January 30, 2015, 09:26:27 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 - JPAZ

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 41
Reviews / Re: Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 Wide Angle Review
« on: December 27, 2014, 08:07:31 PM »
Seems there are a number of new AF confirm chips coming out of China that are programmable and work with 5D3, will be trying one soon on this lens, will post results if anyone interested...

 would appreciate it if you'd let us know how it works out, should you try one of the chips.

Software & Accessories / Re: Bag that will fit 5D3, 24-70 and 70-200?
« on: December 23, 2014, 09:51:44 PM »
But is the Retrospective 7 big enough for the 70-200mm 2.8 II?

I have a Retrospective 7.  My usual load is a 5diii with either the 24-105 or the 24-70 mk ii attached, a 70-200 f/4 is and a third lens, usually the 17-40.  But, I have carried the 70-200 f/2.8 ii instead of the f/4.  It works but is just a bit crowded.  Since you only want to carry the camera and the 2 lenses, it should be OK.  This is my favorite bag.

Canon General / Re: Pixma pro 10 or 100?
« on: December 16, 2014, 05:55:24 PM »
Just spent the weekend playing around with my new Pixma PRO-100 including some 8 x 12 and 5 x 7 prints in both color and B&W.  I do need to spend some time learning more about the process but I am impressed.  And, none of the prints were on Canon papers!

I can say that the ink usage, at least based on the software monitoring, is reasonable.  I've yet to experience any clogs (admittedly this is only a short time) and I do live in the desert!  I've ordered some of the buy 1 get 4 paper deals and did order some replacement ink cartridges. 

Given the rebates, this printer cost me less or about the same as other less capable printers I was considering.  I really do hope I made the right choice.......

Technical Support / Re: What photo printer do you use?
« on: December 14, 2014, 06:52:04 PM »
Don't put it on a table. Somewhere on the lower floors of a solid rack gives the printer less leverage to slowly work the furniture apart - and you retain some more office space as a side benefit.

Problem is, it sits in the middle of the room on the floor.  The shelves and cabinets don't have a space big enough.  I put it on a table in the only spot I can find. 

Maybe I'll need to build an addition, or, since it is now working on WiFi, just keep it on the stove top in the kitchen.

All in all, a good problem to have.

Technical Support / Re: What photo printer do you use?
« on: December 14, 2014, 03:28:57 PM »

I agree with you, this beast is quite heavy. It looks and feel solid.

The table I have it on actually rocks side to side as the printhead moves.  But a good beast....

 :) :)

Canon General / Re: Resurrection, of the posting kind.
« on: December 14, 2014, 03:25:46 PM »
My place of employment is very adamant about protecting them (and us) as well as bandwidth and use some sort of software to prevent us accessing certain websites or receiving certain emails.  Like any automated system, it is very flawed.  I've been blocked from very legitimate sites including airlines (to book business travel), my personal email account, partner/client sites and even our own payroll department when trying to  get a copy of a paystub.  Meanwhile, I still get plenty of "click-here-to-get-rich" and requests for help from a "grandchild-in-jail-in-a-foreign-country" (always humorous because my oldest grandchild is under the age of 2) but can often stream reviews like DigitalRev (not that this is a bad or dangerous internet site unless you suffer from G.A.S. but it does use significant bandwidth to stream) and our system does allow me to open CR and CPW (again a good thing but makes no sense given the IT department's goal). 

My point is that automated screening or protection algorithms are very flawed and could lock legitimate posts unnecessarily.  And, the "bad guys" are getting smarter and can often overcome these.  So this leaves the weary mods to act both on their own and with the help of reports from the forum members. 

I guess I'd rather deal with some trolls and misleading threads than have an automated system delete one of my posts just because of a word in the message.

Technical Support / Re: What photo printer do you use?
« on: December 14, 2014, 03:09:47 PM »
So I just unpacked and installed and set up the WiFi to the Canon Pro-100.  I never thought I'd miss my old i860 so quickly!  Just printed a couple of trial prints, one B&W and one color on generic glossy photo paper from one of the big-box office stores (can you say push an easy button  ;) ) and these first attempts are spectacular.  I used LR to manage the process and even with a non-calibrated monitor and defaults, they are really good prints. 

Now I just have to move some furniture around for this printer (it is very big) and wait for sales on ink and paper...........

I was worried about my purchase but now I am very happy.

Technical Support / Re: What kind of photo printer do you use?
« on: December 11, 2014, 10:47:48 PM »

Found a CL seller with brand new Pro100 + papers for $100. I plan to pick it up by noon. Or should I wait for holiday special?

If you look online with the rebate from an authorized seller, can get for $148 (with paper and after rebate).
The CL seller probably has a new printer that has the UPC removed so they got a rebate.  $100 is less than $148 but can you get a warranty?

