ron c sunshine coast,qld,a

That's right DN ,jpeg's only so far.I'll experiment with RAW sometime.

<BR>I'm getting corrupted files even downloading straight from the camera so that would have to rule out the card reader.

<P>On the computer i've opened them with a variety of programs-PS elements,windows standard picture and fax viewer,irfanview and others.

<P>I'll try opening the files in elements immediately as they are downloaded (when they still look ok) then saving them as PSD's or TIFF's

Damn spoke too soon didn't i....:(:(

<BR>Still getting corruption

<P>I'll visit my brother sometime where i can use his cards,reader ,cords and computer.

<P>Thanks very much for the help everyone

Just did more testing with the camera.When shooting without a card the images show without any problems.

<BR>I then did a series of random shots with (what should be) the best card.Still no issues

<P>I then downloaded them with the card reader.They looked perfect when opened in windows but suddenly showed massive corruption when checked again five minutes later.

<BR>I then downloaded the exact same files using the steam powered 'USB cord straight to the camera' method.So far they are perfect and refuse to degrade ,so i may have found the problem.

<P>Oddly i now see that some images shot about a month ago are now starting to break up too,where they showed no issues before.

<BR>So there still may also be a hard disk problem -or perhaps those older files are effected by the (likely) dud card reader and are now starting to show faults(?).I'm also having problems with the antivirus refusing to run (including a second freshly downloaded version)which is why i asked about viruses in my first post.Maybe that is also caused by a hard disk problem?

<P>In any case i'm just gratefull that the expensive camera seems to be ok...hopefully

Thanks greatly for all the ideas guys.I'll try them out

<BR>One thing i've found since yesterday is that i can take pics without a lens on the camera and get weird looking banded files-where they usually are blank or have an even tone distribution

<P>I'm guessing it's not looking too good -perhaps a serious camera repair needed?

<P>In any case i'll immediately back up the important images since my last backup just to be sure.

This is seriously weird.The last couple of days i've been getting

images from my 300D that are obviously wrong in some ways.At first i

noticed a few shots that had the kind of mixed up thing as shown in

the first image below.After the shock wore off and i'd eliminated

the likely suspects-dodgey flash card and low battery- i accepted

that the camera must have a fault.

<P>Then later i *thought* i noticed that some images had suddenly

got worse while sitting in the computer.

<BR>Tonight i see one image in particular that i KNOW was perfect

before now has a huge red band across it as shown in the second

image below.

<P>It still could be a camera fault(?) but is there such a thing as

a virus that could do this?Or something else maybe ?

Two things:

<P>That pentax digitals have to use a less than state of the art sensor and the pentax lens register distance is too long.

<BR>I would love to go back to pentax (whom i still have a soft spot for) but canon gives great high ISO image quality and can be used with a whole raft of brands of adapted manual focus lenses

Unfortunately your pictures aren't showing at all.

<BR>Be careful you don't do anything rash-i know the usm motor on those feels really tight and that's the way it's supposed to be.

<p>Can you fix the pics?I should be able to help as i've worked on a few of these.

I've used many T mount lenses on a variety of EOS bodies.

<BR>The normal lenses of 500mm f8 and 400mm f6.3 have been made since about the early 70's i believe. You can get some very good images from them if they are in good condition.I have one in particular -a 400mm version- that gives VERY good image quality.Sadly i'm selling it right now because i just don't use it enough and have too many lenses :(

<BR>The main problem these have is that the rear element is extremely susceptable to fungus damage which causes a type of hazing.That could be the reason for the low contrast(?)

<BR>By the way,these type of lenses are still being made brand new allthough the optical design is slightly different.

<BR>I've just tested a new 'Opteka' brand 500/8 against several other 500mm lenses.The Opteka isn't quite as good as the earlier designs but is still very usable.

<P>It's not surprising at all that the mirror lens gives low contrast images,even if it's in perfect condition.That's just the way the cheap mirror lenses are.They also have less sharpness than the normal lenses mentioned above.

