October 01, 2014, 03:02:15 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 ... 61
Lenses / Re: Best lightweight crop lens for SL1 & hiking
« on: December 20, 2013, 02:59:06 PM »
Thanks for all the feedback so far!  Sorry for the length here.  It got a little longer than I realized.   :P

dcm - What a great and well crafted reply!  You are thinking along the same lines as I am.  That's why I tossed out this thread, to get feedback from others.  Other than an old 18-55 kit lens and a 10-22, I don't own any EF-S lenses either.  However, I do own the Tamron 18-270 and so far, that is my running favorite.  My biggest concern is the IQ but regardless, it's still better than the D20 on IQ overall.  The 18-270 is what kept me from buying the 18-55 STM kit lens even though I think that is a good lens for the SL1 and lightweight, etc.  I could still get it later though.

I want to carry a DSLR is to get better wide shots in camps, RAW images that can be pushed more in post and have better flash or exposure controls.  The lenses other than the 40 pancake that I have considered are the EF-S 10-22 and the EF 15mm Fisheye.  That is such a fun lens but I'm wondering how much I would really use it for the price in weight.  In general, I am more of a wide lens junkie than a telephoto shooter.  If I took the 18-270 and still decided to take a 2nd lens, it would probably be an ultrawide lens which is why I purchased the 10-22 in the first place before the 2012 trek.  I suspect that I would rarely change the lens while on the hike so it might just be a waste of weight.  But then, you never know!!  LOL!  It cracks me up how long I've done this and still struggle with these kinds of decisions.  But I guess eventually one just has to draw the line and resolve to 'keep it simple' (KISS).  That's what I did in 2012 when I decided to just take the D20 and nothing else and I survived but this time I am trying to push myself to take it up a notch.

Aside from weight, a big concern and challenge when taking anything on a hike is (for me) the logistics. Using up room in the pack and then having to manage the stuff all the time.  It's there, it's in the way, it has to be moved around, it takes up space and it displaces something else.  It has to be organized along with the rest of the stuff.  It has to be cared for and protected.  So I'm weighing the aspects of either just having a neoprene cover on the camera in a ziplock inside the pack or having a ThinkTank or other decent but fairly lightweight bag outside the pack hanging on the straps in front with carabiners and stretch cords or something.

Last time, I used a small super strong magnet on the P&S and I could easily yank it off my strap, take a picture and then *click* it back on the strap without even looking.  Worked like a charm.  I can't do something that easy with the SL1 unfortunately.

I have an S95 but it's pretty fragile and not very tolerant of dirt.  I think it would likely die on day 2 or 3 from the dust alone.  I got a good deal on the SL1 and I am almost resigning it to be a potential throw away if it gets damaged or super dirty on the trip.  I've got an old Rebel XT that I have had in mud, dirt and all kinds of crap and it's still going.  It's just too old though.

Good point on batteries.  On the last trek, I got lucky with the batteries.  I barely made it through!  I will definitely take plenty of batteries.  It appears the batteries are smaller for the SL1.

Keep in mind that I have several months of prep hikes (shakedowns) to try things out and test different scenarios with the DSLR and P&S. 

If anyone wants to see some pics from the last trek in 2012 that I shot with the D20, here they are...

http://rustythegeek.zenfolio.com/718r  -  (The actual 10 day trek at Philmont is the last gallery.)

Software & Accessories / Re: How many cards?
« on: December 20, 2013, 01:57:33 PM »
I have a dozen or so 32gb cf cards and maybe 8 32gb 45mb/s SD cards
If I only had 2 or 3 cards I'd have a nervous breakdown
I have to say that I'm the same way.  It depends on how much you shoot and how disciplined you are with offloading your images to the computer.  But I shoot so much over the year that I would go nuts if I had to do that with only two or three cards.  I like to keep images on the card until I've had a chance to take the images all the way to final JPG exports and uploads to my online site.  Then there are several copies and I can easily format the media they started out on from the camera and know the images are safe.  So I also have lots of CF and SD cards that I use often.  YOU CAN'T HAVE TOO MUCH MEMORY!

Avoid potential loss in camera or in the field.  Depending on the number of images I am shooting over the course of a day, weekend or week, I use multiple smaller capacity cards instead of a single large media.  This way, I have something like two media cards per day so if one media were to get corrupted, lost or stolen, I would at least still have half the images.  Imagine if I shot a whole weekend on one media card and lost that single card.  Poof!  Everything is lost.  Where if I were changing cards during the shoots, I would still have maybe 3/4 of the weekend's images in my possession.

Also, when buying cards, watch out for counterfeit cards.  Download some of the verification software and test your cards.  If it's too cheap to be true, it's probably a fake card.