Technical Support / Re: What kind of photo printer do you use?
« on: December 10, 2014, 02:42:03 PM »
I don't do much printing myself (I have sent some "special" photos out to Bay labs) but have used my Pixma i860 which is at least 10 years old.  These are usually 4 x 6 or 5 x 7 for family and friends.  Well my printer finally failed me and no amount of cleaning or head alignment could bring it back.  So, I began to look at newer alternatives.  With rebates, spending about $100 for something equivalent made no sense when I could get the Pro-100 for about the same price!

I know that there can be issues with ink expenses, etc, but I don't really make that many prints a year so I am hoping this is the right choice for me.

Just thinking a bit more.  There are two ways to get from Albuquerque to Sante Fe: One is the interstate (about 45 minute drive) and the other is the road (I think highway 14 also called the Turquoise Trail) through Golden, Cerillos, and Madrid.  Definitely do the latter. It is only a bit more time but the small towns are fascinating and funky. 

The San Francisco Church (I think it is in Golden) is worth the trip alone.  The is an old adobe structure that is phenomenal in the right light.  And if it is open, there are crutches and braces and other remnants from folks who were "healed" by the religious fervor of the place.  This is a site that is right out of a European pilgimage sight and not typical of the "New World."

Also +1 on the Beaver Street Brewery.

If you get up to the Taos Pueblo, it is worth a visit.

Landscape / Re: Alaska mountains
« on: November 21, 2014, 12:24:16 AM »
Marvelous shots!  Denali is a wonderful place.  Unfortunately the weather was not too cooperative on my last trip so I am already thinking about a return visit.

You will be under 2 hours from the South Rim (Grand Canyon) so if you have never been, go!!  December is our favorite time of year at the Canyon.  There could be snow at the rim and balmy weather at the river so some interesting scenery for sure.

I concur with layers.  At altitude (Flagstaff and Sante Fe are at about 7000 feet) the temperature plummets when the sun goes down. 

Depending on you tastes, Sante Fe is a marvelous town to just walk around in.  The galleries and shops are great for browsing if you are into that sort of thing.  The food options are marvelous.

I'd vote for the 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200 unless you want to do some serious macro work.  That is a reasonable carry without overdoing the weight.

Lenses / Re: Really bad GAS
« on: November 20, 2014, 04:56:15 PM »
I made a huge "mistake" and rented a 300 f/2.8ii for a birding trip.  By the first evening of photos in a setting sun, I was totally hooked.  Why the mistake?  Because within a year I bought one.

Remember that this lens with a 1.4TC yields about a 420 F/4 and the IQ really holds up.  I can handhold this with a 2x TC on my FF and it is still great.  If you are getting one, this is the one to get.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Black Rapid Backpack Strap
« on: November 20, 2014, 11:31:25 AM »
No single good answer.  Depends on what you want to carry, what's on your back, and how much "protection" you want to provide.  I have been using a TT holster on my chest with my 5Diii and a lense in that holster.  I keep the camera strap loose around my neck for "insurance" but the camera and lens is totally supported by the holster with the top zipped about 3/4 closed.  This lets me bring out the camera quickly for a shot.  If the weather gets ugly, I can drop the neck strap into the holster and close it completely and even put the TT rain over over it.

I used to attach the holster to the backpack straps using straps from Optecha.  But, this required dealing with the camera when stopping or taking my pack off.  On my last trek, I used the TT harness to hold the holster so the holster remained on my chest when removing the pack and was independent of the pack.

Pros: complete freedom to use trekking poles, good protection from dust/rain/falls, able to use both hands for climbing or scampering over boulders, camera quickly accessible.

Cons: can be hard to see my feet on steep downhills unless I nudge the holster to the side, need to bring an alternate way to carry when not on trail (I keep a shoulder/neck strap in my backpack that clips onto the holster for walking around town or campsites), in hot weather the combo can be uncomfortable cause both the backpack and front holster together are not conducive to ventilation/cooling.

Lenses / Re: 70-200 or 100-400 conundrum.....
« on: November 20, 2014, 10:05:32 AM »
Not intending to hijack this but here's another option to consider..........

Given the price of the new 100-400 (> $2000), how about a 70-200 f/2.8 ("street price" $1899 on CPW) and the Tammy 150-600 (about $1000)? I know this is a different approach and would cost about the same as just the 70-200 with the two TC's together.  I know the Tammy has some limitations but gets great reviews for that price point.  I agree, reach is contagious.

BTW, I have used the 100-400 M1 indoors and it is feasible so even though it is not as fast as the 70-200 2.8, it depends on what you are taking photos of.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 41