December 21, 2014, 02:34:57 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 - Mt Spokane Photography

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 610
Technical Support / Re: Repair cost cf card bent pin
« on: Today at 01:11:09 PM »
With memory cards supporting UHS Speed Class 3 (= minimum 30MB/s) selling for under U.S.$100, and the smaller form factor, I don't see any reason to keep supporting CF any more.

Considering that my old 7D hit write speeds of >45 MB/s, I don't see a card which would take 50% longer to clear the buffer as a viable option.  Also, highest SD card speeds are only achieved after a low-level format, so if you don't perform that time-consuming in-camera task frequently, your speeds get even slower.

Time consuming?  Takes no more time at all to initiate the function, and the actual format only takes a few seconds, of which you are not obligated to watch it carry out. Hardly a valid argument. The write speed issue is clearly a problem. Until the write speeds are improved the buffer fills much to quickly when shooting to SD.

A in-computer low level format writes 0's or 1's to every memory cell, and takes a very long time.  The in-camera low level format is apparently much smarter, because it seems to only take seconds.  I think that its finding just the cells that are not zeroed and writing them, while a in computer format is testing every cell to verify that it works.  That's what you should do to find card issues, but the in-camera low level format will recover the lost speed.

Sraw and Mraw are really for those who have a temporary need to reduce file sizes, and don't mind the IQ reduction.
It would not make sense to spend more $$ for a 50 MP camera and then throw away 1/2 or even more of the pixels on a regular basis.  Just get a 6D.
It is true that it takes computer power to process high MP images, NR and brush functions use a lot of horsepower and can be slow.  Recent generation i7 pc's will handle it fine if you pop in a SSD.  Older (5-7 yr) computers may be slow, my first generation i7 took forever to process NR with my D800 images.  My new $699 Dell XPS does it in 1/8 the time.  since I don't do video, I don't need a high end machine for stills.  If I used DXO, I'd probably want a $3,000 machine.

I've tried DXO several times, it does a very good job of processing a raw image out of the box, but does not really do any better of a job than LR with manual adjustments.
I'd use it, but find it extremely slow to transfer 1000 images to LR, and its not a file organization tool, when you have a huge number of images, organizing them in folders on a computer breaks down, and its difficult to find them.  There are many many ways to find a image in LR, that's one of its strengths.  I found the catalog idea difficult at first, it took me at least a year to really become proficient at understanding and using it, but now its 2nd nature.
the new DPP 4 shows promise with its improved interface, but it does not organize images, so its for those who use other software to organize images, or for those who organize by folder.

Canon General / Re: Thanks Adorama and Helen Oster !
« on: Today at 12:32:13 PM »
I had a bad experience with UPS and B&H's response was disappointing. I was at home all day to receive the 6D + Pro-10 and at 4.30 I receive an email saying UPS tried to deliver at 2.30, but I wasn't at home...B&H's response was lukewarm, but at least they filed a claim right away.
I am sorry you were dissatisfied. I do not know when this took place but I'd be happy to look into it for you. Email order info to me at henryp[at]

Thanks for posting Henry and Welcome to CR.  Things sometimes go bad with online sellers, and having a person to contact who will try to set things right is a wonderful service.  I personally have never had a B&H order go bad, not since my first order in the 1980's.  But, I do know that no one's perfect.

Technical Support / Re: Repair cost cf card bent pin
« on: Today at 12:26:07 PM »
My mark5dIII has got a bent pin in the cf card slot. In the shop they told me that the repair (I think he meant replacement of the slot holder) would cot me 300+ euro's.
WHAT? Is that true? I've bought the camera a year ago. Does warranty do the job?

If the camera is in warranty, and it wasn't caused by a bad card, it should be covered.
What causes the bent pins on CR Card sockets is a combination of card and slot tolerances that lets a card mis-register with a pin or pins in the camera.  I'd certainly ask Canon to fix it under warranty.  I don't know what type of card you are using, but tolerances are critical, so use only the best brands.
You can replace the card yourself, just two tools are needed, a screwdriver with a cross tip to JIS standards (Not Phillips) and a flat blade jewelers screwdriver.  Its best to have a set of each so that you can pick the right size.
There are lots of utube videos showing people replacing the card slot assembly.  You remove the screws (Peeling back part of the rubber covering is required), disconnect the ribbon cables using the flat blade screwdriver to open the clamps, and after working your way to the unit, remove and replace it.
You can buy a replacement from Canon, or on ebay, they are not expensive.
With setup time to prepare a workplace, and putting down some tape to hold the screws, it should take 30-45 minutes.

