jeremy_craig

There is admittedly trade-off you should be aware of... common consensus is that the 3/1V layout is the way it is to create both better weather-sealing, and to also help avoid inadvertently changing meter/exposure modes (you can't accidently switch modes with a 1V); both of which things make them appealing to "pros".

I actually find the 7/7E more easily adjusted with an eye to the viewfinder. With the click-stop knobs, one can be looking thru the viewfinder and adjust metering and exposure modes by turning a dial with just one hand.

 

The 1V requires pushing and holding a certain button (or combination of 2 buttons) and scrolling the top wheel -- takes 2 hands (not 1 like the 7) and IMO therefore more difficult to do without looking at the top panel's LCD (ie. with eye away from the viewfinder).

to Puppy's point. I easily envision single-use digital cameras (albeit without LCD screens) within the next 5-10 years.

Taking your question literally, if the Sun is actually in the picture, the hood is probably doing no good at all. If however, outside your scene AND wherein the hood is blocking the direct sun's rays from striking the front element then it is doing some good.

Couple thoughts / observations/ questions:

 

1. Difference in sizing... I believe a zoom lens' focal lengths are generally only true at an infinity focus. someone else may be able to corroborate this.

 

2. Contrast difference... To me it generally appears that the 17-40 subject was less exposed than the 20mm. Rob, did you shoot at camera's metered reading for both lenses, or determine metered reading from just one lens and/or handhelf meter, and then manually set same exposure for both lenses. Some zooms actually require slightly more light than a prime as there's more glass thru which light is passing, so a 1/3-1/2 stop difference might be all that's happening here.

 

3. How about a test at f8-f11?

My stock answer to these kinds of questions always generally points to the inevitability(?) that photography will end up completely dominated by digital cameras -- probably within the next 5-10 years. Within 10 years, film cameras will be quaint.

 

So... that said, you may want to not only evaluate the 2 bodies you're now considering (btw, I love my Elan7e), but also take a look at what Canon and Nikon are doing with their digital SLRs, because you will likely want whatever accessories and lenses you buy over time, to work with the same-brand of Digital SLR that you may purchase down the road. IMO, Canon seems to be the market leader in DSLRs and seems bent on staying there, but you should do your own investigating.

Sell the Tamron 28-80 and get a Canon 24-85mm. The better quality and wider range should suit your needs.

I understood your point. But I don't think the 10D necessarily mis-metered your gray card; I think entirely possible it correctly metered your gray card to provide you with a properly exposed shot.

 

My point is that the ISO-naming on the 10D is wrong, NOT that the Metering is returning unuseable shots.

 

John, my only worry on this is that to me it strikes of a little marketing deception by Canon... "ie. isn't our ISO 400 noise level great... mind you, you need to double your exposure time compared to a film camera"

ISO ratings are in fact meaningless? If its OK for 2 different same-brand SLRs to spot meter a grey card with 1-stop overall differences, then I don't see any other conclusion.

 

I understand that a Digital camera should be calibrated to expose a scene differently than a film camera -- mostly due to its more limiting latitude, BUT, this could certainly be programmed within the algorithms to STILL reflect apples-to-apples ISO equivalents to Film.

 

For example, imagine that if the most accurate $20000 meter available meters a subject at ISO 100 and gives proper exposure of subject as 1/60 second at f8. Also assume that Canon wants its consumer film bodies to match this, then the Canon film body likewise meters 1/60 at f8. Now assume that Canon's 10D returns 1/50 at f8 (set on ISO 100) as its metered reading BECAUSE Canon thinks the consumer will get higher percentage of useable returned pictures by making this adjustment.

 

WELL, my opinion is that Canon shouldn't do it this way, rather they should Adjust the ISO algorithms to be more Accurate to what their other film bodies meter. In this example, ISO 100 should really be renamed ISO 50, and ISO 200 should be renamed 100.

