erick_kyogoku

Hurrah! Thanks for the news Mark.

The site is so fresh that the Rebate PDF isn't properly linked yet.

I too had this problem. Canon service replaced the shutter and all was fine. This was after

just 7 months of ownership.

Pavel, you can see how different CF cards perform with your camera by checking out the <a

href="http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-7699">CF Card

Database</a>. Hope that helps.

If you want a fast card, I think the Sandisk Ultra II is a good choice. I have several of them,

but if you buy today the Sandisk Extreme III has a rebate at B&H Photo Video, follow Chuck's

link.

Thanks Chuck for the link. I wouldn't have know about this good deal and after having a

minor hiccup with the Kingston Elite Pro 2GB CF card I recently bought, I figured Sandisk was

the sure way to go. (All the other CF cards that I still use are Sandisk Ultras and they've never

hiccuped or so much as burped) I'll give my Kingston to a friend. ;-)

I'm curious to see what kind of "carrying case" the Sandisk Extreme comes with. The recovery

software included with the Extreme is also useful to have, I once had to save photos that I

accidentally "formatted" over before transferring them to my Mac. I had Lexar software then

and though the resulting files were ugly, it worked.

I recently bought a Kingston Elite Pro 2GB CF Card, based on low price and decent speed

(according to Galbraith's CF Card DB). It's my first non-Sandisk CF card in years and in terms

of speed it's in line with my expectations: perhaps 1/3 slower than my Sandisks, though

acceptable as I'm not a sports shooter. What worried me was that after filling it to near

capacity I could no longer review more than a few photos in-camera. That is, I push "play"

and I can scroll back only about half a dozen images before the images "flip" back to my

most recent photo. However, I can "play" and scroll forward and see all of my images this

way. This happened after taking 262 photos, all but two of them RAW. Surely this isn't

supposed to happen. After deleting a few botched images I was again able to scroll

backwards through my photos. Any idea to the causes or an assessment of how concerned I

should be? Kind of wish I'd paid more for the Sandisk now...

Hi Bryan,

I'm sorry to hear about your "scratch," but don't despair yet. I caused a minor muck-up

when I first bought a sensor brush from Visible Dust. Evidently I had more than dust on

my sensor and something with the constitution of tree sap botched up my sensor. I wrote

to Visible Dust and they recommended their sensor clean product. I ordered it and they

were kind enough to send an extra brush and chamber cleaner to work through my

problem. (Kudos to them) Their product works as advertised. If it isn't a scratch then I

think you might have luck with:

http://www.visibledust.com/

Hurrah, John! I cheered when I read your above response: why do people even bother

responding if only to tell you that you don't need or should not use a filter? Every time a

person asks about a filter on this forum a pack of trolls comes out and denounces their use,

even if that's not what the question asks. I use B+W filters, they're a little more expensive

but the brass rings are easier to unscrew. My Canon lens manuals recommend using filters

to make them weather sealed. I've thrown out a number of filters once they became too dirty

... most notably after a dusty trip through Tibet and Nepal. Every time I shoot near the ocean

I get sprays of sea moisture on the filters: better them than on the lens. And one can always

take a filter off if he so desires ...

Take a look at the Epson P-2000. I'd say it's the best that's available now. Yet if you already

have an iPod and are looking for an economical stopgab solution, it may be worth

considering:<p>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/P-2000.shtml

<p>I rely on my P-2000, the only thing I'd prefer would be a P-4000! Good luck.

Christian, I apologize for the trolls above who can do nothing but spew acrimonious drivel,

rather than answer you in a neutral and balanced tone. You asked a straightforward

question and deserve a civilized response. Instead you get this my-way-is-right-and-I'll-

force-it-down-your-throat vitriol from people who insist that you don't use it or a

protective filter for your lens (a question that you didn't even ask). It's too bad that

Photo.net has come to this.<p>

I believe an LCD protector is unnecessary. I never used one with my 10D and I don't recall

ever seeing scratches on its surface. Having said that, I was in Tokyo and there were anti-

glare protectors (made by Shin-Etsu) on sale at Yodobashi, claiming to improve visibility in

certain situations. They were inexpensive and I can say with confidence that they don't

degrade one's LCD viewing. Perhaps it reduces glare, but one can live without it. The

expense is insignificant and using one can't hurt, so if you feel more comfortable using

one, go for it.

