July 29, 2014, 04:05:08 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 ... 896
Lenses / Re: 40 2.8 with extension tubes
« on: November 05, 2012, 11:22:25 PM »
I would like to know how the 40 w extension tubes went. I have the 25 and 12mm canon tubes and i am considering the shorty 40 with tube for ring macros at weddings. ...
Please oh please someone bring somethin to the table.

Well, Bosman, since you asked so nicely...   :)

I grabbed a shot with the 1D X, Extension Tube EF 25 II, and EF 40mm f/2.8 'pancake'.  My wife's sparkly diamond marquis with smaller marquis sapphires surrounding it is on her finger, and she's asleep, so you'll have to make due with my wedding band.  It's not unblemished and new like the ones you'll be shooting, since it's been on my finger for a few months shy of 20 years.  But there are only two wedding rings in the house, so this is what you're getting...   :P

Two shots, first is the full frame, uncropped image reduced to 800 pixles wide, second is an 800 pixel wide 100% crop.  Shot at 1/40 s, f/11, ISO 400.  Straight conversion with DPP, only adjustment was to the WB (I cooled it off a little - I should know better than to shoot tungsten light on a red throw pillow with AWB, the original looked a little Tolkien-esque, One Ring To Rule Them All...).

In terms of dimensions, the band measures 7/8" diameter.  The shot was at the MFD of the lens, and the working distance (front element to wedding ring) was ~2.25".

Hope that helps...

EOS Bodies / Re: [Poll] Canon Reign Supreme Again?
« on: November 05, 2012, 09:58:03 PM »
Also  the two pro cameras exposed completely different
Canon 1DX exposed much longer compared to Nikon
We are comparing "Canon" ISO   and " Nikon" ISO  and the results of the test target

So...Claff is right wrong, DxOMark is wrong right wrong, and now IR is right, but only if we look at different ISO settings but try to match the other exposure settings, and only if we stop talking about the 1D X and start talking about the 5DIII instead.

...first  look after that Canon  have been exposed the same time as Nikon, Canon can not have a longer exposure time ,  and sometimes a whole Stop more and then call it for example 12800iso , when in fact it is 6400iso

You are saying the IR images are differently exposed, but 'we' weren't talking about IR data at all, nor were 'we' talking about the 5DIII - you are the only one doing that.  Where are your data showing that DxOMark and William Claff exposed the test images for the 1D X and D800 differently?  Or now that you've decided their data no longer support whatever argument it is you're trying to make, we should stop talking about them and start talking about different data on different cameras, is that it?  We should also ignore the fact that different lenses set to the same f/stop may very well have different T-stops, which would necessitate different exposure settings.  Really hate those inconvenient truths...

so be carefully when ... the parameters are not the same

Let me get this straight.  You show Claff data supporting a point, when shown Claff data refuting that point, you show DxOMark data to refute the Claff data.  When shown DxOMark data refuting the earlier Claff data, you bring out IR data about different cameras than were being previously discussed.  What's next?   Roger Clark data comparing the 40D to the D90?

So if you will discuss high iso reproduction , noise and resolution  with me ,first  look after that Canon  have been exposed the same time as Nikon, Canon can not have a longer exposure time ,  and sometimes a whole Stop more and then call it for example 12800iso , when in fact it is 6400iso

Your arguments are clearly biased and have become tangential.  Discussion with someone displaying an obvious bias is ultimately fruitless, so I'm done discussing anything with you.  Have a good night.

EOS Bodies / Re: [Poll] Canon Reign Supreme Again?
« on: November 05, 2012, 08:44:05 PM »
I see no difference from the two cameras and raw files if  the images are presented in the same size and higher iso and we have them both in the company

Aha, indeed.  So, you show William Claff's data to support your argument that there's no difference in high ISO DR between the cameras, and I point out that his data also show there is a read noise advantage for the 1D X at midrange ISO values.  You now show DxOMark data that there's no major SNR difference between the 1D X and D800 at those ISO values, refuting Claff's data.  But, then...what does DxOMark say about the DR difference at high ISO?  They say the 1D X has an advantage in DR at higher ISOs.

How do you say in Finnish, "You can't have your cake and eat it too?"

You are choosing data to support your point, but ignoring data from the same sources that refute other points.  I know scientists who do that very same thing, and I don't respect their objectivity or conclusions.

EOS Bodies / Re: [Poll] Canon Reign Supreme Again?
« on: November 05, 2012, 06:55:29 PM »
Then you are looking at noise reduction, no way that d800 has more noise from 400iso  and up to 6400iso than 1dx

et näe metsää puilta

Maybe the forest can't be seen for the trees, because you're showing a picture of skyscrapers and not trees?  You are posting about high ISO noise, then showing data about dynamic range (calculated as full well minus read noise).  Read noise contributes to the DR calculation, but there are more factors that contribute to high ISO noise than just read noise, and Shooter is actually looking at real-world images - something that must carry significant weight in this discussion.  Even then, if you look at Claff's read noise vs. ISO plot (which is far more relevant to this discussion), you'll see that between ISO 500 and ISO 4000, the 1D X has lower read noise than the D800.  You might also try showing the D800, not the D800E, since the former is the camera under discussion (although the differences are minor, the D800E has a slight advantage in most measurements, which is perhaps why some people choose to show those data instead, to accentuate any differences with other models).   I wonder why you opted to show the less relevant DR data to support your point, instead of the more relevant read noise data, which are entirely consistent with Shooter's statements based on real-world observations, but with which you disagree?

