hung_james_wasson

August 31, 2001

Jan,

I got your direct post. The conditions you complain of still worry

me -- but I've had another thought. I had not known that you were in

Costa Rica. Being equitorial, I imagine the heat & humidity must be

feirce (my wife's been to Costa Rica, Honduras, Guatamala, Oxaca (&

other states in Mexico), but I've not had the pleasure. :-)

Enough rambling! My thought is that the environmental conditions of

high heat may have caused the lens housing to expand -- increasing

the friction. That may not really explain why it only sticks at

certain points, and would be totally shot out of the water if the

problem persists in air-conditioned environs.

I'm still guessing it's broke!

August 31, 2001

>I'd recommend not buying a EX series Speedlite. The EOS 5 was

designed with the EZ series in mind. The only one still for sale by

Canon is the 540EZ. You can certainly save some money over the 550EX

since you won't be paying for a lot of features that you can't use

with your camera anyway. You can use TTL and A-TTL with any of them

though.

While it's true that the 550EX is $70 US more than the 540EZ ($370 vs

$300), a 420EX will function well with her camera & costs only $185

US. It's a well featured Speedlight that will function great with her

camera (& still be advanced enough for a future body), and Ione may

not need all the bells & whistles of either the 540EZ or 550EX. I'd

certainly recommend the 420EX over the 380EX, which saves only $35 --

and the idea of spending $120 for a 220EX which has no features at

all makes me choke. So Ione, if you're buying a new flash (as opposed

to used), I'd recommend the 420EX.

>I always thought of A-TTL as a joke. The only improvement over

straight TTL was that the camera could make a choice for a small

aperture when it thought best. I'd rather make that choice myself,

thank you.

>E-TTL isn't just newer, it's better. It has a lot of nice features

(FEL, FP flash, etc.) and better metering for difficult situations.

Too bad the EOS 5 can't use E-TTL. Otherwise it's a great camera.

Jim, you seem to make the argument for the EX series flashes

yourself! :-) Ione may not get a new body in the next 5 years, but

when she does, she'll have access to a flash technology that you

endorse.

August 30, 2001

Sam,

It looks like you posted this question both in the Camera Equipment

forum & the EOS FAQ Forum. I already posted my reply there. :-)

August 30, 2001

Jan,

If you've gotten sand or other debris in the crevices of the focusing

or zooming rings it can make it difficult to turn the rings. Use of a

brush (or very judicious use of compressed air) can be used to blow

such debris out. However, it sounds like your situation is more

serious, if you actually can't get to infinity. It sounds like the

focus mechanisms are damaged & in need of repair. Was the lens

dropped/knocked? Is it under warranty? Good luck to you.

August 30, 2001

Ione,

The Canon 380EX, 420EX & 550EX are all fine flashes that can do A-TTL

with the EOS 5. The prices go up with the model numbers, as they have

more features. If you get an EX series flash, you will be able to use

E-TTL flash exposure metering if you buy a new camera body in the

future (EOS 30/33, EOS 3, etc.). A-TTL stands for Automatic-Through

The Lens exposure, E-TTL stands for Enhanced-Through The Lens

exposure. They're both good exposure modes, one's just newer.

August 30, 2001

Sam,

Look at the negative, and see if you can find more details than in

your print (clouds) -- if so, you can have the photo lab print with

exposure for the sky.

Two things that have a great impact on landscape photos is a

polarizer (circular polarizer when using AF cameras to maintain

autofocusing), and a graduated neutral density filter. The graduated

filter helps to reduce the extreme exposure variation between the

land & sky. If you've never used one before: set your depth of

preview on your camera, with an slow aperture such as f/16 or f/22;

slide the filter up & down until the banding is right at the horizon;

take of the depth of field preview, meter & shoot -- you can even use

evaluative metering & the scene won't be so blown out. The polarizer

can be used to intensify the blue of the sky & increase contrast with

clouds (among its many uses).

August 30, 2001

Rick,

My sincere apologies. I read 20-35 & my brain misinterpreted to 20-55

(not even in the same class)! Now I see why you are struggling with

your lens choice! Part of my confusion is due to it not being listed

on the Canon USA website (the only 20-zoom listed is the 20-55). You

undoubtedly already know that the 20-35 does indeed have USM & FTM,

takes 77mm filters, & weighs 12 oz.