It's been mentioned that buying a prime lens is a good path to achieve your goals, and I

think it's worth considering. I use a 20D with that 1.6 crop, and own a 28/1.8, 50/1.4,

and 85/1.8. With the 1.6 magnification the 85/1.8 is just too close for most situations. I

haven't used my 85/1.8 much since switching from film. Actually I use the 28/1.8 more

than the 50. If you want nice bokeh and the "3D" effect you speak of, a prime lens with a

1.4 or 1.8 max aperture will achieve that goal. Having said that, the 24-105L will be a

nice walk-around lens. I'll be buying one myself next month in Japan (it's $900 new

there). I'd back away from the 50/1.8. Optically it'll give you nice photos, but I had one

and gave it away. It's slow to focus and searches so long that you'll miss your shot. The

50/1.4 isn't too expensive. Give the primes a "test drive" before deciding on the 24-105L.

Good luck!

Thank you Jonathan for taking the time to write this thoughtful response. I enjoyed reading

it.

</b></b> Hi Donald! I agree that the photos are nice but I have to clarify that I was not the

photographer. I found the page through reading Japanese photography sites -- and thought

I'd share as I was a bit "wowed" by the industrial beauty. And to imagine all this underneath

the surface hustle and bustle of a major megalopolis!

Thanks Andrew! I'm finding myself increasingly fascinated by the "effects" / performance of

Canon T/S lenses ...

Actually it's written that to create the blur, the photographer has used a hand-made filter

over the lens. But aside from evoking troll sarcasm my question was meant to elicit ideas

from someone who knows how to create this effect: of making images of real city scenes

appear as scale models, as demonstrated in the link. It's not the blur I'm asking about.

Perhaps someone with T/S lens experience can comment? Please no more needless troll

responses.

Looking through a collection of these <a href="http://blog.so-net.ne.jp/photolog/archive/

c22183">images</a> I noticed that most of these photos are taken with a Canon Tilt Shift

lens, and would like to ask if someone can guess how these images are produced. I at first

thought I was looking at small scale models but then realized that these are real scenes taken

in the city. Is it the effect of the T/S lens? I don't think that extremely shallow depth of field

can itself create this effect. Perhaps there's something else, postprocessing among them, at

work here.

</b> This entry is just to undo for subsequent responses your needless bolding. (Will this

forum ever permit editing of messages?)

Thanks Joseph, you're a real prince. Here's the <a href="http://www.g-cans.jp/intro/

07photo/index.html">corrected link</a>. The original had one too many "l"s in html.

I just wanted to share with you a <a href="http://www.g-cans.jp/intro/07photo/

index.htmll">gallery</a> of photos taken in a huge setting: underground Tokyo, lit in

various ways to make beautiful images of industrial objects. It probably isn't a site that

English readers would come across so I decided to share it here. Enjoy

Please respond to my above plea for clarification and permit me to add a related question.

Would this photo be called <a href="http://www.g-cans.jp/intro/07photo/

18.html">backlit</a>? Or is there a more precise and accurate term that we can use. This

differs from the question I ask above as there's no silhouetted subject. Thanks.

I'd like to ask for help in clarifying a term as it applies to photgraphy: backlit and

backlighting. It seems logical to me that a subject that is backlit is something that is

<i>itself</i> illuminated and thus "lit" up from a light source coming from behind it, as

seen in this <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?

photo_id=2938035">example</a>. However, is there a more precise term for when a

darkened subject is rendered a silhouette by a light source coming from behind. It seems

counterintuitive to call the subject "backlit" if the subject itself is not being lit -- and

instead cast in shadow while only its surrounding is lit. Is there a less confounding term

for silhouette lighting than "backlighting?" Perhaps it'd be more accurate to define a

subject as "backlit" if it's fully or partially <i>translucent</i>, even if only at its edges,

and its details are revealed with transmissive light that comes from behind. Many thanks.

(PS What is the term for subjects that are illuminated only at its edges by this

"backlighting"? Such as a photo of a "backlit" person whose hair captures the light and

reveals slight details. "Edge glow?")

After reading your recommendations and the links provided by Luis I ended up ordering a

Monaco XR Pro. Though the LaCie seems to be pretty darn good. Look forward to using it

(and the ease of mind associated with having a properly set monitor)

20D + L lens kits actually exist from retailers in Japan. Well, I think it's probably a "kit"

arranged by the shop, not a 20D + 17-40L delivered in one box. Might I suggest getting the

20D from some place like B&H and looking for stackable coupons and specials to get a good

price from Dell for the lens?

Arthur, I sold my old 10D for $500 to a friend back in March. I'd just bought a 20D and

she came over from Italy to meet me for a tour of Japan together (thus she could compare

prices in the Mecca of cameras). These cameras cost a lot more in Italy than in Japan! I

knew I could get $700+ on eBay back in America but preferred to sell it at a discount to a

friend. It was in very good condition and she felt at ease buying it used from me. You can

do quite a lot with a 10D. I took these photos in <a href="http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/

~eridium/greece/" title="Industrial">Greece</a> using a 10D and the 28-135 IS lens that

you already have along with a 28/1.8 and 50/1.4. I wish I'd had a 17-40L during the two

years that I lived in Europe, and eventually bought one along with my 20D. It's an

excellent lens that will help cover your wide-angle shots. That said, you're in good shape

with the 20-35 that you already own. Five months after I sold my 10D to my friend she

continues to thank me for the "gift" and I think you're likely to be just as enthused if you

buy this 10D from your friend. Jump on the 10D right now and thank your friend

profusely later.

Speaking as a person who used to build IBM PCs and was a fan of Windows in the old days,

I can testify to the fact that switching to Mac is perhaps the smartest thing I've ever done.

I've persuaded many friends and family to do so, and all of them have been exceedingly

happy with their switch. Macs have the higher entry price. Of course they also have

higher quality components across the board, but in terms of total cost of ownership Macs

provide better value. My dad just junked his P4 Dell from 2002 and replaced it with a

processor upgraded PowerMac G4 that I bought in 1999 and runs better than the 2002 P4

Dell. He was sick of malware, security updates, and the experience of using a piece of

junk every day. Within a year Apple will swich to Intel chips, but if you need a computer

now, get a Mac. I just bought a G5 iMac two weeks ago and aside from being a work of

art, it's a dream to use. It will do anything a PC can do but in a refined and elegant way.

Compare this to driving a BMW versus a Ford Fiesta. They'll both take you from point A to

B but there is something more to the experience. Yeah, it's that nice on a Mac. By far the

most compelling reason to switch is the Mac OS. Solid, elegant, dependable, and easy. In

other words everything that a Windows machine is not. One has to own a Mac for a few

months to understand this... Good luck, you won't regret the switch! But wait until the

Paris Macworld Expo in late September. We expect there to be speed-bumped and

otherwise cheaper or improved versions of the Powerbook released at that show. Hope

that helps.

I had a 50/1.8 and gave it to a friend who was starting out in photography. I replaced it with

a 50/1.4 and the difference for me was tremendous. The loud, slow fishing that I had with

the 1.8 is replaced with an authoratative quick and smooth auto-focus. In low light my 1.8

used to search for focus to the point where it was almost unbearably annoying. The 1.4

instead has a smooth, precise action. I agree that the 50/1.8 is a good value, and you can

make good photos with it. Yet in terms of handling and experience it really drags. I've been

using the 50/1.4 on 1.6 crop 10/20Ds almost as a replacement to the 85/1.8 that I used

back in the days of film. If your considering a 50mm prime for long term use and

investment, may I kindly suggest the 50 f/1.4?