 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / Digital Photo / August 200520D or 5D
Given the review on http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05082209canoneos5d.asp Do you think the $3299 is worth it compared to about $ 1238 for the 20D now (buydig.com) considering its improvements over the 20D? I wonder if the 5D will make good picture taking for the non-professional that much easier than the 20D? Can you justify it's cost for a non-professional? For me, it's seems to much difference in cost but that's me. I believe the 20D about one year ago was around $2000 so it fell about $800 over a year. > Given the review on > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05082209canoneos5d.asp > > Do you think the $3299 is worth it compared to about $ 1238 for the > 20D now (buydig.com) considering its improvements over the 20D? Is this my money we are spending, or yours? > I wonder if the 5D will make good picture taking for the > non-professional that much easier than the 20D? If you have to ask a question like that then you may wish to consider the unpleasant thought that you might not even be 'worthy' of a 20D. > Can you justify it's cost for a non-professional? Why should I justify it's cost? I am not selling the things. > For me, it's seems to much difference in cost but that's me. Well, since it's your money, that's all you need, right? > I believe the 20D about one year ago was around $2000 so it fell > about $800 over a year. Ah, you aren't a photographer, but an investor in the photographic equipment futures market! Well, here's the deal about that sort of thing: only an idiot would sell you a put, and only an idiot would buy a call. Are you an idiot? > Given the review on > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05082209canoneos5d.asp [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Can you justify it's cost for a non-professional? I can't justify anything for anyone but myself. You'll have to determine that. >For me, it's seems > to much difference in cost but that's me. I believe the 20D about one > year ago was around $2000 so it fell about $800 over a year. 20D was about $1500 when released. If you're not already prepared with a list of reasons why the 5D makes sense for you, then there is a good chance that it doesn't make sense for you now. It has many features which a lot of us have been wishing for: Spot meter, full-frame, nearly 13MP, no pesky built-in flash (did you know it has no flash?), and other features many general shooters don't ever care about. What you need to do is really try and define your needs, and how those needs stack up against the abilities of the two bodies. The 5D isn't universally ahead of the 20D. For example, the 20D can shoot 5 frames per second in jpeg mode, while the 5D is limited to 3 frames (any mode). Check it out and do some serious consideration before you plonk down any amount for either camera. Mark > What you need to do is really try and define your needs, and how > those needs stack up against the abilities of the two bodies. The 5D > isn't universally ahead of the 20D. For example, the 20D can shoot 5 > frames per second in jpeg mode, while the 5D is limited to 3 frames > (any mode). Has it got a good movie mode? ;-) -Mike >> What you need to do is really try and define your needs, and how >> those needs stack up against the abilities of the two bodies. The 5D [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Has it got a good movie mode? ;-) I'm sure the 5D would look quite good in a movie... :) > > Has it got a good movie mode? ;-) > > I'm sure the 5D would look quite good in a movie... > :) Put a small piece of black tape over the model number and other shiny logo spots. (I do this so when I shoot a movie set there are a minimum number of shiny surfaces to reflect light.) No one will know what camera it is. (And if someone asks say "...prototype...cant tell ya what it is..." ;^) Jeff >> What you need to do is really try and define your needs, and how >> those needs stack up against the abilities of the two bodies. The 5D [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > -Mike I hope you're joking....  SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >> Has it got a good movie mode? ;-) > I hope you're joking.... Of course. See the wink? ;-) -Mike >>Given the review on >>http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05082209canoneos5d.asp [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > I'm sure all of us Aussies fresh from spending $3k on our flaky 20Ds can now shell out $5k on the day of release just to have a repeat of the 20D's reliability issues and hastily engineered "upgrades" with even more bugs than the ones they tried to fix. This time with a full frame sensor and no internal flash! (thank God they saw the light). Just a case of one up-manship. It doesn't work when your quality control is designed by monkeys. I note with interest that this is not a "Professional" camera either, just one for "Enthusiasts". Canon's way of squirming out of the loose auto focus ability and it's really poorly designed ETTL II, flash integration and operating environment requirements which doesn't suit anyone living west of Ipswich (Queensland Australia) in the summer. At least it was with the 20D. So far there are 14 frequently documented problems 20D owners have discovered with their "state of the art" (sniggers) cameras. It took just 2 days to discover the first 5. I wonder how long it will be before the first complaint surfaces about this one? I missed one important "feature" of this new camera which will stuff up many people's plans to own one - Well all the humans who live north and south of Paradise's boarder on the equator anyway. Operating Humidity is maximum 85%. I guess that cuts out all you rain forest nuts. Orchid growers and beach dwellers in those wonderful tropical islands! SignatureDouglas, You never really make it on the 'net until you get your own personal Troll. Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites! >>>Given the review on >>>http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05082209canoneos5d.asp [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > maximum 85%. I guess that cuts out all you rain forest nuts. Orchid > growers and beach dwellers in those wonderful tropical islands! My 10D has been from death valley heat...to Alaskan cold...to tropical wet. Still churning out great images. Sorry about your 20D problems. Luckily your understandable bitterness doesn't inflict these things on future Canon products. I strongly suspect they learned real lessons from the 20D troubles, and the outrage that followed from people such as yourself. In fairness to Pixby the only place my 300D has had reliablity problems was in tropical Queensland. On two separate occasions I was in the rainforest when I got the dreaded Er99. Never had that problem before and never since. No problem with the camera in +45 dry desert heat or at -20 on a glacier. Nick > In fairness to Pixby the only place my 300D has had reliablity problems > was in tropical Queensland. > On two separate occasions I was in the rainforest when I got the > dreaded Er99. > Never had that problem before and never since. No problem with the > camera in +45 dry desert heat or at -20 on a glacier. That's a lens mount contact problem. It might have been as simple as a wet mount, or dirty contacts in the mount--as would be likely in damp, sticky environments. You may well be right - although I thought Er 99 was 'unspecified error' I do remember trying a number of different lenses at the time all with the same result. I thought it may have been due to moving straight from a very dry and cold air conditioned room (not my choice) to a very hot humid situation. On returning to my accomodation, and without removing the lens again, the camera 'sorted' itself a short while. It only happened twice though which isn't really enough to base a solid hypothosis on. I'm a happy user having had approx 3000 shutter clicks before and after this 'glitch' nick J > You may well be right - although I thought Er 99 was 'unspecified > error' [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > cold air conditioned room (not my choice) to a very hot humid > situation. That's always a bad idea, especially in a very humid place... > On returning to my accomodation, and without removing the lens again, > the camera 'sorted' itself a short while. Next time try removing the lens and drying/wiping the contacts on the lens mount, and perhaps the contacts on a battery grip (if you were using one). > It only happened twice though which isn't really enough to base a solid > hypothosis on. I'm a happy user having had approx 3000 shutter clicks > before and after this 'glitch' :) >I strongly suspect they learned real lessons from the 20D troubles, and the >outrage that followed from people such as yourself. I hope so, but regardless of all the complaints in places like here, and DPReview, the majority of commonents that people see about the camera in the real world are positive, so they sell like hotcakes, and it really doesn't cost Canon much to ignore the problems. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>I strongly suspect they learned real lessons from the 20D troubles, and >>the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the real world are positive, so they sell like hotcakes, and it really > doesn't cost Canon much to ignore the problems. What infomation do you base this on, I know Canon D-SLR users that have similar problems to those mentioned here but never use nwsgroups or DPReview. >>>I strongly suspect they learned real lessons from the 20D troubles, and >>>the >>>outrage that followed from people such as yourself. >> I hope so, but regardless of all the complaints in places like here, and >> DPReview, the majority of commonents that people see about the camera in >> the real world are positive, so they sell like hotcakes, and it really >> doesn't cost Canon much to ignore the problems. >What infomation do you base this on, I know Canon D-SLR users that have >similar problems to those mentioned here but never use nwsgroups or >DPReview. What is their broadcast range, compared to a popular photography magazine, or a salesperson? Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>I strongly suspect they learned real lessons from the 20D troubles, and the >>outrage that followed from people such as yourself. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the real world are positive, so they sell like hotcakes, and it really > doesn't cost Canon much to ignore the problems. You're right... I only made them about $10,000 (profit)in the 5 years I've had Canon gear. A mere spec on the radar of their mega million profits. Now let's see... Pissed off Pro's moving from Canon back to Nikon (I personally know about) = 6. That's Sixty grand of never to be repeated income I'm sure Nikon are please about. I can only guess how many other Pros are doing the same thing... Lets say that there are about 150,000 Pro photographers in the world using Canon DSLR cameras. Lets say too, that 5% of them are moving back to Nikon due to reliability problems. Again let's presume they all have about the same investment in Canon as I do. Allow an amount for excess error and there are probably 5000 people switching to Nikon (or another brand) cameras before Christmas. Lost to Canon for all time. This is most definitely not something any company, no matter how big they are can afford to ignore. The flow on damage to Canon is on-going. I just ordered a new 44" wide format printer to replace my aging HP. I could have saved a grand or so by buying a Canon. I didn't. I bought Epson. The principal reason for the choice was Canon's attitude to my camera problems and their refusal to offer any suggestions as to why I should buy another Canon (again) just because they say the 20D is not a Professional camera. Their promotion of the camera to Professionals by advertising that "it will suit Enthusiasts and Professionals alike", is deceptive advertising in the extreme when later, they say (verbally) "You can't really expect it to perform like a Professional camera" - in response to me having fried the thing from using the internal flash for 400 shots at a Santa shoot last year. Those bloody Santa's move so fast you have to have a semi automatic to nail one! Pretty soon my studio will be 100% canon free... I'm not alone so your assumption Canon can "afford" to ignore the 20D fiasco is not entirely correct although it is a camera which might run trouble free in the hands of a casual user. SignatureDouglas, You never really make it on the 'net until you get your own personal Troll. Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites! > Now let's see... > Pissed off Pro's moving from Canon back to Nikon (I personally know [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > The flow on damage to Canon is on-going. << Snipped bits out >> So, Doug, have you shorted Canon stock now that you've got them on the run?? -- John McWilliams >>>I strongly suspect they learned real lessons from the 20D troubles, and >>>the outrage that followed from people such as yourself. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > please about. I can only guess how many other Pros are doing the same > thing... More likely: Those "pros" using 20Ds are now more likely to move up to the 1 series. :) > Lets say that there are about 150,000 Pro photographers in the world using > Canon DSLR cameras. Lets say too, that 5% of them are moving back to Nikon > due to reliability problems. Again let's presume they all have about the > same investment in Canon as I do. That doesn't make sense. Most pros use Canon's 1D series, which wasn't involved in the 20 issue at all. There is no question or debate about the fact that Canon is dominating the professional market any more. What you're saying just doesn't add up--save for your personal, obsessive rage, and corresponding switch. > Allow an amount for excess error and there are probably 5000 people > switching to Nikon (or another brand) cameras before Christmas. The opposite is more likely the case. I note that one poste here mentioned today that unless Nikon's next release is (thus and such in relation to Canon's 5D release), he's "selling his Nikon gear." Words like "probably" hold little weight in arguments you are trying to put forth. Have you seen the numbers? Canon is in the dominant position by a good margin. >Lost to Canon for all time. This is most definitely not something any >company, no matter how big they are can afford to ignore. What may seem "ignored" to you hasn't been ignored. They've been issuing replaced/repaired grips, new firmware, and more. Clearly they are trying to address the 20D issue. > The flow on damage to Canon is on-going. I just ordered a new 44" wide > format printer to replace my aging HP. I could have saved a grand or so by > buying a Canon. I didn't. I bought Epson. The principal reason for the > choice was Canon's attitude to my camera problems and their refusal to > offer any suggestions as to why I should buy another Canon (again) just > because they say the 20D is not a Professional camera. So what has that to do with hating Canon? -Epson is the clear winner anyway. <snip> > Pretty soon my studio will be 100% canon free... I'm not alone so your > assumption Canon can "afford" to ignore the 20D fiasco is not entirely > correct although it is a camera which might run trouble free in the hands > of a casual user. You are clearly obsessing here. >> The flow on damage to Canon is on-going. I just ordered a new 44" wide >> format printer to replace my aging HP. I could have saved a grand or so by [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >So what has that to do with hating Canon? >-Epson is the clear winner anyway. Although I have been a (mostly) happy Canon camera user for almost 30 years, I have to say I do not like their attitude on printers. In the late-1990s I bought a Canon Multipass L90 laser fax/printer (the joy of having laser printed faxes was, in the days when I received lots of them, quite extreme). A couple of years later I upgraded from Win 98 to Win ME, and found that the L90 would not work with the PC. I contacted Canon, who said that there were no revised Win ME drivers for the L90, and that since the machine was no longer current they had no intention of producing any. From that moment I have avoided buying any Canon office equipment, and have passed that recommendation to others. I now use only HP laser printers and only Epson inkjets. AFAIK, HP produce updated drivers for their printers for OS updates long after they have ceased production; I have an LJ 4P from 1995 which still works happily on Win XP, and my Epson printers all work happily on XP as well. To be fair, the L90 still works perfectly as a plain paper fax, and I now use a (much superior) HP LJ 2200 (with duplex printing - another joy!). I think this is very short-sighted of Canon - they must not realise that it only takes one bad experience like this to cost them a lot of business. And, I say again, I speak as a user with over £10,000-worth of EF gear (which has performed pretty well flawlessly) and quite a lot of old FD stuff as well (ditto apart from the T90, which I frankly think was a turkey). David SignatureDavid Littlewood > I think this is very short-sighted of Canon - they must not realise that > it only takes one bad experience like this to cost them a lot of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > David Arrrggg. You bought a T90 too? Maybe I should have learnt from that experience what was in store 15 years later? SignatureDouglas, You never really make it on the 'net until you get your own personal Troll. Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites! >> I think this is very short-sighted of Canon - they must not realise >>that it only takes one bad experience like this to cost them a lot of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Maybe I should have learnt from that experience what was in store 15 >years later? Yes; I bought it a year or two before going AF, and it never got as much use as my A1 and AE1. Perhaps this was a contributory factor (others reported that the problem is exacerbated by lack of use) but a couple of years later the shutter was jammed. I paid Canon £100 or so to fix (or replace) it, but after another year or so of little use it jammed again. I gave up on it at that point. Nice looking paperweight! David SignatureDavid Littlewood > So far there are 14 frequently documented problems 20D owners have > discovered with their "state of the art" (sniggers) cameras. It took > just 2 days to discover the first 5. Care to elaborate what 3-5 of them are? (the BG-2E issue doesn't count) Curious, not challenging you. > > So far there are 14 frequently documented problems 20D owners have > > discovered with their "state of the art" (sniggers) cameras. It took > > just 2 days to discover the first 5. > > Care to elaborate what 3-5 of them are? (the BG-2E issue doesn't > count) Curious, not challenging you. Doug has been a ranting and raving lunatic ever since he went off of his medication. Don't bother. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird pixby can't stop himself from proving he is a shithead: > I missed one important "feature" of this new camera which will stuff up > many people's plans to own one - Well all the humans who live north and > south of Paradise's boarder on the equator anyway. Operating Humidity is > maximum 85%. I guess that cuts out all you rain forest nuts. Orchid > growers and beach dwellers in those wonderful tropical islands! And the Nikon D2X spec is ... what? Hint: virtually all electronic devices have a specified "operating environment" that limits relative humidity to ~90%, "non condensing". But of course, to the Nikon Nutcase, the normal laws of physics do not apply to the object to their religion... > pixby can't stop himself from proving he is a shithead: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > But of course, to the Nikon Nutcase, the normal laws of physics do not > apply to the object to their religion... Don't know about the D2x, but the D70 is also 85% humidity (no condensation). I guess it's a "cover-all" clause by the makers to try to limit liability for failure due to internal corrosion/water damage. There wouldn't be too may places o earth where the temp is always between 0 and 40C with humidity less than 85%. The product has to be fit for it's intended use according to consumer protection laws in most countries. If it isn't, then such a clause is meaningless, as intended use for such a camera is not solely for use in temperature and humidity controlled environments. >> pixby can't stop himself from proving he is a shithead: >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>maximum 85%. I guess that cuts out all you rain forest nuts. Orchid >>>growers and beach dwellers in those wonderful tropical islands! > Don't know about the D2x, but the D70 is also 85% humidity (no > condensation). I guess it's a "cover-all" clause by the makers to try to > limit liability for failure due to internal corrosion/water damage. There > wouldn't be too may places o earth where the temp is always between 0 and > 40C with humidity less than 85%. SoCal would be one of those places, if it gets over 40C, the humidity is usually in the area of 20%-40%. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >> pixby can't stop himself from proving he is a shithead: >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > meaningless, as intended use for such a camera is not solely for use in > temperature and humidity controlled environments. I have some clarity on the issue of operating environment: According the ACCC (The Australian consumer watch dog): "If you purchase a product in Australia, from a duly authorized Australian agent of the manufacturer or the manufacturer themselves and the goods are *normally* for use in an environment outside the specified operating environment, you may be entitled to a full refund of the purchase price and an additional payment for loss of income if the goods were knowingly sold to someone relying on them for their income." I also spoke to my lawyer with a view to getting a refund on my Canon gear. He said: "Off the top of my head I'd say if Canon do the same as Minolta did when you got a refund for the digital print system... You'd be looking at about $40,000 in legal fees to get them to court. If your new Nikon gear is satisfactory, just sell the Canon stuff and replace it, it'll be cheaper than taking them on for a refund." The part I have the most trouble with is that laws exist to control the behavior of these huge multi-national companies but they have such massive financial resources, trying to force them to work within those laws is impossible for anyone without the same deep pockets. A duly authorized agent of Minolta sold me a digital print system last year which had an operating environment outside that in my print centre. It took 5 months and a legal bill which looked more like a serial number to get Minolta to authorize the return of the system and refund of my money. The fiasco with them was all about recommending and selling a product into a location which was totally outside it's ability to function... All you keyboard jockey's who think it's OK to sell something to work in an environment it is never designed to work in and the guy who says "no electronic equipment will work over 90% humidity"... Have some pretty odd principals. I wonder how you'd react to see half your Superannuation fund spent on a business full of "electronic equipment" not designed for the Geographic area it is sold in, yet recommended as suitable by the manufacturer who brought it into the country? Just wait till winter before the 3 month window of opportunity for use exists? Not likely when 80% of your income is in summer. Barbs like "Nikon Nut case" and "Dougie's off his meds again" are from w.nkers without a clue who probably don't have the balls to do anything but wait for the grass to grow so they can Mow it again. SignatureDouglas, You never really make it on the 'net until you get your own personal Troll. Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites! > Douglas (Pixby) writes ... > > (advice from his lawyer) "If your new Nikon gear is satisfactory, just >sell the Canon stuff and replace it" As others pointed out, the Nikon consumer gear has the same operating temperature and humidity range so you'll run into similar problems with it. For you and anyone else who will use their cameras in extreme conditions I'd suggest buying the professional grade gear instead of the consumer grade stuff like the 20D. We have two 1D Mark II's and a 1Ds and they are weather-sealed against moisture and dust, for example. Using them with the more recent Canon L lenses with the gasket at the mount and seals on the switches means I can shoot in light rain or snow without worry, something I've done maybe 12 days the past year in Alaska and San Diego (remember the January rains Mark M? ... I was there :) ... I would never try this with the consumer bodies. It will be the same for you with the Nikon consumer gear ... I don't know if something like the D2x is sealed or not (should be for $5,000 US) but if it isn't you'll run into similar issues. >A duly authorized agent of Minolta sold me a digital print system last >year which had an operating environment outside that in my print centre. If the "print centre" is indoors then it's surprising that the operating environment is out of spec. If it's outside or in an open mall (I seem to remember something like this on the pier at Cairns when I was there marlin fishing) then that's a different issue. Bill > We have two 1D Mark II's and a > 1Ds and they are weather-sealed against moisture and dust, for example. The Canon EOS-1D MkII specifications are: Operating Temperature Range: 0°C- 45°C / 32°F - 113°F Operating Humidity Range: 85% or less The only surprise would be if it was any different. Weather sealing tries to keep liquid water and such out of the camera. However, that big gaping hole at the front -- where you attach the lens -- is going to let in water vapour Just Fine. > Alaska and San Diego (remember the January rains Mark M? ... I was > there :) ... I would never try this with the consumer bodies. Sadly, yes. We lost our property's two best pine trees at teh tail end of that storm...with totally saturated ground. They were both about 60-70 feet tall (or more), and gave our back yard full privacy. They are no both gone, leaving our back yard to look like a stage before the world. :( We haven't gotten over it, and waiting another 30 years for them to grow back is a black thought. (Whine whine...) But ya, that was quite a rain--espacially for these parts. Where I was born, in Colombia, we had over 140 inches of rain a year...sometimes a LOT more. But that area is ready for it. San Diego isn't. -Mark >>Douglas (Pixby) writes ... >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Bill That's fine advise Bill. I got it from Canon after complaining about the 2, 20Ds I bought to do our annual Santa shoots last year. I returned one of the 20Ds for a full refund which I offset against a 1D, Mk II. I don't have an issue with the reliability of that camera, only the accessories and lenses I use with it, which are the same ones I use on the 20D. What my issue is with, is the bullshit from Canon about how a (now openly recognized as such)consumer grade camera is promoted as being suitable for "Enthusiasts and Professionals" when it is not. Particularly in light of a pure consumer camera like the FZ20 Panasonic, happily shooting 500 shots a day - using it's internal flash when the 20D Canon fries it's electronics doing the same thing. I'm bloody angry that I listened to even more of their bullshit and bought a 1D, II when I was stupid enough to actually believe them. The Nikon D2X produces "better" (and no I can't quantify that) colour reproduction than the Canons do. I much prefer the look of a print from the Nikon than one from the 1D. Also I am very impressed with Nikon's Speedlights and the only (so far) Nikon lens I have. If all the lenses I intend to buy are as good as this, I don't believe the FF sensor is of any value to me. Certainly the Canon Speedlights are of highly questionable value to a working Photographer, as several other have reported in this group. The print centre I put the Minolta system into is indeed in a seaside environment. It is impossible to air condition a busy shop and still have foot traffic (read that as customers) through it. It is also of questionable value to give someone prints made and kept in a low (as in 40%) humidity when they take them out into 90% humidity and bring them back stuck together a few hours later. SignatureDouglas, You never really make it on the 'net until you get your own personal Troll. Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites! >The Nikon D2X produces "better" (and no I can't quantify that) Then be honest; say you "like it better". Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>The Nikon D2X produces "better" (and no I can't quantify that) > >Then be honest; say you "like it better". Everything Doug tries to "quantify" seems to end up proving precisely the opposite of Doug's opinion. pixby just can't deal with the truth: > I have some clarity on the issue of operating environment: Ah, then you can finally answer the question: what _is_ the Nikon D2X specifiction re: humidity? Or would that just make the lie you uttered too obvious, the cognitive dissonance too difficult to bear? > According the ACCC (The Australian consumer watch dog): > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > purchase price and an additional payment for loss of income if the goods > were knowingly sold to someone relying on them for their income." You'll have to cite your source; I could not locate the above document at google. (I suspect you will never cite the source, as it probably doesn't exist. Indeed, there is much to suggest that the entire episode you relate is as fictitious.) > I also spoke to my lawyer with a view to getting a refund on my Canon > gear. He said: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > is satisfactory, just sell the Canon stuff and replace it, it'll be > cheaper than taking them on for a refund." That you need to hire a lawyer to think for you just proves you are far, far, beyond stupid. > The part I have the most trouble with is that laws exist to control the > behavior of these huge multi-national companies but they have such > massive financial resources, trying to force them to work within those > laws is impossible for anyone without the same deep pockets. It's a conspiracy, Mr. pixby! The tinfoil hats _are_ necessary! > A duly authorized agent of Minolta sold me a digital print system last > year which had an operating environment outside that in my print centre. > It took 5 months and a legal bill which looked more like a serial number > to get Minolta to authorize the return of the system and refund of my > money. Your ignorance is your problem. In this case, you are the one who is responsible for checking for environmental conditions, and notifying the supplier, and making sure your purchases are consistent with said requirements. Any manufacturer will be happy to provide you specifications on request. Most of them publish them online. Why didn't you ask? (Don't answer, I know why.) > The fiasco with them was all about recommending and selling a product > into a location which was totally outside it's ability to function... Use of equipment in an environment for which it was not designed is called a "warranty violation". (Example: you can't put a car in a blast furnace, and then take the slag heap back to Ford and demand a refund.) Expecting the manufacturer to accept return of equipment subjected to such conditions is, shall we say it, most hilarious. Indeed, if your story is true, no wonder Minolta was giving you a hard time. Frankly, if it was me, I would have driven you into the ground legally. Crushed you like the bug you are. A contract is a contract. Enter into one in blissful ignorance at your peril. Stupidity is not a tenable defence. > All you keyboard jockey's who think it's OK to sell something to work in > an environment it is never designed to work in and the guy who says "no > electronic equipment will work over 90% humidity"... Have some pretty > odd principals. We can all be thankful that the law does not exist to protect stupid people like pixby from the consequences of their lack of mental capability. > I wonder how you'd react to see half your Superannuation fund spent on a > business full of "electronic equipment" not designed for the Geographic > area it is sold in, yet recommended as suitable by the manufacturer who > brought it into the country? Just wait till winter before the 3 month > window of opportunity for use exists? Not likely when 80% of your income > is in summer. Again, the manufacturer's job is make the gear and advertise it's properties. The buyer's job is to match up what is on the market with what he requires. If your story is true, you (somehow) managed to f.ck up the role of "buyer". Not only that, you most likely _abused_ the equipment! Why should the manufacturer come to your defence? Why should _ANYONE_ come to your defence? > Barbs like "Nikon Nut case" and "Dougie's off his meds again" are from > w.nkers without a clue who probably don't have the balls to do anything > but wait for the grass to grow so they can Mow it again. I call you a Nikon Nutcase because that is what you are. Don't like it? Want me to stop? I hereby reveal to you the secret: stop acting like one. > I call you a Nikon Nutcase because that is what you are. Don't like > it? Want me to stop? I hereby reveal to you the secret: stop acting > like one. Some time ago I decided not to respond to anyone hiding their identity by using Google to post insulting and defamatory remarks about those who are easily identified. Stop acting like a coward... I realized now, your attitude is endemic from socially and economically disadvantaged Canadians. Must be something to do with the snow... froze your brain perhaps? The kill file grows, yet again. SignatureDouglas, You never really make it on the 'net until you get your own personal Troll. Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites! > The kill file grows, yet again. Oh the terrible, terrible, pain of being killfiled by a proven idiot! Note the usual Pixby/Douglas MacDonald approach - as soon as he is called on for his usual mistakes and misinfornation, he immediately starts slinging the insults and killfiling. If you can't debate, insult and change the subject. That's Douglas' motto. > Note the usual Pixby/Douglas MacDonald approach - as soon as he is > called on for his usual mistakes and misinfornation, he immediately > starts slinging the insults and killfiling. > > If you can't debate, insult and change the subject. That's Douglas' > motto. I don't mind picking up the Pixby slack in a flame grilling. I've never owned a Nikon. Tell me the letter in my hand from Canon Australia (dated a day after I attended) estimating the cleaning of my 8 month old 20D for AU$250 is reasonable. This is now day 5 since I dropped it in (to the Canon Australia service centre in this state) and all they can say is that it may take more than 14 days to do anything about it. 2 weeks must account for the ultra slo-mo sqeeze on a blower brush. The first warranty repair took 6 weeks. Pity that didn't work. Abuse the crap out of me if you want, I'm fine with that. I certainly give credit where due. The Canon 20D gives spectacular results when it works... Dave > I call you a Nikon Nutcase because that is what you are. What's comical is you also called me one and I don't even shoot with a nikon! I guess anyone who doesn't use your BRAND and doesn;t blindly ignore any problems your BRAND may have has to be a "Nikon nutcase"? SignatureStacey > What's comical is you also called me one and I don't even shoot with a > nikon! I guess anyone who doesn't use your BRAND and doesn;t blindly ignore > any problems your BRAND may have has to be a "Nikon nutcase"? Like I told "pixby": if you don't like being called a Nikon Nutcase, then you should stop acting like one. (I am not holding my breath.) Perhaps you should hold your breath, 10 minutes should do. > Like I told "pixby": if you don't like being called a Nikon Nutcase, > then you should stop acting like one. (I am not holding my breath.) Paul Schilter top posts like a moron: > Perhaps you should hold your breath, 10 minutes should do. Hey, you can drop dead too. No skin off my nose, luser. > And the Nikon D2X spec is ... what? Exactly the same. If you look at such specs you'll find that pretty much everything says "0-40 degrees C, max 85% humidity". It's so consistent that it's probably automatically inserted without much thought. I've used my D2x outside all three "limits" already, with no ill effects, though it's only seen below-freezing on two days, and then not below it by much, this being summer and all. Judging from previous experience using a D70 well below 0 degrees C, it'll be fine come winter. As for the humidity... if the 85% "limit" really were a problem, I'd pretty much have to keep the thing in storage all summer, where I live. :) I've used my D2x, and the D70 before it, in 100% humidity. Given that Douglas is the only one to have reported any issue with the environmental limits, I'd expect a decent Canon to do just as well. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> And the Nikon D2X spec is ... what? > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Given that Douglas is the only one to have reported any issue with the > environmental limits, I'd expect a decent Canon to do just as well. In Brazil, we had a "hot box" for sensitive electronic equipment like video cameras, etc. All it consisted of was a wooden box, a hinged door, and a standard light bulb that always stayed lit in side. This would basically keep it relatively dry inside and free of mold, condensation, etc. Worked a charm. > In Brazil, we had a "hot box" for sensitive electronic equipment like > video cameras, etc. > All it consisted of was a wooden box, a hinged door, and a standard > light bulb that always stayed lit in side. This would basically keep > it relatively dry inside and free of mold, condensation, etc. > Worked a charm. That worked well for me in Auckland, but in a hot humid environment like Cairns the temperature needs to be kept down as well. Excessive heat will shorten the life of the electrolytic capacitors. I store my camera gear in an area which is usually airconditioned. -Mike >> In Brazil, we had a "hot box" for sensitive electronic equipment like >> video cameras, etc. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I store my camera gear in an area which is usually airconditioned. It wasn't particularly "hot" in the box, but it was enough to get rid of excess moisture. We also used little cans of stuf that collected balls of water in it...the name of the stuff escapes me. -Periodically, you'd have to dump the water out, being careful not to spill any of it inside...since any residue/dust of the substance would actually cause water to visibly collect whatever it settled on. --Weird substance, that. > It wasn't particularly "hot" in the box, but it was enough to get rid > of excess moisture. 20 degrees C is the optimum temperature. > We also used little cans of stuf that collected balls of water in > it...the name of the stuff escapes me. > -Periodically, you'd have to dump the water out, being careful not to > spill any of it inside...since any residue/dust of the substance > would actually cause water to visibly collect whatever it settled on. > --Weird substance, that. There's something like that here called (I think) a Closet Camel. -Mike >>It wasn't particularly "hot" in the box, but it was enough to get rid >>of excess moisture. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > -Mike The little balls in "closet camels" are calcium chloride. Spillage will be very corrosive to metals and electrically conductive. Activated alumina or silica gel might be safer to use around camera gear. SNIP > So far there are 14 frequently documented problems 20D owners have > discovered with their "state of the art" (sniggers) cameras. Would those be owner problems, or camera problems? Are you talking about existing problems or issues that have been solved long ago? Bart > SNIP >> So far there are 14 frequently documented problems 20D owners have >> discovered with their "state of the art" (sniggers) cameras. > > Would those be owner problems, or camera problems? Are you talking about > existing problems or issues that have been solved long ago? Thirteen of them are Sigma lens problems... David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >> SNIP >>> So far there are 14 frequently documented problems 20D owners have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Thirteen of them are Sigma lens problems... And they are documented where? > "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > And they are documented where? It's joke, Pete. David decided to crack a funny for a change! SignatureDouglas, You never really make it on the 'net until you get your own personal Troll. Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites! > SNIP > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Bart Bart... It doesn't matter if some of the problems existed in camera number 1 and were fixed. Then more problems surfaced in camera number 100,000. They are problems Canon seem unable to prevent continually occurring. In my book nine months is hardly "long ago". The 20D is less than 12 months old (new?) Firmware is now 4 version old. 2 of which added a fresh set of problems! That makes a new firmware fix every 3 month to address the camera's problems. Hell man, if you bought a new car and it had 4 new engines in it in the first year, would you brand it a lemon? Canon have the Wilhelm Institute to hold up as the "authority" to avoid legal action for their ridiculous and totally false claims prints from their printers will last 20 years. Now it seems they have dpreview in their pocket to sit, beg and shake hands on command to tell the world how good their cameras are. How bloody convenient! My most reliable 20D has been back to Canon three times. Once for a back focus issue they didn't fix on the grounds it still focused inside the depth of field of the 'kit lens' I returned with it... Until I produced a f1.4 lens and proceeded to threaten them with legal action before they agreed to fix it ...and the second time because it died on a lens change - and still does every time I absolutely need it to keep working. The third - Still unresolved issue - is the "Grip". Formally part of a "Pro kit" on 10Ds but now just a "grip" which still - 9 month's on - will not use the left side battery. All the useless piece of junk does is store a spare battery! If it wasn't for the handling of the camera, I'd throw it away - for all the good it does. And before you start... Just try and tell Canon Australia about the USA recall and they just look blankly at you. That's my most reliable 20D. If you want to hear the rants on the piece of crud that might switch on but probably won't and dies when I hook a FX580 speedlight to it if I ever do manage to coax it into life... I'll post again. And then there's the 70~200 f2.8 lens that sometimes holds it focus and sometimes doesn't. Works sometimes on my 20Ds, often on my 1D,II and always on my EOS 1. While I'm at it... What about the flagship of their "L" series lens? the fabulous 24~70 f2.8? What do Canon have to say about it's performance on a 1D? What did they say about it's barrel distortion which coincidently nicely matches it's lack of edge sharpness on the 1D - ? sh.t, Bart... I never had any of these problems with my Mamiya gear. I never had any of these problems with the newspaper's Nikon gear. My Fuji GWS Pano camera did once have a film advance problem but it still takes flawless pictures. I have all of the above (and more - except the film advance one) problems with the load of crap I got from Canon. Hell Bart... The Sigma 28~70 f2.8 I had on the 10D was a better lens than the (3 times more expensive) Canon 24~70. Canon really have pulled a doozey with the 5D. It looks like they've fooled all of you. All you Rebel and 20D owners who bought "S" lenses will have to dump 'em if you buy a 5D. When I think about it... My SD9 Sigma which is at 138,000 clicks and takes woefully inadequate low light images but is fine with plenty of light, Is reliable in the extreme and often saves the day when one of the Canon's craps out. SignatureDouglas, You never really make it on the 'net until you get your own personal Troll. Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites! [...] > My SD9 Sigma which is at 138,000 clicks and takes woefully inadequate low > light images but is fine with plenty of light, Is reliable in the extreme > and often saves the day when one of the Canon's craps out. 2 days ago I took my 20D in to clean the thing because of crud visible on prints. I'd clean it myself but I thought I'd get the experts at Canon to do it... $250 AUD. That's $190US. I am sure they put the crap in it in the first place during one of my flying visits to bitch about reliability and have them play with CF cards. I even watched a drone lay the thing on its back to detach the lens to look at a serial number(?), something I never do- always face down. Another firmware upgrade (2.0.2), another warning about not formatting CF cards on computer (which I never do), written confirmation of the firmware upgrade including a repeat warning to me, the Idiot (non pro) User, not to format outside the camera... It is so exciting wondering if the bl00dy thing is going to fail at a critical moment, that I became concerned about heart failure. So I now carry 2 backup P&S cameras and beta-blockers. Why 2 backups? One's a Canon, but I can always rely on the old RDC7! Dave >> SNIP >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> Would those be owner problems, or camera problems? Are you talking >> about existing problems or issues that have been solved long ago? SNIP > The 20D is less than 12 months old (new?) Firmware is now 4 version > old. 2 of which added a fresh set of problems! Let's see if we can find "14 frequently documented problems", and I'll skip feature and language additions for brevity (http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eos20d/eos20d_firmware-e.html): Version 1.0.4/1.0.5 changes: - Fixes the problem of shutter release not working. - Improves reliability when using some CF cards. Version 1.1.0 changes: - The phenomenon of horizontal line noise appearing in images taken at high ISO settings while using the internal flash has been fixed. The issue with horizontal line noise appearing in shots taken at high ISO settings (ISO800, ISO1600, etc.) while using the internal flash has been fixed. Version 2.0.2 changes: Fixes bugs that occurred when using the EOS Capture application. Seems, we're some 10 frequently documented problems short. Are those user problems, problems with incompatible OEM hardware, operating in non-recommended conditions, RTFM ... ? > That makes a new firmware fix every 3 month to address the camera's > problems. SNIP > Canon have the Wilhelm Institute to hold up as the "authority" to > avoid legal action for their ridiculous and totally false claims > prints from their printers will last 20 years. Do you mean Wilhelm treats Epson and Canon in a completely different way? > Now it seems they have dpreview in their pocket to sit, beg and > shake hands on command to tell the world how good their cameras are. > How bloody convenient! What makes you come to that conclusion? Are the DPreview tests biased? In what way? > My most reliable 20D has been back to Canon three times. That's too bad. It looks like you had a lot of bad luck, since some of the problems you experienced that I read about earlier seem rather unfortunate incidents than frequently occurring/reported around the globe. > Once for a back focus issue they didn't fix on the grounds [...] The human factor is an issue with service, as always. > and the second time because it died on a lens change - and still > does every time I absolutely need it to keep working. Since you make it sound predictable, it should be repeatable and fixable. I assume the lens was factored into the search for potential causes. > The third - Still unresolved issue - is the "Grip". Formally part of > a "Pro kit" on 10Ds but now just a "grip" which still - 9 month's > on - will not use the left side battery. Is that unique for your unit or is it a frequently reported issue? I know there was a manufacturing deficiency (a washer of some sort being left out at assembly) that could result in poor electrical contact between body and grip, but that was solved AFAIK (I don't use a grip on the 20D, so I can't verify myself). > All the useless piece of junk does is store a spare battery! If it > wasn't for the handling of the camera, I'd throw it away - for all > the good it does. And before you start... Just try and tell Canon > Australia about the USA recall and they just look blankly at you. > That's my most reliable 20D. So it seems many of your bad experiences were with Canon Australia service, the human factor. > If you want to hear the rants on the piece of crud that might switch > on but probably won't and dies when I hook a FX580 speedlight to it > if I ever do manage to coax it into life... I'll post again. If it helps, by all means do, but only if it is a frequently reported issue with other users as well. So far you seem/sound