December 19, 2014, 11:44:31 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 - lescrane

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
1
I've been using the  Energizer Lithium AA's w/the speedlights for as long as they've been on the market.  They last for years and are lighter weight and yes, faster recycling.   I don't do burst flash shooting and I would probably avoid it because yes, the batteries will heat up.........maybe worse, but I never pushed the envelope so to speak.

2
Canon General / Re: Digital Camera was into decline stage
« on: December 16, 2014, 11:58:30 PM »
seems like the vast majority of pictures taken today are never printed, they are just posted on social media or photosharing sites. Most consumers are happy w/their cellphone shots and the convenience, that's killing low to me point and shoot market, all of it.  That leaves the DSLRS, mirrorless etc for "enthusiasts" and professionals. 

Personally, I am either cellphone (if I am not doing "serious"lol shooting) or DLSR.  I won't settle for less than APC-S since I want the option to sell or print big any shot and shoot in low light. 

3
Lenses / Re: EF 400mm f/5.6L USM vs Tamron 150-600?
« on: December 16, 2014, 11:33:12 PM »

I would be using it for sports, birds and wildlife at National Parks/wildlife refuges and zoos.

I will be using it with 60D/6D, which I have today, and maybe/probably later, the 7DII

Feedback?

Thx

Sanjosedave,

Sounds like you want to use this for many subjects, so without getting into arguments over what is sharper, eg a 400L + Tc or Tamron 150-600...at 600,  my read is that you really need a zoom not a fixed focal length lens.    For example, if you are at the zoo and close up , 400mm may be too much.   If you are taking birds at a wildlife refuge(or anywhere), the question is: what kind of birds? Great Blue Herons or warblers? How close will you be??

I owned the 400mm L years ago. of course it's super sharp and super light. However, many times I wished it was longer. If I needed shorter and was stuck with the  TC on, what would I do? Reach for a second camera on my neck.   Also, I do not like using tripods and the lack of IS hurt.

   I also owned the 100-400L.  It was great for zoos, great for large, tame birds. Now I have the Tamron 150-600 and it has opened new worlds to me that I could not afford before.   I can get smaller birds; I can get any bird from further away w/.o having to sneak up on it and have it fly off.   It is much heavier of course than the fixed 400L, I don't know if that matters to you.  I use it w/a monopod to get the weight of my arms/back.

In general I find that zooms have gotten so much better over the years w/optics and stabilization that I have no more use for fixed lenses.    That being said, if I had the $$$ for a 400 DO II I'd buy one.

4
Software & Accessories / Re: i folded and bought CC :(
« on: December 16, 2014, 04:35:38 PM »
the poster who asked about being able to switch from computer to computer. I wouldn't count on it. I think it's still a 2 computer limit for 1 subscription and while you can swithch adobe never makes it easy, you have to deactivate one to add another. The s/w still sits on your pc and you don't have to login to use it so they cannot tell where you are and what you're not using


As far as the upgrades, I agree that many cycles are minor and when I was buying the s/w I was skipping some upgrades, but not many.  My biggest gain w/CC is the shake reduction sharpening filter.  It really works well not just on images with some movement blur but others where you need a sharpening result not avail w..other filters.  You have to be careful of course not to over use it.    also there is a lot of trial and error with settings  when applying it, much more than w/trad. unsharp masking, smart sharpening etc




5
Software & Accessories / Re: i folded and bought CC :(
« on: December 16, 2014, 09:26:51 AM »
good move. it;s a great deal *if* you use it regularly.  I was one of those outraged bashers when Adobe went w/the subscription model.  The price was simply too high for me as it is not a business expense but a serious hobby.

9.99 a month for CC, LR, etc? no brainer.  THose you are complaining that you don't own it... What good is "owning it" when "it" changes every two years and you have to buy "it" again???

I spend over 120.00 a month for cable TV/internet access.  that;'s another story, I always reconsider it, but "need" it where I live.  What makes my life better? my cable or CC for 120.00/year??? duh...   

so enjoy your  CC subscription.  All the noise about alternatives is just noise. Nothing comes close.

6
hard to figure with the rebates signaling the model being updated.

I think the printer companies make more profit on the ink.   

btw, Canon processed my rebate pretty fast. there was some confusion with an e-mail being auto generated telling me they didn't receive the correct info.. I was not happy as it was over 300.00 USD. I called and was told that the rebate was approved and the gift card arrived 4 weeks after submittal.   The gift card is a bit of a pain vs check but a "free" printer is a good deal.


