March 03, 2015, 03:21:32 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 - Jim O

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12
It's finally out (!!!)

One seller has it on amazon for 156usd, free shipping.
Various sellers on ebay also have it for as little as 139, free shipping.
Curiously, YongNuo's official ebay store ( does not sell it yet.
Unfortunately, all of them have ass-slow shipping from China.  Delivery estimates to USA I'm seeing are consistently ~2-4 weeks (late Dec - Early Jan ETA).

buying now..

I already ordered mine, $137.23 with free delivery from here using this discount code "YNE3RT" taken from Yongnuo's Facebook page, here

I am interested in the pre 2012 body Gr mode, if it works, and Yongnuo told me it did, I will be very happy.

nice, man.
they offer express shipping, too.
comes to about $160 for supposedly 3-5day shipping to USA.

Cool. Express Mail International is that fast. I have received items from China in three days via that method.

I ordered mine from an eBay seller for $145.99. It's already en route but coming by slow boat.

The $145.99 price was offset by "triple eBay bucks" that day amounting to $8.76 so a net cost of $137.23 shipped, assuming I use my eBay bucks.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Yongnuo YN-E3-RT Officially Released
« on: December 12, 2013, 12:31:33 AM »
The YN-E3-RT is already available on eBay and Amazon. The eBay sellers are in Hong Kong and China. It's going for under $150 in several listings at eBay. It's a bit more at Amazon ($155.99), but only available from one marketplace seller. Not sure where they are located but their estimated delivery time is 17-28 days so likely in east Asia as well. With the ST-E3-RT running in the $280's presently it's just over half the price, and has focus assist which may come in handy on occasion.

You're talking to someone who has no biological children, yet deals with many women and takes care of their children as his own.

Many? Wow, what a magnanimous guy you are!

How many times have you held them while they puked at three in the morning? How many have you held while they cried after some boyfriend or girlfriend broke their heart? How many have you taught to throw a curveball and been out there beyond dark doing it? How many have you driven five hours each way to get when they're sick at college? How many have you spent your hard earned cash on for cars (and insurance) and college tuition and scouting and dance and gymnastics and team sports and trips abroad? How many times have you changed an infant and brought him or her to his or her mother to breast feed? How many two year olds have you held while they had a temp of 105º and were having a spinal tap (and were you also crying?)? How many of your sons and daughters have you had "the talk" with? How many have you taken to get birth control? How many soccer and baseball and lacrosse games have you attended when it's cold (and/or raining) outside? How many dance recitals have you been to and sat through two hours of crap waiting for your daughter's five minute performance? How many late nights have you waited until the last one came in before you finally got some rest? How many times have you bitten your tongue and NOT said "I told you so" even though it might feel so satisfying to do just that at the moment? These are but a few of my parenting experiences.

You and Mr. Walnut can speak in platitudes about what you believe parenting to be. In parenting "love" is spelled "T-I-M-E". It's being there. You teach them by modeling the behaviors you wish for them to emulate. That's how they learn. Talking the talk means zilch. It's all about walking the walk. And then you hope that they've taken in at least some of it, and that their mistakes will not be huge and that they will indeed learn something so as not to repeat them.

As I said, you have no standing to talk about parenting, your "takes care of their children as his own" notwithstanding. You have ZERO clue how you would take care of your own. You do not and can not understand that. The more you say it, the more ludicrous it sounds.

Anyway, my turkey is stuffed and in the roaster and my home made gravy is simmering. I'm going to enjoy Thanksgiving with my children, two of whom came from different states not because they had to be here but because they wanted to be here and enjoy the meal that Dad has been making since my oldest was about two. Terrible parenting, I know.

The truth is she wouldn't be able feed her child with pride.

This is a horrific reflection on your parenting.  There are many ways to earn a living and feed your kids. Becoming a prostitute, bartering sex for success needn't be one of them.  Any daughter I have will value herself more.

A hypothetical properly raised daughter would have left the hypothetical room at the first hypothetical hint of anything untoward.

You are looking increasingly nutty and increasingly isolated.


Don't think 'Oh my career' or 'How shall I feed my kids' and tolerate it.

Yet, I would be the bad parent, for teaching my kids morals, self respect?
You hit it right on the head, sir!

Said by two non-parents with no clear sense of reality.