Lenses / Re: Post your wishlist for to-be-released lenses
« on: November 05, 2012, 05:54:20 PM »
Only one: The 200-400mm f4 zoom. I love my 500, but I miss a lot of shots because I can't back off.

Have you tried a focusing rail?  That would probably solve your issue, as long as it's a big one, like the kind they use for trains.  :o

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS
« on: November 05, 2012, 05:33:07 PM »
Canon states:

In macro photography, shift camera shake and angle camera shake affect both the image formed on the sensor and the image shown in the viewfinder. This is especially relevant to handheld shooting at 1x, since the inability to properly compose and focus due to a shaky image in the viewfinder makes it extremely difficult to record sharp images.
Conventional image stabilizers of the type found in Canon IS lenses incorporate a vibration gyro (angular velocity sensor) to compensate for angle camera shake. Based on the amount of camera shake detected by the sensor, the IS system calculates the amount of shake on the image plane. Lens elements in the IS are then positioned to compensate for the camera shake. However, this type of image stabilizer can neither detect nor correct shift camera shake common to handheld macro photography.

The Hybrid IS includes an acceleration sensor in addition to the conventional vibration gyro (angular velocity sensor). Based on the amount of camera shake detected by the two sensors, a newly developed algorithm calculates the amount of shake on the image plane. Lens elements in the IS are then positioned to compensate for the two types of camera shake — a first in an interchangeable lens for SLR cameras and an excellent way to solve the problem of camera shake in macro photography.

Lenses / Re: Opinion: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS
« on: November 05, 2012, 05:26:13 PM »
Existing 24-105 does not have an internal focusing system making it difficult to use with polarizer and it is aways possible to change the focal point while you adjust the polarizer.

Which 24-105mm lens are you using, and if it's the Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS, when/how did you break your copy?  My copy, like all proprely working copies, is internal focusing, and the front element does not rotate with focusing or zoom extension. Using a CPL in no problem - the extending portion of the barrel does not rotate at all.

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS
« on: November 05, 2012, 02:49:39 PM »
And The hybrid IS will shine on the standard zoom since it's wasted on real macro lenses like the 100L - the IS is nearly useless at very close distances.

By that logic, though, the Hybrid IS is equally useless on the 24-70/4L IS.  The translational motion compensation, which is the 'hybrid' part of H-IS, is only effective with very close subjects; regular IS compensates for angular motion, which dominates for subjects beyond a couple of feet from the camera.  That's why H-IS isn't used on other lenses.  To get to the near-macro 0.7x mag with the 24-70/4 IS you're at the MFD of 20 cm, and the MFD of the 100L macro is 30 cm - further out than the new lens.

Lenses / Re: New 600mm f/4L IS Mk II - availability?
« on: November 05, 2012, 02:18:17 PM »
If anyone is still looking, Amazon has 7 of them right now...

Lenses / Re: Waiting for 100~400mm f/4~5.6 IS II.
« on: November 05, 2012, 01:16:57 PM »
My 70-200/2.8L IS II with 2x TC III performs as well at f/5.6 and 400mm as does my 100-400L when the IS on the 100-400 is turned off.  With the IS on, the 70-200 is more consistently sharp and has vastly better IS and handling.

Copy issue?  My 100-400mm performs very well, well enough that even with the 1.4xIII on it, I can make out the engraved numbers on a banded bird leg from several yards out.

Still...I would certainly like a weather sealed version with higher-rated IS and improved optics.  But not so improved that I start regretting my purchase of the 600 II.  :o

Lenses / Re: Canon Lens Serial Number -question
« on: November 05, 2012, 11:09:25 AM »
Seems that date codes are not dropped from all new copies, as I just saw a 100L for sale with a rolled-over date code of UA (= 2012, UZ is 2011).

Software & Accessories / Re: bg-e13
« on: November 05, 2012, 11:01:58 AM »
Not sure about that far back, but here are the 5DIII and it's BG-E11 chassis:

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 1D MKIV To 1DX
« on: November 05, 2012, 10:31:19 AM »
The high frame rate sounds great in theory, and the improved AF system but together they create  more work. Several years ago it was very easy to sort out the non keepers from the keepers, they were obvious. With the 1D X I would have to sort through hundreds of near identical pictures that are equally in focus.

+1.  It sucks having pretty much every shot be a keeper.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon Sales Rising
« on: November 05, 2012, 09:52:08 AM »
Even there, I'd take a 5DIII over a D800 for general use.  I'm sure I'd find the D800 exciting if my primary subjects were landscape and architecture, but they're not.

Off topic, but...
Wouldn't you want a D800 for the wildlife stuff you do, too?

The AF on the 5DIII is reportedly superior, and the high ISO performance is better, too.  Both are even more true of the 1D X.  Would I like more MP?  Sure.  But great AF and low noise are more important, to me.

Software & Accessories / Re: bg-e13
« on: November 05, 2012, 09:22:23 AM »
In general, the Canon grip has the same basic construction as the body, plastic and rubberized material covering a magnesium alloy frame like the 6D.

Pages: 1 ... 495 496 [497] 498 499 ... 896