July 31, 2014, 06:33:29 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 - 7enderbender

Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 ... 43
391
I get these as solutions for pros carrying more than one camera - and who draw a paycheck and have appropriate insurance etc.

I don't get it for things like travel photography. I haven't found the "ideal" strap yet either but I'm okay with my Crumpler for now. I find the 2-point connection much more trustworthy and don't want to muck up the tripod socket (especially with the battery grip which I would think puts additional strain on the connection between camera and grip). Plus I don't like straps across my chest.

The holster idea doesn't look appealing for crowded places to me. I know that in such circumstances or in tight spaces I often pull the camera from the side towards the front of my body. Don't see how you would do that with a holster. And again: a lot of trust in one single connection...

392
EOS Bodies / Re: Unofficial Canon Mirrorless Concept
« on: March 22, 2012, 12:40:17 PM »


Plus, a FD mount adapter would be easy to implement without degrading IQ since it will not require any optical elements.

That's true and it would be nice to have that option on a full frame camera. Ideally though I'd like to see them go back to the good old mechanical lever for the aperture. I know that it's not going to happen. Just saying.

393
EOS Bodies / Re: Unofficial Canon Mirrorless Concept
« on: March 22, 2012, 12:34:40 PM »
Neat artwork David, but what is the point of mirrorless?
You have a great lens line-up that you're not going to use?
No, you either have an aps-c 7d-like camera so it's fps make it a mini 1d or if you're using whole new lenses, why not make a bigger, square sensor -- larger than 24x 36 the 35mm film standard. Seems to me the mirrorless are all entry level for a reason.


Not all. The M9 isn't - if you count a rangefinder as "mirrorless". I want Canon to give Leica a run for the money in that department. Either as a small and rugged full-frame manual DSLR (that would look and feel like my AE-1p for example) or a full frame rangefinder set with fast 35, 50 and 135mm lenses for total of under $5000. Or in other words: a camera for everyone who really wants an M9 but can't afford to shell out 15K or so. I mostly like my 5DII but that could be a camera I would love if done right.


394
EOS Bodies / Re: Unofficial Canon Mirrorless Concept
« on: March 22, 2012, 10:01:32 AM »
Glad the smite button is gone for this one...... Why not just  make it look like the F1n  ;)

Sure. That would still be my dream camera: a full frame, manual focus F1n-D SLR for FD lenses. I can't be the only who never fully got over the switch to the EOS AF plastic lenses, can I?

395
EOS Bodies / Re: Unofficial Canon Mirrorless Concept
« on: March 22, 2012, 09:52:52 AM »
This looks all very good. Not sure if something like this would fit well into Canon's marketing concept but maybe it does. Hey, if they throw in an optical viewfinder or make it a manual focus rangefinder that is more affordable than a Leica kit I'd be buying this. Actually, I'd be giving up my EOS system for this - which brings us back to the marketing problem with the idea.

But really - anything that would pick up on the heritage of the classic Canon rangefinders and the certainly the FD system would be fabulous. Just imagine if something like this came with the FD bayonet and a bunch of new lenses matched to that design.

396
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Peace of mind for high end gear
« on: March 21, 2012, 09:53:11 AM »
Sounds all good to me. How would you recommend storing your gear for semi-long periods of time? I don't use my camera heavily, and there might be periods of a month or more where I don't use it.

So where do you get the dessicant bags for your long term storage solutions? Is there a good provider, or recommended amazon product link for bulk dessicant?

Pelican (and similar companies) have all that. It's worth it for the dust protection alone.

397
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Peace of mind for high end gear
« on: March 21, 2012, 09:50:04 AM »
Canon will warant the equipment for one year for manufacturer's defects.
The instore warranty is for damage, but is limited I believe, so you may want to check it. You must return the damaged equipment for the warranty. Lost or stolen obviously is not covered.

In my opinion, the best way to cover youself is by adding these items to your homeowners insurance.

I agree that insurance is the way to go. I'm personally still looking for camera insurance in Massachusetts which is a problem in our highly regulated insurance market where some of the heavyweight companies don't do business (State Farm for instance which seems to have a great and affordable product for this purpose).

I'd be cautious with adding things like this to the homeowners insurance. They do not cover everything the way special camera insurance would and you also have to check what your deductibles are - to a point where filing a claim may not always be worth it; especially given the risk of messing up your homeowners insurance premiums because of an incident that may not be worth that in the long run. To me homeowners insurance is for big claims that relate to your home and it's not necessarily a good way to insure consumer goods even when valuable.

