braindeadmac wrote:
As far as the detractors go, I've just started reporting 'em. It may blow up in my face, but I'm becoming more and more reluctant to start a new thread here--to likely to get crap thrown at me. Maybe if enough of these folks can get a stern warning or two, maybe things will go back to being "kinder and gentler".
The door swings both ways though. Guy brings some of this upon himself sometimes. He called a guy a hack in his last blow-up becaused he wanted to use three rebels for a wedding
I couldn't wait for a focusing screen, so I tried a Contax screen. I had to modify it to fit, but focus is right on. I used the FV-1, which has a split plus microprism collar. You need to take off the little tab on the front and file down the side edges. You might want to compare the screen to your R9 screen. If they are the exact same thickness, that may work. The focusing screen for 5D doesn't have those little protrusions on the bottom that the 1 series screens have, so the R9 screen may work. I know the Contax FV-1 didn't work in 1DII, but it does on the 5D. That is if you decide to keep the 5D. I think it's a nice little camera. But I definitely need the vertical grip. It just doesn't balance right with heavier lenses.
Guy, I know you have an investment in Leica (expensive) glass, but if you are looking for better options for the wider end than the canon glass and are obviously not scared of manual focus (did you get the split screen?), then would it be worth it to you to invest in the cheap CZ lenses such as the 28/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/1.4? maybe even the 85/1.4. I don't know about the US but that collection here in the UK would cost well under the equivelent of $1600 with half of that being the 85mm. I know you don't have the super wide end covered but how wide are you getting on the R9 anyway?
fotografur wrote:
The door swings both ways though. Guy brings some of this upon himself sometimes. He called a guy a hack in his last blow-up becaused he wanted to use three rebels for a wedding
Just a thought
d~
Not trying to start a pissing match, but the individual Guy called a hack for shooting weddings with three Rebels was just trying to inflame a situation, and also admittedly in the Wedding forum hasn't shot many weddings, yet the comments he make would make others believe otherwise. He's also changed usernames at least once based upon previous inflammatory comments.
I think the tone and approach taken by someone who posts shows a lot about their professionalism and credibility, whether it's this post or the others. Personally, I think if you don't have postive input that will help someone improve, reserve comment.
Although some may look at Guy as an elitist, I think his "approach" and his "attitude" stems more from his own striving for excellence, both behind the lens, or behind the computer. Unfortunately, we sometimes let feelings get the best of us, thus embarrasing ourselves or our colleagues.
Guy, I know you have an investment in Leica (expensive) glass, but if you are looking for better options for the wider end than the canon glass and are obviously not scared of manual focus (did you get the split screen?), then would it be worth it to you to invest in the cheap CZ lenses such as the 28/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/1.4? maybe even the 85/1.4. I don't know about the US but that collection here in the UK would cost well under the equivelent of $1600 with half of that being the 85mm. I know you don't have the super wide end covered but how wide are you getting on the R9 anyway?...Show more →
If you knew Guy, you'd realize he pretty much invented putting CZ lenses on a EOS body.
Can't put 'em on a Leica body however.
eeprete wrote:
Not trying to start a pissing match, but the individual Guy called a hack for shooting weddings with three Rebels was just trying to inflame a situation, and also admittedly in the Wedding forum hasn't shot many weddings, yet the comments he make would make others believe otherwise. He's also changed usernames at least once based upon previous inflammatory comments.
I think the tone and approach taken by someone who posts shows a lot about their professionalism and credibility, whether it's this post or the others. Personally, I think if you don't have postive input that will help someone improve, reserve comment.
Although some may look at Guy as an elitist, I think his "approach" and his "attitude" stems more from his own striving for excellence, both behind the lens, or behind the computer. Unfortunately, we sometimes let feelings get the best of us, thus embarrasing ourselves or our colleagues.
If you were considering buying some canon glass, i.e. running two sets of lenses then you could get the CZ instead and save some money. Or you could send the 5D back. Did you sell the 2nd R9 before trying the 5D?
So you don't have to change your sig. I just came back from a 2 hour "photo walk" (marina, beach and island) and I can tell you that it is nice to have that option of a light but quality camera. I had the 100-400 on and it still did not seem that heavy.
1. Buy a mirror from Canon parts.
2. Shave it.
3. Send to canon service to replace the old mirror with new one.
Total cost would be less than $200. Not sure if Canon wants and/or can do it though.
Anyone?
I think Canon reads about all these exotic glasses that reveal how BAD the Canon wides are, so they decided to put an end to that by moving the mirror closer to the EOS mount
EB-1 wrote:
Why is there less clearance on the 5D than with the 1D series? The nack focus must be the same and the mirror should be smaller if anything.
EB
The correct term is "flange to film" or "flange-back". You start mentioning back focus and people may think something else is going on. My guess is that Canon can make 'em faster and cheaper with less attention to how fine the tolerance for mirror dimensions are, or how close it gets to the flange, even if that means it is a hair bigger than it needs to be. The frame around the focusing screen frame and the pentaprism will define the frame borders in your viewfinder, so a quickly designed, quickly assembled mirror that may be a bit bigger than needed presents no problem to the user.
Hey, if Lee Iacocca were designing these mirrors, they'd actually wind up being too small and you would not see the entire capture in the eyepiece.
EB-1 wrote:
Why is there less clearance on the 5D than with the 1D series? The nack focus must be the same and the mirror should be smaller if anything.
EB
If you look at the mirror hinge mechanism on the 1D series and the 5D they're different. The 5D mirror when it flops up sounds different as well. I suspect the curved path the leading edge of the 5D mirror traces out has changed so even if the mirrors were the same size there could be a problem.
where did he complain? he's just reporting. all this guy-bashing is bs.
guy: thanks for the info!
Edited by Andy on Oct 10, 2005 at 06:36 PM GMT
Andy,
When Guy typed "i bought the damm thing , I want it to work, it doesn't", that is complaining in my opinion. How is it Guy bashing when I start my reply with "Don't take this the wrong way Guy, I think a lot of you..."? What part exactly of my reply is BS? Why do you think you need to take up for Guy?
