gregory_nicholson

<p><img src="http://static.bhphoto.com/images/images150x150/765444.jpg" alt="" width="150" height="150" /><br>

Hey that's pretty cool, I'll keep it mind.</p>

<p>Well I'll be dipped, I reloaded the firmware and cleared all camera/custom functions and sure enough it is now working normally. Thanks for everyone's help.</p>

<p>I haven't tried reloading the firmware yet, when I get the chance I'll do that and maybe I can report back that fixed it.</p>

<p>Sarah, I like the 40D too, thanks for confirming it is a good camera.</p>

<p>I read a few different times the 7D has exposure problems when using an adapted lens and one of my favorite hold-overs from film era is an Ed Mika adapted FDn 24 F2. The 60D doesn't have a PC terminal and I'm still using a manual flash on a butterfly bracket. So (for me) that leaves the 40D and 50D.</p>

<p>I hate to use a broken camera, it's my intuition that would lead to another failure. What if the 50D has the same 'lemon' rate as the 40D, then my chances of having a reliable camera are equal to repairing the 40D. I guess I'll send the 40D to Canon again and try real hard to forget how much money I have in it.</p>

 

<p>I tried saving TV or M to C2 or C3 and it worked just like the mode dial was set on either TV or M rather than C2/C3. I tried it without a lens and the mirror raises but the shutter doesn't open when set to a 1 second exposure. After 30 seconds the shutter returns and no image is recorded.</p>

<p>Nilantha, the camera has the latest firmware 1.1.1, is it common to reinstall the latest firmware to correct a problem?</p>

<p>I read a lot of warnings about using third party lenses with EOS cameras, I have used the Sigma 10-20 F4-5.6 with this camera almost 100% of time. I wonder if that caused the err99 after 3800 exposures and now this problem at exposure count 4100? All is not lost though I can still use C1 (AV mode) and with the rear wheel as an exposure compensation is basically like using M exposure mode.</p>

<p>The final question is how reliable this model of camera has been for the majority of owners, should I cut my losses and get a more reliable camera for the Sigma 10-20?</p>

<p>I don't want to abandon the small format camera because I have gotten some really terrific shots with it and the Sigma 10-20 at F22 and F25 that I cannot duplicate with my 5D and 28-70 when attempting large DOF landscape photos.</p>

<p>Can anyone recommend the 50D or 60D as a more reliable camera? I'm a little hesitant to buy another new camera from Canon right now and KEH has some attractive prices on those two in ex+ condition.</p>

<p>After taking your advice I've concluded that with the mode dial set to C1 I can register my quality/function settings but the camera is in AV mode. I cannot seam to find instructions on how to make C2 or C3 either TV or M as the default exposure mode, not that it would keep me from using the camera but it would be nice to use TV on occasion.<br>

<br /> This was kind of a brain twister for me as I never had the EOS film camera experience, I went from Canon F-1N match needle metering to EOS digital and never bothered learning anything beyond the metering and WB settings. Thanks for your reply it helped a lot knowing I can still use the camera.</p>

<p>I bought the camera new in '08 and used it very little. In 2012 it developed the ERR99 code and I sent the camera to Canon for this repair, the shutter count was 3850. As of yesterday when the exposure is set to either AV, TV or M the camera selects a 30 second exposure and does not record an image. The last time I used the camera it was very cold out but I only took a few shots in my backyard. The camera was set to AV and I don't think I have ever used it set on anything besides AV or M.</p>

<p>The camera works normally in P, C1, C2, C3 and the picture style settings. I reset the camera by removing the batteries but that did not resolve this issue. If anyone has had this problem or has any suggestions I would appreciate any advice before I send the camera off to Canon again. Or do you think the camera is too old to spend any money on and I should use it on a setting that will work? Thanks for reading my post.</p>

<p>Hi Mark, I have a lens that is discontinued that I think is just fantastic. It is the EF 80-200 F2.8L. I also have the EF 85 F1.8 and the EF 200 F2.8L II and this lens is equally sharp with equally high contrast. I am no longer a pixel peeper so I can't rate them dot for dot. Some lenses I know you have experience with, the FDn 80-200 F4L and the Tokina AT-X 80-200 F2.8 in FD mount, This lens is better than those two by "no contest". The down side of the lens is the rear element is right at the back of the lens so no Canon brand teleconverter will work. I did try a friends' Tamron teleconverter and the results were much poorer than the EF 200 F2.8L and the Canon 1.4x. Hope this helps </p>

