August 21, 2014, 08:07:04 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 ... 914
7966
Technical Support / Re: This Cant be Correct? Huge AFMA.
« on: October 19, 2012, 01:54:41 PM »
I tried the current Mac beta on two different Macs, one with 10.6 the other with 10.7.  In both cases, the software recognizes the 1D X, but trying to connect to it force-quits the program.  Do note that there's a quirk (detailed in the instructions) that you must select either Canon or Nikon in the Preferences - even though Canon is the default setting, you must actually re-select it.  Before doing that, it wouldn't recognize the camera at all.

I will troubleshoot further when I have time, but it's not high on my list of priorities - the 1D X must be run in manual settings change mode anyway, so for me it's just as easy to shoot a series of AFMA shots (I take 83 of them, 2 shots every 2 units from |20| to |12| and 3 shots every unit from -10 to +10, and that takes about 10 minutes).  I then analyze them with FoCal in Manual Mode, and that runs fine on the Mac.

7967
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Full Frame Sharper Than Crop?
« on: October 19, 2012, 01:40:45 PM »
FF will deliver sharper results than crop in a situation like this one, where with the same lens the subject is shot from a greater distance with the APS-C camera.  If the test was designed such that the camera-to-target distance was the same, and the target filled the APS-C frame but the FF image had to be cropped down by 1.6x, the APS-C image would be a little bit sharper.

But charts aside, I find that FF images are generally better than APS-C, for many reasons.

7968
Lenses / Re: Should I sell my 70-200L vii for the 85mm 1.2?
« on: October 19, 2012, 01:28:06 PM »
I use my 70-200 II more than my 85L II.  But....

The 70-200 is great and all, I just never use it...

Few things make less sense than hanging onto a lens you don't ever use.  If that's the case, I'd say swap it for the 85L II.

7969
Software & Accessories / Re: "Best" budget filters?
« on: October 19, 2012, 12:28:58 PM »
And I'll take that as a sign that I'm making a good choice with B&W.


You are, but FYI for the linked item above, the filter doesn't match the picture.  May not be a big deal to you, but you'll get a chrome-ringed filter, not black (B+W's 'Digital Pro' line is chrome-finished).  More importantly, the one you linked is multi-coated meaning good optics, but doesn't have the 'resistant' part of the MRC coating that makes the filter much easier to clean.

IMO, you want this one: http://www.adorama.com/BW58XSPUV.html
...or this one: http://www.adorama.com/BW58XSP7N.html

Those are the same price, the main difference is the mount, first one is standard thickness, second is a thinner mount that still has front threads (they're shorter than the standard, there will be a little gap between filter and lens cap, but the cap will go on fine.

Personally, I'd go with the XS-Pro Nano in the second link.

7970
Lenses / Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
« on: October 19, 2012, 11:37:47 AM »
Since I don't do marco regularly (just need the occasional detail/jewelry shot), and I already have tye 70-200 f/2.8L II and 2x III, this thread has me seriously thinking about trying out the 77mm 500D.

It would be good for that.  The biggest issue with the 500D lens is the fixed working distance, but if you are shooting in a controlled environment, it's not a big issue.

7971
A chimpanzee using a 5DIII or a professional photographer with 30 years of experience using a 5DIII. The only difference is the programming.

That and a few million years of evolution.  Fortunately for us, Canon and Adobe write code much faster than nature.

7972
Lenses / Re: Offer on Amazon
« on: October 19, 2012, 10:50:15 AM »
Apparently, someone tried to purchase this from Amazon to get the screen shot that was attached to previous post.

Nope, didn't really try to purchase it, I know it's a scam.  Just added it to my cart and hit checkout then picked a shipping address - the error message came up before the payment screen, no risk there.

7973
EOS Bodies / Re: do crop sensors really add reach?
« on: October 19, 2012, 10:22:54 AM »
And the 1D IV vs......

It lost its f/8 edge over the 1D X. 
So now it comes down to an extra stop of usable ISO vs a 1.3 crop factor?
The reasons I haven't upgraded are becoming fewer.
Against the 5DIII I would think the 1D IV would be preferred.

For birds/wildlife, I'd take a 1DIV over a 5DIII, and a 1D X over a 1DIV.  Initially, I had been considering replacing my 7D with a refurb 1DIV.  But after shooting for a while with the 1D X, I dont' really see the point...

7974
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: October 19, 2012, 10:02:03 AM »
EOS 1D X, EF 600mm f/4L IS II + EF 2x III Extender.  The gauzy look comes from shooting through a bush right in front of the lens, the combo is quite sharp, and delivers beautiful (or rather ugly, in the case below ;) ) images.

