December 22, 2014, 02:27:36 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 - Rat

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 18
181
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Blinking Red AF Point Information
« on: November 15, 2012, 09:45:49 AM »
They should release whichever feature has been implemented and tested thoroughly. That way, we would get new feautures sooner.
Agreed. However, a firmware upgrade is often associated with 'repairing' things, so if they put out too many, the camera may, to the uninitiated, come across as unfinished or broken. Also, it's possible to f*** up an upgrade (empty batteries, turning it off halfway through, etc) and Canon will obviously want to limit the number of "their software bricked my camera!"-stories. But still, agreed :)

182
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Blinking Red AF Point Information
« on: November 15, 2012, 09:18:30 AM »
Forget making him switch to Nikon.... "Off with his head"  I say !
Isn't that about the same?  :o

183
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Blinking Red AF Point Information
« on: November 15, 2012, 09:05:37 AM »
Dear Canon,

If you really can't get the red lights to work with AI Servo, please may you hand us something else as an apology.
Don't victimize yourself because you bought a great camera with a few shortcomings that you could - and should! - have known about in advance. You're just saying that you bought the thing on impulse and that you want to blame the consequences on someone else.

If you insist on this behaviour, please switch to Nikon.

184
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Blinking Red AF Point Information
« on: November 15, 2012, 08:34:27 AM »
Good to have the info, and to know they tried.  But it kind of sounds like they are saying "sorry, but no dice."
Anyone else thinks that the April release date for the new firmware was set so far in the future in order for Canon to have time to work out how to go about this problem?

It'd be very nice to have, but it looks like you're right - and the sooner they give up, the better; that way we won't have to wait as long for the f/8 AF and, hopefully, a higher minimum shutter speed with auto-iso.

185
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: AA Battery Charger and Batteries
« on: November 10, 2012, 10:03:56 PM »
Eneloops hardly need any attention. The figures vary, but Sanyo claims capacity decreases by 15% yearly. I recharge all spares about once a year and the rest when necessary, which is basically only after use.

186
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: AA Battery Charger and Batteries
« on: November 07, 2012, 06:40:54 PM »
Im really looking forward to not buying normal batteries AT ALL ANYMORE EVER!
There, I fixed it for you :) You may find yourself buying more Eneloops for a while, however, for everything you own with AA or AAA compartments.  I did, about five years ago. Never looked back, never spent another dime, very happy :)

Oh, as for the charging: as a rule of thumb, charge at a current of 1/3rd of the listed capacity tops. So for a 2100mAh battery, use 700mA or less. Makes 'em last longer.

187
EOS Bodies / Re: Hydroscopic coatings
« on: November 05, 2012, 10:07:52 PM »
What we want is 'Hydrophilic' - water-repelling.
Correct term - as used by the BBC in the above program, which I watched with interest, too - is hydrophobic ('tending to repel or fail to mix with water'). This is actually the exact opposite of 'hydrophilic' (lit. 'brother to water'). And by the way: anything with 'hygro' relates to all moisture rather than just to water.
Quote
It also requires careful engineering so that all potential points of water ingress (think buttons, switches, displays, battery-compartment, CF-card case, electronic interface points (HDMI, USB, N3, X-Sync, etc.) are also made to resist water ingress.
The hydrophobic coating that the BBC demo'ed could be applied to all surfaces, including those internally in the camera. Such a through-and-through seal, as shown by Miracles of Nature, would not require seals as you describe 'em, it would just make everything water-repellent. This would be done by toying with surface tension on a molecular scale, is what I understood from it.

The difficulty with that solution is electric currents. The smallest scratch in such a coating, e.g. on the contacts of a memory card or in a switch, which tend to be vulnerable to scratches anyway -  and the conductivity of water would render your device useless.  A phone without an sd-slot, without mechanical switches, with a soldered-in battery and with a properly sealed sim-card slot might be commercially waterproofed using hydrophobic coatings. For electromechanical devices such as dslr's, current solutions are regrettably as pricey and cumbersome as they are optimal, if you ask me.

Mind you, I'm talking about fully waterproofing a camera here. Obviously such a coating could go a long way in making a camera more water-repellant.

188
Lenses / Re: "Affordable" telephoto lens for wildlife
« on: October 31, 2012, 04:11:43 PM »
I have a 70-200 f4 IS USM lens and I am planning to shoot some bird shots next month (during my vacation). Is there a compatible teleconverter? Canon support person told me that he thinks only f2.8 lens are compatible with 1.4x or 2x teleconverters but does not know for sure if I can use the teleconverter with f4 and manually focus?

