sean_mclennan

I'm a Canon shooter...used to be Pentax (in my film days)

I'm curious by your comment about Pentax not having an array of brand new glass, specificall above 135mm.

Who does?

Canon has maybe 4 new lenses that fit that category. Nikon has 3. The rest of their lenses are hardly brand new designs..some are 6 or 8 years old!

I'm often missed some of my old Pentax glass. There are some amazing lenses in Pentax's lineup!

Just so you know, if you are a tourist, you can get the tax back when you leave the country! So don't let the 15% tax scare you...you'll have to pay it up front, but you can get it back from our Customs Agency. Also, I got my 20D for a hair LESS then I would have from B&H!

Remember, you don't really HAVE to pay the asking price...they will come down on camera bodies, flash and memory...but they won't budge on lenses.

I paid $1900 plus tax ($2185 total) at henry's in TO for my 20D the week they came out. (compared to the $1499 US from B&H...at that time) After shipping, exchange and taxes...it would have been just over $2200 Cdn.

Lenses on the other hand....sooooo different! I've saved over $500 buying 3 lenses from B&H!

sean

"From what I've read, the issue with white balance is that the colour temperature of the flash may change slightly depending on whether the capacitor is fully charged."

Where did you read this? From my understanding, the flash will not fire unless the proper power is available from the capacitor.

sean

I bought the Sigma 24-70 2.8.....I found it soft and couldn't be bothered to send it in for calibration...so I returned it and bought the Tamron 28-75 2.8 di....Love it. It's not as rugged as the Sigma (Tamron is plastic body, Sigma is metal) but it shoots like a dream.

sean

So the question is....is there any way to tell how many shots a camera has taken? You wouldn't worry about buying a film camera for shutter wear without a time attribute (ie, used professionally for 8 years...) as it was unlikely the shutter was used 50,000 times in one year!

But with these DSLRs....shutter life IS an important element when buying used. Buying someone's used 20D, with over 60,000 shots taken would be a fairly high risk if you ask me!

I thought I read somewhere that if you have software that will display all of the EXIF data, that the shutter released is contained in there somewhere? Is this a myth?

sean

yeah, sorry, my pics posted were with the Tamron 28-75 2.8 Di...

sean

I have had the 20D for about 2 months now...I love it. What I don't like is the relatively unsecure attachment point of the Battery Grip (although I've yet to have a problem with it, I do recognize it's not the best connection). I *need* a battery grip so for me this is a concern.

I've had a few AF hunting issues under various conditions, not just low light or non-Canon lenses...and these pics end up being soft too...but this isn't the norm, more the exception.

I've had the Error 99 once and only once. Didn't lose any data or anything, I had to remove the battery and re-install then everything was ok. I never did figure out why it happened, but it's not happened since.

To date, I am very pleased with the performance and quality of this camera. I do find the images...all images...a little soft. But I've seen other people post pics they thought were tack sharp and I found them soft, so maybe I'm just too picky...that being said, all of the prints I've made have been top notch.

As for the 9 point AF selector...Phil...I simply use the large round wheel as my AF point selector...then I do have access to it while in Portrait mode! Works great, you should try it. (cus function.)I too use Portrait mode a lot.

I would highly recommend the 20D to anyone looking for a great >10mp DSLR, especially if they had Canon gear already.

sean

ok, here is a sample of a shot I took of my friend's new baby...he's got lots of fine hair!

1st pic attached is resample down to 800x600...

2nd is a 800x600 100% crop...

This photo was shot at ISO 400, 5.6, 1/60th, handheld with 580EX flash bounced off the ceiling.

I am not posting this as an example of how *amazing* this lens is or anything, just posting a sample shot taken with it.

Of course, critiques are always welcome too...<div></div>

To be completely absurd, I pixel peeped both inmages at 1200%, and the difference between the Tamron and the Canon is definitely there, but what I find odd, is the clarity difference has a spotty pattern to it. It is not an even or linear difference, rather, there are spots of low detail contained within the image...especially in the corners. As both lenses picked up the print screen pattern, there is a basis for comparison. In this pattern reproduction, I see spots of softness on the Tamron.

