one attachment point to another, and the attachment is secure.  I use Kirk QRC-1 1" clamps on the BR lugs.  RRS just came out with an equivalent, the B2-FAB-F (the original B2-FAB has little nubs on the bottom so the lug doesn't tighten down well, and I guess they were losing too many people to Kirk...).  It's a 1.5" clamp, so a little larger than the Kirk, and also $60 vs. $40 for the Kirk.  IMO, the 1" clamp is an ideal size.  The second pic below is the setup attached to a Wimberley P-5 camera plate.  I use the same setup to carry the 600 II from a left-handed BR strap - it's quite secure.  I do attach the FastenR-3 lugs to the Kirk 1" clamps with some Loctite Blue 242, so there's no risk of them coming unscrewed.

7443
There's a C.Fn or Custom Controls option to directly select AF points with the multicontroller, no need to press the AF selection button.

7444
Lenses / Re: Believe it or not, 5D3 user misses the 300D reach...
« on: November 27, 2012, 01:18:37 PM »
1.4 x III or 150-500? Who do you vote for?

1.4x III, IMO. AF will be better, I suspect IQ will be better, too.  I'm happy with the 1.4xIII + 100-400L on my 1D X.

7445
Lenses / Re: Believe it or not, 5D3 user misses the 300D reach...
« on: November 27, 2012, 11:47:14 AM »
You need to do some more Rithmetic.   ;)

The 300D at 400mm gives you a 640mm FF-equivalent FoV, and a 6.3 MP image.  The 5DIII at 400mm gives you a 400mm FoV, and a 22 MP image.  If you crop the 5DIII image to the 640mm FoV, you'll have an 8.6 MP image with better IQ than the 300D image.

As I've said before, the 'crop factor' reach is an illusion when it comes to IQ - the only thing you're usually giving up is MP in the final image...and in the case of an old APS-C camera like the 300D, you're actually gaining MP with the cropped FF image.

7446
I shot some indoor dimly lit shots with 8000 - 10000 ISO and was greatly surprised by the results using the 24-105L.  Perhaps I may not need the 24-70L using the 5D MK III body?  Anybody else had this experience?

The high ISO capability of the new bodies is impressive.  But...why did you get the 70-200/2.8L IS II instead of the 70-200 f/4L IS?  The wider aperture is about more than letting in more light, it also allows better subject isolation for portraits - that's true for both the 70-200 range and the 24-70 range.

7447
EOS Bodies / Re: 1DX or 5D Mark III with two lenses
« on: November 27, 2012, 11:26:02 AM »
I guess the RGB "betering sensor" just makes things that much "better"  :P

Exactly what I was thinking.  My first thought when I re-read that was, oops, a typo.  My second thought was that the typo was leaving out a 't', not mistyping the 'm'.   :P

7448
Software & Accessories / Re: TVC-24L similar
« on: November 27, 2012, 11:23:03 AM »
I found that BH-55 matches series 2 quite well and that guys from RRS use it this way as well.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1018499&page=11
It doesn't seem any wider than the base of platform, a bit wider that the elevated part though.

Yes, it was the elevated part that I was referring to as the platform, and you can see the overhang compared to the BH-55 on a 3-series (pics below). 

Actually, the leveling base platform is larger than the 2-series base platform - the diamater of the leveling base for the 2-series is the same as the 3-series platforms, and perfectly matched to the BH-55 base with no overhang.  That's by design, because the larger base of pano gear (PCL-1, PG-02 horizontal base, which are the same base diameter as the BH-55) would block part of the bubble level on the leveling base.

The leveling base also adds a couple inches to the height. 

If your only use for the leveling base is for panos, another option would be the PCL-1 panning clamp w/ dovetail.  With the leveling base and a ballhead, you must level twice - the base for the panning, but you also need to level the ballhead clamp so the series of shots is level.  The PCL-1 w/ dovetail clamps into the ballhead, so you just have to level the ballhead clamp and you're done.  That option also gives more tilt freedom that the leveling base, which is limited to 15°.  Of course, that option is $76 more than the series-2 leveling base - again, paying for convenience. 

I noticed you asked about the height of the TVC-24L with 3 sections extended, that's 50" - a little shorter than the 52.4" height of the -23.  That info is actually on the RRS specs page for the TVC-24L.   ;)


7449
EOS Bodies / Re: 1DX or 5D Mark III with two lenses
« on: November 27, 2012, 10:07:12 AM »
I was under the assumption that excluding the fact that the 1dx can spot meter at the selected AF point, the 5d3 had an identical AF system.  When you say "slightly better AF capability" are you simply refering to the spot metering?

The 1D X uses data from it's 100,000-pixel RGB betering sensor to enhance AF, particularly in AI Servo mode.  That also allows face-tracking with phase detect AF - very useful for sports, and a feature that the 5DIII doesn't have.

7450
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D MARK III lens recommendation
« on: November 27, 2012, 09:50:10 AM »
I recommend the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II.

Why?  Becuase maybe you really like to shoot landscapes and architecture.  But maybe you don't.  So...knowing what you plan to do with the lens would sure help.  IMO, you buy a lens to fill a need, and the lenses you list fill three very different needs (albeit with some overlap between the telezoom and the macro).

7451
EOS Bodies / Re: First Round of EOS 7D Mark II Specs [CR1]
« on: November 27, 2012, 09:48:18 AM »
Plus, you can't remove the grip meaning you have to tote around all that extra weight and size even if you don't need it for what you are doing that day.

