16
Canon General / Re: Post a cool B/W!
« on: September 22, 2012, 09:26:16 AM »
Perhaps not "cool", but here goes
June 19, 2013, 11:34:35 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.
17
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon Announces the Canon EOS 6D DSLR
« on: September 17, 2012, 07:34:31 AM »
At least they had sense to put AFMA in it...
18
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D MkIII - AFMA due consistent backfocusing
« on: August 23, 2012, 05:45:42 AM »
My MkIII is consistently front focussing and my lenses all needed adjustments between +3 and +11. AFMA do work wonders though!
19
Lenses / Re: 40mm f2.8 STM - Lens Hood?
« on: June 27, 2012, 03:29:24 AM »
The hood is made of aluminium and is actually very nice. It does protect the small front element quite well despite its tiny size, mainly because the hood has an opening that is rather narrow. However, the lens will extend when focussing, and the hood is mounted on the moving front part, so it will not protect the moving mechanism like the hood on the 50mm 1.4 does.
I'd say either put a slim UV filter or the ES-52 hood on for protection. No point having both. Also, stacking both makes the lens quite a bit bigger. And we did buy it for its tiny size, no?
I'd say either put a slim UV filter or the ES-52 hood on for protection. No point having both. Also, stacking both makes the lens quite a bit bigger. And we did buy it for its tiny size, no?
20
Lenses / Re: 40mm f2.8 STM - Lens Hood?
« on: June 26, 2012, 12:25:52 PM »
Did it 'come' with it or were those items separate purchases? Because mine comes tomorrow and I bet you it is only a lens in a styro and cardboard box.
Yes, they're included here.
21
Lenses / Re: 40mm f2.8 STM - Lens Hood?
« on: June 26, 2012, 06:53:19 AM »Quote from: B&HThe ES-52 is a bayonet-mount type lens hood specifically made to fit the Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM lens.
Not so sure about that, or at least, it's not a compllete description. I don't see any place on the lens for a bayonet type hood to mount, and I suspect it's a screw-in hood, or it comes with a screw-in hood adapter like the 50/1.8 II.
Just picked up my shorty forty here in shanghai. It comes with the tiny lens case LP811 and the ridiculously cute ES-52 lens hood, which as Neuro points out, is a screw-in hood. It's so small that I first didn't realize it is actually a hood. Screwed in, it only protrudes 8mm!
22
Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF135mm f/2L USM
« on: June 17, 2012, 07:45:25 AM »Took these two shots today testing out this lovely new lens!
I really like the first one. Dreamy!
23
Lenses / Re: Best (Recommended) ways to clean your lenses?
« on: June 05, 2012, 06:33:48 AM »Everyone probably knows this already...but never ever use a compressed air canister to try and blow dust off your lens.
The compressed air that comes out is really cold and the sudden temperature differential will crack your lenses...trust me on this one!
+1 especially if you take the lens straight from the dishwasher and then use compressed air. Alternatively, if you're going to use cold compressed air, best to put lens in freezer for an hour or so beforehand - allow the dust particles to harden and temperature to equalize first
Laughed out loud in the office reading your comment!
24
Animal Kingdom / Re: Dogs playing around
« on: May 31, 2012, 11:39:17 AM »
Chili dog? (not my dog)
26
EOS Bodies / Re: Chinese Did it Again! alternative grip for 5D III on pre order
« on: May 19, 2012, 09:19:10 AM »Look what i found looking around on Ebay
http://www.ebay.com/itm/PRE-ORDER-Pixel-BG-E11-Alternative-Battery-Grip-Canon-EOS-5D-III-Free-Ship-/140755377672?pt=US_Camera_Battery_Grips&hash=item20c5ac9e08
For only $90 (free shipping) worth the wait. I pre ordered one and will cancel my BH order tomorow morning.
Only of they could do a knock off of the 5D3 for $799...
They could do if they wanted to or if they thought they could get away with it....just take a new 5D3 to Shenzen and say "copy that for 1/4 of the MSRP"...and they would, but it would precipitate a trade war!
