andys

<p>It's a bit of a thread revival, but I've just plugged my Minolta 5400 elite back in to start an archive process, and found out, as many have that the drivers didn't work with Windows 7 64bit.<br>

Here's what i did to "fix" it.<br>

Plug scanner into USB interface, realize it's got no driver, turn it off.<br>

Install Minolta software from archive driver discs. (v1.1.5)<br>

Find the error message 4 issue.<br>

Google a fix, decide, well i never really liked the Minolta software anyway, so I think I'll try a demo of Vuescan 9. Installed it.<br>

Turn on scanner, Vuescan seems to work.<br>

Went to start up Vuescan from the start menu, clicked Dimage Scan by mistake, and It started up.. looks like the Vuescan software has loaded the correct driver into windows 7 somewhere.<br>

Anyway, it seems to work, i just need to find the films i want to scan in now.</p>

<p>i go and reset the white, black and grey points in photoshop. It's a good idea to take a shot of a colour match card under the same lighting conditions to make this a lot easier, but i seldom do.</p>

<p>Though i might take a look at the suggestions above as they sound a lot less hit and miss.</p>

<p>Not to my knowledge.<br>

You can if you shoot tethered to PC, or you need the TC-80n3 remote.</p>

If you have a laptop and can shoot tethered, the EOS Utility will allow shooting timer sequences that will focus each shot.

 

Not too convienient but it is an option.

A couple of people have put in a reccomendation for the 17-85 is ef-s, I'll just quickly chip in my two penneth,

 

Whilst my 17-85 is an incredibly useful lens in the focal length range, and having IS, i find it's not a patch on the optical characteristics of either of the two 24-85's I own, and would not swap out a 24-85 for the 17-85 IS.

 

You have the same lenses I have made use of for years, and the only short comings I found was the lack of a wide option for the 1.6x crop. Personally I would add a super wide, the canon is 10-22 is the i thnk the best choice, or an alternative like the sigma (hopefully you can find a good one).

I spent many years using an EOS 5 with the vertical grip (no batteries in that grip for some unknown marketing reason), and last year I took the plunge and bought a 40D without the grip.

 

I've found that when shooting portrait, I'm now very poor at getting my horizons straight, so a grip might be way to help me out ;)

Yes, and No.

 

Some of the EF-s lenses are not really up to a good standard (as are many ef lenses). Others, such as the 17-55 2.8 are top class.

 

I think that Canon took the EF-s route are it's easier and cheaper to make a subset of lenses for the smaller sensors. It's also a decision that all other manufacturers have come to (I think?), so it can't really be a bad one.

 

There are some design differences, in that the rear element of the EF-s lenses protrude further into the camera body, that mean that the EFps lenses could hit the mirror if mounted on an EF body (hence the different mount).

 

Personally I'm happy with that decision as it gives me access to wider angle lens equivelents.

Personally, I would not take a longer telephoto - unless you are looking at some wildlife in a serious manner.

 

I would take 2 lenses at the most, and more likely, only 1. My choice for travel is a 17-85 IS. though i might also consider the 17-55 2.8 IS.( though it is a bit short on the long end for a single lens solution) It's a bit slow, though the IS helps, but it has enough coverage to be a one lens solution.

 

If you are prepared to change lenses reasonable often, I would also look at the 24-105 F4.

 

Personally, I don't like switching lenses a lot. And when I'm backpacking I like to travel as light as possible.

My personal preference is for the 40D over the 400D. We have one of each and the 40D feels like a purposeful tool with everything to hand. The 400D is capable of excellent results, but for me, it takes more work.

Hi,

 

I'll address one point that seems to have been left.

 

You say you want to get used to a camera well before you leave, If you are sticking with an EOS camera of a similar quality to you have now, it will be pretty similar in use. There are lots of extra bits and bobs hidden here and there in digital cameras but half of them only relate to jpg shooting. Shoot RAW and you don't need to worry about white balance, sharpness, contrast, etc. YOU get to do all that in Pchop later. (which having mentioned scanning I'm sure you have used similar).