like the single most unfortunate 20D user in the world, and unhappy users are more vocal than happy ones, so you ust be *the* most unhappy one. > And then there's the 70~200 f2.8 lens that sometimes holds it focus > and sometimes doesn't. Works sometimes on my 20Ds, often on my 1D,II > and always on my EOS 1. Doesn't sound like an exclusive 20D problem. Maybe it's the harsh Australian climate that causes these things to happen? > While I'm at it... > > What about the flagship of their "L" series lens? the fabulous 24~70 > f2.8? What do Canon have to say about it's performance on a 1D? What > did they say about it's barrel distortion which coincidently nicely > matches it's lack of edge sharpness on the 1D - ? It must be a popular lens for a reason. The published MTF curves seem to match my experience, extreme corners at Full Frame are slightly softer than with the fixed focal length 24mm f/2.8 when stopped down to f/8, but better CA. Canon doesn't routinely publish CA and distortion figures, but for a zoom lens in this range, it doesn't seem that bad (and most is rather easy to fix in post-processing). > sh.t, Bart... I never had any of these problems with my Mamiya gear. > I never had any of these problems with the newspaper's Nikon gear. > My Fuji GWS Pano camera did once have a film advance problem but it > still takes flawless pictures. I have all of the above (and more - > except the film advance one) problems with the load of crap I got > from Canon. Maybe film gear is more robust (and usually no AF) than electronics, for your type of use/environment? > Hell Bart... The Sigma 28~70 f2.8 I had on the 10D was a better lens > than the (3 times more expensive) Canon 24~70. Why didn't you keep it on your Canon 20D then? > Canon really have pulled a doozey with the 5D. It looks like they've > fooled all of you. All you Rebel and 20D owners who bought "S" > lenses will have to dump 'em if you buy a 5D. When I think about > it... When I thought about it I decided to go for FF lenses for the 20D. I also think that for most the 20D is all they need, and it's much less demanding on storage requirements. And I think, no I know, that when people start looking at FF sensor aray images they will think they are less sharp (disregarding the output magnification differences). And then there is inadequate sharpening skills, sigh. > My SD9 Sigma which is at 138,000 clicks and takes woefully > inadequate low light images but is fine with plenty of light, Is > reliable in the extreme and often saves the day when one of the > Canon's craps out. I'm glad you're happy with it, although the SD-10 produces much better behaved image quality (less visible aliasing and smoother bokeh, skin color remains an issue on both). Bart > > I'm sure all of us Aussies fresh from spending $3k on our flaky 20Ds >can now shell out $5k on the day of release just to have a repeat of the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >I note with interest that this is not a "Professional" camera either, >just one for "Enthusiasts". Sounds like it is just *perfect* for you, Doug. Of course you have no need of all those pixels, given that your advanced technology can produce perfect 2 foot x 3 foot enlargements from a 2 megapixel image. ;-) > > I'm sure all of us Aussies fresh from spending $3k on our flaky 20Ds > can now shell out $5k on the day of release just to have a repeat of the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > up-manship. It doesn't work when your quality control is designed by > monkeys. What are you talking about? The 5D is not an upgrade to the 20D. Mark >> > I'm sure all of us Aussies fresh from spending $3k on our flaky 20Ds >> can now shell out $5k on the day of release just to have a repeat of the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Mark Not a replacement in Canon's line...no. But it will surely be an upgrade for some 20D users. :) He's talking about firmware upgrades Canon released for the 20D. > no pesky built-in flash Why is a built in flash "pesky"? On the camera I use, you can use the flip up flash along with a shoe mounted "bounce flash?, adjust the output of each independantly so you can shoot a perfectly balanced "bounce plus fill". That doesn't seem pesky to me and has resulted in the most natural looking flash shots I've ever taken. Is there an actual down side to a built in flash other than it doesn't sound "pro"? SignatureStacey >>no pesky built-in flash > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Is there an actual down side to a built in flash other than it doesn't > sound "pro"? Certainly is on a 20D. Use it at your peril! Mine fried the camera when I used it instead of a Speedlight at a Santa shoot last year. Great move by Canon to fix the interference problems--- Just take it out! SignatureDouglas, You never really make it on the 'net until you get your own personal Troll. Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites! >> no pesky built-in flash > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > fill". That doesn't seem pesky to me and has resulted in the most natural > looking flash shots I've ever taken. Great! More power to ya. > Is there an actual down side to a built in flash other than it doesn't > sound "pro"? Yes, there is. -By having it built in to the prism housing, you are forced to give up a larger, more comfortably usable viewfinder. And... I never ever use my built-in flash. I think it's great for many people who would consider always mounting a 550EX "pesky," but for the rest of us, it's just not what works best. As to your clever use of both...good idea. But that doesn't work with the 10D. It doesn't really need to though. The 550EX has a little pull-out reflector that adds a catchlight to eyes or light fill while bouncing flash. If that's not enough forward fill, then I just stick my 80/20 bouncer (80% light goes up, while 20% bounces forward via the partial bounce surface) on the flash and get not only fill, but diffused fill--which gives a much more pleasing rendition of wrinkles, etc. than a fill flash emitted by such a small source, such as a built-in. The 80/20 diffuser is pretty cheap. You might find that you really like it. It comes with little velcro inserts so that you can also use it as a full bouncer, or the 80/20 configuration. Also, it has a translucent attachment for more direct, but diffused light...AND...it also comes with gold and silver bounce inserts. All of the above costs around $45, and it always in my bag (it folds and it quite flat/small). So to answer your question...no. It has nothing whatever to do some sort of "professional sound," but it does have a lot to do with excellent images. :) >>> no pesky built-in flash >> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > images. > :) Just in case you're not picturing what I'm talking about, here it is at B&H, with pictures fo it mounted on a flash in it's 5 different configurations. Only $39.99. :) Tiny URL version: http://tinyurl.com/8apvx http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=3 2580&is=REG&addedTroughType=search A GREAT little device I think anyone with a external flash would do well to carry. It's especially beneficial for candid people shots within 10-15 feet, as it not only gives better skin textures, but also speads the light for tight group shots at close range (which can be problematic with flash...more light in the middle. when you either don't have a ceiling...or it's not white...or it's too high, etc.). While some people swear by a 3x5 card and rubber band, those can't do gold/silver, nor can they do 80/20 or direct soft-box diffusion. -Mark >>> no pesky built-in flash >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > -By having it built in to the prism housing, you are forced to give up a > larger, more comfortably usable viewfinder. Why does it have to be in the prism housing? > And... I never ever use my > built-in flash. I think it's great for many people who would consider > always mounting a 550EX "pesky," but for the rest of us, it's just not > what works best. Or is it that you can only use one flash or the other on a canon? > As to your clever use of both...good idea. But that doesn't work with the > 10D. It doesn't really need to though. The 550EX has a little pull-out > reflector that adds a catchlight to eyes or light fill