I never remove the grip the my 7D.  The only time I took it off was when I loaned the camera to someone who didn't use a grip.  Thus, for me, having the grip built-in is much better, for many reasons (which I know we've already discussed  ;) ).

7452
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro
« on: November 27, 2012, 09:42:40 AM »
Ahhh, the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS.  My first L-series lens.  My 'gateway drug'.  Love it.  It's mounted on my camera right now, just waiting for me to pick it up and use it. 

7453
Software & Accessories / Re: TVC-24L similar
« on: November 27, 2012, 09:26:48 AM »
I'm 5'7" (on a good day  ;) ) so at full extension with the TVC-33, the viewfinder is a bit above my eye level with the BH-55 LR (on a clamping leveling base, and with a 1-series body - those two add about 3" compared to the regular leveling base and non-gripped body), and with the gimbal head, the VF is several inches above eye level. 

The 4-section legs from RRS are very stable, so I would make the decision based on height and not stability.  For your height, I'd say definitely the TVC-24L or 34L.

Out of curiousity, why the BH-55 LR?  FYI, the BH-55 is better matched to the 3-series legs.  The BH-55 base is 0.8" wider in diameter than the BH-40 base, and the tripod platforms are sized to match (3-series with -55, 2-series with -40).  Putting a BH-55 on a 2-series tripod means the base of the ballhead will be larger than the platform.  The platform is raised slightly, so it will attach, but I suspect it's not optimal. 

The LR clamps have three lever positions - closed (lever at 0°), half-open (lever at 90°), and fully open (lever at 180°).  In the half-open position, a plate can slide back and forth in the clamp but cannot be lifted out.  Lens plates generally have safety stops (small hex screws protruding from the bottom of the plate) at each end, camera plates/L-brackets often have only one.  With the safety stops in place, the plate cannot slide out of a half-open clamp.

7454
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Picture Styles: 5D Mark III
« on: November 27, 2012, 12:33:58 AM »
Set up on a tripod, take the same picture 2-3 times with regular AF, then go to Live View and take 2-3 shots with Live AF (contrast detect).  If the Live View images are sharper, you need AFMA.  Some lenses require significant adjustment, and it varies with the combo (for example, your body could be off quite a bit, and your 100L is off by the same amount in the same direction, and your new lens could be 'perfect').

If the lens is soft even with live view, compared to the 100L for example, then I'd strongly consider exchanging it or sending it to Canon. You shouldn't need to boost sharpening with a picture style or during RAW conversion - the lens should be sharp, so look for the root cause...

7455
Software & Accessories / Re: TVC-24L similar
« on: November 27, 2012, 12:24:14 AM »
A center column always adds instability.  I'm sure the RRS one is sturdy, and maybe ok for a light load, but not with something moderately heavy. 

Leveling base?  Are you planning on using a pano head or gimbal head?  If so, the leveling base is great.  If you're using a ballhead, it's not really necessary, IMO.  The handle on the bottom is how you loosen the base to adjust the tilt, then lock it back down.  As for the hook, the tripod ships with a simple platform installed, and that platform has a hook.  You remove the platform to install the leveling base, and the hook can be unscrewed.  I believe the leveling base has a little cap on the bottom of the handle that can be popped off, and the hook screwed on instead (I actually got the longer handle version for more leverage when leveling with the 600 II on the gimbal, and I got the one with the hook preinstalled).  I'd call RRS and ask, but I suspect you don't need to buy the extra hook.  (Of course, they sell them - people lose things!  They also sell the rubber ball feet even though they come with the tripod.)

Ragarding the plates for camera and lens, not sure why that puts you off.  They aren't required - you can get a ballhead with just a platform, it's cheaper and has a 1/4"-20 stud that you can simply screw your camera body or lens foot onto.  But do you really want to do that every time?  You're paying for the convenience of a quick release system.  The nice thing is that RRS uses Arca-Swiss type plates, and most of those systems are interchangeable (not Novoflex and a few others, there are compatibility charts out there).  What that means is you can use a mix of plates and clamps from several vendors.  Personally, I have both Wimberley and RRS plates, and I have Wimberley, Kirk, and RRS clamps, and they all work great together.

As for cost of the plates, the RRS plate for a 70-200/2.8 is $55, and the Wimberley P-20 (which is what I have on my 70-200/2.8L IS II) is only $3 cheaper.  The RRS plate has a 1/4"-20 threaded hole, should you want to attach something else (monopod without a clamp, for example), whereas the Wimberley plate does not (I ordered the Wimberley mainly because B&H sells them, so I get them overnight with UPS ground, whereas RRS takes several days to get to me).  The RRS camera plates are also not significantly more expensive than something like a Wimberley P-5 (again, <$10 more); the difference there is the Wimberley is a universal plate that mounts on any camera, while the RRS plates are specific for a particular camera (and there are different ones for gripped vs. non-gripped).  The advantage to the RRS plates is that they have a custom lip that wraps around the edge of the camera, meaning no chance the plate will twist when in use (and that can happen with the Wimberley).  L-brackets are obviously more expensive, but again, you're paying for convenience - being able to balance a load upright for a portrait shot, vs. using the drop notch, being able to take portrait-oriented panos, etc. 

I guess the bottom line is that you pay for quality and convenience, and RRS delivers. 

Pages: 1 ... 495 496 [497] 498 499 ... 921