April 16, 2014, 09:40:48 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 - J.R.

Pages: 1 ... 73 74 [75] 76 77 ... 95
1111
Software & Accessories / Re: Which wireless radio control for the 5D3?
« on: March 07, 2013, 10:12:29 AM »
Thanks digital.paradise

I was actually looking only for a remote that could simply trip the shutter but will keep your advice in mind as my speedlites increase in number.


Thanks ncsa!

Camranger looks interesting. It'd be great to complete live view on the iPad / iPhone. Pity they don't ship it to India. I tried a search and it looks like a similar product is available for preorder at BH photo-

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/916082-REG/sanho_sahdcm_cameramator_wireless_tethered_dslr.html

How do the specs compare to the Camranger? Also, will the camera LV also be active while using Camranger?


Thanks Neuro!

I will buy the Giga Pro II. It's got a pretty good reach of 100m and will meet my requirements nicely.


Thanks Stoneysnapper!

Do you lose the settings if the trigger turns off? If not, I probably could live with it the same way my phone locks up after every 5mins  ;)

1112
STAY AWAY FROM DELL.

Worst Monitors I have owned.  I am going on my 4th monitor in 5 months because of dead/dying pixels and other issues. 

Specs are nice - but product is crap.  Your luck may vary, but I don't even bother putting the box in the attic any more... I just leave it right besides the desk. 

Maybe Dell can offer a new service and include a future dated RMA with every purchase.

Sounds like you have been buying the Dell office grade cheapies. They're patently not suitable for working with images or performance gaming. In a recent similar CR thread I mentioned we have five Dells in the studio, U3011, U2711 and three older UltraSharp spec 24 inch panels.

They have all been faultless workhorses. I will buy more Dells when required. My first Dell, a 24 inch Ultrasharp from around 2007 is still working perfectly. It calibrates fine with the EyeOne. Very stable. Go figure. People just seem to love flaming Dell. That said, I wouldn't buy anything from them other than their premium monitors. It's not that their other hardware is bad, it's just not suitable.

-PW

Thanks pwp!

I had ordered the 2173H on Tuesday and it is on the way to be delivered Monday. I had lost some sleep last night wondering whether it would be a crash and burn for the $ 1,000 I paid for it. 

1113
Software & Accessories / Which wireless radio control for the 5D3?
« on: March 07, 2013, 06:56:17 AM »
Hi,

I'm looking for a radio wireless control for the 5D3 but am unsure of which one to get. I am looking to cover for a distance of about 150-200 feet between myself and the camera. Please advise ...

Thanks in advance ...

--JR

1114
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 6D or 5D Mark III
« on: March 07, 2013, 06:50:58 AM »
Coming from two Canon 5d MK II bodies and killing one, which I replaced with a mk III. I'm seriously considering selling my mk II and getting a 6D as a second (walkaround) body. The low light AF (dis)abilities of the mk II really bothered me since its release and reports of the 6D are very positive in this regard. I also have the cash for a second MK III but at this point I find it a little overkill to use a 3K camera as a walkaround body dangling over my shoulder or wrist wherever I go, but the 5D Mk III is a JOY to use and love the images I take with it. It is a fantastic camera and the images looks more "natural" to my eyes than the the 5d mk II ever did.  And reports that the IQ of the 6D is at least as good as the 5d mk III gives me a reason to ditch the 5d II for one of these two bodies. I can't choose!!

I replaced the 6D for the 7D in my kit to go along as a second body with my 5D3. It makes a great combo with teles on the 5D3 and WAs on the 6D

1115
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Initial impression after using 6D
« on: March 07, 2013, 06:47:12 AM »
Congrats on your new purchase.

The hunting AF would most likely because by the nifty fifty. The center AF point of the 6D does a pretty good job and you can take action shots if you prepare for it in the right way - see below

BTW, the first thing I did with my test shots of the 6D was the same - paired it with my iPhone, synced some pics and shared on facebook  ;D 

1116
Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF24-105mm f/4L IS USM
« on: March 05, 2013, 11:02:36 AM »
@ 80mm on the 6D

1117
Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF24-105mm f/4L IS USM
« on: March 05, 2013, 10:50:54 AM »
5d3 @ 105mm. This is by far the best kit lens!

1118
Lenses / Re: UV filters (any difference?)
« on: March 05, 2013, 08:19:57 AM »
Whether you decide to use a filter or not, if protection is your goal, you'd be a fool to not use a lens hood.

A hood actually improves image quality, while even the best filters degrade image quality (though, granted, imperceptibly so with the high quality ones). Except for those few lenses where a filter is required to complete environmental sealing, a filter only protects against the types of hazards that come in situations where you yourself should be wearing eye protection -- such as gravel kicked up at a rodeo. A hood, on the other hand, protects against all the common real-world types of hazards photographers face, including impact and fingerprints. More to the point, an impact that would damage a front element will damage the filter in a way that will often transmit the damage on to the lens, such as by jamming the filter threads or scratching the front element with the broken filter. The hood will actually protect the lens against those types of damage. And quality filters generally cost about as much as repairing a lens with a damaged front element.