I've never handled the 20-35, so the following is hearsay (by all

accounts it's a very good lens).

<a href="http://zoom-net.com/us/dyn/lens.htm">Zoom-net</a> rates the

lens just below the 17-35, and says that it has a high degree of

distortion at 20mm (it also says that the 17-35 has a high degree of

distortion at 17mm). The lens is otherwise well designed & very

worthy. <a href="http://www.photozone.de">PhotoZone</a> rates the

lens just below the 17-35 f/2.8, & older 20-35 f/2.8. The Sigma 17-

35mm f/2.8-4 EX HSM also did fairly well. At $420 US, the Canon 20-

35mm represents quite a cost savings over the 17-35 f/2.8L � so

unless you need that fast aperture or extra range, go with the 20-

35mm!

August 30, 2001

Hi Steven,

I would suggest to you the Canon 100-300mm f/5.6L EF. It is half the

price of the 70-200mm f/4L, and is said to be tack sharp. It's not

USM, so does not focus as fast, and there's no full time manual

override.

For $330 US, vs the $660 for the 70-200mm f/4L, or $1130 for 70-200mm

f/2.8L -- you've got nice optics for a steal. I think you'd have to

go with a high grade third party TC (multi-coated, multiple elements)

if you needed further reach (a 1.4x would only cost you one stop, and

give you a 140-420mm f/8 [about the same as the 70-200mm f/4L with a

2x TC, better actually] & a 2x would give a 200-600mm f/11 [very

dark, & the image quality might be pretty poor]) -- I don't think the

Canon TC's will work with it.

Might this fit your bill for only one zoom lens to go along with your

stable of primes?

August 30, 2001

Quick addendum: The Canon Australia website clearly states that the

EOS 3000N is the replacement to the 3000 (I should have realized

sooner, my appologies)! It does seem odd that the N seems to

backwards in some areas (such as 3 point AF instead of 7).

August 30, 2001

Rick,

I just noticed the "Digital Production" in your name. If you are

using a D30, you may not notice the quality of the lens that cost ten

times more. The digital EOS does not utilize the entire frame area of

a 35mm SLR, and so issues such as edge sharpness, vigneting, etc. are

going to be far less important.

August 30, 2001

Wow, Rick -- That's quite a question. I would guess that only you can

answer that one. Have you seen the two lenses side by side? Why don't

you take some photos with each, and see if you care to pay the

steeper price for any noticeable difference in quality? 17mm is quite

a bit wider than 20mm (at the wide end, small focal length changes

make a big difference -- you wouldn't even notice 3mm at the other

end), but maybe you don't need it? The 22-55 is inexpensive &

compact, where the 17-35 is big, heavy & very expensive by comparison.

The 22-55 has a 90 to 43 degree angle of view, the 17-35 has a 104 to

63 degree angle of view.

The 22-55 has a USM micro-motor (not ring-type, no full time manual

override). the 17-35 has ring-type USM (FTM, faster focusing [not as

important on a superwide as on a supertelephoto).

The 22-55 has variable aperture f/4-5.6, the 17-35 has constant

aperture f/2.8 (considerably faster lens).

The 22-55 weights 6.2 oz, versus the 17-35's 19.1 oz.

The 22-55 takes 58mm filters (very common), the 17-35 takes 77mm

filters (very expensive).

The 17-35 has two replicated aspherical elements to help correct for

aberations.

The 22-55 costs $120 US, the 17-35 costs $1,230 US (would you even

spring for this?)

And just in case 17mm isn't quite enough for you, it's rumored that

Canon will soon be replacing the 17-35mm f/2.8L USM with a 16-35

f/2.8L!

Good luck with your lens purchasing decision. As an aside, you might

look at third party superwide zoom offerings, if that's the kind of

photography you like. You may find a zoom with the right focal range

& price to suit you from Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, etc.

