roger_wang2

<p>my 67pro II just arrived this morning(yay)</p>

<p>i'm thinking about buying some sort of case or container so I can put my camera on rather than sitting on the shelf eating dust, i did a search nothing really popped up. wondering what you guys use to storage. you know, on the go or at home</p>

<p>Thats very helpful Bob, so you need to ship it to Canon repair factory? Im in west coast</p>

<p>Hey All,</p>

<p>An error message appeared on my 5D mark II yesterday with my 24-105 says "Error 01: Communication between the lens and body has failed", preventing me from taking any photos<br>

I tried numerous ways to solve this problem but it persists, then I put my other canon lenses on my 5D mark II, everything is fine, so I think my 24-105 which has served me for 7 years is broken.<br>

<br>

When I googled it, I found out a lot of ppl were having this issue, and its an design defect that Canon wouldn't admit....I'm wondering if anybody tried send it to repair and how much does it cost?<br>

<br>

<br>

Thanks a ton.<br>

<br>

Roger</p>

<p>thanks for the detailed answer guys.</p>

<p>I noticed some of the manfrotto tripods can have their central column converted horizontally, i feel like loving it instantly cuz a big part of my photographs involves shooting object from top, such as opened-up design books, i really like this design, do you guys think manfrotto is a way to go? maybe?</p>

<p>Hi, John thanks for the reply</p>

<p>i'm using 5d markii and 24-105 lens</p>

<p>Would anyone please recommend a carbon fiber tripod for me?<br>

My original tripod is made of plastic and aluminum, the quality feels really low, now I want to<br>

ditch my old one and invest some money(not too much) on a carbon fiber tripod</p>

<p>There are tons of brands making tripods, no idea which I should go for... need suggestions!</p>

<p><strong>budget:</strong> under $300 for leg, around $200 is the best and <em>I also need a head which I have no idea either</em><br>

<strong>Purpose:</strong> great for indoor studio shooting, I shoot mainly products and portfolios <br>

<strong>Preference:</strong> I don't like the ones you need to rotate to extend the legs</p>

<p>thanks a lot</p>

<p>Roger</p>

<p>Hi Patrick<br>

what you suggesting is everytime I print I should pick "epson control color under "color matching" or I should pick one of the epson profile from "color sync"?<br>

(but why use colormunki to create a profile yet not to use it?)</p>

<p>I print directly from photoshop (indesign or illustrator if I do design projects)</p>

<p>Thanks a lot</p>

<p>Hey guys, I bought my colormunki design last week, im a designer but also take photos so I bough CM Design instead of CM Photo, I think they are essentially the same<br>

recently I'v been printing photographys, the problem Im having right now is everything is toned down<br>

or saturated down if you would describe it.<br>

for example, the red becomes dark red, and the black is almost pure black with no details(one of my friend was wearing a dark blue shirt and it turned out really dark with almost no detail in it)<br>

(the funny thing is, some of my photos have warm tone and the mistake actually automatically correct the whitebalance for me)but most of my photos are correct in the first place and the result is way off</p>

<p>I find a way to describe the problem, it's like in Camera Raw you set down the saturation i and bump up clarity, the result is high contrast with no detail in blacks and colors are saturated down </p>

<p>I followed all the steps and profiled both my display and printer and paper, i totally have no idea whats wrong</p>

<p>my spec:<br>

Imac 21<br>

Epson 3880<br>

Canon 5D mark II<br>

Adobe CS5.5<br>

Paper: epson ultra premium photo lust, and premuim matte paper(having issue with both types of paper)</p>

<p>really really appreciate!</p>

<p>Sebastian, I already used imac built-in calibration tool and adjust everything in step, now my screen looks nicer, im planning to buy a calibration device and found out colormunki is great, it can calibrate printers which is a huge plus but its just too expensive...</p>

