r._j.

Although their differences may make a comparison hard to do, which of

these lenses offers the better performance? I need a zoom for

photography of indoor events. The chosen lens will be complemented by

the 70-200 f2.8 at these events. I already own a 50/1.4 and 24/1.4.

The Castleman review is good. I read it a week or two ago and the impression I got was that the f/1.8 lens is marginally better, plus cheaper, thus adding to its overall advantage.

 

If you want to wow people with your beautiful delicate portraits then, yes, perhaps the f/1.2 lens is the way to go.

 

I can't understand why people think the f/1.8 lens would be better for general picture taking. Is it the faster AF? Or the less bulky design of the 1.8? Personally I'd like to think the f/1.2 lens can do everything the f/1.8 can, plus some more.

Uh, 35mm is dead if your clients say it is. Period.

 

Here's two examples: a managing director of a financial company asked me for a business portrait of himself for publication in a trade journal. He wanted to choose and e-mail the selected photo to the magazine the same day. It was a deadline issue.

 

Secondly, I occasionally shoot sports events where parents want photos of their kids competing. Even the event organizers, who know little about photography, will say "you'll make more sales if you sell prints on the spot".

 

I will be the first to admit that I was more than happy to wait another couple of years before going digital. The bare minimum camera in terms of specifications would be the Canon 1d-II. It's not cheap and the camera that supersedes it will be a lot better, no doubt. So this explains my willingness to hold off a bit longer - but I don't think the market will allow it.

 

Even now there have been plenty of jobs in the past where clients have assumed I would be shooting digitally.

 

So, I think we can expect to see more Canon 35mm cameras on the second hand market - even EOS-3 and EOS-1v cameras. The newspapers have already switched to digitally (largely, anyway) and I suspect it is now the studio photographers for whom 35mm is dead.

 

Why? Because if their digital SLR won't offer the required resolution, studio photographers will shoot the job on their MF or LF gear. Such photographers have no need to own both a digital SLR and a 35mm film-based SLR.

As an after-thought, I'm incredibly fond of Velvia also and I will be keeping my film cameras. Digital is strictly for those occasions where the client specifically requests it, or on occasions where I want to sell images on the spot, same day.

 

Digital will also be helpful where I need to upload images onto a website easily.

 

Agreed there are some low-end digital cameras that are not worthy of seious consideration at the professional end (there's literally heaps of low-end digi stuff I'd avoid!) but there are also good aspects to digital. I think it comes down to who your client is. When I recently turned away two jobs from the same company who are desperately looking for a photographer, it was not a happy situation for either party!

When I studied photography at college, the teachers always said that the format you shoot on (this is in the film days) was dictated by the client. True.

 

I'm now going digital only because of the speed factor. Yes, digital may indeed still have a way to go for many photographers. In fact, I was happy to keep waiting myself, but I've just had to turn down two jobs because of a lack of digital equipment. (And no local digital photographer who's show up to shoot the event for me.)

 

The new digital gear is expensive but, if you're a pro as you say you are, I think you'd know that gear pays for itself pretty quickly if you are truly making cashflow from photography.

 

No-one here likes the feeling that their years of training is now looking obsolete, but digital has its own appeal also. Quick prints, instant image review, clients needing to email photos right away or wanting them supplied on CD not as prints, et al.

 

By switching to digital I have also located an entire new market to tap. In fact, I've gotta get back to work...

Thanks for the comments so far. Are you saying that if I buy the 20d I should buy the body without that lens? Because that lens will not work on my EOS-3 film body?

 

How do I know which Canon lenses do or don't have cross-compatibility?

I was looking at a local store's offer on the new Canon d20 digital

body. For around $150 on top of the d20 body price, they will throw

in a Canon 18-55mm lens (35mm film-body equivalent = 28-90mm).

 

My question is how this lens will perform on my EOS film cameras? Are

Canon lenses optimized for one system or the other?

 

On a film body the lens will presumably be a true 18-55mm lens. 18mm

is pretty wide for a zoom costing $150. Hence the lens's performance

may be only average.

I love questions like this because they get me thinking. Here's a run-down, based on the various films and filters that you might use.

 

Firstly, a polarizer has to be used with caution because it increases contrast. Specifically, what I mean is it darkens the sky. When it does this, the exposure difference between the bright white snow and the deep blue sky is just too much contrast for slide films to handle. I don't like to shoot pix with more than four stops of difference between highlight and shadow. Film can successfully handle that much every time.

 

(Similarly, you would want to exercise caution when shooting on a tropical island - the extreme exposure difference between the white sandly beach and the dark polarized sky is simply too contrasty.)

 

If you use filters to darken the sky when shooting B&W films, note that the filter will also darken shadow areas as well as the sky. Why does it do this? Areas in shade are not lit by direct sunlight, they are lit by the overall light of the sky, which is blue. If your filter darkens the blue sky it will also darken the shadows.

 

Some photographers like to use a UV or skylight filter to knock back the overall blueness in the shadows when shooting with colour film. Personally I don't mind the blueness.

 

Allegedly a UV filter is better in snow than a skylight filter. It's personal preference, however, ideally based on trial-and-error or test exposures.

 

If you venture into high altitudes, the sky gradually becomes darker and darker. Do not bother to use a polarizer in such situations - the sky will be dark enough already. Adding a polarizer would only create a black sky.

 

In overcast conditions, a skylight filter (pale pink) or a warming filter (such as the Wratten 81-series of tan-colored filters from Kodak) can improve the drabness, as can fill-in flash if you are photographing people in the snow.

 

Polarizers improve visibility over distance. If you're in high altitudes and feel the polarizer is overkill (which it will be!) use a UV filter to cut back on any haze or to give photos an added crispness.

 

Hand-warmers are also nice. These small devices sit in your pocket and have an ignite-able core that burns for hours. You can get them from adventure-travel suppliers.

 

Auto metering of the snow is tricky as the sensor will detect all of the bright white snow and try to average it down to a medium grey color. Take control of your own metering and use plus exposure compensation. The exact amount required can vary from one stop extra through to several stops.

 

With experience you will recognize such situations and adapt accordingly, but you may need to shoot the picture at several exposures (bracketing) to get the exposure spot-on.

 

Digital cameras are also demanding in the snow. B&W film and color negative films offer good exposure flexibility, but with color slide film and digital you need to be pretty precise.

I need to buy a softener for my Metz flashes as I am being offered

more and more social event and presentation/award ceremony jobs - the

sort of thing I haven't regularly shot since about 15 years ago.

 

I was considering the Metz bounce diffuser as I own two Metz 40-mz2

flashes. I also like the look of the Stofen product, which sits over

the flash head like a plastic pop-on cap. (By comparison, the Metz

diffuser is a large white card.)

 

Does anyone have experience using these units and, importantly, does

anyone know which one achieves better results? They are considerably

different in terms of their design.

 

If the diffuser works nicely, I will not bother to take the flash off-

camera (by way of a bracket) for a more angular light, which I used

to do as a matter of course years ago. A camera ends up looking like

a bit of a 'contraption' by the time I have a bracket and Quantum

QB1c battery attached!

I have a Quantum QB1c (compact) battery that connects to the bottom

of the camera for extra power when using a flash on my EOS-3. I am

going digital fairly soon and would like to know if the QB1c (or

perhaps some other Quantum battery) can also be used to power the

camera rather than the flash.

 

If possible I would like to stick with the QB1c rather than buying

another Quantum unit. Comments?

I would like to hear opinions, good and bad, on the Kodak DCS Pro

SLR/c Digital Camera. It seems to be getting overlooked, despite some

impressive specs.

 

Is it comparable with the 1d-mark 2 or perhaps closer to the 1Ds-mark

2? Pricewise (in New York) it seems to match the 1d mark 2.

I paid $100 (approx) for it, so I'm not complaining for now. Thanks for the responses.

I'm with Rob. (Thanks, Rob.) The manual focus makes a grinding noise, but the f4 constant aperture is decent and the AF is certainly quicker than I could focus the lens manually. It isn't a small lens, but neither is the IS 70-200/2.8.