I'll take my PROVEN parenting skills over either of your "if" parenting skills any day. My three adult children have in fact been taught better. But several things you'll learn should you ever be privileged enough to have one or more:

  • You can't be there all the time.
  • Kids make bad choices. The ones who have been well parented make fewer of them and learn from them.
  • Virtually all children, especially adolescents and young adults, go through a period where anything a parent recommends is highly likely to have the opposite of the desired effect.

Now some things about every decent parent:

  • They love their kids unconditionally. This is a type of love that people who do not have kids might think that they understand. They do not even if they think that they do. Think back to this when you are holding your first child in the delivery room and you will admit I was right about it.
  • A good parent will do anything to provide food, shelter, and safety for his or her child. That means anything. You cannot understand this. Why? See the comment directly above this. I would kill for any of my children without hesitation or guilt.

Once again, I will state it:

One cannot feed his or her child with pride. Perhaps one of you non-parents would argue this but it is the case. Had I had to prostitute myself in order to feed and clothe and shelter them I would have done it gladly and without second thought. Happily for me, that never happened. For some there are few if any options. Go ahead and tell me that loving my children unconditionally makes me "nutty".

Anytime either of you ignoramuses want to compare parenting skills and experience, have three children and a combined nearly 70 years of parenting and you'll have some standing. Right now neither of you do. For the record, two of my children have college degrees and one is still an undergraduate. One is about to finish a masters in public health and then go to Senegal in the Peace Corps for two years. She plans a career in public health in HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment in the third world. What a terrible kid, huh? One is a highly successful computer engineer who could probably buy and sell either (perhaps both) of you for lunch. He lives in one of the most expensive zip codes in Manhattan and he's completely self made. He hasn't needed to ask for a penny since he finished college. Also a terrible kid I guess, and highly reflective of my terribly "nutty" parenting skills. None have an alcohol or drug problem. None have ever been arrested. There have been no unplanned pregnancies. Oh, and yes, I would know.

If I ever were to have a daughter ...
I'm glad that you don't. I'm guessing that you have no children, and if so, that's probably for the best.

Women and girls are put in this position way too often and always have been.

Saying you would "teach her [better]" may not be enough. The truth is she wouldn't be able feed her child with pride.

Quote from: AAPhotog
He doesn't say, "give me sex or you're fired"

You know this for a fact, or are you ASSuming this is the case?

BTW, didn't you say you were done with this thread many entries ago?  :-X

I think I understand both sides of this situation. Here's how I see it:

This guy is a well known sleaze. It's like the dog who bites metaphor above. If you go to "Uncle Terry" as an unknown aspiring model, and want him to shoot your modeling portfolio, you should know what he is and should not be surprised when the treats you like a whore. His reputation precedes him. Sorry, but it's the truth. You should go elsewhere.

On the other hand, if it's a paid job, and he has "creative control" and can hire whomever he chooses, and he insists on a pound of flesh, so to speak, or else you won't get the job, then that is coercion. It's unprofessional and likely also illegal in many countries.

Lenses / Re: Ken Rockwell reviews canon 50mm f/1.0
« on: November 22, 2013, 03:50:15 PM »
BTW, for any of you who criticize him (and I often find myself in that group), his site has an Alexa ranking in the top 5000 for US and top 8000 globally. He could choose to monetize that with Google ads (and make A LOT of money), but he doesn't. Yes, he posts affiliate links and solicits contributions, but no one is forced to give a donation or click on a link. Just saying...

Probably because he already lives so well off it as is, why toss in ads and risk killing the golden goose. I don't know if it is true, but he claims to not need to work because of his website and yet he lives in a big house in one of the fanciest and most expensive towns in the entire nation and has many kids so his website must be doing more than fine just with the links and donations (assuming he is not just joking around with his claims about not needing to work because of the website).

So I guess he is a genius in a way.

I think he says his wife works, and while I haven't seen all of his family photos, I've only ever seen two children.

He also does, or assists at, workshops. He is an inventor who holds at least one patent, probably more.

He sold a condo in San Diego which he bought for nothing. If you know anything about California real estate, even after the bubble burst it was worth a lot. So moving to a nice area on Long Island may not have been as huge a stretch as one might think. I have a pharmacist and a school teacher across the street from me in a 5500 square foot house plus a detached garage with living space above. They did it in a similar fashion. They certainly could not afford a seven figure home on what pharmacists and school teachers make here (combined under $150K).

