September 30, 2014, 04:01:17 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 ... 958
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: The First Canon EOS 6D Video Footage
« on: November 28, 2012, 07:01:32 PM »
That's fine, and I can understand the logic (sort of). But if that is what they are doing then why bother sticking video in at all. Surely a headphone jack can't be that big a deal for the engineers or the camera itself, but I am not an engineer.

I am one of those guys that thinks if you are going to do something do it right, and as it is almost 2013 and as this new 6D does have video then in my eyes it should have a headphone jack. And the 1D X as the flagship should have all the bells and whistles.

I suppose every camera gets video just because every camera has video nowdays.  To leave it off would be rather silly, at this point, IMO.

The headphone jack surely isn't a big deal, but port real estate is a bit limiting when you consider the size of the body and allowances for multiple ports to be used at once, some with L-shaped plugs.  The 1D C has a headphone port, yes...but it takes the place of the PC sync port on the 1D X - that's what I mean about intended for video vs. having video capability.  The 6D is a smaller body, and has neither headphone nor PC ports.

Lenses / Re: What UV filter for new 70-200mm (77mm filter size)?
« on: November 28, 2012, 06:54:04 PM »
I thought most filters like this functioned primarily for lens protection, and to complete the weather sealing of the lens?

Both are debatable. 

The use of a UV/clear filter for lens protection is frequently hotly debated.  As was pointed out, a filter can decrease IQ.  With top quality filters, the IQ hit is so minimal that it's not noticeable in most situations.  But it will increase flare, no matter what - so when shooting a strongly backlit subject, you will lose a bit of contrast.  Personally, I find filters much easier to clean than a front element (with the exception of the newest lenses with the fluorine coating).

As for weather sealing, Canon officially states the requirement only for a few lenses (16-35L II, 17-40L, and 50L).  Chuck Westfall (Canon's technical guru) has recommended using a UV/clear filter on all sealed, non-supertele lenses.

Personally, I have B+W MRC UV filters on most of my lenses (not the 40mm pancake, and not the 600 II which doesn't take a front filter).

Lenses / Re: Need filter suggestions - Ordered Canon 100mm f2.8 L macro
« on: November 28, 2012, 04:21:54 PM »
Dont use a filter on any L glass unless you need to use a polarizer.  Filters generally degrade IQ even if ever so slightly.  I would not buy an L lens if you prefer to have a filter in front of it.  YOu're not taking advantage of everything the lens has to offer.

I'll just point out that in some cases (16-35L II, 17-40L, 50L), Canon specifically states that a filter is required to complete the dust/weather sealing for the lens.  Also, all of the uber expensive supertelephoto lenses (300/2.8 and up) have a drop in filter slot, and Canon states that a filter is part of the optical design so the glass insert should be left in the holder. 

Lenses / Re: What UV filter for new 70-200mm (77mm filter size)?
« on: November 28, 2012, 04:20:44 PM »
WOW Neuro..I have not noticed any vignetting with my 77mm F-Pro..but I will take you word for it and give a closer look the next time I the vignetting more at a certain focal length of the lens?

As I stated in the description in the other thread, I have to work to bring it out.  I had been using an F-Pro as well, and not noticed the vignetting in real-world shots.  Well, let me rephrase - I did notice vignetting wide open, but the lens has a fair bit of native vignetting, and it seems the F-Pro makes it very slightly worse.  But the thread made me check.  The OP in that thread mentioned 100mm, so that's where I tested.

Lenses / Re: Visualising focal length perception.
« on: November 28, 2012, 04:12:02 PM »
I think the perception of depth depends on the distance to the subject.

Exactly.  In fact, perspective depends solely on distance to subject, and is independent of focal length.  But for the same framing, distance to subject changes must change focal length, so perspective changes.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: The First Canon EOS 6D Video Footage
« on: November 28, 2012, 04:01:45 PM »
What surprises me is Canon has again released a brand new XD series without a headphone jack.
The 1D X does not have one and now this latest model from Canon does not have one.

But the 1D C does, as does the 5DIII.  Seems like Canon is differentiating between bodies that can shoot video (which is all of the current ones, obviously), and bodies that are intended to be used for video. 

Lenses / Re: What UV filter for new 70-200mm (77mm filter size)?
« on: November 28, 2012, 03:57:45 PM »
How about this B&W?

