les

Thank Elliot. Does that mean that 580EXII does not underexpose ?

I posted similiar question before, but here it goes again: does anybody know

about possible compatibility issues between Canon 1D MkII and 580EX II ?

 

As far as I am concerned - this flash is a disaster - at least on my camera.

Fill light seems to work reasonably well (or maybe the flash shortcomings are

masked by proper Av exposure of the background).

 

The symptoms: sometimes it does not switch properly on when on the camera. It is

switched on and charging - but the menus do not respond. Sometimes it blasts the

scene with full poer, causing dramatic overexposure.

 

Very consistently it produces 1.5 to 2 stops of underexposure when in ETTL II

mode (and I am not talking about shooting white or very light tone scene). To

some extent it can be avoided by using FEL, or by switching CF14 to 1 (which

basically disables ETTL II). Funny thing that identical histograms are produced

when CF14 is set to 1, and when FEL is used. Does that mean that ETTL II is (at

least partially) disabled ?

 

550EX behaves much better in the same situation by default - and 580EX II is not

too bad when CF14-1 or FEL is used.

 

But then - what's the point in having a ETTL II flash if one can't use it ?

 

To avoid well-intentioned advice - no, this is NOT dirty contacts or loose

hotshoe issue. 550EX and 430EX work OK, and both the contacts and hotshoe have

been checked/cleaned (just in case).

 

The only thing which comes to mind is compatibility issue.

The problem is that my 550EX kind of died (does not fire, although all menus

work and the bulb is OK - also checked, but this is beside the point). 550EX

goes to Canon for repair, but I have given up on the 580EX II (considering a

number of similiar posts all over the net there doesn't seem to be any point

trying to do anything, since Canon never admits cockups with their products).

It all comes down to the uninformed (and greedy) buyer: the hunt for "bargain" overshadows common sense and shuts down reasoning capabilities.

 

The reasonably high-tech device is not a sack of potatoes where you can actually get a bargain: for a DSLR you need to pay what reputable shops charge.

 

So, Alex - you can pipe down, Ken actually was quite right: after being warned that this is a scam - you came up with another "great deal" - right after Brian told you this: "General rule: if its more than 10% or so below B+H Photo, lookout".

 

Which part of this was so hard to understand ?

I had Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX lens amd Sigma 80-400/4.5-5.6 EX. Both are gone - but not because of any grief I had with them. Quite the opposite - both proved to be very well built, sharp and good quality glass.

"...and submit thousands of images a week."

 

Sounds like BS to me. It takes a bit of time to produce a good image and there are just not enough hours in a week - even if one does not need sleep.

Thomas - all things are temporary, including life. When young - we tend to worry about insignificant things, until age changes our approach to most things - including photography.

 

As far as I am concerned - I could not care less. What is important to me - is taking the picture, making it as good as possible, and if someone likes it (or it sells) - so much the better. But I am not concerned with who likes it (or not). I am more concerned with my own shortcomings as a photographer - and this is the only thing which I am trying to improve. The rest is a moot issue.

"...it's an A+, top notch Canon lens."

 

True - and in addition you also get a bit of CA at the short end :( but I guess it is as good as it gets.

Yes - because from then on you will know that basically you have the best 24-70 lens available (putting aside the issue of sample variation), and you will concentrate on improving your skills rather than searching for the holy grail of lenses :)

"You dont have to post photos on PN to be serious.." ?

 

So - yes, you do. Unless your credibility can be established by some other means.

When it comes to technical advice, or pointing out errors in the image - I prefer a word from a photographer, prefereably good one (and one who knows how to actually implement his own advice - which can be witnessed by his POSTED images).

 

OTOH, when it comes to critique - every opinion is valuable, and possibly an opinion of someone who is not obsessed with pixel peeping, sharpness, CA etc. is actually of more value. Images are not created to be analyzed at 100% or 200% and to compare corner sharpness with the centre sharpness - but to make a visual impact or statement.

 

It is just an issue of credibility. That's why your lawyer has his diploma framed and hanging behind his desk - so that when you come, you can give him some credit that he knows what he is talking about. This is not to say that you can't get a top legal advice from a random person in the street - but how would you know ? In other words - when someone takes apart my image on its technical merits - I want to see his "diploma" framed and for all to see - and his gallery is a good starting point.

 

If someone can't be bothered to post at least couple of pics - then maybe he also should not bother to offer opinions for which there is no reference point. Otherwise we both are just wasting time.

I do not see any problems with camera body or lenses being made of high quality impact resistant (reinforced) plastics. The main problem when you bump your lens or a camera is possible glass elements re-alignment or damage to the mechanical joints. The chain is only as strong as its weakest link, so either the whole thing is bullet proof, or it does not make sense at all.

Laura - nobody was born with a DSLR in his hand (although some people seem to - judging by the awesome pics they take). But for the vast majority of mortals the learning started at the same point: in the beginning, and took some time...The learning curve can be a bit steep, but is perfectly manageable if you are willing to put some time into it (and if you don't give up easily).

It is not going to get better - it will only get worse.

