digitalirony

Thanks Dennis & Charles.

 

I'll have a go at making a better contact and perhaps even opening up the camera.

 

It occurred to me that there there might be a fault with the battery. I have no way of checking it but will look for another battery to use for testing with.

Hi There,

 

I hope that this is the correct forum for this post.

 

I have owned a Canon Canonet GIII QL 17 for quite a few years, but after a long period of without use I would like to

use it again. I bought a Wein cell battery for it and on testing the battery found that the battery test light and

metering no longer work.

 

Is there anywhere where I can get instructions on how to check where the fault may be and possible fix this myself?

 

Is is even worth trying to fix myself, or should I sell it on eBay and try to find one that works as a replacement?

 

If anyone is aware of a location in London (England), where it could be repaired for a reasonable cost I would also

consider this.

 

Many thanks for your opinions.

Hi Rainer,

 

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I don't own any IS lenses but I'm guessing that it has something to do with the panning.

I was panning and the exposure time was 1/30th of a second. Could it be a problem with the shutter?

 

I took about 100 panning shots on the day and about 20 of them were at 1/30th of a second but this was the only

one with this strange "break" in the frame.

 

I'n not concerned about the camera, I don't think it is faulty, it is more likely to be my technique, but wondered if

anyone had any insight?<div></div>

Hi Chris,<br>

<br>

Although we are drifting off topic here, I catually record RAW+Medium JPEG. I use the JPEGs as a guide and the smaller files save space on teh CF card and my HDD. If the image is worth printing, I work back from the RAW file. If I'm just doing some small prints for someone else (friend or relative) the Medium JPEGs are large enough.<br>

<hr>

Hi Sarah,<br>

<br>

Again drifting off topic, I looked into your suggestion of a mirror lens and there are a few that come in canon fit that are cheap. But a bit of research suggested, the crops from the 300mm end of my zoom lens blown up twice the size would be of comparable if not better quality.<br>

<br>I agree with you that the 100-400 is probably my most realistic change of getting closer to the action (it is cricket, but I suppose you can still call it action). I'm going to see if I can convince someone to let be borrow one for a day.<br>

<hr>

Once again, many thanks to everyone who contributed answers to my original question.

Thanks Rainer, Sarah & Bob, for helping me to work it out.

 

There's no hope of me getting access to a 500mm or 600mm lens any time soon so I'll have to keep cropping. Might be able to borrow a 100mm - 400mm zoom which would be interesting.

 

The real problem is the DOF. although I'm sitting quite some distance from the pitch (about 100m), and the people in the background are about an equal distance as well at 300mm @ f/5.6 it is still quite difficult to separate the players from the audience (I would say fans, but this is cricket!).

 

It looks worse on the downsized images but I'm guessing that's why the pros are all using 600mm f/4.0 lenses.

Wow, that was easier than I though.

 

I didn't realise that it was a straightforward linear relationship - doh!

 

Many thanks.

I'm not sure if this is the correct forum for this question but as a Canon user it is the forum I'm most familiar

with.<br>

<br>

I have a 300mm lens and used it recently to take some photos of a <a

href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket">cricket match</a>.<br>

<br>

The lens was not long enough to frame the photos of the action as I would have liked but as I was (severely)

cropping the image to the framing I desired I was wondering...<br>

<br>

If the medium jpeg file I recorded is 2816 pixels x 1880 pixels and I know the dimensions of the cropped image

that would give me the focal length equivalent that I would have liked, say 1408 pixels by 940 pixels, can I use

this to calculate the approximate equivalent focal length of the lens that I would need to capture the cropped

area as a full (APS-C) framed image?<br>

<br>

I've tried to work out the maths but got stuck with the angle of views to pixels business. Trigonometry is

clearly not my strong point.<br>

<br>

Tamron has a Focal Length Comparison Tool at <a

href="http://www.tamron.com/lenses/learning_center/tools/focal-length-comparison.php">http://www.tamron.com/lenses/learning_center/tools/focal-length-comparison.php</a>,

which I have looked at and approximated that the length required would be about 500mm but it is hard to determine

using their tool.<br>

<br>

Has anyone got a quick and dirty way of doing the calculation?<br>

<br>

<img title="cropped framing" src="http://www.digitalirony.com/blog/uploaded_images/2008-06-28/1451s.jpg"

width="400" height="267">

Thanks Chris,

 

Good article, explains a lot.

