March 02, 2015, 10:14:45 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 - avatar13

Pages: [1]
I called out of curiosity I called again and a 2nd person confirmed that the LCD protector is integrated and unlike the Mark II the protector cannot be replaced without a new unit.  However she did say a new LCD was something like $106 if I recall, i was surprised at how cheap it was.  Of course installing it may double that still $200 + change is not bad considering I was expecting a lot more. 

I went ahead and got a screen protector, if's funny I had my old 40D for years and never scratched it and so I thought I never needed a protector because the Mark III has a scratch resistant piece of glass.  I have my 5D Mark III for less than a year and have already scratched the rear and there's also a scuff on the top LCD (which can be replaced and costs like $11 for the part according to Canon, not sure how much labor would be).  I agree the prices are very reasonable, I may wait until to see if something else occurs and then may just add it in if I'm already performing other repairs.

Hello, was wondering if anyone has had experience having replaced the LCD cover on the rear LCD on a 5D Mark III?  Unfortunately mine got scratched, it's just cosmetic but when I am outdoors the scratch will catch light in certain cases so it's more annoying than anything else.  I called Canon and they could not say if it could be done, they only said I could send it in and they would provide an estimate.  I had read somewhere that the Mark III LCD and cover are actually integrated and the only way to replace it would be to exchange the LCD assembly completely.  Can anyone confirm this?

Lenses / Re: Best filter for 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM?
« on: August 13, 2012, 06:37:01 PM »
So the general consensus is B+W UV Nano > Hoya HD filter?  I have only B+W filters (mostly F-Pro MRC UV Haze) but was needing a filter for my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II as well and just haven't gotten around to getting one yet.  I am intrigued by both the XS-Pro and the HD, granted the XS-Pro is 50% more in price the 702-00mm wasn't cheap so I don't mind springing a little extra.  The thing I like about the Hoya (again I have not personally tried them) is how easy apparently they are to clean.  I find the B+W filters to streak when being wiped down and it's hard to get it all out. 

Lenses / Re: Your 70-200 f/2.8L IS II...
« on: July 31, 2012, 01:30:46 PM »

1) what you love about this lens?
AF speed and sharpness at all apertures

2) what don't you like about this lens? 
I guess the weight, it is 2x the weight of my old f/4 IS which I sold to buy this lens

3) How many times did you return it before you get the right copy (I've heard the 24-70 is known to go through many returns before photogs are happy w/theirs, so I'd like to know if this is the case for the 70-200 f/2.8 as well)?
Did not have any issues with my first and only copy

4) what price did you purchase your's for?  what's a good price to get in now as it seems prices of lenses have gone up lately?
$1974 New, December 2011, bought at Adorama.  I would say anything around 2k is excellent.

5) anything else you'd like to add...?
It's one of the best zoom lens Canon makes.  Enuff said!

Lenses / Re: New Canon 50mm Coming? [CR1]
« on: July 17, 2012, 11:35:43 AM »
I have a 50mm 1.4 and really wish it had quicker and better AF in low light and sharper wide open.  If they improve on these two factors (closer to the 1.2L optically) I could easily see them selling it for $800+.  In fact there is a huge gap in price between the 50 1.4 and the 1.2.  However seeing as this is a replacement for the 1.4 that would leave a gap on the low end.  I don't mind seeing a 50% increase in price if they deliver on features but lately Canon's new models seems to all be at a significant price increase.

I wanted to chime in with my experience.  I use the Yongnuo RF602 Receiver / RF600 TX pairs and they work just fine on my MKIII.  I used them all the time with my 40D and XSI and have never had an issue.  Just fired off several shots in a quick test setup and it fired without issue on my Mark III.  I used two triggers and two receivers: one trigger in hand, a receiver in the camera's remote N3 connector to trigger the shutter and the other trigger on the camera hot shoe and the receiver in my alien bee to trigger the strobe.

Lenses / Re: Your dream 50mm f/1.4
« on: June 14, 2012, 04:49:26 PM »
I too have been shooting a bit lately with my 50 1.4 and my new Mark III and have noticed it tends to focus hunt when lighting is not optimal.  So ideally I would like sharper center at 1.4 and faster and improved (low-light) AF.

