March 01, 2015, 02:47:31 PM

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 - YuengLinger

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 25
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Canon Pro-1 Question
« on: February 28, 2015, 07:35:13 PM »
At least that is the case with the Epson 3880.  I had a Pixma Pro 9000II

Well, you switched from a $400 printer to a $1000+ one, I really hope you got something tangible in exchange - although it is true not always higher price means better quality.

Anyway an A2 printer may be too large and heavy unless you really need it - the Pixma Pro are already expensive, large and heavy enough for most  (and maybe less demanding) "non professional" users.

The Pixma Pro reviews, including those on Northlight Images, are positive... anyway when someone asks something just telling him he bough the wrong product and switch is not that helpful, especially if what he bought is not that bad. It's like writing "got bad images with you Canon camera? Get a Nikon or a Sony! It works for me".

You can still buy the wrong product for your needs or expectations - but you really need to assess it is - and not just there's something wrong in the workflow leading to results below what could be really achieved.

I understand your suggestion here, about sticking to a brand or model when somebody asks a question about using a particular device.  My answer is sincere, and I believe it contributes to the conversation.  I chimed in a bit late, after many other had addressed the specific printer.  In other words, the question had been answered specifically quite well, and I was joining the conversation by sharing my experience.

First, the OP has been having problems for a year with his printer.  I know the frustration of spending on ink and getting no better results, and then spending more on ink.  And though I switched from a "$400" printer to one that cost me $825 after rebates, still, $400 is a high price for a printer that took so much work to massage a decent print out of, and then guzzled ink at an insane rate.  (But, in fact, my Pixma came as a bundle three years ago with a 60D, effectively free after the rebates.  Canon made money from my ink purchases!)

I shouldn't have to point out that the OP is not the only person reading a thread.  Others have the same questions, including many who are trying to decide on a printer.  So, I'm being helpful to those who are searching for info on various printers.

When it comes to printers, we aren't "trapped" in a brand by a bag full of lenses and flashes.  It is MUCH easier to finish up a set of inks and move on, either to another of the same brand or a different brand.  Sticking with a printer that isn't performing becomes very expensive because it consumes ink.

I'm fully committed to Canon for capturing images.  And I use Canon's DPP to cull my RAW's.  And I have a Canon scanner.  When it comes to printers, friends who contribute work to the local fine arts club and a nationally respected university museum, and who also do well in state print contests happen to prefer Epson, which is why I was willing to invest in one.

Furthermore, the Epson I use, the 3880, costs significantly less per print because of the lower per-ml priced, higher capacity ink cartridges.

I've discovered the joy of printing, thanks to this printer, the help of friends, the Schewe book I mentioned, and a lot of good websites, including Keith Cooper's.

Does this help the OP tonight?  Doubtful.  But he/she is not stuck with a brand, and if results don't get better, there are other options than giving up on printing altogether.

EOS Bodies / Re: Smartphones Already Won -- Laforet
« on: February 28, 2015, 01:27:48 PM »
Take a deep breath and look at the 20 year average for SLR / DSLR sales its 8.8M not the peak seen in 2011 / 2012 of 21M. We are seeing a market correction personally I think the majority of Smartphone pictures are crap and Laforet is welcome to them.
Good luck when you go on that safari to Africa that cost you thousands of dollars and you use your Smartphone, good luck when you go to an airshow and use your Smartphone, good luck at the race-track and good luck at rock concerts when your more than three rows back.

I love my iPhone the apps have changed our lives but as a camera it sucks (actually the keyboard also sucks compared to the Blackberry) but I understand for millions its good enough. Millions watch badly set-up TVs, poorly set-up sound and have no dress sense that doesn't stop others striving to do better.


The rest of you all need to get out and take some pictures.  ???

Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM
« on: February 26, 2015, 07:18:57 AM »
Further, adding the TC to the 100-400 on the 7DII is a waste of time as the degradation of image and increase in noise nullifies any increase in resolution.

Thanks for your analysis, AlanF. Question: I find the 7D2 + 400 f/5.6 prime + 1.4x TC III to yield quite acceptable image quality. Have you experimented with this combo? I ask because I'm considering the 100-400 II and may trade my 400 prime as part of the deal. I could use my 5D3 + 100-400 + 1.4x, as you do, but would hate to lose the use of my 7D2 (higher FPS, better AF, etc.) when employing the TC. I'm shooting wildlife, including birds.

Sorry, I missed your post. I recant somewhat. The 7DII + 100-400mm II + 1.4x TC III does work very well, and I have posted some birds in flight etc in another Topic.  Even the 7DII + 100-400mm II + 2x TC III works very well in liveview, and every increase of 1.4x in TC does give increased resolution. However, for much of the time, I prefer to use the bare lens for the extra stop of light and the wider field of view etc.

Hi, AlanF, I'd be interested to know what changed your opinion about the 7DII + 1.4x, as you were pretty disappointed with it at first.


Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Canon Pro-1 Question
« on: February 25, 2015, 08:23:13 PM »
Without a doubt, Jeff Schewe's THE DIGITAL PRINT, leads to top notch results.  It changed my whole understanding (or, should I say, confusion?!?).

