July 25, 2014, 02:37:12 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 - LetTheRightLensIn

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 219
1

That doesn't make sense. Do you not have an upload/sell account set up (subscription required).


Of course.  You can't post items for sale without one.  But even then, it did not let me PM with a 'you have less than 25 posts' error message. 

Non-issue in this instance, though.  Lens just sold for a good price and is on its way.  Thanks for everyone's advice!

- A


Must be some bug in the site. FYI, I have posted several PMs when I had less than 25 posts.
If this happens again, you can contact the moderator.
Anyway, congrats on the sale.

I think it's a new rule on FM to help fish out robots/scammers/trouble-makers a bit.

2
In the early 2000's I used to use Ebay...a lot.  I gave up on Ebay around 2007 as the fees for listing/selling were too high and shipping is a pain in the butt.  Since then I have used Craigslist exclusively.  I usually get what I want for my gear and have sold numerous cameras this way including: Leica M8, Canon 1DSII, 7D, G12, 20D and numerous lenses.  In addition to selling, I have bought countless gear on Craigslist too which is a nice way to meet other photographers, not to mention try the gear before you hand over your money.

The thing on Craigslist is to sort out the flakes from the people who are serious...also, for Craigslist to be viable you need to live in a populated area (Vancouver, BC is where I am).  No matter what, do not ship to anyone on CL....cash deals only, in person, usually at a coffee shop.

I actually did much better on CL in a somewhat less populated area. Buyers were apt to pay a lot more. In a very large market the buyers seem to be very much wanting to find mega-bargains or else just buy new.

+1.
I found it easier to sell in a college town with 171,000 people than in a city with 2.5 million people.

Yeah CL near NYC is a pain (although now and then you can get it to work out best, but only very now and then), but down in triangle area of NC it was a breeze.

3
Lenses / Re: 24L MkII focusing problems
« on: July 24, 2014, 02:20:09 PM »
I've heard stories of claimed terrible problems, mostly when paired with the 7D.

My copy was great on 5D2/5D3 and pretty good on 7D though.

4
I tried to submit request for group purchase on canonpricewatch but I will be charged state sales tax because I live in NY. Then I look more closely and it seems that most major camera shops are in NY. Why is that?

And does anyone know of any good stores that are outside of NY? I only know Beach camera and buydig. But I think they are essentially the same company. I'd like to know a couple more to compare.

Because it's the financial capital of the world and has a 10000 billion people.

Yeah those two are the same company. Beach has a small storefront (some of the sales people in the store can be rude, one guy got greatly upset when I asked for a different box since the first lens box was all bent up and totally rummaged through he gave me a fresh one but was really mumbling under his breath and ranting and so on, the phone order people are often friendlier).

You can try Unique Photo just across the border (no returns policy on expensive stuff though; of course broken/defective can be exchanged for another copy without hassle). It is a local brick and mortal mom and pop of sorts, but it's a really huge mom and pop and for the main equipment tends to have B&H type rather than typical $$$$ mom and pop prices (of course the little things in physical stores cost more often enough, but not always, some of the paper and ink and such is a good price here too and, at times, CF cards too). A pretty huge selection of bodies and lenses and ink and paper. Much more limited for filters and various little doo-dads and tripods heads and such. No up-sale nonsense or other garbage, polite.


5
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel EOS on the Way as Mentioned by Canon
« on: July 24, 2014, 02:09:03 PM »
But...but...the DR, man...you're completely ignoring the DReaded DR issue!!!   :P

I struggle with DR all the time at high ISO.  I've never had a situation where Canon's base ISO DR was insufficient AND a couple more stops would have made it sufficient.  I've had one situation where 20 more stops would have made it sufficient, but I don't think even the lenses can support that much DR.

On a sunny day just aim your camera out the back door at the woods and you will instantly find a case where the current DR is not enough but Exmor would be enough. And from there you realize that tons of shots dealing with forests will be the same scenario.

6
For model shots, Katerina Plotnikova is a source of inspiration. Don't worry, when it says "Adult content", it just means model's skin is visible, but she succeeds walking a very thin line on not being offensive of any way.


Who tags as A.C.? Can anyone flag an image? Because unless it is some people having fun messing with her site I don't get the tags. The few I saw while scrolling through (and it was a pain to have to keep clicking to unlock every few shots for no good reason at all) showed no skin other than bare feet, ankles and face and actually showed even less skin than most not tagged as A.C. Confused.

7
HDR is a lot like a woman wearing makeup -- it should not be immediately obvious it is being used.

If you look at a woman and the first thought is "wow, she is wearing a lot of make up"  She is doin it wrong.
If you look at a photograph and the first thought is "wow, that's some HDR" you is doin it wrong.

It should be difficult to tell if an photograph was or was not HDR, if it is done well.  All the viewer should notice is "wow that's a pretty photograph/woman."

 ;D

In both cases you must add "unless it's being done for dramatic effect."  Some women (and a few men) wear heavy makeup for dramatic effect, like wearing bright, colorful clothes.  Likewise, some do HDR for the express purpose of a slightly surreal, dramatic effect.  Both are personal choices.  I'm not a huge fan of either in most cases, though I've seen a few examples that were quite well done.