<P>If you want a sharp usable mirror lens,you will have to buy one of the better brands such as: Leica,Zeiss,Nikkor,Tamron SP,Vivitar solid cat,etc

<BR>Bob did a very interesting test/comparo with the Tamron 500/8 SP.I currently have one of those too-it's consistantly abit better than the very best of those cheaper 500/8 manual focus lenses

A banana?!,lol

<BR>That's one of the funnier ones i've heard of.

<P>Sand in equipment is an odd thing,even a single grain can make the focus feel bad

<BR>You could possibly clean it out yourself but i'd recommend against it.I've worked on a huge number of lenses and allways find the faster lens designs to be difficult to work on.Besides that the Canon EF's tend to have delicate parts inside.

I've used a great many consumer grade 300mm zooms.

<BR>For the best image quality for the cost look at either the sigma Apo DG or the canon 100-300 usm.

<BR>The sigma has a usefull macro feature while the canon has genuinely quick autofocus-it's the only consumer zoom you would want to use for sports or other fast moving subjects.

<P>The two versions of the canon 75-300mm lens are nice at shorter focal lengths but get too soft at the long end.

<P>The new canon 70-300IS lens is rather good by all accounts.I'm not sure the optics or focus speed are much better than the 100-300usm (for example),it would be interesting to compare it with some others.The high cost of this lens is mostly in the image stabilizing feature - something you have to decide wether you want to pay the extra for

It sounds very much like what you want in a typical 300mm zoom. These are by far the best way to get closer at a distance while not spending a fortune.Everyone makes them-canon make several from cheapies to pro quality,then add to those the other brands as well like sigma,tamron,tokina,etc.

<P>Which one to get? Well you want to take pics of a fast moving subject so fast autofocus is going to be essential.That automatically rules out most the cheap ones (pity some like the sigma 70-300 apo are quite sharp)

<BR>The cheapest you should consider is the canon 75-300III usm (make sure it's the usm version though!).This will get images of similar quality to the 28-90 lens you have now -maybe a little less sharp as you zoom all the way to 300mm.Strickly speaking the autofocus is not really fast enough but it will get a 'reasonable' percentage of shots in focus.

<BR>*note-you can actually get good action shots with a slow autofocus lens by simply turning of the AF and focussing yourself.This gets variable results of course but it's usually better than any slow AF lens can do.

<BR>A much preferable option is the canon 100-300usm.This one has genuinely fast autofocus and is reasonably sharp as well.If you are on a budget definitely try to get this lens even if it's slightly expensive for you.

<P>If you can spend much more,look at the canon 70-300IS lens.(probably not a good option because you would be paying for the image stabilization which you don't need?).This one seems to be a touch sharper than the 100-300usm while having similar AF speed.

<BR>Other options include the canon 70-300DO lens and -probably the sharpest option- the canon 70-200/4L lens with a 1.4 extender added.

First,make sure the focus screen is not loose.

<P>Adjusting the mirror will indeed work-but only for the middle of the image.The top of the image will then be missfocussed one way,the bottom missfocussed the other way.

<P>The proper way to adjust focus prescision is to lift or lower the focus screen using shims-then test it by taking pictures.It's an anoying fiddly job with a film camera and could get quite expensive if you want it super accurate.

In principal it sounds like adapting such devices to cameras would idealy follow the same method that the zeiss system that franklin linked above.

<P>That means the NVD would need an input lens (sounds like it has a pretty good one allready) and an output lens (such as a macro lens,so that the camera can focus on the rear screen)

<BR>I have no idea what the camera adapter kit includes but it sounds abit like it might be a cheap setup(?).Perhaps it is only a general purpose closup lens which allows a camera to focus on the screen but doesn't fill the whole frame with the image(? ?).Of course i'm guessing at all of this but judging by some adaption setups i've seen for attaching other devices to camcorders and cameras it wouldn't surprise me .

<P>presumabbly the ideal settup would be to use a high quality 35mm macro lens that gives just the right amount of magnification to fill the frame with the NVD's rear screen.

<BR>I'll be interested in how this all works out.

<P> By the way,you may want to look into the types of NVD's.I see that even Gen 1 types have pretty good resolution numbers and the extra gain of the newer types may not be an issue with a still camera (depending on what you are photographing of course).

