November 27, 2014, 11:29:36 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 - barracuda

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
Lenses / Re: used 300 f2.8 IS or new sigma 120-300 f2.8
« on: September 23, 2014, 07:39:14 PM »
Hate to throw you another curve ball, but a refurbished version of an older version of the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS APO HSM (Mfr# 136101 vs. the newer 137101) is available at Sigma's outlet store for $1999.

https://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/120-300mm-f28-ex-dg-os-apo-hsm-refurbished

I'm not familiar with the differences between the two lenses, so can't say how IQ compares.

2
EOS Bodies / Re: Used vs. Refurbished Canon 7d?
« on: September 09, 2014, 08:16:28 AM »
Some people do not like refurbished cameras, they feel that the odds of more trouble are high.  The refurbished Canon cameras do not have a full one year warranty, they have a 90 day warranty.  Used cameras have no warranty at all, so unless you know or trust the seller, there is a elevated level of risk.

Also realize that most used camera buyers are not aware of the Canon refurb camera program or do not have a broken camera to trade in.

Its your money, take your choice.

According to Canon USA's site, "All refurbished products come with a 1-Year Refurbished Limited Warranty":

http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/refurbished-products-information

Fyi, a refurbished 7D from Canon is currently priced at $719.52 (40% off):

http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/260463?WT.mc_id=C126149

You are responding to a 3.5 year old post. At the time they probably only had 90 days

Oh, didn't realize! Haha. Wonder why it showed up on my Forum Discussion sidebar. Thanks.

3
EOS Bodies / Re: Used vs. Refurbished Canon 7d?
« on: September 09, 2014, 07:03:20 AM »
Some people do not like refurbished cameras, they feel that the odds of more trouble are high.  The refurbished Canon cameras do not have a full one year warranty, they have a 90 day warranty.  Used cameras have no warranty at all, so unless you know or trust the seller, there is a elevated level of risk.

Also realize that most used camera buyers are not aware of the Canon refurb camera program or do not have a broken camera to trade in.

Its your money, take your choice.

According to Canon USA's site, "All refurbished products come with a 1-Year Refurbished Limited Warranty":

http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/refurbished-products-information

Fyi, a refurbished 7D from Canon is currently priced at $719.52 (40% off):

http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/260463?WT.mc_id=C126149

4
Just to be clear, I am only disappointed with the 5D III for landscapes and low ISO work.

Here's a link to a guy who's a hot topic on 500px at the moment, that CR members may enjoy seeing. Does he shoot D800 ? Does he shoot high ISO ?

http://500px.com/JakeOlsonStudios

The only noise comes from people complimenting his work.

Thanks for posting this link. At least now I can say that it hasn't been a complete waste of time reading this thread.

5
EOS-M / Re: EOS M Owners Post Your Pictures
« on: July 15, 2014, 12:30:03 AM »
My son and his girlfriend taken with the EF-M 22/2.

6
Lenses / Re: EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 : possible issue?
« on: June 17, 2014, 06:48:59 PM »
I tested my 17-55 on a 100D, 650D, and 60D. It always snapped into focus, at varying distances, on each of the cameras. No problems to report here.

7
Lenses / Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« on: April 18, 2014, 04:22:04 AM »
Up to a certain point it does have its entertainment value, but then ...

+1

8
Canon General / Canon to bring production home as yen continues slide
« on: January 09, 2014, 04:38:32 AM »
An interesting article on SLR sales:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/canon-bring-production-home-yen-073624820.html

Notably:

SLR SALES

The CEO said sales of digital single-lens reflex cameras likely came in under 8 million units in 2013 for the first annual decline since Canon introduced its first model in 2004, as the slowing pace of innovation meant fewer consumers felt the need to replace older models. He also attributed the drop to prolonged economic weakness in Europe and slowing growth in China.

"SLR sales fell last year due to poor economic conditions," Mitarai said. "But I think that they will rise stably from now on. I want to aim for close to 9 million units in 2014."

But industry insiders said Canon and its closest rival Nikon Corp (TYO:7731) were struggling to clear excess inventory built up as they overcompensated for damage done to factories in Thailand after flooding in 2011 - leading to prices of entry-level models being slashed by more than 50 percent to as little as $300.

