john_doherty

<p>I use the x100; it has both OVF and EVF. I think that if someone has never used a rangefinder camera's OVF it wouldn't be missed. I, on the other hand, grew up with OVFs and I'm having a hard time adjusting to EVF. The optical finder is much brighter and natural looking. It is also better for me when shooting events because it reacts instantly to my change of framing. The EVF has just enough reaction lag to discombobulate me. However, I'm learning how valuable the EVF is for precise framing.<br>

I am slowly using the EVF more often.<br>

I face the usual ugly trade-off when deciding to add the X-pro or the X-E1. The X-Pro has both finders, but the X-e1 has an onboard flash. ( The flash on the X100 is an absolutely incredible fill lit. It is never wrong!) I will get one of these cameras soon. I look forward to other posters' opinions.<br>

John D.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have used the 430 EX II for about two years. A very capable flash for the close-in event work I do. I purchased the 580 EX II about three weeks ago. I can't believe how much I've learned about photography in just three weeks!<br>

If you can possibly afford the 580, I would strongly recommend it. Using two lights may not be important to you just now, but it will be if you are using a softbox setup and the wireless control functionality alone is worth stretching.</p>

<p>Sarah, very good article. I'm glad I found it!</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for taking the time to respond. I was hoping to get lucky when I do the body replacement. Oh well!<br>

I think I will continue with my current work-around: put my glasses on the top of my head, say a silent prayer, and trust the AF sensor. This technique is cheaper than most of the alternatives mentioned and there is no longer a downside. Once upon a time I would get hair oils on my lenses. This is no longer a worry.<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>I wear glasses and can't see the entire frame in my 5D viewfinder unless I move my eye around. The specs say the eye point is 20mm. Specs for the 5d Mkii say the eye point is 21mm. Does this make enough difference to see the entire frame in the 5Dii ? Thanks.</p>

<p>I would like to see Canon spend some development money on their mid-priced primes, 21mm, 24mm, and especially the 35mm F/2. These lenses haven't been updated for nearly 20 years; build quality, USM, and tweaks to the optical construction would be welcome. These older lenses formulas must be lagging behind the resolution capability of the newer sensors.</p>

<p>Jamie,</p>

<p>If your primary motive is to use manual focusing, I think you will be disappointed with Canon's 35mm/F2, but happy with Canon's 28mm/F1.8.<br>

The 35 is old AF technology (1993?) without USM or full-time manual focusing. The manual focus ring would never be described as buttery smooth. Optical quality at F5.6 never disappointed me.<br>

The 28MM F1.8 has the modern USM with full-time manual focusing. The focus ring action is very nice. I have been extremely happy with the results on crop cameras. Perhaps on your FF, the lens' weak points would be more obvious. ALthough DPP can fix both the vignetting and CA problems.<br>

Don't overlook Olympus offerings. I have a collection of 24, 28,35 Shift, 50 lens. All are readily available (F2 apertures are a little harder to find), very cheap, beautiful manual focusing action and have the Olympus characteristic I call "Bright." One drawback with 3rd party lenses is that you will not have full exif information. The new Zeiss lenses do have aperture information recorded.</p>

<p>I own the 35 f2, 50 1.4, and 85 1.8. The vast majority of my shooting is small groups- 2 or more people- indoors, with flash at f5.6 usually. The 35 is perfect for this on the 5D an occasionally on a 50D. It is an excellent lens; a workhorse for me and I have been very happy with it. At wider apertures, vignetting does become an issue, but now of course this is easily fixed in post processing.<br>

I would be the first in line to buy an update if Canon were ever to get around to the 35MM; it would benefit from USM of course and I would like a little better build quality although I must say I have not had any issues with my copy.</p>

<p>Although I use it less often, the 50 1.4 has been a flawless lens. I would question negative reviews on this len's optics.</p>

<p>Charles, I think you are right on both counts. I'm shocked with the 18-55 IS just as Dick was. It may not feel like much, but it takes very nice pix. The distortion at the 18mm setting is a bit much when I have groups near the edge of the frame. I also agree that the Rebel models (at least those over 10MPs)would make good back-ups. I didn't consider them long though because of the ergonomics issues. The 50D is almost identical to the 5D so I avoided some confusion with my choice.</p>

