mike_fabricius

<p>James,<br>

To answer your question: I have owned both an EOS 620 and an EOS 30/Elan 7. I bought the Elan used in 2002 and it was a definite improvement from the 620. I realise that you are considering a 630, but it is of reasonably similar specification and era to the 620 (summary of the differences <a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/eos/eoscamera/630/">here</a>). <br>

It is several years since I have used either camera, but I will summarize the differences as best I can recall them. First of all, it was an upgrade that I was very pleased with! I remember that the major improvements between the bodies were the multiple focus points, much faster AF and eye-controlled focus (which wasn't universally popular but worked very well for me), dual control wheels which allowed easy exposure compensation using the rear wheel, and generally improved ergonomics, both in terms of handling and control of functions. The EOS 30 also has a built-in flash which was useful for fill-in or occasional indoor use.<br>

I too have moved onto digital and would suggest that it is well worth a look at some used digital bodies if your budget will run to that. However, you may well have your reasons for wanting to shoot film, and I'm well aware you asked about the difference between 2 film bodies not "should I buy a film or a digital body?"!<br>

Hope this is of help,<br>

Mike</p>

Marios: Enjoy your 17-40.

 

Recent photos on my site were taken with the 17-40, older ones with the 28-105 f3.5-4.5. None with the 20mm which I did not buy.

 

Mike

A bit more about my cursory tests:

 

The crop is from just right of the centre. The 17-40 consistently outperformed the 20mm at all apertures. All shots were auto-focused on the same point which was some distance away; i'd have to go back there to see how far away it was - I can't remember.

 

I reckon that at 1/180s with a 20mm (effective 32mm) lens, camera shake is unlikely, especially to shake consistently with 20mm and not with the larger 17-40. The only other explanation I can think of is some focus calibration issue between 20mm lens and the body.

 

So this certainly wasn't scientific, (please don't jump down my throat half of photo.net...) but I've never regretted my decision.

 

Mike

And here is the image from the 20mm...<div></div>

I was in the market for a wide angle lens for my 10d about a year ago. I went to the local camera shop and fired off a few frames with both lenses at various apertures. I didn't use a tripod. To my eye, the 17-40 was consistently sharper and had more contrast than the 20mm. This certainly wasn't scientific testing but I have never regretted buying the 17-40.

 

Mike<div></div>

I don't know (as I don't have the full-price version). Someone else?

Yes, I was very tempted by the Creative Suite premium, which is 100 GBP more than photoshop alone in the UK (what did we do wrong?). It seemed like such a massive bargain. In the end I felt I couldn't justify spending in order to save, as 300 GBP was enough to be coughing up already.

I bought the educational version of Photoshop CS in the UK a few months ago (I'm a student). As far as I can tell the only difference is that it says 'Educational version' on the splash screen as the program loads.

 

I remember reading somewhere on the net that people successfully applied the PS CS upgrade to education versions of PS 6 and 7. Presumably adobe are happy to get you on the upgrade path. You might want to ask adobe to be sure.

 

My license for photoshop states that I may install it on two machines at the same time.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Mike

Ideally you will calibrate one (or both) of your monitors.

 

It could be the case that neither is correct. If you don't have a calibration device: have you made prints from the CRT and do they match what you see on the screen? If so then stick with it. If not, then look at getting some monitor calibration.

 

Mike

Thank you for your response Michael. The Ilord instructions say to set the driver to Heavyweight matte paper, BUT when I set it to Archival matte instead, it works perfectly. So yes, it probably is a paper thickness issue. Thank goodness, that was getting a bit pricey...

I've run the print head alignment utility, and turned off 'High Speed'. This has improved the problem but not solved it.

 

Also, when it starts printing on the Ilford paper, there is a scratchy noise for a little bit as the print head moves. The front corner is usually a little scuffed with some ink staining on it. The scratchy noise picks up again at the end and the back corners get some ink staining too. The noise at the end didn't happen a few weeks ago and the prints were correctly aligned then too.

 

Thanks

Approximately 70% of the time when I print onto Gallerie smooth fine

art paper, the paper goes off course during the last 4 cm of printing.

This results in banding and a wonky border (deviating by approx 1mm).