I don't think "tossing in ads" will reduce traffic, especially only one or two per page. Look at this site's Alexa ranking and it's mostly just a bunch of people throwing out uninformed/nonsensical opinions, whines, and complaints, with the occasional review and excellent observation tossed in, and lots of ads inserted into every discussion. It's also relatively young compared to other sites, the domain name was registered on February 1, 2007. Look at's Alexa ranking and it's loaded with ads, perhaps including an occasional super-annoying pop up. And the pièce de résistance is's Alexa rank, and it is also ad heavy. I'm fairly certain KR's site would make a ton more money with just Google ads, unless he's making a super commission on his affiliate links and believes that content relevant ads would siphon that away (though he could always block Google ads from places where he is an affiliate - content publishers have that right).

Of course if you believe Alexa, there are a lot of school kids on this site at least as compared to others. Somehow I am not surprised...

Like KR or not, any webmaster would be happy to have created a personal site that's in the top 10K worldwide, and, I would wager, most are drawing more revenue than

Can you point me to this statement on Adobe's site?  I read the FAQ and terms but couldn't find it.  That would influence my decision, assuming my current LR3/CS5.5 cannot be installed on two computers (I've never tried - can they?).

If you bought your LR3 / CS 5.5 new, you should be able to install them on up to 3 computers.

I don't know if this is fact but I'll take your word for it. In the past Adobe only allowed installation on one OS. They now allow installation on two computers: two Macs, two Windoze machines, or one of each. Adobe did not in past allow you to use the same license on two OS's. Of course Microsoft still doesn't, neither does Intuit.

In the past Adobe allowed you to switch a current version (or a version just prior to the current one) from one OS to another for free. You needed to deactivate your license and so on, but it did work for people who changed systems. Name me another software vendor who has done this on a $1000+ piece of software.

CS6 Production Pro Suite, and LR5 stand alone still doing just fine with me.

I'm not yet at the point where I could bring myself to rent my software, and have my files held ransom by some corporation if I were for any reason to stop paying them.

Still playing that one stringed banjo I see. DNG and TIFF are open standards and any PSD can be converted to either by your current "owned" (permanently leased) software.

I'll say it again. Maybe this time you'll pay attention. Your indignation would seem a lot more righteous if it weren't covered in crap.

Lenses / Re: Ken Rockwell reviews canon 50mm f/1.0
« on: November 22, 2013, 10:24:54 AM »
BTW, for any of you who criticize him (and I often find myself in that group), his site has an Alexa ranking in the top 5000 for US and top 8000 globally.

Nobody ever criticized him for not being able to attract traffic to his site.

You (conveniently) took part of my post out of context. If you care to comment, please do so about the point I made (I'll make it easy for you - they're the two sentences that follow the one you decided to quote, especially the first one), not the supporting data.

Then consider how other photo sites, like this one, are totally monetized and use affiliate links as well.

Lenses / Re: Ken Rockwell reviews canon 50mm f/1.0
« on: November 22, 2013, 10:02:26 AM »
I don't know, I saw those comments about perfect focus and figured the whole thing was a joke.

From his site:

I occasionally weave fiction and satire into my stories to keep them interesting. I love a good hoax. Read The Museum of Hoaxes, or see their site. A hoax, like some of the things I do on this website, is done as a goof simply for the heck of it by overactive minds as a practical joke. Even Ansel Adams kidded around when he was just a pup in the 1920s by selling his photos as "Parmelian Prints." I have the energy and sense of humor of a three-year old, so remember, this is a personal website, and never presented as fact. I enjoy making things up for fun, as does The Onion, and I publish them here — even on this page.

BTW, for any of you who criticize him (and I often find myself in that group), his site has an Alexa ranking in the top 5000 for US and top 8000 globally. He could choose to monetize that with Google ads (and make A LOT of money), but he doesn't. Yes, he posts affiliate links and solicits contributions, but no one is forced to give a donation or click on a link. Just saying...

EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]
« on: November 20, 2013, 06:15:54 PM »
This is a good example of why we should be oh so concerned about sales figures.  Canon has been behind in low ISO dynamic range throughout their sensor lineup for a few years now, and it hasn't hurt their dSLR sales. 

