drfl

As a side note to the AF issue above. I have used the 300 with an EOS A2E and the 20D and I have noticed that the A2E hunts alot. The 20d is better, but still tends to hunt in areas where there isn't clear contrast on the AF point. Be sure to set your AF to 3m-infinity if you are doing wildlife work as this will cut down on your hunting job. If the wildlife is closer than 3m and isn't something small like a squirrel, then I suggest that you back away, slowly.

I debated this very topic during the last rebate cycle. Ultimately, I decided to go with the 300 f/4l over the 100-400 mainly because I was already covering the 70-280 range with a 70-200 f/4l lens (+1.4 tc) and I didn't really feel like I needed the zoom between 280 and 300 and between 300 and 420 (the 300 with the 1.4x tc extender). All the reviews I read stated that the 300 with the 1.4x extender provided superior results. Of course prime lenses will more often than not provide a sharper image than the zoom counterparts. That's not to say that the 100-400 isn't a great lens by any means, but the question is do you really need to zoom throughout that zone that often?

I sent my 20D in for service with around 22,000 photographs (number). When it

was sent back it was set to 47,500. I doubt that they took this many

photographs. How do I reset the numbering back to where it was when I sent in

the camera? I have tried placing various cards in and they continue to go

with the new numbers.

David, obviously with my 20d I don't get into the latest and greatest. It's just a little dishartening when the flash that you bought and haven't been able to use is already obsolete.

I don't know what's worse, the fact that I just purchased a 580EX on the last rebate deal or the fact that the day that it and my 300 f/4l lens arrived my 20d stopped working and I haven't gotten it back yet from the shop (Over 4 weeks now and counting). Oh well, progress must go on.

I usually charge based upon usage type, run, etc. The problem here of course is I have never run into this type of use, the number of photographs, and the branding issue. Many people believe that regardless of branding you should charge full rate. I am not sure how to proceed in this case.

I have recently been approached by the company I work for (my day

job) to possibly produce a screensaver of my images for a sales

giveaway. They are looking for something unique, not just a pen or a

squishy ball that is usually the case with most companies. They said

that they would be willing to co-brand the screensaver. I am

struggling with pricing for many factors:

 

1. My photography website/my name and my company (day job) would

appear either together on every slide or every few frames - TBD

 

2. I figure they would be using between 12-20 pieces of my work

 

3. I am having a hard time with pricing due to "Bulk Screensaver

Pricing" not being one of options that I have listed (ie pamphlet,

ad, website, etc.)

 

I do not want to lowball this one, but I want to be fair based on

the previous factors. Any help would be appreciated.

 

Also, if anyone is familiar with a good Screensaver package that

allows distributions, please let me know.

 

Thanks, Derrald

Agreed, Bob. As a happy owner of a 20d with only 11,000 photos taken I do not see any reason to upgrade to a 30d. The $$$ is much better spent towards a 5d. Now, if I could only find another $3000 laying around for that 5d.

I have recently looked at the firmware upgrade on the 20d - 2.0.3.

I noticed one of the improvements is better communication with CF

cards. What does that exactly mean? I currently have a 2 GB

Hitachi Microdrive that occasionally corrupts some of the

photographs on that card. It happens randomly, not all of the time,

and in different spots on the card. I have resigned the fact that

it was a card problem, however, this firmware note gives me hope

that I can once again use this card. Has anyone had experience with

this? Thanks in advance, Derrald.

Very interesting, the 50 CM looks good and may be closer to what I need, especially since if I get into Macro some more I can add the life size converter. Since it is so sharp, what softening filter would be recommended for portraits?

Thank You for your responses, I appreciate the quick replies. I do hope to someday go to a full-frame sensor and with the 5D coming it may be sooner than later (although I cannot afford one at the moment, nor for about a year at best). I would like to stick to ef lenses that I can use when this glorious day arrives (the 10-22 being my only exception). I have tried using my 70-200 at 100 to see what I think, but since it is not a macro lens I really have no concept of the Macro side of things and I haven't had a lot of subjects to try it for portraits. As you can see from my portfolio, humans are not subjects I photograph often (yet) so my experience is limited. The 50 Macro looks interesting, however, I would like 1:1, however on a 1.6 crop will the 50 make up for the 1:1? Thanks again.

I currently own a 70-200 f/4l, a 10-22 ef-s, and a 17-40 f/4l (and

the 18-55 kit lens although I am bitten with the L/Prime bug) and I

am trying to include a slightly faster lens for portraits as well as

get something for Macro. I can only afford one lens at the moment.

I've read that the 100 2.8 Macro is a great lens for both, however, I

have some reservations about it on a 1.6 crop with it as a portrait

lens. To those who currently use this lens for portraits on a 1.6

crop factor body, is this one of your primary portrait lenses or do

you generally go with something a little wider (especially in a

studio setting), say an 85 or a 50? What are your opinions? Thanks.

