October 31, 2014, 01:53:17 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 - LDS

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9
1
Lighting / Re: Canon 600EX-RT and Sekonic L-478DR LiteMaster Pro
« on: October 29, 2014, 02:51:56 PM »
The question I guess is how many people will use a light meter with 600-EX-RTs.
There is interested in using multiple "small" portable strobes especially on location instead of larger albeit portable units - a meter may be useful especially if it also doubles as a full remote control for flash units - you're going to use them in manual mode and be able to change settings from the meter can be really helpful.
If the number of prospect customers is large enough to justify trying to obtain a license from Canon, Nikon, etc. - which may not be free, and maybe not even available - and the R&D and manufacturing expenses of supporting many different standards is another thing.
After all PocketWizard adapters can handle Canon strobes, thereby those interested and willingly to pay for  a multiple 600EX setup should have not much issues in getting adapters also - although it results in a more complex setup and troubleshooting if something does not work as expected.

2
Lighting / Re: Canon 600EX-RT and Sekonic L-478DR LiteMaster Pro
« on: October 29, 2014, 07:51:12 AM »
The manual (available here http://www.sekonic.com/downloads/l-478_english.pdf) says it is PocketWizard compatible only - not with any other radio controls.

3
If I were a pro and it could really give an advantage over the competition for its foreseeable lifetime while it repays the expense and returns a real profit? Yes. Even at an higher price, if the profit is ok. For a pro, is a matter of ROI.

But I'm not a pro, I am not overly rich, and I have no reason to invest so much money for just a body in an already expensive hobby. So the answer is no.

It's the classic "one size DOESN'T fit all". Otherwise there won't be so many devices on the market at different price points. Not everybody wants, wish, or simpy can - afford the best of the best at a give price point.

4
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: ST-E3 and Canon A-1
« on: October 24, 2014, 04:19:44 PM »
You can use something like this:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/621573-REG/Interfit_STR115_STR115_Hot_Shoe_Adapter.html/prm/alsVwDtl

To isolate the 600EX/ST-E3 from the camera contacts (or use tape, the adapter is a somewhat safer because can't wear).

The 199A was a nice unit and powerful enough (GN 32. 100 ISO, 50mm), just the head moves only vertically, and in manual mode power can't be set. It uses battery holders which allows for quick changes of batteries (and keep spare ones together in your bag/pocket), something I miss in actual flash units.

If you wish to taste the feeling of an early 80s system and the unit works well, buy it, but it would be really useful for "quick" flash action with the A-1, otherwise your 600EX offers much more control.

You can find a lot of useful information about the A-1 and its accessories at http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/SLRs/a1/

You can find electronic copies of the manuals here: http://www.sandon.it/?q=node/55

5
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: ST-E3 and Canon A-1
« on: October 24, 2014, 11:18:14 AM »
there was not any Warning about using new Flash on old Camera┬┤s,

Just because less people are interested in it ;) Usually people are interested if they can use some of their old gear on a newer camera, and usally some kind of compatibility is provided to ease (and lure) people in upgrading.

Also, older camera have usually less sophisticated electronics (but they could be less protected also).

The T90 was the first TTL camera from Canon, and started to use the four pin flash interface still used - don't know how much the signalling is compatible with later cameras. It used A-TTL, not the E-TTL used now. Again, how much they are compatible at the signal level I do not know.

The A-1 uses an even older non-TTL interface, and has only two pins - it would be interesting to know if Canon when adding pins changed the whole interface or if they are in some ways still compatible.

Anway, I'd be careful not to brick the old camera electronics feeding the wrong signal on the wrong pins... after all the A-1 has no TTL, and all it can do is setting the aperture and sync speed - but it did the other way round, you set the aperture on the flash and it was sent to the camera, not viceversa (flashes then could usually use just a limited set of aperture values for auto operations).

6
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: ST-E3 and Canon A-1
« on: October 24, 2014, 05:56:24 AM »
Because the A-1 was among the first cameras to be able to communicate (primitive) informations from/to the flash unit (IIRC flash ready, set sync speed and get the aperture set on the flash when using compatible units like the 199A) and thereby has more contacts than the single flash trigger one, beware what signals the ST-E3 could send to the camera if mounted in the hot shoe and contacts match. Otherwise, it should be safer to connect it to the PC sync port via an adapter - then using manual mode it should work without issues.
When buying an A-1, check for the mirror foam, and the shutter "squeak" issue. They could need maintenance.

7
Software & Accessories / Re: Windows 7 install
« on: October 18, 2014, 03:17:28 PM »
The easiest way to prevent most malicious attacks is to set up a User Account without Administrator priveleges.
That works only together proper permissions on files and directories, user privileges are exactly used to check what file they can access and how. Because on any PC there are different software running with different users - besides the logged on one for example there are services running with other users, many with the highest privileged one "local system", if you have something that could be modified by unprivileged user and then run by the privileged ones, you risk big troubles. My advice is: do not try to outsmart the system. There are often good reason if it designed that way. That's why OSX and other systems looks to be more secure. Unlike Windows, users stick to the OS rules, and usually don't care where software gets installed or data is stored, they let them go where they should.

8
Software & Accessories / Re: Windows 7 install
« on: October 18, 2014, 03:09:00 PM »
Pictures">Properties>Location. If you have two Windows Explorer windows open, you can drag and drop. No need to do registry edits.