Canon's shipments of interchangeable lens cameras accounted for 45.1 percent of global shipments in July-September, according to IDC, a 5 percent drop in share from the year prior and a 25.7 percent drop in unit sales.

9
Photography Technique / Re: Great Article from Canon USA., PRO Product Team
« on: December 31, 2013, 11:04:00 PM »
Thanks for the links Surapon.

I noticed that there's a fairly blatant error in the first article regarding Canon's extenders. There's a reference to the "EF 135mm f/2.0 L IS USM lens". "IS", I thought to myself. I don't remember my 135 having IS.  ;)

10
Lenses / Re: 6d/100L macro/Kenko 2X TC lockup
« on: December 29, 2013, 07:06:29 PM »
Perhaps. Improper error handling should not happen in a perfect world. However, I hope you will concede that Canon can only test and recreate error conditions it has control over. That's the case for any software development process. We have no idea what Kenko is doing in their reverse engineering efforts that causes a camera to lock up, and that's really my point - neither does Canon.

I'm sure Canon has protocol analyzers, and it's a fairly simple protocol, as I understand it.  I doubt Kenko is doing much more than passing the data unmolested to the lenses and returning the responses, multiplying the focal length on the way back through.  They don't even modify the lens ID information, I don't think.

My bet is that the Kenko extenders don't support some added command that the body is sending, but because the camera doesn't know it is there, the camera expects to be talking to a lens that does support that command, and fails on some assert when the "lens" says "I don't know how to do that".  If that's the case, then the camera just needs to fall back to doing what it would do for an older lens that doesn't support that command rather than failing when the TC fails to pass the unknown command on to the lens.

That said, I'm half tempted to borrow an SPI to USB adapter and see exactly what's going on.  Or maybe even buy one for $30:

http://www.adafruit.com/products/237?gclid=CKbvudmo07sCFeJF7AodLQYAuw

That, a sacrificial full-electrics extension tube, and about fifteen minutes will tell you everything you need to know about what's happening.  Well, that, and a Canon TC to compare the results.


I'm sure Canon is fully capable of debugging and fixing this issue if they wanted to. But that goes back to the point that Canon is under no obligation to make their cameras compatible with unlicensed third-party products.

There are tens or possibly hundreds of third-party lenses, adapters, flash units, etc. that Canon would have to procure and test for each new camera release and/or firmware update if they were inclined to do so. I would prefer Canon leave it up to the third-party vendors to resolve their own problems so that we can all get new Canon products and firmware updates in a timely manner. Wouldn't you?

11
Lenses / Re: 6d/100L macro/Kenko 2X TC lockup
« on: December 27, 2013, 04:50:20 PM »

As a programmer, I would have included a fail safe timer in the camera OS.... So many seconds have gone by without a refresh, force a reset.....

Canon is not responsible for Kenko's problems, but their camera should not lock up under an error condition, it should at least display an error code.....



Bad code is bad code.  If your code doesn't do proper error handling, your code is s**t, period.  It doesn't matter what triggered that code to crash.  It's still a security hole waiting to happen.  And as I said, bad code in one part almost invariably means that you have bad code throughout.  These sorts of problems lead me to the inevitable conclusion that their entire firmware is probably held together by shoestrings and bailing wire.  That's not very reassuring, speaking as someone with $15k invested in Canon gear.

The part that's more infuriating is realizing that a one-line bug fix would probably make these things work, if we could just get the bug report past the CSRs to the engineering team.

Perhaps. Improper error handling should not happen in a perfect world. However, I hope you will concede that Canon can only test and recreate error conditions it has control over. That's the case for any software development process. We have no idea what Kenko is doing in their reverse engineering efforts that causes a camera to lock up, and that's really my point - neither does Canon.

I am not going to question my $35k+ (and counting)  ;) in invested Canon gear when an unlicensed, third-party, reverse-engineered teleconverter locks up my camera. I'll just take out the battery, reinsert it, and then think twice about buying non-Canon gear in the future.



12
Lenses / Re: 6d/100L macro/Kenko 2X TC lockup
« on: December 27, 2013, 04:27:59 AM »
If the camera refused to recognize the lens, we could blame either Kenko or Canon, but because it crashes the whole camera, Canon is entirely at fault.

Nope, Canon does not say Kenko tcs work with their cameras, why should they be responsible if they don't? If you try to superglue a Nikon lens on your ef mount and it doesn't work, would you complain to Canon?

