don_clary

This is a continuation of this message:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CuFy

 

My wife and I would like to arrange a trip to Madagascar with 2 to 4 more

people to share vehicle expenses. This is a non-profit vacation photography

trip; not a profit-making business venture.

 

We would like to travel just after the rainy season, perhaps April May June

2008 time frame, perhaps 14 to 18 days. I've located a very low air fare from

my home (Los Angeles), and food and hotel expenses in Madagascar are quite low.

The only remaining significant expense is car hire, which is the reason for

this message.

 

I'd like to visit mainly wildlife parks. I speak some marginal French. Anyone

want to join with us?

If you own a light box (fluorescent lamps inside with white diffuser above), it makes a nice gentle heat source. Lay the film on the light box, turn it on, and place a few magazines on top of the film for weight. Leave the light box on for 1/2 hour or so, to generate heat. Then turn the light box off and let the film cool for a few hours or overnight. Makes the film nice and flat, with no effort and no damage to the film.

Make it youself. Go to a plastics shop; costs perhaps $10. I designed this mainly for van rooftop shooting in East Africa.

 

http://xs43.xs.to/pics/05346/triangle.jpg

Thank you, Peter for your valuable information.

Douglas, thank you for the tip. I contacted them for more information. I had not heard of that company.

I would like to travel to Madagascar, with the main interest of

nature and wildlife photography. The very few available tours cost

between $4500 to $6,000 per person for perhaps 15 days. This is an

absurd quote for one of the cheapest locations on earth to travel!

 

I found the same situation in Burma, with quotes from $3500 to $6500

per person!! I arranged my own private luxury tour to Burma with top

hotels and private car and driver, for $2,000 per person. Future

Burma travellers, please contact me.

 

It appears that for travel to more remote and less popular

destinations, tour competition simply does not exist. Hence,

ridiculous quotes for budget locations. Can anyone recommend a tour

company you like and/or report on a reasonable cost trip to

Madagascar?

Did you change the battery? That may be why it doesn't work.

 

Battery 2xSR44

I travel on airlines with a LowePro mini-trekker. When I get to my destination, I partially unload the backpack. I hang the camera around my neck, and place 2 or 3 most used lenses in a fanny pack in front around my tummy. This lightens the backpack and gives me forward weight to offset the backpack's rear weight. Very comfortable and convenient for me.

Until one year ago, I kept dual FD and EF systems. I had 10 FD primes with a T90, and 10 EF primes with an EOS 3. I tested every lens VERY carefully and precisely. None of this absurdity of testing a lens by handholding! I loved the build quality of the FD lenses and the precision manual focus of the T90 finder.

 

I finally dumped the FD system to go to a Canon DSLR camera, yet I am keeping the EOS-3. In general, the EOS non-L primes are equal, not better or worse than the FD lenses optically. Build quality of the EF is much worse. Manual focusing of EF is much worse. Most FD lens formulas were transferred to the EF lenses.

 

But in 28mm, that was not the case. Going by memory only, the FD 28mm f2.0 has 10 elements, the FD28mm f2.8 has 8 elements, and the EF 28mm have 5 elements, including an aspherical element. Resolution tests showed that the FD28mm f2.0 was the best, EF 28mm f2.8 was middle, and the FD28mm f2.8 was last. But in real world pictures, instead of resolution charts, you could not tell one lens from another.

Background: I owned two T90s and 10 FD prime lenses for 16 years. I just dumped my FD system 9 months ago. I dumped my expensive analog darkroom that I used for 22 years, for an entirely digital darkroom. I switched to EF prime lenses, because they can be used on both my EOS 3 film camera and my brand new 20D. With the same EF lenses, I plan to shoot digital for prints and use EOS 3 for slides. Slides have such color saturation and contrast, that no print, either from film or digital, can match.

 

For manual focusing, the 20D viewfinder is inferior to the EOS 3, which in turn is inferior to the T90. However, you can do focus bracketing in digital, at no cost, to make up for this deficiency.