This pattern/spots makes me think your lens is not clean. You said you purchased it used, have you completely inspected/cleaned all of the elements? Other than these spots seen at extreme magnification, the clarity/sharpness if pretty darn close if you ask me, but I would still give the nod to the Canon. (of course a prime SHOULD perform better than a zoom...)

sean<div></div>

well, I own both these lenses myself, at F8 I *cannot* tell the difference in clarity/sharpness between the two at anywhere between 40 to 60mm on the Tamron...at either far ends on the Tamron, I do notice a small difference, mostly in the edges of the photo.

At F5.6, I find them very close and often have to really look hard to spot the difference, again, mostly outside the center of the photo.

Once I stopped worrying about these 100% inspections and just started shooting...I honestly can't tell which lens I used for which shot unless I look at the Exif data (if I shot the Tamron close to 50mm)or it was very low light condition or very high bokeh.

For what it's worth, I find the two photos you posted to be very close and I wonder what they would look like printed out on A4? Just a thought...

sean

yep, just checked mine...it's the same. Smooth side facing flash...

sean

if price ISN'T a concern, Canon of course...if you want to save some money and want a lens that's 90% (compared to Canon L), the Tamron's awesome.

I have the Tamron 28-75 2.8Di...it's really great. I love it. It's noisier than the Canon L USM...made out of plastic...AF can hunt every now and again in low light...but the photo's I'm getting are great! I can't speak of which one is exactly sharper...I would imagine the Canon L lens is sharper, but I haven't ever seen a side by side comparison.

sean

Just to add a comment to K's samples...they are taken at 1/50th...if you want to hand-hold your shots in a pub let's say, I'd think you'd really need to shoot faster than that..at least 1/60...preferrably 1/80...just my thoughts...

Bottom line, the 20D has probably the best ISO range and low light performance. For a lens, anything below 2.8 will work, so it's really a matter of how wide you want/need. From you're comments, I'd say the 28/2.8 would be perfect. Of course, the 50 1.8 is dirt cheap too ;-)

sean

Is it possible someone has cleaned the sensor recently? could be streaks on the sensor if it wasn't cleaned perfectly....

just a thought

sean

why...why....why are they bothering to make lenses that only cover APS sized sensors? man, that sucks! That is a very clear signal that they do not intend to bring full frame sensors to the 300D or 10/20D level, at least not for 5 years.

So my question to everyone here....why bother?

Chances are you will need to upgrade camera's before the lens(es) wear out, and wouldn't you want to go full frame? Since the shutter life seems to indicate a much shorter life span compared to film (since *most* digital users shoot far more frames...) Why invest your hard earned $$$ in a lens that has a definite shelf life?

I think this is a terrible sign of the manufacturers moving more into the big $$$ arena of disposable products. Soon the days of camera equipment holding their value, sometimes gaining value, will gone forever. That makes this hobby/passion/profession even more expensive.

If it's your profession and you are required to upgrade this very expensive gear so much more frequently, you are going to have to price that into your costs...and with more and more low $$$ alternatives, plus better home camera-printer solutions...I think there is definitely going to be a thinning of the heard....

ok, I'm done with my war-mongering thoughts....

sean

might be a silly question....but have you dropped the camera or is it possible the camera was knocked/dropped when you weren't home or around?

sean

I'm sorry to interject again...but Color management *is* required to properly setup your system. As I said, it can be fairly cheap or expensive depending on the level of precision you require. There isn't a professional print house out there that isn't color managed and they usually invest far more money into their process than the options I presented.

90% of people do not understand color management, nor how to properly acheive it. If you are happy with your stock/canned profiles than that's great for you, but don't make the statement that proper color management isn't needed, as that is entirely dependant on the users expectations/needs for output.

sean

please review the information in the post called Tiffen? just a few places down. There is lots of information and opinions in that thread on this subject.

sean

you my friend need Color Management! This is a complex and sometimes difficult thing to get setup up right. Do a good search for color management software/hardware and check out your options. You can pay between $299 for a low end do it yourself system, to more than $1000 for a very complete and professional system.

