sean_mclennan

So the Infrared Wireless sensor on the front of my 580 is only for receiving (ie, slave mode only)? It doesn't transmit? Learn something new everyday. thanks!

sean

I'm sorry, if you read it on the internet...it MUST be true. ;-)

I never said filling the whole frame would make it worst...it simply won't make it any better.

sean

For the amount of times I've seen people say RTFM, it's pretty dismal to see some of these responses. If you don't know, don't answer. You're simply going to confuse and frustrate people.

Text straight from the 20D English manual....

Custom White Balance (p.51)

Step 3 - Photograph a white object

- The plain, white object should fill the partial metering circle

- Set the lens focus mode switch to <MF>, then focus manually (p.70)

- Set any white balance setting. (p50)

- Shoot the white object so that a standard exposure is obtained.

In the extra comments at the end of the steps, two exclaimation points are added:

1. If the image is over or under exposed, setting the correct custom white balance might not be obtained.

2. Doesn't work in B&W mode

And a final note at the end of the section states:

Instead of a white object, an 18% grey card (commercially available) can produce a more accurate white balance.

Jack, as for your question specifically, simply shoot a grey card instead of a white object. No *added* exposure correction is needed unless, as stated, you are over or under exposing the card. Enjoy.

sean

any banding you *could* see in the above image would only be the artifact interpolation from the JPEG file format, as the computer is displaying it...

Digital Imagery is a tricky subject isn't it....

sean

the images are rotated only to facilitate viewing.

To permanently rotate the image, you are actually resampling the image to transpose the pixels. In reality, there is pretty much no quality loss...but it is recordable. This is why you need an image editor to perform the function.

sean

for portraits and the like...a 50mm 1.8 is perfect. It translates to an 85mm 1.8 on the 20D, which to me....is perfect for portraits. The lens is $70 brand new.

If you are really going to print 16x20....you really need as much resolution as you can afford.

I second the vote for the 20D, 20EX flash and 50mm 1.8 as a start.

I also own a Tamron 28-75 2.8 Di...and love it.

If you don't need the extra 2MegaPixels....than the 300D is the smart buy.

sean

I don't get it...you don't have to pay duty on used items...so if it's used stuff off ebay...you don't pay any duty. You also don't pay duty on photography equipment (from USA to Canada)...you do pay GST (8%), but that's it.

The cost to buy has way more to do with the company you use to ship the product! If you are a smart buyer and know the real costs for the shipping company, you can save yourself lots of cash.

People are spoiled. They are used to dealing with companies....and the company is responsible for the entire "purchase experience"...buying off ebay has no such guarantee....

sean

"Just because it's blurred doesn't make it art."

Oh man....I laughed outloud at this statement! I had a similar outburst to my Art Major friend in a museum in San Fran....when staring at a giant white canvas that the museum paid $32,000 for....not painted white...simply plain with nothing on it.... There were many more examples of what I didn't think was really art...

hahahahaha

ah, memories...

sean

Wow, I find this discussion quite interesting.

What I find amazing is how people fight the idea that companies are reducing their quality controls and moving more and more to disposable products. Not Canon...not Sony...or whatever.

Of course they are.

In this day and age of commercialist combat, fighting for every available market dollar is harder than ever. Don't kid yourself. In order to keep profit up in a mature and saturated market, you need to sell to the same customers. You do this with 3 tools. One - brand loyalty/marketing. Two. Constant innovation and improvement. 3. Built in obscelete-ness (ie, disposal products) If the product has a built in shelf life, you know you will be able to sell to that customer again.

Going digital is the biggest set back to this industry for equipment investment. Now, your camera will lose it's value as fast as that new PC you bought 2 years ago. Software updates and programming is always going to be bug riden and require constant updates...always. (when was the last time you had to upgrade the bios/firmware on your Canon AE-1?) And since the technology moves so darn fast in the digital world, and the equipment will need to be tailored to the products it works with (lenses, flashes, etc) ALL of your equipment will be time stamped in the near future. Just watch.

Lastly, if you are moving your manufacturing to a shorter upgrade life cycle....reselling to each customer every 2 years instead of 6 or 7...you can scale back your QC. This isn't shotty business or being cheap, it's simply reality. If the products aren't going to be in service as long, their quality doesn't need to be as high.

I'd love to discuss this topic in far greater length sometime, but this thread isn't the place.

sean

With an ST-E2 transmitter, you can completely off camera both flash with no cords at all....

sean

FUNGUS: a single-celled or multicellular organism without chlorophyll that reproduces by spores and lives by absorbing nutrients from organic matter. Fungi include mildews, molds, mushrooms, rusts, smuts, and yeasts.

As far as I understand it....fungus requires a food source. Mildrew is rotting proteins contained mostly in water....mold requires bacteria in most cases...For you to get fungus in your lens...you would need to permit a sufficient amount of moisture into the lens and provide it with the conditions for growth (heat and darkness)

....OR...

contaminate the lens in manufacturing. If the lens wasn't truly penetrated during use and was stored in reasonable conditions, and had fungus growth with 6 months of new purchase, I would have to say I beleive it would be caused by a manufacturing error...and therefore, the company should fix it.

