ljwest

<blockquote> <p>Or is a non Circular polarizer ensentially the same as an ND filter</p> </blockquote> <p>No, they are not, though any polarizer will cut down the light hitting the sensor...</p> <p>"Circular" in reference to polarizing filters has nothing to do with the physical shape of the filter, but with the way the light that goes through it comes out. A circular polarizer, or a linear polarizer can be square or round, it's all in how it's made inside that determines whether it is a circular or linear polarizer.</p> <p>I won't try to explain it all,but here are a couple Wikipedia articles:</p> <p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizer#Circular_polarizers">Polarization (subhead: circular polarizers)</a><br /> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_polarization">Circular Polarization</a></p>

<p>While we may think the AF/no AF decision should be made on the basis of the light in the scene, it is really a decision made by the camera based on information it gets from the lens or lens/extender combination. Since the filter does not communicate to the camera, the camera doesn't see a change, and continues AF.</p>

<p>Bob - I've tried LV @ 10x, and it's still not good. </p> <p>Thanks for all the replies. Hoping to take it in next week!</p>

<p>Sometime soon, I need to take my 100-400L (1998 vintage) in to Canon's NJ service center. I was wondering if anyone might be able to assist me in describing the issue such that the technician will understand and be able to make the appropriate adjustments/repairs.</p> <p>I use the 100-400 with a 7D. For photos taken that don't require infinity focus, focus is usually just fine. I can get good, sharp images.</p> <p>The problem occurs when I am shooting objects (birds, usually) at a distance, and the lens is in infinity focus or very nearly so. There, the images are considerably less sharp. The issue is not motion of the subject, as stationary, permanent objects (a perch, for example) will exhibit the same level of non-sharpness.</p> <p>It's like the lens can almost get to infinity focus, but not quite.</p> <p>I've tried MFA many times, all up and down the range, and while there is some improvement to be had, it never gets acceptably sharp. And sometimes that adjustment screws up focus at shorter distances. I've tried manual focus, and though it looks fine in the VF, the image never looks that good (but that probably says more about my 54-year-old eyes than the lens...). I've also tried live view (with tripod or other support), and that doesn't help, either</p> <p>As far as I can tell, this happens regardless of the zoom. I notice it mostly at 400mm, of course, but then this lens rarely sees less than 400mm, and when it does, the subjects are close enough not to need infinity focus!</p> <p>I'm not looking for a diagnosis, but I just want to be sure the tech understands the issue, and doesn't just point it at a test chart 15 feet away, gets a good/great image, and declares it fixed. If need be, I'm happy to leave the camera with them as well.</p> <p>Any suggestions are appreciated!</p>

<p>Often, there are helper apps or Daemons that run constantly to make our lives a bit easier. They do things like recognize when you have connected a camera to USB, or inserted a memory card, and they they tell your photo app (or media player, etc.) to launch so that you can start editing your new images.</p> <p>Other functions, like updater apps, indexing apps, etc. could also be present. As Jos says, Google the name of the process if you are concerned.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Why would you invest in a full-frame, high resolution sensor and then shoot in crop mode? Instead, get the fasteest card that you can buy, or trade it for the excellent 7D MkII.</p> </blockquote> <p><br />+1!</p>

<p>FWIW, I had exactly the same problem with a 100-400L a couple years back. It had gotten bad enough that I had to resort to a different lens. A trip to Canon's NJ repair center fixed it right up.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Specific models? I really like the Hoodman Steel USB 3.0 for SD and CF media.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> +1</p>

<p>My 7D has counted from 0001 to 9999 nearly 8 times, and I've not had a problem. Like others say, use Lightroom (I use Aperture) to rename all the files as you import them.</p> <p>For me, I use location and date in the file name, with a sequential number, e.g. Yellowstone_2015_06_11_0001.jpeg. If I were to go back tomorrow, it would start off: Yellowstone_2015_06_12_0001.jpeg.</p> <p>You would need to figure out what works best for you.</p>

<blockquote> <p>What subjects do you like to shoot?</p> </blockquote> <p>^^^ This ^^^</p> <p>There is no one (or several...) "right" lens for everyone. You need to know what it is you like to shoot (using what you have), and/or what you want to start shooting (that you can't with the current equipment) before you should step on the path to buying your next lens.</p> <p>Five years ago, when I started with my first DSLR (A Canon EOS 7D), I knew immediately what I wanted to shoot that I could not with the EF-S 18-135mm kit lens. Wildlife, particularly birds. For that type of photography, one would ideally want one of the "great white" L primes of 400-800mm focal length. But, not having $10,000-$12,000 lying around doing nothing, I opted for a few other lenses in the interim.</p> <p>First was a Tamron 70-300 SP. Good lens, great price (under $500), but 300mm is still too short. Next was my Canon 100-400L (first version), which I still use. The extra 100mm focal length makes a big difference, and it works well (in manual or live view focus) with my Canon 1.4x III extender. I still want a "great white", but it'll have to wait a while...</p> <p>I also effectively replaced my EF-S 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 (variable aperture) with an EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 (constant aperture) for wider angle shots, family, etc. An excellent lens, often considered to be on par with Canon's L lenses in quality. It worked very well for me in museums on a trip to Europe some years back.</p> <p>As for the 50mm... I jumped on the Nifty Fifty bandwagon early on. I actually bought the f/1.8 version before I bought my 7D, when I had the use of a 30D for a while. It's a great little lens that gives almost nothing away as far as picture quality to its much more expensive f/1.4 & f/1.2 cousins. And the ability to open it up to f/1.8 and get a very shallow depth of field can be very useful in certain situations. But, I feel it really is a "niche" lens for a budding photographer. It is almost ideally suited for portraits, especially on a crop, where it gives you the angle of view of an 80mm lens on full frame. But in most other cases, what was the "go to" or "all around" focal length for full frame 35mm film is too long a focal length for crop.</p> <p>If portraits are what you want to shoot, or will be shooting regularly, then definitely get one (probably the new 50mm STM, though). Otherwise, wait till you know it's what you need. I have one, but it's been a couple years since it's been on my camera...</p>