Hi Christian,

 

As I said a few days ago I'll probably but a pair of Sunpak 383s. I've read a lot of good reviews of the 285HVs, but then I cam across quite a few articles where people were having problems with them. I think the Sunpak 383s are quite similar in power and functionality. I had originally thought of getting second hand Nikon SB-26s but can't find any, and they are now unlikely to be cheaper than the 285HVs or 383s.

 

Regarding the radio triggers, I was very interested in what Momo said about the fact that in M mode on his XTi can trigger the slave flash without issue, suggesting that the pre-flash issue ins't an issue. However if I stick with the plane I'll get the gadgetinfinity wireless trigger and slaves as I can't afford the skyports.

 

Thanks for your input.

Thank you Bob, Mark, Robin, Chris & Giampi for taking the time to respond.

 

After having some time to look into the matter (dismal wet Bank Holiday weekend here in the UK), I've come to the conclusion that I really only have two options.

 

Option 1; would be to pony up about GPB 150.00 for a second hand 550EX as suggested by Robin, plus whatever it costs for an off camera cord. I'd have to learn about flash ratios, so that I have some measure of control of the light output on the 420EX which would be triggered by the 550EX, or,

 

Option 2; I eschew E-TTL altogether and buy a cheap radio trigger and a couple of slaves along with some cheap manual strobes. If I choose this route then the cheapest way to do this seems to be to buy an eBay/cactus V2s trigger and a pair of receivers and a pair of Sunpak 383s for about GBP 230.00.

 

As there isn't much between the two in terms of cost, I'll have to decide which way to go based on reliability, ease of use and level of control.

 

I'm guessing that option 1 would be simpler to use and there will be less equipment to carry around in my bag or to go wrong in use, but as the 420EX doesn't not allow manual control may be harder to set up consistently.

 

As this is just a hobby the convenience of having less to carry around or to have to 'debug' when something goes wrong is quite appealing, also if I get the 550EX then I suppose I could get another EX flash in the future with manual control if I like the mutli strobe stuff.

 

I don't have the money to buy either set up for the next couple of weeks, so I think I'll read more and take my time coming to a decision. If possible I'll see if I can borrow a 550EX or a 580EX to try it out.

 

Once again, thanks for the input.

I've recently bought a 40D and am now happily trying all of the things that I never

had the patience to try using my film bodies and have hit a small problem.

 

I'm trying to find a relatively cheap way of experimenting with off-camera flash, and

after reading online and even posting a message on the Lighting Equipment and

Techniques forum (http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00PYV8)

here at photo.net am beginning to understand the cheap may not be possible.

 

The main problem is that the 40D uses preflashes for exposure calculations when

my 420EX is attached which rules out using optical slaves. Why it should try to

use E-TTL exposure calculations when I'm in manual mode is a mystery. I

appreciate that I can be handy when you just want to point and shoot and let the

camera work out the exposure, but, the fact that it can't be switched off when you

want to experiment with other techniques in incredibly annoying.

 

Enough preamble ...

 

Continuing my research today I've come across the Canon HF-DC1 flash unit for

Powershot cameras. I can't find much info on this flash unit even on the Canon

website (http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/report/200707/table2.html),

however, it does have three power settings & it does say that the flash is

compatible with "Cameras with a built-in flash that fires the main flash between 70

and 150ms after a single pre-flash".

 

So the questions are ...

 

Does anyone know how many pre-flashes the 40D uses in manual mode with 1.

the pop up flash and 2. the 420EX Speedlite unit? And if it isn't more than 1, how

long duration between the pre-flash and the main flash is?

