April 18, 2014, 11:00:57 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 - tron

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 112
1
Hi Beckscum.
Could you please clarify UA from your post please, I am not familiar with this abbreviation.

Cheers Graham.

that they returned full batches of UA lens back to Canon in 2012



I think he's referring to the date code - the use of which Canon seem to be phasing out. In this case it would be lenses manufactured in Utsunomiya during 2006.
UA = Utsunomiya  2012 not 2006.
There is a reference in

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Lens-Aging.aspx

2
Contests / Re: Gura Gear Uinta Bag System Giveaway
« on: April 08, 2014, 01:07:14 PM »
I did not enter for exactly the same way (no social network account). So s..... them.
The funny thing is that I already have a Gura Gear Bataflae 26 which means I like their products...

3
That said, I question how the OP was contacted by the bride. This question was brought up earlier in the thread, but never answered by the OP. Unless the pro photographer himself gave her the contact info, then it would seem the OP promoted himself at the wedding, at least to the extent that he provided the bride or someone close to her with information as to who he is and how to contact him. This is way beyond the bounds of what is ethical in such a situation, whether hired by the photographer, or in this case allowed to 'tag along' at his client's event.

Sorry I thought I did. The bride asked my number to the cameraman (who I met the same day) and the cameraman called the photographer to have my number telling him that he needed me for a job. I didn't give any detail to anyone at the wedding because I thought it wasn't professional neither ethical to promote myself while another photographer was hired to photograph the event.
So he told him that he needed you for a job and not that the bride asked for you?

4
Tron don't get desparate. Your attempts to hit below the belt missed horribly. "Canon employee"? LOL!! I would love to have a discussion with you about the dialectical methodology of historical materialism since you must be an authority on logic, a component in something I took my undergrad degree in. I am concerned about consumer protection and consumer rights. The topic of this string is "We Have More Internal Canon Service Information on Lenses & Cameras". Where is it? Where did it come from? With respects to the so-called bad spring there is even a diagram on this site that purports to show the offending part along side the correcting part. What is the source of that diagram? I was concerned because I just bought one. According to the best information I can access it seems my lens was manufactured after March yet before August 2013. I plan on taking a year off next year to travel and do not want to have issues. I can return my lens to the vendor tomorrow and stand at the counter until they bring me a serial number I like if need be. So I want to get to the bottom of this. Canon is being accused of fraudulent behavior. Worse, there the inference of a cover-up. In my line of day work, this is serious. Anyone wanting authentic full disclosure from Canon should know that this forum is patently NOT the venue to ask for it. There are only two reasons to get on a forum with such posts as these; either one is truly trying to help fellow photographers or one is a troll. (Oh, I almost forgot the third reason; some people just need to moan and groan .) I have taken the time to write to Canon and received a response which I have posted here and archived. People with issues' whether grinding focusing noises or something else, write to Canon and get a written response. Can anyone spell c-l-a-s-s-a-c-t-i-o-n?
Ignoring the bla blas in the beginning I finally read something I agree with you. You ask  for proof. I would love to see proof for the authenticity of these documents or proof for the opposite.

I also see that no matter how many we asked for this disclosure authentic or not the Canon Rumors administrator didn't give anything. So maybe too much trouble for nothing and this thread was just created 3 days late (4th April instead of 1st, or the admins were given these documents April 1st and created this thread 3 days later who knows).

P.S I still do not feel good with the Err01 that I saw on my lens 3 times. The only thing that calms me somehow  is that this is not repeated. And certainly I do not want it to produce various sounds when I focus manually...

5
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Replacement Mentioned Again [CR1]
« on: April 06, 2014, 07:34:54 PM »
I have a big milestone birthday coming up on May 31 and my wife wants to buy me a special present.
Wonder what my chances are it will be a 7D MKII?
Mmmmmmm zero. But I would suggest a 5DMkIII  8)

6
"So there is no clicking during zooming too?
There is no coating damage in at least 2 CR members?
There is no contact with some filters (at least some noname/cheap ones) as Roger Cicala posted in LensRentals?
There are no bubbles as at least 1 member reported?"

Ah. So I get your game now Tron. You did write the above in reply to my post which specifically addressed the alleged bad spring issue. Why would you write that in reply if you did not mean it to indicate that you were connecting the alleged bad spring issue to the issues quoted above? Your game is blown Tron. You have no internal Canon memos. Perhaps the fraudulent behavior is not with Canon.
Very funny. either you have ... let's say problem with logic reasoning or you are Canon employee.
And this is said by someone who has 2 5D3 cameras and many L lenses so I am a Canon fan.
 
The previous posts referred to other problems that members had encountered. Since these problems are not fictitious I say that this problem may be real too. I do not care if there is a document internal or not. I care that this may be potential problem for me since my 24-70 2.8 ii lens falls in the category before Aug 2013. It is so simple.

SO NO I DO NOT WANT TO BE SUCH AN ISSUE.  THE LESS ISSUES THE BETTER!

And if you bother to read the previous posts you will see that I ask for disclosure. I do not have anything. I asked for information. Can you see the difference?  ::)

7
How is the fact of cheap filters grinding a lens front element any verification of a bad spring component? The 24-70/2.8 II is internal focusing and when it zooms the front element doesn't move with respects to the filter attached. Besides, Cicala never said the front element damage via cheap filter issue was the result of an internal lens design defect. Please at least connect dots on a plane that really does exist.
Who said that the two issues are connected and one is the cause for the other?

8
The "noisy" lens post is highly suspicious. The image of the alleged spring causing the problem doesn't look like typical Canon work and there is no visual reference of where such a spring would go. Secondly the idea that such a protruding metal part would cause noise yet no physical penalty in lens operation is preposterous. I contacted Canon.
Canon's reply:
"Thank you for contacting Canon product support concerning your EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM lens, and noisy focusing ring question.

