rhaytana__tim_adams_

... but (!) I should correct one error, which I realized after Dan Lovell and David Koens' posts prompted me to carefully re-read some sections of the manual. (Thanks, by the way, to both of you.)

 

The 'normal' mode of selecting the focus point in the 5D is to (a), press the AF button, and then to (b) select the focus point with either the multi-controller (joystick) or quick control dial.

 

When the 5D is in this normal mode, I just discovered, then yes indeedy, pressing the AF button by itself shows the focus point in the top LCD.

 

That's the good news.

 

The bad news is, I disabled normal AF point selection mode within two hours of opening the box. Much too time consuming to press the AF button and then press joystick or manipulate the dial, at least for this photographer and this photographer's fingers and thumb. Custom function 13 lets me select the AF point with either the joystick, directly, or with the quick control dial, without bothering with the AF button first.

 

And with either of those options selected via custom function 13, the display of focus point in the top LCD is disabled! Which means I have to look through the viewfinder to pick the focus point, as I've written.

 

I may learn more, but for now, that's my understanding of how the 5D operates.

Puppyface, I'll bet the complaints about sensor/viewfinder dust are well-founded. A hair appeared in the viewfinder after my first session with the 5D, but, thankfully, dropped down without intervention.

 

I didn't mention that the battery door popped open a couple of times, costing me a few shots. I now put a piece of gaffer's tape over it. No big deal, but not endearing in a new camera. I presume Canon would fix it, but I'm not eager to FedEx the thing off to the nearest service center just for that.

 

Giampi, the F100 let me pick the focus point while looking through the viewfinder *or* by looking at the rectangular LCD on the top of the camera. Many times I'd see a shot coming, glance down at the top of the camera, manipulate the pad at the back of the camera and have the desired focal point selected before I raised the viewfinder to my eye. I also found it easier to pick the focal point quickly with the Nikon pad/button/whatever it's called than with the Canon 'joystick' -- although it's possible that I'll get speedier with the Canon than I now expect. Time will tell.

 

I posted this message for the benefit of others who have to make a buying decision similar to the one I just made. Others helped me, and I want to return the favor.

 

But now that the message is up, I fear that I might inadvertently provoke a Canon vs. Nikon thread if I write anymore. That wasn't my intention.

I bought a 5D a month ago, after posing many questions and spending

many hours sniffing around online forums. Google gives postings like

this a long, long lifespan, so I thought others might benefit if I

post thoughts on one user�s film to digital transition � what went as

expected, what surprised me and so forth.

 

This posting probably won�t be of much use to current Canon digital

shooters.

 

Most of what I worried about didn�t happen. Shutter lag isn�t a

problem, isn�t an issue in any way. The 5D viewfinder is more than

big enough, although many have griped about other models.

 

The Nikon to Canon transition was much less effort-full than I�d

expected, particularly as relates to using flash with Canon. I�m

still not happy with my Canon fill flash results outdoors � I get

�bald skies,� as another user noted on another forum � but my indoor

results are excellent, and the outdoor problems aren�t that bad. I

think I�ll get outdoor fill flash once I put in my study and

experimentation time.

 

Canon includes Digital Photo Professional free with the 5D, to convert

raw files. Many have written that they like DPP image quality as

much as anything from CR2 or Bibble, so all the head scratching I did

about what RAW converter to get has been pretty much forgotten. Maybe

that means I�m not that fussy. Maybe it means I�m busy. For now, RAW

conversion has meant: (a) installing DPP, (b) using it.

 

It�s easy to use. Very easy. I had expected white balance to be a

big issue, too � something I didn�t need to think about when shooting

film � but DPP lets users toggle different WB settings easily, so I

just leave the camera set to AWB and worry no more. Michael Reichmann

of Luminous Landscape wrote that most RAW shooters do this, and I now

understand why.

 

DPP sucks up the 12 meg RAW files and shoots out 75 meg TIFF files in

about a minute on my 512, low horsepower box. No need to upgrade the

computer. To emphasize: all the fretting I did about what kind of

raw converter to get, what kind of computer upgrade I�d need, how I�d

figure out white balance was essentially for nothing. Yes, later I

can fine tune with Bibble Phase One CR2, and maybe I�ll prefer the

results from one to the other -� but I don�t need to do that now to

get good results.

 

I shoot RAW + jpeg. I can�t imagine why I�d want to shoot jpeg only.

 

I use bounce flash much, much more now with the Canon, as I can

preview the results in the LCD screen in the back. Big, big advantage

of shooting digital. However, I don�t find the 2.5 inch LCD to be a

precide indicator of how well the shot came out. It gives me a rough

idea of whether or not my exposure was in the right ball park. That�s

all.

