All Activity

Private Girls In Your City - No Verify - Anonymous Sex Dating https://PrivateLadyEscorts.com [url=https://PrivateLadyEscorts.com] Private Lady From Your City [/url] - Anonymous Adult Dating - No Verify NEW GIRLS [url=https://privateladyescorts.com/girl/kayla-33.html]Kayla[/url] [url=https://privateladyescorts.com/girl/busty-anastasia-52.html]Busty Anastasia[/url] [url=https://privateladyescorts.com/girl/ellise-sugar-90.html]Ellise Sugar[/url] [url=https://privateladyescorts.com/girl/emma-47.html]Emma[/url] [url=https://privateladyescorts.com/girl/ellise-sugar-90.html]Ellise Sugar[/url] [url=https://privateladyescorts.com/girl/katya-sun-19.html]Katya Sun[/url] [url=https://privateladyescorts.com/girl/molly-15.html]Molly[/url]

I hope MPB have looked at this thread at some point because I’ve just had an email from them entitled “Was it just a phase?”. I thought it was going to be something punny about phase detect AF and trying to alert me to their range of manual focus lenses or some such but no, it’s suggesting that photography must’ve just been a phase because I haven’t bought anything from THEM for a while. Entitling the email “Is it because we have gone really quite expensive and frequently lose your mate’s cameras?” then I’d have agreed with them as that being the reason I haven’t bought anything from them for a while. My “phase” of being a photographer which began a comfortable three decades before your company even existed remains intact MPB but I tell you what is now a phase and that’s ever buying anything from you, you cheeky patronising pricks. When someone who has been a frequent customer since you began, you might want to look inward as to what might have caused their buying to fall off a cliff.

The video was an improvisation test focused on capturing the human face using my modded phone. It wasn’t a planned shoot, just a quick experiment to see how the device performs in real conditions. Unfortunately, many clips were deleted because I didn’t have a tripod and was holding the phone by hand, which made some recordings unstable or unusable.

From Canon's support people, someone has to examine the camera to determine the level of work, but a rough estimate of prices, based on the perceived difficulty is: Minor = $269 Standard = $359 Major = $499 That's before my CPS discount on repairs which is, I think, 30%. So I guess that'd be $180, $270, or $340, give or take. Added to the approx. $1,500 below new price (and about $1,100 below most used prices I've been seeing), that ain't bad at all. (Though I do really need to sell something now, my gear list is getting ridiculous - anybody want a used Z Cam E2-S6G in good shape with a bunch of accessories including the eND?)

Or in their QA department - for all I know, the first owner received the camera with the dust already in place! Maybe they didn't care or notice - if I hadn't been told of its existence, I don't think I'd have sat here with a lens off clicking through the ND filters and I probably wouldn't have seen it until I filmed something with a solid that happens to be behind it, probably stopped down a little bit. Anyway, I registered it with CPS. The website didn't want to give me a price estimate since based on my purchase date, it's likely under warranty (maybe?). So I sent them a note explaining that I bought it used, asking if there is a way to know if it's still under warranty from the original purchase date, and if not, what the price would be for them to remove the dust. Sadly, a somewhat vigorous shaking doesn't seem to have dislodged it and it didn't budge when I blasted a little air in through the exhaust (the intake is not in a place to have a direct path) This is the way!

OP hasn't logged in for 18 months and the post is over 2 years old, but I'm actually going down this rabbit hole right now. I bought the Neewer one below but don't recommend it because it clamps onto the touchscreen of the phone (and if you watch the reflections you can see the screen bend around the clamp!), plus is seriously bulky. The idea you need a large one isn't necessarily true - I have a range of ND filters and I found that if I hold a 46mm one up to my iPhone 17 in just the right spot it covers all the cameras with no vignetting. Having said that, as some (or all?) phones don't have apertures, you'll need enough ND to shoot wide open. I tested my iPhone 17 Pro a few days ago and discovered it needed more than 5 stops of ND in direct sun conditions, and from about 2-3 stops onwards became unusable with IR pollution, so mine is going to need my 4-stop ND, my 1-5 stop vND, and an IR cut filter. I've just ordered the Tiffen MagSafe one (that only claims to work for the iPhone 16, not my 17) and plan to attempt to modify it to work with my phone case and see if I can get it to work, and if the 58mm filter size covers all the lenses without vignetting (especially if it doesn't align properly).

