July 23, 2014, 03:07:34 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 - RGF

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 82
Strange that we suddenly have quite a few first time posters asking the documents to be published or claiming that they've had problems with their gear. :-\ :-X

Yup - issues like this enflames the masses.

Yet another pasionate debate without the facts.... sigh!

All too true.

Reminds me of the saying, better to keep quiet and people think that you are a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Lots of opinions.  Few facts.  Few people have professional experience in an area related to this. 

It would be nice if there was some sort of definite test for the flaw - an occasional OOF image in cold (or even warm) weather could be due to any one of a number of factors. 

If the docs can help us determine if our equipment suffers from a flaw, then probably yes.  This is docs only will make Canon too bad, personally I don't see the point.  Canon makes great equipment and yes, some not so great equipment.  Healthy discuss is a good thing; finger wagging to be-little Canon is childish.

Canon General / Re: Travel charger for Canon LP-E4N battery
« on: April 03, 2014, 10:50:41 AM »
I travel on a lot of and have always wondered why Canon did not make a one battery charger (even if only to buy as an accessory). I use more than one battery a day quite frequently, but would be more than happy with a one battery charger if they made one. As it is now, I just travel with the original.

No third party charger is ever going anywhere near my Canon batteries.


Software & Accessories / Re: Looking for a focusing rail
« on: April 03, 2014, 10:46:43 AM »
Thanks for the great idea.  I'll look into the Manfrotto but the RRS is very attractive.

Software & Accessories / Re: Looking for a focusing rail
« on: April 02, 2014, 05:33:35 PM »
Thanks for the great information.  I will probably go with the RRS solution, though the cost was a bit higher than I was hoping.

I am not handy enough to even attempt Niteclicks system.


Software & Accessories / Looking for a focusing rail
« on: April 02, 2014, 12:39:08 PM »
With spring nearing, I am thinking that I would like to get use a focusing rail to help my macro work.  Ideally it would be great to have a motorized setup, but with the need for power (batteries) that would make the rig too large to take to the field.

Next best would be a stepping rail with some sort of gear knob to allow me to move the camera in fine increments.

Any experience/recommendations? 


Perhaps we will see (I can dream) that we will see $2000 of 1Dx.  That would be nice, very nice  ;D ;D

Canon General / Re: Travel charger for Canon LP-E4N battery
« on: April 01, 2014, 02:04:48 PM »
Don't try a "universal charger" like the one they sell at "The Source".... I have a friend who got one for her SX-40.... and it didn't work.... I tried it on my LP-E6's.... and it didn't work... she gave it to anther friend with a Rebel and it didn't work... and the last person in our group had a Nikon p/s and it worked for her...

Moral of the story, universal chargers aren't....

Not surprised.  Jack of all trades, master of none (actually cann't make any work)

Canon General / Re: Canon USA Opens New Midwest Service Center
« on: April 01, 2014, 02:03:39 PM »
Since Canon already has a service center in Itasca, IL, I can believe this one is real.  Makes sense to add a service center outside Chicago.

Great news for me - it is less than 50 miles from my house so I can drop off my equipment to be serviced.

It would have been nice if this license was announced tomorrow

EOS Bodies / Re: New Full Frame Camera in 2014? [CR1]
« on: March 27, 2014, 11:51:21 AM »
These threads always polarize the forum community, but I do think there is a market for high-resolution sensors. And I believe Canon is aware of this, and are trying to develop such a system (Zeiss mentions the word "high-resolution sensors" multiple times in their Otus announcement, and they cater to both Canon and Nikon). However, given Canon's recent trend towards bringing out the absolute top products in their class, it is more than likely that they are spending the extra time and effort to create something great rather than settling for good. After all, with good sales on their existing products they don't need to push out something before it's ready.

New systems will double, if not triple, in price.  I guess I could afford them, if I don't travel (or eat)  ;D

Maybe that's why they haven't introduced much exciting stuff in the past few years...

Yup.  1DX, 5D3, and 6D aren't much fun...   :o  24-70 F2.8L II and 70-200 F2.8L II aren't much fun either... ;)

Don't forget the II version of the great whites.  Real winners.

My wish list includes 14-24 as good as Nikon's (in fact it would be great if they would license the Nikon lens), 100-400 replacement, and something in the high MP range that is affordable. 

I think Nikon may have under priced their D800 in order to gain share from Canon and "gave the razor away in order to sell blades".

EOS Bodies / Re: New Full Frame Camera in 2014? [CR1]
« on: March 26, 2014, 10:02:48 PM »
I would expect a 44.2MP 4K FF sensor (11520x7680)

Curious - how did you get that sensor size?

Isn't 4k twice 1080 which is 1920 x 1080 so twice would be 3820 x 2160?

Update - 1D X results:

-Lexar 95 145MB/s (according to the package) write: 51 frames
-Sandisk 90MB/s write: 52 frames
-Sandisk 150MB/s write: 57 frames

This is interesting and shows that the buffer size or the interface in the 1DX is different than the 5DIII, but all of the results are excellent given that the Sandisk 1067x card is delivering a burst depth of 35 RAW frames in the 5DIII (vs. the rated 18) and 57 RAW frames in the 1D X (vs. the rated 38).  RAW+JPEG to the two Sandisk cards topped out at 15 frames, FYI.

Bottom line - the fastest Sandisk cards rock the 5DIII, while the older Sandisk cards are a great deal for the 1D X.  Lexar doesn't quite ive up to their specs, at least in these two Canons.

Also, on a personal note, the 1D X may only be 2x faster on paper, but the thing sounds about 20x faster than the 5DIII.  I can't wait to shoot with it...

Interesting but how did you measure 51 or 57 frames? 

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Medium Format
« on: March 26, 2014, 01:54:08 PM »
Like I said, it just seems to me, that professional cameras, will all move to even larger sensors in the future.


Because not enough consumer level cameras will sell...because those people use smartphones and tablets (or whatever the fad will be at the time) to take pictures.  Again I'm not saying Canon will replace 35mm format sensors, with something 50 to 60mm, or larger in width.  I'm saying it seems like it would be between 36mm and 50mm...like 40 to 45mm.  And it won't be in widespread use...for quite a while...8 to 10 years is my prediction.  But I'm not predicting the demise of Sony in the meantime...Nikon might be another story, though!

You keep repeating this assertion. People keep saying they disagree. They give their reasons...which are well thought out and logical. You consistently reject their views, but don't offer any evidence to support your position.

You say if Canon offers this amazing super camera at a fraction of the cost of its competitors it will create the market and suddenly everyone will want this imaginary camera. What makes you so sure Canon could offer such a camera at a fraction of the cost of its competitors? And, what makes you so sure moving to a larger sensor would suddenly become the end-all and be-all of all photographers, when so many people on this forum are saying "no thanks."

If anything, the trend has been toward smaller sensors. Full frame sells only a small fraction of APS-C and even then, one of the main reasons why full frame is popular is because it is consistent with the traditional size of 35mm film cameras. It's a size that has been tested and proven in the marketplace. Why would the world suddenly want a new size with all the compromises and additional costs it would entail?

It's fun to debate these sort of esoteric issues for entertainment purposes, but really, just repeating the same assertion time and time again without anything to back it up gets a little tedious.

FF and crop sell for different reasons.  Crop sensor camera are generally less expensive.  FF have better signal to noise.

It would be interesting if there were comparable FF and crop sensor cameras with the only difference the sensory size (and related factors such as S/N).  Frame rate, build, controls, features would otherwise be identical.  Which would sell better?  Better S/N or a reduction in angle of view (effectively increasing focal length)?

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 82