<p>I was nearsighted for years, wearing glasses with a rather mild prescription. It's still rather mild, but at 53, the other end of the scale has started to become affected. About 9 years ago, I got a prescription for bifocals (the normal kind).</p> <p>When I decided to become a more active photographer, about 5 years ago, I decided that for most outings, I'd wear contact lenses. My eye doctor and I eventually settled on a daily wear type. they really help me with the distant vision. I have a very hard time using glasses to look through a viewfinder.</p> <p>But, that doesn't solve the other side, where I now need reading glasses when wearing my contacts! But I find that the combination of readers and contacts works for me.</p>

<p>A pilot flying in formation with another plane should be looking at the lead plane. That is the only way they can properly maintain spacing and speed. Now, if you could manage to have the camera plane fly off of the subject plane, then the people in the subject plane should be looking in the direction they are going.<br> <br />The Blue Angels, Thunderbirds, etc. all use this technique. You don't maintain 3 foot spacing in the diamond by not looking at your lead. (this is not without its perils, as if the lead has a problem, everyone follows, as happened with the Thunderbirds Diamond formation flying T-38s during practice many years ago...)</p> <p>If your market is to pilots, or other aviation people, I doubt anyone would have issue with the pilots looking at the camera.</p>

<blockquote> <p>With the 7D MkII the illuminated AF points change.</p> </blockquote> <p>As they do on my "Classic" 7D...</p> <p>But you have to select either Zone AF (if the camera has it) or Auto-Select for all focus points, not Single-Point AF, Spot AF, or AF Point Expansion, which will only illuminate that spot (or spots) that you manually select.</p> <p>To the OP: Which camera do you have?</p>

<p>If the white part to the right of the "7." is a wall, it appears to be overexposed, or "blown out", possibly by a flash firing for the photo. If that is the case, there's probably very little chance to recover the rest of the date information.</p> <p>The date printers work by exposing the corner of the image with the numeric LEDs as the light source. All they can do is add exposure to the image. Since the wall is white, and very overexposed, the negative is saturated (all black in that region), and the rest of the date is simply lost in the blown out wall.</p> <p>I suppose there's still a very small chance of recovering the date if you have the negative, but you probably wouldn't be asking here if you had the negative!</p>

<blockquote> <p>Are each of the firmware updates designed to deal with one, or a selected subset of issues, or do they cover all changes or improvements?</p> </blockquote> <p>Each firmware update repairs certain "phenomena" (in Canon-speak). That said, each firmware update is a complete package, and completely replaces the firmware in your camera. So, if a camera started with 1.0.1 at first sale, had several iterations of the firmware, and the current is 1.2.3, then 1.2.3 includes all previous firmware changes, as well as the changes from 1.2.2-1.2.3.</p> <p><a href="http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/support/consumer/eos_slr_camera_systems/eos_digital_slr_cameras/eos_5d_mark_iii?pageKeyCode=43">Product Advisories 5DIII</a></p> <p> </p>

<p>Looks like it is possible there was an XD-11 with the new logo (since the XD-7 and XD-S were sold with it), but it may be pretty rare, as it was "very late in production" according to Rokkorfiles.</p> <p>As "XD-11" was the US designation, it's likely there were not many new logo cameras sold. The XG and X-series garnered a lot more sales in the US. The XD-11 body was close to double the price of even the high end XG/X cameras.</p> <p>Back in 1982 or so, I bought a new XG-M, and, as I recall, that kit was about half (if not less) the price of a similar kit with the XD-11.</p>

<p>I'd agree with a Juvenile <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_heron">Green Heron</a>. The Night Herons have a similar look as juveniles, but not with the yellow eye or bill. Indeterminate gender. </p>

<p>He could use an app like Photoshop (maybe lightroom? I don't know). Figure out the printed area pixel dimensions, and drop each photo into the collage in its own layer. Then he can maneuver (position, rotation, height) the photos as fits.</p> <p>The printer should tell him the dimensions, and Pixels/Dots per square inch for the size canvas he selects. For example, if he's printing a 10"x10" canvas at 600 DPI, then the image editor should be set to at least 6,000 pixels by 6,000 pixels. A 30"x30" canvas @ 600 dpi would need 18,000 x 18,000 pixels. But 30"x30" @ 300 DPI would be 9,000 x 9,000 pixels.</p>