Once you get a basic work flow, and you have a reasonably calibrated monitor, things just fall into place.

At least that is the case with the Epson 3880.  I had a Pixma Pro 9000II which was just insane with constantly indicating low ink, plus took MUCH more work soft proofing to get rid of color casts and bring back the contrast.  I rarely use the term, "it sucked," but that is how I feel about that Pixma.

Reading Schewe's book and then getting the Epson has me loving, loving, loving the whole printing process on both mat and glossy media.

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Canon Pro-1 Question
« on: February 24, 2015, 07:06:01 PM »
Finish your inks and consider an Epson 3880!

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L Shipping This Week in United States
« on: February 23, 2015, 06:57:17 AM »
Wonder if the same will apply to this lens as it seems to do with almost every other new lens release.......some will come through then you'll wait months for any more? the new 100-400 and 400 DO are two examples of this, and Canon can't tell when more will be available.

A strange sales and marketing policy.

Pretty common for hot new products with very high manufacturing standards to be in short supply when first released, even for the first six months.

Here in the USA the supply problem has been made worse since last fall by the dock-worker strikes, but, hooray, those have ended, and now the TWO MONTH shipping backlog will start to clear out little by little.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L Shipping This Week in United States
« on: February 23, 2015, 05:37:36 AM »
any reason all the new canon lenses are F4 ?

Explain why you need f/2.8 at these focal lengths please. Please don't say "low light capability" because if you are using a lens like this indoors in professional use you will almost certainly be using a tripod. And upping the ISO nowadays by one stop isn't a big a deal as it used to be. The 6D works nicely even an ISO 6400. I don't even use that for stars in the middle of the night so unless you are shooting in a cave in complete darkness, handheld, with an older generation camera - the reason is pretty clear why f/4 is good enough.

If not - 14mm f/2.8 is your friend.

What experience do you have shooting events?  And though you may be satisfied with ISO 6400 images, there is no arguing that lower ISO looks significantly better.  I'd rather have a non-IS 2.8 for shooting typical indoor and under-tent events than 4.0 with IS.  People move!  Colors, bokeh, contrast, and, of course, sharpness all look better at lower ISO.

I would have bought a Canon version of 14-24mm f/2.8, but not this one at f/4.  I'm sure it will test/review just fine in terms of IQ for landscape and still-life,  but for people photography, f/2.8 is still the standard, especially for $3000!

This isn't the max aperture of choice for photojournalists, sports, or wedding photographers.

Enjoy it for what it is, but why berate those of us who do value 2.8?

Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Insurance for big whites? (USA)
« on: February 22, 2015, 09:45:21 PM »
Here's a repost of another thread I replied to - I have all of my gear insured (no coverage limits) this way:

It's been a few years since I looked into this, but the best deal I found was to join the North American Nature Photographers Association (NANPA) and buy insurance through Chubb (Rand Insurance is the broker).  You don't have to shoot nature photos to join or anything, but that's who the majority of members are in the association.  I've had two fairly small claims with them and they were extremely easy to deal with and processed my check quickly.

Membership is $100/year (NANPA) and the annual rate is $0.0245 per dollar of insurance.  It was the best deal I could find, but in my case, I didn't need the PPA benefits or professional liability insurance.  If I remember, PPA is $250/yr or more and their insurance was more like $0.04 / per dollar of insurance.  The only thing you don't want to do is go through your homeowners policy.  That's a guaranteed way to lose your money as they will instantly deny any claims they suspect are "commercial use".  Here are the links:

Thanks yet again!

Ok, Pag, we'll see you with all the VIPs at your gallery opening.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L Shipping This Week in United States
« on: February 22, 2015, 06:48:48 PM »
Where are the reviews and sample images?

Canon General / Re: Canon Mail In Rebate Question
« on: February 21, 2015, 08:11:05 AM »
Won't the Canon rebate center reply to you?  I thought only a PO box was problematic.

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming March 9
« on: February 20, 2015, 06:57:40 PM »
IMG_0001 was cleverly joking, you, privatebydesign, are simply rude.

Good ol' pdb might be very direct at times, but he's also very helpful. I guess there's a lot of different approaches to what is polite and what's not, and in this case the paper bag analogy made me laugh :-)

Laugh? It might be funny if it were relevant. I was clearly pointing out the need for Adobe to give users a choice in how their GPS data is entered and displayed. PBD then rudely claimed that anyone desiring such an option must be directionally challenged. Oh well, I guess like taste--there's no accounting for "humor."

So much frothing over a vanity feature!   ::)

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art Lens Next? [CR2]
« on: February 17, 2015, 04:55:31 PM »
It's all about the AF, Sigma.

Lenses / Re: North American Customers--Availability?
« on: February 17, 2015, 02:25:17 PM »
The big retailers get them in stock and sell out promptly.  B&H had them in stock just a couple of days ago.  Since you are paying full price, go to a local dealer and ask them to order in one for you.  Canon seems to support local dealers by shipping small orders right away, at least, that has always worked for me.  I've had my local dealer get hard to find items in 2 days.

We don't have drive-in movies or local dealers anymore.   :-\

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 25