July 22, 2014, 09:42:35 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.

Messages - Rocky

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 38
Photography Technique / Re: The definition of insanity
« on: June 25, 2014, 07:57:14 PM »
My standard travel kit was 40D+17-40mm(main lens)+28-135mm(less than 15% usage)+ SD 870(as back up)+8X32 binocular. After the 40D died in Ukraine (fixed with alcohol on the spot) and the SD 870 died in Australia without a suitable replacement, my travel kit IS 40D+20D plus the two above mentioned lens(one on each body). They fit nicely with the binocular in a Amazon sling bag. The total weight of the bag is 9 lbs. It is not a burden for me.
This kit just gone through an Eastern Europe River cruise and a Alaska cruise tour.

EOS-M / Re: B&H Selling M Again (Not Canon USA)
« on: June 08, 2014, 05:49:33 PM »
Thanks, AvTvM. 0.25 sec, is almost as fast as a DSLR. That is better than  what I thought.

EOS-M / Re: B&H Selling M Again (Not Canon USA)
« on: June 08, 2014, 04:56:33 PM »
People are talking about " Slow AF" of EOS M even with the new firmware. Can some owner Quantify it?? 0.25 sec.? 0.50 sec.? 0,75 sec.? 1.0 sec.? Thanks.

Photography Technique / Re: What Lenses Do You Use for Panoramics?
« on: June 05, 2014, 11:15:25 PM »
In my mind, the reason of making Pano is because the lens is not wide enough to cover the scene that you want. On the survey, I see the percentage of people using normal and tele is almost the same as people using wide or ultra wide. If you can take one picture with the wide lens, why people want to stitch 4 picture from a normal lens to get the same scene? If the scenery includes water or trees, you can never get a perfect stitched scenery if you look at it at pixel level.

Larger more detailed prints - I regularly print full width on our 44" Canon iPF8300

The 72" wide shot of Cannon beach I showed earlier would be a pretty low res crop from a single shot.

As to perfect stitching - it's a compromise and sometimes requires more post production work than others. Fortunately stitching software continues to get smarter, meaning I very rarely have to do much work related to stitching errors.

Trees and water are not the problem they might seem (it needs practice though - one reason I'm regularly trying panos, even if not for an actual print).

As to "perfect stitched scenery if you look at it at pixel level" - I don't really care, since it's the overall print that matters. The only people who can spot tiny stitching errors are people who do a lot of panoramic work, and they never ever buy prints ;-) :-)
Thanks. That answers  quite a few questions in my mind. I have done a lot of stitching, mainly for the scenery that I cannot capture with my widest lens. at pixel level I can see the wave of the sea does not match and the trees does not match  due to the wind. Now you have confirmed that is normal. Thanks

Photography Technique / Re: What Lenses Do You Use for Panoramics?
« on: June 05, 2014, 12:20:01 PM »
In my mind, the reason of making Pano is because the lens is not wide enough to cover the scene that you want. On the survey, I see the percentage of people using normal and tele is almost the same as people using wide or ultra wide. If you can take one picture with the wide lens, why people want to stitch 4 picture from a normal lens to get the same scene? If the scenery includes water or trees, you can never get a perfect stitched scenery if you look at it at pixel level.

As to your second question, I've been using Canon cameras for about, oh, sixteen or seventeen years now. As to your first question, technology is moving ahead (read: mirrorless), yet Canon is stuck in mirrorland.
What makes you think mirrorless is newest technology?? If it is so good why DSLR outsells mirrorless by such a wide margin??? With IS lenses, the advantage of less vibration of mirrorless has been eliminated.  As for weight saving, it is also misleading. Try to hold a M9 or M-E, you will agree that they are as heavy or heavier than the average SLR. As for size, mirrorless does have an advantage. But with a few lenses in the bag, the size of the body will not be the determining factor. Do not get me wrong, I like mirrorless too. With a small short prime (35mm) you can put in in a large coat pocket if you do not mind the weight.

PowerShot / Re: Canon PowerShot G17 Coming in May? [CR1]
« on: March 31, 2014, 12:06:40 AM »
If the spec is true, how big will the filter be??? Sony RX10 is already using a 63mm filter for the f 2.8 (24 to 200mm equilvalent) lens. The lens itself will be a  monster for the G17. Sony already selling the RX10 at $1300. With a faster lens, what will be the pricing for the  "G17"??

