September 01, 2014, 03:45:53 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 ... 530 531 [532] 533 534 ... 925
7966
Yes, the twin flash is pretty much a necessity with the MP-E 65mm. I use it mostly with that, occasionally with the 100L Macro. For the latter, you'll need the Macrolite Adapter 67C.  The MT-24EX clips directly onto the MP-E 65mm.  Note that a filter on the front of the lens prevents mounting the twin lite. Personally, I use filters in all my lenses, but one is very useful on the MP-E 65mm - the working distance is so short I'm always pushing the front of the lens against a bush, etc.  If you want to use a filter with the MP-E 65mm and mount the MT-24EX, get the Macrolite Adapter 58C and mount that in front of the filter.

+1 on the StoFens, I have them.

Been thinking about the RRS brackets - very nice, although the setup costs more than the MT-24EX itself! 

7967
EOS Bodies / Re: Official DXOMark Sensor Score for the EOS-1D X
« on: October 31, 2012, 11:50:05 AM »
For anyone wondering why they waited nearly a month after adding 1D X sensor support to DxO Optical Pro to release the 1D X scores, I'd guess it's because they knew there'd be a bit of buzz around these results, and they wanted to drive traffic to their sites now that DxO Optics Pro 8 has just been released. 

How can they rate the D800 better at high ISO noise?

Because the Sports/Low Light Score is based on images downsampled to 8 MP, and when you downsample a 36 MP image to 8 MP, you average out more noise than when you downsample an 18 MP image to 8 MP. 

7968
It's a specialty flash, I expect there's virtually no pressure for Canon to update this.

What would be nice?  A major revamp to an -RT system with wireless flash heads (larger to accomodate batteries, probably meaning a more robust mounting bracket), along with the new locking foot design, silent recycle, etc. but realistically, this has got to be near the bottom on Canon's priority list.

I'd say just get it now.

With which lens(es) do you plan on using it?

7969
Lenses / Re: focusing accuracy/repeatability on 50mm
« on: October 30, 2012, 09:34:42 PM »
Did you AFMA the lens, and if so, how?

The 50L has some focus shift - backfocus when stopped down a bit with a close subject (not an issue wide open). 

7970
Lenses / Re: When is the Big Glass going to be available?
« on: October 30, 2012, 09:31:25 PM »
Ordered my 600 II from B&H in late August, received it at the beginning of October. The allotment that covered my order apparently filled all their preorders with some left - it was In Stock on their website for a few hours on the day they prepped my shipment.

7971
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]
« on: October 30, 2012, 05:32:42 PM »
What if there was another loss in translation, and this will actually be a 17-70mm f/4L IS.  Now, that would be interesting...

7972
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]
« on: October 30, 2012, 05:18:54 PM »
Who would buy the 24-70 II when they could get something with the same focal range that's just as sharp, half the weight, more compact, and 2-3 stops more handholdable? Not many people. A few, but not many.

People who need f/2.8, that's who. Who buys the 85/1.2L with the 85/1.8 available?  Lots of people.

The 24-70 II is like the 70-200mm f/2.8 non-IS lens. Who buys that one?

People who need a sharp f/2.8 but can't afford the 70-200 II.

If they can get the price of the 24-70mm f/4 IS down below $2,000, it's a sure winner.

I bring out the WTF again on this.  The 24-105 f/4L IS close to $1000, if the 24-70 f/4L IS is anywhere even close to $2000, it's a sure big fat loser.

7973
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]
« on: October 30, 2012, 04:00:24 PM »
24-70mm f/4L IS?

WTF?  Just.....WTF?!?

 :o

7974
1982-1992: Pentax K1000 film SLR

1993-2001: Olympus 35mm P&S

2001-2004: Olympus C960Z (1 MP P&S)

2004-2009: Olympus C765UZ (4 MP superzoom P&S)

October 2009: bought Rebel T1i

March 2010: bought EOS 7D (sold T1i)

October 2010: bought EOS 5D Mark II

March 2012: preordered EOS 1D X

July 2012: received EOS 1D X (sold 5DII)

As for lenses...that would take too long to chronicle;)

Ok, I had a little time...

