Posts

vitalboy · Jun 16, 2013

privatebydesign said:
vitalboy said:

......... why do i need to pay for an estimate? Why do I pay $100 to Canon every year?" Canon in Newport is CR@p!

Click to expand...

"Don't see anything about free estimates in there, which is probably why you were charged, I'd hardly call that crap service, but then some people have very strange ideas about contracts with corporations."

The thing is, that a huge company like Canon shouldn't have the need to hide fees from a loyal member that pays to be a member. It's like insurance. You only know what you get when you really need it! From the link you provided you cannot find the cost for them to open your camera and tell you what your camera problem is. $150 just to open your camera. Really? Canon CPS is CR@ap! A company from Seattle gave me a $1400 cost for this same service and they give warranty for their service just like Canon and I didn't have to pay anything upfront nor am I a member of their store. I am pretty sure this store would have no problems to give me a 30% if I send them a $100 check every year.

luciolepri · Jun 16, 2013

Well, something in between a flycam and a tripod (as far as mobility, price and ease of use are concerned) could be this:

http://www.ebay.it/itm/Manfrotto-561BHDV-1-Video-Monopod-with-Fluid-Head-/181154157809?pt=US_Tripods&hash=item2a2da114f1

Otherwise, you could buy a camera rig. Since you don't need a matte box this would be a quite cheap and very good solution.

A lens with a good IS would also be very useful...

As far as sharpness and noise are concerned, they look not bad to me, considering you were shooting in low light conditions inside a pub. My general advice is that is always much better to use a higher ISO setting to reach the right exposure, than to underexpose to use a lower ISO setting.

Jack Douglas · Jun 16, 2013

Hi guys,

Besides the price issue, to me it always comes down to "where is the zoom sitting most of the time". If I'm out after birds, it's a rare occassion when my 300 isn't attached to 1.4X or better 2X (in spite of some negatives) so that I have the reach, especially since I'm now FF with the 6D. Comparing results between 300 X2 and (200-)400 X1.4 both at F5.6 I don't see too much difference. So, I conclude that even if I was inclined to fork out all that hard earned cash, I wouldn't be further ahead and I'd be packing a bigger load even though my wallet was lighter.

Now, the 400 F2.8 still tugs at my heart strings in spite of the price, I think for obvious reasons, and in spite of it's bulk.

After some months of shooting I see little that challenges my intial rationalization in buying the 300 2.8 II and the extenders III. I find it very accommodating of hand held shooting and that's really attractive.

Jack

rodrigo_luiz78 · Jun 16, 2013

Thank you very much Mt Spokane Photography, It solved the problem.

RGF · Jun 16, 2013

bycostello said:
looks great though...

who knows what else will follow from this work

barton springs · Jun 16, 2013

CustomizedMacs said:
Hi,

I need a flash that will take over 2000 continuous non-stop shots. I take pictures of books for research. I am a grad student in history.

Can someone please tell me the best and cheapest flash I need?

I've read your previous posts and inquiries so for this job just use your smart phone for photos

KKCFamilyman · Jun 16, 2013

Yes i did and after calibration it was spot on.

tron · Jun 16, 2013

candyman said:
tron said:

candyman said:

M.ST said:

In my opinion we need a fast replacement for the 17-40L and 16-35 II L with an image quality like the 24-70 II L.

Click to expand...

And that would be 12(14)-24 f/2.8?

Click to expand...

Replacement of 16-35 II L = 16-35 III L
12(14)-24 f/2.8 = new lens (welcome of course but still new lens, not a replacement)

Click to expand...

Some people replace their 16-35 2.8 II with a 12(14)-24 f/2.8. For them, that's a replacement ???

For them anything can be a replacement like a fixed wide angle lens :

For Canon it's certainly not

brad goda · Jun 16, 2013

get the ST-E3.
just having the flash away from your camera will give you greater flexibility.
after saving up for the 600 by then you will have mastered the connection with the system and be able to now use two flashes effectively... or gang both as one and have a more powerful single...
I use 4 and its been a game changer... lighter and more fines on smaller items... easier than using my profotos on jobs... but had to make some custom grid snoots chimera box adaptors and stuff...

AvTvM · Jun 16, 2013

Tabor Warren Photography said:
Wow, thank you all for your comments. After reading all of your comments and insight, I think it would probably be the most simple to sell the 430 and buy another 600.

You might want ot considerb alson buying a ST-E3 radio flash trigger. 1x ST-E3 and 2x 600EX will give you a system with 2 off-camera flashes, without any need for 3rd party stuff.

Tabor Warren Photography said:
I wish Canon would come out with a 450ex-rt or something of that manner and it actually would not surprise me if they did.

