I do not have the 1100 but your problem seems very unique.
Something I think you are doing wrong and when you figure out what it is perhaps you will bang your fist on your forehead and say 'dang'!

Re: Canon EOS 40D?

I have a 40D as well, it is a very nice camera and for the price they go for at the moment I think they are pretty unbeatable. The images are pretty noisy but as long as you stay below 800 in the dark or 1600 in daylight the noise is far less intrusive than the newer crop canon's even at the same ISO. Controls and handling is excellent, fps is good and autofocus decent. 10 megapickles is enough for most things so all in all a winner. The only shame is the lack of AFMA and the rather dated screen.

nolken said:

is the digic 5 a better performer than dual digic 4s? Considering selling my 7D while it still has value and picking up a 70D, when it comes out of course. I'm interested in how the two compare specifically in processing power for different features in magic lantern.

Click to expand...

I'm not doing video yet, but from a photographer's perspective, what processing power does - it processes faster. That's why I don't think you'll notice the difference in this aspect. Though I believe other features (or lack of them) is something you should look at

I really like the 35mm f/1.4 Sigma. I use it a lot at weddings. Nice and wide on FF. 85mm for tighter shots with more bokeh. And 24mm for extra wide shots, good on the dance floor.

Hey I've been looking at the EdMika conversions and I want to ask your opinions about awesome lenses that I could use with my AE-1 Program and my 5D2. Also if I get a focus screen for the 5D2 will that aid focusing with older FD lenses?

paul13walnut5 said:

Pentax seem to be hanging on, and have some very nice design work coming out, I thought the K-01 was excellent and the new MX-1 very nice also. They've always ploughed their own furrow, Pentax, I reckon if I didn't shoot Canon I'd shoot pentax. Certainly what you get for the money (that 16MP sensor, weather sealing, massive legacy of inexpensive lenses) lang may the pentax lum reek. They are an interesting company making capable cameras at sensible prices. Canon could learn a lot from them.

Click to expand...

I agree. I started with a great deal on a Q, liked the interface so much I sprung for a K-01 when it was being dumped at super low prices. Liked it so much I bough a 2nd one and another Q to use for, well, I'm not sure yet.
I now have K-5 IIs and a pile of K-mount glass, new and old, to play with.
I'm really enjoying shooting with Pentax more than with Nikon or even Canon, despite how familiar I am with the latter and how much I like the clean raw files of the former. Pentax is like a decent combination of Canon operability with SoNikon raw file quality. Sensible control layout, lots of customization and good ergonomics. Some poor ergonomics and control layout options too but, overall, I enjoy using my K-5 like I enjoyed the 7D and I feel more comfortable with knowing I can push that raw file pretty hard if I want to.
OTOH, the non-AA-filtered K-5 IIs (k52s from now on) delivers great per-pixel sharpness with a good lens, but is also showing up false color in some shots I didn't expect to have problems with so I may have to opt for a regular K5 for those scenes where I'm dealing with lots of specular hilites.

EDIT: forgot to add, I wish Ricoh-Pentax would learn a few marketing tricks from CANON. I don't ever recall ever seeing a Pentax ad. If it wasn't for the encouragement of ONE Pentax shooting friend, and plenty of solid convincing from my local Pentax rep, I'd likely have never bought into the system. I'd have been more tempted to go Fuji.
And that's my ABC (Anybody But Canon) story. I'll likely end up using the weather-sealed Pentax gear more for foul-weather work than my other systems. Their weather-resistant consumer level lenses are a great idea and they work well enough to use them in inclement conditions where better sharpness and optical performance is not essential.

Essjott said:

I own a 24-70L and want to get it serviced by Canon...focus ring seems to need tightening and I feel after 4 years regular (not pro) use it just is time.
Any suggestions?
Is the only way to send it directly to Canon or are there better options?
What costs would I have to expect?

Thanks, people

Click to expand...

I've sent my 24-105 f/4 L IS for cleaning sometime ago (not direct to Canon but a Canon dealer from whom I had bought the lens) as the lens had severe dust with the focus ring movements feeling like sand paper. They took 1 week and gave it back to me fit and fine (they charged me $125 ... btw, I do not live in USA, but I'm assuming it would be cheaper/faster in USA). I don't see any reason why you can't send it to a Canon service center or their authorized dealers. If you feel the lens is not behaving the way it should, send it in and get it fixed ... but do know that it is normal for focus rings & zoom rings to get a "little less tight" than when you first purchased, in which case I see no reason to send it for servicing.