EOS Bodies / Re: What's Next from Canon?
« on: March 06, 2014, 01:53:06 AM »
The conductors inside the ribbon is sealed  by the material of the ribbon already. Therefore the sealing at the joint for the ribbon will not be needed.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: FF Sharper than crop?
« on: February 27, 2014, 07:29:33 PM »
The resolution of the lens used in the Crop sensor needed to have 1.5 time more resolution than the one used in the FF to give us the same sharpness.  We are not even talking about diffraction limiting yet.

EOS Bodies / Re: What's Next from Canon?
« on: February 16, 2014, 06:01:21 PM »
I keep saying similar things (IE use an slr body type, with an EF mount - so no one has to use silly lens adaptors or wait while each and every lens ever made gets resigned to fit the current mirrorless mold).  But, this is where mirrorless has its downfall, it seems like the biggest proponents for mirrorless want their cake and want to eat it too.  All the bells and whistles of an slr, in a package smaller than the A7, but smaller with smaller lenses and of course, a magical battery compartment that can fit 2 1dx batteries...

when it comes down to it...it really is about form factor.  there was another post somewhere here showing the first digital camera's, goofy looking things, the first idea was that cause it's new it should look radically different...high tech...result, they looked like a joke and weren't taken seriously until digital camera's started to look like regular cameras. 

which is why i feel that mirrorless may just be a cool for now, trendy product.
You can't ignore ergonomics.... Why was 35mm so popular back in the days of film???? We had a lot of standard film sizes to choose between. Myself, I seem to have used from tiny scraps of film in instamatics to a friend's 8x10....

35mm was the sweet spot.... it was the combination of ergonomics that made it a good size to hold, yet allowed a range of lens sizes with reasonable image quality... yes, you could go bigger (I did hump around an 8x10 :) ) but by going bigger you needed insanely large lenses to get a decent field of view with animals, birds, and other distant objects.... There is a very good reason why Ansel Adams shot landscapes and not BIF :)  35 mm was a good general purpose balance point.

So now we have gone digital. People are still the same, so the ergonomics remain the same... the laws of optics are the same, so other than better materials and more precise manufacturing, lens are essentially the same.... The sweet spot for size remains the same...

Put a 50 year old SLR and a brand new DSLR on the table. It is obvious that they are both cameras, and with the exception of a preview screen on the back and the relocation of a few controls, they are not really that much different..... ergonomics strikes again!
Total agree. However, I would like to add "Form (size, weight)", "Function" and "Econonics (price)" also play a very important part.  In the film days,  35mm full frame SLR is not the most propular camera. Small view finder 35 mm camera was the most popular camera. That is due to lower  price and easier to carry ( small size and light weight) even with limited functioality. There is no doubt that the Leica  M series is the best 35mm film camera. But for functionality, It cannot complete with SLR unless expensive and  clumsy attachments are used. Therefore it became a limited production camera for certain user. Rolleiflex is an excellent camera. With waist level finder and shutter release at the front of the camera to give the photographer the perfect angle for full length body shot. Due to higher price and fixed lens it just cannot survive. Hasselblad is a 6X6 SLR. Again, high price and heavy weight limits it to become a specialty camera. The examples can keep on going. So I will stop  here

Take a close look at the Lowepro Pro-roller 200 or 300. Either should do nicely. They are well made, have wheels, tri-pod carrier, locks, and the insert, with dividers and all your gear can be removed for use as a back-pack. I have the 200 and carry 2 bodies, 6 lenses, a flash, filters and all the other necessary stuff- extra batts, cleaning gear, etc.

The only problem with the kit is its loaded weight. Believe me, the rollers are necessary!

Good luck on your search.

Zen :)
Thank you :) But now I am worried. I read a blog of a photographer and he said his backpack went though but all the roller bags were checked, no exception. This worries me a lot!
My AW protrekker 400 has always been with me as carry-on and the 300 is smaller. I have no experience with roller bags.
I have also managed to get a pretty huge backpack of non-photo gear on a plane as a carry-on so I'm not that worried about the size. I think it makes sense about the roller bags, people always check those.

It sounds like you don't travel much! Up until this year I traveled a lot and I could write reams and reams of photographer travel stuff but here is the concise version.