Yes, it is a shame Canon is still not offering a less expensive radio-capable flash [450EX-RT] and no cheap little radio receivers for our existing 580 II and 430 II flashes. As long as Canon does not offfer a true radio-flash system [600EX-RT, 450EX-RT, ST-E3-RT and RT-receiver] that allows seamless integration of my fairly new and not inexpensive Speedlites, I will hold off buying.

brad goda · Jun 16, 2013

lithiums are great. light and have high capacity... but when close to 60% they do not just fade when power is low they just die. Ive used lithiums flash and feel ive got almost 4X the use compared to alkalines...
you did check the batteries before the shoot and thats good rule of thumb... but sometimes there are just duds...
100 shots for daylight HS fill is quite alot of shots for a flash that only holds 2 AAs.
just carry back ups

AdamF · Jun 16, 2013

When I travel, I wrap my lenses in chamois cloth and put them zip-loc bags if they will fit. If not, I will put them in double or triple plastic bags.

It is lighter in weight than taking hard cases (which I use to store them in at home).

SwissBear · Jun 16, 2013

well, the 50mm on fullframe is that a good starter as it has approximately the same field of view than the human eye.
An image begins in the head, by just looking at things with your plain eyes (not throuh the viewfinder). When you see something, imagine what the photography of it should look like, and if it might work, take out the camera and try to get exactly what you imagined.
Ken Rockwell uses the term "FART" for any creative process: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/fart.htm

He has also some stuff about composition, there he talks all about "SEX", simplification and exclusion: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/composition.htm

arcanej · Jun 15, 2013

Thank you for the detailed explanation! I think I will go the PW route based on the flexibility.

RGF · Jun 15, 2013

The camera communicates well, unfortunately I don't speak camera very well :

fegari · Jun 15, 2013

crasher8 said:
That hardly looked way short to me! fwiw, I use the Tammy 70-200 VC with a Tamron Pro 1.4 TC and it is incredibly sharp. Not unhappy.

?

That is a tremendous difference! no contest here

luciolepri · Jun 15, 2013

I'm thinking about giving this lens a chance to find a place in my equipment, but I'm worried about the position of the MF ring, so close to the body, I guess it makes working with a follow focus and a matte box quite complicated... did anyone has this lens and use it for video?

Vossie · Jun 15, 2013

SwissBear · Jun 15, 2013

Do you know what makes me really angry? The EU price.
Its an import in both countries, so... google says that 799$ is some 600€, can anyone explain me why the EU retail price is 999€?!
Or is sigma just another big A company?

Sporgon · Jun 15, 2013

Ripley said:
Thank you for the clarification Sporgon!

So how does focal length affect shallow depth of field for comparable framing? Being closer with shorter focal lengths creates shallower depth of field at the same aperture right?

The greater the magnification of the subject, the shallower the depth of field. So by being closer to the subject you are effectively magnifying it and you have less dof for a given lens/aperture/format. By using a longer focal length lens you are magnifying subject and so the same thing happens: less dof.

bycostello · Jun 15, 2013

thanks for the heads up

shutterwideshut · Jun 14, 2013

Here's one in depth tutorial on 5D3: http://www.lynda.com/5D-Mark-III-tutorials/Shooting-Canon-5D-Mark-III/107422-2.html

Drum · Jun 14, 2013

I agree the 430 ex is a great flash, but I'd like to clarify a couple of points about the Yongnuo 565ex for those people who don't own one and won't accept anything but a Canon original. I can't comment about the other Yongnuo models as I only own the 565.
Firstly the 565 does have ETTL ii and it works fine both on camera and off camera.

The Flash works off camera for the 60d without any accessories (the op states its for a 60d) it uses the pop up flash and can work in ETTL or manual modes.

It has the same flash power rating of the 580exii

The 565 reads the camera menu and states the focal length on the menu eg 24mm 50mm 85mm Correctly

The 565 is compatible with all current Canon models including the Rebels and the 5D2 and 3

The Yongnuo will also work off camera with some Nikon models ( I borrowed a friends D600 and was able to fire the flash off camera with both the D600 and the 60D without changing the settings) (I don't think the 430 is able for that)

With all respect to the people who will only ever buy Canon Flashes there are actually serious alternatives out there that may deserve consideration.

RGF · Jun 14, 2013

Harry Muff said:
Disposibles are still an awesome option when you don't want to risk your gear.

I used to process the film and the only advice I'll give is… Crack it open and get the battery out before taking it to the printing shop! (You won't damage the film).

Seriously, they've always put a whole AA battery in there. We used to have a bucket full of them.

Also, anyone thinking of reusing the camera with another roll of film: Forget it, the canisters are put together reversed.

Thanks. Do they even sell disposal film cameras any more?

CarlTN · Jun 14, 2013

If they start making full frame sensors and bodies, they might be seriously onto something. Fuji, in particular, need to produce one. If they could make one with looks and ergo similar to Voigtlander's Bessa film body, that would be nice.

Posts

Posts

Attachments

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics