les

Well...you took a chance. In case you DON'T want to take another chance - here it is: B&H Photo Video Digital Cameras, Photography, Camcorders

Sure. I am already considering composing my posts elsewhere. And - I will skip pasting them here.

LOL...of course lighting is the key :) Photography is "drawing with light", if we get to the bottom of it. Congrats on a good decision.

I do not need to contact my credit card company...My credit card has been changed some time ago. But this is not the point. The real question is: WHY IS THE WEBSITE BEING CHANGED FOR THE WORSE ? WHO IS DRIVING THIS ? WHY THIS IS CONSIDERED NORMAL ? WHY NOTHING IS BEING DONE DESPITE NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS ? HAS PHOTO.NET BECAME JUST A CASH COW (HARD TO BELIEVE THIS...) ?

"The hyperfocal distance for 14mm/f2.5 on the full frame body is around 2.61m. From what I understand, if I focus at that distance, everything from 1.3 m in front to inf will be in focus." Well, strictly speaking this is a physical impossibility. It maybe in sufficient focus for a human eye to skip over the differences - but only ONE distance will give you a true focus.

I haven't seen your pics. But I have seen a LOT of real estate photographs. 90% of them (particularly interiors) suffer from bad lighting. I vote for a pair of good flashes.

"...the wedding lasts two hours..." A two hour wedding is not a wedding: it is a drink with friends (and a quick one at that). Just saying.

LOL...who programmed the site (the new, "improved" site) ? Some 12 years old (and I know at least one 12 y.o. who would do a better job).

This is a comedy... The old site wasn't ideal, but it was usable. It seems to be a disease spreading w/o control: "updates" and "improvements" of websites, hailed as something that is done for the convenience of the users. The end result is always the same: bugs, slow-downs, missing data, mistakes etc. But one thing seems to be common: the attempt to put the hand in the user's pockets. GET THIS: paying is NOT a problem. But paying for a shitty product - most definitely is. Membership can be $30, or $60, or more. But the quality has to be there.

Glad to see this is not only me. Form over function, and changes for the sake of changes. And - "give us your card number" above all. It stinks.

The question is: why did things go downhill here ? I see continuous deterioration of the site for many years now. What is it then: sabotage ? Oh...I forgot...Russians meddling with everything these days... (Edit): And let me tell you this: Cancelling the subscription as the only method to Update Payment Method is DUMB beyond belief (after one manages to press the button which flashes for a fraction of a second before disappearing - even this is a lousy web programming). Why can't I pay via PayPal ? Why do I have to pay only with auto-renew option ? Why the BS about having the control of my account - when the only control is of my credit card by PhotoNet ? I guess the going was good when it was good. But all good things come to an end.

...which would be a sorry thing to do after more than 10 years of being a member (OK, not very active for the last couple of years). So what happened ? I received a mail with notification that my subscription expires. Fine, no problem. I go to My Account - and a surprise: it is set to auto-renew, although I haven't provided the details of my card. Now - how to change the payment method ? Clicking on My Account results in some options flashing for 0.5 of a second - meaning that I can't change anything. All it does is asking for my credit card. AND THAT PISSES ME OFF ! So - I would greatly appreciate some access to my account where I can actually change or update things. The ridiculous thing is that EVERY website keeps changing, declaring that this is in order to give the user more control and make things easier - with exactly the opposite effects. It is a pity that PhotoNet follows the same lemming rush to screw up things which worked well. So - how do I actually change anything in my account ?!

<p>Well...the issue appears to be resolved. While the transmitter reported firmware V 1.16, I bit the bullet and overwrote it with V 1.16 downloaded from the Yongnuo website (apparently "same" version...)<br /><br />As a matter of explanation (before firmware update):<br />-ETTL with ratio disabled (set to ALL) produced good exposure (ratio fixed 1:1)<br />-ETTL with ratio A:B enabled and set to 1:1 produced huge overexposure<br />-ratio A:B could be adjusted on transmitter - but no effect on the exposure<br />-I was shooting with f2.8 - but I checked exposure in M mode with lightmeter and flashes set to 1/128 to make sure that there is ample room for ratio adjustment<br />-M mode was just fine (lightmeter used)<br /><br />After update:<br />-all seems to work OK.</p>

<p>Camera: Canon 1D Mark II,<br> Flashes: 2x 580 EX II + 1x 550 EX.<br> As expected - 550 EX can only be fired in Manual mode, not ETTL, and adjustment of power is on the flash.<br> Essentially - the Yongnuo gizmos work as wireless trigger.</p> <p>Both 580EX II work fine in Manual mode, adjustments of power in groups A and B works fine.</p> <p>However - ETTL mode seems to be completely out...huge overexposure, by more than 3 stops. Looks like the flashes are firing at full power. </p> <p>Question: would that be the fault of the camera - which seems to be unable to communicate ETTL settings to the transmitter ? Does anyone have experience with the above Youngnuo devices on 1D Mk II ?<br> The transmitter has the latest firmware upgrade, BTW.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Thanks for the responses. Yes - I have seen this article, but I am interested mostly in units produced after December 2014 - as YongNuo introduced some changes which deal with some previous issues.</p>