August 23, 2014, 08:04:09 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 - Maui5150

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 24
I think ones I use are from GSK. 

I have to replace them every 6 months or so, mainly form things getting banged into my bag and the way my camera sits with long lens attached. 

I don't say this to be mean, but WHAT ARE YOU THINKING.

For one, what is the distance between you and what you are shooting?  Shooting from the stands to the pitcher with a single 600EX-RT???

Inverse-square law... To have any real affect, you are going to need to crank it.  Now if you had a monolight on a battery pack, that would be a different story but your flash is really not strong enough to make an impact, especially a day game, but even in a night game, the stadium lights should be generally sufficient

Second.  You need fast telephoto glass.  F/4 with a 1.4 is slow, not to mention the AF with a Teleconverter is deliberately slowed down.  You will get better shots with with a 400 F/4 than a 200 2.8 with a 2x converter. 

A 2.8 to 4 is a full stop so you can boost shutter and not have to bump ISO.   A 200 f/2 is an awesome option for this and gives you even more light. 

Flash at sporting events is a No-No.  Basketball and Hockey are two of the only sports I know that allows flash, but that is for the game shooters and the strobes are up in the ceiling and pointed down, not at eye level from the stands.  These are also extremely powerful strobes with very short durations so for the most part, people do not even notice. 

I’m starting this thread to tell of my recent Canon Canada (Mississauga Service Center) experience with not only two of their top-of-the-line products, but with their customer service as well. I apologize for the length, but I'm trying to provide context to the story.

EF 24-70 f/2.8 II Story

How did the images look?  Did you do a lot of shooting or just rely on "FoCal"

I have used the FoCal software, am an owner and yup... I have used my 24-70 II for over a year, wanted to make sure with FoCal and gave me the same crap.  Remeasured based upon the guidance, re-did it and then came up with NO-ADJUSTMENT.

FoCal can be great.  It also can be a piece of crap.  I find this true on the WIDE side versus the Tele.  My 24-70 II is fine, though everytime I test it with FoCal I get different results... That tells me the software is crap.... May be solid for a lot of things, does not mean it does not have trouble at distances or with certain lenses. 

Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: August 19, 2014, 04:56:31 AM »

If his goal is to test the best you can do under tripod usage or great lighting why is that not fair? Why would it be fair to penalize the D810 just because the 5D3 doesn't do ISO100?

Because if you want to compare quality of images, you need to compare at same settings

For one comparing a new camera to a two year old camera, one would hope there were large improvements... I mean quickly... lets takes some bets... Will the 7DMKII out perform the 7D?  How about the 5DMKII vs the 5DMKIII

Side by side comparison of a Nikon 8XXD to a Canon 5D MKIII are difficult because of image size, zooming in or compressing, either way the image has changed.

But too my point.  If you want to look at image to image, you need to use the same settings. 

If the answer is that at 100 the images have negligible difference, but the 8XXd has Iso 64 and the extra ISO helps with noise and quality, then that says two different things.

As far as tracking, and AF hits in burst.... I would have much preferred to see real action in real environments, such as shooting at F/5.6 or F/8 at ISO 1200 at 1/1000 or faster.  This also required that camera is set up properly, which it is clear it was not. 

What I don't know is if Tony Northrup is ignorant or dishonest.  Did he not know how to set up the camera to get proper AF tracking, or did he deliberately shoot it at a non-optimal setting.

I believe he made a comment about "If you are a professional..." or something like that... Seems to me a professional would either KNOW, or if they are getting results that are less than they expect, they research

Photography Technique / Re: APOLLO missions - image inconsistencies
« on: August 18, 2014, 04:36:04 PM »
You want to go down the rabbit whole further...

Look into Stanley Kubrik.

The back of Napkin telling...

NASA / CIA trying to fake... because of technology, Space race, and $$$  Looking for a fast win and PR

Kubrick hired to "consult" to help shoot.  Kubrick had done amazing things with Dr Strangelove and despite Air Force blocking, had impressed a lot of people

Kubrick finally agrees, sees NASA and CIA have collective heads up collective asses, takes over for Carte Blanche and to be left alone.  Kubrick told fine, but if he talks, he and family killed.

Lunar landing "Happens" and Kubric becomes a recluse of sorts.  Movies become increasingly symbolic with tons of themes related to New World Order, Mind Control, etc.

Eyes Wide Shut gets produced - Supposedly a view into Sex Cults, but more of the men who run the world.  Kubrick screens film at his home, shortly there after has mysterious death, Eyes Wide Shut undergoes a 30 minute re-cutting and that footage never seen again.

Those are unrelated except for Kubrick, as well as one of the key science advisors on 2001 was key scientist for Apollo

Lots of goodies here:

Photography Technique / Re: APOLLO missions - image inconsistencies
« on: August 18, 2014, 05:50:29 AM »
The problem with MythBusters... All they do is conduct some tests, whether the tests are flawed or not, and then draw a conclusion for TV.  Just because their "test" does not work, does not mean the Myth is false, it just means they could not replicate it. 

It took DECADES to disprove the Lochness  and Bigfoot pictures... Or in one case... One they "scientifically" disproved - you can't get electrocuted pissing on something electrical...

Problem is... There was a gentleman in NY, found dead in a subway... near the 3rd rail, and small burn on his thumb and forefinger, big burn on the head of his member.   

Me thinks they should go back... Fill up their bladders more fully and try this again and again.

If at first you don't succeed, try try again...

As for me... I take the record of of a Doctor, the evidence, and a death certificate over a made for tv show... Joseph Patrick O’Malley the deceased would probably agree.

Seriously.  This one is not hard to prove as well as not hard to see the flaw in their testing... "Lets really fill the bladder to bursting and then piss as hard as we can" 

Seems to me this is one they did not have the guts, heart, and stamina to replicate, though it does prove they can draw false conclusions which makes everything else they have done suspect, and perhaps so much of the "myths" they have disproved are more of sloppy tests and not enough variation, creativity, and dedication

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Video capturing stops without reason
« on: August 17, 2014, 03:40:32 PM »
Best two suggestions for you...

Test it and watch it... Then get or borrow a faster card and see if it happens.

Slow cards are not noticeable in when you are shooting pictures generally unless you are doing a long burst.   Video??? As you have found, can be noticeable in the first minute

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L For Sale
« on: August 16, 2014, 01:14:12 PM »
Finally... A long tele that has decent resolution and reach and is hand holdable

Lighting / Re: HSS with Einsteins win!
« on: August 15, 2014, 08:24:29 AM »

What we can expect over the next year or so is a deluge of HSS enabled monolights flooding out of China. What's more they'll likely have TTL as well. The era of dependable "dumb" studio packs and monos is now pretty well consigned to history. This is fun.


What exactly do you think has changed.  These "Dumb" studio packs already shoot at 1/8000 of a second, and it is the trigger and remote that makes a difference. 

While my photogenic monolights were not the best, I actually went from monolights to studio packs because I find the quality of the Dynalite is better as well as it is easier to transport.  The cables can sometimes be a pain, but in general it is easier to put a flash head 15 feet in the air on a stand and not worry than a most monolights.   My case with 2000 watt pack, and 4 heads takes a lot less space than the huge Pelican 1650 I carried 3 Photogenic modeling lights in.  In fact my Dynalite case I can carry a 1000 watt pack, 500 watt pack, photogenic Ion battery and 3 heads and it is close to half the size of what I carried the photogenics.  The Alien Bees and Einsteins are smaller, but there are always trade offs.

Recycle time is also much faster

The Einsteins are an anomaly and probably the best bang for the buck out there.  They have decent power, but also one of the shorter flash durations.

When it comes to High Speed Sync and Hyper Sync, the Quality of light, power of light and duration of light matter.  In short you need to throw a ton of power out over a very short period of time.  In many cases it is probably cheaper to throw high powered constant lights and freeze everything with shutter.

Some of the Dynalite packs I use are 10+ years old... I still shoot them plus side of 1/2000, I can go to 1/8000 but I find the flash duration makes a difference, and the more you really start shooting HSS you notice variations.  Whether you do Odin, PocketWizard or a few others, the trigger is the magic in HSS not the strobe.  And as mentioned try synching a second remote camera into the mix and you see how much Odins or PocketWizards come into play.

Regarding Monolights / packs / speedlites - Speedlites are still the most convenient in the field, though power and recycle become an inssue.  I found a healty balance with my Dynalite and found 2 or 3 heads off a Dynalite pack on a Photogenic Ion worked much better than multiple monolights on the same Ion, mainly the more monolights you throw into the mix, the more capacitors that have to be reloaded each flash. 

Your point on TTL is coming from what?? 

TTL is camera based, so a Canon TTL is different than a Nikon TTL etc.  Speedlites are already manufacturer dependent, and I cannot see MONOLIGHTS being the same.

This is why you have packs, packs use their own or third party triggers, and that way, you want to shoot canon, Nikon, Hassleblad, Sony, what ever, it is more letting the manufacturer or third party system worry about it. 

Lighting / Re: HSS with Einsteins win!
« on: August 14, 2014, 01:34:05 PM »
I do this all the time, previously with my Photogenics and now with Dynalite using Pocketwizard Flex TT5s

Using a Dynalite M2000ER and 4080-BiTube heads, I can shoot at 1/2500 sec.  I can shoot faster, but that is the flash duration of the 4080 Bi-Tube. 

The one that made my head hurt was then synching a second remote camera.  On the pocket wizards they have a relay feature so I have the remote on one channel and the flash on one channel higher, and I can't remember if I had to use a slower shutter on the triggering camera. 

Key on that set up is to have manual focus so there is no AF hunting

Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: August 14, 2014, 11:33:54 AM »

The 'unfairness' is the biased comparison in the linked video.  Comparing only at ISO 100, that smells like DxO's BS (but then, lots of people – including some pros – seem to like that smell). 

I think next time you should watch the video more closely - Most of the time Phony was shooting at ISO 64. 

Portrait shots etc Canon and ISO 100 and Nikon at ISO 64.

If he wanted a real honest comparison, having ISO the same might have helped.  Never saw any clips of the "Sportrait" shots from the canon side, but notices settings were 1/1000 F/2.8 and Auto ISO.  Would have been interesting to see comparison with a PROPER AF set up as well as Shutter Priority mode and ISO 100

But from what I was seeing, a lot of times Nikon was set at ISO 64

Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: August 09, 2014, 06:17:15 AM »
YAWN.  Gee lets compare a camera that just came out to one that is two years old....


I think overall Canon has been sidetracked the in Cine market and this has hurt there last generation of cameras from not having quite as big jumps as they could.  Also feel they have been taking there time with this next set of upgrades which leads me to believe these next releases will be both solid and have substantially more improvement (i.e. from 5DMK II to 5DMK III the 5DMK IV will have much stronger gap of improvements)

In someways I believe the 7D MKII has been delayed because it might outperform the 5DMKIII and Canon wants to release the 7D MKII and the 3D 5DMK IV what ever it will be which will be a higher pixel with big changes

But comparing a just released camera with larger sensor to an older one?  He might as well just compared the 5DMKIII to the 5D MK II

If you are putting an SD card into the 1Dx, that may be the crux of your problem.

Regarding the Nash thing... I sort of believe Canon on this.  There was a foreign object rattling around the camera and scratched the sensor.  1 of 2 things happened... An internal piece of the camera came loose and caused the damage, or a foreign object got into the camera and was rattling around.

Or, could well be a piece from the internal mechanisms, but canon thought it was broken/ dislodged from improper cleaning

I agree with most other posters... If you bought from a store and it has issues ask for a replacement.

I know some stores have policies counter to this and for defective merchandise they make you go through manufacturer

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Make a Big Splash at Photokina? [CR2]
« on: July 30, 2014, 10:40:53 AM »
SHOCKED... Surely the T6i must be looking on the Horizon...

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: A Summary of Sigma Lens Rumors
« on: July 08, 2014, 02:51:10 PM »
Both 85 f/1.4 and 300-600 F/? would be sweet and have a nice following. 

85 f/1.4 would get me to toss my Canon f1.8, just don't shoot it enough to justify the f/1.2 but want a little more...

As much as the Tamron 150-600 looks like a solid compromise lens and biggest bang for buck around, a 300-600, especially if comes in with a fixed of f/5.6 or there abouts even F/4.5-5.6 and anywhere close to $3.5K or less would be hard to beat... Now that price is asking for a lot, but given the 120-300 f/2.8 is $3.5K still might be doable.  The 500 is $5K so probably asking too much...

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 24