Lenses / Re: Best lightweight crop lens for SL1 & hiking
« on: December 19, 2013, 03:13:02 PM »
I don't mind other comments about how some of you guys manage your photography while hiking.  Which cameras you like or how you hang/attach/pack/carry or otherwise manage them.  No fair saying you just take your wife or girlfriend!   ;D

Here is one quick post I found on the web that isn't too bad.  Not sure if I want to add that much weight just for a bag since I don't require 100% access all the time if I take the D20.  The D20 is lighter, more convenient on the pack strap, durable and has the extra advantage of being a backup camera if something happens.


Lenses / Re: Best lightweight crop lens for SL1 & hiking
« on: December 19, 2013, 03:06:56 PM »
What about the 40mm F2.8 STM? Smaller than that is almost not possible :-)
Thanks janmzxim.  I do have that lens and it might go as a 2nd lens but that FL isn't my favorite and will be a bit limiting for me as the ONLY lens for 10 days.  (40mm = 64mm on crop.)

Lenses / Re: Best lightweight crop lens for SL1 & hiking
« on: December 19, 2013, 02:46:34 PM »
Honestly, don't worry about low light - just bump the iso on the SL1.  I'd rent/buy a Tamaron 18-270 for the single lens solution, and drag along the D20 for when things are just too dusty/wet.  Is it perfect, no, but it's light enough that you should be able to do without additional gear.
Thanks Halfrack!  This was one of my thoughts as well.  And I already have a 18-270.  My concern was possibly quality & weight with it but it's not too bad on either.  Most of the times of lower light, I'll probably already be in my tent dead asleep along with the rest of the crew!!   :D

Lenses / Best lightweight crop lens for SL1 & hiking
« on: December 19, 2013, 02:16:43 PM »
I have lots of photo gear.  Lots of Canon bodies.  Lots of lenses, mostly L.  I have both Canon rugged P&S cams, the D10 and D20.  (I took the D20 to Philmont in 2012 and carried it on the trail for 10 days.)

I'll go to Philmont again in 2014 and I want to try to take a DSLR this time for better pics and just suck up the added weight.  I'll likely still take the D20 again, it was nice and handy to have hanging on my backpack strap at shoulder height while hiking.  But when we are stopped at the camps or on side hikes, the DSLR would come out, that's where the best pictures happen anyway.

Just so you know, living on the trail for 10 days out of a pack, weight is the #1 concern.  I've considered investing in a Pentax K-3 DSLR with a tough weather resistant general purpose lens.  That would be around $1700 online.  Not a deal breaker but it's spending close to $2000 if I ever bought a Pentax flash to own a whole other system.  It would be more durable and less worry and who knows, I might love it so much that someday I would sell everything and just keep the Pentax.  (Wow, I said that?!)  But I digress..

I just bought the SL1 Rebel body for $349 (great price) figuring I would keep it in my pack while on the trail and use the D20 on my pack strap.  The question is.....

Which lightweight lens to use so I only have to take one?  I might take the 40mm pancake I have for low light and maybe a TC (if it fits the lens I choose) for more reach but in general, I figured I would take the DSLR+lens+simple strap as a unit, extra batteries and that's about it.  I don't mind using a non-Canon lens.  I don't mind just using the STM kit lens but I figured I would get everyone's opinion before I jumped.  It's not a huge rush at this point.

While on the subject of hiking photography, check out this independent filmmaker's great movie all about Philmont.  The movie trailer and documentary DVD is very well done.  Gives me chills every time I see it!  If you love the outdoors, you should love this.  If you have young sons, join Boy Scouts.  If you have tomboy daughters, join Venturing and go to Philmont if you can.  Also, check out his website, he's done some great work!

Philmont Movie Promo (vimeo.com/22745967) (Copy url or click the caption link below, the video isn't loading in the forum post correctly.)- The Philmont Documentary Collection promo on Vimeo
Buy the Philmont Movie - http://philmontmovie.com
Larry McLaughlin's Work - http://www.larrymclaughlin.net/

Lenses / Re: Another strike against UV filters
« on: December 17, 2013, 07:47:40 PM »
I've always felt more reassured with the protection of a filter.  I do most of my shooting outdoors, camping, hiking and around youth.  The filter takes some abuse.  Dust, humidity, moisture, chlorinated pool water, frequent wiping (often with cotton, polyester, napkin, leaves, dog's ear/ass, sandpaper or whatever else is handy).

IMO, the biggest threat to that front element is the abuse it takes with every wipe of cleaning.  So I use a filter.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
« on: December 14, 2013, 10:29:44 AM »
Hopefully Canon will think over its policy in handling third party equipment

Never going to happen unless dgatwood's suggestion is taken up in large numbers which of course is never going to happen. You could always go back to the retailer and challenge them for selling counterfit goods, after all you have proof !

This brings up another wonderful consequence of this issue.  The retailers are now stuck in the middle of all this and forced to deal with a new topic of complaints from customers who either want refunds, exchanges or think their equipment is faulty which will then require the retailers to deal with it however required.

