MSC wrote:
The unboxing thing is all over (cell phones, PDAs, PCs, the list is endless), and often in a lot more detail. Sometime a full length feature video showing untaping, the packaging, excitment building...it would seem those of us that don't understand it are behind the curve. It is harmless enough and some enjoy it, why not...and with so many boxes to unpack, we may need a new sub-forum for each of the gear forums.
either that or we have some sort of meaningful life...
but there should be sub forums for threads like this and the classic ' i took a week off work and am waiting for the ups man to deliver my new 55-200 IS lens' etc.
Nice to see and all that but, I think it's the biggest rip off that canon's pulled - I mean £1000 more expensive than the MKI. Won't be on my shopping list that's for sure
when cropping with photoshop, view the image at 100%, choose the crop tool, but you have to CLEAR the WIDTH and HEIGHT limits, let them to be "ZERO", after cropping, don't resize the image, this way you will get the true 100% crop.
Cheers...
What dpi to save the jpeg from the raw file before cropping? Certainly not 72 dpi, right?
lidesun wrote:
It really doesn't matter, as your full frame and 100% crop have the same dpi
Does that mean to post a reduced image at appropriate size for display in the thread and then crop from it? Will it not pixelate? Or crop from a larger version of the same image? Or is the crop generated from the raw file?
Savas K wrote:
Does that mean to post a reduced image at appropriate size for display in the thread and then crop from it? Will it not pixelate? Or crop from a larger version of the same image? Or is the crop generated from the raw file?
100% view is to view the image at its actual pixels, the ppi value you chose during the RAW converting to JPG only affects the print sizes, not the 100% viewing size on your screen. The file's actual pixels count didn't change unless you are doing UPSIZING OR DOWNSIZING file etc.. ppi has nothing to do with file's pixels count..
Say for a 1D Mark IV RAW file, when you converting it to JPG @ 300 dpi or 72 ppi, viewing them at 100% view size, they have the same size, but when you viewing them at print size, you will see the difference...
Wow Savas. Nothing wrong with those at all. As for exporting, I export at 96 DPI, since Macs use that screen rate. I think the newer windows systems are now using 96 as well. 72 DPI is now old school.
leftbob wrote:
so you have a state of the art 5DII and a new state of the art 70-200 f2.8 with IS
and you used a flash....
way to push the envelop.. I salute you
Should he have shot at ISO 6400, 1/15, 200mm @ f/2.8? Would that have made his samples more legit? His images were supposed to show off the lenses IQ, not the camera's ISO performance or the lenses IS effectiveness.
SoundHound wrote:
Canon says the Mk II has a Flourite element. That alone would justify the price. Many spotting scopes are available in Flourite and non-Flourite versions with approx the same objective size (60-85mm).
It costs at least $600+ more with Flourite. I am unaware of any other, 200mm and under zoom lens, that has a Flourite lens. Canon seems to be the biggest user of Flourite lenses especially for their Great Whites. The dark side doesn't use much (any?) Flourite elements.
And yes, those flower shots will not prompt me to turn in my Mk I for a Mk II.
M Vers wrote:
Nikon uses similar elements over fluorite--'ED' elements.
"...However, fluorite easily cracks and is sensitive to temperature changes that can adversely affect focusing by altering the lens' refractive index. So Nikon designers and engineers put their heads together and came up with ED glass, which offers all the benefits and none of the drawbacks of calcium fluorite-based glass."
So then why does Nikon use seven ED elements in their new 70-200 (five in the old one) yet the new Canon uses one fluorite and five UD elements ('only' 4 UD in the MkI IS)? I think it's a bunch of marketing. What counts is image quality, and it looks like both deliver at a similar price.
It is harmless enough and some enjoy it, why not...and with so many boxes to unpack, we may need a new sub-forum for each of the gear forums. 
Should he have shot at ISO 6400, 1/15, 200mm @ f/2.8? Would that have made his samples more legit? His images were supposed to show off the lenses IQ, not the camera's ISO performance or the lenses IS effectiveness. 
...