September 17, 2014, 07:50:11 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 - RustyTheGeek

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 60
376
Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM
« on: December 12, 2013, 09:33:55 PM »
Love the image of the burro or donkey.  Was it natural light or did you build the shot?

377
Lighting / Re: Shaping the Lite
« on: December 12, 2013, 09:26:42 PM »
Yes!  Great post!  It was interesting to compare the variation and outputs of each modifier in conjunction with each zoom setting.  And I am also glad to see how well the Sto-Fen worked as we all likely have one in our kit.  It just works.  The Sto-Fen is and should be everyone's first flash related purchase!

378
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
« on: December 12, 2013, 09:17:34 PM »
Someone mentioned this earlier, but the new charger I received does not work with 3rd party batteries (all my slightly older chargers that came with my 60D & 5D Mk II do). I know there has been discussion about this being due to internal components, etc., but all things considered that's just BS. Canon just doesn't want you using anything made by a 3rd party manufacturer.

I have to agree.  While I share dgatwood's opinion that taking steps to safeguard the charger to prevent charging unknown batteries makes sense, it's most likely less about that and more about reducing 3rd party battery use.  Unfortunately this does nothing to change things, it just makes it more trouble and confusing for the user.  If they are going to take this approach, they should be upfront about it and put a note/alert/warning on the charger that says something like 'This charger will not charge non-Canon batteries for safety reasons.' and then at least someone would know they aren't crazy.

379
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
« on: December 12, 2013, 05:23:45 PM »
I wonder what's next.  Maybe with the next firmware, when you mount a Sigma/Zeiss/Tokina or other third brand lens, it'll say "irregular lens" and you'll have to push a bunch of buttons to get the camera operational.

Very annoying.

Yes.  I'm very concerned that Canon isn't proactively 'protecting me' from inferior pictures due to 'incompatible' lenses in case I decide to blame their camera instead of the lens.  Or the camera may fry due to incompatible lens electronics.

Seriously, having an 'incompatible' lens or flash actually happens.  Some 3rd party lenses fail to work correctly on newer generation bodies.  Same goes for flashes.  So that's nothing new.  And I doubt it's by accident.

380
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
« on: December 12, 2013, 05:13:56 PM »

IMO, that's actually a pretty good analogy for the way Canon is treating their customers with the whole battery issue.  I've been trying to order legitimate Canon batteries from Amazon since I got my 6D back in June or July, and they've been consistently out of stock, with no expected delivery date.  And prior to that, according to various reviews, Amazon was apparently selling counterfeit Canon batteries.  This from one of Canon's official distributors.

Before Canon shuts down the third-party manufacturers, they need to fix the serious supply chain problems that make their own batteries so hard to obtain.  Canon has far bigger problems than the inflated price of their batteries....

Laptop batteries are much bigger than the batteries in cameras, often have less packaging to secure them against impact damage, and are charged while you're using them.  IIRC, the overwhelming majority of catastrophic Lithium ion battery failures happen while you're charging them, not when they're idle or in normal use, so that's really not a fair comparison.

Odds are, you're just risking a charger that you can replace for $35....  I mean yes, one could theoretically catch fire while it's in your camera, but I'm pretty sure you're more likely to get struck by lightning on the way to the shoot.  Also, your homeowner's or renter's insurance will almost certainly cover fire damage in the highly unlikely even that it does happen.

I agree on everything above.  No one likes record companies or their business practices.  Now I'm waiting for the eventual backlash to my Apple rant.   LOL!! ;D

381
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
« on: December 12, 2013, 05:03:59 PM »
Over the years, this "third party battery" discussion has been pretty well done to death.  Of course, what's at issue now is the fact that people seem to think Canon is deliberately nixing out (just as some claim the latest Nikon firmware just did for those folks) usability of third party batteries.  FWIW, I am probably the type of customer that Canon loves.  I will only put Canon batteries into my cameras.  I personally don't understand why someone would shell out thousands of $ for bodies and likely more for lenses and complain that a battery costs "too much".  I noticed in one post that someone stuck a $10 one in their body.  Really?  You want to risk your camera melting by sticking in a $10 battery?  And I think it was the same fellow that said, and I paraphrase " batteries are not rocket science".  No but it is made out of a wicked metal that has been known to melt and destroy certain items.  Case in point is the use in laptops.  Many a recall has been issued over people finding their computers getting pretty hot.  And you want to risk your camera doing the same?  I know the third party users will tell me that it's very rare if ever that it'll happen but for me at least, it's not worth it to put something volatile into my camera that will potentially give me problems.  And for those too that think the cost is too high, the Canons do on occasion go on sale.  I have two originals that came with my bodies and picked up two on sale for $50 each.  Like I said, I may be the ideal Canon customer from their point of view, but from mine, I never have to worry about firmware headaches or chips or heating issues.