398
Wow, what an, err, unpleasant fellow. I admire your restraint.

I'm sure the guy ultimately got the package. It's been my experience also that international shipments can take a very long time. I've had stuff from Europe take 2 months or even more on several occasions. And the same in the other direction. Sometimes stuff just sits in customs - especially custom made items that are not listed on the usual code lists that these guys are working off. I remember the nightmare with German customs several years back when I ordered a set of handmade guitar pickups (Lindy Fralin - another hero who started out with a great idea and great personalized service). I actually ended up calling the customs officer and he had them sitting on his desk and didn't know how to categorize them.

In any case - looking forward to my .5mm adapter for my FD 500 f/8 reflex. That should be a fun addition to play around with and maybe do some birding now that the weather is nice.

Question while I have you: does it come with the instructions on how to program the chip? Is that even possible (5DII)? Also does this combo work with an tele extender, either FD or EF? I was thinking about maybe adding the EF 1.4x which would also be a nice addition to my 200mm 2.8L and 135L. Just a thought.

Thanks


399


Did I spend £45 on a fake?

Pics below!


You may. There was an article somewhere recently that dealt with the vast numbers of Canon counterfeit items floating around. This is becoming obviously a bigger problem with all things that have a potential for high profit margins. Talk to anyone in the pharmaceutical industry where this has become a problem bigger than most folks like to admit - and it even happens within the supply chain.

So you may end up with a fake battery even at a mainstream dealer. The article showed some pictures of real and fake. Some fakes were so good that you just couldn't tell. I make it a point to only buy from authorized Canon dealers. Even there may be a risk but at least then you're covered if you notice or if anything happens.

http://www.canon-europe.com/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/Digital_Camera/IXUS/counterfeit_batteries.asp

I would contact Canon about this and notify them and get information from them. I would try to get my money back through Amazon and notify them also. Should be in their interest to help you.

Good luck.
 


400
Lenses / Re: Canon 50mm 1.4 AF problem?
« on: March 19, 2012, 10:25:13 AM »
The 50 f/1.4 is a pretty crappy lens. The USM motor and focusing ring aren't made very well. Invest in some L lenses and don't look back.

Which "some L lenses" do you recommend as an alternative? The 50 1.2 comes to mind but that has it's own issues especially when considering the price.

I'm still hoping for an upgrade of either of the two lenses (and hopefully not another non-L "IS" version like they did with the 24 and the 35...).

401
Lenses / Re: Canon 50mm 1.4 AF problem?
« on: March 19, 2012, 10:21:29 AM »
Wow, that's interesting to hear. I have a 50 1.4 where the AF got flaky. It started when I took it to the beach and it got a few grains of sand in the lens from a blowing wind.

Strike #1, no weather sealing, very easy to get dust/dirt inside

Eventually I cleared the sand, but holding it face down and shaking and what not. Didn't see the sand exit the body, must have been a few grains. Until then the lens was locked up, the USM wouldn't work. Anyhow with the sand cleared out, the AF started to work again, intermittently.

Strike #2, AF fails after about five minutes of use, every time.

The lens kicks around, I've thought of sending it in, but it wasn't expensive in the first place and didn't seem worth it. Now I have the 24-105L and get much better pictures, colors in particular are better on this lens, plus the weather sealing.

The only thing the 50 has going for it is that it is small. It's fast, but you don't want to use it wide open as DOF is too narrow.

I'm not really following here. I have both those lenses and they simply don't compare. Taking any camera to a beach or into the desert to me is user error - unless it's a paid gig. Not that I haven't done it since I live at the ocean but you have to be extremely careful and maybe lucky. Sand is just nasty independent from weather sealing or no weather sealing.

The 24-105 is a completely different lens for a different application. The 50 is really meant to be used wide open in my book and it is exactly that narrow DOF that some people are after. I suspect that the 50 is also better when stopped down as far as sharpness and contrast is concerned but if so then it's likely so marginal that it doesn't matter for any practical purposes.

402
Lenses / Re: Canon 50mm 1.4 AF problem?
« on: March 19, 2012, 10:13:48 AM »
I'm just about ready to pull the trigger on this and buy this lens to do some music/concert photography with, but have read quite a few bad customer reviews about the AF dying. It seems a fair margin of people are experiencing this problem. How bad/likely is it of happening?

A lot of people say their AF "quits working" after a few months and do multiple times they send it back to canon to get it fixed. AF tends to quit working after the 1yr warrantry expires. They suggest to get the 50mm 1.4 or even the sigma 50mm (which doesnt have AF which is what i want).

Anyone know more info on this issue?


Well here is my biased and unscientific take: To me the 50 1.4 is still one of the best optics ever. The current EF version has exactly the same lenses as my old FD versions of it. There is a reason why this has been considered the reference lens for years and decades. And if it was good enough for film it is good enough on my 5DII. It's one of my favorites and it performs.

