jon_austin3

Potentially very interested. E-mail sent.

<p>My only experience with 3rd party batteries in an EOS body is the Pearstone LP-E6 (since discontinued) that came with the 5D3 kit (along with a SanDisk Extreme 16GB CF card) that I purchased from B&H a little over 3 years ago.</p>

<p><br /> I swap back and forth between this battery and the OEM battery included with the body, and -- other than the nag screen that appears when I power up after inserting the Pearstone battery -- I haven't really noticed any difference. The two batteries also "play well" when I have them both inserted in the 5D3's BG-E11 grip.</p>

<p><br /> By the way, the original OEM battery that shipped with my 20D just over 10 years ago is still going strong!</p>

<p>My "local" camera store (Precision Camera in Austin, TX) is 33 miles away, and while I have purchased gear from them from time to time, it's so much more convenient to point and click to place my order with B&H from the comfort of my home. In addition to avoiding 8.25% sales tax (and the 1½ hour round trip in usually heavy traffic), the B&H Rewards program is icing on the cake!</p>

<p>@ Keith Reeder:<br>

Thanks for the cheap shot. Since you're a socialist, you should just stand at Canon's front door and demand that they give you a copy of this lens.<br>

No, socialism isn't a dirty word ... just a failing / failed economic system. Sooner or later, you run out of other people's money.</p>

<p>"But the question is, does the technology to build that in cost the price of two Nikon D800 bodies?"</p>

<p>With all due respect, that is actually <em>not</em> the question. There's little real-world relationship between what it costs a manufacturer to conceive, research, design, build, market and distribute a product and what the market will bear as an asking price.</p>

<p>The successful company does a good job at price sensitivity analysis, determining how to maximize total revenue (<em>wholesale</em> price times number of units sold). They then factor development costs in with the cost to manufacture the forecasted number of units to be sold, and attempt to sustain the company on the profits that are realized in the margin between costs and revenues.<br>

<rant><br /> Sadly, there is an ever-increasing number of whiners about who can't afford some thing they want, and complain about what's fair (price, profit, salary, compensation, etc., etc.). The slide down the slippery slope of socialism is well underway.</p>

<p>I have an idea! Let's force Canon (and everyone else) to sell all their products at the prices we want to pay! Who cares if it drives them into bankruptcy and eventually destroys the economy?<br /> </rant></p>

<p>I prefer to format the card in the camera, rather than when connected to the PC.</p>

<p>Also, I don't format the card (or erase any images from it) until I have copied all the images to both my PC <em>and</em> my back-up drive.</p>

<p>Technically, a format rewrites the file allocation table, while deleting any/all images simply marks each file as deleted within the table.</p>

<p>From Windows 7, I launched a command prompt window and used the FC (file compare command):</p>

<p>FC /B [drive1:][path1]filename1 [drive2:][path2]filename2</p>

<p>And now, April 30th is here.</p>

<p>Mark Kissel has posted the Canon USA download link in his post, here:</p>

<p><a href="/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00bbQU">http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00bbQU</a></p>

<p>Just for grins, I ran a file compare on the officially released version and the one I linked to at fileswap last week, and they are identical.</p>

<p>Well, no good deed goes unpunished; I was just passing along the link.<br>

I plan to wait for the official release, as well.</p>

<p>If you're feeling lucky:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.fileswap.com/dl/tHc7Wh9sU9/">http://www.fileswap.com/dl/tHc7Wh9sU9/</a></p>

<p>Several reports on the Fred Miranda, DPReview and CanonRumors forums of successful installation.</p>

<p>Install at your own risk. If you brick your 5D3, don't blame me.</p>

<p>I bought my 24-105 new 7+ years ago. I don't recall when it began to exhibit zoom creep, but it's been a few years now. This is my most-used lens, and the only zoom I own that changes length when zooming. Yeah, it's irritating.</p>

<p>I found a how-to online for adjusting the screws under the focus ring, but it didn't make any difference. So I have resorted to the rubber band solution (place a rubber band around the lens barrel, slightly overlapping the zoom ring).</p>