August 30, 2001

Rob,

Although I believe you when you say that the Canon rep you spoke with

denies the DO's are L-series lenses -- I've got to wonder. The lens

seems awfully high priced for a consumer lens. The size, speed &

features sure seem to put it right up there with the lenses the pros

are already using! Perhaps they have concerns about the lens, and so

do not want to put it in the same category as their best lenses? It

seems clear to me the lens is meant to address the needs of pro &

serious photographers who can't quite afford the really big stuff,

don't want the size & weight, but still want professional quality

prints for submission or enlargements.

August 30, 2001

Legnum,

The D3 is rumored to be the low cost replacement to the digital EOS

D30. Frankly, I can't imagine they'd replace the camera. If they

could make the same camera for less, they'd just reduce the price. I

imagine that a lower cost digital EOS SLR will have fewer features or

lower build quality. Canon is also rumored to be soon releasing a pro

model digital EOS SLR that has at least 6 MegaPixels (at a rumored

twice the cost of the D30). I could easily see Canon having a three

tiered digital SLR lineup - entry, advanced amateur & pro.

The EOS 3000N appears to be an even more simplified entry level 35mm

SLR camera. It's features put it below the EOS 300/Rebel 2000. The

3000N has 3 focus points instead of the 300's 7 (the 3000 also

appears to have 7 AF points, and appears very similar to the EOS

300), no depth of field preview, worse low light AF focusing ability

(3000N 2 EV & 3000 1.5 EV vs EOS 300 1 EV). Metering: 3000 6 zone

evaluative or 9.5% Central partial metering (apparently different

from Center-weighted averaging), 3000N 6 zone eval metering, 9.5%

Partial & Center-weighted averaging (the EOS 300 has 35 zone eval). I

didn't take the time to look for other differences, but I don't think

the 3000 & 3000N have automatic exposure bracketing.

The above 35mm camera information courtesy of Canon Australia:

http://www.canon.com.au/products/cameras/slr_cameras.html

August 29, 2001

Legnum,

>does the focusing point in the viewfinder of eos300 light (red) when

it achieves focus?

No (as Peter rightly says). The reason is due to cost. The EOS

300/Rebel 2000 is an entry level camera, and cost is by far the most

important factor the company was concerned with. You must pay almost

twice as much for a body, and step up to the Canon A2e (EOS 5?) or

Elan 7E (EOS 30) to get the red LED indicators in the viewfinder. On

the EOS 300/Rebel 2000, you must content yourself with the little LCD

display at the bottom of the viewfinder.

> i notice that sometimes when i use the a-dep mode,the shutter speed

and aperture value disappear in the viewfinder for several

seconds,why?

Sometimes? It probably occurs every time. A-depth mode is a program

mode for automatically calculating & implementing a shutter speed &

aperture combination which will give you the depth of field zone that

you select. It functions by first focusing on your fore-ground that

you wish in focus, and then the mid-ground/back-ground area you want

in focus. The third press, focusing on your primary subject, then

gives you the proper focus distance, shutter speed & aperture � if

it�s within the lens� capability.

>what's ETTL?

Well covered by Peter, and his suggested web link.

>will eos300 perform ETTL with non-dedicated (non-canon) flash?

No. It must be a dedicated EX flash unit. There are several models,

with various price points & features.

August 29, 2001

>Should I have him look elsewhere for a new AF system (like an N80)?

By all means, your brother-in-law should look at all of the similarly

priced alternatives out there (Nikon included) -- and pick the best

body & lens system for his needs. Since he has no AF lenses now, it'd

be a good time to do so. The only reason for him to stick with Canon,

is if you wanted to be able to share lenses. Good luck!

August 29, 2001

Kenneth,

All of your points are well taken. I agree with you that the Elan II

has superior low light AF ability. So does the A2/A2e, which is

priced very similarly to the Elan 7 (a fine camera with a zooming pop-

up flash head).

I was only trying to point out that the advances of the Elan 7 are in

ergonomics (the diopter adjustment, AF point arrows within the

command dial), faster daylight AF, & improved Eye Control Focus. The

Elan 7 definitely has lost ground on low light AF sensitivity (I

blame the CMOS sensor, but I could very well be wrong), and should

never have lost the near-IR AF assist light (I understand it being

done on the Rebel to save cost).