Carry on, 100% depends on your airline, the difference between airport security and the airlines own policy is huge and misunderstood. Getting through airport security is easy but that does not mean you will be allowed to take that onto the plane, the airline decides what you are allowed to take onto their plane and it is plane specific, every airline lays out specific details of their carry on policy on their websites, but this can be open to interpretation by check-in and gate agents. For us photographers this is an important aspect of ticket buying. If you are traveling between major airports on big jets carry on is normally pretty generous, if you are taking connecting flights to smaller airports, Islands, countries, then the carry on limitations will almost certainly change for the worse, getting your carry on onto your first flight will not automatically get it on your connecting flights, regional jets, turboprops and smaller have very limited carry on space. Cheap tickets often charge for carry on, Spirit, for instance, charge $50 per leg for a full sized carry on.

There is a huge difference between a checked bag and gate checking. If you have to checked bag camera equipment, lenses, bodies etc then it really needs to be in a pelican case. Generally photographers reactions to that is "NO WAY", this is a huge over reaction, I have never met or traveled with a video crew who thought twice about checking $100,000 worth of gear, it is just a mindset. BUT if you do have to checked bag it, it MUST have insurance against theft. Gate checking doesn't need anything like that, I have gate checked $10,000's worth of gear in regular packs, in gate checking you wheel/carry your bag out to the, smaller, plane and the ground crew put your bag into a baggage compartment in the plane in front of you, when you land you wait on the tarmac and get your bag back. This makes many people nervous, particularly those that haven't done it, but I have done it hundreds of times with no issues. Gate checking on many planes is not optional, any bag over a mid sized laptop bag is gate checked.

So, to give specific advice on what you are allowed to do you really need to be much more specific on what your travel intentions are. There is no one best advice, just the best advice for what you intend to do.
Good points. However, If the rule is there, the gate agent have ALL the rights to stop you if your carry on does not meet their weight requirement, then, your unprotected camera bag will be gate checked.  What are you going to do at that time? Even between big airports, it will happen. I have be requested to lighten up my carry on between SFO and Singapore to meet the 7 Kg rule.  Same thing happen between LAX and Mebourne Ausralia. Travelling within US and between US and Canada is a lot more forgiving on the wieght of carry on. Travelling oversea, even between US and oversea is a different ball game.

PowerShot / Re: Canon PowerShot G1 X Successor Coming Shortly [CR2]
« on: February 02, 2014, 02:58:50 PM »
If it has swivel screen, high quality Video with livestream capabilities (including live video to HOA), f/1.4 lens 24mm - 80mm equiv... I'll be interested. Don't care about the viewfinder at all, it can only be mediocre at best in a small camera like this.
"You can expect a smaller and lighter body, a big boost in image quality " Looks like fast lens (big) and swivel screen are out of the question. Just hope that Canon give us a fast AF

Hi (this is my first post by the way)  :)

The bag I currently have has gotten two small for me, I'm in the need of a new bag.
I have:
two bodies (one 5-series and a 7d)
4-6 lenses
external mic
radio triggers
2 flashes
15+ filters
a flycam and a table glider
and a compact (travel sized) tripod

and I'd like all of that to fit in one bag that I can take with me on a plane as hand luggage (a tall order, I know)
if necessary, I'm willing to ditch the flycam to the cargo hold. I'd like the bag to have straps for a tripod.
I simply don't want to travel separated from my gear. Any suggestions? I don't have any good camera stores carrying large bags at a reasonable distance so I'm relying on people who have the same requirements to tell me which bags worked for them so I can check them out.
All replies appreciated!
Please be aware of the 7 Kg rule for carry on for almost all the airlines outside of U.S.

Canon already has a Mirrorless and DSLR in one body. It is the 70D. Lock up the mirror and use live view. You will have a camera that will NOT have the mirror vibration. It is a faster, better ergonomic version of EOS M and use ALL the EF and EF-S lenses. What more can we ask for? Of cause, It will also function like a NORMAL DSLR.

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D shutter count
« on: December 13, 2013, 06:47:58 PM »
With the announcement of the new 70D and it being a plastic body/not weather sealed, I'm inclined to go the route of a 7D. With that said, I might be interested in a used 7D while we all wait for the 7D mkii timing/details.

My question is with regards to shutter count. Is there a specific number of shutter activation that I should be wary of with a used 7D body? 15k? 30k?

I would not getting too hangup on the shutter count. Whether it is 15K or 30K.  There is more than shutter failure in a camera.  I have the 20D and 40D, both have the shutter release button fail on me after 30K shutter count.  The 40D have an inconsistant focusing issue after 35K shutter count.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 38