If they can clone a Canon 580EXII and sell it for 1/4 of the Canon price (see video below), then why not a camera body? I paid €126 (incl P&P + customs tax) for a YN-565, yet camera shops are charging €499 to €619 for a new 580EXII.
Where do you think Canon are getting most of their component parts made? What country manufactures the iPad and iPhone? Answer: China
Yongnuo YN-565EX ETTL Speedlite Flash Review
Somewhat over simplified. Yes, in China you can basically order whatever you want at whatever price point you desire. They will deliver, but the variable will be quality. This is however only true for relatively low-end tech, such as battery grips and flashes. A camera body is not low-tech, and it's far more difficult to copy. Also, do not mix up companies with countries. Just because the iPad and iPhones are made in China doesn't mean this technology is available to chinese firms. Yes, iPad and iPhone copies are found all over china. But they are nothing like the real deal when you switch them on. (Btw. Foxconn, which makes most of Apple's products is Taiwanese, with most of its manufacturing in China.)
28
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon, STOP shipping defective products!!!
« on: April 25, 2012, 11:59:04 AM »
Good for you.
The rest of us want cameras that didn’t have to be opened up and repaired to meet specs.
Also those with the light leakage issue are within spec, as I understand it.
29
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon, STOP shipping defective products!!!
« on: April 25, 2012, 09:27:43 AM »I ran an extensive test just now. I have concluded that this is a major issue as you can see:
First shot, LCD light OFF. Exposure time 5sec @ f4, 800 ISO:
Second shot, LCD light ON. The camera incorrectly metered the scene, underexposing dramatically with a metered value of only 4sec @ f4, 800 ISO:
I love the true black on the first, correctly exposed photo! I can't wait until May 10th so I can get my camera fixed!
30
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon, STOP shipping defective products!!!
« on: April 24, 2012, 10:47:41 AM »I can't help starting this new thread, because I want us loyal early adopters and all customers to be treated fairly by Canon.
First, I'v shooting Canon for 15 years. I have two 5D3’s. Neither of them showed any “noticeable” effect. Both of them are still within 30-day return period. I AM packing them up today and sending them back for full refund.
Canon’s response to this light leak issue is unacceptable. For a $3,500 camera for which many of us have waited and saved, Canon should STOP shipping the defective products immediately. Whether it affects real world shooting or not, it is a product with defect. If Canon wants to earn trust from its loyal and prospective customers, be bold and offer to swap out the defective units unconditionally free of charge.
I know many of us do not want to lose the camera for some short period of time and that's why we have been defending Canon including myself. BUT, forgiving the bad business practice can only encourage abuse of the customers.
Remember iPhone 4? Apple ultimately paid the price by issuing $15 to all its owners. Some lawyer is probably happily laughing right now when they saw Canon's response.
I am writing to Canon today. This is not the solution. And this is not over yet.
I do understand why people may feel a bit unhappy about receiving a non-perfect product. I'm a 5DIII owner myself, and while I would of course prefer if the camera didn't have this issue, I don't think that Canon is handling this poorly. They are offering a fix (I called and verified this with canon china) and not just an "inspection", so for those of you who think this is a big problem, just send in your cameras!
No company would do a recall because of a phenomena of this kind. This time the community happened to stumble over this before Canon did, but there are and will be bigger problems than this with any newly launched products. Most of the time the manufacturer rectifies this in subsequent production batches without the public ever knowing. If a design or manufacturing problem causes product failure or the product to perform out of spec, a recall would be the right thing to do, but this is not the case with the light leakage.
Am I annoyed? I tiny bit perhaps, but as this will not affect me I've decided not to send in my camera. To demand a recall of all shipped units is neither realistic nor called for.
In this case, I'm sure the canon management team were even discussing to issue a statement saying that the product performs according to specifications and no further actions will be taken. Luckily for Canon they didn't choose this route, as it would have been a PR disaster and, good for us, they will fix it if you want. As they should.