Yeah, I guess you could just start using it and see if it bothers you, and like you say - there are various tools to fix it even if it shows up on a few shots where the ground doesn't obscure it. The C300 having a similar problem helps to give more confidence that your unit wasn't treated especially badly, but also gives less confidence in it happening again, or in the Canon design department! I've had a number of things repair themselves over the years. The power mirrors in an old car I bought just started working out of the blue, and on the same car I bought it from a different state and was taking it to be inspected so it could be registered and I realised I'd forgotten to fix the horn, which didn't work. The guy was running through a checklist and said "horn" and I remembered I never fixed it. I decided to press it, pretend to be surprised, then promise to fix it later, hoping they'd be lenient.. so I pressed it and it worked - scared the crap out of me! I've had electronics do similar things too. I was visiting a friend in the Windows 98 plug-n-play days and he had a new card in his computer that wouldn't work in Windows so we were chatting and just for amusement I tried over and over to install it, using the same process (open device manager, delete the entries with errors, restart, repeat) and I had gotten to the point where I remembered each mouse click in the process and then out of the blue it just installed correctly and worked fine. When something doesn't work now I just treat it as the first offer in a negotiation and switch it off and let it chill for a while and come back to me when it's ready to raise it's offer 😄

Are you looking for a generic one that covers all phones? Most of the smaller ones that keep the phone vaguely phone-sized are pretty model-specific.

It does! Though from what I read when googling it, some Canons have been notorious for it in the past - they even had an upgrade for the C300 to install a better filter to prevent it. The camera looks really clean otherwise, though. It also included the power adapter which MPB said it didn't - I think they just didn't realize that the same power adapter works for both the battery charger and camera. I could call or I can just register it on the website and fill out the maintenance form. Also nice that I'd get 30% off. But it is really small - I'm not completely certain I'll even bother yet. I'm not usually shooting stopped down, it's only on the strongest ND filter, and it's also thankfully near the top of the sensor which means it's where the ground will be if I'm shooting (I'd be more likely to notice it against a blue sky or other patch of solid color vs in the details that tend to come with whatever is on teh ground). Of course, CPS also just recently gave me an estimate that my 85/1.2L that I sent in for cleaning/maintenance needed a new motor because the manual focus ring wasn't working and that it'd be a $700 repair. I asked them to just clean it and send it back because for that price, I could just buy another on the used market. Got it back and both autofocus and manual focus are working exactly as expected. I suspect the technician didn't realize it's focus-by-wire?

Beastgrip and SmallRig are good options since they support standard filters like NiSi and Urth. A 67mm setup usually helps avoid vignetting too.

Ah, I didn't realise it was behind a layer of glass... I'm assuming the ND moves in and out of position, so maybe it got it on there when it was out of position? I'm assuming that whole volume isn't completely sealed. It still begs the question of how the dust got into there, and how much dust it's been exposed to in its life... the probability the camera has only ever gotten one bit of dust in it, and that dust happened to get to that spot is pretty slim by my estimation! Can you call CPS to get an estimate for how much it would cost? Maybe that would help inform if it's a return or if you'll keep it and send it off for the service.

I should clarify - the dust is under the outside layer of protective glass in front of the sensor/ND assembly. It's on one of the internal ND filters. Without some disassembly, it can't be reached with a brush. I'm more hoping that one of the air intakes for the camera's fan has some path that goes there and that blasting in air from the rocket blower will dislodge it. 😄 I am somewhere between those people and fastidious. While on set, it's not usually a reasonable investment of time to move to a sheltered area to swap lenses. I don't walk around doing other things while the lens is off, but it often takes 15-60 seconds. Usually the rocket blower is plenty to handle any dust that sneaks in, no biggie. But the fact that it's under the external protective glass is why I can't figure out how someone got it in there. Worst case, I need to decide whether to send it to CPS for what should be a pretty easy fix for them - or I just sent it back to MPB within the returns window.

Thanks! Partly I feel like I've moved past shooting the obvious stuff and started focusing on what I'm looking for, but also there's a bias in what frames I choose to post online too as wider more normal shots often look really cool when moving but as soon as you look at just one frame as a still image all the movement is gone and the depth collapses and the frame just looks like a chaotic mess. This happens even if you've been looking at it in motion and so your brain already has a 3D mental model of what it's looking at - you hit stop and it just collapses. This shot is a moderate example and looks like a very busy but confusing still image (taken right next to the Shibuya train station): When watching the video clip the train stands out most because it's moving quickly, the pedestrians on the bottom right are moving a lot and the ones in the distance and to the left are moving less but still moving, and the side of the rail bridge and buildings in the rear are completely still. Seeing these things your brain instantly builds a sense of depth, which combined with the rear of the signs then means you recognise the cars as being several lanes of traffic despite it being almost completely stationary, and so in only a fraction of a second the frame becomes about six clearly-defined areas, rather than the almost indiscernible chaos that the still frame is. The process of pulling nice looking frame grabs from my footage is a fascinating exercise in how different still images are from moving images. They really are a completely different thing, and I shoot for motion and chaos and layers, so in a way I'm posting my least interesting shots. I agree. I follow someone on YT shooting with the same Takumar 50mm F1.4 on FF and they shot a video of using it wide open in daylight and it just didn't look right. There are strong anatomical reasons for this as in lower light our pupils dilate giving our eyes a shallower DOF, we can often get flares etc from strong light sources (which will be on our periphery because we're probably not looking at them directly), and in very low light we even start relying on the rods in our eyes (which are far less detailed) instead of the cones which we usually use. I have a trip later on in the year where I will probably only be shooting during the day and won't have many/any chances to go off shooting at night, so I'm forcing myself to get excited about daytime images again, and in thinking about equipment I'm not sure that shooting with larger apertures / fast lenses makes visual sense so I might not even take any, instead just using my usual 14-140mm zoom lens.