Nope, this one.  The one you linked is the F-Pro mount, and you want the XS-Pro mount.  The F-Pro causes a slight increase in optical vignetting on the 70-200/2.8L IS II (unusual for a standard filter to vignette on a telephoto lens, but it does on this one - I've checked it myself). 

I agree with Neuro...go with the clear, MRC, brass ring...they are the best...You do not need the UV protection on a digital camera ...that is a factor with film...took me a while to break that habit.

You don't need UV for digital, true.  But it doesn't hurt, either.  Depending on filter diameter, vendor, and geography, sometimes the UV version (010) is cheaper, sometimes the Clear (007) is cheaper.  On, the 77mm XS-Pro UV is $80, and the 77mm XS-Pro Clear is $115.  Since there's no optical difference for a dSLR, I recommend getting whichever one is cheaper. 

Lenses / Re: What UV filter for new 70-200mm (77mm filter size)?
« on: November 28, 2012, 03:29:35 PM »
I'd get a B+W XS-Pro (MRC or Nano, UV or clear, whichever is cheapest).  In the Hoya line, I'd pick S-HMC at a minimum, or the Pro1 or HD filters, but not regular HMC.

The HD line is reportedly easier to clean (like the B+W MRC and Nano coats), whereas the other Hoya filters can be more problematic for cleaning.

Lenses / Re: Unable to AFMA 70-200mm 2.8 is II
« on: November 28, 2012, 03:20:35 PM »
Ultimately, if I can't tell the difference in real world shooting...

That's true, today.  But in a few years, the entire world will be composed of QR Codes, and then FoCal results will be universally applicable to all pictures.

EOS Bodies / Re: First Round of EOS 7D Mark II Specs [CR1]
« on: November 28, 2012, 02:23:00 PM »
I wish they would build it with the battery grip, however I know that would be very inconvenient for many folks that don't like it or it's too large for.
I don't see why anyone would want the grip to be built in and not removable.

Granted, it's a limited and self-selecting population, but in the recent Custom Brackets poll, more people have gripped bodies than not, and the majority of people who have a grip on their body use it frequently.

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro
« on: November 28, 2012, 02:10:36 PM »
It has a great matte finish that matches the lens body, and unlike the lens hood of so many of my "L" lens that I have owned, seems highly resistant to marking. 

That's Canon's new hood finish - the 70-200 II has it, etc.  The 70-200 II also added the locking hood design that the 24-70 II uses, too.  Both are great features, IMO.

Lenses / Re: Visualising focal length perception.
« on: November 28, 2012, 02:07:55 PM »
they really tell the story with these - IMO

The story of the first image: Model or Marionette?   :P

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: The First Canon EOS 6D Video Footage
« on: November 28, 2012, 02:05:06 PM »
i fully understand what you say... but then... this is a new product.
when a new product is not better then a older one there is no sense in wasting money on it.

that´s why i critizise the 6D video.

Define 'better'.  For some people, the lower cost of the 6D makes it significantly better, especially if the IQ is no worse...

Lenses / Re: tilt-shift question
« on: November 28, 2012, 01:19:14 PM »
Both are excellent.  The 24 II is a little sharper.  But really, it comes down to focal length - is 24mm wide enough to frame what you need?  Architecture sometimes needs a wider AoV.  Personally, I'm very pleased with my 24mm...

EOS 1D X, TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II, 2.5 s, f/8, ISO 1600, +8 shift

EOS 5D Mark II, TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II, 1/60 s, f/11, ISO 100, +10 shift

EOS 5D Mark II, TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II, 1/2 s, f/8, ISO 100, +12 shift

Lenses / Re: 600mm F/4L IS AFMA settings
« on: November 28, 2012, 12:49:42 PM »
I just picked up an Induro 414 so that might help with the stability issues...

Have you tried running tests at higher ISO or should we stick with using 100 for all tests?  I can see with the 2XIII the tests will require a couple of suns worth of light.

I've got a rock-solid tripod and gimbal head.

I've shot some at ISO 200, it works fine.  But I did my outdoor testing in direct sunlight and added 450 W-equivalent of halogen lighting, so even at f/5.6 my EVs were in the ~15 range.  That was giving me a shutter speed of 1/1250 s at 840mm with the 1.4xIII.  I haven't done the 2xIII yet, but assuming I have 15 EV of light for that, I'd probably use ISO 200 to keep the shutter above 1/1000 s.

Pages: 1 ... 530 531 [532] 533 534 ... 958