scott_ferris

<p>That is not correct Bob, once the lower set discharge the higher capacity set will effectively try to charge them. In a best case scenario you will kill the lower capacity set once they discharge, in a worse case scenario the batteries will catch fire, burst, out gas, and or overheat.</p>

<p>If it was a $20 item then it is worth the risk, in a $450 flash that is prone to overheating, not so much.</p>

<p>Yes you do, mixing battery capacities is a big no no.</p>

<p>Kent,</p>

<p>Yes, I see what you meant now. It has to create the profile from a DNG originally but that created profile is a .dcp file, that file/profile can be used on any RAW format file via any software that recognises it, including ACR and Ligthroom.</p>

<p>Once you have your profiles they work directly on any (all that I know though maybe not Fuji or some other unusual types) RAW format natively.</p>

<p>Kent,</p>

<p>It only works with DNG's, but in the Lightroom plugin it is 100% automatic, just choose a RAW file of the patches and it does it all itself.</p>

<p>david,</p>

<p>If you are tripod mounting and taking your time then you might notice the difference in lens sharpness, if you are hand holding and relying on IS for camera shake then the IS lens will out perform the non IS lens.</p>

<p>If you need IS then it is a no brainer, however sharp your 80-200 is. This is one of the many situations where too much reading doesn't help, bench tests and user input have some relevance, but how much you should take from them is determined by how the tested situations actually translate to your personal situation. In bench tests the 80-200, or even the 70-200 f2.8 will "beat" the 70-200 f2.8 IS MkI, but why then does the later lens sell for so much more money? After the manufacturer has taken their initial purchase the market very much works out what this stuff is worth, just look at used prices for the Sigma, the 70-200 f2.8 IS MkI sells for a lot more than either the 80-200 or the non IS 70-200 f2.8 for a very good reason, ultimately, people find they get more keepers with the lens with IS than by using a fractionally "sharper" version.</p>

David,

 

I have the Canon MkI. If I was in your position I'd get one, use it and see, if you like it, keep it, if you don't then sell it for

practically zero depreciation after you have saved a bit more for the MkII.

 

The Sigma will cost you a lot of money to own, the MkI Canon will cost you almost nothing whilst giving you IS now and

the opportunity to save for a MkII if you feel the need to upgrade, I haven't felt that need so far as the MkI is a very good

lens.

<p>Benny,</p>

<p>I use it in LightRoom, though I find it often fails to recognize the patches automatically and I do it in the stand alone program, that creates profiles from DNG's so any program that can read DNG's should be able to read the profiles. It works very well and gives very good colours. I originally got it for reproducing artwork for artists and the colour accuracy was very important.</p>

<p>I really like LightRoom and have done since version 2 when I swapped from Apple's Aperture.</p>

<p>Here is a before and after camera profile using the X-Rite Passport, it is profiled but not white balanced, that is another beauty of it, you can get WB absolutely consistent.</p><div></div>

<p>The Manfrotto 058B tripod paired with the 405 or even the 400 geared heads make a superb studio set.</p>

<p>The iPod Classic is a frustratingly castrated device. It has received no input or upgrades for years, the really silly thing is if Apple wanted to they could sell millions of them, if they just made an iPad-iPod Classic interface so you could move content between the two, after all it is a self powered small format good capacity HDD that uses the same connector.</p>

<p>Surely you can just import them as is, including the folder structure, then just create Collections from the imported folders. That way you can do the bulk import in one go, creating the collections with imported images is quick.</p>

<p>even if the file structure isn't what you want it to end up as that is no problem as you can change the file structure with drag and drop within the folders section of LR afterwards.</p>

<p>An lot of high end pros are very happy, and so are their art directors and clients, with the performance of the 24-70, if yours is letting you down, Bill, then maybe you should get it checked out.</p>

<p>1Ds MkII, same batteries, same interface, same AF, leveraging your lens set with a dual format, etc etc.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=253&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=788&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0">Link.</a></p>

<p>If the interior is the subject, get a tripod, if the subject is in the interior, get a tripod.</p>

<p>Rick,</p>

<p>I was told that it is a built in teleconvertor, the power was unknown, like the announced but not yet released EF 200-400 f4 with built in 1.4TC, but I don't know that for sure.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Not really a question, and I don't know if this has been mentioned before (it didn't show up in a site search), but a nice picture of not one, but two, lost forever rarest of the rare FD lenses. As I understand it there were a few, less than 20, 1200 f5.6 FDn lenses made, they were not sold but went out to the professional networks for various countries to lend at special occasions. They first appeared at the 1984 LA Olympics and that is where this image is from.</p>

<p>Of course the EOS system came out just two years later, at this point all the FD 1200mm f5.6 L lenses went back to Japan and the glass was re-bodied into the first of the EF 1200mm f5.6L EOS lenses, they were available for special order and several pro divisions still actually have theirs.</p>

<p>That is a 400 f2.8 L next to it and a 600 f4.5 just below that.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.pbase.com/image/54932756">Link.</a></p>

<p>In playback push the info button, it scrolls between just image, image and info, image and histogram (choice of two) and image and channel histogram and combined histogram.</p>

<p>Condescension won't make me upset, or emotional, either :-)<br>

I believe we did..........</p>

 

<p>If you interpreted what I said as being emotional then I'll get you a dictionary for your birthday.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"and I didn't even have to blow it up to see that"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is because I already did it for you, to well over 200%, the 1Ds MkIII image is over 300%. If you need to blow something up to over 200/300% to see the differences in optimal conditions then there isn't going to be a noticeable difference in real world shooting at normal sizes. If you want to continue down your "pixels on duck" meme then go ahead (even if you now want to limit that to low iso and extreme crops), I don't care, I proved to my own satisfaction it wasn't worth me buying a 7D to put more pixels on the duck because in real world shooting those extra pixels gave me nothing.</p>

