Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by YellowJersey

  1. 6 hours ago, kelvinhall05 said:

    Canada Post is fine. I haven't had any problems with it, and people who are complaining about shipping taking longer than expected in a fucking global pandemic can shove their packages up their ass.



    Considering Canada Post can EASILY be half the cost of the same (estimated) shipping speed for the same package as UPS, it's great. I have always shipped with them and never had any issues. Before Covid I would never get anything more than a day later than expected, and they have never lost a package.



    EDIT: My vote for "worst shipping company" goes to USPS or UPS. I currently have two packages in the mail, and both UPS and USPS have fucked up with them in two different ways.


    USPS says my package was "delivered" to some random fucking address in Kentucky, even though eBay claims it's still in transit, and USPS hasn't changed this claim in a few days.

      Reveal hidden contents



    Meanwhile, UPS made me pay customs and "UPS brokerage" fees (these were the seller's fault who didn't alert me to these, but that's besides the point), and even though I have PayPal confirmation of the payment going through, UPS still claims that I need to pay. This has also been like this for a few days.

      Reveal hidden contents



    Their website also claimed that there was an "error processing your transaction" the day I paid with PayPal.

    Ugh, UPS blows. I actually prefer Canada Post, since I'm often not around the receive deliveries anyway. It's nice just getting the slip and being able to pick it up at the post office the next day.

  2. You can follow the folder structure at the top of each screenshot.

    For the first screenshot, in each folder, you'd find my RAW files from each of those shoots. I usually delete any RAWs where the exposure is way off, to save space (less of a problem now that I shoot mirrorless)


     For the second screenshot, "Finished Edits" would have the final edited TIFF file and PSD file. "RAWs" would contain the raw file (I like to keep two copies of the RAW file for redundancy; one here and one under "Masters". It also helps having the RAW file handy in case I ever want to revisit that shot so I know exactly which out of the bazillion exposures I settled on) "Misc" would be any misc edits that didn't make the final cut but I didn't want to throw away.

  3. I once went out for pizza with some friends I'd met on a hike. I ordered a 14 inch extra large supreme pizza. The waitress said, "Wow, is that all for you? I'll have to give you a free dessert if you finish it all." So I took that as a challenge. Ate the whole pizza, plus a few slices of my new friends' pizza. The waitress was PISSED. Then we went out for ice cream.


     I am a monster truck that walks like a man.

  4. I use WealthSimple. They have a Socially Responsible portfolio that I invest in. It's weathered the economic troubles of late fairly well; my clean tech stocks didn't go down much at all. Very low fees, simple interface, decent performance. I recommend.

  5. 12 hours ago, Fetzie said:

    As you can use every FX lens on a DX camera with the right mount (and you can adapt pretty much every DSLR lens to mirrorless), there really isn't much point for Nikon, Canon or Sony dedicating resources to making more than kit lenses for DX. I only really have the DX equivalent of the 24-70 2.8 (I got a relatively cheap one on ebay), everything else is FX glass, and if the customers already have a collection of FX glass then they can swap to a full-format camera without needing to replace a load of glass.

    Size, weight, and cost are the big problem with using FX glass on DX cameras. DX lenses can be made smaller, lighter, cheaper *plays Daft Punk*.

  6. 10 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

    yeah sigmas got a nice 3 set but there is 0 good zooms on that mount, all are slow.

    Given that Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, and Sony seem more focused on full frame, I suspect that they're devoting more resources to that. Only Fuji seems to take APS-C seriously and they already have a very well fleshed out lens lineup. The others, save for Sony, don't have much.



  7. 3 hours ago, Dr0y said:

    I wish I had the motivation to clean ... I really suck at motivating myself for those kind of things. 

    It's a never ending battle, especially in the kitchen. I did manage to clean all the garbage out of my car last night, though.

  8. 2 hours ago, GDRRiley said:

    If they don't they will be wiped out Sony, Panasonic and Blackmagic will clean up.

    Fuji is practically alone in the mirrorless APS-C market, and I think they're killing it. I think they made the right move with going APS-C as it really seems like a sweet spot between full frame and MFT in terms of size, weight, image quality, and price.


  9. 2 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

    canon is going to try and work magic.

     Even if they do pull it off, I'm still suspicious. Like I said above, the 5DmkII was amazing for its day and then Canon decided to rest on its laurels for over a decade with it's only innovation being DPAF. I'd need to see a consistent pattern of behaviour. It'll be interesting to see if Canon keeps pushing the edge after the R5 or if it'll relapse into its old habits for another decade.

  10. 18 minutes ago, Fetzie said:

    I'm a little concerned about how hot that sensor is going to be getting when recording video, in particular on longer takes. Hot sensors die faster and can introduce artifacts.

    I'm honestly skeptical of how Canon intends to pull this off. They've created some awfully high expectations.

  11. 12 hours ago, -rascal- said:


    Hmmm...is yours the backlit keyboard version, or regular one?

    Whereabouts are you in Canada?


    Because...if I can extract the space bar out of MY dead Lenovo T450...I might be able to just ship it to you or something.

    Or...I can just remove the entire keyboard, and send that to you hahahah.

    Coffee spilled in my work bag, and went into my T450 into the internals, and damage the motherboard near the SATA HDD area.

    Ended up just ordering a brand-new T480 (needed a replacement fast for work), so I have a T450 sitting around now.


    I'm in Calgary. It's actually the backspace and the left shift key. But if you've got a dead one lying around, I'll gladly take it off your hands, and pay for shipping of course.

  12. 7 hours ago, -rascal- said:


    The space bar has several metal / steel bars underneath; make sure those are reconnected properly.


