justin_nurman

All,

 

I need some info. I just moved to Hong Kong and so far has experience no issue

in finding retail shops that sell camera gear. However, I am yet to find an

excellent shop that process either slides or negatives professionally. Can

anyone recommend where can I find the shop?

 

Thx, Justin

Rob, got that while I was searching for the answer. I was hoping there are ways to display it. Looks like I am out of luck. Thx anyway.

 

Michael, thx for the info. I will try the download and test it tonight.

Hi,

 

I need help on the above. I just bought GX100 and so far have been very happy

with it. However, I just realised that when I transfer the files to my Epson P-

3000 photo viewer, the RAW files are not displayed. Also, when I backed up the

files to my computer and try to open the files with Photoshop CS, I also

failed. Any idea? Is it common? Thx for your help.

 

Justin.

Guys, I will be going to Shanghai next week. Am thinking to pick up some gear

(either camera body or lenses). Anyone can share some info on reputable shops

there? Are prices comparable to Hongkong? TIA.

Hi everyone,

 

Following my question last time about tripod/ballhead with my 200mm lens, I

decided to replace my tripod. I am now looking at a Feisol CT3301N (or Gitzo

1257) tripod with Markins M10 ballhead. I am leaning towards Feisol after

reading threads on this brand from a few sites. As I need to order it from

overseas, I need to clarify a few things:

1. Has anyone use this combo? Is it sturdy enough for, say an EOS3+booster with

200mm lens? If no collar is used, will it locked properly if the lens is

pointing down 45degree?

2. Markins has tripod base that claims to reduce vibration. Is it useful? Has

anyone used this with their tripod?

3. Will the tripod base fit the Feisol tripod? Do I have to buy the center

column kit first to attach the tripod base?

 

Thank you for your help,

Cheers, Justin

I was in the same situation last year where I wanted a longer reach than my 28-135. Was thinking to get the f4 for flexibility. But after playing around with one at the shop I decided to take the 200 prime instead, due to its length and its widest opening. So, knowing that most lenses' sweet spots are stop-down from wide open, I thought if I take the 200 prime, stopping down I will still end up with f4 still. I bought the prime and so happy to find out that it is very sharp even wide open! I can't vouch for the zoom as I didn't test it out. Some folks like the zoom as I read in lots of forum. Me, I am happy with my decision. My 2c.

Guys, I am seriously considering to upgrade my 28-135IS with 24-105L. Maybe

it's just my copy or technique, but when I use the IS, the pics turn out less

sharp compare to without IS. It's actually quite an expensive buy for me, so I

am looking at selling it together with my 17-40. I bought the 17-40 for

landscape/group photo and found out around 85% using it at either 24mm or 35mm.

So I think I will not lose the 17-23mm. 28-135 is for walkaround and vacation.

Question to you who own/has owned both, how does the newer zoom compares to 17-

40, especially at 24 or 35 settings in terms of color, contrast, sharpness

(especially wide open)? Is the distortion worse than 17-40 at the same focal

length? I will use this for both walkaround and landscape. Btw, I use EOS30

film with intention to jump into FF digital when I can afford it. TIA.

I second Fotofile in MBK dept. store. You can check them out at their website, www.fotofile.net (if I remember correctly). Happy shopping.

I am also "looking at" the 24-105 to replace my 28-135IS as my walkaround lens. But so far I stop at "looking at" as haven't really pulled the trigger yet. Still not sure whether the almost triple the cost really translate into triple IQ. Last year I was thinking about adding my 17-40 and 50 with 70-200. I ended up buying 200 prime and I never regret the decision. Happy shooting!

I kinda suspect the balance issue. However, with the set-up, I expect the head will be better than what I have been experiencing so far. 200mm 2.8L is not that heavy (650gr, <14cm). For a head which claim 6kg load, it seems to be quite disappointing.

 

Mike, you said you don't have that issue without a collar. Hemm..could it be that mine is a faulty head? Any incidence like this from anyone? Thx.

Hi guys, another quick question. I have been noticing that when I use

my 200mm lens (without collar) on my 486rc2 ballhead, composition

wise is very difficult as no matter how hard I try to lock the head,

it will always flop down around half a cm. Have tried different ways,

like holding it loose while locking or half-locked while composing,

but to no avail. I thought the specs said that 486rc2 can hold upto

6kg and my lens plus body are no where near this limit! Pls help

giving tips or should I just change the head? Don't want to do this

as I also have Slik CF monopod where I use the same plate (234rc2).

Thx for your help in advance.

Thx Maury for your view. If I am not mistaken, the lenght of 200mm lens is around 13.6cm. Either you're referring to the "depth" or "width", I think it should be ok. When I saw the picture of how we access the bag, I understand that the width becomes the depth, i.e. the camera attached with lens is stored horizontally, rather than the conventional "top loading", but I could be wrong here.