 

So basically, I think you easily have until after any spring announcments to make a decision.

 

Personally I wanted a 5D, but I think that the things offered on the 40D made it very attractive. Sensor cleaning, highlight expansion, 6.5fps, 14bit colour are all things not on the 5D yet.

 

I'm sure that the 5D has the edge in image quality, but I'll be surprised if I ever notice it.

 

People are also suggesting the 5D w/24-105 as a good light travel combo. to be honest, it's not my idea of "light". I would travel with it, but my wife wouldn't even consider lugging it around the world.

 

For me, I went with the 40D w/17-85, my time was basically up and I was fortunate the the availability of the 40D was good when it launched as I had about 2 weeks after buying it before going on honeymoon. FOr you, i would advise you wait a little longer and see if a new model appears. you've waited this long already, whats another few months going to do? (apart from make the current models a bit cheaper)

Sorry, I didn't just use that post to post that picture. What I was going to say was.

 

Enjoy the gig, and go prepared for more that the "Star on Stage" shots. There are probably going to be as many or more interesting shots whilst not looking at the stage and you could get many of those OK with a standard zoom or prime. You say you don't have a lot of money to spend, so don't bother. Take what you have, and shoot with that. If you want an A0 size wall shot of Hannah Montanna, buy a poster.

Sorry to hijack the thread, but just a quick reply. I looked at it a whil ago and one came second hand through my local shop. I took a day to think about it and it went.

 

One thing that does make me think twice about it is the fact it's f4.5 at the long end, and 2.8 at the short. I'm not going to need the wide aperture often at the long end...

 

Having said that, if I see another at the price I saw it, it will snap it up.

For me it depends how far away you are and how big the venue is.

 

The following shot is from miles away at a Killers gig. I knew that whatever kit I took I could buy a better close up print whilst there. My take on it is to try to get some of the atmosphere of the gig... (excuse the lack of any processing...) This was on a compact (Panasonic LX1 at 13mm (not sure what that works out to be!))

It's a wide or long question, and you are the only one who can answer that. Personally I miss wide on the 1.6x sensor (even 17mm is not really wide enough for a one lens carry around).

If you have a 10-22 and a 24-105 you will change lenses a lot.

 

If you have 17-55, you won't be changing anywhere near as much.

 

This may, or may not matter to you, it does to me. I jusr spent a month away with the wife, and had the following lenses, 10-20 (sigma), 24-85, and a 17-85IS. Whilst probably not the best lens for quality, or speed, the 17-85 was the favoured lens for both of us as it always seemed to have the desired focal length to hand. The other two lenses where both useful and used a lot, but lots of shots just got left out because the wrong lens was on at the time and the situation passed before the we could swap.

 

If someone would produce a 17-85 F2.8 IS that would be perfect please (I'll even take a constant F4 as it might make it a little lighter for when the other half wants it).

 

As it is I'm pondering the same question really, one day i think the 2.8, the other day i think f4, but my decision really comes down to the focal lengths on offer. If I want low light, then I'll have to make do with a 50mm 1.8

Have you got mirror lock up engaged? or Live mode?

 

Doesn't really sound like it to me as these are easy to notice. If I set One shot focus, and press the shutter there is negligably delay for the shutter to trip after the focus locks.

To me, it looks like it's not focussing correctly. The focus chart you have posted seesm to be in focus about 6-10mm behind the plane you wanted.

 

I'd get this combination of Lens/Camera looked at.

Hmm, maybe I'm being thick, but that's the settings I have and I still have to use the back panel and not the top panel to see the changes.

I might be wrong here, but I can't find a way to change that to the top plate only.

 

I have my SET button set to quality, and live view off. I can activate live view, quickly as I have that option on a "My Menu" and when it's on the Quality setting is overridden and I have to dip into the appropriate menu to change quality.