I certainly did not mean to imply that the Elan 7 is a perfect

camera, for it is not. My intent was only to help clarify the

differences so that your brother-in-law could make an informed

decision on what body to buy (I still very much like the A2e, for

instance). I hope that I did not offend in any way � and if I did I

humbly apologize!

PS I apologize also for taking so long to reply back. I couldn�t get

back in to LUSENET for the past several days. I have no idea whether

the site was down, or just my ISP was misbehaving.

August 27, 2001

Steve,

>Sigma makes a 24mm 2.8 for less than half the cost of Canon's.

Sigma (& others) do make some fine prime lenses, but this lens MAY

not be quite up to your standards. You should look at their EX series

of lenses (primes & zooms), as there are pros who swear by them. Less

expensive than L-series Canon lenses, but more than consumer grade

ones.

>Frankly, the cost of everyone's prime lenses wider than 24mm makes

me really suspect the lens quality of the 17-35 consumer zooms that

all sell for less.

I�d be very cautious about cheap ultra-wide zooms. The engineering,

tolerances, & construction materials that go into making a good one

greatly increase the cost. It�s far easier for a third party

manufacturer to make a very competitive 70-200mm lens (& indeed,

Sigma�s 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO HSM is highly regarded), than an ultra-

wide or super-telephoto zoom. The adage �you get what you pay for,�

does hold somewhat true.

>Is it possible that quantity of production and demand for zooms are

why the zooms are so cheap?

Absolutely. You have found one of the prime laws of modern

manufacturing: The higher volume you produce of a particular item

reduces the overall cost of manufacture per item � so they can be

sold for less. This is why your rarer Canon lenses are

stratospherically priced. There just isn�t enough demand for a 50mm

f/1.0 when there�s f/1.4�s & f/1.8�s that do the job nearly as well

(& how many EF 1200mm lenses do you imagine Canon sells a year? �

it�s not just a matter of cost of materials). Thank Henry Ford for

truly getting the ball rolling. Power to the people! :-)

>The local camera store I went to this weekend had zooms galore, but

only ONE prime lens in stock for the EOS.

That fact is, most people find zooms just too useful/convenient, cost

effective and of at least adequate quality to justify buying a stable

of prime lenses. It certainly makes sense for a serious photographer

to buy primes that fit their particular needs (landscape,

architecture, portraits, etc.), but sadly we must pay the price for

less demand of those lenses.

Follow this link for a review of the Sigma 24mm f/2.8 lens:

http://www.photozone.de/reviews/sigma24.htm

This web page is a list of PhotoZone�s ratings of various

manufacturer�s 24mm prime lenses:

http://www.photozone.de/easytxt.htm#F24

PhotoZone (http://www.photozone.de) is a useful website, with MTF

testing of lenses, as well as user (subjective) reviews. A lot of

information available here!

August 27, 2001

Gary,

>As an aside, and please excuse if this has already been discussed,

would you happen to know the reason the DO lens will have a green

band? Will that be the "DO" distinctive band color as is red for "L"

lenses?

There has been no official announcement (at least as far as I'm

aware) about the DO L-series lenses getting green banding while non-

DO L lenses stay with red banding, but that seems to be the

prevailing assumption in the community. It makes sense, as Canon

would want to differentiate the new DO lenses somehow, and it would

be simpler to change color banding -- rather than abandoning the off-

white L scheme. (They'd probably have to go with a shade of gray, as

having a colored barrel would be too radical -- magenta, anyone?) :-)

August 27, 2001

Myer,

>I want to thank you for your very simple and correct idea about what

was wrong with my flash photos using the internal flash on th Elan7e.

Several others had very technical possible explanations. You

suggested that my fingers were probably blocking the flash causing

the lower portion of verticals to be dark.

>I just took another roll and left 6-7 shots for evening indoors with

flash. I few were horizontal and a few were vertical. I was careful

to compose and then hold the camera with both hands (not the lense

blocking the flash). All photos were lit (lighted) evenly and

properly.

