October 25, 2014, 07:49:00 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 ... 316 317 [318] 319 320 ... 577
4756
People, I think we're getting off topic here.  It doesn't matter a bit whether 4 lenses or 5 lenses had to be tested to find a really good one - either percentage (only 20% excellent or only 25% excellent) is completely unacceptable from a major manufacturer such as Canon.
We are trying to determine exactly what the information is that he is referring to.  He says he has information that has not been posted.  There is nothing on the site that says one of five or even one of four was the only good ones. 
A poster who refers to another blog should be able to back up his claim.  The article was updated yesterday, and only describes issues with two lenses, so if there were five, what about the other three?
We would like to see the post that Bryan made saying 4 of the five were defective.

4757
Technical Support / Re: ACK-e6 vs, AC-e6 made in China
« on: October 17, 2012, 02:16:06 PM »
I believe that the AC-E6 plus a DR-E6 is the same as the ACK-E6. You can purchase the DR-E6 separately and use it with the AC-E6 adapter.
The problem is that counterfitters also produce similar units with the same model number.  You can buy counterfit ones for under $10.

4758
Thank you Canon.
But makes me wonder why this was not provided initially.
Beter late than never...

+1. 

I literally almost bought the Kenko 1.4x yesterday, to try out with the 100-400mm for those times when I can't bring the 600/4 II.  Now that the Canon 1.4xIII will soon give me AF, I've just ordered the 2xIII (to replace my 2xII) for use with the 600/4 II.

Side note - the Kenko remains a viable option for those with a 70-300 L, which is physically incompatible with the Canon TCs.

My Kenko 1.4X TC is still within the return window, but I'll keep it.  As noted, it works at f/8 with many lenses that do not accept a canon TC, and even focuses at f/8 with my old 10D!
I do hope they release a similar fix for the 5D MK III, but they will likely delay, if only to find out about any bugs once a large number of users have the firmware.

4759
Lenses / Re: Canon Announcements Next Week? [CR1]
« on: October 17, 2012, 11:53:22 AM »
New Lens announcements seem to have fewer leaks than new bodies. 
I'm not sure which Fluorite elements take a year to grow, its been a while since I read the article, but, as I recall, it said they took up to a year to grow.  Presumably, the larger they are, the longer it takes - (thats a pretty safe bet). 
The issue with power is that they have the fluorite in a molten state to grow the crystals, and a loss of power will ruin the batch.  Japan was having rotating power outages for months after the earthquake, and the power required for the big furnaces is not something you can supply with a ordinary portable generator.  The electric furnaces for glass probably use even more.
Natural Fluorite, Artifical Crystal, Lenses

4760
Lenses / Re: "Zoom Creep" on the 24-105L : My Solution
« on: October 17, 2012, 11:35:11 AM »
Wish there was a Canon approved solution for this. Pain in the butt with the creeping.

I don't even know if Canon can adjust that if you send in the lens to their Service Center... anyone know??
I haven't disassembled mine, but I have redone the old 70-210 push-pull lens I had.  It has a grove under the rear of the ring that had some felt like material that provided a seal as well as friction.  I tried various solutions to replace it, and finally just got a good grade of tale and taped it to the inside of the ring.  That seemed to work well, I gave it to my daughter.  The electronics died after a couple of years, and I found another used one that, amazingly enough, did not have zoom creep.  If any lens is going to creep, its the 70-210!

4761
I've read the review and test from Lens rentals where they tested several with good results.  I've also read the Digital Picture review, where he bought two lenses, and returned them getting two more for a total of four.
How did you come up with 5?

All 4 sets of images are shown with their images on his site.  From what I can tell, the two replacements were better than the first two.
I can't figure out your statement about one of 5 though.
To answer your question, having to return both lenses to get good copies is unacceptable.  However, most photographers do not have the test capabilities that Bryan has, and will be thrilled with them.
I'm holding off waiting.
As far as Nikon goes, I've had one, and was not impressed at all, so there are poor, good, better, and best samples and Nikon is well known for its sample variation as well.