I have a Canon 70-210mm f4 (constant aperture) zoom that I know

little about. Its serial number is 1600551 and the lens has a 58mm

filter thread. What year/vintage is it?

 

My local dealer said the matching lens hood is no longer available,

unless anyone around here knows better.

 

Can anyone comment on this zoom's optical performance? Hopefully

it'll do until I have the IS 70-200/2.8 next year....

Thanks for the comments, guys.

A photographer who covers the same sporting events as me uses a Canon

1d. He recently told me of a photographer who used a 10d to save

money, only to find that it just wasn't fast enough to capture indoor

sports - especially compared to the other photographers, all of whom

were using the 1d.

 

Will the 20d be any better, and how far does it go in its

improvements over the 10d? Your comments could well influence my

buying behavior. Is it a better bridging camera between the top-end,

to the extent of it being a valid alternative to the 1d-2, albeit

with a few trade-offs?

 

We shoot and print on the spot at one-off events, often only lasting

several hours. I will have to go digital pretty soon as I will

otherwise be turning jobs away on a regular basis (ouch!), and film

cameras are not fast enough for people who want immediate prints -

even at the sacrifice of ultimate image quality.

 

What is the bare bones of a digital kit? Obviously this involves more

thna merely buying bodies.

Thank you, Frank. I believe the EOS-3 will calibrate in three channels, meaning three users, not four.

Agreed, Jeff, but because this is a Canon camera-users forum, I believe it's a good place to find people who are also knowledgeable about the Canon line of printers.

 

I'm tossing up between a portable printer that will go up to A4 size prints, or a bigger printer that can do A3 but not be as portable.

 

For events shots where you hope to sell pix straight away (to participants or parents, for example) is there a printer capable of A3 prints that is reasonably portable?

 

Asking here on this forum is one part of my overall search for info.

Sorry to hear some guys are missing their ECF EOS-3 cameras. But to get back to my original question, is it okay if you don't calibrate with the standard 50mm lens?

 

All I have is a 300mm f2.8 lens and a 70-210mm f4 lens and I shoot indoors sports with fast film and wide apertures. I will get some wide zooms and fixed lenses sometime soon hopefully, so I haven't put ECF settings into the camera at all, as yet.

I have an NPC polaroid back for my EOS-3, but I never use it. It will work on the 1v also. Digital photographers will obviously never have use for polaroid backs as they can review/preview images on the spot. I'm still not sure what sort of camera back you are looking for, although a digital one would obviously be quite nice!

Interchangeable for what? Only yesterday someone was advising me not to buy a digital camera but, rather, to get a digital back for my EOS. I don't know that such a back is made, but I could be wrong. (Comments, please.)

 

As for interchangeable film backs, I beleive there is a "data back" that will allow you to record time/date information onto the film frame. Never found much call for it myself, however.

I am curious to know how much the lens focal length or lens choice

plays in configuring ECF (eye controlled focus) on the EOS-3 camera.

 

It seems the owner's manual assumes a standard 50mm lens is being

used. Are there any issues with using another type of lens to place

ECF settings into the body?

 

For sports photography, I would be grateful if EOS-3 users might also

comment on which AF mode they have found to be the fastest. I don't

know if ECF is necessarily quicker than one-shot or Servo modes.

I would like to know which Canon printers are popular amongst EOS

users. I am looking for a printer that will make prints but also act

as a small office printer for letters, correspondence, etc.

 

I am hoping I can nab a second-hand bargain rather than buy a brand

new current model. Any suggestions? What are the key features

photographers look for in a printer? Anything would be better than

the dot-matrix model I was using!

Erin, what is the difference between the two SCA adapters you mentioned? How many 3102 modules are there, and how do they differ?

 

At present all I have is the standard SCA 301 module which has only one electrical contact and therefore only works as a basic Auto or manual flash unit. I may need a more advanced SCA shoe sometime soon!

Do I have to get the 550 flash unit to have such a flash mode? I kind of like my Metz units. By changing the hotshoe module (the SCA adapter) a Metz flash becomes dedicated to any camera. I have used the same Metz flash on a number of camera systems, and it will also dedicate to medium format cameras with the appropriate SCA shoe.