July 25, 2014, 05:35:15 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 ... 531 532 [533] 534 535 ... 893
7981
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 1DX VS 5D MKIII Cameras
« on: October 01, 2012, 09:43:48 AM »
How reliable is Ken Rockwell?

You can absolutely count on KR, 100% of the time, to say anything on his website that will generate more clicks and thus more revenue, whether it's the gospel truth or an outright lie.

7982
EOS Bodies / Re: Your Canon EOS-1D X user tips
« on: October 01, 2012, 09:34:12 AM »
What do you mean by another set for manual AMFA with FoCal settings Neuro?

FoCal specifies certainl settings like spot metering, +1 EC, etc., and the shots need to be JPG (and is the only time I don't shoot RAW).  That's for taking the shots yourself and having FoCal do the analysis on the images, rather than driving the camera.  That was before the 1D X was supported at all.  Fortuantely, FoCal for Mac supports full auto calibration now, which will come in handy the next time I do an AFMA (which will be very soon).

7983
Lenses / Re: Canon 200mm 2.8 l ii: what's the deal
« on: October 01, 2012, 05:18:43 AM »
In general, today's consumer wants zoom lenses (with the exception of the cheap primes, bought mainly because of the low cost). Talking about the market as a whole, not the small segment of it in here.

I had the 200/2.8L II for a while, agree that it's a great lens.  Excellent IQ, and the longest f/2.8 lens available short of spending thousands. 

Besides a larger aperture for less $, one other big reason for getting primes is the IQ is traditionally better than zooms. The 70-200/2.8L IS II turned tradition on its head, with IQ as good as primes in the range, including the 200/2.8.  I sold my 200/2.8 after getting the 70-200 II, which I prefer for....versatility and IS.

7984
>>What's the intended use? 

It is for a preschool / kindergarten event.  Absolute quality is not as important.  But would like to get better than what I had last year with the 7D + 70-200 2.8 IS

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I meant use of the images - small prints/web/email sharing, or large prints (>20x30").  If the former, you can crop quite a bit and still have plenty of resolution, if the latter you need all the MP you can get.

TC or not, I'd definitely go with the 5DIII over the 7D for low light - you'll have at least 2 stops of ISO advantage.  Shoot RAW, use a good converter. Noise Ninja is a good recommendation, or Topaz Denoise.  Personally, I use DxO Optics Pro, which I find does a better job than DPP for noise, and has better lens corrections than ACR.

A 5DIII with 70-200 II and 1.4x TC at a pre-K/K school play?  You're going to look very odd (says the dad who'll be taking a 1D X with 28-300L on a pre-K field trip this week  ;) ).

7985
What's the intended use?  Assuming the cropped 5DIII image will give sufficient MP, I think that without the 1.4x is the better bet.  In low light, f/2.8 will be better than f/4.

Thought about renting a 300/2.8L IS II for the event?

7986
Lenses / Re: Canon 500 availability ?
« on: September 30, 2012, 08:48:13 PM »
Only problem: I only see one threaded hole. I'd rather have two for the security.

Yes, the RRS foot has only one accessory hole, presumably for attaching directly to a monopod stud (where only one screw is needed). 

7987
Lenses / Re: Canon 500 availability ?
« on: September 30, 2012, 08:07:02 PM »
That's affirmative!

Thanks!  I'll definitely test the 600 II with 1D X and the 1.4x as well as 2x TCs on the PG-02 LLR before deciding whether or not to keep the foot.

7988
Lenses / Re: Canon 500 availability ?
« on: September 30, 2012, 08:00:11 PM »
That's what they've done in the past, when they've changed their design midstream. 

RRS will have to redesign their foot, however what's even more strange is that the Canon stock foot won't balance either under the same circumstances.

Good to know, thanks, Rich!

I agree it's really odd that Canon didn't design the foot to balance their own lens properly.  I suppose if necessary, one could use the RRS long lens support package, where the 10" camera bar would allow a longer traverse for balance.

John, you may just want to return the foot since it hasn't been used yet and I'm sure RRS will just re-sell it as a 400II foot.

I'm going to give it a try first. As I stated above, I don't think it'll be an issue with the 600 II, since it's 2.5" longer, has a larger front element and heavier hood compared to the 500 II, meaning it should be relatively more front-heavy, shifting the CG forward.

Please remind me, Rich - IIRC, you are talking about the 500 II running out of room on the clamp, with a 1D X and TC attached, correct?

7989
Lenses / Re: Canon 500 availability ?
« on: September 30, 2012, 07:30:45 PM »
It also appears the both Kirk and ReallyRight have copied the Canon design without changes and consideration for the balance of the camera and lens when used on a gimbal or video head.


Not sure I agree. The Kirk foot does mirror the Canon foot's forward-sweeping design. But, the RRS does not - the dovetail actually extends back farther, directly under and even slightly behind the mounting screws:



Granted, it may not be quite far enough back for the 500 II w/ a TC and heavy body. The RRS 300 II foot dovetail extends substantially behind the mounting screws, for example.  However, apparently RRS designed the foot for the 400 II (before the 500/600 II's became available), then just declared the same foot was compatible with the longer lenses, and subsequently backpedaled with their note on the website.  Perhaps they'll release a new foot designed for the longer lenses - if so, hopefully they'll do right by those who bought the maybe-not-so-compatible current foot (me, included).

7990
+1 on the question to Paul - how does the Ec-S affect metering, since that screen is not supported in firmware?  Thanks!

7991
Lenses / Re: Canon 500 availability ?
« on: September 30, 2012, 06:28:13 PM »
I'm using a Manfrotto 519 video head and one of their standard mounting plates. I've used the Canon supplied "Monopod Foot" mounted in reverse. As you can see the CG is near the center of the tripod collar. Not a big deal. I'm getting used to it and it works very well. Just not what you are used to seeing.

Yes, comparing the 500 MkI to MkII, it looks like they moved the tripod collar forward on the lens, while simultaneously removing the front meniscus lens and thus moving the CG backward.  Thus the notation on the RRS foot - I expect with a heavy body, especially with a TC, the CG may end up behind the tripod collar, or at least behind the forward-sweeping Canon foot (surprising they'd do that).  Good to know the foot can be reversed.

In my case with the 600 II, the foot mounting point is slightly forward on the 600mm vs. the 500mm, by about half the width of the tripod collar on the lens barrel.  But the 600mm is 2.5" longer, has a bigger front element and a bigger, heavier hood - i.e. it's going to be front-heavy compared to the 500mm.  So balance should be ok, especially with the RRS replacement foot (attachment for clamp is further back than the Canon foot).

7992
Lenses / Re: New Lenses in January [CR1]
« on: September 30, 2012, 04:09:41 PM »
...I wonder why is it that Canon is investing so much in upgrading the superteles, rather than ~20 years old primes (e.g. 35mm f/2), in face of competitors like Sigma coming out with competing lenses (e.g. Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for APS-C & 35mm f/1.4 HSM for FF).

One big reason is the 1D X.  By eliminating the 1.3x crop sensor from the flagship line, they (intentionally) created demand for longer supertele lenses, and it's no coincidence that they updated those lenses at the same time.

7993
Lenses / Re: Sharpest Ultra-wide Lens for Full Frame
« on: September 30, 2012, 02:24:47 PM »
Sharpest will be the TS-E 24L II, followed by the TS-E 17L, then the 24/1.4L II, then the 14L.  The Zeiss 21mm is close to the Canon TS-E lenses.  Of the zooms, the 16-35L II beats the 17-40L, especially in the corners (but there's no such thing as a truly sharp UWA zoom).

7994
Lenses / Re: Canon 500 availability ?
« on: September 30, 2012, 01:34:37 PM »
B&H had both the 500/4 II and the 600/4 II listed as in stock for a brief period of time on Friday, 9/28.  They went back out of stock very quickly.

I take that to mean they filled all their pre-orders, and had a few left to sell.  Unfortunately, they're closed until 10/9.  But when they reopen, it means a short queue for their next delivery!

7995
Lenses / Re: Portrait Lens
« on: September 30, 2012, 01:20:07 PM »
Probably not. In a studio setting, where I have control over lighting and background, the 24-105L is a great portrait lens.  But when I don't have control over the background, the wider aperture makes a huge difference - the ability to blur out the background to isolate the subject is why the 'classic' portrait lenses are fast primes like the 85/1.2 and 135/2.

Pages: 1 ... 531 532 [533] 534 535 ... 893