 

I think I�ll be able to print as large or larger with the 5D tiffs

than I ever did scanning at 4000 dpi with film. The dpi is going to

be lower � about 240 dpi at 18 x 12, with no cropping � but the files

are so much cleaner than scanned film.

 

I was shocked by the high quality of high ISO. The first time I took

a no flash shot at 1600 iso, and saw it on the monitor � well, I was

downright shocked. Couldn�t believe it was that good. I have no

previous digital experience to compare it with.

 

Before buying the camera, I bought a USB/Firewire card for my

computer, so I could read files straight from the camera or from a

firewire card reader. If I had it to do over again, I might get only

the firewire card reader. I don�t plan to shoot tethered and don�t

see any other advantage (for me) of operating the camera through the

computer. I can change settings with the camera itself just fine.

 

The Canon software and firewire card reader installed easily in Win XP

and worked right away.

 

I�m glad that I bought a 4 gig memory card, rather than a 2 gig card.

 

Disappointments?

 

One significant one, so far: I don�t like the Canon�s system for

focus point selection. I prefer using the Nikon dealie on the back �

setting focus point is something I need to do in seconds, and I change

it frequently � with the Nikon I could set it without lifting the

camera to my eye, but the Canon doesn�t show the focus point in the

plastic LCD screen on the top. So I�ve got to lift the camera to my

eye and pick the focus point � and, after about 1,000 shots, I�ve

found this slower than with the Nikon F100. But, I�m adapating, and

haven�t missed too many shots I might have gotten with the F100.

 

Low light auto focus isn�t as good. Not that far behind, but behind

still.

 

I don�t think that the Canon 16 � 35 2.8 is the equal of the Nikon 28

� 70 2.8. These are both high end lenses. I think the Nikon is sharper.

 

Remaining question, and a very, very important one for me:

durability. How will the Canon hold up? It�s been fine so far, and

hasn�t been treated delicately. But will it hold up to bumps,

jostles, temp changes in the field? The F100 has been very durable.

 

Those are one user�s quickly written observations. I hope this is of

help to someone else trying to decide.

 

Last point: more and more, I realize that the camera is a specific

tool purchased for a specific type of shooting. If I didn�t do so

much at high ISO, I would have stayed with Nikon. I don�t need to

shoot in the rain or blaze away with the shutter at a sports event, so

the 5D was fine. But the application for which the camera will be

used determines what to buy.

I don't know what kind of computing horsepower a G3 Ibook has to offer -- I'm not Mac literate -- but I was pleasantly surprised by how little was needed in WinXP. I have only 512 ram, but the Canon Digital Photo Professional program produces 75 meg .tiff files from the 12 meg RAW files in only about a minute. Much less drain on computing resources than were 4000 dpi scans with my CanoScan.

 

If you plan to convert all RAW images, then computing horsepower may be a big issue. If not, you might want to experiment with the set-up you have now.

Thanks to all who responded. The expensive straps at the camera shop all included plastic quick release snaps ... which might work just fine 99.9% of the time, but which still struck this shopper as a potential weakest link.

 

Several respondents have mentioned problems with these snaps, so I now feel grateful that I passed them up.

I just bought an Op-tech EZ-Comfort Strap, which will support about

nine pounds of gear dangling from my neck. The optech web site sites

a recommended load of ten pounds for this strap. Recommended load,

according to the site, is for comfort. Not breakage concerns.

 

Still, I worry. Do camera straps break? Has it happened to any of

you other photo.net users? To a friend? I shudder to think of the

seams ripping out and all that expensive gear crashing around my feet.

I had the same problem a couple of years ago: a hair-thin horizontal line, appearing in the same place conspicuous place in every scan. It's gone now, and I regret that I can't say for certain exactly what fixed it.

 

I'll use this message to recall everything I can about it, in the hope that something I write will help you.

 

(1) Sometimes, rebooting the computer helped. This shouldn't have made a difference if some piece of crud was in the scanner, but ... well, it did.

 

(2) After awhile, rebooting didn't help. I sent the FS4000 to Canon for service. When I got it back, the problem was gone ...

 

(3) ... but the problem reappeared a month or two later.

 

(4) I sent it back, and the problem reappeared within a few days. BUT THEN ONE DAY I inspected the film holder as it emerged from the scanner, and what should I find but a hair-thin piece of something-or-other that had been lodged in the works somehow.

 

Once I removed this, the problem disappeared entirely.