If the roof on your house looks to be in excellent shape and doesn't leak, would you replace it?  Unlikely…if it ain't broke, don't fix it.  From Canon's perspective, their sensors 'ain't broke'.

I'm from Canada, and even though hockey isn't a favourite of mine I'll use a fact from that world: The Toronto Maple Leafs haven't won a Stanley Cup since 1967. They rarely get into the playoffs. They generally play decent to poorly. (I'm generalizing here, but on average, they are not that great a team).

Some would say, with this data, that the team needs a major overhaul. That alot of money should be spent on improving performance with the aim of bringing the cup back to Toronto.

But then you consider attendance: Leaf games are pretty much ALWAYS sold out. The moment tickets are available they are scooped up and the only tickets left are standing room. Add to this: Leaf tickets are among the most expensive tickets in the whole league.

So, what does this tell us? That despite piss poor performance, they are making a crap load of money. If tickets to their games are really expensive, and yet every game is sold out within minutes of going on sale, where does that leave things?

From their end, what is the motivation to improve? The team is making tons of money. Why should they spend more money to improve if it won't make them more money?

Canon is in a similar position IMHO. Their products mostly rule the market. Their products aren't bad, but they aren't leading edge, yet, they still make a ton of money.

Yes, if they went crazy with the spending and made every facet of their products better then anyone else they'd likely sell more. But if you add up the cost of doing that vs. the additional revenue do you think they'd be ahead?

Canon has a ton of really smart people, and that includes the money side. I GUARANTEE you that the money people have told the big wigs that it's not worth it. Why improve a product beyond the point where it'll make you more money?

Canon as a company isn't stupid. They've for the moment nailed the DSLR game perfectly. They introduce marginal improvements which are minimal in cost to them, just to keep going enough to fuel sales. They have the freedom to focus on areas that traditional DSLR users don't care too much about (live view focusing).

Personally I'm very happy with my Canon gear. While on paper the competition is "better", my personal experience is that it isn't better "enough" to warrant a switch. That's what Canon relies on. That's what Canon is successful with.

The market can change quickly, who's to say if this tactic will continue working much longer. I guess we'll see.


I could make a joke about the people of Toronto and the fact that they still support their drunkard, drug addled mayor, but I won't.  8)

To compare cameras that are marketed worldwide to teams whose fan base is mostly local is not exactly "apples to apples". Team rooting and loyalty are emotional and often location based. While camera "brand loyalty" is also partially emotional for many people, give me a tool that's twice as good at half the price and my head trumps my heart every time. It doesn't even need to be that dramatic a difference.

On the other hand, if Toronto area residents want to see live NHL hockey in person, they can see the Leafs or they can travel a long distance. I don't know the details of who actually are the season ticket subscribers, but many may be corporately owned, and those subscribers don't care. They just want to grease their customers with tickets when they're in town.

For years, the NY (Football) Giants absolutely sucked. They had only two winning seasons from 1964 to 1978, which corresponded to much of my childhood in NYC.  Despite that, they were also sold out every game (even when they played in New Haven, Connecticut) and had a decades long waiting list for season tickets. Giants season tickets were often the subject of litigation in divorces and estates. This was all despite the fact that there was another NFL team in town (the NY Jets) who won a Super Bowl in that period and were competitive during other parts of it. Yet Jets season tickets could, at that time, be bought at any time. Of course now you can't get tickets for either team, but that's another story.

I can buy a Nikon or a Canon product from Amazon and have it delivered next day for $3.99 or two day for free with Amazon Prime.

Changing camera lines is a lot easier than changing season tickets for the Boston Bruins into season tickets for the Leafs, or vice versa.

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Tripod heads?
« on: November 14, 2013, 11:36:13 AM »
I was looking at the RRS BH-55 for the longest time, but it's pretty expensive...

Yes, it is. With RRS, you get what you pay for with perhaps a 10-20% premium. But their customer service and quality control is second to none.

The BH-55 is rated at 50 lb. I think RRS tends to be conservative in their ratings, and that head can perhaps support much more (DISCLAIMER: I am NOT advocating going above the manufacturer's rating). Do you need that much?