"We now have a properly tuned Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM lens sample available in the ISO 12233 charts (sample 1)."

I asked him about this, and he stated that he has a 5th copy which replaced the originaly copy #1.

So: Sample #1, #2, #3, #4 & #1 Replacement

Odd, it isn't the way he explained it in his forum
It is confusing, The way he elplained it in the article as I read it is:
Copy 1 is Sample 2, Copy 2 is sample 3, New lens or Copy 1 replacement is Sample 1, and apparently the Copy 2 replacement, or a entirely new lens is Sample 4.
"Copy 1 ("Sample 2") is extremely sharp wide open (f/2.8) across the entire focal length range - until 70mm at f/2.8 where its performance is only average and even trails the original Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM Lens in the center of the frame. An ISO 12233 chart retest of this lens delivered identical results. Real world shooting confirms the test results. This lens is so sharp at the rest of the focal lengths and at 70mm f/4 that I was hesitant to return it."
Copy 1 ("Sample 2") is extremely sharp wide open (f/2.8) across the entire focal length range - until 70mm at f/2.8 where its performance is only average and even trails the original Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM Lens in the center of the frame. An ISO 12233 chart retest of this lens delivered identical results. Real world shooting confirms the test results. This lens is so sharp at the rest of the focal lengths and at 70mm f/4 that I was hesitant to return it.

Update: I have the lens I'm looking for and will complete the review soon. The new lens is represented as "Sample 1" in the ISO 12233 chart results. A forth lens was tested and is presented as "Sample 4".

4762
Canon General / Re: Rockwell knocks one out of the park (no kidding)!
« on: October 16, 2012, 11:26:09 PM »
I am still getting tired though, of the "it doesn't matter what camera you have" crap.  Yes it does.  If it didn't you wouldn't see arguments about the lack of features on the 6D, you wouldn't see the D800 threads, and you certainly wouldn't be buying a 1DX.  Why don't we all go buy 20D's, a nifty fifty, have dinner together with candlelight and wine, and then go for an evening walk holding hands?  Afterall, we have all we need!!
Given a choice, I'd take a 20D with a good lens versus a 5D MK III and a 35-80mm lens. 
 
A body does make a difference, but not as much as the glass.  The bonus being that for those with a lot of glass, a upgrade to the body gives a boost to all of their glass with relatively little cost.  However, a cell phone camera more and more seems to be used to capture the really newsworthy images and not DSLR's.  Thats simply because they are with so many people all the time.  Just having a camera with you can be better than the best camera at home safely locked in your vault.

4763
Lenses / Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving this copy.
« on: October 16, 2012, 11:17:13 PM »
Assuming you've ruled out a mis-mounted lens hood, I'd say it's decentered and I'd exchange it.
Yes, I'd go for a replacement, except that I'm just sitting back and seeing how everyone is doing with theirs.  So far, I've read about a lot of sample variation, which is a bit disgusting.  I'd consider the Tamron, except it seems to have even more issues with QC.
Once you have found a good one, never let it go.

4764
Lenses / Re: Estimates on backorder times?
« on: October 16, 2012, 11:08:21 PM »
That's what I was worried about. Here's what I'm looking at used-wise. Am I crazy, or does this look like a decent used lens?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/200831768761?_trksid=p5197.c0.m619
I'd stay far away from used ones.  The lens is well known for being easy to knock out of alignment, even by those who are pretty careful.  Most users do not have the equipment or the knowledge of what to look for.
If you must buy a used one, get it from Lens Rentals.  They test them for sharpness and issues before selling them, so you are going to get a good one as long as there is no damage in shipping.
They seem to be out for now, but you might email Roger and ask.
 