7975
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Considering switching to Nikon
« on: October 19, 2012, 09:54:40 AM »
No need to write a note saying that you're considering it, if you really wanted to jump you would have done it already.

LOL  ;D  Glad I wasn't drinking a sip of coffee just then.

I wonder if there's a crisis support line for this sort of thing, 1-800-NO-NIKON.

7976
EOS Bodies / Re: do crop sensors really add reach?
« on: October 19, 2012, 09:47:12 AM »
To me end results matter, the rest is just specs and hype that sells cameras. I took both cameras with me in the field and whenever the chance arose I tested both. Armed with actual field knowledge and samples I concluded in the end the benefit is only marginal.

Agreed. 

Real world, same lens, cropped 5DII vs. 7D, no meaningful IQ difference except the number of MP you're left with after cropping.  Real world camera performance, 7D beats 5DII hands down for birds/wildlife. 

Real world, FF camera with better performance (e.g. 5DIII, 1D X) and longer vs. 7D and shorter lens, no contest, 7D loses out.

Real world, can't afford longer lens on FF camera with better performance, shorter lens on 7D is still pretty damn good.

7977
Lenses / Re: Offer on Amazon
« on: October 19, 2012, 09:38:44 AM »
You can always tell the fake ones because they have:
1)  An email address shown as their avatar
2)  The item can't be shipped to your address (try to put it in your cart and checkout)

The idea is that you can't checkout with the item, and instead you email the seller, who then talks you into a transaction outside Amazon, wherein they can take your money w/out reprucussion.

Stay safe out there!

Great tip!

7978
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1Dx simple DR stress test
« on: October 19, 2012, 09:32:43 AM »
I'm tired of your patronizing comments, see photos above.and show me one example of what you can do with a Canon and not with a Nikon except shooting faster


I'm tired of you reposting the same or equivalent shots in thread after thread after thread.  Nikon/Sony sensors have better DR than Canon sensors.  If your point in reposting the same statements and images in every thread that even tangentially mentions DR is to convince members of this forum that Nikon/Sony sensors have better DR than Canon sensors, you can stop - we get it, and we got it before you started posting here.  If your point is to induce Canon to produce sensors with better DR, this is not the place for that effort, not to mention that I'm sure Canon knows the DR of their sensors, know the DR of Sony/Nikon sensors, and has chosen to emphasize other design priorities to this point.

Is DR the only thing that matters to you when taking a picture?  To me, it's not.  If my 'once-in-a-lifetime shot' was a black barbeque against the side of a white shed in full sunlight, then my answer might be different.

When I said that I, personally, can get images from my Canon camera that I could not get from a Nikon camera, did you jump to the erroneous conclusion that I am also saying the converse?  One could certainly get images from a Nikon camera that one could not get from a Canon camera.

Instead of test images manipulated to repeatedly argue the same point, which has already been conceeded, let me remind you that taking pictures is about far more than the sensor inside the camera, and leave you with the following rhetorical questions:  Where is Nikon's MP-E 65mm?  Where is Nikon's 600mm f/4 lens which is light enough that I can carry it for a 5 km hike then use it to take a handheld shot?


EOS 5D Mark II, MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro @ 5x, 1/60 s, f/11, ISO 400, MT-24EX


EOS 1D X, EF 600mm f/4L IS II + EF 1.4x III Extender, 1/640 s, f/5.6, ISO 100

EDIT: I have come to the conclusion that your primary purpose here on CR seems to be agitating and formenting rancor, the bold-face edits to your post above after I hit the quote button clearly show that, as do your 150 posts with something like 90% of them beating exactly the same dead horse. 

7979
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1Dx simple DR stress test
« on: October 19, 2012, 08:13:25 AM »
Why  must and should we exposure Canon richer= longer exposure time and even then get a poorer results in the shadows compared to Nikon.

We must, because last time I checked, sensors do not take pictures.  Cameras take pictures.  Sure, you can manipulate images and identify differences in sensor performance.  But the fact remains that I (and I mean me, personally) can get images from my Canon camera that would be impossible for me to get with a Nikon or Sony.

7980
Ok, say there's no difference inside at all, other than the one port we know about.  That means Canon is charging a 91% premium for code that offers critical features for a certain group of users.  Why are people up in arms about this?  Adobe is charging a premium for Photoshop CS6 vs. Elememts, for the same thing, code that offers critical features for a certain group of users. But, Adobe is charging a 459% for their code.  ;)

Pages: 1 ... 530 531 [532] 533 534 ... 914