I can't argue with your logic and for the most part I agree that after spending $1000's on the whole kit, why try to save $xx on a cheap battery.  Everyone will likely agree that the Canon battery is the best choice.  I think most folks are just irritated that they spent $1000's on the whole kit and Canon is simultaneously gouging them on the price of extra batteries and then messing with their freedom to choose another battery where they never did before.  Why go there, Canon?  Just leave it alone.  Why generate ill-will?

The bigger insult is Canon wasting time on this when there are many better and more important things to deal with in the firmware that many have been waiting to see addressed for YEARS.  If Canon wants to mess with battery stuff in the firmware, why not implement some kind of protection algorithm and assist users with protecting their investment regardless of the battery that's used instead of slapping them upside the head for a non-Canon battery.

Let's be honest... if the 3rd party battery is purchased from a reputable maker, it's simply not much different from the OEM battery.  This hasn't been a problem in the past, no reason to worry now.  The battery tech in these cameras, phones, etc is indeed a mature technology after all these years.  We aren't powering a plane or even a laptop.  It's a camera that runs on milliamps of power over time.  And Canon very likely pays a major battery manufacturer to make their batteries just like everyone else.

I also agree that problems during the charging process are more likely whether it's a Canon battery or a 3rd party battery.  That's when things usually go wrong in a bad way.

382
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
« on: December 12, 2013, 03:45:06 PM »

Anyone remember all the BRICKED IPHONES Apple intentionally damaged with an update back in 2007 when folks tried to jailbreak their phones?  Hope Canon doesn't try THAT!!  But I digress...

It wasn't a jailbreak.  It was an unlock in which they overwrote part of the firmware with garbage data... and didn't make a backup of the real data to restore it if the hack ever broke, which it did....

It was quite the debate 6 years ago.  I guess it depends on how you were affected.  The longer one has known Apple, the more skeptical one becomes of their innocence in things like this.  Apple has always made great stuff and then bullies everyone about it and brags how smart they are.  Then they whine about the world copying them.  It gets old after a while and it's never really changed after 30 years.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/01/a-note-to-both-apple-and-iphone-customers-on-the-v1-1-1-update/

In general, Apple has always been known to be unforgiving and quite the bully when it comes to users trying to use an Apple device any way but the way Apple intends or allows.  (One example was simply wanting to use an iPod without iTunes a few years ago.)  Apple has also always loved to sue the entire world over just about anything.  It was comical in the 90's when they were a small company but now it's a major PITA since they have so much cash.

http://www.electronista.com/articles/12/09/10/could.have.weak.case.in.trademark.dispute/
http://www.digitaltrends.com/international/forget-samsung-apple-now-suing-polish-grocery-store-for-infringement/

**- Warning:  Snark Ahead... -**  ;D
Keep in mind that one never buys an Apple device for personal use/ownership.  That is a myth.  One merely buys the privilege of using it the way Apple intends, to show it off to friends so everyone will spend money to consume Apple content from the App Store and iTunes.  (Or on more Apple devices.)  That's the main reason Apple makes anything now, to generate more revenue in their online stores. 
**- End of Snarkiness -**  :o

After all this is said, don't misunderstand.  I like Apple products in that they are nice, pretty, and well designed/made for the most part.  (As long as they work, then you're sunk.  No repairing Apple stuff, buy another new one.)  Apple products are overpriced to be sure but they are unique and great to use.  It's Apple The Company I could do without.  (Sort of like 'MomCorp' in Futurama.) 

In a perfect world, Apple would make the same great products but then they would shut the hell up and let users do what they like with the wonderful products they paid a lot of money for.

Okay, shoot me.  I digressed my ass off here about Apple in a Canon Battery thread.  Here's the hammer and staples.   :-X

383
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
« on: December 12, 2013, 02:24:23 PM »
If Im going to purchase a $2000-$3000 camera Im certainly not going to compromise it with a third party battery that Im not sure how it was made and to what standard. Ive seen what batteries can do if they have a thermal runaway (as poorly made Lithium Ion batteries can do) and its not pleasant.
I recently bought a Canon battery for my 6d (which I could have bought cheaper on-line) for £ 40.00 ($65) in my local camera store, on Amazon I could get third party as low as £ 10.00 ($16) but for such a vast difference you know corners have been cut.

but any battery can blow up, I have seen many batteries blow up and catch fire which were all OEMs.
Yep.  Just ask poor Sony!  And BOEING!

384
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
« on: December 12, 2013, 02:23:34 PM »
I saw "I don't want to pay $100 for a battery" from someone, in a $1700 camera?  I don't get it . . . get your camera at the best price possible, then you can afford genuine accessories.

Are there any improvements that come with these batteries, or is it all a price game?

Do any of these, for example:
charge faster?
take more of a charge?
last longer (more charge cycles)?
operate in more extreme temperatures?