7
Canon General / Re: Pixma pro 10 or 100?
« on: December 15, 2014, 12:24:25 AM »

Think you for your response and sharing your experience. I haven't decided yet. I'm thinking it'd be fun to do some of my own printing. I've never done any printing of my own so i don't really know anything about it yet. If the tanks clog up is that a easy self fix or are you sending it out for repairs or buying new parts?


I think you are not clear on the clogging issue because we weren't clear.  It's a built in issue because of the chemistry  of the inks and how they have to pass through the nozzles in the print head.   If you print often, and turn the printer on and off between prints, the pigment ink will not get mucked up in the nozzle or tank and will shoot through easily.
If the ink sits in the tank, and residue in the head,you wind up w;prints that could be off color or banded, some ink may not get through.  The "solution" isnt really a repair, it s going to your settings and telling the printer to run cleaning cycles which charge the ink in the tanks and shoot int thru the noozles, the flow "cleans out" the nozzle.  most of the time this works, but as mentioned earlier in this thead, it wastes ink and is generally a p.i.t.a as you have to wait for the cleaning cycle to complete.

I suppose if the heads cannot be cleared/cleaned this way, you can replace them but a) this has never actually happened to me...,and, the cost of replacing heads probably more than just thowing the printer out the window and getting a new one w/rebate.  Just make sure its a basement window so no one gets killed

8
Canon General / Re: Pixma pro 10 or 100?
« on: December 14, 2014, 11:49:59 PM »
Unless you are using them 3 or more days a week, sell them while they are new.  The printers do a self cleaning when turned on, and clog if left on, which means they will use even more ink.  If left off for a few days, they will clog and waste a lot of ink to clean them.
 
They generally only come with starter ink cartridges, so you'll need to replace them after just a few prints.  It can use half those starter cartridges just to set it up initially.  Buy a couple of extra sets to start.
 
The printers are free, but ink can cost you big bucks.  Check out the cost of a new set of inks before deciding.
 
 
 
I have a Epson 3880, and use Cone ink tanks and 1 liter refills which cuts the cost a lot, but even so, its expensive.  Still, its a fraction of the price of Epson inks.
 
The Pro 100 is dye ink based.  Dye ink looks nice, but is not long lasting, and not water proof.  It does not clog as easily, and there are compatible inks that work well.  Cost is $100 per ink set, they won't last long.
 
The Pro-10 uses pigment based inks, which will have a long print life, and are more water resistant.  They are what you should use if you want serious prints.  The down side is more clogging, $130 / set of inks or $15 each.  Those small ink tanks will not last long.  You will notice that more inks are used in a set.  This overcomes the inherent color pop advantage of dye inks, and provides sublime B&W prints.

Thank you for your advice

Please consider other opinions before deciding.  I have owned Epson pigment printers for 10 years, dye printers before tha.  Like you I was offered incredible rebates and sale prices on Canon recently and chose the Canon Pro 10. I admit that it cost me nothing after all sales and rebates.

First, I want to say that while many opinions and experiences differ, the above poster is wrong on the the point of  starter ink tanks. I read about that myth in some reviews. The ink tanks that came with my Pro 10 are full ink tanks, the same as what you buy. As the poster states, they are small. Smaller than the Epson 3000 series and Canon Pro 1, about the same as Epson dye printers and R1900. While I agree that the Epson 3000 series give you lower cost per print on ink, unless you do a lot of printing, those huge cartridges will just sit there for a long time and eventually clog if you don[t use them

So far my experience has been:

printed about 30 8x10s and have not changed any ink. usage indicators vary, but I think I have a lot left
I have left the printer off for about 2 weeks and have had zero clogging issues. I am not declaring that Canon is better than Epson on this(yet) but I have always had clogging on my Epson pigment printers and have wasted loads of ink doing repeated cleaning cycles with Epson.  I met with a Canon rep when I bought my Pro 10 and he claimed Canon is less prone to clogging than Epson. I do not take the word of salesmen, but that has been the reputation on other forums

Print quality.  I would have to hold up my Epson and Canon prints to a magnifying glass to find major differences;
I can say that the Pro 10 really excels at printing on Lustre. Both on the free samples I got and even on Epson Luster.     On glossy, it's a mixed case.  I find that my Epson prints are GLOSSIER, eg more shiny. The gloss on the Canon is a bit duller.  That being said I find that the Pro 10 has LESS bronzing. Not that Epson is bad.
I have not yet printed on Fine Art paper . . Nor have I done black and white

The Pro 10 was very easy to set up despite some stuff I read. It has wireless LAN connectivity. 
I print through Adobe Photoshop or LIghroom and do not use the Canon software. Print matching on a well calibrated monitor is excellent.  I would say Canon is a bit better than my EPsons using the same workflow and doing side by side comparisons.