The problem doesn't seem to occur when I print onto Epson Matte

Heavyweight paper or onto gloss.

 

Has anyone else experienced this, or is it just my printer that is

faulty? I can just imagine epson saying "Well if you will print onto

3rd party paper..." Of course the obvious answer is to use the Matte

heavyweight paper, but I rather like the fine art paper.

 

I'd be grateful if anyone has any ideas. Thanks,

 

Mike

This page has everything you need (R800 profiles for Epson, Ilford, and Tetenal):

 

<br><a href="http://www.pixelpixel.org/helpinfo/42_r800-2.stm">Click here</a>

 

<p>Mike

http://www.burren.cx/photo/ew83d.html

The image will only look washed out if it is viewed in some application that is not aware of colour profiles. If it were viewed in, for example, Photoshop, then it would be fine.

 

AdobeRGB captures a wider range of colours (bigger gamut), that sRGB. However, if you want to post photos on the web, or print via most online printing services, you will need images in sRGB. It is possible to convert between colour spaces in Photoshop

Try <a href="http://www.billingham.co.uk/">Billingham</a>. Not cheap, but very flexible and beautifully made.

And A4 is half the size of A3, which is half the size of A2...

The parameter settings control how the image is processed. The 'quality' of pixels, or compression rate is selected when the size is selected: e.g. Large, Fine; Large, normal; small, fine.

 

So back to the parameter settings. They control how much the image is sharpened, as well as the saturation, contrast, and colour tone.

 

Hope this is of use,

 

Mike

Simon,

 

I owned a Sigma 24-70 which worked perfectly on my EOS 620 and then my EOS 30. When I put it on the 10D, the camera would freeze when the shutter was released. I called Sigma to enquire about re-chipping, which would have been relatively cheap if I still had proof of purchase. However, without this proof it was ridiculously expensive (I think about £60 for a £90 lens). Apparently they will not do it at all once the lens is discontinued.

 

Moving onto hearsay: Canon do not share the protocol of their body/lens communication with anyone. So Sigma et al have to reverse engineer it. Therefore the bodies may change slightly, and while they maintain compatibility with canon lenses, the Sigma communication just may be broken as the correct Canon protocol was never used.

 

So I am not in a rush to buy another Sigma lens.

 

Mike

You will need more digital storage space - i.e. hard-drive. Perhaps consider an external USB 2 or firewire drive for your laptop. Although the files start as only a few megabytes, they become 18 or even 36 MB once they are PSD files, and bigger if you have multiple layers.

 

Also consider buying a USB 2 CF card reader. It saves the camera's battery, is much faster, and saves you risking tripping over the cable and smashing the camera.

 

PS Elements 2 is included and will get you off the ground, and it may be all you ever want. The full version gives you a few choice extras. If you want to shoot in RAW, then you'll be needing either PS CS or Capture1 raw conversion software as the program supplied by Canon is clunky at best. Anyway, there is no need for an instant decision on that one so see how you go.

 

Have fun,

 

Mike

Yakim: <i>"I need to keep this purchase at $300 or less."</i>

Would the microwave be faster? What power??!

Sorry, that was 1/3 or 1/2 stop INCREMENTS...

If you have the 10D (which you do!) then FEC can be set via the camera body in either 1/3 or 1/2, between -2 and +2 stops.

 

The 420EX has a bounce and swivel head, allowing flash to be bounced off the ceiling whatever the orientation of the camera. The head can be raised to 90 deg, and the head can be swivelled 180 deg to the left, and 90deg to the right.

 

Not so sure about the wireless triggering.

Mark,

 

As you say, there are many good sides to dedicated servers (I used to have one). Just remember that if you form a group of people who all pay their share, and the box goes down on Friday night, it will most likely be YOU who has to fix it.

 

In the end I ditched my linux box and went for a hosting company in the UK that gave me a shell account, and had the other various bells and whistles I wanted. Although it cost more, I'm not responsible to anyone else anymore, and someone else can look after it while I take pictures.

 

I can certainly see the attraction of your idea though...

 

The idea could be a go-er if a few people were prepared to put the work in, and appropriate understanding was reched regarding level of service, uptime, etc.

 

Mike