Lenses / Re: microadjustment advise?
« on: June 13, 2012, 03:03:24 PM »
I too am curious about this FoCal software.  I looked it up and the price seems reasonable, just wondering what the differences are, I am leaning towards the Plus version however it seems that with the 5D Mark III the adjustment still must be manually set, just wondering if that means it works like it does in with FoCal standard.

EOS Bodies / Re: 4 More DSLRs Coming in 2012? [CR2]
« on: June 12, 2012, 05:07:37 PM »
A direct replacement for the 5D Mark II???  So what is the Mark III suppose to be?  The only thing I can think of is that due to the wide price gap they always intended to have two full frame 5D and they are refreshing the Mark II to have an entry in the 2K range?  So maybe the new 5D Mark II will be the entry level full frame?  Canon's road map is bewildering to say the least!   :-\

Lenses / Re: 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II chromatic aberration
« on: June 05, 2012, 03:56:23 PM »
I used B+W MRC haze filter... do you guys think that might be the problem? :/

and I always thought chromatic aberration and color fringing were the same thing? How can you tell color fringing from chromatic aberration?

My understanding is that purple fringing is a type of CA so I think in your case they are the same.  I am surprised at the amount being produced by your copy, have you had the lens for long?  I have the same lens and it's perfect, I have yet to notice it but I don't think i have photographed such extreme transitions yet between white/dark but I have photographed tree leaves and such against the sky and typically those will show CA as well.  Try again without your filter, if it's your copy you can try having Canon take a look as I'm sure it would be a warranty item or just remove in PP.

Lenses / Re: Can a UV filter affect IQ (sharpness) on a lens?
« on: June 05, 2012, 03:32:18 PM »

Is there a list anywhere for the Canon lenses that require a front filter for complete weather sealing?

EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L USM 
EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM 
EF 17-40mm f/4 L USM
EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM

Another way to look at this is those lens which are vented and can (theoretically) suck in dust.  It's probably wise to put a filter on the non WS, non L, 17-55 since it has been known to pick up dust.  (actually I don't know where the vent is on this specific lens but you get the point).

There are vents around the front element, but dust may accumulate over time even if a filter is used. If necessary, however, it is very easy to remove the front element and get rid of the dust. The entire operation takes less than five minutes.

I have a 17-55 IS and use it with a B+W MRC UV Filter which is always on.  I still tend to get dust particles inside, this lens is notorious for this.  I had it sent to Canon one time for cleaning (and to replace the IS motor, total was like $130).  There are some small dust particles again inside but it never shows up in the pictures.

Just wondering what your 5D MIII ISO was set to?  If you need smaller apertures then flash is your only way to go, you get that mixed light though due to the tungsten so you could probably gel your flash head with CTO.  How much really depends on the color of the light but you can get close enough.  Since you are in rooms you can try bouncing the light off the walls to create a bigger soft box effect rather than direct flash (point the flash head mounted on your camera backwards or to the sides for instance).  It really depends on the look you are going after if you do it this way, this will create more even flash coverage and less of the specular highlights on the components you are photographing.

Lenses / Re: EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM vs. EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
« on: June 05, 2012, 12:40:52 PM »
I too was in your boat.  I owned the 70-200mm f/4 for almost 3 years and it was a great lens.  It was tack sharp wide open and it was about 1.5lbs so it was not too bad to walk around with (I had a 40D at the time, upgraded now to 5D MIII).  I never had an issues with the lens and on my crop made for a very nice portrait lens.  I have now upgraded to the 70-200mm f/2.8 II and sold the f/4 and this is easily the best lens I own (it's ultra responsive responsive as the f/4 was and tack sharp at all apertures but it's tack sharp at 2.8 which a lot of zooms are not).  HOWEVER, it weighs twice as much and is like $1k more.  I will remove the tripod collar when I am out to reduce the weight somewhat so believe me there are times when I do miss the f/4!  But I really wanted the f/2.8 even at double the weight.  You cannot go wrong either way and the f/4 is an excellent lens.  Ideally I would have kept both!

Pages: [1]