bob_mcbob

<p>It's basically the camera I wanted to buy from Canon 4 years ago. I got a 1D Mark III instead of jumping ship to Nikon, eventually figured out it was silly for me, got a 5D Mark II as a stopgap, and I am satisfied enough with the 5D Mark III to stay with Canon (mostly from a financial perspective because of lenses).</p>

<p>Autofocus is a big deal for me. I do not like the "focus and recompose" method. Having a good spread of points, and being able to rely on the outer points is important. I get the feeling a lot of 5D Mark II apologists have never used anything other than the centre point.</p>

<p>1Ds Mark IV and 60D with the latest incremental updates (60D retains consumer-level AF). Nothing mind-blowing. No 5D Mark III.</p>

<p>The biggest thing for me is the huge difference in size and weight. I have a 1D Mark III I bought a couple years ago because I wanted the pro-level autofocus and didn't want to switch to Nikon. It's a truly amazing camera, but lately I found I was barely ever shooting for personal enjoyment because I just didn't want to lug around such a big camera. I've been laughed at for this on photo forums a number of times, but many people don't factor this into their decision-making process.</p>

<p>I also dislike the effective focal length ranges of many of my lenses on the 1D3. I can't just take a 50mm lens with me for some quick shots, and at one point I was seriously considering buying the 35/1.4 just to have a 50mm equivalent lens, which seems a bit ridiculous. I much prefer my 16-35 on a full frame camera.</p>

<p>I bought a 5D Mark II last month, which feels like a huge downgrade in many ways, but I'm using it all the time, which is what counts. I got it with the 24-105, which is just awesome as a walk-about lens. It's made me give some serious consideration to swapping my 1D3 for a 7D. I didn't really buy it to shoot action, as silly as that seems, so I'm fairly certain the autofocus wouldn't be an issue. I'm afraid I'd miss the 1D3 and its crazy build quality and customizable features.</p>

<p>I got a Hoya Pro1 c-pol from maxsaver.net for my 16-35. It's about $97 shipped right now.</p>

<p>I just bought a bottle of Rapid Fixer from Henry's here in Canada, and it still has the incorrect instructions.</p>

<p>Computer hardware requirements for the 5D Mark II are really overblown. Almost any computer you're likely to buy nowadays can handle the files. I'm getting by fine on a 2-1/2 year old 2GHz C2D laptop with 3GB of memory. Just make sure you have lots of storage available.</p>

<p>What specific lenses are you interested in that you can't afford (or don't exist) with Nikon?</p>

<p>Is this equipment from an insurance write-off after a major accident or something? It's hard to imagine anyone selling these items for $300 even if they'd been immersed in water, especially when they were obviously salvageable. I'd expect to pay that kind of money to a meth head for stolen goods.</p>

<p>The only time I have focus problems with my 100L is when I accidentally have the focus limiter set from a previous session.</p>

<p>On my 1D3, I have to use raw+large jpg, or the image review is generated from the tiny jpg embedded in the raw file, which makes it impossible to judge sharpness. I'm not sure if the 1D4 is different in this respect.</p>

<p>I don't have time to search now, but I know I've read about people being dropped by their insurance carrier for making multiple claims on the camera policy linked to their homeowners' policy. It's certainly worth having some insurance in case of theft or loss, but as others pointed out, they're not going to replace a $2000 lens for a little scratch on the front element.</p>

<p>I use filters on all my lenses, except in very specific harsh lighting conditions where I know a filter is likely to increase flare. All my filters are B+W MRC or Hoya SMHC/Pro1. I'm not a pro photographer, but I often shoot in conditions where I'm likely to get something or other misted or sprayed on the front element, and I much prefer cleaning a filter to a $2000 lens. I have scratched one of my B+W filters in general use, and while I was pissed about damaging such an expensive filter, I was a lot happier than I would have been if it were the front element the lens to which it was attached (70-200/2.8 IS). In addition, my 16-35's manual states that a filter is required to complete the weather sealing.</p>

<p>If I'm assisting at a wedding, I can't stop in the middle of something important to properly clean my lens if the front gets slightly fogged or wet. Again, I much prefer to be cleaning the surface of a filter rather than a lens, especially if I'm only giving it a rushed wipe with a microfibre cloth.</p>

<p>I use the "ring of fire" setting and select the specific point I want with my 1D3. Being able to do this was one of the main reasons I purchased a 1-series in the first place. On every consumer-level Canon DSLR I've tried, the outer AF points are pretty unreliable, so I mostly stuck to centre point-recompose, which is also unreliable. It was refreshing to not have to worry about this.</p>

<p>The only time I'd let the camera choose the focus point is in AI servo tracking.</p>