Getting color mangement done right on your computer ensures that what you see on screen is what you'll see when printed out. It coordinates the output capabilities of your printer with your monitor and the color space/profile of your capture device. (digital camera or scanner) This ensures that you get an accurate representation on your monitor of what the image will look like when outputted. If you are serious about your photography, you really need to take the time to get your setup calibrated.

sean

It's important to note the difference between film and CMOS sensors.

Light is the main element required for image capture on either device, but film requires a fair bit of light and the longitude of a set ISO film isn't that long. Bottom line though, more light is preferred over less light. Darkroom magic can bring back a badly over exposed image whereas not enough light means the information simply isn't there to be recovered.

Digital sensors are the opposite. They do caprture information with very little light...so if you underexpose images, it is fairly easy to pull the image back and save it. However, in order to provide greater longitude than film (for a single ISO rated film compared to dslr's complete ISO coverage) the sensors have mechanical/physical limits to light saturation. Once reached, that's it, you've gone beyond the level the sensor can take and that pixel gets clipped. Once clipped, you cannot save it with ANY amount of pixel pushing or post-op in Shop.

These digital camera's are fantastic, but let's try to keep in mind their limitations. The benefit of being able to switch ISO with a button rather than changing films is a huge plus, but the camera still has limitations. With film, you needed to learn/try/test hundreds of films at various speeds to find the right film for *your* photography and while you can push/pull and play a little with film, you had to pretty much find ONE film that was right. With digital, the camera's has to cover ALL our various preconceptions and experiences with certain films, which is no small task. A specialized product will always perform better under it's target conditions than a general purpose one. Convenience of digital, compared to the specialization of film. Compared head-to-head in specific applications, film still wins, no doubt. However, the flexibility of digital is such a huge change for photography, it promotes much more freedom of exploration. (in my opinion)

If you shoot alot in very bright conditions, than you really should stock some ND filters. With these, you would be hard pressed to still have blow outs. you can shoot for your highlights and recover your shadows post-op. To me, this is still much better flexibility than film ever offered.

sean

Little faith in their repair center? I'd had little faith in Canon's QC of lenses!

They are represented well, but if I paid any kind of money for a product, they would need to provide me with one that actually worked!

Did you buy another one, or did they give you a warranty replacement lens?

sean

hang on a sec...did anyone read Bob's review of filter elements? (link posted in the third answer in this post)

I had never thought of that, but of course digital sensors would respond differently to non-visible light than a film camera. If CMOS/CCD are not sensitive to UV...why bother?

Secondly, if you read Bob's review, the B+W filters did NOT provide the best UV filtering, so if that is your concern, B=W would be a bad choice. The Tiffen provided the best results...and it's the cheapest solution. So for UV filtering there is a clear winner.

The UV is clearly not as much an issue on the CMOS sensor as it was on film. To me, on a DSLR, you either want the protection in front of your lens, or you don't.

As for Yakim's statement he has better *physical* protection from a lens hood than a filter, well, sorry, that simply is a matter of difference on the type of physical contact you expect. Lens hoods do nothing for flying objects, nor if you drop it/fall onto a non-flat surface, like a corner of a desk/table.

In any case, if you really goof up, you only *hope* these steps you take might be able to save you...they may work they may not right.

To me a lens hood is mandatory. And a simply sky light/UV1 filter is a close second. For it's price, it's a no brainer.

Question: If you use rubbing alcohol to clean your Multi-Coated lenses...are you not rubbing away your multi coating?

sean

well if the problem goes away when you use the Flash Exposure Lock...the little button...then to me it's defintitely focus-recompose issue, as that is the whole point of that feature!

sean

Not too difficult to drift out of alignment?

well, for that kind of money, I expect it to keep it's alignment short of anything but drop the lens on a hard surface. Thank you for pointing out this issue. Maybe I won't buy this Canon lens after all!

sean