Nice. Good idea about giving it a solid clean out with rocket blower etc. Mine tends to leak air quite a bit from the one-way valve, but if you put a thumb over it then it turbo boosts the air to give a much more solid blast. It'd be good to know if there's dust all through it, and if you end up dislodging a bunch, at least you can include that in any cleaning service you arrange. I have also found that fan brushes for painting are really nice for dislodging the dust that is just attached enough to not move from air alone, but they tend to be gentle enough that they're not picking up dust and then pressing it onto the surface as you move it around. I don't know how far I'd go if something was on my sensor - I'm mostly blowing dust off my lenses or off the outside of the gear after a trip. Speaking of brushes, the makeup section in most shops will often have very soft brushes with a short handle that fit really well into the case/container you're keeping your lenses. In terms of how it got there, I've noticed a minority of people seem to be perfectly happy taking their time and doing other things while the camera has no lens or body-cap attached. Personally when I'm changing lenses I do it in a sheltered area, taking the rear lens cap off the next lens, then swapping the lenses as quickly as possible (while still being calm and controlled) and then putting the cap onto the previous lens. If I'm at home and feeling fastidious I blow the rear element of the next lens (and rear lens cap) before fitting it, then blow the rear of the previous one before putting the rear cap on, in an effort to not let dust hitchhike its way into the camera.

Thanks for that I have changed "adapted" to converted.

That's a conversion kit, not an adapter. The FD 85mm f/1.2L, which I have, and maybe some other FD lenses, are non-trivial to convert. With the 85, you need to get a special adapter and remove the rear element. What's that have to do with the discussion?

RareAdaptors.com do a Canon FD to LPL for about US $100 but it only works with lenses with a 60mm thread (and they don't list them !) removing the FD mount looks fairly easy I don't see what problem there is with that ? Canon FD sets are common amongst Red owners.

Canon FD is a 42mm FFD and LPL is a 44mm FFD. A recessed adapter could do that, but I'm unaware of anybody making one. Do you have a link to somebody making an FD to LPL adapter (that isn't a full mount conversion)?

here is a LPL mount with a PL adaptor in it

Unfortunately PL mount is limiting because it was designed for super 35 .Many M42 lenses like Pentax won't fit and only some Soviet lenses fit as the maximum diameter of the rear part has to be less than 53 mm .the early helios 44-2 will fit but not the later 44-M ,44-M6 etc. Nikon F fits the larger LPL mount but not PL Canon FD can be converted to LPL but not PL Hopefully there is a LPL version coming as well.

The camera is here. As far as I can see, there is a single decent-sized piece of dust on one of the internal ND filters and that's it. I cannot see any other marks on the camera's sensor assembly. The speck is big enough that I could imagine it being a little bit visible on a big blue sky, but in a way that'd be not hard to clone out. I'm also going to have to experiment with shaking the camera a little bit and/or blasting a rocket blower into the vent holes/fans. It's hard to imagine how that little sucker got in there. Worst case, if I decided to send it to CPS, I have to assume it'd be a pretty cheap repair. Overall, I'll gladly trade that for the $1,500 price reduction vs new. 😅

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuCJ6Ab4uVg

That's a key point. Or "Kye" point, if you will. My handheld shooting drifts and sways a bit, as I like that sort of kinetic visual energy. Not all IBIS handle this camera movement AND stabilization elegantly. Rapid shifts of the image that are unwanted can happen. Fuji is a disappointment in this regard and it makes shooting my style of video with my X-T5 pretty much useless. Meanwhile I can "dance" pretty good with LUMIX and Olympus.

These are really nice. I've been to Japan once but these don't remind me of it much. I was staying in a suburb and didn't go out at night much. It looks like I missed some great things. You know when it's night time like this, I don't even notice lens imperfections much. It just seems natural when under that kind of light.