 

HOWEVER, I NEVER had problems when scanning in Vuescan. Only with Filmget. Which begs the question: if it was something in the scanner, then why did rebooting sometimes help? And why should it work in Vuescan?

 

I now keep the scanner covered at all times when not in use. Co-du-co sells dust covers cheap.

 

I hope some of this rambling helps. It's everything I remember about the problem.

Some might not like his style, but my gosh, look at his client list. The editors at the publications he lists aren't going to hire a tyro. *They* think he knows what he's doing, and they work with photos full time.

Thanks for the responses ... and yes, I did mean mb, not K! Sorry for the error.

 

I regularly scan 130 mb, 4000 ppi files from 35mm film and edit them in Photoshop with my 512 mb box. Not speedily, but it can be done. I don't really suffer unless I start adding sets of adjustment layers. Then I do suffer, as the editing is s-l-o-w ... but in any case, I think I know what's involved.

 

Processing RAW files, on the other hand, is a complete unknown to me. I've never done it, which is why I'm interested in the RAM needed to haul in the files via ACR or Bibble or Phase One.

 

(My next computer will have at least a gig of RAM, and maybe two, but I'm not ready to buy it yet and don't think I could recoup an investment in additional ram for the aging PC I now own.)

How much computer memory will I need to use raw conversion software

for 8mb - 10mb camera raw files? I'll probably start with ACR 3.x,

but may experiment with Bibble and Phase One.

 

I now have 512K in Windows XP. I'd prefer not to buy additional RAM,

as I plan to upgrade the computer within a year.

 

I'm still scanning film, but plan to buy a digital camera soon, and

likely will do most of my work with raw files.

 

Will 512K be enough, or am I likely to face horrendous processing

times if I don't get more RAM? (I've read that Nikon Capture is a

memory hog, but doubt I'll get that program.)

 

Thank you!

You might be interested in the SLR gear site:

 

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php

(Sheepishly) I should have looked at your gallery and read your question more carefully before posting. Apologies.

 

You're obviously an experienced photographer, and just need something to use for an upcoming shoot, which is why you're thinking of using the Vivitar. Good luck.

I don't know, but I doubt you'd be very happy with the results!

 

Mihai, I hope I don't offend you by offering unsolicited advice: if you visit www.keh.com, you'll see that F100 appropriate flash units -- for instance, an SB-28 -- sells for as little as $100. I think you'd consider it $100 well spent.

Scott, you might be interested in my experiences, introduced in the link below:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008H4w

 

Vuescan is still on disk, but I haven't fired it up in months. Perhaps more knowledgeable users 'get' something about this program that has continued to elude me, but tinkering with advanced settings in FilmGet -- the scanner software supplied with my Canon FS4000 -- produced better results for me than Vuescan, with much shorter processing time. You're using a Minolta, so your mileage may vary, so to speak.

 

I invested dozens of hours on Vuescan, and feel that I have little to show for it.

Let's try that again:

 

for the D2H:

 

http://hadari.biz/d2hs/

 

for the d2x:

 

http://hadari.biz/d2x

These links compare high ISO performance:

 

http://hadari.biz/d2hs/

http://hadari.biz/d2x

I read this thread and came away shaking my head that so many heaped abuse upon you simply for asking about a problem. That?s all you did! You?ve got 300 shots to fix, and dared to register dismay that you?ve encountered this issue in a new camera.

 

I?m sorry this happened to you, and sorry that, while feeling understandably frustrated, you would be treated this way online by fellow photographers.

I share your dislike for web sites requiring flash. I had to close out my browser and load a net surfing set-up I rarely use to view the D2X site, which was more trouble than the information was worth.

I've been shooting for several years with an SB-80DX on an F100. The combo works well for me. (Or did until the flash started acting up recently, which was and is a subject for another thread.) I know of no advantages of the SB-800 over the SB-80DX when used with an F100.

 

I use the FP mode regularly when shooting outdoors in bright sunlight with 800 ISO in the camera. I do PJ type shooting, and don't usually have time to plan or set up the shot before clicking the shutter. So, I need to remember a couple of simple rules that will steer me away from disasterous exposures.

 

In FP mode -- for me, in the type of shooting I do -- the main simple rule is: don't get too close. Don't get on top of the subject, or the shot will be ruined.

 

FP is iffy for me -- if I'm not too close, the results are often good, but I much prefer (relatively) predictable 3D Matrix. I use FP when I must, when it's a choice between FP mode flash or no flash at all.

 

Depending on the type of shooting you do, problems using FP mode on an SB-800 -- if this is indeed the case, and I don't know that it is -- would be one argument against the SB-800 for the F100

The MC-33 cable/Holy Moose combo has worked flawlessly for me for 12 K images. Holy Moose calls their product 'Camera Companion.'

