September 02, 2014, 03:25:30 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 ... 520 521 [522] 523 524 ... 926
7816
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon Sales Rising
« on: November 08, 2012, 09:35:14 AM »
Canon's DPP is a joy to use, simple and effective. Nikon's ViewNX is a nightmare that takes ages to update the metadata on an image and crashes more often than any other piece of commercial software I've ever used.

IMO, DPP is a joy to use in much the same way that a visit to the dentist for a root canal is a pleasant experience.   :o

DPP's UI reminds me of WordStar (I know, I'm dating myself here).  If ViewNX is worse, that's pretty bad.

7817
Lenses / Re: do image stabilisers decrease image quality?
« on: November 08, 2012, 09:32:27 AM »
A single lens that produces an image with little or no flaw is possible. The human eye has only one lens. Glass and Crystal lenses abilities are flawed in comparison.

It has one structure called a lens, true, but actually the eye can be considered to have at least 4 elements, perhaps better thought of as 4 groups, 3 groups with one element each and one group (the lens itself) comprising multiple elements.  The cornea actually does most of the refracting, but both the aqueous humour and vitreous humour have refractive indices that differ from the cornea and lens.  The lens itself has a refractive index that varies through the structure, and the action of the ciliary muscles changes the shape of the lens, which alters not only the shape of the lens surfaces, but also the differential thickness of the regions of different internal refractive indices.

So if we assume the eye is producing an image with little or no flaws, understand that it's far more complex than a single-element lens.

7818
Lenses / Re: Bokeh Quality from Different Fullframes vs APS-C´s DLSRs?
« on: November 08, 2012, 09:17:01 AM »
"non sequitur" is not a noun; it is a verb (in the negative).

Yes, it is a noun.

(Says, "neener-neener-neeeee-ner" in even more childish fashion.)   ;)

7819
Lenses / Re: ND or not 2B
« on: November 08, 2012, 08:09:41 AM »
The 6D goes up to 1/4000 s, not 1/2000 s.

But even with 1/8000 s available for me, I still bring along 3-stop ND.  My fast primes (35L, 85L II, 135L) all take a 72mm filter, so I only need one.

7820
Lenses / Re: Bokeh Quality from Different Fullframes vs APS-C´s DLSRs?
« on: November 08, 2012, 07:13:30 AM »
What full frame gives you is MORE bokeh, not better bokeh (i.e. DoF is shallower).

It's my understanding that bokeh refers only to the quality of OOF blur, not the quantity. Therefore it can be better or worse, but 'more bokeh' is an non sequitur.

7821
Lenses / Re: 24-70/4 MFT charts
« on: November 07, 2012, 11:30:39 PM »
Neuro, talking macro here, could you kindly tell about those wonderful extending arms fit on this MT-24EX ? Been trying hard to find this sort of contraption, but not to avail yet. I sometimes use one of the flashes by hand for back-lighting but when doing macro, I'd prefer to keep my third hand to hold the umbrella  :)   

That's a Really Right Stuff flash bracket setup.  For the MT-24EX, look in the Off-Camera Flash section, FR-87-QR bracket, a second B-87-QRFM mount, and a pair of FA-QREX2 extenders.  RRS gear is exceptionally high quality, but not cheap.  The setup above will run you about the same as the current price MT-24EX itself, a little more if you have to add the Arca-Swiss-type plate to mount the bracket (a lens plate for a collared lens like the 180L, or  multipurpose rail w/ clamp to convert the 'sideways' body plate/L-bracket to a fore-aft plate for the flash bracket).

I'll be ordering the above setup, plus a B-150B macro rail, in the next few days.   :D

7822
Lenses / Re: Bokeh Quality from Different Fullframes vs APS-C´s DLSRs?
« on: November 07, 2012, 10:50:50 PM »
...since the crop sensor is going to have a different DOF comparing the two would be difficult.

Of course, but bokeh is quality, not quantity.

The 100-400's bokeh looks jittery on either sensor format.  The 70-200 II bokeh is much smoother on both formats, but on FF wide open there is definite cat's-eye bokeh at the edges, not seen on APS-C.  All of that can easily be seen despite the difference in DoF for the same framing.

7823
Lenses / Re: EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« on: November 07, 2012, 10:40:10 PM »
How would you compare the bulkiness of the 200-400 F4 IS to a 300 F4 L IS with a Canon TC?

Much longer, thicker, and about 3x heavier.

7824
Lenses / Re: do image stabilisers decrease image quality?
« on: November 07, 2012, 10:13:59 PM »
Put enough elements in a lens the light will never make it through.

How many would that take? Let's try 65:



Nope, not enough - light still makes it through.

7825
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Full frame or not???
« on: November 07, 2012, 08:53:36 PM »
A 5DII will have about 1.3-stops less ISO noise than your 60D, a 5DIII about 1.5-stops less, no idea on the 6D but it will be at least 1.3-stops.  So, with an f/4 lens on FF vs. f/2.8 on crop, you can bump the ISO a stop to maintain shutter speed and still have lower noise, or bump 1/3-1/2 stop more for an even faster shutter and the same noise. 

7826
Lenses / Re: do image stabilisers decrease image quality?
« on: November 07, 2012, 06:48:18 PM »
The most sensible way to discuss is to compare say Canon lenses where the same optical model is available (at the same time) with or without IS.

Nice, in theory.  But in practice, the addition of IS changes the optical formula and the other elements need to be changed in concert, so there's no real direct comparison.

But it's likely easiest to make a general comparison with the 70-200mm zooms.  In descending order of from sharpest to least sharp, they are:

  • 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II
  • 70-200mm f/4L IS
  • 70-200mm f/2.8L
  • 70-200mm f/2.8L IS
  • 70-200mm f/4L

The fact that two IS lenses are at the top argues that IS doens't need to result in a loss of IQ...but those two lenses are also the newset in the bunch, and Mt. Spokane's point about newer lenses being sharper is true.

What, no love for the 200/2IS? The sharpest of them all.

The 200/2L IS is quite sharp, but the 300/2.8L IS II is sharper away from the center, as is the 500 II.  But probably not a significant difference overall - they're all damn sharp!

7827
Lenses / Re: do image stabilisers decrease image quality?
« on: November 07, 2012, 04:56:42 PM »
EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS II
Image Stabilization & a very sharp lens

300/400/500/600 II superteles.  Image Stabilization & even sharper.

7828
Lenses / Re: 24-70/4 MFT charts
« on: November 07, 2012, 03:40:41 PM »
I have a question, what is a MFT chart?
It tells you about sharpness, contrast reproduction and bokeh quality at wide open and (for Canon) @f8. It doesn't tell you about vignetting, distortion, flare or onion bokeh.

No, it doesn't.  You seem to be describing an MTF chart.  That's not answering PackLight's question.  Might want to re-read the post...  :P

7829
Lenses / Re: Next lens, round 2
« on: November 07, 2012, 02:51:58 PM »
I am curious about the 6d, the focus in -3 stops is interesting but just because they mention it doesn't mean the 1dx and 5dm3 don't have the same sensitivity.

The 5DIII and 1D X are spec'd to AF down to -2 EV, older 1-series bodies (1DIV, etc.) to -1 EV, and most other bodies (5DII, 7D, xxD, xxxD) to -0.5 EV.

7830
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 60D Microfocus Adjustment on FoCal
« on: November 07, 2012, 02:34:12 PM »
50D had it.  Probably easier to flag it off than delete it, also makes it easier for them to re-offer it later or in the 70D.

Pages: 1 ... 520 521 [522] 523 524 ... 926