Of course, I am no biology major....I'm sure someone here is though!

sean

well, there is a Canon 28 2.8 for sale in the classifieds....you might want to check that out!

sean

Steve...there are a bunch of EOS users trying real hard here to be 100% honest and provide you with the best option for you given your current situation.

I however feel that you've already made up your mind!

The topics you discuss about Canon's innovation are really good and valid points. The bottom line is how much of that is really important to your everyday photography needs?

Secondly, if you are indeed *fed up* with Minolta's lack of future vision and are seeking getting on board with a REAL innovating company...be aware that even Canon suffers from a great many issues that drive their users NUTS.

The grass is always greener my friend....but with the investment in glass you already have, I would have to second the votes for staying Minolta.

At least for the time being :-)

sean

well, it would appear in my test that there is a definite color shift as well...just to note, the Canon lens had a filter on it (oops) and the tamron did not.

I noticed a very slight warm color shift in testing on white paper indoors...but all the *real* shots I've taken with it have come out pretty darn even. (with the proper white balance setup done first of course)

Here is a quick sample from this past saturday during an overcast...very flat lit day. There has been absolutely NO work done to this pic other than resamlpe down to 13%. no sharpening, no nothing.

sean<div></div>

Well, I bought a Sigma 24-70 2.8 EX....returned it. Now I have a Tamron 28-75 2.8 Di...it's a great lens, but I think the Sigma was built better.

As for optical quality, they both are good. (I thought I had a back focus issue with mine, but it was the camera....)

I have 2 lenses right now...the Tamron 28-75 and a Canon 50/1.8. So do do a very quick and dirty test, I shot a test pattern with both lenses, with the exact same setup. Handheld, 30 inches away, with built in flash, with AWB, 2.8 Ap @ 1/60. One shot head on, one shot at 45 degrees.

Neither lens was truly tack sharp, but if in the real world you are going to be shooting handheld in low light, I personally think these results are what you can expect. Of course the Canon 50/1.8 isn't the sharpest lens either, but I think it would be generally thought of as sharper than many zoom lenses.

sean

aaahhhhh,

The way the manual read, it was as if the dial itself woulnd't work if this selection wasn't made. I've used that dial for all sorts of things (including exposure compensation) without paying any attention to which ON it was set to. Thanks.

I would have thought it would be better to simply change the default function of the dial in a custom funcation rather than add a separate ON switch position?

sean

I have searched and come up blank.

What the hell is the *other* switch on the 20D for? The manual says

it's for using the selection dial on the back...but mine works in

the ON position.

I cannot find *any* difference in performance or features using this

switch position compared to the ON switch position?

anyone?

sean

I have 2 friends that shoot weddings with 10Ds...and they both live by their 70-200 F4 L lenses. They both have 50 1.8 as well, but the 70-200 F4 is the lens they both say they cannot live without. I'd check that one out, get at least one 50mm...and something wide, not necessarily a zoom.

sean

Both the Sigma 24-70 EX and Tamron 28-75Di work with both the 420EX and the 580Ex...I have used all of these combos.

sean

This happened to me....I had the Flash set to *Master* mode (for wireless trigger). As soon as i turned the wireless control to off, it synched up with my lens and I had the proper zoom level and the little square in the corner. Also, just try changing shooting modes...to M or Av/Tv or something.

sean

Well, after being disappointed with the performance of the Sigma 24-

70 2.8 EX lens...I might have been too hard on it. I just got my

replacement lens...Tamron 28-75 2.8 Di...and I am getting the same

results, (except with slightly slower shutter speeds at the same

exposure/aperature/lighting?)

I picked up a *like new* used Canon 50 1.8 II...and tried that one

too...same results.

I thought the images were just soft at wide open, but now I notice

the image isn't just soft, but the focal point is not the focal

point I am using.

On wide aperaturs (f2.8) the focus is slighty ahead of the focus

point I'm using (in either Af or MF). When I am closed down (f11 for

this test) the focus is slightly behind the focus point I'm using?

This problem is extremely noticeable when focusing on close objects.

The Sigma Tech made mention that all lens (including Canon)

would/could have trouble focusing wide open on close objects...but

soooo many people on this group say they don't have these issues.

then I thought it was possible that I was testing too close to the

lens' limits (15 inches from target...lens' min distance is 13) but

then I back things off to about 25 inches...no difference. I also

shot a lamp, again, from about 4 feet this time and the difference

is still there.

Man, completely dissappointing! I was soooo loving this camera, now

this.

Canon's website says not to be so picky when observing the camera's

focus at this level (1:1) since it's not fair as you wouldn't do

that with a film print...that sounds to me like a cop out. Has

anyone else had these kinds of focus issues on the 20D? Any thoughts

on how to correct the problem? I can still get my full money back

and buy a whole different setup (Nikon? I mean who else is there?)

for another 2 weeks...I don't want to be stuck with a lemon...or am

I really testing this camera too far? Am I expecting too much from

an 8mb camera?

sorry for the rant, I'm just bummed out.

seam