wiley

Based on comments that I've seen on the Web, a number of photographers (myself included)

have found that the 1Ds consistently overexposes photos by about 1/2 to 2/3 stop. I've just

taken to dialing in -2/3 stop and going from there.

The answer depends on a number of factors including:

- you preference for workflow

- how much manipulation of the image you want to do in the RAW converter vs. Photoshop

- your preference for the appearance of the final image

I like the workflow of Adobe Camera Raw, but in my experience working with RAW files

from the 20D and the 1Ds and 1Ds Mark II, the RAW converter in Photoshop CS2 produces

overly vivid (almost like 50s Kodachrome) colors by default. I think that the color is much

more accurate from either Canon's Digital Photo Professional (DPP) or from CaptureOne

Pro. Or frankly even the older versions of Adobe Camera Raw. DPP seems to produce

'softer' files from all of my DSLRs.

I generally find the workflow in Digital Photo Pro annoying. That's driven me to

CaptureOne Pro.

There are some constructive reviews at:

http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/rawconverters/pages/capture1dslr.htm

and

http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_14/essay.html

that compare some of the options for doing RAW conversions from various programs.

I actually use all of the above programs at various times because they each seem to have

their own interesting strengths and weaknesses. Depending on the RAW file and the final

result I'm trying to get, I'll change which RAW converter I use.

Your mileage may vary, etc.

I've played with the 17-40 but own both the 16-35 and the 24-70. The 16-35 is

considerably smaller and lighter than the 24-70. You might want to read about comparisons

between the 17-40 and the 16-35. Some reviewers have found the 17-40 to be optically

superior at 17mm and f/4 than the 16-35, though the 16-35 usually wins at 35mm.

I've attached a snapshot of both lenses and their respective lens hoods for comparison.

It's worth noting that for $10 Lexar will advance you the replacement card before you send

the old one back. I did this w/ my 4GB card and received the new card within about 2 days.

Even better, I used their mailer to send the old card back.

I've shot with the Interfit Combo Pro 700, as well as a number of other Interfit monolights.

I'm afraid that while I love the ColorFlash for its ease of use, I can't say the same of the

Combo Pro.

I bought a kit through B&H that includes two Combo Pro 700 flashes, as well as a softbox

and reflectors. The kit was supposed to include cases, but none arrived. In addition, one of

the flashes was DOA. The remaining flash worked, but there were no instructions in the kit

and frankly the user interface on the Combo Pro flashes is VERY opaque. (Note: I'm a

computer geek. I love to press buttons. I usually figure out gadgets in seconds. This thing

kicked my butt). B&H is still in the process of making everything right (no hassles from

them, but they had to special order the necessary stuff from Paterson). We'll see if it all

works out.

So, while the flash worked, I'd say that the ColorFlash is far easier to use. I've been using a

ColorFlash with a softbox as the primary light for portraiture and getting really good

results. I'm attaching a studio shot taken with two Interfit ColorFlash units and a Canon

EOS 20D using a Sekonic light meter.<div></div>

I've been shooting with the DigitFlash 1000 monolights. My impressions are mixed.

The good news is that they are incredibly easy to set up and use, and they support a wide

range of power with proportional modelling lights. Even better, the modelling lamps are

flourescent, so they're actually physically cool unlike many quartz or tungsten modelling

lights. That's great for some types of product photography (particularly food).

The color temperature of the light is around 5200K, which is pretty standard for studio

flash units.

The bad: first, while the light is more diffuse than a bare bulb, it's still not a softbox.

The really bad news is that I had one of my DigitFlash 1000 units fail after only five or six

hours of use. I'm sending it back to Paterson, and they gave me no hassle about the

return. Hopefully I'll be back in commission soon and the failure was a fluke. We'll see.

Other than that, they are as easy to use as one could expect of a monolight with no

additional reflectors, softboxes, etc. needed (or even available--the only light modifier you

can buy to my knowledge is a set of barndoors).