 

If I could use the HF-DC1 it would be a cheap and cheerful way of experimenting

with multiple flash units.

Thanks Richard,

 

Whilst your suggestion is quite tempting, I don't think that it would suit my style of photography. I'm unlikely to use the strobes in a studio type controlled environment and also they look to big to take with me in my kit bag.

 

I'm definitely going to go for flashguns (and a few clamps).

 

I've attached a photo (below) of the type of stuff that I think the off camera flashes would be helpful to capture. I took this last night with just one flashgun attached to the camera. Unfortunately only the hand was in focus as I was trying to zone focus as the camera was having problems tracking the target as it cam towards me. Judging distances isn't as easy as I thought!<div></div>

Thanks for the suggestions, I wasn't aware the the Vivitar 285HVs had problems and had not come across the even cheaper Sunpak 383s.

 

It is a but dissapointing that the TTL flashes on the 40D cannot be turned off in manual mode.

 

I'll wait until I can afford a Sunpak 383 and a radio trigger and experiment with on off camera flash and see what I think before investing any more money.

I need help!

 

I would very much like to experiment with off camera flash (just for the hell of it).

This is something I never tried with any of my film bodies but having just aquired a

Canon 40D and, having come across the excellent Strobist (

http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/) website, I'm keen to try it out. The only problem

is that I have a very limited budget. I have searched the photo.net archives to see

who else has had the same problem and what the solution was but didn't find any

articles that addressed my questions.

 

I've considered getting a flash extension cord, but that would be quite limiting in

practice. I was wondering if anyone here could recommend a cheap way to get

started with wireless off camera flash. I have a Speedlite 420EX flash unit, so any

additional flash units would be for strictly off camera use.

 

I have read a little about flash units and have seen that the Vivitar 285HV is very

popular, highly recommended and reasonably priced, but the question that arises

is how to trigger the flash?

 

I have seen that there are cheap optical units (Wein peanut & hotshoe mounted)

that can be attached to flashes to trigger them, but these apparently get confused

by the TTL burst that the camera uses for evaluating the exposure. I'm not sure if I

can disable this on the camera (if anyone knows how to please let me know), but

if it is possible then this would seem like a good, cheap, way of triggering the

remote unit(s) using the pop up flash on the camera.

 

If optical slaves cannot be used I've seen that there are some cheap & cheerful

radio flash triggers advertised on eBay (e.g. Item number: 280229083953). I'm not

sure however that these would work with with any old shoe mounted flash unit as

there is a relatively small list of compatible units.

 

Does anyone know if these could be used with the plethora of cheap second hand

flash units with manual power settings that are perennially available on eBay? If

not, is there a trigger unit that would work with those cheap flashes (e.g. eBay

Item number: 180244074899)?

 

Finally; can this really be done cheaply? Two Vivitar 285HVs plus an eBay radio

trigger and additional reciever would cost about ﾣ230.00, is it worth trying to do

this any cheaper or am I just going to end up frustrated and end up spending the

ﾣ230.00 anyway in the end?

The URL in my post above should be http://planetneil.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/

 

I don't know why the bracket got included in the link, sorry.

Until I found this site [http://planetneil.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/], I always had problems shooting social events (birthday parties, pub evenings, etc.), but since reading about how he uses flash I've found it a lot easier. Try some of the techniques out beforehand, they may be helpful.

 

I hope it is useful, good luck on Friday.

It might be useful to use the term 'constant aperture' when describing a lens that does not change the aperture at the largest setting when zooming rather than 'fixed aperture'.

 

Apart from that I have nothing new to contribute.

Kodak Ultra Color 400UC Color Negative Film appears to be the same as Kodak Elite Color 400, just the film is branded as Ultra Color in North America and as Elite Color in Europe. There may be minor differences (I don't know) as Kodak may have localised the emulsions to tune them for the different markets, but they should be reasonably close.