Jim i'm not sure if anyone has pointed this out yet (too many responses to wade through)

<BR>Don't forget to take into account the $ you'll get for your current lenses if you were to opt for the 30D.

<BR>Also i must agree with some,the EF-s lenses won't drop in value by any huge amount

<P>All that said,you aren't far from making the 5D pay.It's a good an excuse as any for choosing it ;)

Some very sensible statements here.

<BR>The ones that particularly catch my eye are:

<P>What we have now we are stuck with for some time.<BR>The midrange models are staying 1.6 crop indefinitely

<BR>I too remember canon saying they intend to merge the 1D models but it allways does sound abit of a silly idea.As someone above said-why would sports photographers want to pay for a full frame sensor when they don't want it?

<P>Canon have a huge gap at the very bottom of the range.<BR>Other brands are crucifying the 350D in price so i wouldn't be at all surprised to see a 3000D sometime.

That guy in france is selling K mount lens to EOS body adapters.

<P>K mount lenses can't be fitted to normal EOS bodies without modification because the stop down lever and it's protector protrude out the back of the lens too far.

<P>**However** , you CAN use this adapter to mount unmodified K mount lenses to any EF-s digital body.This is because the EF-s bodies have an indentation inside the mirror box that neatly accepts the protruding k mount lens parts.I made up my own adapter (rather than pay what he is asking) and have now used quite a few different K mount lenses on my 300D.

Y'know it's kinda funny.

<BR>The least looked after camera i've ever owned was also by far the most expensive.Since allmost day one i resolved not to stuff around worrying too much about my 300D.

<BR>I've climbed trees with it,ridden off road bikes with it hanging around my neck (no bag),taken photo's above water and generally left it lying around the house unprotected.

<BR>Oddly this seems to have worked out with only one accident to date-i tripped over it and kicked it accross a road (only two small scratches)

Like others i've found the cheapo preset 400/6.3 and 500/8 lenses to be quite good

<P>If your lens is like these you may have a nice bargain

Great to see someone offering such a service.

<P>I dabble in this kind of thing myself and often have people asking about it.I'm not in any position to do conversions for others as yet so it'll be good to be able to give them a link to somone that does.

<P>I hope you have experience with several models of FD lens because allmost every one is slightly different!For example the conversion of the 85/1.2L's i'm in the proccess of doing will be fully reversable.i.e they don't need to have theirs chassis shortened.I'm keen to try an FD 300/2.8 or 200/1.8 someday!

<BR>All the best with it!

<BR>Ron

Yet another vote for the sigma APO!

<BR>It is definitely has better sharpness at the long end than the canon 75-300

Ah,good to see others doing this too!:)

<BR>I considered offering FD-EF mount conversions but have to wait till i get a lathe at least:(

<P>Alot of FD mount conversions are fiddly because of the complicated aperture control system FD lenses have.Converting this so that the aperture ring directly controls it all accurately is a pain in my opinion.Still,there certainly are some FD lenses worth putting the effort in for!

"It didn't seem to me such a provocative question"

<P>The question is fine,it's just the grumpy idiots answering thats the problem.

<BR>I'd suggest you try compare the sigma to your lens before deciding.I've used one of that model (82mm filter) and it really was average.It may have just been the example i had but be carefull in any case.

<BR>The point about it maybe not working on you EOS body is a good one-if you are getting a digital body in future it will allmost certainly not work on that

Just so you know-

<P>If it's an EF-s digital body you want to use the K mount lenses on you will have no problems at all.The aperture lever clearance problems dont apply for those bodies because they have more room inside the mirror box due to the indentation that accepts the EF-s lenses.

<BR>I've used quite a few unmodified K mount lenses on my 300D with no problems

<P>Here is a K mount to EOS adapter on ebay -the only place i know of where you can buy them at the moment-

<BR>http://cgi.ebay.com/Bague-dadaptation-d-objectif-PENTAX-K-CANON-EOS_W0QQitemZ7587142383QQcategoryZ100740QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem