March 03, 2015, 10:29:31 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 - THX723

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
Yes, that's correct. Fixed ND filters would be preferred.

The issue with variable ND filters is consistency. As they are polarizers by nature, the amount of light attenuation changes with respect to the incident angle from the light source. To make matters worse, different light sources may have different polarization and can be altered yet again if diffusers, reflectors, and the likes are introduced. Not impossible to deal with, just more unnecessary fiddling in my opinion.

This, by the way, is also the reason why markings on variable ND filters are just that, markings (no hard numbers). The actual values change for the reasons described above.

You bet. Neutral Density filters can also be used with great success under studio environment.

I would still recommend high quality filters from Hoya, B+W, and the likes, while caution against using variable-type regardless of brand. Variable ND filter consists of two polarized filters and dealing with light polarization in a studio can be a head-ache and possibly expensive.

Here is an excellent video on the subject that might shed some light (pun intended). ;D

Thanks Neuro.

I love B+W and use their filters exclusively for all my lenses. That is with one exception being neutral density filters. For that I much prefer Hoya's x400 series. I couldn't get past the excessive brown cast that the B+W exhibits. It is certainly correctable in post/RAW, but an eye sore in-the-moment and far from WYSIWYG. It would also be nice to keep the consistency with my existing 77mm Hoya ND x400 filter.

Software & Accessories / 82mm Hoya Neutral Density x400 Filter availability
« on: December 11, 2012, 08:04:41 PM »
This thing is incredibly hard to come by, as they are in very limited production. No words on when Hoya will start to mass produce them. Seems a couple Australian retailers are the only reputable sources I can find today and they made sure you get milked for double the price.

Has anyone had any luck sourcing these with a reputable retailer in the US:-\

No eBay or auction houses please. The risk of counterfeits is far too likely.


Software & Accessories / Re: Yet another tripod thread...
« on: December 11, 2012, 07:51:52 PM »
I wanted to get a relatively inexpensive tripod like the Dolica Proline, but I just wanted some further advice. c:

Are there any other good tripods for around the same price?
I have essentially the same tripod -- the taller GX650B204 (65" vs. 60"), which I would recommend for no added cost.

It is excellent for the money. No doubt about that. The built is light, compact, and solid. I had no complaints in regards to its stability, especially when weigh down by something substantial (like your gear bag) from the center-post hook. The fluid panning ball-head has enough capacity for your setup and is detachable, should you find yourself needing a fancier one down the road; not always the case for low-cost tripods.

My only pet-peeve is the center post locking mechanism. I would have preferred a concentric ring-lock rather than side clamp, for the added center-post stability (when extended).

I would in fact highly recommend as a first tripod.

Lenses / Re: 2x EF Extender III or ???
« on: December 11, 2012, 05:20:46 PM »
As mentioned above, image quality (IQ) was a toss up; neither showing a perceptible advantage or disadvantage during my real-world use; they were both impressively sharp for the occasion. I was not able to readily discern which lens took which shots during post-process.

There would be no difference in terms of noise, as that's solely the function of your camera and what ISO-sensitivity you're operating at. Both configurations also have a comparable max aperture of f/5.6 (the 100-400 is negligibly ahead at f/4.5 on the wide-end).

Here's a quick summary for you ...

EF 70-200 f/2.8L II + 2x EF Extender III
Flexibility to break down from f=140-400mm to f=70-200mm
2X Extender costs ~3x less than EF 100-400L

Massive. Physically longer and heavier
As a combo, starts off less wide at f=140mm

EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L
Compact. Physically lighter and much shorter (when collapsed).

Stuck with f=100-400mm
~3x more expensive than the 2X Extender

Lenses / Re: 2x EF Extender III or ???
« on: December 11, 2012, 04:43:41 PM »
Seeing as you already have the 70-200 f/2.8L II covered, it would be cost effective to go with the 2x EF Extender III.

During one of my visits to a Formula One race, I shot back-to-back using the 100-400 and the 70-200/2x combo. I found the two configurations to be comparable in both IQ and AF performance. I will say however I much prefer carrying the 100-400, for it's lightness and compactness (1380g), over the prominently protruding 70-200 + 2x (1815g combined!).

It has been a real delight with the M-Plate.

Fact is I much prefer Arca-Swiss clamps for general use, but there have been times the click-n-lock nature of the Manfrotto RC2 is desirable. Now I have both-in-one. What a brilliant and well crafted piece of alloy!