<p>That is why I answered unequivocally to get the TC to Sravan second in the thread, lets not forget in his original post he talked specifically about 1000-1600 iso.</p>

<p>I only posted my images in reply to this comment he made:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Crop sensor has higher spatial resolution. That means the part of the picture where the face is will have more pixels in it which means I can do full page spread of the face on a 12x12 inch page without doing any resolution increase aft the picture is taken."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Even you agree, in Sravan's situation of shooting at 1000-1600 iso, that is not accurate, he might have more pixels, but he won't have more resolution.</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"I didn't say anything about emotions."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"Prefer" is an emotional word, "it has more resolution" is a technical observation. As both are unprocessed but for resizing there is a lot of processing leeway in the files.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Which camera was it shot with?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is my entire point, it should be obvious, blatantly obvious, it is the 7D. If the results can be this close, and I freely admit in ideal and contrived circumstances the 7D does resolve better then the 1Ds MkIII in a focal length limited situation, it rather blows a hole in the "pixels on duck" meme. </p>

<p>I am not emotional about it, I have no preference, I wanted to see detail, but before I tested for myself everybody said the same thing, the 7D resolution would be much higher then a cropped 1Ds MkIII/5D MkII. The truth is, even under optimal conditions, it isn't. You can process the left image to look pretty much identical to the right image (but then you can process the right image to look better), however, when you get to the real world shooting situations rather than bench testing and use AF, for example, even the small potential differences can't be seen at all.</p>

<p>I am <a href="00W414">not easily pleased</a>.</p>

<p>Here is the entire 1Ds MkIII image with the 7D image laid on top of it, you can see how small the crop is, it is extreme, but the much talked about resolution advantage of "pixels on duck" just isn't there. You might "prefer" the right hand image, I am confident that with processing I can make them look the same (sharpness is one of the easiest to deal with), but even if you "prefer" it, it does not hold much more resolution, certainly nothing like the numbers would suggest.</p><div></div>

<p>David,</p>

<p>I made my set up to give the 7D the biggest advantage possible. They are both 100 iso, Live View manual focus, heavy tripod, flash illuminated, mirror lock up, cable release. Both shot from the same place and same lens, a 300 mm f2.8 IS with IS off, the lens was tripod mounted and I just changed the bodies.</p>

<p>Like I said, I didn't do this to post in threads, I did it because I wanted to know what resolution advantage a 7D would actually give me as I was interested in buying one and couldn't get straight answers from owners via posts here, lots of opinions, but no images. <strong>My</strong> conclusions from <strong>my</strong> tests were that in even the most optimal conditions the resolution advantage of the 7D over the 1Ds MkIII/5D MkII was very small, in real world use, AF, no control over light etc, even those small differences were not realisable. In that instance, with those two cameras, "pixels on duck" didn't equate to anything. I have never had anybody post actual images contradicting these findings, again, lots of opinions, but no actual images.</p>

<p>David,</p>

<p>My example above is a perfect demonstration of being focal length limited. Start cropping your 5D MkIII images to the size of your 7D images, and more, and you will see there is practically no difference. AF is far more important.</p>

<p>My example is from a 7D and a 1Ds MkIII, I did it for my own benefit to see if a 7D would compliment my ff camera. My testing showed even in focal length limiting situations, where the 7D could put more than twice the number of pixels on the duck, the crop camera wouldn't actually give me any more detail once I used AF. There are other reasons for using a crop camera in focal length limited situations, the better viewfinder magnification being the main one, but from an image point of view "pixels on duck" does not translate to empirical results, well it didn't for me and I didn't buy a 7D.</p>

<p>The physical aperture is irrelevant, just as the initial focal length of the primary optic is. It is what the glass does to convert that to an apparent aperture, or focal length, that is important.</p>

<p>In a simple lens a long focus f4 and a wide angle f4 have the same diffraction limit because the larger opening of the tele f4 is further away than the wide angle one, hence the airy discs are the same size. In a retrofocus design all the designers are doing is emulating a longer focal length with a wider apparent aperture that also appears further away than it should.</p>

<p>A telephoto lens does the same thing in reverse, the tele lens is shorter than it should be because the focal length of the primary optic is not long enough, a group of lens elements divert the light path and the apparent aperture to give the effect of a simple lens with a longer focal length.</p>

<p>It is all about where the aperture appears to be, and its size, with relation to the sensor, the physical position and size are not relevant if there are lens elements between the aperture and the imaging plane that distort the apparent positions.</p>

<p>Jeff,</p>

<p>I am a Canon and Nikon user, I have a D3 and a 1Ds MkIII (amongst others), I have no real loyalty and am a strong advocate for used "pro" gear, especially the Canon 1 series.</p>

<p>But in this instance I think you are on the wrong track, the 1Ds high iso performance is not good, probably a little better than your D80, but not by much, the D300 would certainly be an improvement over both.</p>

<p>All your other reasoning makes sense, build quality, lens use etc etc, but also having looked at your images, it seems to me your stitching skills are giving you better than a FF sensor anyway.</p>

<p>Kirsten, they say it is for L-Plate use just because most older hot shoe mounted levels don't work very well in portrait mode, there is no difference to the clamp. Also, obviously, if you rotate the plate 90° to do a portrait mode shot, the clamp mounted level is useless.</p>

<p>But I would caution against relying on a built in level anyway, they are not very good. A cheap hot shoe mounted level is far more accurate. I'd suggest a three axis one, they work in portrait mode, <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=hot+shoe+level&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma">just look through these</a>.</p>