<p>thanks a bunch<br /> actually im a graphic designer, photography is just my love, my main goal is to match everything on screen to my printouts, but what everybody said is very useful information and it looks like fine tuning color between computer and printer is very complicated, both profession need to see the truth cuz the jobs require high color sensitivity, before i post this tread my printouts and what appears on screen matches eachother of course in an incorrect way, but anyway i get the results, the problem is im dealing with pantone color which is another entire color guide so i think its time to invest some money on showing the "truth", thanks everybody</p>

<p>scott, you mean by camera setting does that mean picture style? i set it to faithful, correct me if im wrong</p>

<p>im new to this, so i might ask dumb questions, imac screen has lots of color options if one should not be setting any of them so what they do? i have a printer and i would like to match color with my printer, so what i see from screen is what i get printed out, so anyway the raw files still have different appearance in camera, we just need to make sure whats correct on screen</p>

<p>hey scott, i think what you are saying is opening my mind<br>

i did shoot in raw like i always do, however i never know the image displayed in camera screen is actually jpg, so it leads to another question: why do people shoot raw i know we need raw image data for later editing, but is it odd the screen is displaying jpg instead of what we are actually shooting? so my screen is correct but camera fools me</p>

<p>Hi folks</p>

<p>im taking shots from my 5d mark ii, the color space is set to adobe RGB 1998 in camera<br /> while my imac screen is also set to adobe RGB 1998, when open image file in photoshop(in RGB mode)<br /> the image appears saturated down, its like convert RGB file to CMYK everything is toned down<br>

this is compared with what displayed on camera screen and my imac screen, after taking shots, the images from 5d screen is vivid, but from my imac screen is saturated down, its quite obvious<br>

so im very confused why in-camera colorspace setting is same as everything in my computer but the result is different?</p>

<p>hi, <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=321055">Christopher</a>, this is interesting<br>

actually, speaking to dslr, i am 5d mark ii shooter :)<br>

one of my friend got carl zeiss contax lenses for her 5d mark ii, i need to admit i never thought about putting nikon MF primes on my canon, i think its worth digging<br>

Thanks a lot!</p>

<p>Guys, there are very informative and helpful comments, thanks a ton!<br>

I have a question about the difference between 85/f1.4 and 105/f2.5, the price gap is obvious<br>

im curious about the image quality they produce, besides the aperture and focal length<br>

I've seen ppl put compliment on 105, and it seems to have high performance-to-price ratio<br>

what about 85 then? any input in terms of both of them?</p>

Folks, I own a Fm2n for 2 years and rarely use it and that's the only Nikon camera I own(I don't own any Nikon dslr)

I'm planning to take this badass out and do some work, I seriously need some advise on choosing lenses, for now I only

Have a cheap but nice 50/f1.8, so I'm thinking about getting two other lenses, one wider, one in a longer end

 

My works are all about shooting people, both indoor and outdoor, no landscape needed so far, my 50/1.8 sometimes seems awkward

shooting indoor cuz I usually work with small space, therefore I need a wide angle lens, 24 or 35 I'm not sure, 24 maybe a bit too

wide....and also I need a mid tele lens, maybe 105/f2.5?

 

Seriously I need advise on this, and if u guys would put rough cost it'll be very helpful!

 

Much much appreciate!!

 

Roger

<p>@<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4522463">Erik Jacobson</a> i think i'll consider zoom lens only for now, thanks for the comments, that helps</p>

<p>yeah, thank you Geoff, sigma 14-24 cost pretty much the same as 17-40 and even has smaller aperture, to me i dont mind F4, since its just 0.5 smaller than 10-22, but canon 16-35 really cost a fortune, ya know i just bought 5d mark ii haha, budget is tight </p>

<p>I've been owning canon EF-S 10-22mm for many years, just 2 month2 ago I upgraded my gear to 5D mark ii<br />so, the EF-S lens no longer usable for my new 5d mark ii(I did my research and found out you can modify this lens in order to fit it onto 5d mark ii but I don't want to do that)<br />Therefore I will be selling the 10-22 and considering buying a <strong>non-canon </strong>wide angle lens, cuz i just can't afford Canon lens for now<br />I seriously need some advise or tips as well as expriences about any wide angle lens similar to canon 10-22?<br />much appreciate!<br>

Roger</p>