    Damnit! Broke the little plastic piece under it. I tried to cannibalise the pieces from under the left shift key but broke those, too. Now I'm left with a wonky backspace and a wonky left shift key....

     So the question is now: should I just replace the keyboard (about $50-$70) or order replacement keys ($15) and try to fix it myself.

    So I'm thinking of just replacing the keyboard. I looked up replacements on Amazon and I'm seeing various names: Laptopking, AUTEL, aGood, and so on. Any brands anyone would recommend?

  13. So I have a refurb Lenovo T450. The backspace key started feeling a little funny, so I gently pried it off to clean out the dust, crumbs, and cat hair from under the keycap. When I put it back on, the key started to feel mushy. The best way I can describe it is that if you press the space bar from the edge, you can see the whole space bar go all the way down with each press. If you press the backspace key at the edge, the other side doesn't go down at all; it just tilts the pressed side down like a see-saw. It still actuates, but I'm worried I may have broken something. I pried it off again and closely inspected everything, but I don't see any obvious damage.

     Any thoughts? Is there a special way to put the keycap back on?

  14. 8 minutes ago, jasonvp said:

    Whether folks consume the 4K or not, a lot of content producers on YouTube have or are moving to it.  If you watch vids from folks who actually work in the industry, you'll note their top resolution selection on YouTube is, in fact, often 4K.  That means if they want the same options as 4K gives a 1080p output, they need to shoot > 4K of course.  That's where 6 and 8K come in.  Right now, those folks don't have that sort of option unless they're shooting with a Cine; most DSLRs and mirrorless cameras are still topping out at 4K.  Some even go so far as to record in 1080p and scale UP to 4K (yuck!)


    These folks are all eager for 8K.  There will be significant challenges with it though, specially if they shoot in RAW.  Mainly: they're going to find themselves running out of expensive CFExpress card space real quick.  They'll be able to switch to h.265 as a recording CODEC, but editing h.265 is a bitch on CPUs.  Editing 8K h.265 will be a bitch on even good CPUs.  So hopefully those folks are using NLEs with hardware-based decoders.


    ETA: How many folkin' times did I use the word "folks"?

    You make a persuasive argument.

  15. Canon's one of those subjects that'll really split a crowd. Some people love it and others snub their noses. It's true for most camera brands, actually. Except, imho, Fuji; everyone loves Fuji.


     Anyway, it's a slow work today, so I thought I'd share some musings about my love/hate relationship with Canon.


    How I love thee, let me count the ways:

    Lenses: I generally love Canon glass, especially when we're talking L series red-ring goodness. I shot with the 24-105mm f/4 IS L mkI for nears as my only lens and loved it (we're going back to 2007 here). My next lens was the 17-40mm f/4 L, which was (and still is) a fantastic lens, particularly for the price. I then got the 16-35mm f/4 IS, which I loved even more. For a time, I also had a 70-200mm f/4 L (non-IS) and it was the sharpest lens I'd ever used, and was also incredibly affordable. While the third-parties like Tamron and Sigma have really upped their game in recent years, I've never had anything to complain about with Canon glass.

    Build quality and reliability: Absolutely solid. Never had a problem over the four Canon bodies that I owned. It just works. I can see why many pros may be reluctant to switch. My Sony A7rIII can be a bit quirky sometimes. It's not a deal breaker, but it is annoying. But if you were doing mission-critical, time-sensitive, no-second-chances work, you can't go wrong with Canon.

    Lossless compressed RAW files, something I miss dearly since having switched to Sony three years ago.

    Colour Science: No complaints.

    Go to hell you old bastard!

    Crippled: Except for the flagship 1D line, it feels like there's always a catch with Canon. The 5D mkII kind of got everyone's hopes up as it was amazing for its day; cutting edge. But since then, cameras like the 7D and 5D series felt limited compared to what the competition was offering. Despite having shot with it for years, the 5DmkIII felt like it didn't offer much over the mkII, except for the AF system. There wasn't anything that excited me and it was just incremental improvements. Canon's attitude towards mirrorless for the longest time was also very off-putting.

    Sensors: While not as much of a problem now, Canon sensors seemed subpar compared to what Nikon and Sony were using. DR was always a stop or two behind (something a landscape shooting such as myself found very irritating). Like the bodies, the sensors always seemed one generation behind.

    Lazy: Feels like Canon never gives it their all; that they never throw everything and the kitchen sink at their cameras (besides the 1D). The D800 and later the D850 just seemed to outclass the 5DmkIII and 5DmkIV in pretty much every way. They're too worried about cannibalising their own sales to put out something exciting. While the R5 seems like it's something to get excited about, I approach it with caution because I've been burned too many times before. I'm more suspicious than anything else. 



  16. 1 hour ago, GDRRiley said:

    I'm in the middle shooting photos and video for fun but all my client work is videos. I'm shooting on older and midrange DSLRs, I'd love to spend the money to jump up to a full cine camera but I'm not spending it on a C100mk2 which shoots the same quality as the DSLRs I use.

    the R and this R5 peak my interest but I can't justify 3-5k.

    I gotta say, I'm kind of glad I don't do video. It sounds expensive!

     I'm curious to know how eager many video shooters, those aren't using super expensive cine cameras, are to shoot in 8k instead of 4k. I don't know anyone who consumes content in 4k; it seems like the vast majority are still consuming in 1080. While shooting in 4k makes sense for production, I wonder, given consumption resolutions, if many people are going to be that eager to shoot in 8k. I wonder how many would, at least for the time being, consider it overkill? Given the file sizes and workstations required to edit and export, I wonder if it seems like too much of a hassle?