EOS Bodies / Re: Built in adapter?
« on: December 20, 2014, 09:29:31 PM »
who says they would change the mount distance for a FF mirrorless?
You're proposing they're selling a 6d-size camera with just the phase af, mirror+metering removed? Sure it's a possibility, but on the long run they'll most likely want to make use of smaller cameras with ff iq.
There is a problem moving a FF lens closer to the sensor without losing IQ.

This is just what I'm trying to say here, even if I obviously failed to do so :-p ... if there's a mirrorless ff adapter, it'll basically mean putting the lens just where it is now with mirrored gear.

I doubt that it will happen, that new lens mount that Canon patented a while back was developed for a reason.

They did? I missed that, could you dig out the link and post it please?

Here is one, perhaps what I remembered.  It definitely discusses a new lens mount, and is about as close as Canon comes to saying it will happen.  No patent though.
Here is another.

EOS Bodies / Re: Built in adapter?
« on: December 20, 2014, 08:53:04 PM »
who says they would change the mount distance for a FF mirrorless?

You're proposing they're selling a 6d-size camera with just the phase af, mirror+metering removed? Sure it's a possibility, but on the long run they'll most likely want to make use of smaller cameras with ff iq.

There is a problem moving a FF lens closer to the sensor without losing IQ.  you have to bend the light leaving the rear of the lens more, and that causes CA's and other distortions.  Fixing the issue runs up the price and number of elements in a lens, or you make the corrections in software.
I'd be very happy with just pulling out the mirror, the pentaprism, and the sub mirror / AF module.  Reliability would improve, and my existing lenses would work without a IQ hit.
I doubt that it will happen, that new lens mount that Canon patented a while back was developed for a reason. 

Lenses / Re: How satisfied are you with the 100-400 II?
« on: December 20, 2014, 08:22:01 PM »
Voted 1 - Initial satisfaction is same level as when I first used my 70-200 mark 2.  Both lenses exceeded my personal expectations.  Well worth the wait and pre-order "premium price" for me.  YMMV

I wish someone would take some identical comparison shots with the new 100-400 and the great 70-200 2.8 ii at the same focal length. Such as 100mm and 200mm. I'm thinking a lot of peeps with the 70-200 would enjoy seeing that. (Or not, if the 100-400 blows it away!)  :)

Go to TDP (The digital Picture) they are there for various focal lengths, with / without TC's, etc.
However, they are very carefully setup still photos with manual focus, so AF speeds are not a factor.  If you are taking photos a still objects, a 70-200mm MK II + 1.4X TC will be excellent, but with a 2X TC, its not good.

Have been to the store and we cross-checked everything. They knew some combination of buttons to reset the firmware of the speedlite. Nothing worked. The thing is broken.

The symptoms remind me of the known issue with the 580ex ii that are detailed here:

Punchline is that the IGBT for regulating the current flowing to the flashbulb has been killed, which might be connected to uncontrolled discharge between the bulb and the reflector, a design-flaw.

Does anybody know if this has been described for the 430ex ii as well in the meantime?

That link was a excuse made up by LPA design because their product (Pocket Wizard) was frying flashes.  It basically happened when using a pocket wizard.  Certainly, components in flashes can fail, and there can be incorrectly assembled products.  Few flash users had the issue compared to a high number of PW users.

EOS Bodies / Re: Built in adapter?
« on: December 20, 2014, 07:42:04 PM »
If/when canon brings out a FF mirrorless, would it be possible to have a built in adapter for EF lenses? Compact cameras have "telescope" lenses that collapse into the camera when turned off, would this technology be possible to implement in a mirrorless camera? Would be great if we could mount an EF lens, and the camera would automatically adjust to the correct flange distance.

