Messages

1

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: EOS 5D Mark III Firmware 1.2.1 Available for Download

« on: May 01, 2013, 10:30:30 AM »

Can I attach Canon 1.4x III and 2.0x III extenders to my Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II USM at the same time and still get AF at 560mm f/8, or is this crazy talk?

Also I do a lot of Live View focusing for my landscape work, and always have the focus mode in the contrast detect "Live" mode (not "Quick" or "Face" modes) and it often switches inexplicably to the "Face" mode on it's own. I don't know if they are the correct mode names as I don't have the camera in front of me.  It's a real "phenomenon" though - phenomenally annoying as it means I can't move the focus rectangle to where it needs to be! Anyone else get that?

-Gcon

Do you by chance have orientation base focus set? I don't know if/how that function might effect the live view focus mode, if at all, but it's worth considering. Another thing to consider is if you are using one of the custom modes (C1, C2, C3), it could be changing you focus mode, when you switch to or from these settings.

2

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF 400 f/4 DO IS II

« on: April 14, 2013, 09:46:01 PM »

I would be very interested if Canon made a regular 400mm f4. I would expect the price and size to be in the neighborhood of the 300mm f2.8, but probably a bit longer.

I have no interest in a a 400mm f4 DO lens. I'm not even sure that I would pay $2999 for the f4 DO, but I might be willing to pay $7000 for a regular 400mm f4.

I currently have a 200mm f2 and a 2x teleconverter, but the teleconverter degrades the image and slows focus too much for most applications (action, sports) that I would use it for. Another alternative would be the 300mm f2.8 with the 1.4x teleconverter. I expect that combination would work quite well, but I would love to have a native 400mm f4.

3

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 200 f/2L IS & EF 800 f/5.6L IS [CR2]

« on: March 13, 2013, 03:39:58 PM »

I hope the rumor is wrong on the 200mm. I've had mine for less than six months. Part of my buying decision was that it has been on the market less than five years and I expected it to remain current for several more.

I'm some what concerned about losing value, but knowing Canon the new version would cost much more, so I maybe not.

I'm most concerned about obtaining parts and service for my existing lens, once it's been discontinued. I personally would not buy a discontinued lens without a hefty discount, just for this reason.

4

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon tells me tethered shoots have to go direct to the "C" drive

« on: March 12, 2013, 06:49:22 PM »

I have run into issues, where I couldn't install Canon software to any drive other than C:. The older versions allowed you to pick the install drive, but the last time I did an install that wasn't an option. I did call Canon tech support and they confirmed at the time that the then current version didn't allow you to pick your install drive.

I never tether, so I can't comment on what choices you have, but after my last experience installing their software, nothing would surprise me.

5

Lenses / Re: EF70-200 f/2.8L IS ll refurbished @ Canon for $1699.20 & I'm screwed

« on: March 10, 2013, 01:24:57 PM »

Congrats on your purchase. I'm sure you will be happy with your decision. I have the 70-200mm f2.8L and look forward to replacing it with this lens in the not too distant future.

I would have bought one of these a few weeks back, when they were offering 20% off, had it been in stock. However, I was able to snag an 85mm f1.2L II, so now I'm a bit short on funds. Hopefully, this will go back on sale at 20% off, in a couple of months, once I have refilled my coffers.

6

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 hiccup?

« on: March 02, 2013, 05:27:33 PM »

Here are a couple of ideas:

Is it a possibility that the lock switch on the back of the camera got switched to locked? Depending on your custom settings, the lock switch can be set to disable the top wheel as well as the one on the back of the camera.

Are you using a non-Canon battery grip? I've read a number of reviews, where people have complained that their top wheel stopped working, while using a non-Canon grip and that after removing the grip, it started working again.

7

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon Center Pinch Lens Caps Now Shipping

« on: February 25, 2013, 11:10:09 PM »

Seeing these prices, just reminds me of how much Canon screws us on all of their accessories . Like others here, I replaced my caps with cheap versions off eBay, years ago. I saved enough money that I don't feel bad if I lose one and they work just fine, even on my L-Series lenses .

I can't imagine why anyone would buy the Canon caps at these prices, other than vanity.

8

Lenses / Re: Reverse teleconverter

« on: February 19, 2013, 03:22:33 PM »

Wow! I never know these existed. Assuming they had favorable optical quality, that would be fantastic.

I can see why Canon might be reluctant to make one of these. It certainly wouldn't eliminate all of the advantages of Full Frame, but it would make it a lot closer for those shooting APS-C.

Here's hoping that Metabones, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina or someone comes out with one of these for EF to EF-S, in the not too distant future.

9

Lenses / Reverse teleconverter

« on: February 19, 2013, 12:41:24 PM »

I shoot Canon, both APS-C and Full Frame and consider them complimentary to each other. The recent rumors about a possible 7D upgrade have got me wondering...

Why doesn't someone create a reverse teleconverter? Something that you can put between your Canon EF lenses and an APS-C body. It could be something like a -1.6X or whatever. Since this would squeeze all of the light from the full frame image into a space the size of an APS-C sensor, I'm assuming you would gain approximately one stop plus of light. You would also have the advantage of having the same FOV on an APS-C body as you have on a full frame body and I'm assuming the same DOF.

If someone were to build this and it actually worked as described, I can see a huge market for it.

Is something like this possible? Am I nuts (don't answer this)? What do you think?

10

Technical Support / Re: How do you store and archive your images?

« on: February 17, 2013, 11:54:44 AM »

• I start with the originals in my camera.
• I import all files to the local drive on my computer (1st copy).
• I then kick off a process that copies the files to my file server (2nd copy).
• At any time after this I will remove the images from the camera. I usually wait until just prior to my next shoot. One of the steps I go through while setting up the camera is to clear out the old images.
• Each evening my file server is automatically backed up to another drive (3rd copy).
• Once the local drive on my computer has accumulated enough to fill a blu-ray disc, I burn and verify three copies. I use at least two different brands of media and burn on at least two different burners (4th, 5th and 6th copy). I'm paying sixty to eighty cents per disc. I generally use Memorex, Ri-Data and Maxell and have had a very high success rate (95%+).
• After burning the blu-rays, the 1st copy is removed from the local drive, bringing me back down to five copies.
• Each blu-ray is stored in a different fire proof safe, one of which is off site.

I recently purchased a large safe that has both power and Ethernet inside. I'm considering moving either my file server or one of the backup drives into this safe as my computer and file server are currently vulnerable to theft, fire, flooding, etc.

Also, several of my better images are loaded at full resolution to an online site. If all of my other backups failed, I would still have access to the cream of the crop.

I don't use raid 1 (mirroring) as raid is NOT a backup strategy. Raid is a tool for reducing down time and can be very effective for this, however as others have said here, additional backups are still required. In my case raid would be an unnecessary use of resource, since should my drive fail, I could bear a couple of days of down time, while recovering from a backup.

11

Sports / Re: Best (free) website to post sports photos to?

« on: September 16, 2012, 01:32:34 PM »

What's wrong with Facebook?

I'm not a big Facebook fan, but most of the kids and their families are probably already on Facebook. You can easily setup a free public Facebook page. You can specify the URL as something like www.facebook.com/YourHighSchoolEtc. You can put your pictures in separate albums and as far as I know, there is no limit to the number of pictures.

Since most of the kids already have Facebook it's easy for them to share, comment and like your pictures.

You could also do this with Google+, but due to lack of popularity, you will probably have a smaller audience and it's less convenient for the kids.