March 04, 2015, 11:58:29 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 - eos650

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
EOS Bodies / Re: Petapixel: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless
« on: December 04, 2014, 02:34:26 AM »
That is an EXTREME case. May I ask how many of you have put the EOS-M with 22mm lens in your own pocket or your wife's purse? That is what the EOS-M is for. If it is done right, we can still put a FF mirrorless with a 35mm lens in the wind breaker jacket easily.

My point being that there is a place for both large and small cameras. At some point, somewhere down the road I think it's likely that all cameras will be mirror-less, but just because you can make them smaller, doesn't mean there won't be a market for larger cameras as well.

EOS Bodies / Re: Petapixel: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless
« on: December 04, 2014, 12:25:39 AM »
Small is not always desired...

EF 400mm f2.8L IS II
EF 2.0X II Extender
Voltrox EF to M Adapter

EOS Bodies / Re: Petapixel: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless
« on: December 03, 2014, 04:53:27 PM »
I can see lots of advantages of a Full Frame mirror-less. The downside being current EVF technology and focus speed. The upsides are many. Less mechanical parts to wear out and/or splatter grease and specs all over the insides of your camera; Less noise (audible not image); potentially faster frame rates for high-speed shooting; less camera shake and no need to use mirror lock-up; potential to use EF-S lenses in crop mode on a full frame body; no need for micro focus adjustments; no physical focus screen would be needed, but potentially different focus screens could be superimposed in the EVF, based on your needs. I'm sure there are many more potential benefits.

Take this a step further and look at the potential of an electronic shutter and suddenly you have eliminated virtually all noise the camera makes and most mechanical components that can fail, other than some buttons and doors, etc.

A small mirror-less full frame would appeal in certain circumstances, but not in all. I can't imagine trying to use a small camera on a big white. For kicks I put my wife's EOS-M on my 400mm f2.8L. It looked really silly, but most importantly it was unbalanced and would have been extremely difficult to shoot with. I personally would be interested in a standard sized full frame mirror-less when using larger lenses, if they could solve the EVF and focus speed issues, but would find a smaller one appealing, when using a small lens and wanting to travel light. They would certainly have different uses.

Photography Technique / Re: Back-button focus?
« on: August 29, 2014, 04:27:51 PM »
I prefer the opposite. I used BBF on all of my bodies for over a year and I shoot daily.

Although I like the ability to disconnect focus from the shutter button, traditional BBF was not for me. I didn't like the fact that I was constantly having to do two things (hold the BBF button and squeeze the shutter button). In my case I found squeezing both sides of the camera, made it harder for me to hold steady. It also caused more fatigue while shooting sports in AI Servo for hours on end and tied up my thumb.

Instead, I leave focus attached to the shutter button, but program the BBF button to disable focus, when pressed. This works much better for me. It allows me to concentrate on the shutter button most of the time. In the situations where an object passes between me and my subject or in cases where I simple want to lock focus, I then push the BBF button. I don't have to hold the button constantly while shooting. I only hold it, when I want to to disable focus, which is a far smaller amount of time.

EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 04:34:00 PM »
Doesn't the 6D match or exceed the 5D Mark II's specifications in every way except for resolution (and only slightly lower in resolution)?  It has much lower noise at high ISO, faster FPS, more autofocus points, many more features....

No. The 6D does exceed the 5D Mark II's in many most ways, but you are overlooking several that still favor the 5D Mark II. In addition to the higher resolution that you already mentioned, here are some others that come to mind:

  • Flash Sync: 6D 180th, 5D II 200th
  • Max Shutter:  6D 1/4000, 5D II 1/8000
  • Shutter rating: 6D 100,000, 5D II 150,000
  • Auto LCD Brightness: 6D No, 5D II Yes
  • Viewfinder: 6D 97%, 5D II 98%
  • Sync-cable connection: 6D No, 5D II Yes
  • Memory Cards: 6D SD, 5D II Compact Flash
  • Custom shooting modes: 6D Two, 5D II Three
  • Separate Joystick Controller: 6D No, 5D II Yes

They are both excellent cameras and seem to fit the same market. I personally would lean toward the 6D, but would be happy with either, if I didn't need to shoot action.

Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Photos used without permission
« on: August 06, 2014, 04:02:59 PM »
Thanks! I'm not really the sue type but would do it if pushed. I think that should usually be the last resort.

FYI: The company in question is not a charitable organization. They are a multi-state corporation. Although the result was a fundraiser, the true intent was advertising for the company. It's one of those deals that if you buy their ticket and sign up for their services, you will receive X dollars worth of goods and they will donate Y dollars to the school.

Business of Photography/Videography / Photos used without permission
« on: August 06, 2014, 01:47:16 PM »
It's recently come to my attention that a business in my area has taken one of my photos from an editorial piece, printed an unknown number of tickets with my photo and is selling them for a fundraiser. This was done without my knowledge and/or consent.

This is a photo I took, not a photo of me. :) I do not have releases from the individuals in the photos. I have no idea if the business got them, but I sincerely doubt they did.

I don't have a lot of money to hire an attorney, but on the other hand I don't want to let the business get away with this.

I would like to be compensated for the use of my photo but at minimum would like them to stop this practice.

If anyone here can provide advice or links to articles on how I should proceed, I would appreciate it.