<p>I'd send it off to Canon for repair, if I wasn't using it all the time. I should have bought the 5DIII + 24-105 kit, instead of the body only, and sold the older lens.</p>

<p>I've had a 24-105 for 7+ years now, and it is my standard walk-around lens, despite its irritating zoom creep.<br>

I owned a 85/1.8 for 6 years -- and loved it -- but I sold it a couple of years ago, after I bought a 100/2.8 IS macro. I rarely shot the 85 faster than f/2.8, and the 85mm and 100mm focal lengths were too close to each other for me to keep both lenses. But the 85/1.8 is a stellar lens, and a steal for the price. (I sold mine for the same price I paid for it new.) If you use the 85mm focal length a lot, and you want or need a wider aperture than f/2.8, it's a no-brainer.</p>

<blockquote>"+1. The 5D1 is a very capable camera. And I would agree it's even more capable now than it was in 2005, because RAW processing has improved and will continue to improve.

<p>I've moved to a 5D3, but I also use a 5D1 and 30D for photographing events, and they all take good pictures."</p>

<p>+2. I think the depreciation of digital cameras is highly analogous to PCs, for the same reasons. Both are now mature / maturing technologies, but the incremental improvements cast a pall on demand (and therefore pricing) of the older, used, discontinued models. The debut price of the 5DIII was actually <em>lower</em> than that of the 5DI in yen; it has only been the slide of the value of the dollar relative to the yen that resulted in a higher US price.</p>

<p>I upgraded from the 5DI to the 5DIII primarily for the better AF and low-light performance. I'm also appreciating a number of its new features, such as the Quick Control screen, available grid in the viewfinder and the built-in electronic level. I actually bemoan the higher resolution, which I rarely need, and shoot most of the time in mRAW or sRAW. (I only shoot in full RAW when I know I'm going to be cropping ... my longest reach is with a 70-200 + 1.4 TC.</p>

<p>But I still have and use my 5DI, and have no plans to part with either of them in the foreseeable future. I also have a 20D that I'm holding onto, since it isn't worth much on the used market, and I have a couple of nieces who have expressed interest in growing their photographic skills beyond pointing & shooting with their iPhones.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, no camera is perfect, and this is just one more imperfection for the 5D3. Does make you wonder what they were thinking, though. Personally, I would have preferred twin CF cards.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Perhaps the solvent in Lenspens would affect the plastic if it penetrated between the glass plates."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>According to the LensPen website, the FilterKlear uses a "patented non-liquid carbon compound," so they contain no solvent. There's no explanation offered on the site as to what would happen to a circular polarizer (CP) if it were cleaned with one of these, no does it appear that LensPen offers another product for cleaning CPs.<br>

As the OP observed, CPs are expensive, so better safe than sorry. I clean my CP when needed by fogging the surface with my breath, and then lightly wiping with a clean microfiber cloth.</p>

<p>I would <em>love </em>to buy one of these (assuming the performance is up to, say, 70-200 standards), but <em>without</em> the built-in extender.<br>

I have a 1.4x II already, and it's never been a problem for me to mount it on my 70-100 when I really needed the reach. I don't think it would pose much of a problem for me on a 200-400, either.<br>

I'd glady trade the traditional "inconvenience" of a separate extender for a lower price and less complexity.</p>

<p >I agree with Michael Melcher. One of the nice things about my 24-105 / 70-200 combo is the zoom overlap. That said, I frequently travel with the 24-105 mounted to my 5D and 70-200 on my 20D, so the change in FoV from 1.0 to 1.6 replaces the overlap with a slight gap.</p>

<p >After more than 4½ years experience with the 24-105, however, I'd really like to move up to a 24-70, but the possibility of a new IS model gives me pause. If I were to buy a 24-70, IS or not, I think I would hold onto the 24-105. It's a great walk-around lens; my biggest complaint is the zoom creep on that set in on my copy after a couple of years.</p>