October 24, 2014, 11:53:36 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 - RustyTheGeek

Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 ... 62
391
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.)

392
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

393
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/


394
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.

395
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.

396
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!

397
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.

398
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?

399
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!

400
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.

401
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.

402
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

403
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.

404
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

405
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!

Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 ... 62