The build quality on the Canon is excellent. On the other hand, it has a huge footprint on the desk for an a3 machine and weighs nearly 50 lbs.

Print speed on the Canon is slow as molasses. I really don't care because I'm not running a printing shop. It;s also dead quiet. I hear nothing.

To conclude.  I am not bashing Epson. I still have mine on a huge desk next to the Pro 10.  After using Epsons since the advent of inkjet printing, my brand loyalty ran out because I was sick of the clogging and Canon "made me an offer I couldnt refuse."  Right now I have to say the Canon is my primary printer. 

I realize your choice is bet the 10 and the hundred. As mentioned in previous post.  10 is pigments. They will not run if gotten wet, the will last very long. 100 is dye. New dyes also can last long, but if you ever intend to sell photos esp unframed, I would go w the pigment.  The dyes do have a bit more color saturation. However the dye Canon prints I've seen (but not used) seem to be a bit over the top with the color; The pigments are more subtle on default settings. If want more pop or exaggerated color, you can still adjust your files to achieve it

If you keep it, I suggest you buy a complete set of inks in a package, I got it for 132 on B&H. Then you will have a spare for every color.  Some colors like gray will be used much faster than others and then you can buy individual tanks as needed, until you are ready for a full set.

Good luck

9
have tried 3rd party grips to save $$$. always wound up w/some kind of problem.  never "fried " camera but either  electronic bugs developed or problems with fit/finish. Sorry. we are prisoners to Canon's crazy prices to get the best accessories. Same for batteries.

10
Lenses / Re: I *HATE* UPS.
« on: November 28, 2014, 11:18:49 PM »
the subject caught my eyes. 

Last week I sat home waiting for a large package. very large.  I live on top floor of elevated bldg. Nothing. I go down to get my mail. package is not even in the lobby, it's sitting at entrance of blgd. unsecured. No one even rang the bell.

So, the question is: Is this the fault of the driver? UPS? Amazon???  I don't know but there's no excuse at all . I don't want to here how hard the drivers work. We all work hard. They are unionized and make good wages.    UPS-- they are top 500 company, they should ensure quality control. Amazon..same.   

I also don't get the "well, how much do you want to pay for shipping" comments.  I make a deal w/seller: they will deliver package to me, in good shape. They decide $$, I decide  to pay it.     I rent a private, attended mailbox for most of my deliveries so I don't have to deal w/this crappy service.  I just didn't want to get a hernia  loading the big pckg into my car, so I got one taking it up from my lobby instead.lol.

11
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 22, 2014, 01:19:51 PM »
I still have 2 Canon SLRS and a couple Canon lenses.  Why?  I came over from Canon film cameras by default *and* I always found Canon's controls more user friendly than Nikons.(maybe because it's what I know)

That being said I find that canon has been complacent over the past 5 years. They have not done much truly innovative in overall design and usability. Remember, Canon was the first with today's concept of IS lenses(I dont mean "dual pixel focusing" which is just a background technology.).  Sony has killed Canon in the mirrorless, with the EOS M virtually unsaleable until they cut the price in half.  Canon seems to try to get away with providing the least in terms of incremental changes with new models.

Canon has charged a huge premium for its lenses when they could. Amazing how folks here were jumping for joy when the 100-400 IS L II was announced at "only" $2200.00, $500 or $600 more than version I.   I used to buy almost all Canon lenses. My last 3 lenses were Sigma and Tamron.  The quality gap bet. Canon and many independents is less than the price gap.

I don't "hate" or "love" Canon.  In fact I just bought a Pixma Pro printer after years of working with Epsons. I love it.   However, I think they have squandered their position with "loyal" customers by falling behind in innovation and value.

