lucas_jarvis

Ok, I've posted before and have been allowed to attach a picture, what gives here?

Sometimes it's hard to compare different iso's in a review because

the layout of it puts equal iso against equal iso. I thought I'd cut

and paste some of the images from Phil Askey's iso tests from the

recent D200 review to show them side by side.

 

I've selected a high iso from the 5D (iso 3200) and put it against

two different settings from the D200 (iso 800,1600).

 

I put this up because I've heard claims that the 5D's iso 3200 =

D200's iso 800 and so this sparked my interest.

 

On the other hand, I'm wondering if Phil has done a fair comparison.

He states in the resolution part of the review, that the Nikon needs

to be turned to a 'high sharpening' parameter to match that of a

Canon. Yet, when comparing iso's, a softer 'default' parameter is

used.

 

I'm wondering what a comparison with the Nikon D200 at an equal 'in-

camera' sharpening level would look like in comparison to the 5D or

20D/30D?

 

Regardless, I'll post anyway.

 

*To note* I am a Canon user, but still have to disagree with the

claims that a 5D's iso 3200 is equal to Nikon's D200 iso 800. I'll

let you be the judge.

Any big online sites from Hong Kong?

Just wondering if anyone resides in the Sydney area and knows where

the biggest and best place to buy professional camera equipment is.

I just moved here and live close to downtown. I'd like to purchase a

few things and also possibly apply for a job at one of these places.

Also, is there any large online photo sites here as well, or should

I be looking on ebay? Any advice or tips would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Well, no I can't <i>really</i> afford both options. I'm just wondering if it would be <i>worth</i> the upgrade. If a 20D with a 10-22 can perform just as well, or possibly better, it might change my - and others - desire to upgrade. Corner softness and light falloff might be worse on a full frame body compared to the 10-22 on a crop. Plus I hear the 10-22 is one of the best wide angle lenses to control flare. I want a 'no holds barred cage match' between these two!

Does anyone have any thoughts on this comparison? Or any links?

Yep, I had to get my battery grip fixed. It's on recall so there is no charge.

I just wanted to nullify what I posted originally. When I used the 24-105 for the first time, it was after a canon service for a motor drive. They must have done something wrong because it appears that all my lenses are having focus problems. I'm sure this was an isolated case and that the 24-105 and the 20D work great together.

I just got a chance to try out the 24-105mm for a full day wedding.

I was using it in cunjunction with the 20D. When I got home to look

at the photo's I noticed that 90% of my shots were front focusing. A

few hit their mark, but the rest are borderline useable. They're

probobly good for a dvd slideshow, but any large prints are out of

the question. As a note, I also was using a 1D Mark II at the same

wedding and almost every single shot was smack dead on with the

lens. I was wondering if anyone else was having this problem with

the combo of the 24-105 and the 20D or if this is just an isolated

case. I would also like to note that the 20D works flawlessly with

the 24-70 and many other lenses - although not the 70-200 F4. Maybe

this camera doesn't like the F-4 lineup canon is offering.

Oh yes, of couse. The combo of a 5D and a 24-105 IS could be a good one two punch for low light shooting. Shooting in low light churches without a tripod for wedding ---> An evolutionary step? I think so.

I still think it's pretty cool that one of those shots on DPReview was done at 1/13th of a second handheld at a very high iso with very nice results. In the past, I think a shot like that would definatly require a tripod. Maybe this is more an evolutionary leap than the FF issue.

I'm sure you've all checked out the various images posted on the

internet from Canon's new 5D. Some of these shots are done at iso

1600 and iso 3200. Did anyone notice a gain in performance at these

high iso's over the older models of canon camera's? Or is it based

on the same generation of technology bringing equal results?

It's 2am where I am. All is quiet. A little too quiet. Are we all

subject to a hoax? Too early to tell for sure. Anyone with a link to

a press release post it up!

Yeah, I'm looking for flash gels for the very same reason. Also, I'd like to use them at the reception, where the halls are tungsten lit. Where can I find ones that are fit to my flash? - The 420EX. Or will I be buying a huge sheet and cutting and taping them to the flash unit?