+1

8
HDR is a lot like a woman wearing makeup -- it should not be immediately obvious it is being used.

If you look at a woman and the first thought is "wow, she is wearing a lot of make up"  She is doin it wrong.
If you look at a photograph and the first thought is "wow, that's some HDR" you is doin it wrong.

It should be difficult to tell if an photograph was or was not HDR, if it is done well.  All the viewer should notice is "wow that's a pretty photograph/woman."

 ;D

+1

9
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel EOS on the Way as Mentioned by Canon
« on: July 24, 2014, 01:30:28 AM »
no news here: "we look forward to the advent of high-resolution model of the EOS".  We are all looking forward to that.  This poor guy works for Canon and he is looking forward to the same thing we are.  I'm looking forward to Christmas too.  The only difference is I know Christmas is coming.....this year.

And we all know that Christmas only comes once a year....
(unless you are Denise Richards in a 007 movie featuring some bad dialogue  ;).)

10
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel EOS on the Way as Mentioned by Canon
« on: July 24, 2014, 01:26:22 AM »

Because, there are survey results 4-5% of customers who bought the kit lens is that it does not use only kit lens.


Would indeed be interesting to see an accurate translation of this. Do 5% never buy another lens? If so that is an amazing stst

I could believe that easily 4-5% never buy another lens.  I know people with DSLRs that bought a kit and are just fine with their kit zoom.  They take pictures only once in a while such as on a trip or at some big event.  It just depends on how much they get into photography.

wouldn't the is does NOT only use the kit lens, imply the opposite though?
I also find this confusing, but read somewhere (trying to find the source) that 80-90% of DSLR owners (that would be Rebels & their Nikon ilk) never remove their kit lens.  Alan's math makes sense in that regard, plus, not every SLR or DSLR owner throws away their body after two years.  People have bought my old bodies, and I bet many of them still own them.

yeah I guess that could be

11
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel EOS on the Way as Mentioned by Canon
« on: July 24, 2014, 01:25:55 AM »
Unlike many Google translations, this one is a bit more readable...

I note the comment that the 16-35 mk2 was good for APS-H ;-)

The multiple aspheric lens surfaces allow them to ease some of the compromise between reducing distortion and field flatness. The two front lens elements make quite a significant contribution to this and will likely be seen again in new ultra wide zoom designs.

I still want a TS-E14 though ;-)

Actually, I was going to ask someone to translate the translation. :)

I have often made the assertion on DPR that the 16-35 II was designed for APS-H because 1.) it was introduced alongside the 1D III and 2.) the edge/corner performance obviously was not up to FF standards MP counts of the time period notwithstanding. Of course, I was criticized for this viewpoint (which I still hold). It looked to me like the interviewer made the reference to APS-H but the interviewees did not touch on the reference.

hah, good catch and guess surmising

12
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel EOS on the Way as Mentioned by Canon
« on: July 24, 2014, 01:24:02 AM »
I'd prefer 24MP and 6fps and more DR over 50MP and 3-5fps and same DR without question.

Although I'd prefer 40MP, 6fps, and more DR and CRISP non-waxy works 4k video and 2k raw video, even more without question  ;D ;D.

(and my last suggestion there really is not unreasonable in any way!

The D810 already does 36MP at 6fps and has tons of DR.

The 5D3 already does 2k raw video with a hack.

Lotsa stuff will do 4k soon and some already does, so for those saying I'm dreaming, well I should not be and don't forget this next camera has to look in a few years still too, if anything my dream is almost conservative at this point so go away Canon apologists who are saying anything more than the same DR, 30MP and 2k compressed video is enough!)

13
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel EOS on the Way as Mentioned by Canon
« on: July 23, 2014, 02:40:18 PM »

Because, there are survey results 4-5% of customers who bought the kit lens is that it does not use only kit lens.


Would indeed be interesting to see an accurate translation of this. Do 5% never buy another lens? If so that is an amazing stst

I could believe that easily 4-5% never buy another lens.  I know people with DSLRs that bought a kit and are just fine with their kit zoom.  They take pictures only once in a while such as on a trip or at some big event.  It just depends on how much they get into photography.

wouldn't the is does NOT only use the kit lens, imply the opposite though?

14
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel EOS on the Way as Mentioned by Canon
« on: July 23, 2014, 02:37:46 PM »
Unlike many Google translations, this one is a bit more readable...



Hah, I love how the very first translated word was along the lines of "things to make you worried about these 2 new lenses: they have IS, high quality imaging, light weight.  ;)"

And it got worse from there  ;).

15
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel EOS on the Way as Mentioned by Canon
« on: July 23, 2014, 02:35:50 PM »
Fine...but which lens was he talking about?  Perhaps the 'high resolution EOS' will be APS-C...

Well the guy was just talking about using adapted lenses on A7R instead of a 5D3 to get higher density and then the Canon guy came back with his statement so I think it implies 95% that he was referring to FF (and 99% once you consider that 18MP is already pretty high density for APS-C and already out there).

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 219