Dick - you are preaching to the converted...I am aeronautical engineer myself, and I am used to certain quality in engineering. This quality, however, is harder and harder to find - as the ever powerful drive to maximize profits prevails every time. Thus barely qualified people are given the job to design everything - and of course they are paid less.

 

Even less stringent standards and requirements are obviously present in other industries - after all, every bug in Vista or any other piece of software is another dollar in the pockets of Microsoft - as you will need to "upgrade". Makes me really sick to the stomach - but this is the way it is and I do not hope to change it.

"Gotta love the generation gap. "

 

Sure. The "new" generations changes and fixes things that do not require fixing or changing. New "fixed" and "upgraded" versions of software/devices contain more bugs and quality problems than the old ones anyway, and by definition are not compatible with old software/devices - which forces everyone to "upgrade".

 

The "new" generation also considers it normal that things do not work, after all they all have "microprocessor" and "code" inside them - and we all know that these things are susceptible to bugs. It also helps that the "new" generation do not pay for the new "upgraded" and "fixed" goodies themselves - they have the "old" generation to foot the bill (or they pay by credit card).

 

Big smile here :>D

 

But seriously - I have already cut an image of my system drive with XP on it - and will just swap it into new comp when the time comes (soon). I do not give a rat's ass about Vista and all new wonders. All I need to do is to run CS3 and process my images. If I am going to contribute to anybody getting richer - it is not going to be Bill Gates for sure.

Best to go to the manufacturer's website: they usually offer explanation regarding the technical aspects of their lenses (including acronyms, and also tell you why theirs is better than the competition's).

Sure.

"1. Do I have the right to stand where I'm standing?

 

2. Do I have the right to look at what I'm looking at? "

 

I think these are very serious questions - although I am afraid that most people just does not have the capacity to understand this...which is a very sorry and threatening state of affairs.

 

If the views can be copyrighted - where does that live you as a human being ?

 

Taking a picture of a "copyrighted" building or a car (and selling it) is not the same as copying the design of a building or a car - for commercially competitive purpose. Selling a fake Rolex is an infringement of Rolex rights to the design, selling an image of Rolex is not - IMO. I know, I am not a lawyer and quite possibly I am wrong as far as law if concerned: if so - then we all bear the collective guilt of letting the affairs to proceed to the point of absolute absurd.

 

But I think everyone will wake up when they start charging you for the air you breathe - except it may be too late then. After all - what is (very popular recently) the idea of "carbon tax" ?

 

I just can't believe that people can get brainwashed to a degree which makes them think it is normal. It is not.

 

Now - I am awaiting severe backlash from outraged legal eagles.

"... switching to the 2.8 lens with the aperture still set to f5.6 on my camera, shouldn't I see a change in the shutter speed by exactly 1 stop, when switching the lenses?"

 

No, you shouldn't. Same as you should not automatically be fined for driving a Ferrari at the speed limit - purely because the car is capable of so much more. The speed is dependent on the accelerator...oops...should I say aperture setting ?

Soon you will need the permit to breathe, and you will have to pay for it. Both the permit and the air, of course.

 

A copyright is one thing - but trying to claim ownership of the reflected light it something different altogether. Of course - the legal eagles will descend on me telling me that I need to understand the law etc.

 

There is law, there is justice, there is common sense - and they not necessarily mix together. In fact - most frequently they don't.

 

Soon there will be only two categories of people: the slaves - and the people who will be collecting money off the first category, under every imaginable excuse.

 

End of rant.

Mark: what you did was probably smear something on the filter. I did a similiar thing to my 1D Mk II. Basically - I put a plastic tube hooked up to a vacuum cleaner inside the chamber to get rid of some annoying dust. The tip of the tube was covered with a lens cleaning tissue - which somehow slipped off and as a result I dragged the tip of the tube over the sensor. It left a very nasty "scratch" which took some time to clean with alcohol. There is a very little chance of actually scratching the filter - and certainly not with all the precautions you are taking :>D

I think that the image is so severely overprocessed that no judgement can be made. My 17-40 is OK (better than 24-70 as far as CA is concerned) - at least at the wide end. At 40 mm the 24-70 wins hands down.

IMHO the 50/1.4 is not that sharp if I am to believe some reviews - and my own experience.

 

Of course my 50/1.4 is heaps better than 24-70/2.8 - at f1.4 and f2.0...but at apertures f2.8 and up the 24-70 is at least as good if not better. You need to stop the 50/1.4 to f5.6 or so to get the sharpness. Below this - it is not that crash hot as some people would like you to believe. This is the only reason I didn't get rid of it yet.

 

I use my 50/1.4 mostly as a magifying device by reverse mounting it on 100mm macro lens if I need large magnification.

 

Have a look here:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00MUtI

Well - there are some interesting lenses there...If the compatibility issue is resolved (and I haven't heard anything in a long time) - then Sigma is going to have more than winner on offer.

"No professional equipment is allowed!"

 

Another manifestation of idiocy...Personally - I am not attending any events purely because of that reason. If someone thinks that he owns the reflected light - he can think this, but without me paying for the privilege.