Please advise.
I have the 5D3, a 70-200/4 IS and a 1.4x mark II and they play together very well, including reasonably fast AF. The 2x TC's will fit as well, but you will have to focus manually. That's a firmware measure: you get yourself a Kenko 2x TC and you should be able to use AF on f/8. In that case, though, you better be prepared for very slow AF with lots of hunting ;)

Thanks for your quick response. Will there be an IQ difference between Canon and Kenko?
Sure there is, and normally you'd pick Canon over Kenko. Kenko, however, has a whole series of TC's, some pretty good, some pretty bad, most of 'em cheaper than their Canon counterparts. I picked up a 2nd hand 1.7x which is very 'not very good' (but it was cheap though!), I hear their top ones are between Canon's mark II and mark III, IQ-wise. However, I cannot speak from experience.

189
Lenses / Re: "Affordable" telephoto lens for wildlife
« on: October 31, 2012, 03:41:24 PM »
I have a 70-200 f4 IS USM lens and I am planning to shoot some bird shots next month (during my vacation). Is there a compatible teleconverter? Canon support person told me that he thinks only f2.8 lens are compatible with 1.4x or 2x teleconverters but does not know for sure if I can use the teleconverter with f4 and manually focus?

Please advise.
I have the 5D3, a 70-200/4 IS and a 1.4x mark II and they play together very well, including reasonably fast AF. The 2x TC's will fit as well, but you will have to focus manually. That's a firmware measure: you get yourself a Kenko 2x TC and you should be able to use AF on f/8. In that case, though, you better be prepared for very slow AF with lots of hunting ;)

190
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]
« on: October 31, 2012, 01:01:34 PM »
wala!
That's it, I'm switching to Nikon.

...srsly. If someone can switch to Nikon for something Canon is offering, rather than because of something Canon isn't offering, I can buy a g*****n D3200 if you misspell 'voila'. Just sayin'.

191
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]
« on: October 30, 2012, 07:00:58 PM »
Also, can someone speak to why the EF-S folks have a $1000 17-55 F/2.8 IS and EF folks are left wanting? 

Is making such a lens for a crop that much more technically feasible or inexpensive?
Obviously - a fullframe equivalent would be 27-88mm. That reach is well covered for FF by the 24-70's and the 24-105, especially if you consider that the depth of field of the 17-55@2.8 roughly equals f/4 on FF. And if you'd really want 17mm, you'd be buying a 16-35 for your 2.8 or else the 17-40. The 24-70/2.8 I and the 16-35 I (and the 24-105) were both in the 17-55 price category, the mark II's outperform all of the above and are priced accordingly. Factor in build and weathersealing, and you'd almost think the 17-55 is the overpriced one :P

Enniehoo, the 24-70/4. Sub-$500 is not going to happen - this L IS-zoom is just no way going to be cheaper than the 2.8 IS primes. So 'cheap' would still mean it needs to compete with the 24-105 and 2nd-hand 24-70/2.8 I's. Doesn't make sense. A high resolution one with IS might make more sense. The only alternative I see is a parfocal STM lens for video, but I'm not sure they'd try to outfit an L with STM already, on the off chance it'll happily sit being a dud next to the DO lenses*. STM will need to prove itself first.

No, I say the new kid's going to perform really good, and it's going to cost a bundle. And it'll probably sell like hotcakes to those who need the best, and even better to those who want the best.

*) Yeahyeahyeah, I'm sure the DO's are good, even very good, they're just not the real deal, what with the weird bokeh ;)

192
What "clean" means is explained better than I could in this post, but yes, it would have embedded audio - but that's no change to the current situation :)

193
Great stuff Frankie, and please be safe!

194
Software & Accessories / Re: Supplies for beginners?
« on: October 29, 2012, 08:16:28 PM »
My go-bag contains at least an extra battery, an extra 32GB card and a microfiber cloth. Then, depending on the weather, I bring a rain sleeve (that will fit both camera and a pretty large lens), and although I too always shoot raw only (meaning I can change the white balance afterwards), I usually bring a white balance cap. Most all of these items can be had for peanuts on eBay, except the memory card (for which you should do a little more research, quality and speed varies wildly). But the cheapest gadget will always be the trusty plastic bag - fill it with a bit of sand and you have a great tripod ;)

195
Software & Accessories / Re: Graduated Neutral Density Filters
« on: October 28, 2012, 04:21:22 PM »
Check the Lee Filter System.
In what way are these filters better than a Cokin P set? I got me that and am pretty happy with it for the occasional shot - rings and mounts can be had for 1 or 2 usd on eBay, and where the <$5 filters will be hazy, the actual Cokin stuff, for a few dozen bucks each, I think is pretty decent. Is this just filter quality or does the Lee system have other advantages?

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 18