December 21, 2014, 11:15:42 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 ... 530 531 [532] 533 534 ... 1005
Lenses / Re: Tips needed for shooting in the cold
« on: January 16, 2013, 09:41:41 AM »
As stated above, batteries don't last long in the cold - have at least two, keep one insude your coat close to your body where it will stay warm.  When you swap them, put the 'drained' one inside your coat - when it warms up, it can be used again.  (Also as stated, I've used a 1D X battery all day in the low 20's, no problem.)

I do put the gear in a plastic bag before going into a heated environment.  I just keep a couple of Space Bags® in the car (big enough for a 600/4), put the gear in there, then take them inside.  After they equilibrate (a couple of hours), I do put them in a Storm hard case with fresh desiccant packs.

Your tripod will be fine, just wipe it dry when you go inside.

Canon General / Re: More Canon Store Information
« on: January 16, 2013, 09:28:06 AM »
Why do you guys keep calling it a store? You can't buy anything from it, and that's why Canon don't call it a store. It seems also to be very hard to "experience" a 1D-X or a 5D3 in one of them. Oh sorry, they're only for CPS guys, they're too expensive for eager beaver amateurs to get their mitts on.

I'd call it a store, because "Experience" sounds pompous and silly.   :P

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II
« on: January 16, 2013, 09:23:09 AM »
Do you care about IQ?
70-200 II is not able to replace 85/135/200Ls in many situations...

IQ?  The 70-200 II is equal to or better than most of the primes in it's focal range in terms of IQ - basically, the differences are so minor as to be marginal in rigorous testing (charts/Imatest) and practically irrelevant in real-world shots.  The reason for the fast primes used to be IQ, shallower DoF, more light, and smaller/lighter (for a single lens, not the set).  At this point, for all practical purposes, it's down to shallower DoF, more light (debatable with a newer FF body and the excellent high-ISO performance) and smaller/lighter. 

Lenses / Re: Question about variable aperture
« on: January 16, 2013, 09:14:58 AM »
A variable aperture zoom lens costs less fixed aperture zoom lens because it means the glass elements can be smaller.  Minimally, a lens elements must be sized to fill the iris diaphragm with light.  The diameter of the iris diaphragm is (focal length / f-number), e.g. a 200mm f/2.8 lens has an iris diaphragm of 200 ÷ 2.8 = 71.4mm...and thus, a 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom must also have an iris diaphragm diameter of 71.4mm at the long end, although a smaller diameter is needed at the 70mm end of the zoom.

An easy example to see this is the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS zoom - at the long end, the diameter of the iris diaphragm (and thus, the glass elements needed to fill it with light) is 71.4mm (same as 200/2.8 - twice the focal length, 2-stop narrower aperture).  If that lens were to be a 100-400mm f/4.5 lens, the diameter would need to be 88.9mm to support 400mm f/4.5.  That's closer to a 400/4 or 200/2 in element sizes than the current lens, so figure probably ~$5K for such a lens.  Not exactly a consumer-friendly price like the current 100-400...

Software & Accessories / Re: Tripod, legs and ballhead grease - cleaning
« on: January 15, 2013, 08:49:59 PM »
I'd just give RRS a call...

Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« on: January 15, 2013, 04:42:33 PM »
I suspect Neuro will tell me that I wasted 1 or 2 possible stops worth of DR on some of the shots by some of the method I used.

Highly unlikely.  Thanks for working toward sharing real-world examples, though (I don't consider a scenario intentionally chosen and designed to make a point to be 'real-world'). 

I've taken several thousand shots with a 5DII in the ISO 100-400 range, and guess how many I've rejected due to 'horrible low ISO FPN'?  Zero.

I should add, by way of maintaining objectivity and putting things in perspective: I've taken several thousand shots with a 5DII in the ISO 100-400 range, and guess how many I've rejected due to misfocusing by the less than stellar AF system of the 5DII?  Hundreds at least, likely thousands. 

Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« on: January 15, 2013, 04:13:30 PM »
Stop then  denying the benefits of great DR,  and this BS about  "real life pictures" etc etc, it is up to peoples skills to use great DR or not and as resolution it is not bad to have.

Thanks for yet another non-answer to a not-asked question.  If your lessons are intended to be instructive as to how to obfuscate and avoid answering pointed questions, and attribute motives to people that they do not espouse, perhaps those would be better delivered on a forum devoted to politics. 

Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« on: January 15, 2013, 03:39:18 PM »
I have shown pictures after pictures taken with my d800 and 5dmk2, I have shown how it is possible to expose and recover high lights (sun sets etc etc) and the adjust the picture by moving middle grey back and lift shadows and darker tones. I think it is time that you and others stop denying the benefit of a wide DR and where unfortunately not the Canon is the leader.

shall we take lesson 2   ?

Let's skip right to Lesson 5:
Q: What is the sum of 2 + 2?
A: You must stop denying the power of arithmetic, and realize the benefit of the D800 for simple math.

Point being, you are answering questions that aren't being asked, attributing statements/beliefs to people which are not their own, and for some reason, the D800 is always part of your answer, even if it's a complete non sequitur.

