Messages

1

Lenses / Re: Patent: Canon EF 35 f/1.4L II

« on: July 02, 2012, 12:31:25 PM »

I recently sold my 50L to get the 35L. Wasn't sure about switching at first but now the 35L is my new favorite lens. MUCH sharper than my old 50L. I'd say the image quality is on par with the 100L.

Aside from weather sealing, I really can't see much room for improvement.

2

Lenses / Re: Patent: A new 16-35 f/2.8 or Faster Concept?

« on: March 30, 2012, 01:34:10 AM »

I'd normally be excited about a new 16-35 f2.8 but Canon's pricing of the new 24-70 II makes me think it'll be too expensive.

3

Software & Accessories / CanoScan 9000F getting a replacement soon?

« on: February 10, 2012, 02:42:30 AM »

I've been shopping film scanners for the past couple months and finally settled on the CanoScan 9000F. When I ordered it earlier this week from B&H though, I got an email saying that it was on backorder from the manufacturer with no expected ship date. And B&H removed the listing entirely from their site too instead of putting the typical "sorry, this item is not currently in stock" tag on it.

Tried Adorama, Canon USA, Amazon, Office Depot...just about every store online I searched says it's out of stock.

Is Canon still producing them? Seems like they've been updating a lot of products lately. Could the 9000F be replaced with a new model soon or has production just slowed down?

4

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

« on: November 27, 2011, 12:40:04 AM »

Been on a 50 1.4 for a year or so with my 5D2 now. Just bought one of these beasts and the novelty of 1.2 hasn't quite worn off yet, hence the aberration. 

I like these. Reminds me of the Urban Outfitters catalogs.

5

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM

« on: November 26, 2011, 12:33:06 PM »

Here it is on a 7D @ f/2.8


GWAR @ The Intersection 10.26.11 by Tony Norkus, on Flickr

6

United States / Re: Insurance policies for photographers

« on: April 14, 2011, 12:51:22 PM »

I use a separate policy for my camera gear and laptop through State Farm. I think it costs $1.44 (Canada Pro Rate) per every $100 of value a year. It's cheaper if you're not a "pro".

There is no deductible for a claim and you're paid the full value of what you own, not a depreciated value. Watch for depreciated value fine print.

A lot of homeowners policies only cover up to a certain amount for camera/electronics. I know mine only covers up to $5000 and has a $500 deductible.

How did you get a State Farm policy with no deductible? I just got the personal articles policy for business (I'm in USA). Cost me $330 per year for $9k worth of gear with a $500 deductible. Guess it's different in Canada. 

7

United States / Re: Insurance policies for photographers

« on: March 24, 2011, 06:50:25 PM »

what dollar value of equipment are you insuring?

$9,000. I'm probably getting some new glass soon, so it'll be more like $11,000 by summer.

8

United States / Re: Insurance policies for photographers

« on: March 24, 2011, 06:17:37 PM »

Thanks for the info preston. I actually talked to a couple other insurance companies today to see if I could get a better deal. State Farm said they would cover me for $140/year and they will also cover "mysterious disappearance", unlike my homeowners policy. So I think I'm going to go with SF instead.

SF also told me if I did make money with my photography, a business policy would only cost me $330/year. My homeowners offers one for $550/year and I know NAPP offers one that starts at $500/year, so now I'm thinking I should play it safe and just get the State Farm Business policy instead. 

9

United States / Re: Insurance policies for photographers

« on: March 23, 2011, 07:58:04 PM »

As another reminder.  If you use your camera equipment to make money...YOU ARE NOT COVERED UNDER A HOMEOWNERS POLICY!!!!!!.  Let me make sure you guys understand what I am saying...  If you have used your camera equipment at anytime in the past to make money. IE, you took a photo and sold it OR were paid to take photos of something, then YOU ARE NOT COVERED UNDER YOUR HOMEOWNERS POLICY!!

Yeah, we hear ya. I made sure to ask about this when setting up my policy and they told me a commercial policy would have been $550/year for up to $100k of coverage. Since I don't make any money off my photos (yet), the homeowners policy is good enough for me.

BTW, is there any way the insurance company could check if you've ever made money using your equipment? I could see how it'd be difficult to hide something like that if you have a website or listed it on your tax returns, but for someone that shoots portraits once in a while for some extra cash on the side isn't in danger of NOT being covered by their homeowners policy, are they?

10

United States / Re: Insurance policies for photographers

« on: March 22, 2011, 03:45:33 PM »

I was just able to get coverage under my dad's homeowner policy (Hartford) for only $90 per year for $8500 worth of equipment, which is a lot better than I expected to pay. I could have had free coverage but that would have been for Cash Value only, which only covers what the gear is worth used and not what I paid for it new.

The only thing I didn't like about the policy is that it didn't cover "mysterious disappearance". So if I set my bag down and turn my back for a second and someone steals it, they won't cover me. Covers damage, mugging, and anything that happens to it in my home though, so I'm happy with the policy.

11

United States / Re: Insurance policies for photographers

« on: March 08, 2011, 12:24:10 AM »

I was just reading up on photo insurance policies yesterday and I'm still confused on what and where to buy (I'm in the US). The main thing is that I live with my dad, so the homeowner's insurance policy is in his name. Does that make a difference?

I've got a 7D + lenses that I spent around $8k on last year. I'm looking for a policy that will not only cover damage, but stolen *AND* lost equipment too. My main fear is having my bag snatched when I've got my back turned and I've read that most policies don't consider this theft and will not cover it.

12

Lenses / Re: Your lenses wishlist for 2011.

« on: February 06, 2011, 02:58:43 PM »

Worse is very subjective.  If the soft, dreamy, look of the 50/1 is what you're looking for; then the 50/1.2 is the one that looks worse.

If you think you need the 50mm f/1L, chances are you're wrong, and would be better suited with the f/1.2.  If you know you need the 50/1L, there is no substitute.

Exactly. I shoot a lot of concerts in dimly lit clubs where no flashes are allowed. My 50mm f1.4 Sigma @ 6400 is *okay* but I still miss a lot of shots because it just isn't fast enough. A f1.0 in my bag would make a world of difference.

13

Lenses / Re: Your lenses wishlist for 2011.

« on: February 06, 2011, 02:20:28 PM »

EF 50mm f/1.0L USM II

DO IT CANON!!

Worse image quality than the 50mm f/1.2 for a higher price... we've been there before...

Updated version will be better. Don't hate.

14

Lenses / Re: Your lenses wishlist for 2011.

« on: February 06, 2011, 01:53:27 PM »

EF 50mm f/1.0L USM II

DO IT CANON!!

15

Lenses / Re: New L Primes

« on: January 23, 2011, 12:40:48 PM »

Finally. I've been holding out for a new 50mm 1.2L. The Sigma 50mm 1.4 is nice but I NEED that extra 1/3 stop.