The 200 f/2.8 SSC or the first version of that lens in the new mount is not out of your price range if you are willing to shoot a lens that has brassing on the front of the hood. >$100 on ebay. 200 f/4 is good, and good with either tubes or a Canon 500D close-up lens, but that close-up lens costs more than the 200 f/4. I say skip the Vivitar 200 f/3, lower build quality-especially the mount, lower resale value, oddball open aperture number, for no final image improvement over the 200 f/2.8 SSC. You're right about the Series 1 name, the original stuff was real good, from former Nikon engineers, they then moved efforts into marketing like sean-john sunglasses. They figure-who cares about the performance as long as it says p-diddy on the side.

Peter McDonough , dec 05, 2006; 10:12 p.m. "50mm f/1.9 Alpa Macro-Switar glued on to Canon bellows."

 

Please tell me you're kidding!! I had a fancy for one of these about two years ago, I finally found one, my final bid was $485. The auction ended at over $800, 815 I think. I don't know what they're selling for these days, probably still way high...

My guess is; at f/5.6 the zoom is stopped down one f/stop, while the prime 35 is stopped down three stops. Stopped down one stop shows only a small fraction of the aperture blades. Stopped down three stops shows half the aperture blade. This may be more obvious and cause the highlights to be larger. Maybe?

Genuine Carl Zeiss lenses should not be confused with Carl Zeiss Jena lenses that are Zeiss in name only. That lens would sell for and have half the performance of the Canon FD 80-200 f/4L.

Try shooting wide-open to minimize the star shaped highlights caused by the lens's diaphragm blades. Your 35 f/2 is very good at f/2. Other lower priced FD lenses (new mount) that I personally know of and are very good wide open include; 24 f/2, 28 f/2.8, 50 f/1.4, 50 f/3.5, 85 f/1.8, 100 f/2.8, 100 f/4, 135 f/2, 135 f/2.5, 200 f/4. Of course the L series lenses are designed to be excellent wide open such as the 24 f/1.4L, 50 f/1.2L, 85 f/1.2L and 300 f/2.8L.

I have experience with both versions of the Sigma 21-35 f/3.5-4.2 lens.

 

The early version is a two touch zoom with 67mm filter threads and dates from the eighties. I borrowed that lens from a friend when I had a Minolta MD outfit. That version has mediocre performance and I would avoid the lens. In 1992 Sigma offered an auto-focus version and changed the manual focus version to the same optical formula. That manual focus version is a one-touch zoom with 77mm filter threads. That lens has excellent optics and is the one I have personally owned and shot many frames with.

 

If it means anything to you, www.photodo.com rates the AF Sigma 21-35 f/3.5-4.2 a point higher than Nikon's 20-35 f/2.8 ED and Canon's EF 20-35 f/2.8L. That's a high level of performance for $100 or so for the same lens in manual focus. The lens also makes a nice companion to the Tokina AT-X 80-200 f/2.8 SD as they will both use 77mm filter threads. Those two lenses along with the mechanical F-1, a 77mm polarizer and 77mm 81A warming filter will give a pretty capable travel kit.

 

I don't have any experience with the Sigma 28-70 f/2.8.

The chrome nose 100 f/2.8 lens has the SC (Spectra) coating. Malcolm, did that 300 1:5.6 lens have a green stripe like an "L" lens on the front barrel? Early Fluorite FL-F lens maybe. Strange you could not see a small amount of tint.

 

Here is a scan from a 1970 sales catalog "The Supreme SLR System" from the dawn of the "chrome nose" era. The page illustrates early (unmarked as such) 55 f/1.2 and 55 f/1.2 AL (ASPH) lenses received the SSC coating. The rest are SC coated. From my understanding both types are multi-coatings but the SSC is a more complex formula.

 

 

 

 

 

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3582659-lg.jpg">

Not a repair but a diagnosis of sorts .... drag a magnet across the bottom of the camera. If the shutter releases at least you know what it may need and a simple CLA will take of this problem. Then you should be able to wind the film advance lever if it does.

 

Sometimes you can take the bottom plate off and clean the electro-switch with alcohol. Don't go any further, camera repair is not based on whether you are willing to sacrifice a camera .... most likely you will. If you're still curious get a junk camera from a pawn shop and have at it. If you don't have the dexterity to deal with the very tiny jeweler screws then of course there is no hope for success.