I�m glad that we were able to quickly find the problem, and that

camera defect was not the cause (user error is so much less expense

to fix, yes?) ;-)

>I still don't understand if the camera acts differently when the

flash is pulled open (expecting a flash photo and not an available

light photo) but it must.

I believe that whenever the built-in flash is up the camera�s flash

TTL metering routines are triggered. With it down, it tries to expose

the scene with ambient light. So yes, the camera does behave

differently when the flash is up or down. :-)

>Again. Thanks for that idea.

You are most welcome.

August 26, 2001

Eileen,

Whether or not Eye Control Focus holds any interest for you (this is

definitely a love it or hate it item) -- the Elan 7 has many more

features that you might find useful if you have found your Rebel at

all limiting you at times.

It has a faster film advance (not that I encourage ripping through

film at 4 frames per second, but rather that the camera is ready for

the next shot that much quicker). By the same token, lag time before

the camera actually takes the picture from when you press all the way

down on the shutter release button is shorter. It auto-focuses more

quickly. It has a brighter viewfinder, built in diopter correction

(if you have less than perfect vision, like many of us), is quieter,

has a higher top shutter speed, a wonderful rear command dial that

you can use to set aperture (among other things), and has custom

functions you can set (including a workable mirror lockup for those

critical minimum vibration situations).

The body can be purchased with the Eye Control Focus

gimmick/innovation (depending on your view), called the Elan 7E or

without (the Elan 7). Of course, there are more new EOS body choices

out there (as well as used ones). My recommendation is to go to a

camera store that has several bodies to choose from, and handle them

all (with your lenses if possible). Learn from a knowledgeable sales

representative what the key differences are, get a feel for the

bodies (i.e. Rebel 2000, Elan 7, Elan 7E, EOS 3), and see which of

them have the right feel/features/price for your present & near

future needs.

I�d be curious to know what you finally decide. Please come back and

tell us (& why you chose it)! Good hunting! :-)

August 26, 2001

>I doubt very much if I'm in a position to correct you.

Of course you are. We�re all human (aren�t we?) :-)

> Upon reading and rereading both the description of Partial Metering

in my manual and the purpose of Custom Function 8, it appears Custom

Function 8 modifies the partial metering from 10% at the center to

10% at the focusing point.

Yes. Whichever one you choose. ;-)

>Since you're being so tolerant of me I have another question.

I understand One Shot and AI Focus. What is the purpose of AI Focus?

You repeated yourself at the end there :-o I assume that you meant

to ask about Predictive AI Auto-focus. The camera has threes AF modes

in addition to manual focusing, for a total of four: (1) One-Shot AF

(2) Predictive AF with AI Servo AF (3) AI Focus AF (4) Manual.

1. One-Shot: Depress the shutter button slightly, the camera acquires

focus at the selected focus point & then disables the AF. Press the

shutter button down all the way to take the shot � or release and

depress part way again to refocus on something else. Portraits,

landscape, etc. � where you focus on a subject & then recompose the

image in the frame.

2. Predictive: This behaves the same as One-Shot, unless it detects

the subject is moving. If so, it then tries to keep the subject in

focus � and when the shutter button is fully depressed, it tries to

calculate where the subject will be when the light hits the film &

focuses to that point. Used when you aren�t sure how you subject is

going to behave (i.e. my small boys ;-) ).

3. AI Focus: The same as Predictive, except the camera continually

tries to focus on whatever is at the AF focus point while the shutter

button is partially depressed, rather than deactivating as it would

in One-Shot mode. Used with nature photography, sporting events, et

al.

4. Manual :-) When you want total control, or the scene lacks enough

light or contrast for AF to work reliably.

I�m very happy to answer your questions. I suppose it has to do with

my unrequited desire to be a teacher? In any case, I hope that you

will keep using this forum, and share your knowledge with others as

well.

August 26, 2001

Minor point correction:

Yes, it will use a faster shutter speed (up to the flash sync speed) -

- this is if the flash head is up (or a flash unit is attached & on).

Otherwise the program can select higher speeds.

