October 25, 2014, 03:03:23 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 ... 590 591 [592] 593 594 ... 973
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...

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.

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.

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.


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.

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!

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. 

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.

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.  ;)

Lenses / Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
« on: October 19, 2012, 06:40:31 AM »
From these figures, it looks like I can get more than 1:1 magnification with my 70-200 @70mm.  Or do I only get a 0.21x baseline magnification factor at 200mm?

The 0.21x max mag value for the 70-200 applies at 200mm, it's lower at 70mm, which is where your tubes are more effective.

A 70-200/2.8 II @ 200mm with a 2x TC behind it and a 500D in front gets you 1.2x mag.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS-1D X Firmware 1.1.1 Now Available
« on: October 19, 2012, 06:20:00 AM »
To those who have updated to 1.1.1, does the camera keep all your custom settings or do you have to change them all back to how you want them after upgrading. (or maybe you did an export/import of your settings first?)

All the custom settings are retained after the FW update.

EOS Bodies / Re: do crop sensors really add reach?
« on: October 18, 2012, 11:08:12 PM »
Assuming money was no object, a 1D X with a 600mm f/4 L II IS and a pair of Mark III TC's is definitely the way to go. I don't think money can currently buy a better set of gear for a nature fan.

"You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? Well, who the hell else are you talkin' to? You talkin' to me? Well, I'm the only one here. Who the f--k do you think you're talkin' to?"


Lenses / Re: Kenko TC and AF at F8
« on: October 18, 2012, 10:53:35 PM »
There was some focus hunting when shooting birds in dense foliage with backlighting

Here's a shot that shows the bird and surround, a tough job for any AF system.  This was with phase AF, and I haven't done an AFMA yet (need to find a deserted football field for that!).  Might be a little back-focused, I think.

Shot is with the 1D X and 600mm f/4L IS II + 2xIII, 1/320 s, f/8, ISO 4000.  Original and a 100% crop to show detail, which is quite good, IMO. 

Lenses / Re: Kenko TC and AF at F8
« on: October 18, 2012, 09:43:48 PM »
Well, I guess this all changes for 1D X owners with the issue of the upgrade 1.1.1.  I have made the upgrade and now all I have to do is test it out and see what happens.

Worked decently today with the 600 II and 2xIII.  There was some focus hunting when shooting birds in dense foliage with backlighting, and I thought, hmmmm, is this because of the 2x?  So I switched to the 1.4xIII, and the hunting was no different.  It was a bit better with the bare lens, but still not perfect.  When I moved to a different angle that eliminated the backlighting, it was fine.

Lenses / Re: Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS vs Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS II
« on: October 18, 2012, 09:38:19 PM »
So, the 70-200 f2.8L (non IS) is sharper than the version 1 IS right? I was checking that 'lens resolution charts' from digital picture labsite and I was surprised that non-IS appears to be sharper than then the version 1 IS. I didnt want to believe it. Any idea if the f2.8 non-IS takes a big hit when extenders are used on them?

Correct.  The non-IS takes a bigger hit from the extenders than the MkII. 

Honestly, if you have the budget and don't mind the weight/size, the 70-200 II is pretty much the best telezoom lens available today. 

Lenses / Re: Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS vs Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS II
« on: October 18, 2012, 09:04:42 PM »
The original f/2.8 IS is the least sharp of the f/2.8's, and also not as sharp as the f/4 IS.  The MkII is the sharpest of the 70-200's.  The difference between the MkI and MkII is real, but not huge.

But...you mention wildlife.  If you ever plan to put a 1.4x or 2x extender behind the 70-200, get the MkII - no question. The original takes a big IQ hit from a 1.4x and a very big hit from the 2x. The MkII with the 2x is almost as good as the 100-400's native 400mm.

Pages: 1 ... 590 591 [592] 593 594 ... 973