How do I know if my camera has beam splitters. If I just throw the polarizer on and autofocus on a few things, and it correctly focuses, than I'm ok?

I use the 20D and AI Servo with success. I'm not 'old school', so I guess that's why I can imbrace technology easier than others. But if my old methods were working, I don't think I would change them either. I can usually get three pictures at different spots using a 24-70 zoom lense. The trick that works for me when it comes to getting the AI Servo to focus properly is to use the center focus spot and to use it on something other than a black suit. You will find that a black suit will be hard for the camera to focus on in low light. The females lightly coloured dress or a nicely textured flower bouqet are good things to AI Servo to track. Another thing you might want to look into is a battery pack for your flash. I've got a home made one that gives me a lot more power than four AA batteries can provide. This will equate to a faster recycle time, allowing you go get 3 blasts in a short period of time, allowing you to take more shots. (The 20D is a fast shooting camera, but if your flash can't keep up, what's the point?) If you're flash takes too long to recycle, you'll be getting an all ambient light shot on your second try - giving you an underexposed, or blurry picture depending on how you have your camera set up. There are many ways to solve a single problem. This is just another one.

I've read that they don't work with autofocus camera's, but I've read that that isn't the case with digital camera's. Is this the case with the 20d?

Ok, so this Linear Polarizer is ok to use with my 20D since it doesn't have a reflection mirror correct? Also, I'm using a UV filter under the Linear Polarizer too. Will this change the effect? I'm going to go out around noon next time and takes shots of the horizon. This will be 90 degrees in any direction. I hope it works.

By 90 degrees, you mean the sun should be directly to my left or right? When I took my test shots I shot in three different directions and did about a half rotation of the filter for a total of two shots per direction. There were no clouds in the sky but it was around 7pm so maybe this was the reason. Is this too late in the evening to use a polarizer? The sky was still blue to my eye.

I thought polarizers were supposed to make the sky a darker blue.

I've got one that I bought a long time ago and I've done some

comparison tests to see. I took some pictures of the same subject

matter - with and without it - and I don't see the difference in the

sky. When I went to check the name of the filter so I could share it

all with you I noticed that it is a PL Polarizer Filter. Is this

different then a 'circular' polarizer? Also, I'm shooting with a

digital camera. Do the sensors pick up light differently than film

rendering the polarizer useless? My guess is that it's the first

theory - and that I got hosed buying a three pack of filters when

all I used out of it was the UV - but I just wanted to verify with

some people with experience.

I've just used some Ni-MH rechargeable batteries in my flash unit,

but replaced them before they were dead because the refresh was

getting a little to slow for me. I'd like to charge them up, but I'm

not sure if I should drain them first. Anyone know what I should do?

Sorry Marc, Maybe I misunderstood you. I thought by 'playing back on the lcd' you meant immediatly after a shot. As far as transfering files to a laptop or some other type of device - I wouldn't trust it, no sir, no way. I would recommend just buying enough cards to cover a whole event. If you mess up that file transfer, you're screwed. Or if you drop it, I'm sure it will be more prone to damage than a camera card. I could drop a card in a bowl of punch and it would probobly be ok still. (Actually, I have no idea about this, but there was a show on tv just a while ago that put all the cards through some serious tests to see how rugged they were. They dropped them from buildings, ran them over with cars, boiled them in water and all sorts of stuff, and a lot of them came out salvageable. Try that with a hard drive!)

I agree that the dual card writer camera feature is definatly the best bet. I disagree that just because you're seeing pics on the lcd, that means that you've got the shots and there is no problem. Those images are coming from the buffer, and not the card. I still think smaller cards are the way to go. Yeah, if you mess up at a critical time, you're screwed for sure. But it is no reason to screw up many more shots because you used a larger card.

I bought a two gigger but later regreted it. What if something goes wrong with that disk. Too many photo's could be lost. I'm going to stick with more 1 giggers. Sure, I'll have to change them more, but less risk. Plus, two 1 giggers are cheaper than a 2 gigger.

Oh Al, we can always count on you to throw a jab at the digital users.