<p>Nguyen Son recently posted a question about picking a back-up camera for his 5D. He and I seem to be involved in different types of photography work, so rather than hijacking his thread, I'll tell my story here.<br>

I shoot for a small organization's magazine; photos are mostly posed or environmental portraits of individuals or small groups of people. ( I think you could categorize this work as events or environmental portraiture.) I need a body with sufficient pixels for the 8X10.5 covers at 300+ppi. I have been using a 5D for 4 years. I love it of course. It's perfect: beautiful files, good ergonomics, good functionality. However, it's more like a computer than a mechanical camera. It's not going to last the 15 years that I got from my AE-1. I was growing increasingly worried about not having a back-up body.<br>

When I started shopping, I had two goals: at least the pixels of the 5D and making some movement up the technology path. There were 4 bodies available to choose from.<br>

40D seemed to be highly regarded. From were I was starting, it was a move up the technology curve, but it was a step backwards in pixel count. My margin of error would be razor thin.<br>

5D MkII would be my first and obvious choice. It would be a massive gain in Canon technology, but it was beyond my budget.<br>

7D sounded fabulous, but it was barely out and little actual information was available about the new autofoucus system. 18 Megapixels and weather sealing would be nice, but not necessary. It came down to paying $600 more for video capability. I know that is a gross simplification, but that's how I evaluated the choice for my purposes.<br>

50D was the best choice for me: cost just over $900, improved technology with a new CPU/software, larger LCD screen, dust reduction, very familiar ergonomics, shared battery with 5D, 15 Megapixels. I bought it.<br>

I'm happy with the 50D. <br>

One problem area though is adding the 1.6 crop factor to my bag. I use the EF 35, 2.0, 50mm 1.4, and 85mm 1.8 lenses. The 50 and 85 make the transition to the crop camera nicely. The 50 is an excellent portrait lens; the 85 gives me a little more reach which is nice to have in the bag. Duplicating the moderate wide angle field of the 35mm is a problem. Canon's 24mm 2.8 is from the same 1990's time frame as the 35mm. Both could use an updating for USM and tweaks to the optics. I have temporarily solved the problem with an 18-55 IS 3.5. It's a cheap lens, but it seems very nice. Same Canon color temp, very good resolution and lack of distortion in the mid ranges. Seems to me there have been advances in Canon's zooms. Of course I haven't actually used one since 1985. The IS feature holds great promise for me since I'm a little older and my hands shake a bit more than in the good old days!<br>

Hope this is of some help to anyone trying to make a decision.</p>

<p>I have been fairly successful in avoiding the use of flash for many years. I now find myself in a position where I need to shot headshots and small group portraits indoors. I've added a Canon 430 EXII to my Canon 5D. The harsh shadows cast are unacceptable. This seems to be a problem particularly when I use the portrait orientation. I added an Omnibounce defuser: A little better shadows but not good enough.<br>

What's next? Do I need an extension cord? A bracket? Do these accessories actually help reduce shadows? What's best? I'd prefer to spend less than $1Millon and have no experience with any of the products out there.<br>

Thanks.</p>

W. Xato,

 

Thanks very much. I wasn't familiar with this web site. It was very helpful.

Godfrey is right; it's the photographs that are important. don't throw-out the photographs. These digital cameras are really just computers. You will want/need to get a new one every 3-4-5 years.

 

I think it can be healthy to clean out the equipment locker every so often. When you're ready to shoot again you will feel unfettered by legacy gear.

Konrad,

 

I have no idea if the MTF's are calculated. This is what I'm getting at with my original post. The charts have so little explaination and so litttle consistency that they seem to me almost useless.

 

Paul,

The MTF charts at four-thirds.org are lifted straight from Olympus.

I've spent a couple of hours recently studying the MTF charts on the Olympus site, thinking all the while that I

was getting smarter by the minute. I had, for example come to the conclusion that the 35mm Macro lens has

considerably better contrast and resolution than the 50mm Macro; and only half the price! Wahoo! Maybe I should

by two before the rest of you figure this out.

