Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: LFingar
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 563 next>>
Apr 22, 2024 09:10:43   #
madpaddler wrote:
LFingar stated that Wasabi batteries were highly recommended and when I viewed them on the computer they looked just like the SmallRig batteries which were also recommended.

Because I am only looking for a backup battery I deciede to give the Wasabi a try. After I got it, charged it and insurted it, it workd just like the Canon. I was also able to view the Menu/Battery Information. Here is a link to it
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CHT9F1YW?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_details

So, Thank you LFingar for your tip.
LFingar stated that Wasabi batteries were highly r... (show quote)


You're welcome!
Go to
Apr 13, 2024 22:55:20   #
RKastner wrote:
Actually...my Canon LP-E17's are labelled as being made by Sony


Apparently Canon buys from more then one producer. I haven't used any LP-E17's in years so I wasn't aware of that. My LP-E6N's and NH's are all from Panasonic. Thanks for the info.
Go to
Apr 13, 2024 16:38:57   #
madpaddler wrote:
Does anyone know of an off brand battery that will replace the Canon LP-E17 and fits the Canon R8? I have one ( Beston Model LP-E17) but in is 7.4 volts not 7.2 volts as the Canon model. Also, when I add this to a two battery Battery Grip the camera gives me a message asking if this is a Canon battery or not.

I have not used it as I am worried about damaging the camera body. Any advice will be appreciated.


Canon's batteries are made by Panasonic so they are already "off-brand". I use Canon, Watson, and Power2000 batteries in my R5, and previous Canons with no issues at all. I hear that Wasabi are are also highly rated. The slight difference in voltage is just dependent on how the manufacturer rates them. It means nothing. Some batteries don't interface properly because they have not secured the rights from Canon to use its proprietary chip. Those I would stay away from because they may be cheaply built.
Go to
Apr 2, 2024 10:24:37   #
PMM PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
I want to purchase a lightning trigger and would be most appreciative of advise regarding which trigger to purchase.


One bit of advice about a small problem I had. I forget the make of the trigger I had. Small. Worked great. Came with a little Pelican case. It was very sensitive. So sensitive that lightning strikes off to the side, out of visual range of my camera, would trigger it. I shortened the tube from a roll of toilet paper. It would flatten down just enough to fit over the end of the trigger and act like a lens hood to eliminate flashes from the side. Problem solved!
Go to
Apr 1, 2024 10:02:20   #
niteman3d wrote:
The original quote was $322 and the final offer was $294, so I took it. Quote was made 3/10 and I got the final offer yesterday, so pretty good service overall. Not much of a cost recovery, but better than letting them decay and it gives me some money toward the next lens or whatever. Now, for the rest of the unused collection.


I had my first and so far only dealing with KEH a few months ago. Got an online quote for a Canon RF 50mm f/1.2 L and a Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L Macro. Both were barely used and had the original boxes, etc. They quoted higher than B&H or Adorama, so, they sent me a shipping label, FedEx if I remember right, and I sent them the lenses. Within a day or two of receiving the lenses KEH sent me a notice that my check, for the full amount of the quote, was in the mail. Quick service, no hassle.
I had sold to B&H on occasion in the past. Also quick with no hassle but KEH offered better prices.
Go to
Feb 25, 2024 10:16:40   #
niteman3d wrote:
Nope, I don't need no stinkin' mirrorless camera and I fer sure don't need no stinkin' full frame. I don't even shoot raw. But they kept it up, they kept showing me stuff till the rationalizer kicked in and my tiny rat brain went to work. What if I get a really good deal on a camera that I really, really want where I can get away with my present lenses for some time to come with no further expense and it will do everything my D7500 and my Z50 will do combined, plus have room for more tricks later if I want to learn them? The pressure was too much. Z7ii on the way. I don't even have the camera yet and I already spent $70 on a memory card (and that was on sale!) and as soon as I get the body to make sure all is well, another $50 or so for a card reader since my old one has no CFExpress type B slot. Might just need another dedicated monopod and maybe a ball head. So much for no further expenses... ah, but then I'll be a really, really great photographer, right? (Did I tell you about the 180-600 they keep showing me?) 😁
Nope, I don't need no stinkin' mirrorless camera a... (show quote)