So the moral to the story for retailers is to stop selling 3rd party batteries so they don't have to deal with the complaints.  This means that not only will the genuine Canon batteries be in shorter supply and more expensive,  you may not even have the 3rd party battery choice available in some places.  And this also means more lost revenue for local camera shops if they choose to stock only genuine batteries and folks buy the batteries online afterward.  Wonderful.  I don't buy everything from my local store but I try to buy many things there to support them.  I don't want them to go away!!

I don't see this thing being good for anyone in any way at all, including Canon.  How unfortunate and sad.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
« on: December 13, 2013, 10:42:53 PM »
dgatwood makes some excellent points but first, I think the technical term 'craniorectal inversion' should be noted and given bonus points.  Excellent!  ;D

I've been busy and so I'm catching up on this thread.  In general, dgatwood's comments on this from the beginning are logical and appropriate.  Accessories are part of the whole camera market.  They shouldn't be marginalized by Canon or any other camera maker.  If one considers this topic from both sides without emotion, it's pretty obvious what's going on.  There are really no clear winners when this kind of thing occurs.  Whether the user always buys 100% Canon or not, these kind of tactics usually punish everyone, esp if unforeseen collateral problems develop.  It's just a short sighted idea that ultimately results in very little benefit for everyone.  Like the poor novice that is crestfallen when they think something is wrong with their new camera at Christmas and end up returning it as defective like dgatwood suggested.  Now Canon may have just shown a new buyer that their product is faulty out of the box (when it really isn't).

IMO, there are two or three camps of buyers for DSLRs.  The novices, the pros and the 'pro-sumers' in between.  All of these groups buy 3rd party accessories for their DSLR for a variety of reasons and have for decades.  Canon knows most everyone won't jump ship over this but won't appreciate it either.

The novices will buy a Canon battery because it's the safe call.  One.  Likely the one extra they think they need but will probably never use because they never use the camera except at special events or holidays to take less than 100 frames.  They may have just bought a Canon battery anyway at the same time the bought the camera.  So no big change or increase in that market for Canon.  However, if they bought a 3rd party battery, they may think the camera is bad and just return the whole kit and buy something else.  They aren't invested in a system, they just want a camera that doesn't have problems.

The pros either always bought Canon batteries before or they didn't.  And that won't change as a result of Canon's little tactic either for many of the reasons stated here in this thread.  $40 increase times 5 batteries is significant so the battery message will just be endured, or Canon batteries simply aren't available, etc.

That leaves the 'pro-sumers'.  More than likely, these are the only ones that might actually pony up more money for the Canon batteries and even replace their existing 3rd party batteries.  Why?  Because the 'pro-sumer' market buys most of this stuff because they want it, not because they need it or even use it that much.  It's a toy.  Even if they do use it a lot, they want it all to work perfect.  'Pro-sumers' buy all the extra goodies and likely have special luggage just for the trip to the neighbors house.  The backpacks, special straps, covers, hoods, etc.  And there's nothing wrong with that!  But I guess Canon thinks that the 'pro-sumers' are going to buy a hell of a lot of batteries because I don't see the other two parts of Canon's buyer market changing much.  Not changing much except to perhaps hate on Canon a bit in blogs and forums and wonder what they did to deserve such treatment after giving Canon so much of their money.  So thanks for the love Canon!

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 10D, 100D or 700D?
« on: December 13, 2013, 12:51:38 AM »
Main use will be shooting at parties

I already have a number of spare Canon lenses and was thinking of donating my 24-105L to her and thus limiting the financial outlay to 'body only'. It would also have better IQ than any of the 100D/700D kit lenses.

Yes, the 24-105L would have better IQ wide open than the 18-55, although not as much better as you might be thinking.  Not sure if 100D + 18-135mm STM kits are available where you are (they aren't in the USA but since you call it the 100D and refer to IXUS P&S, I infer that you're not in the USA) - that kit lens actually delivers better IQ at the long end than the 24-105L, even giving the 24-105L the benefit of stopping down to f/5.6 (TDP comparison).

The real issue with the 24-105L is that on APS-C it gives a FF equivalent of 38mm.  Not sure which IXUS she has, but most of the recent ones start at 28mm or even 24mm FFeq…I'm not sure she'd be happy giving up the wide angle, particularly since you mention indoor use. 

So, my vote goes to a 100D body (for the small size) and either the 18-135mm STM lens, the 18-55mm STM lens for cost savings, or if you want to splurge and one-up the Joneses, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS which gives better low light performance and IMO is the best general purpose zoom for APS-C.

I was thinking almost exactly what neuro said except I didn't consider the 17-55 upgrade.  I also agree with K13X5C.  Get her something new that is hers and let her show it off and get a real thrill out of using it.  And help her with it often so you can be her resident expert.  Compliment her on her work.

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?

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!

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.

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.

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

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 61