 

But then I noticed a little detail. These charts are not reflecting consistent conditions. The chart for the

50mm for example shows performance wide open at infinity. The chart for the 35mm doesn't say what the conditions

are. And there are variations in the charts for other lenses as well.

 

Of what use are these charts? Is it possible to compare MTF performance of various lenses? Has anyone found a

better source than Olympus's site?

 

I'm using the E 420 with the 25mm pancake. I'm very impressed.

Rich,

 

Thank you. The Camera Labs test is particularly good.

 

I'm surprised by the barrel distortion results. I would have expected better from a "standard" lens.

I haven't been able to find a formal review of this lens, probably because it's so new. Has anyone had an

opportunity to critique their images from this lens yet?

 

The MTF graph on the Olympus site shows very good/excellent performance stopped down; sort of average results

wide open. How do you find resolution and contrast? Are you noticing any distortion or CA characteristics that

you could share?

 

Thanks,

John

Peter,

 

I can't lie; I have a case of GAS pure and simple. There isn't a thing about the 5D that I would complain about , just a nagging doubt that I may be missing something.

 

I'm very impressed and grateful for the candid, impartial responses. I think I will "misplace" my checkbook for a few months and spend the time looking at the web sites and software you have all suggested. Thank you everyone.

John

After 30 years with the Canon system, I've decided that I would like to take a

look at Nikon. During the "Digital Era" I have been doing exterior

architectural shooting almost exclusively. I use Canon's 5D SLR and their

tilt/Shift lens particularly the 24mm TS-E. The barrier for me in trying Nikon

has been both the lack of full frame cameras and the lack of a PC lens that was

appropriately wide enough for my subjects. Nikon has recently removed both these

objections.

 

I would like to scratch the itch I have always felt for Nikon and take a baby

step before doing anything drastic. My goals are:

1. get acquainted with the ergonomics, viewfinders and user interface on Nikon DSLRs

2. Teach myself the RAW workflow that might be unique to Nikon.

3. Find the internet sites and forums that Nikon users rely on.

4. Spend as little as possible to accomplish my first 3 goals.

 

What I would appreciate is your opinions on

1. What inexpensive body might best approximate the feel and interface of the

full frame D3 ( I'm thinking the D80);

2.Which wide angle prime lens offers the least distortion for architectural

shots ( I'm thinking the 20 or 24mm - neither of the 2 older PC lens give a wide

enough FOV on the small sensor for my subjects and I don't want to spend $2,000

for the new 24 T/S lens yet); 3. What, if any software do you use to supplement

Photoshop in dealing with RAW files.

4. Besides Photo.net, what web sites focus on Nikon. ( I've found Ken Rockwell,

but I'm hoping there are others).

 

Thanks,

Joe,

 

Thanks for the info. John

Michael,

 

Thanks for hauling out your gear. I appreciate it.

John

herb,

 

I'm using DPP 3.4.1 with Photoshop Elements 6. I can't use the "transfer to Photoshop" command either. The DPP Help section says that this function works only with PS7 or higher and specifically not with Elements. I'm just as happy since I open the raw file with elements and automatically get to Adobe Camera Raw converter which is terrific. The DPP transfer function automatically converts to 16 bit Tiff files.

Is anyone using one of the TS-E lenses on a 40D body? I'm wondering if the

shift knob is obstructed by the overhanging prism when rotating the lens.

 

I use the TS-E 24 on a 5D. Since having the lens modified to put shift and tilt

in the same plane, my lens rotates 180 degrees in only one direction which

means that the shift knob would pass under the 40D's prism.

 

Thanks.

Michael,

 

Thanks. I get it now.

Chris,

 

Nice photo! Clever use of the sky to draw the eye down to the shed. I also get light fall-off in the corners when shifting. I'm usually at 5.6-8 which seems like the sweet spot for this lens. It's been easy enough to fix with PS or cropping in extreme cases. The vignetting I was talking about is the appearance of the actual filter holder in the frame. This happens beginning at about the 8th mark on the shift index scale.

 

Colin,

I've never handled the Lee gear. Is the profile of the wide angle adapter ring significantly lower than the regular adapter rings? There is a significant difference in the price isn't there.

 

Michael,

 

I've seen references in the Forum before about elastics but have never been able to visualize how this would work. Could you describe this a bit more?