Resistance is futile!
Go to
Feb 19, 2024 08:49:50   #
robertjerl wrote:
Why? They work on my crop sensor bodies and the ones I own by Canon do have a protuberance, tab whatever you want to call it that prevents mounting it on a full frame. On the other hand, the Sigma and Tamron crop sensor lenses just use the EF mounting ring and will mount on a FF body. Of course, they are made without the protruding lens element that can damage the mirror. I get anything from a circular image in the middle of the frame to vignetted corners. I have done it just for fun with an ultrawide angle to fairly long zoom lens from Tamron. When I put a 1.4x extender on it there was barely any vignette at all and with a 2x towards the long end of the zoom range no vignette at all.

Now that knowledge and $20 will get you a "Big Mac Bundle" at my local McDonald's
Why? They work on my crop sensor bodies and the o... (show quote)


I agree. It is the extension in the design of the lens body that prevents mounting an EFs lens on a full frame body, not the mount itself. The mounts are the same. The construction is different and prevents the mount halves from even coming in contact with each other. That eliminates any need for different mounts. I never have seen the lens extension referred to as a tab, but, if that is what you are calling it then it definitely exists and is the reason the lenses won't mount.
Some years back MTShooter cut the extension off of a EFs lens as a test. It mounted perfectly.
Go to
Feb 17, 2024 16:52:23   #
robertjerl wrote:
I have one or two of the old EF-s lenses around, I will have to dig and check in my camera storage cabinet. In the meantime -
From the Canon USA site - support Q&A:


"deebatman316
Authority deebatman316 (Where it says Authority, it means a Canon certified expert/authority.)
Authority
‎10-01-2023 11:45 AM

The EF-S Mount was released in 2003 alongside the first Digital Rebel series camera. From there the mount would be found on ALL APS-C DSLRs. ALL of Canon's APS-C DSLRs are FULLY COMPATIBLE with EF lenses. EF-S lenses ARE COMPLETELY INCOMPATIBLE with Full Frame & APS-H DSLRs and EOS AF SLRs. The EF-S Mount is MECHANICALLY INCOMPATIBLE but ELECTRICALLY COMPATIBLE with the original EF Mount. EF-S Mount lenses sit further into the camera than EF lens would. The mirror would hit the rear lens element and cause serious damage on a Full Frame DSLR. ALL EOS Film SLRs Full Frame DSLRs ARE INCOMPATIBLE with EF-S lenses and won't mount. So even though EF-S came later on you can't accidentally mount the lens. The lens was designed NOT to be mounted to those cameras. Canon's APS-C DSLRs have 2 mounting indexes one at the 12 o'clock position and one at the 1 o'clock. EF lenses use the one at the 12 o'clock position and is a red circle. EF-S lenses use one on at the 1 o'clock position and is a white square."


I see Canon uses the term "indexes" I am used to seeing and using the term "tab". I will have to try and remember to use Canon's term in the future.
I have one or two of the old EF-s lenses around, I... (show quote)


I suggest you take a real close look at the EFs lens mounts you have.
Go to
Feb 16, 2024 21:05:52   #
robertjerl wrote:
The EF-s lenses made by Canon have an extra tab that prevents them from mounting on an EF FF body and even some of the older crop sensor bodies. Every single one of my family owned EF-s lenses from Canon have that tab. If you have one without the tab then someone had modified the mount.

If the FF body mount does not have the cutout for the tab than the mounts are ALMOST the same but not exactly the same.