 

Personally I wouldn't worry too much about the the battery drain, unless you are a really heavy shooter, it's not a menu I dip into a lot, leave it on RAW or RAW+jpeg,

this is an interesting question, and it seems to me everyone is tackling it wrong.

 

I've just spent a month in Cambodia and Thailand with a 40D, and left my 70-200F4 at home. I didn't regret this at any time. It's a fantastic lens, but the purpose of my holiday was not primarily photography (even though my wife - the holiday was out honemoon - took her 400D too). There was not one occasion where we missed it.

 

What we did take was a EF-s 17-85 IS, a EF 24-85, and a sigma 10-20, and found out that the 24-85 was not really wide enough, and though we had an ultra wide angle (sort of), we didn't use it as much as I thought I would. The IS on the 17-85 was really usefull, much more so than I would have thought.

 

So my reccomendation would be one of the following,

 

EF-s 17-85 IS, if you are a wide angle fan.

EF 28-135 IS, if you prefer a bit more reach.

EF 17-55 f2.8 IS is you have money to burn.

EF 24-105 f4L IS is a pricey alternative too.

 

The sigma 17-7o 2.8-4.5 is a reasonable alternative, as is the Tamron 17-55 2.8 if you want to save some cash.

 

The next time I go I hope to take a EF 17-55 2.8, and leave the 24-85 at home. (Unless someone makes a 15-85 IS f4 L by then - i really miss that extra 3mm on th wide end). We will take he UWA, as on a holiday that is not a wildlife type experience, I don't really need anything longer than a short telephoto.

I have a 5, (and only just stopped using it as a regular body), and it is a fantastically capable piece of kit. Mine still meters acurately in difficult situations AF is fast and acurate, especially in low light. I would go for the 5 above any of the 600 series.

 

I wouldn't be too bothered about the Eye Control Focus, you have 5 points to choose from, and I tend to choose the active point manually. I do leave it active though to use the DoF preview eye control.

 

I think all of the models designated "EOS 5" have Eye control, US models came as A2 and A2E, only the A2E had eye control.

 

For the record my command dial still hasn't shown any signs of failure.

Personally, for this camera neither of these two lenses is wide enough for me, and I would look at the 17-55 2.8 ef-s. (and I am doing).

 

Given the choice of just these two though, I would (I think) go for the 2.8 lens, just for that extra stop...

Bob Atkins has a write up of a similar discussion here

 

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/full_frame_vs_aps-c.html

 

cut and paste.... as I am too tired to do the tag thing..

Hi,

 

You've had loads of advice already, and probably made a decision, but as I have just made a descision almost exaclty the same I thought I'd add my views.

 

I have used an A2E for about the last 10 years, before that a 1000FN. The wife has used a 300V (rebel xti?) fore about 3 years. To go on a honeymoon (from which we returned from last week) we looked at a 400D and 40D, and ended up buying one of each.

 

For me I don't like the way the 400D handles, and if it had been the only choice would not have bought one. The 40D feels much easier to use, everything you need is easy to hand (or can be set to be). For instance, moving the Focus point on the 400D takes long enough to miss a shot, set it to the Hat on the 40D and all points are quickly accessable.

 

The extra speed also helped when chasing shots where speed matters (trying to catch a good Irawady Dolphin shot was tricky on the 400D) Live view, seemed a little gimicky at first, but I actually ended up using it a bit. Good to use for sharp focus on some shots, and to frame shots that would have meant me lying in the muck, or needing a ladder. Having an indication of ISO is usefull too, and I don't like the lack of a top plate on the 400D (i feel powering the LCD for this info is just eating battery power!)

 

I also have quite large hands and find the 400D is just too small and light. Perhaps adding a grip would help, but we don't have one. I actually find the 40D a little small too, but it does feel reassuringly solid.

 

Are the images better - Marginally, but not worth the extra cost for image quality alone.

 

So there you have it. I find the 40D much easier to use and that's why I use it.

Have a look at this page.

 

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/eos3

 

Mr Geenspun took his EOS 3 into some white water a few years ago. He didn't seem to make any complaints.