johnlund

Try it for yourself by holding and/or taping the 50mm in place (with something that won't leave a bunch of residue, like that blue stuff painters use). Determine the magnification by looking through the rig at a ruler. I suspect that you'll find the setup fun but of very limited application.

Do you really want to pack/carry such a big filter?

<i>"Can the 540EZ be used with the 300D?"</i><br/>

<br/>

Yes, but only via the 540EZ's manual controls. The 300D will trigger the 540EZ's flash, but it won't tweak the output. That can be fine for some uses, but it's certainly not as convenient as a flash that your 300D can automate, like any of Canon's EX series.

I don't know the precise magnification or maximum distance, but PN member Robin Sibson has been kind enough to post considerable hard-to-find and unpublished information regarding the LSC in his posts, including <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0051Ca">here</a>, which notes that the LSC is physically compatible with other lenses. (Robin, if you read this, please consider consolidating your posts into a little LSC FAQ.)

Unless you've eliminated it as a candidate for a reason, there's also Canon's discontinued <a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/17-35">17-35/2.8L</a>. It tends to sell for about the same price as the other two you mention.

<i>"The Markins is the best ball head by far."</i><br/>

<br/>

I intend no offense, Bill, but do you have firsthand experience with the other ball heads? The other models (and still more not mentioned) have large and loyal user bases, too, but there's a tendency for people to rave about the equipment they use. (Making photographs is a very satisfying experience to many people, after all.)

What's your "crazy expensive" threshold for a head? (Does the size, weight, field of view, and expense of your rig affect your answer?) Is it safe to presume you're looking for a ballhead? These things tend to be able to take a beating, so have you considered buying used?

 

I've tried the Kirk BH-3 with a 300/2.8 and found it usable with despite the manufacturer's suggestion for smaller lenses. However, there's no question that my Arca-Swiss B1 is more stable, and I?ve seen those sell second-hand for little more than the new Kirk compact head (<$300).

<i>"Will I lose quality if I use a lower file size?"</i><br/>

<br/>

Yes, either by fewer pixels or greater [lossy] compression, but the former often won't matter in terms of publishing web-sized images. Experiment a little with sizes and camera parameters to find a set that fits your desire for a web-only workflow. In terms of processing speed, I'd look more toward streamlining your workflow, making actions, and using batch processes than starting with smaller file sizes.

Christof is referring to the <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/efs-10d.html">hacksaw hack</a>.

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000Til">From the archives</a>. I don't think it answers your question dead-on, but it's close.

Joe - Ruggedness might not be essential if the camera spends most of its time protected in your bag. A cheap used body has its merits.

 

I agree with Madhan about Rebel interface quirks, but a little of that comes just by switching between models. Be sure to carry a manual for the second model. As for the Elan series, you might be happy with a model even older than 7.

Just to temper Fazal's response -- which is a good one -- MF with "1.6x" DSLR viewfinders isn't universally difficult, but it certainly isn't as easy as a larger, brighter viewfinder with the right focus screen. Unfortunately, there aren't better alternatives for DSLRs in the same price range. Besides, you might as well enjoy the camera you already own.<br/>

<br/>

Canon's firmware doesn't provide custom functions, but many use a "hacked" version that enables several. Whether or not the hack supports CF4 or not, I don't know, but there's also the <a href="http://eosdoc.com/manuals/hack/DOFFTM/">DOF option</a>. Look for Canon lenses designated as "full time manual" (FT-M) if you plan on using this feature, but they tend to be the more expensive lenses. (The 300D works manually, of course, even though it's not a purely <i>mechanical</i> camera.)<br/>

<br/>

Nope. You can tweak the 10D display's brightness, but that's it.

<i>"I don't have anything between 35-70mm"</i><br/>

<br/>

Yes you do. Your 50mm fits right in the middle. Don't feel like you need to cover every millimeter of focal length. You need not buy anything more to try portraits. Experiment with the lenses you have. (Rhetorical question: What's a portrait? Doesn't your PN gallery shot, "The Bride", count?)<br/>

<br/>

 

I'm far from the first to say this: Read Shaw's "Closeups" before buying macro gear. Maybe a 500D would suffice? Do you have a tripod and cable release or a flash and bracket?

<i>"Some users like to use the top focusing spot (rather than the center one) for single point focusing."</i><br/>

<br/>

This surprises me, since the center cross-sensor is supposed to be more accurate, but I'll certainly try this technique.

Greg - Pölking does say a little something about it under the heading "Cable trigger or manually ?" I have found that keeping my hands on the camera/lens can help in wind, but that's an exceptional case. Otherwise, I tend to agree with you.

I don't think you'll be able to deduce a percentage of extra keepers, but I think you'll find Pölking's article, <a href="http://www.poelking.com/wbuch/scharf/index_e.htm">Sharp Photographs</a>, enlightening.

A <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005yRD">perrenial question</a>.<br/>

<br/>

Specifications from the Canon Camera Museum:<br/>

EOS mount - 44mm flange back, 54mm inner mount diameter<br/>

FD mount - 42mm flange back, 48mm inner mount diameter<br/>

<br/>

Out of curiosity, I removed the rear casing from a beat-up old FD 50mm, and I was able to sink the lens deeper into an EF mount. I didn't take it any farther than that, but you'd need to fabricate a thin physical adapter for precise placement, and you'd need a solution for aperture control. I don't want to be discouraging, but it just doesn't seem worth it to me. Leave the FD lenses in circulation for FD camera users.

Attempting to step up from an archive category ("Older Questions") in

any of the B&W forums yields this message: <a

href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=B&W%20Photo%20-%

20Film%20&%20Processing">"There is no forum with the topic name of

B."</a> URL-encoding the ampersands solves the problem. This issue

appears to be unique to the "topic" URL parameter.

Read <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005Jlv">this thread</a>. I have some Peleng notes and examples toward the end.

<a href="http://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/pdf/d_eos/syschart012904.pdf">The chart</a> to which <I>Macman</I> referred <b>does not include the 20D</b> yet. (For future reference, see "EOS System" on <a href="http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=111">Canon's EOS page</a>.) <br/>

<br/>

Support for remotes has little to do with what's "current". See <a href=http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/cameras.html#remote>PhotoNotes.org</a> for details on the mix of N3, E3, T3, IR, and wireless. It's crazy that mid-range cameras like the 10D and Elan7 can't share a single remote, for example, except for the very expensive LC-4. It's also strange that some cheaper models have more options in this regard.

Charlie - If you've intended to be condescending and hijack this thread with a rant, then kindly avert your eyes from the following attempt to offer a helpful response. There is no BG-ED3 Mark II; the 10D's grip is the same as it was when designed for the D30, so it has the same attributes you don't like.

Charlie - It's the BG-ED3 for the D30/D60/10D. You can refer to the the "Supplies & Accessories" link for any camera on <a href="http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=111">Canon's EOS pages</a>.

Puppy - In fairness to Canon, I don't think they offered anything better than 3-point AF in any APS-sized SLR before the 10D. (Take the 1998 "IX" APS SLR, for example.) I suspect planned obsolescence in every Canon mid-range SLR, but that's practically an inherent feature of digital technology right now. Judging from what I've read about the AF changes between the D60 and the 20D, I don't think "holding back" is the complete story.

By the way, Canon's RemoteCapture does time lapse photography, provided you tether the camera to a computer.