This is odd. Are these in order as you took them left to right? The 4/4 ratings go up by 2 and then down by 1. Strange. I have noticed some interesting rating changes like that on my photograph as well.

<P>

<A href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3531535">http://www.photo.net/photo/3531535</a>.

I have formatted every card I own in my camera several times as a matter of fact. I always stress test the card when I get it and then I format it afterwards. This wasn't really a question of formatting it or not formatting it, it was a question of if anyone had seen this issue before and had made of note of what was done to correct it. By having people keep saying "format it, format it", it doesn't really answer my query.

Beau,

 

actually ISO comes from the Greek word "isos" meaning "equal", it does not stand for International Standards Organization. It is pronounced as a word as well, not an acronym.

 

See:

http://www.iso.org/iso/en/aboutiso/introduction/index.html#three

 

As such, the speeds on film should be "equal" to digital by the definition of ISO.

I recently purchased at 2gb Hitachi Microdrive. The first time I

placed it into my camera it worked for about 30 photographs (RAW)

before the camera gave me an Err CF. It would still read in the Card

Reader and I could access photographs and place files on the card. I

then formatted it in Windows and used it again for about 60

photographs. It then gave me the same error. Finally I formatted it

in the Card Reader and immediately formatted it in the Camera

afterwards. So far nothing has happened, but it has made me a bit

leary. Has anyone had a similar experience?

 

Thanks,

Derrald

Ken, as far as the honda and toyotas are concerned they make different cars as well as BMW. The Acura NSX is made by the Honda Motor Corp and I would think that most would agree that it is a superior automobile. Lenses, like cars have variety and are usually very expensive.

Thanks to all who contributed. I think that I may conduct my own experiment with this. I will let you all know what I find out!

Paul, while I understand why one would expose to the right in an "ideal" situation, I suppose the real question is, if you have the discrete steps of tonal value, is that better than the noise that is produced by a higher ISO in a less than "ideal" situation. In the case that is presented you would recommend to be 2 stops above. (if it is 1 stop below at 800, it would be overexposed by 1 stop at 3200 to use the expose to the right rule). I have some concerns that the noise would be too high at 3200 or even 1600. That is where I am interested in a side by side comparison.

To add to what Bob said, in my experience I don't always underexpose exactly a stop. The following photograph was taken at 2/3 underexposed and then brought up through RAW processing. I had the ISO set for 800 and I didn't want to punch it up to 1600 just to get the 1/500 sec. shutter required for the 448 effective focal length that I had with my 70-200 f4/l + 1.4 tc. It worked out well here, in a pinch, like I mentioned before, but I may be losing detail when I use this technique in more extreme conditions.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=00C2r6&photo_id=3327152&photo_sel_index=0

 

(Cut and paste)

After shooting a few thousand photographs on my 20d, I am curious

regarding people's perspective on reducing noise by

effectively "pushing" the ISO. What I mean is this: Instead of

choosing the higher ISO setting (1600 or 3200) by keeping it at 800

and underexposing the image 1 or 2 stops. Of course, by using RAW

you can bring the exposure level back to where it needs to be. I

generally find these photographs have less noise than the higher ISO

photographs, even post-Noise Ninja. I know that this flys in the

face of the "Expose to the right" methodology, but it was worked in

situations in a pinch. Have others experienced this, or is there too

much detail lost? Instead of underexposing should I work with the

higher ISO file in a different manner to get more detail from the

photograph? Does a comparison of these two techniques exist?

I am currently using a 20d and I am curious about the A-DEP

function. On the few times I have utilized it, it has worked

decently, however, I want to know how efficient this function is from

individuals who have more experience. I am planning a trip to

photograph landscapes and I will be shooting a lot of photographs

utilizing the hyperfocal technique. I find that with the 20d it is

difficult to manually focus and the distance scale on my 17-40 f4/l

leaves much to be desired. With the problem of diffraction cropping

up past about f/16 on digital bodies (sometimes f/11) my question is

this. Does the A-DEP mode figure depth of field with the lowest

needed f-stop? Otherwise, if I can get by with taking a photograph

at f/11 (front subject is in the focus points - i.e. rock, branch,

etc., back subject - i.e. mountains are in the back focus point) does

it go with f/11, or does it err on the side with more depth of field?

I posted something regarding this a couple of weeks back. My red pixel only shows up on JPG, not on RAW. Do you find the same?

By the way, I just went back to using my K1000 for a couple of things. Ah, how I sometimes miss those simpler days.....

Add hyperfocal shooting to that. Talk about getting into a circle of confusion!