 

I understand that having a too heavy set-up in this type of bag really put comfortability into a test. I experience that from time to time with my Tamrac velocity 5. Guess it goes back to trade-off between comfortability and flexibility of access. Best way for me to know that will probably be trying it out in a store with all lenses that I want to carry. Will do that once I can find a store that carry this type of bag nearby. Cheers.

Alrite, I need more help. I currently use EOS 30 w/ grip, 420EX and 5

lenses (17-40, 50, 85, 200, 28-135). I own 2 bags, a Minitrekker and

Tamrac velocity 5.

 

Minitrekker is used mainly for trekking or carrying stuffs. Lots of

room, even for some books and lunch. However, it's not practical for

travelling light or just walking around the city. For that purposes,

I use the Tamrac. I used to carry my camera with a combination of 3-4

lenses and/or 420EX. Since I bought the 200, I find it difficult to

carry my favourite set-up. At most I can only carry 17-40, 50, 85 and

200 without flash, but have to leave the hood for 200 behind.

 

I am looking for a bag that allows me to carry max of 17-40, 50, 85,

200 and flash with their hoods. The bag should allow me an easy

access to my gear without putting down the bag first (so, backpack is

out of consideration). Hopefully it's not bulky and heavy. I am

currently looking at Lowepro slingshot series or reporter 400 series

(but this one is a bit bulky). Anyone having the same set-up that can

offer me some advice on the suitable bag? Thx all for your help.

Thx for the response. I figured it out, maybe wrong, but it works. Thx again.

Guys, help me out. I tried to install an E-1 handstrap together with

the neck strap but there's no instruction at all. Tried to search,

gave up as all the search results only pointed to the forum, rather

than individual relevant message. Or if you know where I can find it,

maybe you can provide me with the link. Thank you for your help.

Cheers.

I knew I am gonna get some valuable advice here, thx a lot guys. I am leaning towards 5D mainly due to FF and image quality (based on what I have read so far). The only thing that still put me off is the price. I know it has come down quite a bit since the launch but still...spending $2700 for a hobby is quite significant. And this is body only! I have not used a crop camera before, so adjusting the FOV with my current lenses will have to be considered then. I don't think I want to re-arrange my lenses nor do I want to invest in EF-S lenses, knowing for sure sometime in the future I will want a FF camera. Looks like you guys have helped me make my decision. I may have to wait for a few more months until the price settled further(less than $2000, hopefully). In the mean time, just continue shooting with my film camera and Reala/Provia! Thx a lot guys.

 

Btw, I travel quite a lot within Asia and as far as I know (from few sites), I can get 5D around $2700 in Hong Kong. Bangkok is a bit more expensive (>$3000), same with Singapore, maybe.

I have been following the development of digital camera for quite

sometime and now pretty much "feel like" jumping into it to join the

crowd. My understanding is having an almost instant feedback will

really help my learning curve.

 

What I need to know is which body will suit me best with my

interests. I currently shoot with EOS30 with 17-40, 50, 85, 200 and

28-135 (all Canon). I like portrait, landscape and street photography

(in this order). After some searching, I find out that I can get 30D

for about US$1500, 20D for US$1200 or 5D for US$2700. Which one do

you guys think will be the best option given my interests? If it's a

5D, do you think I should wait a bit further as the price has been

going down from US$3400 over the past 6 months? Appreciate your help.

Cheers, Justin.

Hemm... looks like since my lens can communicate the existence of Kenko, whenever I use my 200mm, I don't have to worry about the EC then. Thx for your help.

 

Forgive my ignorant, out of curiosity, for the times when I use other lens, say my zoom, that doesn't have the 11 pins, you said I don't need to compensate anything and just rely on the metering suggested by the camera. I saw this article from Bob Atkin (a tale of 2 tc's), and he said using his Tamron 1.4x (I assume it has only 8 pins), the metering is overexposed by 1-stop, hence needs to dial -1 for EC. I am a bit confused then. I thought even if I need to compensate for the metering, I lose 1-stop due to TC, hence shouldn't I dial +1 instead of -1? Appreciate your help again.

Thx Robin. I just checked the number of pins and you are right. The Kenko has 11 pins (which fits nicely with my 200) while my zoom doesn't have it. Another question regarding the exposure compensation though, if you don't mind.

From what I have read so far, using 1.4x extender will cause 1-stop light loss. Does it mean, if the correct exposure is 1"/f4, then adding TC it should become 2"/f4 or 1"/f2.8? Or it just means that the maximum opening I can get will only be f4 (assuming on f2.8 lens with 11 pins) without having to compensate the exposure? When I tested it with the 200mm, it gave me:

without tc : 1"/f2.8 and 2"/f4

with tc : 2"/f4

I am just wondering whether the latter is correct and I don't need to compensate anything. Appreciate your help as I never paid attention on info about TC before. :)

Oh yeah, Happy New Year everyone and wish you all the best in 2006 and hopefully you all will get a very prosperous photographic year!

