March 04, 2015, 06:40:05 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 - 7enderbender

Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 43
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why canon?
« on: January 19, 2012, 09:46:46 AM »
I recently sold off all my nikon stuffs and ready to jump to canon because of the varities of lens available from Canon and also it's seem more affortable and more highly rated as compared to nikon. The way I see it, if i continue with nikon i couldnt afford those "N" lens as they are way over my budget. Whereas with canon, i could start of easier with the 24-105L f4, the 17-40L f4 and maybe the 135L f2 in near term.

My situation is kinda epic as my friends pointed out, i was so sure i'm going for the 5Dmk2 and at the same time a used 24-105L mint condition happen to passby and i got it without a body in hand. This all happen in Dec, and by Jan i'm ready to get my 5Dmk2.........but to my bad luck, my iMac logicboard decided to quit and can consider my iMac is total. The replacement of the logicboard is as close as a new iMac. Therefore i have no choice but to forego the 5D 1st and get my computer sorted out. Where as the same time i am also like some, having the dilemma whether i should wait for the mk3.  ::)

Oh come on. If you can make the switch from Nikon to Canon you can also go from MAC to PC. It's really the same bang-for-the-buck issue only more so ;-)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why canon?
« on: January 19, 2012, 09:40:51 AM »
For me it also was based on what was available. My dad had (still has) a Canon A1 so that's what I started using first before I got my own AE1-P. It always did what I needed it to do and has been around the world with me a few times and been refurbished twice. I still use that one.

One of my best friends also happened to be a Canon shooter so we were always able to share gear. I never made the switch to the EOS system during the film days though. Just wasn't a big fan. I came close once to buying a used Nikon F5 once but then didn't though I really liked the feel of that one. Also, Leica R bodies made it on the short list a few times. Same with Contax. Olympus was nice as well and I actually just loaded my MjuII with a roll of film. But I always stuck to the Canon FD system (plus the occasional Canon digital P&S). Unfortunately, with digital there is no good way of using those lenses still. The aforementioned buddy bought a Samsung NX10 and still uses FD lenses with that one. It's a bit iffy though.

So when digital became more or less unavoidable I had to decide where to go since I needed to start from scratch. With unlimited funds I would have opted for the Leica M9. In the real world it became a decision between Nikon and Canon (and Sony for a very brief moment). In the end I chose what I was most familiar with. Both have their pros and cons. And Canon red just looks better than Nikon mustard yellow...

Canon General / Re: 5D Mark ii units sold
« on: January 18, 2012, 09:41:32 PM »
Hey everyone!
I am compiling a short essay regarding how the 5D mrk ii had started the trend of DSLR cinematography. Does anyone have an idea of how many units Canon has sold vs the original 5D? I remember Vincent Laforet stating some number in his HDSLR Cinematography class but cant for the life of me remember what it is! I have also seached and searched on google but cant seem to find the right phrase to search with!

Thanks for your time!

Very interesting question and topic. I'd like to read that when you're done and if it's public. I've been wondering also about their actual profit margin on this thing.

OK, not sure where to post this o sorry about putting it here as it's a bit off from the usual topics....

So, somewhere I think we've all been at one time or another (or a few hundred times) with our better halves. Sometimes we get a bit carried away with photography and our other halves get a bit put out right?

I'll start off with one my wife has never let me forget. It was 2008, our first trip to Europe together and we went to Paris. On our first night we went to the Eiffel tower and all the other couples were having their photo taken together with the tower in the background  and being very romantic. I possibly (well, definitely) spent a bit too much time photographing the tower with the tripod, DSLR, cable release etc and sort of grudgingly took some couple shots with a point and shoot....I know, it was bad of me and I've never lived it down.

In my defence though, I sort of made up for it by taking very very few photos on our honeymoon to Bali last year.....the Paris incident often comes up as soon as we are talking to people about travel though, next time I go I am not taking a camera at all.

Wonder if anyone else has stories like this? I'm sure there will be one or two...

Actually, I don't think I really have stories like that. And I'm not really sure what you did wrong. How much time did she get to spend in Paris doing something that you could care less about? Maybe the proverbial shoe shopping (which I personally don't mind even since that can make for, err, interesting pictures back in the hotel room - but that's for another day)? And why is it a good thinkg to have fewer pictures from your honeymoon? I don't get it.

My wife actually encourages me to spend some time on the things I deeply care about, including photography. She knew that she was marrying a bit of geek and gear head. And I encourage her to do more of her thing (writing in her case). That's all fine as long as you keep an eye on your time budget together as a family - and on the monetary budget, especially if one person's passions are significantly more expensive than the other's (guitar and camera gear in my case - bad bad combo of interests).

The latter problem I solve by paying myself a kind of allowance for these things but is also used for other things, like vacation expenses, little things here or there or paying some unexpected bill.

But this was mostly about the time management, so I guess everyone can develop their own strategies there as long as both sides understand the importance of doing something for your own sanity short of signing up for some account...which is where things often end up if even taking a few once-in-a-lifetime shots in Paris turns into a big deal. 

One of the problems with radio triggers are the different frequency bands in different parts of the world, not to mention concerns with transmitters  being used in commercial aircraft.

Its probably not likely that Canon would make different versions of a camera body that might be illegal in some parts of the world but fine in others.  I would certainly not like to have my camera siezed due to RF violations as I went thru customs.

It just may be possible to find a common frequency that is legal today, but tomorrow??

If you are traveling from USA to Europe, you have to leave your pocket wizards home, or buy a european version to take with you.  Japan uses a different frequency as well.

Its a big mess, and I doubt camera makers are keen to get involved.

+1. I doubt we will ever see this. Canon is an international company with the goal of selling its gear worldwide. They may market things slightly different here and there by naming the same product differently in some parts of  the world. But I don't see how they'd be interested in having three, four or five different lines of flash equipment. Or not be able to sell certain things in various countries at all. Or cause even more trouble for their consumers and pros not being able to travel to certain places or being hassled into not using their camera gear in certain spaces where interference would be a concern.

So I don't really see this happening. Ever. I kind of know this type of problem from the audio world. I've been using different wireless guitar transmitters over the years on two continents - often times illegally, because regulations differ and even changed over times. You'd have to have multiple versions of the same gear to be always within regulatory requirements. Or use a cable which is what I have gone back to. Sounds better anyway.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Splitting Audio from a Mono Mic
« on: January 15, 2012, 09:17:56 AM »
Hey Forum!

I did a search for this topic before posting; but I have an old microphone that will HAVE to make due on a video shoot that I'm doing soon.  I shot a test video and after reviewing the audio discovered that it was mono.

My question:

Is there any way to split the audio coming in from this mic, in post production for Vimeo™ or Youtube™?

We are starting a campaign of videos and just honestly can't afford anymore specialized camera equipment after dumping $1200 on the 35mm f/1.4.

Any suggestions from the canon family here would be excellent! It'll be a few months before I can invest more money, but STEREO mic input suggestions for a T2i & my 5D Mark II would be excellent!

Thanks so much!


Yes, there are plenty of easy to use and cheap/free audio processing tools available that you can use to either just duplicate the one track or even add some faux stereo effect and even spread things out a bit.

It all depends then on what you are using for your video editing to get the tracks back in the video file. Make sure that things are timed right.

But honestly, don't expect any miracles from this. And this is really the thing I don't understand about the video hype around DSLRs. Sure, the low light pictures from the large sensor look nice, shallow depth of field, etc. That's all great. But it doesn't make a 5DII or anything really a video camera unless you spend A LOT more on all sorts or other gizmos including microphones, amps, software, special lights, etc.

You may be better off just renting a professional video camera and appropriate audio equipment for your project. I find the video function of my camera to be utterly useless.

In any case, I would start with something like Audacity. Or for short-term use you could look into a trial version of Cubase which now has some video track editing built in.

EOS Bodies / Re: DSLRs are a dying breed, EVIL is the future!
« on: January 12, 2012, 01:07:57 PM »
I don't see the general design concepts contradict each other. I like the size and weight of my DSLR for its use. I'm actually one of the crazy people who added the way-too-expensive battery grip to my 5DII to enhance the ergonomics and balance.

That is not to say that I wouldn't like adding another small camera at some point that is more capable than my current digital P&S. Actually, I'm closely looking at what Canon does with the new G series and certainly what Fuji just came up with. High want factor. But not as a replacement.

EOS Bodies / Re: Is there an advantage to still having a mirror on a dslr
« on: January 12, 2012, 10:17:43 AM »
ubiquitous AF gizmo - I won't be happy. Yep, you read that correctly. I just called AF a gizmo. It's rarely ever necessary or even useful and I find it a creative hindrance.

i guess you never photographing sports or anything that is moving fast then?
and please no "yes i do but i alway prefocus...".   ;D

:-) Sure, that's why I said "rarely". This is one of those rare occasions where it is useful (though still a bit of luck involved and the faster frame rate of a modern camera may actually be contributing more to having a few keepers). In my case this is limited to my son's soccer games. Sports is not really my thing so trading my old viewfinder for the one on my 5DII still feels like a bad deal all things considered. For portraits and anything in low light (such as concert photography) I find that I'm better off turning it off - at which point the flimsy imprecise focus rings even on L lenses become more of a nuisance.

Don't get me wrong, I like my new camera gear and it can do stuff that my old film gear can't do. But there are also a few things where it is clear that sometimes things are being sacrificed in the name of progress. If only the Leica M9 and appropriate lenses weren't so insanely expensive. And even that is not the same as a really good SLR viewfinder.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: CES 2012 Cool Stuff - BETA Shell Cases
« on: January 12, 2012, 09:29:59 AM »
I'm not sure there's much of a market for lens cases.  I have a couple of brand new, still on the card Lowepro lens cases that I can't sell or even give away.

Hm, I'm actually a sucker for this kind of stuff. I like lens cases and a camera wrap to stuff things into a regular backpack at times. Like my Tamrac lens cases for that.

These are certainly overkill for everyday use but I could see how this is interesting for people who go hiking, boating, biking, etc. Not so much for the "shockproof" factor (which looks more like an afterthought since they had to make things fit into the plastic shell) but for the weatherproof aspect.

However, what I was immediately looking for was a similar case for camera bodies and flashes. It's cute how the show their little custom bag that holds a few of the Beta cases - and then a flash and a body without any protection. What's the point then?

EOS Bodies / Re: Is there an advantage to still having a mirror on a dslr
« on: January 12, 2012, 09:03:51 AM »
I keep reading everywhere that mirrorless cameras are awesome. That coupled with P&S released at CES with the same size sensor as my kiss x4, is there anything you lose from going to a mirrorless system?  To reiterate, would a mirrorless Kiss x4 just be better than a mirrored kiss x4?

The problem is that this exact question will be repeated by the marketing folks and by users who never actually used a real nice viewfinder until another remainder of the analog realm has disappeared and declared obsolete/too expensive/stupid/whatever.

I sure hope not. I'm still trying to get over the disappointment that even on full frame you are pretty much stuck with the compromises in the viewfinders due to AF technology. I never "upgraded" from my FD system to the EOS line exactly because of that. I still like the old viewfinders, manual focus and the build quality of the old lenses better. Call me crazy. Now with digital there is no other choice. If the camera manufacturers now decide to even take away the optical viewfinder on my SLR(!) - as mediocre as they have become because of the ubiquitous AF gizmo - I won't be happy. Yep, you read that correctly. I just called AF a gizmo. It's rarely ever necessary or even useful and I find it a creative hindrance. Moving things to a screen now would be even worse. Not interested.

Lenses / Re: 135L or 100L macro?
« on: January 11, 2012, 06:48:06 PM »
[...] here are a couple things to consider about the 100 macro "L".

1) It is crazy sharp.
2) It has great IS
3) You can use it for macro when you want.
4) You can hand hold close focus shots.
5) It's a good focal length for portraits.
6) It has an auto-focus distance switch that you can use, so that focus is faster and more accurate depending on whether you are using it for macro or for regular shooting.

Downside: for "true" macro the IS isn't all that useful since the narrow depth of field usually requires that you use a tripod anyway (too hard to get accurate focus handholding.) It is, however, very useful for quasi-macro work where you want to get in close to a subject.

I can't speak to the 135 f2. I'm sure it is a great lens as well. All depends on whether or not the extra stop and extra 35mm focal length are more important to you than the Macro and IS.

Good point about the IS that I totally forgot in my assessment above. I personally count IS as a negative in any lens. I find its usefulness overrated and see it as another lose part that will shorten the lifespan of the lens. IS -and frankly the AF - will potentially be two of the reasons for me to look elsewhere for a macro lens (and wide angle prime).

Not a very popular view, I know, but one I'm willing to reasonably defend. And just a different perspective. Not trying to convince anyone one way or another.

Lenses / Re: 135L or 100L macro?
« on: January 11, 2012, 04:56:39 PM »
Not to be repetitive but I recently went through the same mental exercise. Eventually, I want both but the question was what was more important for me now. Main objective was portraits/candids/etc. Yes, the 135L is very sharp. But more importantly, its OOF blur is just so nice. I'm sure the 100L macro is close and I'm not even sure if I'd be able to tell the difference. But then again, there is something about the 135 that works well for me. Maybe it's because I grew up using my dad's A1 first and there was "only" the FD versions of the 50 and the 135. Those are still my favorites.

If your objective was macros with the occasional portrait the 100L would be a no-brainer. If the main concern is people then the other way round. Can't go wrong either way. Though, while there may be few alternatives for good macro lenses the 135L is a thing on its own.

EOS Bodies / Re: Camera insurance recommendations?
« on: January 11, 2012, 12:04:21 PM »
I got a quote and it was like $500+ or so.

Part of the issue is PPA and TCP provide liability coverage too, i.e. if someone trips over a strobe stand, you are defamed.  It is more than just equipment

That's great for those who need it but I really don't see how that will ever make sense in my case. Sure, one could argue that there may be instances where it's technically a good idea in a worst case scenario.

EOS Bodies / Re: Camera insurance recommendations?
« on: January 11, 2012, 11:50:47 AM »
A question to all our well-informed and busy travelling photographers here:

I'd need coverage for about $7,000.


As previously stated here I have State Farm's insurance policy.  I have over $10k covered and it is really cheap. 


I have made two claims already as the first time my camera completely quit on me, and the second time it fell to it's death.  I received a letter from them, then stating that if another 'incident' happens in the next 7 years that they will either:

A: Drop coverage and not allow me to utilize the PA Policy any longer or,
B: Require a deductible.

I wouldn't mind paying a small deductible for such losses, however, after speaking to my agent personally; he said that coverage problems like these typically end up with them dropping the customer.  Due to the frequency of false claims by people and them taking advantage of such a great policy; they have a zero tolerance for problems as these.

Which definitely sucks for us who are legit customers and aren't taking advantage of the system.

In addition to all of that, my State Farm agent also said that the only time he had seen someone not get dropped after 3 claims in 10 years, is if the 3rd claim is done within the ending year of the contract. So if in the 9th year I make a claim, they won't drop me, but then will require a deductible.

::Takes deep breath::

And since we are all here to help each other; I pay for $10,000 renters insurance and $10,000 PA Policy and my YEARLY dues are only $240.00

If worst comes to worst and something does happen in the next 7 years with my camera gear, and I am in fact dropped from State Farms policy; I will be turning to these guys:

I hope this helps 7ender!


Thanks a lot. The State Farm deal seems ok to me. Unfortunately, they don't do business in my little over-regulated state. That's part of my problem and also related to my reluctance adding anything to my home owner's insurance. I talked to my agent about that and after doing some math and looking at what is actually covered and what isn't she flat out recommended against it. Even if I had a rider I'd probably not claim anything even in catastrophic camera event. The risk of the home owner's insurance going up - or worse being dropped - is too costly in our case since there are only two commercial insurance companies that were willing to insure our home here in MA and (technically) close to the ocean. That's part of life in the beautiful Commonwealth.

I'm checking with Travelers at the moment but I'm not too hopeful. Leaves the professional organizations like PPA. Ain't exactly cheap since you have to go for the "pro" level coverage and that's about $350 a year for the membership that comes with 15 grand insurance coverage. Probably a good deal altogether, but more than I was hoping to spend with the prime goal of obtaining coverage for my EOS system.

I'm curious about the TCP deal though. Just went to their web site and they are asking for way too much detailed information for just a quote. I may have to call them. Anyone done business with them?

Thanks again.

EOS Bodies / Re: Camera insurance recommendations?
« on: January 11, 2012, 09:53:08 AM »
I use State Farm for home owners and auto, and I have a separate Personal Articles policy from them to cover my camera gear.  I believe that they're writing policies in MA again (they weren't when we moved here, but we were able to transfer policies in with us); however, I'm not sure if they will do a PA policy as a standalone.  Coverage is worldwide, full replacement value, no deductible, and I pay $7.60 per $1000 coverage.

Thanks. That's exactly the policy I'd want. Unfortunately, they don't take on new MA business unless you are an existing client. Argh.

Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 43