April 17, 2014, 06:06:04 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 - Leadfingers

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
Animal Kingdom / Re: Please let me introduce myself...
« on: November 09, 2013, 06:46:26 PM »
I think your introduction is wrong... it's

"Please ALLOW me to introduce myself.  I'm a man of wealth and taste."

:)

Welcome

2
Technical Support / Re: Not Windows
« on: July 30, 2013, 04:04:19 AM »
So, my question is: for Linux, has anyone found a really good alternative to Lightroom OR are any of you running a high-end hackintosh?

Thanks guys!

I'd also love to find a decent Hackintosh VM.  I think the UI for Mac OS (after 10.4 or so) is god-awful terrible, but would love to have access to it.

3
Lenses / Lens prices..?
« on: February 12, 2013, 03:28:15 PM »
I saw a Craigs List ad for a EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III lens for under $100.

If I recall correctly, this lens was recently referred to as the worst lens in Canon's lineup...is that true? 

4
Technical Support / Re: Best Methods For Long Term File Storage ??
« on: November 14, 2012, 07:31:18 PM »
Lots of VERY questionable advice here in my opinion.

By far the easiest solution is to get a raid5 NAS box and use it as your primary storage medium.  On a regular schedule you can make a redundant copy to an external drive and store it somewhere else.

When I hear stories of people backing up to DVD, the first thing I always think is, oh my god, how much free time do you have?  I have 140 gigs of pictures and I'm sure that's a lot less than a true pro.  Backing that up to DVD would require 28 disks for crying out loud.   

Drobo makes a pretty clever solution for all this.


As to the suggestions for FreeNAS...I haven't used it in two or three years, but when I did, I thout it was a debacle.  It was far too complicated and required far too much user configuration.  I think this was back in the version 7 days...has it improved since then?

5
EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Sync speed only 1/180s?
« on: September 18, 2012, 04:21:30 PM »
I have to admit.. I don't understand why this is an issue at all.

Based on my (very limited) understanding, your flash is only on for 1/1000th of a second.  So it shouldn't matter whether the sync speed is 1/180, 1/200, or 1/500....

What am I missing?

6
So far there doesn't seem to be any consensus about whether video AF only works with these new STM lenses...that's a pretty big deal.

 :-\

7
ok...so the press release isn't clear...

Can you use Auto Focus for video ONLY if you use an STM lens?

Does that mean my $1200 24-105 L lens is no good for video?

8
Pricewatch Deals / Re: New Canon Product Preorders
« on: June 08, 2012, 01:25:59 AM »
ok...so the press release isn't clear...

Can you use Auto Focus for video ONLY if you use an STM lens?

Does that mean my $1200 24-105 L lens is no good for video?


9
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: New camera...shooting macros
« on: May 10, 2012, 05:51:50 PM »
The flower pic posted by neuroanatomist is the type of shot that my wife likes taking.  Bear in mind that we're upgrading from an old SX100 point and shoot, so I imagine that pretty much anything is going to be a huge upgrade.

Ill look at the 15-85, but I think the extra little bit of zoom on the 24-105 will carry the day for me...

How are you calculting the magnification on the lens?  (You guys use acronyms almost as much as the military... ::)

10
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: New camera...shooting macros
« on: May 10, 2012, 04:24:40 PM »
Quote
FWIW, the 17-55mm also has two UD elements instead of one, meaning less CA.  The only area where the L lens clearly wins is that it has less vignetting (always the case using an EF lens on a crop body).

Eh?  Can you try that in english?

11
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: New camera...shooting macros
« on: May 10, 2012, 03:04:47 PM »
What do you mean by
Quote
the IQ is just slightly better than the 24-105mm when comparing them on the same crop body.

The 17-55 is an EF-S lens...the 24-105 is an L lens.  I would assume that the 24-105 would be *much* better in the IQ department. 

How would the prime lens work for macros?

12
EOS Bodies - For Stills / New camera...shooting macros
« on: May 10, 2012, 02:20:55 PM »
I'm on the cusp of ordering a new setup from the Canon Loyalty Program.  The current plan is to get a T3i with the 24-105 F4/L lens and the 50mm F1.8 prime.  (Vegas odds makers are wagering 100:1 that Canon releases the T4i about 90 seconds after I receive this, but I'm just tired of waiting...)


So the question is...how usefull will either lens be for macro photography?  I spend most of my time on portraits and landscapes, but my wife loves taking pictures of flowers. 

13
EOS Bodies / Re: Is this heresy?
« on: May 09, 2012, 09:24:52 AM »
If you can afford a 5D3 with an L lens and still have the cash to afford a 7D, then I really don't see where you have a problem...

 ???

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Mirrorless Information? [CR1]
« on: May 06, 2012, 01:24:59 AM »
I'm still struggling with "EF compatibility, but not EF mount."  If you can't mount it, it's not compatible....by definition.

...Unless they're talking about an adapter, but that's far from clear.

Anyway, if Canon releases a mirrorless camera that doesn't support EF-(S) lenses, that will be a huge failure (in my opinion).  I can't think of a reason that rings true that would compel them to contrive a new form factor.

/shrug

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Mirrorless Information? [CR1]
« on: May 05, 2012, 10:04:45 AM »
Quote
EF compatibility, but not EF mount.

i understand it the way that an adapter is needed?!

Yes. There would be no point making an EF mount mirrorless, the whole point of going mirrorless is so that you can mount the lens closer to the sensor for a smaller package.


I disagree entirely.

To me, the whole point of going mirrorless is to begin to transistion away from some of the physical limitations and liabilities the the current cameras have.  Current cameras still operate too much old film cameras in my opinion...

Pages: [1] 2 3