 

The FD (prime lenses, not zoom!) are equal in sharpness and much superior in build quality, compared to EF lenses. If sharpness is a priority, then buying EF consumer zoom lenses is a big mistake, both for the glass and for the aperture. You need f2.8 apertures to allow the precision cross sensors in the 3 and the 20D to operate.

 

At least with a 20D, you can use autofocus on racing, and get every single frame in sharp focus. There is no need and no time to acquire good manual focus. I shot 2 F18 Blue Angel jet fighters approaching each other and crossing at 1,000 mph with crisp sharp focus. I shot 4 F18s in a group, passing at 500 mph, and you can read the individual 6 digit serial numbers on the sides of each jet!

 

With the astounding 1600 to 3200 ISO capability of digital cameras, you have the option of choosing ultra-high shutter speeds to stop motion, or stopping down the lens for extreme depth of field, or the ability to shoot in a dark jungle. Film loses quality above ISO 200. Digital has some real advantages!

 

High ISO can?t give you the creamy smooth backgrounds of a portrait at f1.2.

 

Printing from a digital file seems to give higher sharpness around the edges of the print, since you are printing ones and zeros from a plane sensor surface, vs analog printing and film curvature problems.

 

I?m trying to say that it is not either film vs digital. Each has its own advantages and the ideal solution is to use both.

Yakim's comment about the 100 f2.8 non-USM must be right. I just tested the EF100mm f2.8 USM macro vs the EF100mm f2 USM on both an EOS-3 and a 20D. On the EOS-3, the f2.8 macro was a good 3 times faster than the f2.0. On the 20D both lenses were about the same. I would call both lenses on the 20D, and the 2.8 macro in the EOS 3 as lightning fast, and the EOS 3, f2.0 combination very fast. All 4 combinations were quite useable for sports.

I think what you are seeing in the 24mm f2.8 is just a slight amount of front or back focus at very close distances. You would never see this at near infinity ? landscape type pictures because of the extreme depth of field of such short lenses.

 

I tested my 24mm f2.8 and my 28mm f2.8 at very close distances (51 focal lengths) on a lens test chart on TMAX 100 B&W film on a heavy tripod and examined the images with a 30X microscope.

 

I normally get 100 to 112 lp/mm with prime lenses. On autofocus with the 28mmm, I got 24 images at 56 lp/mm. Terrible! I put it on manual focus, did focus bracketing, and got every image in the 100 to 112 lp/mm range. The 28mm slightly rear focused and the 24mm slightly front focused. Did that bother me? Not at all! I almost always focus manually and shoot at near infinity distances.

 

The finest lens in the world will produce absolute mush when it is not focused to perfection!

Marco,

I own the EOS 3 and have owned the 20D for one week, so have limited experience with the latter. So far, I love the 20D, but have no plans to sell the EOS 3.

 

At low light in one shot mode, my subjective opinion is that the 20D is 5 times faster than the EOS 3. It is so fast it takes your breath away! But I also do mainly wildlife, and say so what? I haven't found lightning fast low light level AF particularly useful.

 

The ease in manual focus in the 20D may be better than the 10D (which I've never used), but it is no where near the accuracy of the EOS 3 viewfinder.

 

Spot metering is great in the EOS 3, but you have histogram in the 20D.

 

Shooting digital lets you learn quickly; shooting slide film makes you very accurate with a single exposure.

 

You probably think this diatribe is schizophrenic; perhaps it is. I love the EOS 3 for seeing the contrast and intense color in slides, and B&W. I like the 20D for digital files, digital printing, and instant feedback. Apples and pommegranites. I plan to keep and use both.

Sorry, I didn't know an EF lens was ever made at 210mm; I assumed the reference was to an FD lens. Mea culpa!

Try this <a href=http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/fdzooms/70210.htm#70-210mm>link</a>. Hood is BT-58. Might find it on eBay.

Gloria,George:

The confusion comes from the fact that there are presently 4 different versions of IS, with different characteristics, and on radically different lenses.

 

Check this <a href=http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006AIk>article</a>

 

 

Version 3 was the first one that allowed (actually demanded) that IS be usable in a tripod, since these 4 lenses were super-telephotos.