The systems will take care of that you - if you do it through a system approved way. Once those capability were in Windows Powertoys, I didn't remember 7 had it readily available - the better. There are special system programming interfaces to get those folder from software applications, thereby the system has to know where they are or you can break some software if you move them improperly.

 

9
Software & Accessories / Re: Windows 7 install
« on: October 18, 2014, 03:03:34 PM »
Not correct.
"My Pictures" *is* a folder.
[/quote]

I wrote "Pictures" not my "My Pictures" - and libraries in 7 are shown prominently in any file dialog.
Instead of moving standards folders to other destinations - which require proper knowledge to do, it's far easier to personalize libraries to your taste so you can open and save from your preferred folders.
Also, again, standard folders have usually a permission set that makes them private to the user. Other folders may be readable and writeable by everyone. If for any reason the latter behavior is not what you want, be awar of it when you use other folders.

10
Software & Accessories / Re: Windows 7 install
« on: October 18, 2014, 12:45:19 PM »
folders to transfer right over, didn't work that way and I failed at figuring out how to cleanly correct my errors.
So I started a third time correcting the My Documents trick the best I could figure though I'm still not happy with the way it plays.

Those folders are managed as "special" ones by the OS. Their position can be changed, but it needs to be done properly (it implies registry changes and so on). There are some tools that can do that. In 7, "libraries" are a much more versatile way to add different paths to those folders.
Music, Pictures, etc. are not true folder but "libraries" instead. Right click them, select Properties, and you will see which folders are in the library. You can add and remove the one you like.

11
Software & Accessories / Re: Windows 7 install
« on: October 18, 2014, 12:38:04 PM »
I have, in the past, used a Program Files installation location on other than the C:\ drive, seemed a clever thing at the time, long term there's no advantage I can see.
I now leave Program Files right in the root of C:\, exactly where Widows wants them.

Beware of permissions. <program files> folders have permissions where executables cannot be modified but by privileged users. That means some "malicious" application running without those privileges can't modify them. If you put executables in folder where everybody can write, someone or something with low privileges can change them, and wait for someone with high privileges run them. At that point, the whole system is compromised. If you care about your PC and data, be careful about that. You can install elsewhere, but the setup or you must be careful about setting the proper privileges. And that's also the reason why always running with user with high privileges is dangerous.

12
Software & Accessories / Re: Windows 7 install
« on: October 18, 2014, 12:30:34 PM »
Can anyone give me an idea how long it will take to do a 'clean' install of Windows 7 ???  It will be installed on a

It will depend mostly on your disk(s) speed and internet connection, nor much on CPU or RAM. I may suggest you to download and install SP1 and IE11 separately, and install them manually (you may need to perform a first round of patches before SP1 installs). It will avoid installing a lot of updates for Windows without them, and then install them and patch them again-
A "slipstream" setup would take less time, but you need to prepare it in advance,

13
You'd have to lay out some money but have you considered virtualization?   A virtualization environment is one

Virtualization is the last thing you should consider when image quality is your aim. Virtualization usually menas your expensive video card(s) are not used directly by the best OS driver written by the video card maker, but trough some software layer. It could also impact monitor calibration, etc.

For imaging, forget virtualization and use your main OS - but for running non imaging software which for any reason can't be run on the main OS.

14
The newer version of DPP does not support my operating system.  I run Vista 64.  Updating my operating

So it's ok upgrading the camera even if you already have two very good ones - but not upgrading a an old OS (released in 2007), the only one unanimously regarded worse than Windows 8?

From a developer perspective, there are many new features which became available only from 7 onwards (i.e. better support for high DPI displays, color management). while Vista market share is only around 3%, making the effort to support it not so appealing.

If your software runs on Vista 64, it will run on 8 and 7 as well (you can downgrade your OS but with some OEM licenses). LR is still available as a standalone product outside CC. Scroll to the end of the page, and you'll find a link to buy LIghtroom 5 standalone. It won't run on Vista too, anyway.

Today the digital workflow is not the camera only - software plays its role as well. Complaining because we can't use the latest camera on outdated OS looks a bit unfair to me. I understand we all prefer to spend money on the toys we like most and not on something we may regard as "not so imporant", but sometimes we need to accept realilty.

15
That's partly my point.  We don't need "cameras" as we currently tend to think of them.  Imaging systems are have been integrated into something broader than traditional photography approaches.

That's just for the "instant consumer" market - photos destinated to endure time, to be taken in difficult conditions,  still need dedicated tools designed from scratch for taking photos wherever you need, not a "jack-of-all-trades-and-master-of-none" device designed to be replaced by the next model next year. That doesn't mean that cameras should not integrate new features to be better "connected" or the like, but really, the last thing I want is a camera that is doing other tasks in background (and maybe rings while I'm taking a photo...) instead of being wholly dedicated to the image taking process.

There's a misconception today that "electronics can perform magic and sobsitute everything else". It is not true, although some clever tricks may pretend it.
One of the reason someone wants you to believe it, is that electronics is often far cheaper to design and build than optical and mechanical devices. If you can build a far cheaper device, and still sell it at the same price of previous ones, your revenues increase a lot. Also, tightly integrated fully electronic devices are rarely serviceable, or too expensive to service. And what most companies like is selling new devices over and over to the same customer.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9