That being said, the EF 50 1.4 is built like junk and in that respect has nothing in common with its predecessors. Mine is working fine but I also baby it. I bought the original hood for it and NEVER take it off. My suspicion is that the flimsy little clutch of the little AF motor gets banged up via the protruding lens element. So the hood protects it from physical impact that way. Are there other reasons why many people report problems with it? I don't know. Maybe.

The other problem is what the alternatives are. As far as I know there are issues with literally all 50mm lenses available for the EOS system. Different issues but non is perfect. Given the price and my past experience with the optical design I took the risk. I'm waiting for Ed Mika to come out with his general FD/EF conversion kit. Alternatively, I'm still tempted to go find a good FL 55 1.2 and get the conversion kit for that one.


403
I'm looking for online shops that sell Canon gear AND offer to deduct VAT by adding your vat number. I'd really prefer German or UK shops, but any EU shop would do really.

So if you know of any please list em up... it really does matter that you can deduct VAT straight away.

I know that this used to be possible but as far as I remember some things changed a few years ago. The last few times I tried this shops wouldn't do it any longer. The way this works now is that you get the appropriate receipts and a specific form that you can then get approved by customs once you leave the EU. At least that's how it works for non-EU residents.

For EU-residents you have to remember that you may be able to deduct that VAT in the country where you buy your camera but then owe it in your country of residency. Everything else really is tax evasion. I know that people do it but that doesn't make it legal. If you think your VAT is too high you should talk to your government about it. Other than that I fully understand the question and openly admit that I prefer buying expensive items on our tax free day - or in the neighboring state to the north that doesn't have a sales tax.

404
Software & Accessories / Re: Lightroom VS Photoshop
« on: March 16, 2012, 04:42:49 PM »
Which is recommended for photographers? Not necessarily most popular but more for practicality, ease of use and functionality. I’m currently using Photoshop.


It depends on your preferred workflow and/or if you have a workflow already established. And LR is a bit like a Swiss Army knife - which is a problem if you need a jackhammer.

I use both and you'll find people that will tell you you only need the one or the other (or something entirely different). I would make the argument that there are good reasons to own both.

As far as my personal preference is concerned: I've been using PhotoShop in one way or another since the early 90s or so. I'm not saying I'm very good at it or even know everything it can do - but I know how to find what I need and learned how to use. LR can do a lot of those things as well. And the things it does it does pretty quickly and very well when it comes to editing. It has a few features that PS does NOT have but that are pretty nice. But then again there are some things that LR can't do - even pretty basic things like dodge and burn, which I like using. Yes, I know people will tell you that there are all sorts of workarounds and how it really is the only tool a "serious" photographer will ever need.

I think the main reason this is so popular with the pro folks is that it is great for batch processing and quickly going through a hundreds of photos from a shoot. It beats Bridge with that (once you've learned some rather quirky things in the user interface...).

But here is the bad part in my opinion: it is horrible when it comes to its original core function as a library management tool. It only knows one way of doing things. It's Lightroom's way or the highway. The whole concept of an image editing database doesn't fly with me. I want to have an original and an edited version. I don't care for "virtual" copies and non-destructive editing. And now with the switch from LR3 to LR4 I care even less about it because all of a sudden if you switch from one version to the next you run the risk of having all new settings applied to your entire inventory if you import everything under the new development process.

Even worse: it is extremely cumbersome to work on more than one PC with this. The new version still has no official network support and syncing and exporting databases always makes me nervous.

So, I do use it. Actually a lot more than I originally thought, since there have been more and more reasons for me to go through larger numbers of pictures at a time (event and concert shoots for example). Making selections and quick adjustments to those is pretty nice. But then I end up exporting the edits to a network folder and its backup locations - so exactly what LR really isn't meant for.

You could argue now that at that point it's pretty easy to go back later and change the editing - if you remember which PC you originally worked on...But honestly, that usually never happens. If there is a reason to than get into deeper editing on a few pictures you're much better off with PS.

There is one other important difference: LR is relatively cheap (and just got cheaper). PS is very expensive unless you have access to a student/teacher version or so. I picked up a copy of LR3 for under $100 and I have yet to see a reason to upgrade to LR4. And one more: LR (as far as I know) easily transfers between Mac and PC. With PS it's either one or the other. If you want or need both you (usually) pay twice.

Hope this helps. Again, this is my personal observation and experience with these. Some people have very strong feelings one way or the other.


405
You gotta love the description:

Description:
1). This LCD Hood protector is specially designed for DSLR camera.
2). Its perfect state-of-art design allows it integrated with the LCD system and makes the camera more professional.

Now I have to get one of these. Or better two.

Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 ... 43