omar_torres

Well I guess we won't be hearing anymore from you, From Earth.

Also, I haven't made the calculations but DOF would be so critical as to be half a millimeter or so.

Autofocus at 9X? Autofocus is pretty much useless in my 100mm 2.8 near 1X, I wouldn't even bother trying it at 9X :D

 

Besides, in the case of macro, I focus far faster than the camera.

Lots of people that I've read complain about softness actually confuse softness with DOF. I have a 50 1.8II and it's very sharp. Even wide open. But the thing is if you focus on somebody's eyeglasses, the eyes won't be in focus so you have to be careful. Also, lots of people use the 1.8 with very low shutter speeds for handheld photography and so you also loose some sharpness to camera shake.

Exactly what Azi said. It's also explained in the Canon EOS Flash photography guide.

It's exactly what David said. It's under Nikon's patent. But as long as you know how whatever system you have, works, then everything is fine. There's a couple of pictures of my first wedding I ever shot in one of my folders. It was with a Rebel 2000 which even lacked FEC and the results came out OK. I've gotten tons better now with the Elan7E but it's just to show that it's not so bad as one system being terrible at what it's not its advantage. Both are extremely good but work differently. You decide which way you want to work.

Well I don't have any experience with pro bodies. I use an Elan7E and my friend had an F80. I based myself in the flash theory of each one (reading the excellent EOS Flash guide and then a Nikon Flash guide) and my friend getting underexposed shots on his F80 when bouncing. I loaned him my Elan7E/420EX and he got great results. He was used to getting nice results until he bounced the flash.

 

But yes, Nikon 3D Flash drops distance metering when you bounce automatically since it can't calculate flash-to-subject distance anymore. It goes back to straight TTL metering. E-TTL, on the other side, will evaluate how much light it gets back from the bouncing and calculate accordingly.

 

He now uses Canon but not because of flash tech or being unhappy with Nikon, but because he wanted to go digital and the 300D is a great camera at a great price when there is no Nikon equivalent at the price point.

Btw, I use a lot of bounce flash for indoor portraits of my wife so my Canon gear works great for me. And ultimately for her too :D

It's like Puppy Face said. It depends on what you're used to working with. I think Nikon's better with frontal flash using the distance data. But when you bounce it, since the distance changes, Nikon drops the distance data so I think there Canon has the advantage.

Clean all the camera contacts. Which includes battery contacts, lens contacts and flash contacts. This kind of stuff happens with third party lenses but since you said you had a 28-135IS the only other thing coming to mind is cleaning up all the contacts.

No prob! Personally I love having AF on the AE lock button in the back but that's me!

Also take the batteries out for a few days so that it resets itself.

Why send it in for repair when it works in full auto? It looks to me like CF4 is set. Check your Custom Function 4 and see if it's set to the default 0 or anything else. The default is 0. 1 is for moving AF to the AE Lock button on the back.

Yakim, for life-size you would need 200mm of extension since your lens is a 200mm. So I think that with the big extension tube of 36mm you would only get about 1:5.5 or so. This is just off the top of my head, I haven't really made some calculations. John Shaw in his book states that 200mm is his fave lens, coupled with either a 25mm extension when he needs working distance, or a 52mm extension when he needs higher magnification (1:4).

 

Even though these are not great magnifications when you compare it to the EF 100mm 2.8 Macro, the length of the lens allows it to literally blur the background entirely even though you're only at 1:4 magnification at most.

I couldn't agree more with the previous poster. I went and bought this book and I've read it about 10 times. Not because it's hard to understand, but because it's a real treat to read. Beautiful pictures, lots of explanation and it just makes you want to go out there and take pics. In the end, I decided for the EF 100mm f2.8 Macro USM. The book helped me a lot in making that decision. You'll make the decision based on your needs. The book is also very good in explaning the pros and cons of each setup, and what each setup is best applied for, in terms of what you want out of the setup.

Yes there is. Flash output is matched with current ISO setting, lets say 400. So what you do is you take a normal reading and jot down the aperture/shutter. This has to be done on M mode so that you can force the ap/shutter in the next step. Change the ISO to one stop less or one stop above. For example, if you want to set -1 FEC, up the ISO one stop to 800. Now go back to M mode and set it to the values that you jotted down when it was set to the correct 400 speed and take the pic.

 

The reasoning is that since the camera thinks that ISO400 film you got there is now an ISO800 (when you changed the ISO), it now has to reduce the flash output since the film is supposedly 800, which makes it more sensitive to light, but you're still exposing for a correct 400 exposure.

 

I hope I'm explaining myself. This only works on the film bodies of course. I used to do it but it was such a hassle that I just got an Elan7E and am much happier using that now.

Alexandru, hopefully you were just kidding. He was presuming that since Tony has a Sony 3.1 Digicam that he's used to the insane sharpening applied to those pictures in-camera as opposed to the anti-aliasing filter on Canon DSLR's.

Glitter makeup! That's all I see there. Try it again with no makeup or just some powder and voila! The sharpening in the hair I think is artifacts and lack of antialiasing from the resizing of the image.

 

Of course I'm no prof glamour photog, just my .02!

E-TTL does not use the OTF sensor for flash exposure calculation. It is only used in Vanilla TTL.

No you won't get the same. What you'll get is a nice Near-Infrared Autofocus Assist that doesn't bother anyone really. You can even set CF7-3 and just use the flash for assist without firing the flash itself. Perfect for night street photography if you don't want to manual focus or is hard to.

I have both bodies, and the Elan7E *is* better autofocusing in low light than the Rebel, and faster during the day. What I do at night if I *need* to autofocus is I take my 420EX with me, and set the flash CF so that the flash doesn't fire, but it turns on the AF Assist. A bit heavier than normal because of the flash but if you need it, you need it.

 

Enjoy the camera!

Thanks for the answers guys. I just wanted to make sure that my math was correct. I'm on the fence here between them. When I wanted to upgrade to an Elan7E it was because of being able to choose the focus drive and FEC. But now I can't afford to learn at the rate I want to with film(want to shoot a lot more) and I hate scanning each pic on my flatbed. So I'm trying to see if I can get by with the 300D and use the price dif for a 70-200/F4 or CF's or maybe the grip. I really wanted to do an upgrade rather than stay at the Rebel level but I guess I'll have to pass for now.

 

It all depends on how big (small?:( ) my bonus is at the end of the month..

I searched for this and didn't find anything so here goes, sorry if

it's a repost and I overlooked it. I was comparing shots between the

two bodies, and the image properties between them are different.

This is an example, hopefully the formatting appears correct:

 

<p

align="justify">                                       

 

10D              

 

300D<br>

Image size (pixels)      

2048x3072   

2048x3072<br>

Image size (inches)       

11.3x17         

21.33x32<br>

Pixels per

inch                

 

180                 

 

96</p>

 

 

My question is, given that it's supposed to be the same sensor, would

the increase in image size (inches) compensate the lower amount of

pixels per inch? In terms of the relative proportion of the numbers

themselves it makes sense, but just wondering if there was any other

difference that I'm not aware of in terms of print quality.

Thanks for letting us know!!!

Yup this happens in zooms. According to photodo.com the 28-135 is more like 29-129mm.