I'd not want a EF 600mm lens hanging from some sort of telescoping mechanism, it might last for 1 shot.  I'm sure someone could design something, but I believe that any new lens mount would have to be larger than the EF mount.  If smaller, it would block the image circle. 
It does not sound practical on the surface, but it might be a way for Canon to design something that would not work with 3rd party lenses.

EOS Bodies / Re: Ron Martinsen Blasts the 7DII in his review
« on: December 20, 2014, 07:35:40 PM »

i read the article. it is outdated (2006). i don't know if the same percentages apply now? the article concluded that you got 5 ff sensors vs 13 crop sensors from a "silicon wafer". that translated to a cost of $385 vs $38. this conclusion was based on knowledge of semiconductor production and conjecture. not known costs. i don't suppose there is any published information about what the actual manufacturing costs of various sensors are?

The old article was based on a Canon white paper, and things have changed.  They now use 12 in wafers instead of 8 inch wafers, and the process of tooling for 18 inch wafers is under way.  There is less waster when using larger wafers, the issue is making one that has few defects.
The cost of wafers has dropped a lot as well. 
If a wafer has just a few defects evenly spread around the sensor, it can ruin most of the sensors on that wafer.
This is a old article, but it gives a good explanation of the issues faced in making camera sensors.   There are some very sophisticated processes involved in trying to eliminate or reduce defects.

Canon General / Re: How does one close/delete one's account ?
« on: December 20, 2014, 07:04:36 PM »
Just stop posting.  Your posts will soon be so old that no one reads them.  CR can close your account, but your posts remain.

EOS Bodies / Re: Ron Martinsen Blasts the 7DII in his review
« on: December 20, 2014, 07:01:39 PM »

i am not a socialist and i believe in free enterprise but i don't agree with price gouging. i think the price of ff cameras has been artificially inflated for a long time. they are free to charge whatever they want as long as they are not involved in collusion and price fixing. afaik that would be illegal in the u.s.

Try looking over the financial reports for Canon, Sony, Nikon, Panasonic, Samsung.  Then tell them how they can cut the price of products by 50% and still make the 5% profit they now make.

Lenses / Re: Quick Comparison: Canon's new 400mm Options
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:46:18 PM »
It's late, and I'm tired, so I don't entirely trust my results here.  However, if I'm right, this will explain these results.

The theoretical maximums, simply caused by diffraction, are 1555 lp/ph for f/5.6 and 2199 lp/ph for f/4.

So, the reason the 100-400L improved less is that there's less room to improve between the old one and the diffraction limit than there was for the old 400/4DO which has a higher diffraction limit due to its faster f-stop.

In fact, the result for the 100-400L II is just 1% less than what I'd calculate from a perfect f/5.6 lens behind an AA filter.  And that 1% number is based on a rule-of-thumb for the AA filter that itself is less accurate than 1%.

We probably will see a bigger difference on high MP bodies where the lens will have a bigger impact.  I'm not about to fool with calculations.

EOS Bodies / Re: Ron Martinsen Blasts the 7DII in his review
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:42:41 PM »
I happen to be friends with Ron and have worked with him for some time.  While I do not always agree with his reviews, he's pretty straight up.  One thing is he has always stated what he thought about products - even when it wound up pissing off his sponsors.  Keep in mind that the majority of big review sites out there have to temper their disappointments in order to not suffer financially.

In terms of his review on the 7D2, I happen to agree with it. \

so you recommend that someone who is not using the 7D MK II for wildlife or sports buy a D4s?  A D4s won't do sports or wildlife?  What is he on??
I was kinda wondering the same thing. What does he have against the 1Dx if he recommending a high priced ff? Where does the D4s beat the 1Dx for sports or wildlife? If they're good friends then they may be sharing the same smoke pipe.

Yes, except, as I read it, he is recommending the D4s if you are NOT doing sports or wildlife.  Maybe its just poorly worded, but that's the way I read it, the everyone else meaning those not shooting sports or wildlife.
 Canon sports shooters with a big lens investment would be better served investing in a used 1D Mark IV which will outperform this camera both in terms of image quality and performance, and everyone else should consider a D750 (or a D4s if you can afford it)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 610