I'm not going to argue. This has been around for a long time. Back when I had both EF and EFs lenses, out of curiosity, I did thorough exam of both. The mounts are identical. I stated that you should check the lens specs on the Canon site. I haven't looked at them in years but a quick look now shows that for the EFs lenses anyway Canon has cut back the spec sheet to the bare minimum. It doesn't specify the mount. However, Canon does still list six APSc bodies on its site. Such as the 90D. If you look you will see that the lens mount for them is listed as an EF, not an EFs. There is no EFs mount, only EFs lenses.

Edit: I see that you have several EFs lenses. Perhaps you could post a photo of the tab you mention.
Go to
Feb 16, 2024 08:58:43   #
robertjerl wrote:
RF and RF-s bodies have the exact same mount, and all RF lenses will mount on both type bodies. EF and EF-s bodies have different mounts, an EF lens will fit and work on an EF-s body but an EF-s lens will NOT mount on an EF body. There is an extra little tab on Canon EF-s lenses that prevents them mounting on an EF body at all. Try to force it, and you will have a big $$$ repair bill.

And yes, most third party lenses for Canon use the EF mount even if it is a crop sensor lens.

I have 4 EF-s bodies (one is my wife's) and 2 EF. 1 RF body and 1 RF-s body. and two dozen lenses between the two types.
RF and RF-s bodies have the exact same mount, and ... (show quote)


It is a common misunderstanding that EF and EFs lenses use different mounts. Except for the white and red dots the mounts are identical. You could remove the mount ring from either an EF or EFs lens and it will mate perfectly with either a full frame or crop sensor Canon EOS body. The difference is in the construction of the lens body. In almost all cases the rear structure of the lens protrudes into the camera body and prevents the mount halves from even touching, much less mounting. I have heard that there is an EFs lens or two that will mount due to their construction but never heard which ones that would be.
If you check Canon's lens spec's you will see that the EFs lenses show as having the EF mount. There is no EFs mount, only EFs lenses.
Go to
Feb 15, 2024 09:25:29   #
Ed Atts wrote:
I am considering purchasing a Canon R5 to replace my 7D 2. If I purchase the adapter to use my Canon 100 to 400 L lens I know it will work fine with the mirrorless body. I also use the Canon 1.4 tele extender with this lens on the 7D2 body and want to know if it will also work the same on the R5 body.


Everything will work fine. I have used the 100-400 L II along with both the 1.4 and 2.0 extenders with the Canon adaptor on both my previous R and current R5. Works even better then on my previous 5D.
Go to
Feb 10, 2024 12:49:50   #
jerryc41 wrote:
In the news a couple of days ago, a woman fell off a cliff in that area, but she was rescued. People put too much trust in Nature. People have to learn that Nature is out to get us because of how we have treated him/her. Just consider gravity. What a nasty force! There should be signs all over the woods - "Beware of Nature!" 🤣


There is a line spoken by Dwayne Johnson near the beginning of the Disney movie "Jungle Cruise". (Fun movie, BTW) A warning to his cruise passengers: "Everything you see out there wants to kill you, and can". Or words to that effect anyway.
Go to
Feb 9, 2024 21:59:20   #
jerryc41 wrote:
Unfortunately, that's not an uncommon event.


I'm surprised that no one (that I know of) has ever walked off the edge of the sheer drop at the old Mountain House overlook at North Lake in the Catskills.
Go to
Feb 9, 2024 21:55:08   #
mwsilvers wrote:
eBay customers and sellers generally use PayPal which is very secure.


Thanks!
Go to
Feb 9, 2024 12:16:56   #
BebuLamar wrote:
I wonder if his camera survive and which is it?


Did he have a filter on the lens and did it protect the lens element?

Not to make light of a person's death, but I just couldn't help myself.
To those criticizing the guy for getting into a dangerous situation, stop and think: Do you know what the terrain was in this particular spot that might have given him a false sense of security? Not all dangers are apparent. For all any of us know he may have been a city kid who had no idea what unstable ground looks like or that it could fall out from under him.
Go to
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 563 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.