October 31, 2014, 04:47:22 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 - skitron

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 34
Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 II or 100 2.8L and 135 2 and 200 2.8
« on: October 30, 2014, 10:17:28 PM »
Went thru similar choice...still have the 70-200 f2.8 is2, 100L. The 200L 2.8 was virtually identical iq, but black, small, light, inexpensive. But zoom won out in the end, though I really dislike the size/weight of the 70-200, but for me I need the 2.8 for low light... If low light is not an issue, hard to beat a 24- 105 and 70- 200 f4 pair.

Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm Art on Canon 50D Focus issues
« on: June 03, 2014, 10:48:18 PM »
I had a 50d and 5d2 at the same time and was able to compare focus accuracy and was able to test and repeat results showing my 50d had a much larger in focus zone than the 5d2. This meant I had not so good percentages of in focus shots with my 50d using fast primes while the same lens did fine on my 5d2 and now 5d3. I liked the 50d except for that fact. It was fine with smaller apertures.

Lenses / Re: Seeking quick advice
« on: May 22, 2014, 03:40:49 PM »
One question I'd ask is do you really want/need a fast prime for portrait? I'm not a portrait shooter but have read (mainly here)  how pro portrait shooters are often stopping down to get enough dof to keep the model's features all in reasonable focus. In that situation the 24-105 and the 70-200 may both be worth consideration for that application.

Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens
« on: May 14, 2014, 07:28:21 PM »
But I will take a stab at it and say this is done by Canon, a small disturbance in the firmware that handles AF communication. Would be VERY interesting to try my lens mount converted to a Sigma camera.

I rather doubt it is Canon firmware since it would be a pain to write code to make it drift after a period of time. Now making it have random misses all the time is a different story, that would be easy to code. Who only knows if Canon would bother with such a thing....

Lenses / Re: Thinking about the Sigma 1.4 Art
« on: May 13, 2014, 10:49:09 PM »
I tend to agree the fast 50 probably isn't so needed if you have a 24-70  mk2.

IMO, shallow dof is nice at times but I often find myself stopping down quite a bit to get more dof.  Even considering  a m43  just for the increased dof... Obviously the dof question depends on what you shoot, tastes, etc. But I don't know that the art 50 is going to be all that different than the 24-70 mk2 at 50mm and same stop for anything other than pixel peeping. So m thinking shallower dof is the main reason to get an art 50 if you have a 24-70 mk2.

As for extenders, I like the 1.4x 3 with the 70-200 is2. That gets you to 280mm at f/4 with very little loss in iq. I suppose another option  for more length is maybe an aps-c, which is 1.6x for calculating. With the 280mm from above, aps-c would get you to 448mm. So may be an option if you want to do 2 bodies.

Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens
« on: May 13, 2014, 05:26:07 PM »
It might be time to give the Sigma bodies a serious look if they work well with their current glass. Anyone know of any credible reviews of their current bodies?

I read a review Michael Reichmann's (Luminous Landscape) review of the DP2M (which uses the Foveon X3 sensor) that raved about it.  Was it credible?  Well, he listed one of the cons as "poor image quality above ISO 400."  I find it hard to rave about a camera with ISO performance similar to some of the earliest CMOS sensors, but if all you do is shoot at ISO 100, maybe you can consider a Sigma body.

I'm all for just using something that works. That said, I actually deleted my post after reading some reviews on B&H, apparently while you were replying... High ISO is very important to me, so the Sigma body is a non starter. Plus some complained about af...

Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens
« on: May 13, 2014, 04:27:32 PM »
wow i cant believe the near hysteria this caused

Yeah, well we're all either fanbois with no objectivity or Canon-bashers with no objectivity, right?  ::)

Two reviews have noted AF issues with the lens, other reviews have not (though many reviews don't actually test AF performance).  Maybe Roger Cicala will get a large batch and provide some solid evidence one way or the other.

heres hoping roger can get a batch and test. his batch testing seems to provide the most objective and comprehensive analysis of lenses available. also if there are issues I hope they can be sorted with the sigma dock and the issues aren't random and all over the place like the old 50 was (well for me anyway) its odd that my wifes 5Dmk3 seems to have no problem with this lens and is providing amazing images wide open with remarkable AF consistency where as for me it was all over the place...

That is odd that it would be so different on identical bodies.

My dg did the roulette thing until I sent it to Sigma, has been decent,but not perfect since though. LOL, maybe the art has to be returned to them as well before it works?

Lenses / Re: Before you buy your next prime...
« on: May 13, 2014, 03:32:33 PM »
I suppose my strategy is to buy what I want and then sell them later when I find myself not using them. That said, I'm left with a 70-200 is2, 100 L, 24-105L, Sigma 50 DG. LOL, I could probably just go with my least favorite,but most used, the 24-105 and call it a day...   

6d vs 5d3 af? You get what you pay for. I've owned both. 6d is slower, center point better than 5d3 in low light, outers like an older rebel. Meaning they will work in decent light, but nothing special for sure. Meanwhile the 5d3 af will spoil all but the 1dx users, its  almost
always a treat to use.

(I assume you must have mentioned all your L glass, like you did in this post)  At that point, you've only guaranteed that they will refuse to do anything for you that they dont absolutely have to do

I've not been involved except to hear the story, As for any sort of threats or rudeness, the user didn't go down that road.

I shared my part here because to me that is the value of boards like this, to share experiences about what is good and what is not so good. I have a couple of bad experiences, others are pleased as punch, airing all of it here gives whoever wants to read a little more info to work with for themselves.

and fails to provide any explanation that is meaningful as to why they refuse to perform their obligation.

Except that they did provide an explanation, they inspected and determined that the camera had been damaged by the user.   I'm not saying that they are right or wrong in their assessment, but they did tell you why they are denying the warranty claim.