This brings up an EXCELLENT POINT.  Everyone is focused on cheap alternative batteries.  The other side of the coin is a battery built to be superior to the Canon OEM.  This isn't as common but what if someone offered a better, lighter, stronger, faster and more colorful battery than Canon (with a big 'S' on the side)?  If it helped me and improved my use, I would want to buy it, even if it cost more than the OEM.  It would suck to have the best most ultimatest and badasstical battery around and not be able to see any charge status or have it talk to my camera correctly.  So yet again, thanks Canon for making things more complicated that don't need to be.

385
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
« on: December 12, 2013, 01:40:14 PM »
Just for the record, we are big Amazon consumers in this house.  So for $20, I bought one of these 'JoeCool' batteries just for the hell of it.  I'll let you know how good or bad it is, if it charges, throws an error or simply catches on fire while in flight.   ;)

386
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
« on: December 12, 2013, 01:36:38 PM »
If the movie/music companies, (aka: the most greedy/sleazy entities on the planet) had simply made their movies/music more affordable from the beginning, no one would have wanted to go to all the trouble to copy or download inferior music files to get around the high cost. 

As much as I’d like to bash the record companies, I’m going to have to disagree.  People steal music because it’s free and easy.  People steal crap music that they’ll hardly listen to, because they can.  People steal music that they’ll hardly listen to, because like all their specialty lenses camera components that they hardly use, people get into collecting useless crap because they want to have a big collection they can tell people about.  People can definitely afford to buy the songs that they really enjoy listening to, but they don’t, because people don’t see it as stealing from these big bad record companies.

Cost doesn’t have much to do with it.  I see kids at Starbucks getting $5 coffees, on iPhones with unlimited data plans, driving fancy cars that they can afford to fill at $4 a gallon.  They can afford a $15 album or $1 song if they wanted, but why pay when you can just steal it for free.  Sorry to digress, but lets compare apples to apples.

we,can agree,to disagree on this but the cost has not gone,down in,sorry but paying 15-20 for a cd digital edition is absurd I'm sorry but that industry it way to over priced a cd should be in the 5-10$ range mot double triple that

Yep.  I see it all the time.  When something is priced higher than the market can bear, alternatives will become available.  It's only natural.  If anyone sells something desirable for a fair price that the market prefers, the alternatives will suffer.  If Canon offered their batteries for $30 - $35, I'd own 3 or 4 for each of my cameras instead of the 2 Canon batteries per camera I own and the rest 3rd party.  (I shoot outdoors a lot over several days.)  I would prefer to own all Canon batteries but not for the $65+ price they charge.  I didn't buy the cheapest alternative, I bought trusted alternative brands from both online and legitimate camera stores and they have all served me well.

I said over and over back in the 90's that if CDs were $5, no one would bother with MP3s, at least not the way they did at the time.  But at $13 - $20 each, people not only wanted to get around that high CD price, they wanted to retaliate against the greedy music/movie industry.  And as it turns out, digital technology and social media finally allowed the artists to circumvent the industry and market directly to the consumer.  If the decades that led up to the Internet had been positive between consumers, artists and the entertainment industry I think things would have been different, more positive and probably much higher quality without all the problems we are still enduring with copy protection mechanisms, digital rights management, etc.

387
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
« on: December 12, 2013, 01:19:56 PM »
If the movie/music companies, (aka: the most greedy/sleazy entities on the planet) had simply made their movies/music more affordable from the beginning, no one would have wanted to go to all the trouble to copy or download inferior music files to get around the high cost. 

As much as I’d like to bash the record companies, I’m going to have to disagree.  People steal music because it’s free and easy.  People steal crap music that they’ll hardly listen to, because they can.  People steal music that they’ll hardly listen to, because like all their specialty lenses camera components that they hardly use, people get into collecting useless crap because they want to have a big collection they can tell people about.  People can definitely afford to buy the songs that they really enjoy listening to, but they don’t, because people don’t see it as stealing from these big bad record companies.

Cost doesn’t have much to do with it.  I see kids at Starbucks getting $5 coffees, on iPhones with unlimited data plans, driving fancy cars that they can afford to fill at $4 a gallon.  They can afford a $15 album or $1 song if they wanted, but why pay when you can just steal it for free.  Sorry to digress, but lets compare apples to apples.

Eh.  We'll have to agree to disagree.  I guess it could be seen that way if you grew up in the last 20 years since the Internet has been in place, credit has been easy and consumer affluency has been so high.  But I assure you that in the decades leading up to the 90's, people didn't collect as much stuff or have as much disposable money.  And the recording industries were as greedy or more so.  Most of the artists making the content were shafted, screwed and left in the cold along with the consumers being shafted on the other end with high prices and ultra cheap cassettes and 8 track tapes.