Jesse said:

thanks guys. trying to buy the cheapest possible lighting. do you need one transceiver for the camera and then a transmitter for every light? or other way around? or?....

Click to expand...

Yongnuo got some very good transceivers. I'm using non-TTL RF603C's. There's a model that do TTL if you want TTL. Just be sure to bring your camera and some speedlights to make sure they're working for your particular body/speedlights.

Have you read page 221 0f your manual?

expatinasia said:

babiesphotos.ca said:

I apologize for quote about pros and gear abuse. It's obvious there are different profile of work and personalities, so generalization was too broad.

My comment did come from discussion with pro that does lots of industrial/journalist photo, and when expensive factory line is stopped so he can take pictures, he has no time to willy-nilly position himself and be careful with equipment...

Obviously, many other pros don't have that kind of demands.

Click to expand...

Yes, it does depend. I generally find, and as many would expect, that pros that use their own equipment take better care of it, than those that are using the office equipment. The office equipment, like at a newspaper, is what generally gets abused the most as it gets used by so many different people.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I baby my gear as much as possible. I found a small scratch on my RRS tripod three weeks ago and it's still bugging me.

A big question about how to approach this I'd say is ----- Are you thinking about shooting more weddings after this one? If the answer is yes, then within reason go for broke on it ---rent a backup body and a 70-200 lens, read, research, watch tutorial videos...if you can, find some other events and get access to them, shoot them, learn from the experience.

If the answer is no, and this is just a one time deal to help a friend - then let them know this is what I have to offer and do your best! Enjoy the open bar, have fun shooting!

Also, 16-35 vs 24-70 --- each have their own uses....bring them both!!!!...for the ceremony, set your gear bag in an easy to access spot. That 16-35 will get you great big shots of the overall happenings...and if you can get close to the B&G, some very dramatic shots as well. That's touch and go though, you don't want to be so close that your an annoyance to guests, B&G or the venue itself. Regarding switching lenses during the ceremony...depends on the ceremony! Some are very Quick...10-15 minutes...but some can take up to an hour, and ---for those hour long jobs...there's a lot of nothing going on for long periods of time (readings, prayers and blessings, kneel and be silent while the organ plays...so you have to be ready for the action when it happens...so mange that downtime well!!!!

Pi said:

The bokeh here is disturbing. The 135L can have its problems sometimes but I do not remember seeing anything that bad.

Click to expand...

That's one bad example, it looks beautiful in the other shots. I have a 50L/85L/135L and the bokeh from my Zeiss lenses has still always impressed me.

OK, the 5D3 firmware is at version 1.2.1!

YAY! The f8 focus works!

At 100*1.4=140mm it did not seem slow. However at 400*1.4=560mm it is a bit slow. Need to test it with BIF. I still need to AFMA it. So that is the task for tomorrow. I also need to test the focus with the flash.

Back to the topic, not grammar or spelling, I found this useful. I bored a 1Dx and plan to order one. At least I can use my old 1D M4 batteries in it.

Thank you all for the replies. After shipping costs, it looks like it would still be cheaper. I am going to look into the warranty issue more deeply, though. I'd hate to get a bad copy and be unable to do much about it.

Thanks again!

nice little thread. I have to say I usually don't think of a circular saw as "gentle"!

Skulker said:

I hope he's not expecting to just "make himself the author" and sell them for lots of money. He may find they are not that valuable. :'(

Click to expand...

I'd welcome anyone try selling mine, say 50/50 on the money and I'm happy to email my photos to them, no need to hack into my camera.

Thanks florian!

I suspected as much, so no biggie. Still, would have been nice to have clean ISO 100 for outdoor shooting.

jrista said:

In all honesty, the quickest and relatively cheap way to answer that question is to buy Reikan FoCal, and run your lenses through the Aperture test. It will take a series of shots at each aperture, measure them (I believe it just does an L/PH evaluation, but it might be something more like SQF), and plot the results on a chart. At the end, it will strait up tell you which aperture produces the best quality on YOUR GEAR.

Click to expand...

What I found is that the 100mm I have is a really nice lens... so I can shoot at 2.8 or 8, and I will be more than happy with the results. I think that is partly why I'm not willing to part with my 50mm f/1.4... because I'd much rather have a lens that is sharp with good results at any aperture rather than having to always stop down the 50 to f/2.8 to get decent results.

I wonder if the new firmware doesn't actually make things a touch sharper after all, maybe comparing HDMI vs new internal is the same but maybe new internal is sharper than old? Fine edges seem to get mosquito noise sort of, maybe part of making it sharper. I need to shoot with the new, rollback and shoot with the old and compare. Maybe they did sharpen it up a bit? It is a different look than the 'raw' though, less fine micrcontrast still and yet maybe more aliasing than old video or the 'raw' video buffer?

EDIT: the artifacts, fine detail shimmer and such seem to be something going wrong in Premiere Pro (h.264, High, 5.1, 40Mbs CBR; USM/sharpen/colorista tools) since both the original Ninja recorded files and ones recorded by the 5D3 with new firmware DO NOT have that weird stuff going on. So whatever that is it is definitely not the fault of the 5D3 and/or new firmware.

EDIT: EDIT: well other than in one file where there is some weird black band that pops on and off across a few letters of white text in a weird way on one file, that is on the original
MORE EDITS: actually that weird stuff is in all the files, slight bumps to cam and almost like a bit of 5D2 line skip sorta aliasing jitter, just without sharpenin git wasn't as easy to spot

amarelux said:

I live in Southern California and buy some of my gear from Samy's Camera. They are a reputable dealer and have knowledgable staff. If their price is higher than B&H, ask for a price match.

www.samys.com

Click to expand...

+1 on Samy's camera....a friend of mine is a store manager. I get to try out new gear quite often. I always feel like a kid in the candy shop when I'm there ;D ;D ;D

I've played with the Ricoh GR. It's amazing

marvinhello said:

I believe you...

Click to expand...

Well, that's enough for me...

Obviously I'm telling the "truth" as I know it, even if it turns out to be incorrect. But I wouldn't come out and say it if I had "read it on the internet". I feel my sources are pretty credible.

Regardless, when @MNS1974 said you need to send your camera in for a service upgrade, the bits kind of fall into place for me.

But I agree that it's lame when you do your homework and talk to the right people and they can't give you up to date information.

We'll see what happens, but my bet after today would be that you will have to send it in at some point.

And on a personal note, the fact that florian has gotten his updated camera is very good news for me as they seem to be rolling them out again.

Take care.

Plainsman said:

It should have been out two years ago so presumably they have had a team of engineers for all this time trying to tweak it to an acceptably high standard.

Click to expand...

That is acceptable standard for $10k ... no doubt the prototypes that were talked about were great as they were, but obviously Canon doesn't want to release a mk2 in 2015 and is determined to make this one special as in "especially profitable" - and this only works if lots of people buy it so it has to be stellar.

neuroanatomist said:

pwp said:

Why on earth would you want to replace the original foot? It's perfectly fine.
Is there something I'm missing here?

Click to expand...

To attach the lens to an Arca-Swiss type clamp on a tripod/monopod head. You can attach a lens plate to the bottom of the Canon foot, or just use a replacement foot with an integrated dovetail - the latter is lighter and less bulky.

Also, although not sure this is the case for the 300 II, IMO with the 600 II (and I suspect the 500 II), there is something wrong with the Canon foot. They used the same forward-sweeping design as on the MkI versions, but the MkII is lighter, and a fair bit of that weight loss comes from the elimination of the protective meniscus lens in front of the front optical element - that makes the MkII less front heavy. When mounted on a gimbal with a heavy (1-series or gripped) body and a 2x TC, the center of mass is actually slightly behind the foot mounting point - and the Canon foot is base is well forward of that point, so the combo cannot be properly balanced on a gimbal. I've read that some people 'solve' that problem by using Canon monopod foot (included with the 600 II), but mounting it backward from the normal direction. The RRS replacement foot extends behind the mounting screws, allowing the lens+TC to be properly balanced.

Click to expand...

True on the 500 II as well with a 1.4/2x and stock foot.