So basically you're saying that the difference between an Canon Elan7 (film) and 10Ds meter could be about 1 full stop (ie. maybe if the Elan went to 1/3 increments it would read 2/3 "under" and it's rounding to nearest increment (being 1/2 under).

 

Anyway, I think you might be mis-using the term Under and Over exposed. From what I've read, if you actually TAKE the picture at the exposure recommended by each camera, my impression is that the scene will come out properly exposed. This is what I'm getting at... that the ISO ratings of the 10D are off of the equivalent film SLR ISO by significant margin. I think if you took the picture of the gray card with the 10D, at its metered "underexposed" reading, you'd get a properly exposed gray card, (although gray card photos are probably difficult to review objectively as they're by nature so flat).

 

Does nobody think that Andrew's approx. 1-stop difference finding is remarkable, in that the 10D's system is largely based on the Elan 7, isn't it?

I was hoping someone could do a side-by-side comparison to see if this is true. All the hoopla about the 10D having good noise control at higher ISOs would be meaningless if in fact you need to set ISO at 400 just in order to get camera to expose at a film-equivalent 125-160. ISOs, in my mind, should be somewhat universal, otherwise it's no longer a "standard".

I was reading some posts (on another unnamed site) to the effect that

the sunny f16 rule doesn't seem to work with a 10D.

 

To recap, some posters were claiming that with ISO set at say 400, and

aperture at f16, that in a bright sunlight scene, the correct exposure

is achieved with about a 1/125 exposure time.... likewise with ISO at

100, correct exposure at f16 in same scene was found at about 1/30

second. This seems to imply that the rated ISO of the 10D is about 1-

1/2 stops faster than the actual ISO if comparing metering on a film

based camera with similarly set ISO settings. All shots taken using

the 1/400 (ISO 400) or 1/100 second (ISO 100) exposure (that you would

approximately expect following sunny16 rule) were indicated by these

posters to be very underexposed.

 

Can anybody with a 10D and a Canon film SLR either confirm or refute

this finding by metering bright sun scenes with both cameras? If true,

this IMO would very alarming news and probably turn me off from making

an investment in a 10D.

You can do a lot with a $1K budget:

 

Option 1:

 

28-135, plus Sigma 15-30mm Your covered from 35mm equiv 24mm thru 216mm. Both zooms considered pretty good in their classes.

 

Option 2:

 

Canon 35/f2, 20mm/f2.8, 28-135mm. Better quality prime options here.

 

Option #3.

 

Canon 24mm/f2.8, 50mmf/1.8, 70-200/f4L. Decent range, excellent optics.

 

Your money, your decision. Best luck!

using the http://photo.dealtime.com price comparison site, evidently there are 2 vendors selling the 1Ds for $6,349 (infinity cameras and kngphoto). Although, infinity seems to indicate a $300 or so shipping charge.

 

Don't know anything about these suppliers, so beware!

you may well want to make a move to digital photography, so if you proceed to get a film body now, and build up a lens collection, you may want to consider which system down the road looks more promising for digital SLRs that will be able to use these lenses.... hard to tell now perhaps, but Canon seems to be currently on the inside track.

You indicated a desire for faster lens... although not any larger max aperture, you might want to consider the 28-135mm Image-stabilized lens. It would allow you to handhold a shot at a 70mm focal length down to about 1/20th of a second. Unless you're looking to freeze action in low light environments, this might give you what you need.

 

And you obviously would the the 135mm range.

 

No zoom is going to really match your 85mm prime, but I have read other posts that indicate a preference for the 28-135 quality over the 24-85.

I'm all for a Nikon equiv 12-24mm to be made by Canon. Call it a DEF lens (as opposed to EF) and thereby avoid any confusion that such a lens is guaranteed to work on any Canon body. The promise after-all is only that an EF lens works on an EOS body. Splash some copy all over the lens and box it comes in if you want that ("Only for use with D60/D30/10D").

 

I agree a wide TC wouldn't work between camera/body, but don't buy the rationale that if it did, it would canabalize 17-40/16-35 sales.... heck it would only mean that people would buy the 24-70 which ain't any cheaper.

 

As for wish list -- IS on all lenses -- imagine a 50/1.4 able to handhold at 1/6 second;-)) or 135/f2 lens at 1/30 (good non-flash wedding option here!).

Other posts here on PN, and even Sto-Fen's website, indicate that the head should be at 45-degrees when shooting any subject closeup to about 15ft - either with or without a ceiling. Beyond 15ft, they recommend straight on. Having a ceiling probably helps the "wrap-around" effect, but is not necessary, as the omnibounce itself diffuses light. It is supposed to be a highly effective tool for fill-in flash in outdoor shots as well.

 

Especially with Non-TTL lenses, you must tilt the head as it diffuses the flash output to the extent that light would go directly into the little sensor on non-TTL flashes and throw off correct flash output.

 

I would test out, except I wanted to use this weekend for a family function, and was hoping for someone with direct experience using the Omnibounce and how they've fared with bounce in 60-degree position and/or how they estimated 45-degrees. I would guess I could sorta figure out and put a line on the flash with some "white-out" ink.

The omnibounce is supposed to be used at a 45-degree angle and is supposed to be effective even if there is NOT a ceiling at all present or if one is in a place with 50' foot high ceilings...effectively, the omnibounce is able to replace the need to have a ceiling.

 

I guess my question would be more along the lines of what happens with 60-degree head setting and NO ceiling, and whether anyone has such experience?

I just ordered a Sto-Fen omni-bounce. My understanding is that for

indoor flash photography at closer distances (say less than 12ft), that

you are supposed to angle the flash head at 45 degrees.

 

Now I come to realize that the first click-stop for the 550EX is at 60-

degrees (ughh). Does anyone have experience shooting with flash at 60

degrees with or without finding out that lower parts of scene are not

covered by the diffused light? At what lens FL's are your results as

well?

 

I'm guessing that using 60-degree setting might be a problem, but can

also only hope that I can guess somewhat accurately where 45-degrees is

if I use flash head in an inbetween click-stop position...?

 

As an aside... why the heck not have a 45-degree click-stop on that

flash?

Is there any way that PN can include the Posts' Dates when returning

results for a search on topics? For example, looking for discussions

on Fuji Superia Reala (which has recently been reformulated), I get a

lot of search results, but have to open dozens of the actual threads to

find out that they're dated from 1999, 2000, etc... and not applicable

to the product currently on the market.

FYI, to most, the 10D is a "prosumer" DSLR; with the 1D and 1Ds being the "pro" versions. Not to say that pros aren't using 10D (they are)...

 

Part of the answer though to your question is dependent on how you use your pics -- do you print large, view only on-screen, use to send email snaps to friends n'family? etc... The other question is how you use your G2 -- do you often use exposure modes other than auto, or do you just use as a point n' shoot?

 

If you print over 8x10 sizes, I believe it would be at this point where you'd see the quality benefits of the 10D -- all other things being equal... ie. comparative shots are properly focused, exposed, and processed in photoshop or equivalent.

 

The 10D gives you more opportunity and control to get exactly the shot you want, and conversely offers more complexity enabling you take a picture you DON'T want -- IF you haven't invested the amount of time and effort needed to learn its intricacies.

Thumbtacks into a wall thru backs of the Jerseys? ;-)

You're thinking (or talking about) Kodak's TCN films which develop in C41. Your local drug store would print these negs most likely on color paper, and the results you'd get would vary by operator (ie. how good they are at neutralizing color cast completely from your pics). Alternatively, you can these C41 negs printed on B&W paper -- but this will cost more and check with your drug store if they can do this.

 

TMAX is a regular B&W film, developed with B&W chemicals and printed on B&W paper only.

 

For future reference, if a film is to be developed in C41, it will say so right on the film cartridge.

My guess on working distance is that at a 1:1 ratio, you'd have more working distance, but if you want the 1:1.4 or whatever it is, you'd be back to same or less working distance than you have without the TC/12mm setup.