Oct 2009: bought EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and EF 85mm f/1.8
Dec 2009: bought EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS  *onset of L-disease
Jan 2010: bought EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5
               bought EF 200mm f/2.8L II (used)
Feb 2010: bought EF 300mm f/4L IS (used)
Mar 2010: bought EF 1.4x II Extender (used)
                   bought EF 100-400mm (sold 300/4L IS)
Apr 2010: bought EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II (sold 200/2.8L II)
May 2010: bought EF 24-105mm f/4L IS (used)
June 2010: bought EF 85mm f/1.2L II (sold 85/1.8 )
July 2010: bought EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS (used)
Oct 2010: bought MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro (used)
                 bought EF 24-105mm f/4L IS (with 5DII kit, sold used copy)
                 sold 70-300 DO
                 bought TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II
Nov 2010: bought EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II (sold EF-S 10-22mm)
Dec 2010: bought EF 35mm f/1.4L
                  bought EF 135mm f/2L
May 2011: bought EF 2x II Extender (used)
Feb 2012: bought EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS (used)
Apr 2012: sold EF-S 17-55mm
July 2012: received EF 40mm f/2.8 'pancake'
Aug 2012: preordered EF 600mm f/4L IS II
                  bought EF 1.4x III Extender (sold 1.4x II)
Oct 2012: received EF 600mm f/4L IS II
                 bought EF 2x III Extender (sold 2x II)


7975
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]
« on: October 30, 2012, 10:38:34 AM »
Come announcement time, Canon delivers a lens at around twice the price of the Tamron with marginally better IQ and no image stabilisation. Oops. Tamron out played Canon.

The Tamron lens is cheaper, yes.  One reason is design choices and build quality.  Roger Cicala took apart a Canon 24-70 II and found it to be very robustly built.  He also had an only-glued-in-place element come loose in several of his Tamron 24-70 VC lenses (yes, they're shipped a lot, but the failures also occurred on pretty new lenses).

7976
Lenses / Re: Drop in Filter for EF 500 or 600 f/4L IS II USM
« on: October 30, 2012, 08:58:27 AM »
Thanks but this does not fit for my new lens. you need another for all new II lenses from 300 to 600.

Actually, you don't. The old version fits the new lenses. The only update to the WII version is the color of the 'white' paint (matched to the new white of the MkII superteles). Other than paint color, they're the same and thus forward/backward compatible.

7977
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon EOS-M in Stock at Norman Camera
« on: October 30, 2012, 06:35:36 AM »
...swayed by the critics of the autofocus not to pull the trigger.  I am trying to upgrade from a rebel xsi so this will be my first camera for video too.  I want a camera that does both well.  I don't know if I can wait for the t5 as I suspect I'd have to wait a year.  If I don't use the af feature is it hard to do manual focusing?

What's the problem with the T4i's AF??  It inherited the AF sensor of the 40D/50D/60D, a very capable system (to get better, you need a 7D or 5DIII).  I expect the Rebel/xxxD line will keep that AF sensor for the next few update cycles, so if you want better, you'll have a long wait.

Or, did you mean the video AF?  If you want AF during video, that suggests you intend to shoot 'casual' video with a dSLR - there are many reasons why that's not a great idea, and why dSLR video generally involves tripod/fluid head, steadicam, external mic, Zacuto EVF, and other not-cheap accessories.  For casual video, you're better off with a good camcorder, with the dSLR for stills, and for that, the T4i will be very good.

7978
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]
« on: October 29, 2012, 07:30:57 PM »
@privatebydesign - thanks for the correction...and the freebie  :)

7979
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]
« on: October 29, 2012, 06:38:25 PM »

True, but one of the advantages of higher pixel counts is larger prints examined more closely, and another is additional ability to crop.  The first effectively reduces CoC, the second effectively increases enlargement, this reducing CoC.  Both require less blur to be effective.

If you choose to change the enlargement criteria, by making a bigger prints and reducing viewing distances or cropping etc, then obviously you need to change the coc criteria and acceptable blur amounts, but that doesn't alter the fact that pixel size is irrelevant with respect to motion blur (or diffraction) for the same sized image.

I suspect most people (I'm sure there are exceptions) don't judge critical focus based on their intended final output. Rather, they view the image at 100% (most likely with a loupe tool).  Therefore, comparing two images shot on different bodies with differently-sized pixels, with the subject projected onto the image plane at the same physical size, the image from the higher resolution/smaller pixel sensor will appear larger, and thus more subject to the perception of blur.

7980
Lenses / Re: website that compares BOKEH for canon lenses
« on: October 29, 2012, 06:05:07 PM »
I have often wondered what would give a better bokeh. My 24mm f/1.4L  shoot at F/4 or my 100mm f/2.8 shoot at f/4. With such a site to compare bokeh I would be able to compare and know which would be the best.

...exactly.  Because, when choosing between framing a shot at 24mm vs. 100mm, bokeh is usually the deciding factor for the choice.  :P

Pages: 1 ... 530 531 [532] 533 534 ... 925