Guys, need a quick help. I just picked up a new lens (200/2.8) with

Kenko Pro 300 1.4 extender. I noticed that when I mount them

together, the maximum aperture become f/4. While when I tried it on

my 28-135, it doesn't adjust it at all. Does it mean that it has

automatically adjusted for the 1 stop light loss? I read it in this

forum that only Canon extender that show the correct aperture. Pls

share your thought. TIA.

Thx for all the responses. I looked at my 28-135 and tried to see the diff. in angle of view between 85 and 135. Maybe it's just me but I couldn't see a big diff. between the two. I think I will try to find a shop here that allows me to try out the lens. Just in case my rough comparison was not correct.

 

Yakim, your comment always bring some new perspective! :-)

Btw, the price I am looking at is around $795 (135/2), $690 (200/2.8), $450 (135/2.8SF) and $310 (1.4X). Thx again.

Thx for the responses. I check out 135/2.8 SF, but decided to rule it out due to minimum distance. Am I missing something here?

 

Yes, I have 28-135, but I've read it somewhere that it's not a true 135mm on the long side, plus it has a "macro" distance where I can get really close to shoot a very tight frame (with the risk of being slapped by my daughter!). At first, I was leaning towards 200/2.8 as it is longer and fits nicely with my current setup. But it's 1.5m focus distance and I don't know how tight it is capable of shooting. Anyone has sample of a very tight shot with both lenses? TIA.

I know this question probably has been discussed till death, but I

can't seem to find the answer even after searching. So, please help

me with your views.

 

I have been trying to decide on the next lens that I want to purchase

in the short/medium telephoto range. I like to shoot portrait and

landscape. Currently, I have 17-40, 50, 85 and 28-135. Reason why I

want another lens is at times I wish I could reach longer, especially

when taking portrait. It's quite difficult currently to have a tight

head shot of my kids using 85 (I love this lens!) as that will

involve a very close working distance (they will try to reach the

lens!:))) In the same time, my 28-135 does not give me the bokeh that

I want for portrait and it's quite soft. Looking at my setup, I am

leaning towards prime, 135/2 or 200/2.8. I have ruled out all 70-200

options as I think either they are too big, too expensive or too

limiting (f4). Here are my questions:

1. Am I on the right track? Will 135 enough to give extra distance

than 85, or should I just go straight to 200?

2. How's 135/2 compares to 200/2.8 for portrait?

3. How big is magnification between the 2 for portrait? I see the

tech data, but can someone share some light in term of practical

examples of tight head shot? Any comparison review?

4. How's handling of these lenses? MF?

 

Sorry for the long question, but after this, I may need quite along

time again to purchase any other lens. :)) Thx for your help.

Thx again for the responses. Some people misunderstood my question on TC and extension tube. What I did say was I plan to use TC on either lens (70-200/4 or 200/2.8) to get a longer reach. If I am not mistaken, it will give me around 98-280/5.6. This opening is pretty much the same with the max aperture that I have on my 28-135IS. So, the question is whether I will see a big jump in capability if I go with the zoom. My gutfeeling is there will be improvement as the L will be sharper (I hope!). OTOH, the extension tube that I wrote there is to help me decide whether I should use the tube with 70-200 or should I get the dedicated macro lens, knowing it's only for occasional use but then again the price that I can get is quite cheap.

 

I think I will go with the 70-200 zoom. And my reasons are:

1. The extra 1 f-stop will not be really useful in low light situation (based on my experience with my 50/1.8) where most of the times I have to use my 50 at around f/2 or wide open shooting at home.

2. This lens I assume will perform very good outdoor and hopefully it will be better than my zoom. So I don't really mind to have a huge overlap with it. Plus since I use my zoom all over the place for the FL, I can still benefit from the nice L zoom.

3. The downside is the size and the color (and weird filter size!). Yeah, I know it's not necessary true that it will invite more thieves, but you'll never know. I decided to take the chance.

4. Portrait capability will not be crucial as I have the 85/1.8 and I just have to remind myself to always bring it with me then. :)

 

As for the macro, I am not so sure yet. With the price offer, I tend to lean towards buying the Tamron. But that will make me having lots of overlap within this range (85, 28-135, 70-200, 90) for occasional use. What do you guys think? Is there any big different picture quality with the famous 100 macro from Canon?

 

Thx for reading this rather lengthy post. Cheers,

Thx for the responses so far. I would love to have 70-200/2.8 as I have read so many good things about it. But to think about lugging that big lens around plus the cost of it, really back me off. Hence the smaller f4 version or the prime. I also like the versatility of zoom, but my 28-135 is soft on both ends. That's why I am considering the f4 zoom. OTOH, having f4 (f5.6 if used with TC1.4X) will not add more advantage over my current lens. Plus, the white color. That's why I also looked at the prime. Am I missing something here? :))

 

I am quite confused now....:)