I would expect it to not work, but if it caused the camera to lock up, yes, I would complain.


A third party makes a item that doesn't work with Canon, and you expect Canon to fix it??

Yes.  This is what we computer programmers refer to as "code smell".  In my nearly three decades of computer programming experience, I've found two rules to be almost invariably true:

  • A bug like this is typically caused by a division by zero error, failure to do proper bounds checking, or other extremely sloppy programming—the sort of mistake that should almost never occur in shipping code and, once discovered, should never make it into a second revision of that production code.
  • If there's sloppily written code in one part of a piece of software, there's usually sloppily written code throughout the software in question.  After all, if the QA department didn't catch such an easily reproduced bug, they probably didn't catch lots of even more serious bugs.

Quality products simply do not crash reproducibly, period.  In most software engineering organizations, a crasher-level bug that is easily reproduced would be considered a block-ship-level bug, whether the company guarantees compatibility with that other product or not.  And proper engineering organizations—even the ones that don't guarantee compatibility with other companies products—do typically test a heck of a lot of them, and also usually let third-party vendors test their gear with their code long before it ships, so that if they break something, they can fix it before customers notice.  That's just common sense based on software engineering best practices.  Any company that doesn't do those things is grossly inept, to be absolutely blunt.

Why do almost all respectable software engineering organizations do these things when they don't have to, you might ask?  Because above all other things, in the users' minds, attention to detail matters.  Users don't care whether it's the manufacturer's fault or the peripheral's fault.  They just expect their $1,600 camera to work without crashing, without breaking compatibility with other hardware in a firmware update, etc.  When that extremely basic expectation isn't met, it's the fault of everyone the customer can point his or her finger at, including the camera maker.  And when that camera maker tries to deflect blame, it just makes them look like they don't care about their customers at all, and makes those customers choose other companies' products the next time.


Nope. I'm in software engineering as well. You're not giving enough weight to the fact that Canon is a closed system - they don't license their software to third-party vendors, nor do they provide developer SDKs. That's why what Kenko does is called reverse-engineering. Canon is under no obligation to make their cameras compatible with unlicensed third party equipment. How the failure manifests itself, from reporting error messages to a complete lock-up, is completely irrelevant.

Sigma, on the other hand, does recognize that Canon is not obligated to make their products compatible with their's. That's why they created their USB dock. If Canon releases a camera body that affects the operation of their lenses, Sigma recognizes that it is up to them to make the fix to their firmware, not Canon.


13
Third Party Lenses (Sigma, Tamron, etc.) / Re: Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM
« on: December 24, 2013, 05:50:30 AM »
I guess I'll keep adding to this thread since I am the only person that has it...

Some more wide open shots:

Stickers! by Philip DiResta, on Flickr


Sticker Hand by Philip DiResta, on Flickr

Very nice photos! Nice use of DOF. Photos look sharp. Nice looking family too. Are these straight out of the camera? I've been contemplating this lens as well. Thanks!

14
Lenses / Re: Looking for a EF 135mm f2L USM...
« on: November 02, 2013, 04:02:15 PM »
Just slightly above your budget, but you can get a new one from Adorama or B&H for $889 after rebate (have to go through checkout process). B&H also has free shipping.

http://www.adorama.com/CA1352AF.html?emailprice=t&sub=cpw-13898472&utm_term=Other&utm_medium=Affiliate&utm_campaign=Other&utm_source=rflaid62259

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/112539-USA/Canon_2520A004_Telephoto_EF_135mm_f_2_0L.html?sub=cpw&sid=cpw-13898490

Good luck!

15
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF-S 55-250 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: October 24, 2013, 05:41:56 PM »
I don't know what he considers "running" - but i do alot of trail running and i don't carry anything but my camelbak and maybe some energy bars with me ;D

I do quite a bit of trail running too. While I wouldn't bring along a DSLR during a race, I'll often stuff a smaller Rebel + 18-200mm or 24mm IS into a Camelbak MULE during training runs (I hand carry my water). I just got the SL1, so looking forward to the reduced size. For longer training runs (3+ hours), I'll bring along the Powershot S100 or G15 instead.

Back on topic...  the 55-250mm wouldn't work for me since I'd miss the wider FOV, and I certainly wouldn't want to carry a second lens.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4