August 26, 2001

> If I understand you correctly, the person/star icon treats aperture

as a priority to take advantage of low light (leading to excessively

long shutter speeds)

The program algorithm assumes that gathering background lighting is

the most important factor, and adjusts aperture & shutter speed to

achieve this. It is truly meant to be used on a tripod. The idea is

that if you use standard program, the camera will only be concerned

with the foreground subject � your person will be properly exposed

(well, maybe over-exposed � nothing�s perfect) while the background

ends up being almost completely black. Using the Night Scene mode,

the camera tries to set the exposure up so that you still get good

exposure on your foreground portrait subject, but you will also have

a more properly exposed background (i.e. a lighted building,

fountain, bridge, etc.) to add more detail to the scene. It all

depends on your creative mood. You get ghosting because the flash

outputs the proper amount of light to expose the foreground subject,

but the shutter stays open long enough for ambient light to produce a

visible image.

>while the person-running mode will use a shorter shutter speed.

Yes, it will use a faster shutter speed (up to the flash sync speed)

>But in very low light, will that short shutter speed be enough?

It all depends on how far away your subject is. The built in pop-up

flash is very convenient, but not very powerful (otherwise you�d have

even more problems, like truly serious red-eye, and sucking your

camera batteries dry). Dedicated flash units move the flash tube

farther away from the lens -- reducing red eye, are more powerful

(allowing to properly light subjects farther away), often have a

zooming head (to further extend the range of the flash), and use

their own batteries. This doesn�t even list all of the cool features

the more advanced units have.

>I suppose this is why real photographers use tripods and separate

flash units. Under what conditions would you use the person/star

mode?

Yes. :-) Even we serious amateurs find the need for tripods in our

art, let alone the pros. If you find a tripod just too bulky or

inconvenient, try bean bags or a monopod (basically, a single leg of

a tripod � with you to provide the other two)!

The Night Scene mode is good for capturing some details of the

background in addition to your portrait subject (while using that

tripod ;-) ). Picture the model/one you love leaning against a

decorative pillar while the moonlight plays across the beach &

shimmering ocean behind, capture the sweat on a steel worker�s face

while the red hot glow of the furnace and molten steel create a hell-

like setting � get the idea? It is just one simple tool to allow you

to try other creative paths.

Use up lots of film! Have fun! That�s what this is all about!

PS You are very welcome!

August 26, 2001

Eileen,

I would also vote for a new body. Over $100 for repairs to a body

that may need more repairs in the future, versus approximately $250

for a Rebel 2000 body. Also, if you are ready to move up to a more

advanced body, the Elan 7 can be had for around $400 ($450 for the 7E

eye controlled focusing model).

August 26, 2001

Gary,

>Has anyone seen images produced using the 400 f/4 DO IS yet? Or any

>critique of it's optical quality?

As the lens has reportedly been seen being used by professional

photographers at sporting events (tennis, et al), we've undoubtedly

seen photographs taken with the lens -- but haven't known it! No

critique on optical quality, as no one has received a production lens

to test (same as with the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM).

>The $2,600 USD projected price seems like it's coming in a bit high

>for a lens that was touted as being less expensive to build with

>materials costing less.

The $2600 MSRP is quite a substantial savings. You must first

consider that this is a "first of" design, and as such it will more

expensive than future generations. Then you must consider the other

offerings out there and compare pricing. For example: the EF 300mm

f/4L IS has an MSRP of $2250 (street price of $1400), the 300mm

f/2.8L IS an MSRP of $8000 (street price of $4800) and the 400mm

f/2.8L IS an MSRP of $12900 (street price of $7700). In that light,

$2600 sounds great -- a 400mm lens for the same price as a 300mm lens

of the same f/ speed? Also, lower production cost is only one of the

advantages of the DO design. Shorter lens length for any particular

focal length will make the lenses slightly more portable -- and

possibly easier to hand-hold. Same goes for the lighter weight.

>I'm not too excited about image stabilization being put on a lens

>like the 17-35

I would not turn down a lens with IS (and indeed, it looks like all

of the L lenses will sport it), but I agree that it's not a big

selling point at such short focal lengths!

Do you agree with me on the pricing of the 400mm DO, or do you still

feel the price is too high? ;-)

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by hung_james_wasson