 

I believe Ultra Max 400 is a completely different emulsion though.

I sometimes get this when scanning negatives, I find that just duplicating a 1 pixel column (using the single column marqee tool) from the left or the right of the affected line and layering it over the affected area is enough to prevent it from being noticeable, if the line is two pixels wide I'd use one column from the left and one from the right. A tough of gausian blur sometimes helps as well.

 

YMMV, but is the file is large and you are printing relatively small this is often enough, but it will depend on the image.

 

This is quicker than the clone tool but you might prefer the results from the clone tool.

If the monitor is a good one and you have the room for it and the time to get it, why not.

 

It will probably only be a stop gap, but then you could afford a calibration system (Huey for the monitor or Eye One Photo for monitor and printer) to use now and upgrade the monitor if you need to when you have more cash.

 

Just remember that any [professional] CRT is probably going to be a bit old now and although it may last a long time it is unlikely to do so. More likely to die on you when you least expect it.

 

Research the monitor and see it it was rated highly before you make the effort of going to get it, and make sure that they can demonstrate it working at the resolution you want to use it at, otherwise it isn't worth the hassle.

Hi Tom,

 

I have to say that ever since I got my first set of prints delivered after using a properly calibrated monitor I was converted to a dedicated believer in calibration. The effort saved and disappointment avoided makes life so much easier that I would never again to any but the most basic of editing (cropping, resizing, etc.) on a monitor which wasn't calibrated.

 

I haven't used the Panotone Huey but if you can get one for $80.00, then I'd personally (my $0.02, you may disagree) do without a few beers and sandwiches for a few weeks to get one. Even if it is only 75% as accurate as the Gretag Macbeth system, the time, ink and whatever costs it will save you would make it more than worthwhile.

Ouch! I respectfully bow out.

 

Good luck in your search Charles.

"Why does the Samsung cost more?"<br><br>Because the image quality is much better. I was in pretty much the same situation that you are in now last December. I was looking at the cheaper 22 inchers myself (and a few 20 and 21 inchers as well) and after much deliberation decided to spend the extra money, and after seeing the difference myself now am very happy that I did.<br><br>My monitor is calibrated with the Gretag Macbeth Eye One Match system and the accuracy and gamut of the monitor is much better than the cheap 22 inch lcds that I have seen. Look out for monitors using 6bit panels, as I found quite a few cheaper monitors to use, they are cheaper but they cannot display as many colours, and really are not suitable for colour critical work.<br><br>The only caveat is that I haven't done much comparing in the last 3 months so maybe someone has produced a decent monitor at a cheaper price since then, however I think that if it was as good they would charge as much.<br><br>I don't use the speakers or the alternative inputs either so I can't comment on those.<br><br>I must point out that the colours displayed of the Samsung on its default settings aren't that good for photo editing, too much saturation, and the colour balance seems a little off, but after calibration it is a fantastically accurate screen. There are better monitors at similar sizes, but they cost more than the Samsung, like the NEC SpectraView series and Eizo ColorEdge series.<br><br>If editing images or a similar colour critical task is your main purpose for using the monitor then you can't go far wrong with the Samsung, you will be happy that you spent the extra cash. If photo editing is a secondary, or tertiary consideration then you might be better off looking elsewhere. In the end the decision rests with you and what you priorities are.<br><br>BTW; if you think the Sammy is expensive check out the prices of the NEC SpectraView Reference 21 or Eizo ColorEdge CG220, ouch!<br><br>Good luck with your search :)

Hmm, may I recommend a 21" LCD with the resolution you want?<br>

<br>

I'd recommend a Samsung SyncMaster 215TW (review: <a href="http://www.trustedreviews.com/displays/review/2006/06/26/Samsung-SyncMaster-215TW-21in-Monitor/p1" target="_blank">http://www.trustedreviews.com/displays/review/2006/06/26/Samsung-SyncMaster-215TW-21in-Monitor/p1</a>) the pixel pitch is quite large which makes for comfortable viewing.