For most photographers in most situations, the hood provides all the protection one needs. For many (not most) photographers in many (not most) situations, a filter will degrade image quality. For only a few photographers in only a few situations will a filter provide protection not offered by a lens hood.

The key is understanding the actual type of photography you do and, from that, knowing if adding a filter to your hood (which you should always use) will offer physical protection worth the degradation of image quality. Or, if you regularly shoot in environments in which a filter is actually prudent, you should be able to recognize situations where the filter is going to significantly degrade image quality and be able to make the decision to remove the filter for that shot.

(Of course, this all applies only to clear / UV / protection filters. Polarizers, neutral density filters, and other filters for effects are irrelevant to the discussion. And, of course, there are all sorts of other odd exceptions, such as lenses like the 50 compact macro which is its own hood, the fisheye lenses and their bulbous front elements, photojournalists who should be getting combat pay, and the like.)

Cheers,

b&

+1

I use both, a filter as well as the lens hood on my lenses because one must take into account the lens hood. The petal shaped lens hoods of the 17-40 and 24-105 offer protection only if the lens is dropped with the front element pointing down on a flat surface so a filter is very useful here.

I smashed my Hoya filter on the 24-105 when the camera was hanging by my side and I was going through a  doorway, the camera swung around and the lens hit the doorknob flush on the front of the lens - the filter was smashed but took the impact pretty well saving the front element.

A filter is the one of the best insurance against impact on the front element of the lens.

1119
Lenses / Re: 70-400/ f4.0-5.6 Zoom ... Canon, where are you?
« on: March 05, 2013, 07:55:45 AM »
The 200-400 is not available. And it is not affordable for 99% of non-Pro photogs. It is therefore NO alternative to a newly designed, excellent 100-400 II ... at a price not higher than the new Nikon 70-400.

If the Canon releases a better version, be ready to fork out at least as much... 2700.

At least as much ... you are joking ... right?

Canon will end up charging upwards of 50% of the price of the 200-400mm lens.

The current 100-400 sells well and delivers good IQ at a very good price but I'm eagerly waiting to see the IQ delivered by the new Nikon. Unless the difference in the IQ is substantial, Canon's price advantage will be enormous.

Canon seems to be thinking - If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

1120
A little late to the 1998 USM party nikon?

As a prior owner of a dust blower 100-400, I'd send tat memo to canon....and their 50s inspired push, puller.

Won't make any difference though ... the 100-400 still sells well

1121
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 ZE Planar
« on: March 05, 2013, 07:11:44 AM »
Thanks for the advice ... I ordered the Eg-S screen. I will also be borrowing / renting the Zeiss 1.4 and see how it goes.

1122
Software & Accessories / Re: Good GND filter to go with new Lee system
« on: February 27, 2013, 10:56:43 PM »
Also I wonder how many ND's you really need? Seems like one, or max two would do me for all my shooting.

I'm not located in the US/Europe so the shipping itself costs $80 - $100. Not taking a chance of missing out on something, I ordered the set of 3 resin filters. If I miss out on something like a single filter I have to wait for approximately 6-8 months before I place a large enough order to justify the shipping.

BTW, I can't say I've used all of them together, yet but maybe with a pro-LEE kit I plan to get soon, I may try using more than a couple of GNDs together. 

1123
Software & Accessories / Re: Good GND filter to go with new Lee system
« on: February 27, 2013, 10:05:52 PM »
Wow for that price you can get a whole set of LEE grads.
Have you checked how much the LEE ones are? Their big stopper is expensive but the grads aren't too bad, for the quality you get.

The LEE grads "sets" are resin filters as opposed to the B+W which is made entirely out of glass which explains the difference. The LEE glass GND filters is for $170 ... that isn't cheap either.

I've read on the net that there is very little difference between the glass and resin filters - don't have the means to compare. Maybe someone who has used both can throw some light on this

1124
Canon General / Re: How well do you see color?
« on: February 26, 2013, 01:07:02 AM »
Your score: 0
Gender: Male
Age range: 50-59
Best score for your gender and age range: 0
Highest score for your gender and age range: 1520

I agree it is a how good is your monitor test as well as a blue/green test which is difficult for some males.

+1

It was a test of patience too. Part of me just didn't want to take the trouble of sifting through the apparently endless number of blocks. 

1125
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 14 f/2.8 with Flourite
« on: February 25, 2013, 10:56:54 PM »

The 14-24mm f/2.8 is an absolute joke especially compared to the 14-24mm f/2.8 from nikon or if you are willing to sacrifice fov the 17mm TS-E is so much better. I would pick any of those lenses before I went with Canon's one.


Are you from the future commenting about a lens not released by Canon as on date? If yes, please let us know on what date the production model of the 200-400 was released ... I'm tired of waiting :P

Pages: 1 ... 73 74 [75] 76 77 ... 95