To be very clear, I am neither denying the benefit of wide DR nor suggesting that Canon is a leader in that specific aspect of sensor performance.  As I've repeatedly stated, if a wide DR were my primary need, I'd be shooting with a D800.

To reiterate, what's being asked is neither 'does the D800 have better DR than the 5DII?' nor 'can an image with wider DR be pushed harder in post than an image with less DR?'.  I'm not talking about contrived test scenarios.  I could just as easily contrive a scenario where the D800 would fail miserably (take a shot with the D800 with a Nikon lens at 5:1 magnification, for example). 

I've taken several thousand shots with a 5DII in the ISO 100-400 range, and guess how many I've rejected due to 'horrible low ISO FPN'?  Zero.

Yes, FPN ruins the perfect test charts of obsessive camera disorder sufferers.

Indeed.  It also ruins shots of QPcards on barbecues, but for some strange reason, that subject constitutes 0% of my shots.   ::)

Depends entirely on what you shoot and what your needs are...  If you shoot mainly landscapes from a tripod, I'd just keep the 5DII.  If you shoot moving subjects, or would significantly benefit by a bit less high-ISO noise, the 5DIII is a significant upgrade.  IMO, the 5DII produced excellent IQ, and the 5DIII offers only a marginal improvement on that.  It was the other attributes of the 5DII that I found lacking - autofocus speed and accuracy, in particular, and fps to a lesser extent - and the 5DIII is a major upgrade in those areas.

Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« on: January 15, 2013, 02:50:22 PM »
Neuro.  You did not answer my question, do you understand - and read again what I asked
Underexposing, head room , bring in high lights more than 4 stops above middle grey
 If you understand this we take  lesson 2

Certainly, I understand.  But no one is asking for theoretical 'lessons'.  Rather, both me and privatebydesign are asking for actual examples of images 'ruined' by the FPN of the 5DII, and some idea of the frequency at which the low ISO FPN renders real-world images unusable. 

Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« on: January 15, 2013, 02:19:48 PM »
I think the WHAT is perfectly clear.  What's not clear is the real world benefit in common shooting situations for one photographer vs. another.   The sharper lens is an apt example - while having a sharper lens certainly offers a theoretical benefit, for many real world situations, that benefit is irrelevant because factors ranging from chosen subject (intentional softening for portraiture, a need to shoot at a very narrow aperture) to workflow/output (downsizing for web/small prints) render the 'benefit' of the increased lens sharpness moot.  For example, looking at the MTF chart of the MP-E 65mm, it's not a very sharp lens...but for the vast majority of the shots I take with that lens, a sharper version of it would not matter.

Thus, the request for real-world examples of shots that were rendered 'unusable' by the low ISO FPN of the 5DII.

Site Information / Re: Off Limits??
« on: January 15, 2013, 12:40:03 PM »
It seems that multiple threads, all started by one poster and linking to the same set of 24-70mm f/4L IS reviews/comparisons, were merged into a single thread.  When that happens, the threads other than the final, merged topic are effectively gone, so it makes sense that the forum throws an error.

The merged thread is here:

Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« on: January 15, 2013, 12:35:47 PM »
Last time you mentioned this "low ISO FPN issue" I did what you suggested and did a Google search for images, the only examples that search threw up were poorly exposed skies. Now I print big with a 1Ds MkIII, essentially the same sensor as the 5D MkII, and I have never had your "issue" I really want to see examples of what you are shooting, and how you are shooting it, that best illustrates your experiences.

I, too, would be interested in seeing examples of the low ISO FPN issue in real-world images, ones that don't require 100% crops and have descriptions like, "Canon 5D Mark II Fixed Pattern Noise, ISO 1600, +4 exposure," and, "...with Fill Light set to +100 to exaggerate the vertical banding in shadows."

Lenses / Re: Canon 50mm 1.4 IS?
« on: January 15, 2013, 11:52:18 AM »
Looks like someone just used the stock photo of the Canon 24mm IS or the 28mm IS stretched it out and added 50mm to the front of the lens...the 50 on the lens doesn't look quite the same style/size of the other 2 IS I think that this is just a hoax...

+1 some copy/paste and PSing of the DoF scale, too...

Canon General / Re: Hey Canon, I've got cash to burn, but...
« on: January 15, 2013, 10:57:43 AM »
Interesting, did you miss the 3 MP difference when going from the 5D2 to the 1DX? (And, if not, because the images are cleaner to make up the difference or because you never print in the square meter range?)

I don't miss the 3 MP, and that's beacuse of the cleaner images.  I do print at up to 24x36", occasionally larger.  I get 1-2 stops better ISO performance with the 1D X compared to the 5DII, a combination of lower noise and better quality of remaining noise.  ISO 3200 was my usual cap for the 5DII, with ISO 6400 for 'emergencies'.  On the 1D X, I routinely shoot at up to ISO 8000, and will go over ISO 12800 if I need to, with decent results. 

Pages: 1 ... 530 531 [532] 533 534 ... 1005