If they took anyone at their word that a product wasn't dropped or otherwise damaged by the owner, it wouldn't be just $100 as you stated, it would be millions because everyone who dropped their camera would send it back and claim "it just suddenly stopped working".

Telling the user they are a liar is not a *meaningful* explanation.

A *meaningful* explanation would be something like "the reason it zooms to the long end by itself and then you can't control it is because the ____ is broken (or malfunctioning). This typically happens because ____."

At a minimum, a *meaningful* explanation acknowledges the symptons, identifies a tangible cause, and postulates a reason why it would happen.


When I hear "you dropped it" as the only explanation as to why a cosmetically mint camera that hasn't been dropped isn't going to be covered, the most likely explanation for that is that they probably didn't bother to even inspect it beyond maybe turning it on and seeing that its malfunctioning.

do you really suspect that Nikon is going to be that much better to deal with?   Maybe sigma or  tamron because they can't afford to alienate their customer base,  but I doubt they are giving away free service either. 

 having said all that, I  have heard of times where someone sends in something for service to Canon and they do the work for free even though it is it of warranty.   so they aren't all bad.

I have no idea whether Nikon is better, worse, the same, whatever.

According to Lensrentals' data, you can expect to wait nearly 5 times as long for Nikon to fix what's broken, whether you have to pay for it or not.  Oh, and if you do have to pay for it, you'll pay more.

Yup, there may be better choices than Nikon too. I'm certainly not married to that idea...

do you really suspect that Nikon is going to be that much better to deal with?   Maybe sigma or  tamron because they can't afford to alienate their customer base,  but I doubt they are giving away free service either. 

 having said all that, I  have heard of times where someone sends in something for service to Canon and they do the work for free even though it is it of warranty.   so they aren't all bad.

I have no idea whether Nikon is better, worse, the same, whatever. But for me anyway, continuing to do business with Canon USA is not going to happen due to two poor experiences - one my own and another a family member.

In my case an L lens only 3 months out of warranty (which they adamantly stated would not be covered) so for me, I can rule out that Canon USA covers expensive items just recently going out of warranty. Which is fair enough, I agreed to pay for repairs, the problem is repairs to fix the actual problem were not performed and Canon USA was not helpful to resolve the issue, yet still has my repair payment.

In mother in law's case, I can rule out that Canon USA covers items that are in warranty, and fails to provide any explanation that is meaningful as to why they refuse to perform their obligation.

So that's my experiences and why I won't do business with them anymore. Others may have direct first hand experiences that are better.

And again, the pragmatic lesson is just buy gray market or non-authorized reseller if you want to shoot Canon and don't waste money on warranties, either first party or third party. And as for me, I'll just rotate this gear out when the time is right and migrate to another vendor.

Gosh, if I changed companies every time a claim for any of my stuff was denied.......

In his defense... about 10 years ago I had a crappy 1.3 megapixel Olympus that I maybe paid $100 for.  Probably less... but still.  And at one point the camera's usb port konks out and I contact Olympus for warranty work.  I explain that I purchased it within a year and I registered it online.  They said that they need the original warranty otherwise they can't do anything for me.  That was the last Olympus product I ever bought and if they actually were good and made cutting edge gear right now, I wouldn't touch it. 

Having said that, now that things are purchased online, it makes it so much easier to keep the receipt.

Agree with what you said, but if I already have a system like Canon which I know how to use as a tool, and a claim for a point and shoot gets denied, I'm not going to change my whole system around because of that.  If he only had one other Canon, I can see that, but not a whole system. And like others said, it's not his camera, so he can't be sure it wasn't accidentally banged around and damaged.  It would have been nice of Canon to say how they found out the camera was damaged, but again, to switch systems because of someone else's point and shoot, nah...

Everyone has their own take on things and for me, I'm constantly rotating my gear in and out to minimize cost of ownership. Meaning I buy when price is right, use it a while, sell before an upgrade cycle and price-of-current plummet. Since the bodies are on a staggered introduction cycle it works out pretty good. It also makes it pretty easy to switch back and forth between systems. And since I'm not a fan-boy of either system, I don't really care which system I shoot with from an operator perspective.

And to be clear, I'm not bailing because of somebody else's point-n-shoot, I'm bailing because Canon USA has demonstrated for a second time they are not the kind of company I'm willing to do business with. The first was for a 3 months out of warranty repair on one of my L lenses that I paid for, sent back twice, and still have the original problem, and Canon USA says "too bad".

LOL, I suppose the pragmatic lesson here is if you want to use Canon gear, you should go ahead and buy grey market or from non-authorized resellers, and save the $ because it doesn't make sense to pay for a warranty they won't honor.

Canon USA told her she dropped the camera and it isn't covered. Problem is (1) it wasn't dropped or knocked around, (2) there is no physical evidence it has been dropped or knocked around - it's mint cosmetically, and (3) the symptoms of the camera are not consistent with Canon USA's claim that it was dropped.
Did Canon supply an explanation of how or did you ask how they concluded that the camera was dropped?

Seems like a denial of a claim, especially with an assertion of misuse, should come with an explanation of the process of conclusion.

No technical explanation whatsoever. Which is precisely why I 'm not going to do business with them anymore. For me to do business with a company they have to back up their claims with verifiable proof when they refuse to honor what was paid for. Canon USA didn't, so I'm not doing business with them any more and neither are two other people.

I'm sure Canon USA couldn't care less, and that's their choice, but it's a rather odd business model since honoring their warranty costs them maybe $100 in this case and by not honoring it, they miss out on a bare minimum of at least 2 full frames two APS-C, probably half a dozen L sales as the next upgrade cycles unfold.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 34