Messages

61

Canon General / Re: What's your definition of "Pro"?

« on: February 07, 2013, 10:59:37 AM »

You're a hobbyist if you do something you like. You're a pro if you do what someone else likes.

62

Canon General / Re: Physical Ailments From Heavy Gear

« on: February 05, 2013, 05:36:42 AM »

A good physiotherapist might help. I'm getting treatment to my right shoulder that probably didn't even exist 20 years ago - back then, they only treated muscles and joints, now they start with the nervous system. And it really works wonders for me.

Don't try and find workarounds - you'll be easy on some muscles but twice as stressful on others. A BR or Sunsniper strap might help, as might running shoes, but you want to work on the way you handle your camera (regular workouts really do help), not just change it. That'll only change which body parts are hurting

At the moment, I'm carrying my 5D2, 70-200 f/2.8 II, 35L, 24L, Macbook Air, + filters and accessories inside a Thinktank shoulderbag.. It is pure torture for my shoulders, and I don't think it is good for my physical health.

I used slingshots on several longer trips and always regretted that. I now have a Kata (3N1-20, off the top of my head) that transforms from sling into fully fledged backpack - a balanced load is much, much, much easier to carry.

63

Lenses / Re: Resistance to Larger Filter Size, Kills Great Lenses?

« on: February 04, 2013, 12:33:48 PM »

Could someone explain why these specs indicate a need for 95mm filters? As far as I can tell, a 82mm thread would be enough...

64

Lenses / Re: Resistance to Larger Filter Size, Kills Great Lenses?

« on: February 03, 2013, 11:23:21 AM »

I personally still don't see the usefulness of IS on a lens like that and I personally would always chose the non-IS version over the IS. It's really more an amateur gadget unless were talking much longer focal lengths.

I think it'd mostly be for videographers, but it helps in journalistic photography as well - you don't always have time to mind your balance and occasionally you might even want to make a running shot. Sometimes you just need to shoot and hope for the best, and IS will help you improve the odds in such cases.

65

Site Information / Re: Moderators: You are Too Sensitive

« on: February 03, 2013, 10:32:16 AM »

I kind of believe in free speech.

I think everybody here does that, but all freedoms can be abused. Read e.g. "The boy who cried wolf".

66

Lenses / Re: Resistance to Larger Filter Size, Kills Great Lenses?

« on: February 03, 2013, 10:25:06 AM »

I just got the business idea of dslr tuning

I like Also, facts or not, I like the word 'thickle' and most of all I like the info about 82mm filters fitting all my 77mm lenses. Thanks, Marsu42! Ordered a step-up-ring for starters, this would be great for filters I only want to buy once, such as a cpl. Not everyone has the purchasing power of a small country (I'm looking at you, neuro ) and budget constraints are important to me.

Mind you, if I could shell out the 3K+ for a 24-70/2.8IS, I would *not* skimp on the filters - a 95mm B+W MRC would be less than 200 bucks and that's not double the highest I've ever paid. However, a lens with a 95mm front element might get drop-in filters. I know there are even 105mm filters, but I don't know of any lens that would take 'em.

67

Site Information / Re: Moderators: You are Too Sensitive

« on: February 03, 2013, 09:00:30 AM »

if say 49% of the threads on this site were like that, would you be visiting the site?

This. I visited that thread several times to see if some redeeming information had shown up or if someone with more than half a brain had put some sense into the OP - being disappointed each time. Not a big surprise, since the whole thread was based on lies.

Thankfully, I missed the racist rant but in general: I visit this forum to become a better photographer - not to be subjected to the "the internet is a big free-for-all, get lost if you don't like me" movement. And that is not even considering that such behaviour is not just brutally offensive, but also inherently contradictory.

Anyhoo - moderators, thank you. I too had expected this to happen earlier, but it sure is the right course of action.

68

Software & Accessories / Re: Rain Covers

« on: January 28, 2013, 03:06:15 PM »

Op/tech covers are something like a tenner for a pair and the viewfinder hole is already cut out. Try 'em and see if you need more - I've had a pair for years and so far, the answer is 'no'

69

Lenses / Re: Lens Help - 17-40 & 70-200 f/4 or 24-70 f/4

« on: January 28, 2013, 02:55:00 PM »

The 70-200 is way more than just "telephoto" on a FF camera. You'll want that any which way (I'm not a big 70-300 fan, YMMV). I'd take that as a starting point and see what else you can add. I wouldn't pay 1500 for the 24-70/4, if you can get the 24-105 (which is not much worse except for the heavy wide-angle distortion, although I rarely mind) for 600 bucks less. I love this lens and think it's a shame you missed that opportunity.

If you can't pay for a 70-200 and a 24-105, I'd go for option 2. You can always get a plastic fantastic for 89 bucks or whatever they charge and have an inbetween.

70

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Emergency wedding, of sorts.

« on: January 27, 2013, 06:45:21 AM »

...what you need is a metric fuckton of knowledge

So it seems Friend of mine asked me to be second photographer at his wedding, which I've never done before, but I'm getting lots of excellent advice here. Thanks and keep it coming, please

71

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Noise & Aliasing Reduction for Small Pixels

« on: January 20, 2013, 11:18:10 AM »

as you can read the patent was filed 2011 and granted in 2013.

I read the CR post which only told me Canon had filed for a patent. Not a news post, I guess...

72

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Noise & Aliasing Reduction for Small Pixels

« on: January 20, 2013, 10:58:33 AM »

I think the chance that this patent will be applied in the 7DII is negligible, unless the 7DII will be released in 2016 or thereabouts. I'm not sure how much time usually is between filing for patents, getting them granted and using them in products, but I'm assuming it's years rather than months.

73

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS not good for NASA?

« on: January 19, 2013, 06:12:29 PM »

I hate to be a spoilsport, but according to wikipedia, we're talking a bunch of American flies, back in 1947, by a margin of about 6 miles

The first animals sent into space were fruit flies aboard a U.S.-launched V-2 rocket on February 20, 1947. The purpose of the experiment was to explore the effects of radiation exposure at high altitudes. The rocket reached 68 miles (109 km) in 3 minutes and 10 seconds, past both the U.S. 50-mile and the international 100 km definitions of the edge of space. The Blossom capsule was ejected and successfully deployed its parachute. The fruit flies were recovered alive.

74

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS not good for NASA?

« on: January 17, 2013, 10:36:44 AM »

I'll take your word for it, thanks very much

75

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS not good for NASA?

« on: January 17, 2013, 10:31:46 AM »

Great. After lens envy and body envy, I now got location envy. Badly.