jeff_palmucci

<p>Just got a copy of Photoshop CS5, and needed to play. This was taken at the local animal shelter.</p>

<div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>It kills me when I see comments implying that 8x10 prints are big enough. The fact is, most pictures these days are viewed digitally on a computer screen or flat screen tv. Much bigger than 8x10.</p>

<p>I have an Apple 30" display at work. It's surface area is indeed bigger than 8x10, but it's still only 4 megapixels.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Right, but you need a 16MP bayer sensor to fill a 4MP color display without up-sampling. And without cropping.<br>

Also, Apple's retina display is 326ppi. There is no way this tech won't make its way to the desktop in the next 5 years. Thats a 42MP display (back of the hand calculation). That'll require a 168MP bayer sensor, without up-sampling. I will easily be looking at pictures I take today 5 years down the road.<br>

To be fair, I wasn't thinking of future displays when I made my original post. Was a bit taken aback by the 16MP number, didn't check the math. However, 16mp is significantly higher than the 12mp quoted in the article.<br>

Also, given the choice between a 21mp 5d3 with better DR/noise characteristics, and a ~32mp with the same DR and noise, I'll take the 21mp.<br>

However, we have a *long* way to go before MP become useless.</p>

<p>It kills me when I see comments implying that 8x10 prints are big enough. The fact is, most pictures these days are viewed digitally on a computer screen or flat screen tv. Much bigger than 8x10.<br>

Plus, factor in that the MP numbers are monochrome pixels (for bayer sensors), and you still have quite a bit of room past 12MP before we reach the useful limits of resolution. Even for amateurs.</p>

<p>At wide aperture (> f/2.0) I find the non-center points too unreliable. I measured once and got a 40% keeper rate. The center point, with the same conditions, got a 100% keeper rate. The test was done at f/1.2.<br>

So, I tend to shoot center point only. Unfortunately, low light wide aperture is exactly the time you need the side points. Can't focus and recompose. This is the only time I feel let down by the 5d2 autofocus.<br>

The continuous AF works great, even in sporting situations. I only use the center point and crop to recompose in post. Plenty of resolution. Plenty of space to crop. </p>

I was skeptical about the value of IS in a macro shot. Before buying the 100L, I rented it to try with IS on and off. It

actually helped. Quite a bit. I'd recommend it.

<blockquote>

<p>I don't really see this problem you claim to have. Try using the flash head angled behind you (this means having the head turned 180° and tilted upwards a bit). In the end, light from above tends to illuminate the top of your subject more than the bottom, it is just "natural".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1. You are too close to have the flash pointed straight up. You want ceiling bounced light to come in at a greater angle. Either move back and zoom in, or bounce behind you. </p>

<p>My niece during the easter egg hunt.</p>

<div></div>

<p>I'd go for the 2.8. Sharper *and* the extra stop:<br>

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=104&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=2&LensComp=242&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=3&API=0</p>

<p>Cool old lock that a friend loaned me. Very unconventional (the lock, not the photo). It requires all three keys to open.</p>

<div></div>

<p>My daughter and I were shooting at the butterfly exhibit at Boston's Museum of Science. 5D2 and 100mm L macro at f/3.2. Handheld and no flash at ISO 1600. I'm constantly amazed at the low light performance of the 5D2.<br>

Pretty sure this was her shot. She's 11.</p><div></div>

<p>I agree with others that the center point on the 5DII is fast and accurate, even in low light, and even for sports (the 3.9 fps rate is fine for my kid's soccer games).<br>

However, be warned that the outer points are worse than useless for wide aperture (>= f/2.0). They can't lock in very low light, even though the sensor is perfectly capable of taking a great picture. In somewhat less low light they lock on, but are inaccurate. (hence worse than useless)<br>

I once did a test and got a 40% keeper rate with the outer points, while the center point achieved 100% keepers on the same shot.<br>

It's ironic that the outer points don't work in the exact situation in which you need them, razor thin DOF where focus and recompose wont work.</p>