<p>Looking around at a few articles with sample photos, it's obvious this guy had problems using his gear (exposure anyone?). The combination of this with uninteresting setups and poor composition is what makes his photos look a lot worse than even your average weekend warrior wedding photographer.</p>

<p>I certainly wouldn't defend his crappy work, but the versions some news outlets are running seem to have been manipulated to make them look a lot worse. Also, a lot of the "analysis" is pointing out "flaws" you'd see on most wedding photographers' sites. "Some of them aren't even straight!" on a photo that's clearly intentionally very off-axis for dramatic effect. Right...</p>

<p>That video of the ceremony where he drops the video camera and swears is pretty hilarious. I must say.</p>

<p>Oddly enough, I discovered that we actually have one of the Nikon F to C adapters sitting around unused. The plunger system is quite practical and easy to use. I think installing one in the mount on the camera is probably my best option. This would certainly be a lot easier than trying to DIY an actual aperture ring in the mount, and it doesn't look like any of the Nikon macro accessories would work.</p>

<p>The plunger does have to be placed quite precisely to operate the aperture lever properly. Drilling that angled hole is going to be a bit of a pain, but it shouldn't be an issue. I'm not sure whether I can even buy the socket a cable release screws into -- there certainly isn't much of a market for the part. I might just end up cannibalizing a few cheap cable releases. It needs to be set up so the plunger rests at the maximum aperture position, and stops at the minimum.</p>

<p>As far as I know, G lenses still have a purely mechanical aperture linkage with the camera. They communicate electronically (AF-S autofocus for instance), but the aperture is still stopped down with a lever, unlike the Canon EF system. It makes it a little more frustrating that they've just removed the ability to control the aperture without the camera.</p>

<p>That's the sort of thing I'm looking for (aperture control, F-to-F). Any information you have on similar items would be much appreciated. I can machine down the mount if there's any issue of compatibility. I have a page from an old Nikon publication where they show the BR-4 being used behind a macro lens for automatic diaphragm control. I looked into availabilty before posting the thread, and it seems like it's too difficult to get for this purpose. There has only been one on eBay in the last few months, and it's sold by Photo Arsenal (notoriously overpriced dealer) for $140. I'd need two...</p>

<p>I do a lot of work with high speed video cameras that use a Nikon F mount. Basically, a little box with a sensor at the front, and a screw-on Nikon mount exending out to the proper flange distance. The camera does not control the lens in any way. It's essentially as basic as you can get and still attach a lens. Because of this, it's not possible to control the aperture of G mount lenses.</p>

<p><img src="http://sig.fortepianos.com/fmount.png" alt="" /></p>

<p>Unfortunately, I've discovered that the Sigma 150/2.8 macro is by far the most useful lens for much of my work. The shorter (~100mm) macro lenses don't have enough working distance at high magnification. Also, none of them allow a tripod collar, which is quite a pain, since the cameras are almost always used in the vertical orientation. I've had to resort to using a Manfrotto 340 elbow bracket, which is a pretty lousy product for anything but the lightest lenses. I've also tried longer (~200mm) macro lenses, but the difference in lens speed is too great.</p>

<p>Since the G lenses default to the smallest aperture setting, I've been using the Sigma with a piece of plastic cut to shape and inserted behind the aperture lever to hold it at the maximum. This is fine, since the vast majority of what I use it for requires the maximum setting anyway. I'm planning to order another one of these lenses this weekend, and I was hoping to make some sort of modification to the camera mount that would allow me a bit of control over the aperture.</p>

<p>Looking around, there are lots of Panasonic G1 owners using the Nikon F to C mount adapter, which includes a cable release plunger to control the aperture. I could actually swap the mount on the cameras for a C mount and use this, but I also use other F mount lenses, and I don't think the C mount is robust enough for daily use like this anyway.</p>

<p>Because the mount on the camera has an adjustable flange distance, it is actually possible to use use an extra item in the optical path up to about 8.5mm thick without even modifying anything. I've seen various macro attachments that allow you to stop down the lens. Some of the extension rings, the BR- series, etc. Many of these items are not appropriate for my use because they are either meant for reversing lenses or are simply too thick. I found it very difficult to interpret what some of these accessories actually do, since primary sources often don't describe them in enough detail. In particular, mir.com.my seems to indicate that the BR-4 and BR-6 are both straight F-to-F adapters, while most forum posts show them as being F-to-52mm for reverse mounting. Very confusing!</p>

<p>The other option is simply drilling a hole in the camera's lens mount to insert a plunger aperture control, or something fancier with an actual ring. Obviously I would like to avoid making major modifications, but I would be prepared to do this.</p>