I will agree that many folks tend to collect/amass things that are free simply because they can, esp kids with lots of free time.  But I don't think that necc supports the reason why MP3 music was created or became popular in the first place.  The battles between artists/consumers and the recording industry is a long one.  In our family, we download pirated TV shows for one reason, convenience.  We want to watch something at another time or in a series all together and sometimes it doesn't get recorded on the DVR and isn't available online or on DVD yet.  We rent or purchase a lot of online content, music CDs, DVDs, Blu-Rays, etc but when things aren't provided by the legitimate providers, we will occasionally download something because it's not available any other way.  The content providers should understand this and use it to their advantage, not fight it.

I'm not sure what circles you run in but I don't see a large percentage of the population able to afford most of what you say they are buying at Starbucks, luxury car dealerships, etc.  But unfortunately it happens anyway because there are no controls on what anyone does with their entitlement money from the government.  Believe me, my wife works in a county hospital, she sees a lot of "poor" people with nicer manicures, phones and clothes than our family has and that's just sad.  Our landscaper's daughter drives a Hummer but she can only afford to drive it on the weekends.  The phenomenon of poor folks spending money in all the wrong places has been going on for a long time as well.  Probably as long as govt assistance has been around and then probably longer still.

It's truly a strange world and it's getting stranger every year.

388
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
« on: December 12, 2013, 12:42:05 PM »
IMO, it's not up to Canon keep the third party guys happy.

Agreed, it’s not, but this isn’t about keeping the third party guys happy, it’s about spending dollars researching (futile) ways to force them out of the game.  You could write up a laundry list of firm ware fixes that people would like to see, but when they finally getting around to pushing out a release what’s in it?  A speedbump for third party battery manufactures.

Totally agree Skirball.  Exactly what I was thinking. Of all the things we want, need and Canon should feel obligated to address, this is what they focus on.  Pathetic.  Meanwhile, other things like having a red focus confirmation indicator in the viewfinder while in AiServo goes unchanged.  Thanks heaps Canon and Merry Christmas to you too.

389
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
« on: December 12, 2013, 12:38:41 PM »
Next step for Canon is to make sure that the SD/CF card is manufactured by Canon. After all the other brands can damage the camera.

If Canon really cared about us as they say with their battery scheme in the firmware, they would add a feature to test the media card in camera for bad memory sectors and transfer rate.  Counterfeit memory is a big problem and Canon could help.  "Media Verify" would be a welcome feature to have a way to verify media anytime someone wanted to in the field.  But noooo, let's just focus on the possibility that a battery could cause trouble since that has been such a big problem for soooo many people over the past 10 years.

390
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
« on: December 12, 2013, 12:32:50 PM »
I noticed this new phenomenon when I got my new 6D last year.  And I posted comments on it then.  In general, I pretty much agree with dgatwood.  Using an expensive piece of technology like a 5D3 to punish the buyer for choosing a 3rd party battery is sleazy and an abuse of the manufacturer's power.

I also feel like noncho has the best point about Canon simply making their OEM batteries more affordable to begin with.  That would solve everything.  (Hmm, Canon battery for $35 or cheap Chinese knock-off for $20?  Easy choice!)  Instead Canon has decided to spend more R&D time, money and lose customer good will over protecting what amounts to unfair profit in the first place.  And in the process, use of genuine batteries potentially is affected.  I had this same attitude in the 80's with VHS tape copy protection that didn't work and ruined the picture for everyone and then in the 90's when MP3 files started taking off and the record companies started suing teenagers for downloading MP3 files.  Really?  If the movie/music companies, (aka: the most greedy/sleazy entities on the planet) had simply made their movies/music more affordable from the beginning, no one would have wanted to go to all the trouble to copy or download inferior music files to get around the high cost.  As of today, they still haven't learned their lesson even after many have gone bankrupt trying to fight a losing battle.  And let's not forget how Apple treats people that try to circumvent their controls.  Anyone remember all the BRICKED IPHONES Apple intentionally damaged with an update back in 2007 when folks tried to jailbreak their phones?  Hope Canon doesn't try THAT!!  But I digress...

I agree slightly with the counterfeit protection excuse simply because there are many examples of true counterfeit Canon batteries out there that are almost perfect copies, cost more than established 3rd party batteries and are crap.  So I'm all for some kind of message that tells me it's not a true Canon battery but don't punish me by shutting off all the battery data exchange and/or crippling the camera performance.  That's just crappy.

Also, let's not forget that in 5+ years when Canon stops making these batteries or making them in enough quantity, you'll be stuck with 3rd party batteries as your only choice and won't that be lovely?

So in summary, Canon needs to stop with the battery gestapo crap, make their batteries more reasonably priced to begin with (thus solving the problem entirely) and just stick to making good cameras instead of trying to piss everyone off with stupid ideas they learned from the movie/music industry and Apple.

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 60