Equally clever is the non-interfering attachment point for sling-strap systems (e.g. C-Loop, BlackRapid), making it unnecessary to first unscrew the ‘ring’ before mounting to the tripod clamp (a tedious ordeal). The unique position of the attachment point also shifts the center of gravity favorably so the camera-lens is balanced horizontally, rather than at an awkward tilt (really annoying).


Hi Cayenne,

I was in the same boat you're in - looking for an universal plate that works with both Manfrotto RC2 and Arca-Swiss.
The M-plate from Customer SLR did exactly that:

Check out the video to see how it works.

I also use their C-Loop + Slip Strap sling setup in conjunction with the plate. Couldn't be happier these days! :)

A white dot typically means a given technical service bulletin has been officially applied by Canon, either in production or post production (e.g. service center).

I wonder if all factory v.1.1.1 1D X's have issues with AF @f/8? If so, it would mean Canon has a bug in their for-production-use firmware, which has now been fixed and replaced. All new 1D X's shipped after the TSB acknowledgement will have the fixed firmware along with the white dot denoting so and would have serial numbers that fall outside of the posted range.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D MARK III with 50 mm f/1.2 performence
« on: November 28, 2012, 09:39:15 PM »
Those are great pics Alex!

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 continuous shooting speed
« on: November 28, 2012, 07:03:32 PM »
Processor/bus speed isn't the limiting factor here, the shutter/mirror mechanism is. It would appear (for the 5D3) the voltage drop by 50% battery capacity exceeded the threshold to properly energize the actuators for high-speed operation.

EOS Bodies / Re: First Round of EOS 7D Mark II Specs [CR1]
« on: November 27, 2012, 03:29:36 AM »
interesting. the channel info is stated on the bh store page( so that sounds about right. single digic for the 7d2 and just a made up rumour.
from the B&H link:
"the DIGIC 5+ processor also delivers overall speed and power to the 6D and utilizes dual 4-channel A/D converter"

Looks like the same 8-channel setup to me. At the minimum, I'm betting on dual DIGIC 5 (non '+').

EOS Bodies / Re: First Round of EOS 7D Mark II Specs [CR1]
« on: November 27, 2012, 02:58:42 AM »
But the 7DII will not have dual Digics. Take my word for it.
It will have a single Digic 5+, same as the 5DIII and the 6D.

Here's another math that you can do:
The 1DX has two Digic 5+ processors and a 16-channel readout (official specs).
And the 5DIII has a single Digic 5+ and an 8-channel readout (again, official specs).
Therefore, it can be concluded that the Digic 5+ processor has an 8-channel readout.

Also, the 6D is capable of 20mp @4.5fps with a single Digic 5+ ... and just 4 readout channels (again, official specs).
This puts the throughput of the Digic 5+ processor at 20*4.5/4 = 22.5 MP/s per channel.
That's a throughput of 180 MP/s total for all 8 channels on the Digic 5+ processor.

Realistically, Canon will not go over 10fps in 7DII and will not put dual Digics in it.
So, I'd say that the 7DII will be spec'd anywhere between 16mp @10fs and 22mp @8fps ... with a single Digic 5+.

I'd prefer if Canon puts 16mp/10fps in the 7DII but it's more likely that they will go for 20mp/8fps.

One thing is certain, though: the dual Digic V spec is fake and this whole 7DII rumor is a lame [CR0] rumor.
Could you please provide reference that 6D has a different DIGIC 5+ processor (with 4 crippled A/D channels), than those of the 5D3 and 1D X?

All my references says it's the same DIGIC 5+ with the same 8-channel A/D, which also explains why the same DIGIC 5+ designation (e.g. not DIGIC 5-)

Assuming conservatively that 7D II is to remain at 18MP @8fps, that's ~144MPs, which is still higher than the existing 5D3's single DIGIC 5+ rating of ~134MPs. It's hard to guess how much headroom is left with a single DIGIC 5+, but I wouldn't bet on it. IMHO, it is highly probable, although not a certainty, that dual DIGIC 5+ is a real possibility for the next 7D.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 lens correction profiles - only jpg?
« on: November 19, 2012, 07:41:39 PM »
Thanks for clarifing that.  I am always happy to learn.  I was under the impression that the in camera correction was the same as DLO.
That'll be the day ... DLO baked into the camera!
You can bet it'll happen eventually though. Perhaps during the DIGIC X generation. We can all hope.  8)

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4