Wrap the lens in tin foil without caps, cut the front and rear element portions away with a toothpick and sit the lens on a window sill that gets strong midday light. Point the front element at the sun. The sunlight will remove the yellow cast over time. Periodically inspect the lens by looking through it on to a piece of computer paper, when the color of the paper is the same from through the lens as it is surrounding the lens you're done. It took about three week or a month for mine to clear up. I live in Michigan so if you live in Colorado or another sunny place the time could be less. Of coarse, if you photoshop and print your own pictures this is unnecessary as you can easily remove the yellow/green cast with any number of PS's color management tools.

Thank you both for your responses. They work like a dream.

First off, I have about 12 months of self-study using Photoshop CS.

I never plan to use the program professionally just for my personal

photos. Anyway, here is my question. Start with, open image > apply

medium-heavy dust & scratch filter > take snap-shot in the history

palette > select history brush to remove dust specks, etc.

 

This is what I think I did in but I can't seem to duplicate it. I

switched back to the original document in the layers palette and

added a quick darker levels layer so I could see my history brush

against my medium gray background. I switched back to the history

palette and finished the dust/scratch removal with ease. When I

finished that process I went back to the layers palette and drug

that darkening levels layer to the trash can.

 

I opened the next photo to do the same thing. When I tried to use

the history brush tool I got a warning the history brush does not

have a corresponding layer...which makes sense. If I create the

darkening layer before this dust removal process the layer gets

automatically deleted when I click on the original document (in the

history palette) to edit.

 

I'm not trying to duplicate what I did but simply darken the tool so

I can see it against a neutral gray background. No book I have

deals with darkening a tool or changing its color and I couldn't

find it in the threads here. Thanks for any input.

Minolta Maxxum 7000. Pre dates the T90 and of similar design. It also includes tons of useless features that do nothing in terms of producing a better and more telling image or offer anything more than allowing you to skip your responsibility as a photographer. This was a sad time in photographic history and we should be mourning our loss not praising these soulless automated robotic replacements for the best exposure system in the worldﾅ..your brain. Had the buying public not jumped all over these pos's then maybe we would have the opportunity to own a digital SLR with center-weighted match-needle metering and manual film advance. Thanks a lot a-holes. :~)

One more bit for comparison purposes, equivilent angle of view for 6x6 medium format lenses;

 

30mm focal length 86 degree angle of view

 

35mm focal length 77 degree angle of view

 

40mm focal length 69 degree angle of view

 

If you've ever priced these lenses for a Hasselblad camera you'll see why it's worth the trouble of shifting/stitching/added time.

Adding, the Kiron 1.5x does not have a protruding front element like the Canon 1.4x. Also, I use a simple program, Panaview Image Assembler, to stitch the scanned slides together before Photoshop work. This is not necessary just easier than enlarging the canvas and lining up and pasting a second or third image.

For starters, the TS 35 lens can be used with a teleconverter

without severe color fringing or loss of resolution. I do this,

because of the resulting larger negative, when a wide angle

landscape photo will be enlarged past 12x18.

 

When combining the two (or three) negatives I get:

 

TS 35 on its own, angle of view 89 degrees or equivalent 22mm,

combined negative width 64mm (7mm wider than a 6x6 medium format

negative)

 

24 f/2 on its own, angle of view 84 degrees or equivalent 24mm,

negative width 36mm

 

TS 35 plus 1.5x Kiron, angle of view 80 degrees or equivalent 26mm,

combined negative width 70mm (13mm wider than a 6x6 medium format

negative)

 

28 f/2 on its own, angle of view 75 degrees or equivalent 28mm,

negative width 36mm

 

TS 35 plus 2x-B, angle of view 72 degrees or equivalent 30mm,

combined negative width 84mm (over three inches!) note; a center

image is required because the image edge will actually shift past

center.

I have a FD 24 with loose pins and while the focusing action is not great it still focuses precisely and the optics are unaffected. In 2001 I bought these rubber pin covers, for a 35-70, from Canon USA parts in New Jersey. I suspect you already called Canon and had no luck so you'll need to duplicate the rubber covers. Some ideas are surgical tubing or the latex product Plastisol. Plastisol is used for rubber coating tool handles like pliers, it may work but I'd try the tubing first. You can also search ebay for a parts lens. The only reason the lens is no longer worth having it professionally repaired is because you dissembled it, most likely the repair cost is now double.

Wow is right, a museum piece. I wonder how a guy without an ebay history of selling camera equipment got his hands on something like that.