<p>I'm wondering a) if there are any aperture control accessories I should consider, and b) if I make modifications, if there is a source for the other half of the cable release plunger assembly. Obviously a is the most relevant part in this forum.</p>

<p>I'm more concerned about whether the J-1 is a bit too big for what I want to carry. I think it really depends on whether you want to keep hoods reversed and have the camera oriented downwards with a lens mounted. The stuff I listed fits nicely in the J-2, provided you leave the camera pointing sideways without a lens. I've seen photos of the J-2/F-2 stuffed the way the J-1 is in the photo I posted, but it seems like it doesn't really leave room for the hoods and collars. Any thoughts?</p>

<p>I'm actually sort of thinking of going the J-1 and J-3 route. It would be nice to also have a bag a little bigger than my J-803 for when I don't want to carry a 70-200 or 100-400.</p>

<p>I'm hoping photo-co in Quebec still carries Domke products. Their web site prices are certainly attractive.</p>

 

<p>Anyone else?</p>

<p>Thanks for your thoughts, Hector. It's true that the extra height would be an advantage with longer lenses. I'm glad to hear the divider is so easy to reconfigure; I really hate to have to remove hoods and tripod rings. I also added a bit of padding at the bottom of my J-803 so my 1D3 can sit in the main compartment on its bottom.</p>

<p>I think I will probably order a J-1 and hope it works out okay with my gear. I'm really concerned the J-2 just won't cut it for what I want to put in. The organization in the photos I posted is probably what I'd be aiming for, and the J-2 looks crowded with just a 10D. The J-1's extra couple of inches makes it look purpose built for a 1-series packed that way. It would be even better with a plain insert or some foam padding on the camera side to keep things snug.</p>

<p>I really wish there were somewhere to try these bags locally. Unfortunately, the only Domke dealer in Canada is Henry's, and -- as is the case with almost anything like this -- they don't even stock the J-1 and J-2. They are only available as special order, no returns, for a huge mark-up over what B&H charges. Vistek used to carry Domke products, but they only have a few random little accessories nowadays.</p>

My current bag line-up hasn't been cutting it since I purchased a 1D3 last year, and I'd like to get something new. I am sold on Domke, but I'm not sure which bag is most appropriate for the gear I want to hold. I prefer their ballistic nylon bags, so I've been trying to decide between the J-1 and J-2.<br /> <br /> I'd like to hold a 1D mark III with 16-35 II mounted, 50/1.4, 100/2.8 macro, the option of a 70-200/2.8 IS or 100-400, and perhaps some assorted crap like flashes, filters, etc. The flashes can easily go in the side pockets, so I'm only concerned about the camera and lenses. I don't want the bag to be stuffed full, but I also don't want it to have a lot of free space to move around. The inserts on my J-803 won't hold a 70-200 with the tripod ring or (reversed) hood attached. Is the J-series insert any better in this respect? It is quite a pain to have to remove these components -- especially the hood.<br /> <br /> Unfortunately, there is nowhere local that even carries Domke products, so I am stuck buying blind on the internet. I've been looking at what reviews are available with photos, and I'm a bit concerned the J-2 will be stuffed rather tight with what I want to hold. The J-series bags aren't as wide as the F-series, but they are taller. Here are a couple of photos to illustrate:

<br />

<br />

<strong>J-1</strong> <br />

<!-- / message --> <!-- sig -->

<p><img src="http://cambags.com/canon/300d_10_20d/shoulder/images/domke_j1/DSCN0003.jpg" alt="" width="576" height="432" /></p>

<p><strong>J-2</strong><br>

<img src="http://cambags.com/canon/300d_10_20d/shoulder/images/domke_j-2/Domke_J-2_canon_30d_syd_2.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="600" /></p>

<p>I've never had any issue with the Canon on/off switch. I've owned four Canon DSLRs, and I've never accidentally turned off any of them. The only time they've ever been turned off is when other people try them and assume they need to be turned off.</p>

<p>What are you trying to get at, George? CV lenses aren't worthy of being used on a genuine Leica body?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Lower at photo village? Are you guys kidding. They are the most overpriced store when it comes to "M" gear in the nation. Great service but at that price.........</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Cameraquest and Photo Village are the two main Voigtlander dealers in North America, unless things have changed a lot since last year. They have the same pricing on all the CV stuff, which are generally quite a bit lower than the Japanese MSRP, and somewhat lower than European prices. This has nothing to do with Photo Village's Leica pricing.</p>

<p>The great thing about the finder (other than the range) is that you can set it to crop to 1.3x or 1.5x. Very handy. I'd hate to imagine how much it will cost, though!</p>