<p>Have you run the self-tests on the printer? Often, this is a sign of a sticking ink valve or sprayer. The printer's software & driver should have provisions to print a test page, and to clean the print head.</p>

<blockquote> <p>The point is that M4/3 and APSC produce essentially the same square inches of photograph.</p> </blockquote> <p>If, and <strong>ONLY</strong> if the megapixels and the DPI/PPI displayed or printed at are the same (or very close). The same does not hold true if the APS-C sensor is 18MP, and your M4/3 is still only 16 MP. Or v-v.</p> <p>Bombshell: my Canon 7D (APS-C) takes pictures the exact same size as a Canon 1D X (Full Frame)! They're both 18 MP sensors, so when displayed or printed at the same DPI/PPI, the area (and in this case, the dimensions) are exactly the same. </p>

<p>The "Better Beamer" comes in several sizes, each of which fit several different flash units. Google for Better Beamer, and have the measurements of your flash handy for comparison.</p>

<p>I say some Canon ads quite regularly the past couple days. I can't recall if I had HGTV or Food Network on at the time, though...</p> <p>Pretty heavy rotation at least once per program), much more "exposure" than they'd get with their spots on Nature.</p>

<p>If you want the constant f/2.8 aperture, don't forget to consider the <a href="http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/support/consumer/eos_slr_camera_systems/lenses/ef_s_17_55_f_2_8_is_usm">Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM</a>. It is one of the best EF-S lenses around, and many reviews compare it favorably with Canon's "L" lenses in the same focal length range. List price in the US id $880, but it can be had from the Canon refurbished store for $704 (though it's currently out of stock - check back often!).</p>

<p>While the Arca-Swiss is certainly the goal, it can be rather expensive to get there. There are no "cheap" Arcs-Swiss heads (that I've found, anyway), and even if you can adapt a clamp to your tripod head, with the camera or lens plate, you're looking at over $100, maybe even over $150. (tip: if you have a lens that has or can use a tripod ring, use that to attach to a tripod instead of dangling the big lens off the camera's tripod socket)</p> <p>But, if you don't have sturdy legs to stand your camera on, the rest won't help you in any meaningful way.</p> <p>I'm working my way into the Arca-Swiss world one piece at a time. First piece was a Benro/Induro gimbal head (about $500) and Wimberley plate ($40 or so from ebay) for my Canon 100-400. Next was an Acratech Swift Clamp (which is a QR plate with a permanent loop for attaching to a sling strap system). Now I need the regular tripod head, and a monopod head. About $300 each for the heads, and another $50-70 camera plate. And this is without buying carbon fiber legs, either!</p> <p>Manfrotto makes good tripods and kits at various price points. You can get a very sturdy tripod with one of their lower-end ballheads, with the RC-2 quick release for well under $200. It's not Arca-Swiss, but it won't break your bank, AND you can always find replacement/additional camera/lens plates anywhere they sell the tripod. And if you've got another $100 to spend, there are even more options.</p> <p>Here's a good entry-level tripod from Manfrotto at Adorama: The Manfrotto <a href="http://www.adorama.com/BGMK294A3A0R.html">MK294A3AORC-2</a>. For $160, it has a QR head of the RC-2 variety, sturdy legs, with locks that won't slip, and when you're wallet is ready, you can put a head on with an Arca-Swiss style QR system, and later, you can upgrade the legs.</p> <p>IMO, you're much better off going this route rather than putting a costly Arca-Swiss compatible head on cheapo legs. You also don't want to run the risk of getting your expensive Arca head stuck on the cheap legs!</p> <p>I got lucky a few years back. I'd bought a cheapo tripod from Best Buy for about $70. The thing barely held itself up. Legs slipped all the time, and it was just a mess of poor engineering and manufacture.</p> <p>One December weekend, my local photo store - Unique Photo in Fairfield, NJ, was having a Manfrotto Day. The Manfrotto rep was in, and they were selling tripods at a discount, with a mail-in rebate, AND, giving you an instant rebate if you traded in your old Tripod! That $70 crap tripod ended up being worth more than $100 on the trade-in that Saturday! I left with a very nice 055XPROB (aluminum) leg set, and a panning ballhead, with over $130 in rebates. Basically paid half for the tripod & head.</p>

<p>People have been taking this type of shot - themselves in front of a scenic view, notable building, object, etc - since long before the term "selfie" was coined, and long before cellphone or any digital camera was made. I've done it (once or twice...), my family, and I'm sure just about any person or family that has/had a camera has done it. I wouldn't doubt that the first Brownie that came in for processing had one of this type of shot on it.</p> <p>As for why, I think it's simply a notation that you were there, or with that person. The old internet meme "pix or it didn't happen" comes to mind, even though that phrase was also late to the party.</p>