I have had no calls or emails in regard to your question.  You may click HERE to view the lens' dedicated page.  Once on the page, on the top right, you can click on the PRODUCT ADVISORY SECTION.  I just did, and verified that this lens has no posted advisories.

Please let us know if we can be of any further assistance with your questions. Thank you for choosing Canon.

Sincerely,

James
Technical Support Representative"
I say trolls be GONE!
So there is no clicking during zooming too?
There is no coating damage in at least 2 CR members?
There is no contact with some filters (at least some noname/cheap ones) as Roger Cicala posted in LensRentals?
There are no bubbles as at least 1 member reported?

Finally I have never seen 3 Communication errors with my latest firmware 5D3 which by the way it was the first time and the only lens where this has happened during the first week of usage?

9
Strange that we suddenly have quite a few first time posters asking the documents to be published or claiming that they've had problems with their gear. :-\ :-X

I do not find an issue with that.
I find it highly suspicious.
Maybe it is, may be it is not.
I am not a first time poster and at the same time asked for more material. The reason is I have a 24-70 2.8 ii which did not belong to any of the problem' categories were referred in this forum (clicking, bubbles, front element coming in contact with the filter and coating issue). So I though I was lucky.

But i stumbled upon 3 Errors 01 (Communication between lens and camera). Since the lens was new and the camera didn't have issues with any other lens it was a 24-70 2.8 II lens problem. It didn't happen again but I will always be afraid that it might happen so in important shootings I will have to carry a backup lens of similar characteristics. Now I learn that my lens will possibly have issues with a problematic spring (if seems it is made before aug 2013).

So yes I do want to know about Canon issues.

10
PowerShot / Re: Canon PowerShot G17 Mentioned Again [CR1]
« on: April 04, 2014, 07:16:37 PM »
24-200mm f/1.4-2.0 Lens with a "large" sensor" although not mentioned how large is an interesting combination but most probably unlikely or even less portable than the other G cameras which is almost as bad.

11
Keep in mind that a piece of advise from the article didn't work for me. At least at some non real shooting conditions.

More specifically:  I have tried my 1.4XIII on my 500mm 4L IS II.

Nothing happened apart from the noise of a failed  attempt to start focusing.
Something like a click and a very slight move of the focusing mechanism and then nothing.
Focusing distance was close and withing range (inside my house).

I turned "Lens drive when AF impossible" to ON and IT WORKED!

But to tell the truth I haven't tested the lens without a teleconverter and/or at the outside during day.
So I will repeat the test under more realistic conditions.

12
Please do post everything you have. You will be of service to many members of this forum.

Thanks in advance

13
I'm going to use short-hand here . . .

In Toronto, Canada, a second-shooter's images 'belong' to the hired photog.  Even if a guest has persuaded the bride and groom to let them 'shoot' the wedding (not my favourite, but it is their day, not mine), the photos of the 'guest second-shooter' 'belong' to the photog as well.

In this case, the images should be turned over to the primary photog for sale and you get to use the photos in you portfolio.
It seems exploitation to me. If the guest has permission from the bride and groom I cannot believe that there is a law that forces him to give his photos to the pro. It isn't as if the pro has hired him.

On the other hand, there is an ethical issue for the specific case as it was presented by the OP.

If you are a guest that is one thing, you are a guest. If you are there as a photographer, paid or not, all deference must be given to the person contracted to shoot the wedding. Any decent wedding photographers contract will cover the basics of who is working for whom and what responsibilities everybody has.

But before we go off track, the OP was at the wedding because of the photographer, not as a guest, and did not know the bride and groom.
I agree. My main comment was on the previous post only that's why I added that there is an issue with the case as presented by the OP.

14
I'm going to use short-hand here . . .

In Toronto, Canada, a second-shooter's images 'belong' to the hired photog.  Even if a guest has persuaded the bride and groom to let them 'shoot' the wedding (not my favourite, but it is their day, not mine), the photos of the 'guest second-shooter' 'belong' to the photog as well.

In this case, the images should be turned over to the primary photog for sale and you get to use the photos in you portfolio.
It seems exploitation to me. If the guest has permission from the bride and groom I cannot believe that there is a law that forces him to give his photos to the pro. It isn't as if the pro has hired him.

On the other hand, there is an ethical issue for the specific case as it was presented by the OP.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF 85mm f/1.2L III and Others
« on: April 02, 2014, 02:16:08 AM »
I have to take issue with it being sharp wide open.  It's not remotely as sharp at f/1.2, as for example the 135L is at its wide open f/2 (not even in the center...and at the borders the 85L is pretty soft, and suffers from coma).  Also, the 85L has a fairly high vignette anywhere near wide open aperture.


My copy of the 85II L is really sharp wide open. It's sharper than my 135L wide open. My 2nd photographer's copy isn't quite as sharp as mine but it's still very sharp.

I'm really not that fussed about coma, it's very easily correctable. The point of the 85IIL is that it's a portraiture lens, hence the soft corners, dreamy bokeh and strong vignette wide open...it's an optical photoshop look...and really works wonders with portraits.


No doubt there's sample variation, I suspect you have a soft 135 and the 85 I rented was slightly soft.  I fully realize it's a portrait lens.  But as for coma being "easily correctable", I'm not sure how you do that.


@CarlTN +1 on your coma comment.

@GMCPhotographics Vey interesting on coma correction! Maybe you know something we don't

http://www.lenstip.com/189.7-Lens_review-Canon_EF_85_mm_f_1.2L_II_USM_Coma_and_astigmatism.html

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 112