I bought a slide duplicator that mounts on my camera, using a t-mount. The item I bought was similar to this, but not exactly the same:

Here are some pros and cons...
  • Pros
    • Fast - Make a copy as fast as you can insert the slide/negative and take a picture. My scanner takes a minute plus to scan a hi-res image.
    • Hi-Res - My DSLR makes a much higher resolution copy than my scanner
    • Better Color - My DSLR gives better color than my scanner (for slides). I haven't been able to perfect the color profile for negatives, but I am working on it.
  • Cons
    • Have to load one at a time. I can load twelve slides/negatives at a time in my scanner
    • I don't have a good color profile for negatives. I get good results, but not great, due to the fact that I have been unable to dial in a good profile for correcting the negatives. The scanner has a built in profile for handling the orange background on negatives.
    • Works well with mounted slides, but my negatives are in strips. I had to modify a film strip holder so that I could properly hold my negatives in place.

I have a bunch of old 35mm negs that I need scanned. About 20 rolls of 36 exp, cut negs.

I priced it out and it'd be about 500-700 to get it scanned locally.

Since I have the time and good equipment I thought I might try this myself?

If I did it the cheap way, I'd use my 5dII, 35mm f/2, 25mm extension tube - that would give me almost 1:1 magnification. Negs on a lightbox, make sure my planes are all parallel, kill all ambient light, shoot at about f/8 with mirror lockup, either live view or shoot tethered to fine tune focus.

Or, a speedlite instead of the lightbox? Would that yield significantly better results? Or if I wanted to sink more money into the project, I could buy a 100mm macro instead of the same money going to a scanning place.  ;D

Software & Accessories / Re: Rain protection for 5D3 and lens
« on: July 14, 2014, 03:46:44 PM »
I know it's a bit off topic, but I also used one of the inexpensive rain bags for shooting a "Color Festival". That damned chalk/corn starch, get's into everything.

I will admit however that I left my better equipment at home. I shot with one of my backup cameras and a decent, but older lens that I felt I could risk.

I put a UV filter on the front of the lens, installed the bag around the eye piece. I taped the bag to my lens hood and sealed the other end. I also made sure I went in with a fully charged battery, because I didn't want to risk a change.

If you have ever been to one of the color festivals, you would know that a guy with a camera quickly becomes a target.

Other than a bit of chalk on the filter and exposed parts of the hood, everything came out clean.

Software & Accessories / Re: Rain protection for 5D3 and lens
« on: July 14, 2014, 12:36:16 PM »
Like a camera, the best rain bag is the one that you have with you when you need it.

I always keep a couple of these in my bag. They are inexpensive and don't take up hardly any space. Sure, they are not the best, and are essentially disposable,  but they work well in a pinch. They come two to a pack.

I have a couple of nice rain bags, but they rarely get used. I don't normally carry them with me, due to the bulk, unless I am expecting trouble.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 1.4x II vs EF 1.4x III
« on: July 14, 2014, 11:51:30 AM »
I plan to pick up a 1.4x III. I expect it will be as good or better that than the 1.4x II. If not, I'll return or sell it:)

Thanks everyone for you input.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Repair on 5D3 problems
« on: July 14, 2014, 12:06:07 AM »
I sold my 5D II over a year ago, so I can't remember all of the specifics, but as far as the beep and lighting up, is the camera by chance in "AI Servo" or "AI Focus" mode?

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D2 Won't Turn On
« on: July 14, 2014, 12:01:31 AM »
There is a switch in the battery compartment that shuts the camera off, when you open the battery door. I know it's a long shot, but see if you can find that switch and activate and/or deactivate it with something. It might be jammed.

My wife dropped her PowerShot and had a similar issue. It would no longer power on, so she bought a new one. A few months later, when I had some time to play around, I got a tooth pick and used it to probe the battery door switch. It had somehow gotten jammed. The toothpick freed the switch and the camera sprung to life. It is still working today.

Like I say, it's a long shot, but it's worth a try. I could certainly see something similar happening based on the description of your issue.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 1.4x II vs EF 1.4x III
« on: July 13, 2014, 12:53:58 AM »
I plan to use the teleconverter on a 400mm f2.8L IS II and 1DX, 5DIII, etc.

I shoot a lot of sports, so fast and accurate focus is important. You don't often get a second chance. The speed and accuracy is supposed to favor the 1.4x III. I've seen the claims that it's faster, but no numbers to back them up and the 1.4x II works quite well.

For this particular application I am not too concerned about the corners. Sharper corners is better, but not a priority.

To my eyes, looking at the center and mid-frame, this comparison on tdp favors the 1.4x II, but they are close. Unfortunately, they don't have a comparison, using the 400mm. I guess it could be my eyes, or maybe tdp the setup needed a bit of AFMA. That's why I am hoping to find more examples.

$200 is not a lot of money in a relative sense and I'll probably bite on the 1.4x III, but am just trying to make an informed decision, before I commit.

Lenses / Canon EF 1.4x II vs EF 1.4x III
« on: July 12, 2014, 09:09:04 PM »
Can anyone here provide photographic comparisons between the Canon EF 1.4x II and EF 1.4x III that actually show the EF 1.4x III is really as sharp or possibly better that the EF 1.4x II?

I see all sorts of claims that say the 1.4x III is slightly sharper and has higher contrast, but I have yet to see a photographic comparison that actually proves that.

I looked at the comparisons between these two teleconverters on the digital picture for both the 200mm f2 and the 70-200 f2.8 IS II at 200mm. In both cases I believe the 1.4x II is actually sharper and higher contrast, regardless of the conclusions they drew.

I already have a 1.4x II but am considering a second 1.4x teleconverter, since I frequently carry two or three bodies. I was leaning to the 1.4x III, but I have yet to see any comparison or claims from Canon that would convince me to spend the extra money.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5