 

If you're sure you'll continue shooting film long enough to justify the expense, then this might be a great way to go.

Thanks for sharing that, Lex!

 

I wound up buying an electronics cleaner from Radio Shack (and not the shop where I met Mr. Wonder). I gave the contacts a good cleaning and should find out the next time I'm out shooting if the problem is gone.

Every cloud has its silver lining, perhaps, and in this case my silver lining is pretty large:

 

Had it not been for this irritating flash problem, I wouldn't have posted this question on photo.net

 

Had I not posted, Lex Jenkins and Todd Peach would not have suggested a contact cleaner.

 

Had they not suggested the contact cleaner, I would not have visited a high end electronics shop this afternoon.

 

And had I not visited this shop, I would not have come face to face with a true colossus of the music kingdom: Stevie Wonder!

 

For there he was, at a nearby counter, accompanied by a chaperone.

 

I admit that this is off topic. I can offer no proof that I met him. Still, I will post, and risk deletion.

 

I paid my humble respects, and Mr. Wonder was graciousness personified while fielding praise I'm sure he's heard a thousands times before.

 

For those in need of inspiration, consider this: he has surely earned millions from his music, is famous from New York to the Himalayas, but the *only* reason he (or most anyone else) had to go to that all-business store -- which shall remain nameless, as a courtesy, as he might be a regular there -- was to shop for electronics gear for his work. On a Sunday. In person.

 

I am reminded of a carpet layer I once knew, who said that he met Willie Mays while installing turf at Candlestick Park. According to the carpet layer, Willie Mays was on hand just to watch over the installation.

 

Some successes are well-earned.

Gerald, Guy and Steve, thanks for the additional feedback. I'll keep your tips in mind next time I'm out with the camera.

Christopher, Isaac and Neal, thanks very much for your responses. I feel lucky to be able to share with other photo.net users -- resolving issues like these would be far more difficult without access to such a helpful forum.

 

I have on disk -- believe it or not! -- a database of most of the 12 K images I've taken with the F100, complete with Photo Secretary info for each shot. I just searched through the database for all images taken at a focal of 60 and greater, shot indoors.

 

Sure enough, more of those images are blurred than those snapped with the lens between 28 - 40 focal length. But _some_ are quite sharp, even at 1/15 or 1/20. However, all the sharp photos at a higher focal length were snapped very close to the subject.

 

(I do usually make a special effort to hold the camera still when shooting at slow shutter speeds: holding my breath, bracing elbow against my chest, bracing body against wall or elbow on support, etc.)

 

Neal, what you wrote sounds especially relevant here: that the flash is freezing the action close-up, but that the shutter speed is what stops the action when I'm farther away.

 

Time for some experimentation. Once again, thank you for taking the time to fill me in!

 

I'll ask a secondary question, as I may soon upgrade to digital equipment: does the shutter speed => focal length rule change when dealing with a crop factor of 1.3 or 1.5, typical of digital equipment? I'd guess that the 17 mm lens becomes a 25 mm lens, and that I should then keep the shutter speed above 1/25. But, I don't have any practical experience here.

I'd like more information on the relationship between focal length and

distance to subject and the minimum shutter speed that can be used

with flash.

 

A picture is worth a thousand words; please see the included photo.

 

I have used a Nikon F100 with an SB-80 flash and an autofocus 28-70

f/2.8 ED-IF lens for several years now. I do many indoor close-ups,

three to six feet from the subject, with the SB-80 flash set to

Nikon's 3D Matrix "fill flash" mode. With this setting, I routinely

drag the shutter down to 1/25, 1/20 or even 1/15, and have been quite

happy with the results. The lens is a 28-70, but it's usually at 28 -

40 in these types of shots. Blur is sometimes a problem at 1/15, but

usually not.

 

A few weeks ago, I used these camera settings when farther away from

the subject -- I'd guess about 12 to 15 feet -- and with the lens at

between 50 and 70. The badly blurred results, shown below, were an

unpleasant surprise for me, and a wake up call that I need to go back

and learn something I should have learned a long time ago:

 

There's obviously a relationship between distance to subject and the

minimum shutter speed I can use with flash, while avoiding blur. If a

more experienced photographer can fill me in, I'll be grateful. I'm

guessing that I need to go to higher shutter speeds when the subject

is farther away from me.

 

(Of course, this assumes that the subject is standing still -- and the

fellow pictured was standing still most of the time, although he had a

knack for moving just as my finger went down on the shutter button.)