while bouncing > flash. So you can adjust the output of this "pull out reflector" > If that's not enough forward fill, then I just stick my 80/20 > bouncer (80% light goes up, while 20% bounces forward via the partial > bounce surface) on the flash and get not only fill, but diffused > fill--which gives a much more pleasing rendition of wrinkles, etc. than a > fill flash emitted by such a small source, such as a built-in. Wow so you know this works better than my solution because you've actually used mine and saw the results? > All of the above costs around $45, and it always in my bag (it folds and > it quite flat/small). And my solution is free and is always on the camera. > So to answer your question...no. It has nothing whatever to do some sort > of "professional sound," but it does have a lot to do with excellent > images. > :) Nevermind, you answered my question.. SignatureStacey >>>> no pesky built-in flash >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Why does it have to be in the prism housing? I suppose it doesn't HAVE to be, but it would sure create a huge bump on top of your camera if you had a full-size viewfinder AND the folded flash/housing above that. I wouldn't want my flash shoe to be that high anyway. Take a look at the 10D or 20D with the flash popped up sometime. When you look in there, you'll see the angled *actual* prism housing just beneath it. >> And... I never ever use my >> built-in flash. I think it's great for many people who would consider >> always mounting a 550EX "pesky," but for the rest of us, it's just not >> what works best. > > Or is it that you can only use one flash or the other on a canon? No, you can use any currently produced (and even a few no longer produced) on any of Canon's DSLRs or recently (10 years or more) produced film cameras. Not an issue. >> As to your clever use of both...good idea. But that doesn't work with >> the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > So you can adjust the output of this "pull out reflector" (keep reading) :) Take a look at the picture at B&H that I posted of the device. You can adjust to either full bounce, or 80:20...it will make sense when you see the picture... >> If that's not enough forward fill, then I just stick my 80/20 >> bouncer (80% light goes up, while 20% bounces forward via the partial [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Wow so you know this works better than my solution because you've actually > used mine and saw the results? No. I know that diffused flash is nicer to wrinkles that non-diffused. I don't say yours doesn't work, but unless there's a white, low ceiling, a bounce doesn't work particularly well. It has nothing to do with your solution except that any time you have a tiny light source providing significant output, it tend to create more distinct shadows with wrinkles (as I'm sure you know). If you've got plenty of bounce from a convenient ceiling, great! If you don't, then you may end up relying on more direct flash that might be optimal. Again... If you're happy, then great! Glad it works for you. >> All of the above costs around $45, and it always in my bag (it folds and >> it quite flat/small). > > And my solution is free and is always on the camera. You can really be defensive sometimes... Again...(and again)... That's great. Do whatever pleases you. You asked, so I'm answering...along with my reasons. It's good to explain why we do what we do. >> So to answer your question...no. It has nothing whatever to do some sort >> of "professional sound," but it does have a lot to do with excellent >> images. >> :) > > Nevermind, you answered my question.. Never mind what? ?? Oh... I got it. You're disappointed because I actually had a reason, and that I had a reason spoiled your fun in assuming I was just blowing "professional sounding" smoke by calling built-in flashes "pesky." :) Sorry to disappoint you. > "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > on any of Canon's DSLRs or recently (10 years or more) produced film > cameras. Not an issue. So you can use the built in flash and an external flash, both in TTL auto mode at the same time with a Canon? That was the question. > ?? > Oh... I got it. You're disappointed because I actually had a reason, and > that I had a reason spoiled your fun in assuming I was just blowing > "professional sounding" smoke by calling built-in flashes "pesky." > :) Sorry to disappoint you. I feel many people just want it gone because "pro" camera models don't have a built in flash. I find many times these come in handy for a little fill ect when I'm not carrying around a huge bag with all my gear, YMMV SignatureStacey >> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > So you can use the built in flash and an external flash, both in TTL auto > mode at the same time with a Canon? That was the question. Ah. Then no. I don't know of any. Maybe someone will correct me? >> ?? >> Oh... I got it. You're disappointed because I actually had a reason, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > have > a built in flash. I have no doubt that there are people who have silly reasons like that. For me, I just find the built-in very sub to what you get with the shoe mount to the point that it's not worth the loss. On the other hand, I think the built-ins on the Canons do surprisingly well for their size. >I find many times these come in handy for a little fill > ect when I'm not carrying around a huge bag with all my gear, YMMV When I had my D30, I did occasionally stick a 28-105 on, remove the grip, and carry no flash...but that was maybe twice, and it was only for quickie snapshots at the fair, etc. OTOH, my dad happily uses his 10D (He's 70) with the built-in, and has managed some excellent shots with flash. So... Laik bilong yu... Another thing that becomes a deterent for me is that with many larger lenses--especially if you use a hood (and I almost always do) is that the lens/hood partially blocks the built-in. I understand now that the 20D and the Digital Rebels have a much longer flash-lift, so it sits higher. This may help to fix that problem... I'd just as soon not have it, though. If I do end up with a 5D, maybe I'll leave my 10D with no grip and a smallish lens. That way I could use it for it's small size on non-critical stuff, and just let the teeny built-in do it's thing. ...Mark > If I do end up with a 5D, maybe I'll leave my 10D with no grip and a > smallish lens. That way I could use it for it's small size on > non-critical stuff, and just let the teeny built-in do it's thing. That's why they are nice to have... SignatureStacey >> If I do end up with a 5D, maybe I'll leave my 10D with no grip and a >> smallish lens. That way I could use it for it's small size on >> non-critical stuff, and just let the teeny built-in do it's thing. > > That's why they are nice to have... Ya, I see that. :) In the case of the 5D, though, I wouldn't want to give up that nice big viewfinder. Glad they're leaving it off the 5D as a result. Anyway, shots I'd take with it would be for possible huge enlargement on my large format printer, and any shot I'd want to enlarge that big would need to be well-lit. Heck...many people feel that even large shoe-mounted flash is inadequate lighting... I guess it's all relative... >>> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > non-critical stuff, and just let the teeny built-in do it's thing. > ...Mark I never used the pop up on my A2, and only used the one on my D30 a couple of times. I used the one on my 20D for the first time a week or so ago, and found that the 24-70 f2.8L casts a shadow. But, then, who'd expect somebody with that lens to use the pop up? ( I left my flash at home, inadvertently...) SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>>> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > somebody with that lens to use the pop up? ( I left my flash at home, > inadvertently...) Ya, pop-ups are definitely useless with the 24-70/hood. By the time you back up, and zoom out enough for the subject to be out of the hood's shadow, you'd be out of useful range of the little flash anyway... Even then I think you might have shadow. And with the FF, the field of view will extend even further downward, meaning definite shadows... :) :) |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message