12
EOS Bodies / Re: A Real EOS M Replacement Coming Soon? [CR1]
« on: November 17, 2014, 03:11:38 PM »
I was at a camera show/expo 2 weeks ago. First, I asked the Canon reps about the future of the EOS M. they joked around and said "well, there's an M2 in Asia." They handed me an SL1 and said 'well, this isn't much bigger and it gives you everything a mirrorless has"... End of story

Then I went to the SONY booth and handled an a6000. I've never shot a SONY, but the controls seemed very intuitive. It has the EVF and tiny flash onboard.  I almost made the plunge, but waited.  The only nitpick I have w/the SONY is NO TOUCHSCREEN.  I can live w/o it, but I swear, everytime I switch from my 70D to my 60D I say "where's the touchscreen?"...well, another nitpick w/Sony..the kit lens, motorized zoom 16-50 got pretty bad reviews.

I did not know that an a7000 is due soon as per a previous post.  I do most of my equip. buying in the fall, and next fall it will be either the Mxxx or Sony A....whatever.    I realize there is no need to  be "LOYAL" to Canon if they lag or ignore the mirrorless market.    Unlike others, I never mount my EF lenses on my EOS M. I am quite pleased with the M 18-55.    we shall see.


13
Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 09, 2014, 05:34:16 PM »
As far as the "low" 2200.00 price, I think we can thank Mr. Tamron and Mr. Sigma.

I spent a lot of time at a local photo show/sale, all the major vendors were there.  I don't work there, but my observations were:

 Lot's of Tamzooka's (150-600) being sold for nikon and canon. I spoke to the tamron rep who encouraged me to send in my early copy to get a new chip and firmware to improve AI focusing. In general, a huge buzz around Tamron, more than I remember in past years.

The Canon booth was very quiet compared to previous years. A few people I know  bought SLRs and they were practically giving away PIxMA pro printers with cameras.

I handled the Sigma 150-600 Sport, well, barely, the thing is a tank. I wouldn;t even consider it for that reason. I asked them when the "C" version will be out; they don't know.

Sony seemed to be selling the mirrorless like hotcakes.   

Sorry to go OT, but the take away here is that Canon has to be more competitive on pricing and offer higher quality for the price.  Since I have the Tamzooka already, I would not look at the 100-400 II for a while. however, since everyone seems to think that this will cut sales of 70-300L, maybe if Canon cuts that price I would buy one for when I don't need the 400- 600 reach and want something I can hand hold.



14
Lenses / Re: More EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Talk [CR2]
« on: October 28, 2014, 02:42:57 PM »
would I consider it, being a content owner of Tamron 150-600 ??

1. If it's sig.lighter than Tammy....(should be)
2. Sig. sharper than Tammy wide opened(probably)
3. Well under $2000.00.....(doubtful)

Basically, if I know I'm going to be doing either big, close birds, eg herons, ducks, etc and/or telephoto landscapes, boating shots, etc, having the new 100-400 to "carry around" would be worth an investment. I have considered the 70-300L, but I'd rather sacrifice 30mm on the short end to gain 100mm on the long end

My prediction would be about 2,000 price, which is double Tammy and the new Sigma C line, and about 500.00 more than the 70-300L.   If the lens really is lighter weight than the original, it's another positive sign for me that Canon and others are seeing the market for lighter weight equipment, esp. w/millions of aging prosumer photographers out there.   
Yes, I would love to get the 400 DO Mk II, but if I bought it, I couldnt afford to go anywhere with it for a few years. LOL


15
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 03, 2014, 06:38:17 PM »
canon is way behind in mirrorless, totally squandered an opportunity to keep loyal customers who want mirrorless. 

I don;t think a Canon mirrorless system  has to use EF S or EF lenses..  It can exist side by side. As mentioned before, one of the big advantages of mirrorless is reduced size .  I have an EOS M and will never even consider mounting my L lenses on it. What';s the point?  what's most important to me is that the mirrorless body is NOT A STEP DOWN in features from my mid level 70D.  I don't want Rebel features only. I am willing to invest in 2  more mirrorless lenses (beyond the kit) but they are not coming.

Bottom line for me is one word: SONY.  Sony clearly is way beyond Canon.  If I'm going to buy lenses anyway, why not get into a new ecosystem, and go with a company that is dedicated to building it?

I will not give up my 70D, 60d etc for use with long lenses for wildlife, etc... BUt am ready to move on for walk around use, even landscapes, street photography etc.  I;m not trying to spite Canon, but I am ready and they are not.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5