Having said that, there are less expensive options that may be much more than "good enough" for your purposes. The Sirui K-30x can be had for a bit less than a third of the price and is well reviewed.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Japan Teases a White Kiss
« on: November 14, 2013, 11:09:37 AM »
Silly and immature I can agree. However, he's made the statement twice, so it hardly counts as "heat of the moment", at least not the second time (once I could agree). One of the problems with the internet is that people say and "do" things they would never say or do in the "real world". Yet here he is complaining about "assorted canon fanboys on this forum" and behaving (at least) equally badly as those he trashes. People should be responsible for their words, own them, and defend them. If they can't, they should retract them. That goes for this poster and others, including those who hide behind a wink emoticon ( ;) ) when insulting others.

"Silly and immature" ... now who is insulting others?

No need to get all riled up. Calling fanboys and paid lobbyists what they are is no insult in my book.
Since I did not and will not name specific members, I certainly have not insulted any member here. If you ARE a paid lobbyist, then you should not feel insulted, but possibly ashamed if you consider this occupation to be a shameful one. If you are no paid lobbyist, well then we you were not meant, but you might want to ask yourself whether you qualify as an - unpaid - fanboy. Actually, I'd consider the latter to be somewhat less smart than being paid to sing Canon's praise. 

As I said, it is easy to spot and smell both types. In any thread they will inevitably praise or defend Canon, no matter what "silly and immature" products they just may have launched. Things like white/colored versions of low-specced products. Who would really want a black or white SL-1 complete with slapping mirror and a sorry tiny, "tunnel-vision" pentamirror viewfinder and only one dial for settings, when Canon could also offer us a really good and even smaller EOS-M2 with a decent EVF and AF-performance matching the SL-1 ... at a similar price of course, since it is cheaper to produce a mirrorless camera than a DSLR. Especially the SL-1, which is pitched directly at "compact-camera upgraders" who are not likely to already have an extensive collection of EF/L/ or EF-S glass? They'd be happy to start with even smaller EF-M lenses. If Canon were to sell them all, where the buyers live. But I am sure some of you will be happy to defend these Canon business practices as "truly brilliant".

I will continue to bash Canon as long as they launch silly, immature and meaningless products and try to cheat their customers for their money with them, instead of devoting their resources to develop and manufacture products that truly help us to take (technically) better pictures and/or to get the pictures we want more easily and with a higher success rate.

First, show me where I have "[sung] Canon's praise". If by claiming that DR is not the be all and end all of photography, perhaps I have. I also pointed out that I used color reversal film (probably before you were conceived) and DR was extremely limited. I have great shots from my honeymoon in Ireland from 1993 with such limited DR. If, in saying that I don't feel horribly limited by current sensors (I'd like more DR but do not need more DR - I'd also like more resolution but do not need it) I am a "fanboy" I'll wear that badge with pride. Of course that would be your opinion, and you know what they say about opinions: "opinions are like assholes, everybody has one".

So now you not only dish out baseless accusations, but you evidently do not read well. I stated clearly that I am NOT a "paid lobbyist" so your "if [I am] ..." accuses me of perhaps lying. You state that "paid lobbyists" exist as fact, but refuse to name names or provide any verifiable proof. When pressed, you say you can, among other things, "smell both types". Does your computer or tablet or phone come with the ability to discern and then the emanate odors of those who post? If so, that's something I'd like to get, and feel Apple has really let me down with my current 2013 MBP.

As for "silly and immature" - I was merely quoting someone else's take of your posts. But again, you didn't read it, did you?

As for remedial reading, I suggest starting with McGuffey's Primer. It might help. Oh yes, *that* may be a bit of an insult. Perhaps I should leave a ;) so as not to offend.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Japan Teases a White Kiss
« on: November 13, 2013, 11:14:11 AM »
Let him be ... I think he just got carried away in the "heat of the moment" ... a little over excited I guess or maybe he just hates white ;D ... its pretty obvious that he's got nothing other than some silly and immature accusations and didn't expect people to call his bluff.

Silly and immature I can agree. However, he's made the statement twice, so it hardly counts as "heat of the moment", at least not the second time (once I could agree). One of the problems with the internet is that people say and "do" things they would never say or do in the "real world". Yet here he is complaining about "assorted canon fanboys on this forum" and behaving (at least) equally badly as those he trashes. People should be responsible for their words, own them, and defend them. If they can't, they should retract them. That goes for this poster and others, including those who hide behind a wink emoticon ( ;) ) when insulting others.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12