4765
Software & Accessories / Re: Canon Protective Filter Question
« on: October 16, 2012, 11:03:11 PM »
The Canon filters I have are just plain glass, no UV.  UV is not needed for digital.  However, a non reflective coating is needed, and thats where flare reduction likely happens.
I avoid the use of filters unless I'm in a dust storm, and then, I usually don't bother to use my camera.

4766
PowerShot / Re: Down to the RX100 or G15...
« on: October 16, 2012, 10:51:18 PM »
I stopped in a our local camera store today and looked at the RX100.
Strike 1 - The first thing I noticed was the lack of a grip, so I started out disappointed. 
 
Strike 2 - Then I tried to focus on various objects, and found I could not focus to something I thought was reasonably close, maybe a foot, more or less.
 
Then, I found that even with my large hands and fingers, I could operate the controls reasonably well.  That was a plus.
The short zoom range was a bit disappointing.
 
I felt that the camera overall was pretty good, too bad I'd have to buy a aftermarket grip, otherwise I'd be dropping it a lot.  The lack of a close focus position is not a huge deal if the camera were to cost $250, but for the price, it was a big disappointment.
I'm still considering it, they will have the Canon M series next week the salesman told me.
If  the price of the G1 X drops more, it might be in my price range by Christmas.

G1X sounds better though heavier.  I've also found G1X enjoyable to use than RX100.  My only gripes is that its macro mode is disappointing also.  EOS M might be a better alternative but it's bigger and bulkier and costlier.  But it's also the perfect backup camera.  :)
Yes, there seems to never be a perfect camera that fits all of us.  I'm not complaining, because I prefer to have competition and new features, which automatically insures that they will not be boring and all alike.

I kept trying to use the touch screen on the G1X and RX100, but no amount of wishing would make one appear :)
 
Thats somethinng that really works well on the T4i for someone with big clumsy fingers.  Just touch the spot that you want in focus and its done.

4767
I've read the review and test from Lens rentals where they tested several with good results.  I've also read the Digital Picture review, where he bought two lenses, and returned them getting two more for a total of four.
How did you come up with 5?
All 4 sets of images are shown with their images on his site.  From what I can tell, the two replacements were better than the first two.
I can't figure out your statement about one of 5 though.
To answer your question, having to return both lenses to get good copies is unacceptable.  However, most photographers do not have the test capabilities that Bryan has, and will be thrilled with them.
I'm holding off waiting.
As far as Nikon goes, I've had one, and was not impressed at all, so there are poor, good, better, and best samples and Nikon is well known for its sample variation as well.
 

4768
Lenses / Re: Estimates on backorder times?
« on: October 16, 2012, 09:56:37 PM »
Its discontinued and not available unless you happen to find some old stock.  There are no backorders being filled for 6 months that I've heard about.
You might be better off with the far superior Tamron 24-70mm IS.

4769
PowerShot / Re: Down to the RX100 or G15...
« on: October 16, 2012, 08:45:00 PM »
I stopped in a our local camera store today and looked at the RX100.
Strike 1 - The first thing I noticed was the lack of a grip, so I started out disappointed. 
 
Strike 2 - Then I tried to focus on various objects, and found I could not focus to something I thought was reasonably close, maybe a foot, more or less.
 
Then, I found that even with my large hands and fingers, I could operate the controls reasonably well.  That was a plus.
The short zoom range was a bit disappointing.
 
I felt that the camera overall was pretty good, too bad I'd have to buy a aftermarket grip, otherwise I'd be dropping it a lot.  The lack of a close focus position is not a huge deal if the camera were to cost $250, but for the price, it was a big disappointment.
I'm still considering it, they will have the Canon M series next week the salesman told me.
If  the price of the G1 X drops more, it might be in my price range by Christmas.

4770
PowerShot Cameras / Re: G15 Low Light Test Images
« on: October 16, 2012, 08:14:54 PM »
perhaps just a link to a ISO 3200 raw file?  i can't download 130mb.
Thanks

Pages: 1 ... 316 317 [318] 319 320 ... 577