When I first received my brand new P67 II, I found I had to set the ISO to 100 or 125 to correctly expose Velvia 50. I sent the meter back to the seller for re-calibration. When I received it back, it now agrees with my Canon T90 and my EOS-3. However, perhaps once every 10 subjects, all 3 reflected camera meters disagee with my Polaris incident meter. I found in every case, the incident meter was correct. So I now always check every reflected meter reading against the incident meter. I still bracket important subjects, but I try to get my metering so accurate that bracketing isn't necessary.

I can give you one rare situation where the old modular system is BETTER. I own 3 550EX and the old modular system. I do hummingbird flight photography, using completely manual flash on a EOS 3. The slaves in the wireless mode must be pointing back at the master, and blink about 1 blink/second. I can sit for 3 hours without firing a single picture. Meanwhile, the wireless system is draining the flash batteries. The modular system can operate for hours with zero apparent current drain.

Concerning FD, EF 1.4 lens formulation: When I compare the present Canon EF website to the mir.com FD website, the lens design has not changed. Both are still 7 element, 6 group design.

 

I have owned or still own the following lenses, and have very carefully compared FD to EOS lens performance, using 12 pound tripod, TMAX 100 film, 30 X microscope:

 

FD 24mm f2.8 EF 24mm f2.8

 

FD 28mm f2.8, FD 28mm f2, EF28mm f2.8

 

FD 50mm f 1.4, FD 50mm f1.8, EF 50mm f1.4

 

In terms of resolution, the 24mm were equal. In 28mm, the EF 2.8 was slightly better than the FD 2.8, the FD 2 was clearly better than either, especially in edge sharpness. In the 50mm, the best to worse was: EF 1.4, FD 1.8, and then FD 1.4. However, the best to worse was only 4%, 112 lp/mm vs 108 lp/mm.

 

Both 50 f1.4 were better in color rendition than 50 f1.8. And the only lens that really stood out was the FD 28mm f2. In real world testing, in real pictures, you would have extreme difficulty in telling which lens was used.

 

I think agonizing over one Canon prime lens vs another is a waste of time. All of these lenses are superb; it is the skill of the photographer that makes the real difference.

Let's compare these two approaches, B&H gray market prices:

 

1 Canon 24-70L cost $1180 weighs 950 gm

 

2 Canon 24mm f2.8, 28mm f2.8, 35mm f2, 50mm f1.4 $930 weighs 955 gm

 

I don't shoot weddings or small running kids. I don't at all mind changing lenses. Do I want to pay $250 more for a lens that weighs 0.5% less than 4 primes combined, with optical design compromises, and some smaller apertures, and carry a camera heavily weighted to the front? I don't think so!

 

One zoom is much better than one prime, but better than 4 primes? No! My $.02

Try Steve Sweringen at Steven40@aol.com (Reno, Nevada). Cost might be in $70 range, but Steve has the final say on that. No business relationship, I'm just a satisfied customer.

I have shot a roll using the PH-SA hood and the 45mm (latest version), specifically testing for vignetting. I pointed at the sky to try to detect subtle darkening. I tested at infinity focus and at about 6' focus. I got no vignetting with no filter and severe vignetting with any filter. I carry both hoods, and use both with this result in mind.

Here's the start of the discussion I mentioned above:

 

<a href=http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=1927075>D30 discussion</a>

 

and here's the critical part that I copied for my reference:

 

<a href=http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=1929828>turn switch on and off</a>

I have at home, a discussion of this problem; perhaps tonight I can find and post it. Briefly, the EOS 3 goes into an internal current drain mode, when you connect and/or remove a lens, but only when the camera is turned off. The solution is, after you have mounted or removed a lens, switch the body on, then off. This gets the camera out of this current drain mode. I had a battery fail once suddenly, before I read of this fix. Since I began using the fix, I 've never had a battery problem.

Email Steve at Steven40@aol.com (in Reno, NV), who is an excellent Canon specialist. He repaired my T90 and several FD lenses; top quality work at a fair price. He could give you an accurate diagnosis, and probably has spare parts. I have no business connection with him; just a satified customer. You could also find a T90 parts camera on eBay.