isaac sibson

November 1, 2009

Indeed. Perhaps you could post a list of combos that you can fit in your speed racer? For those who can't go and see a bag, seeing a list of kit that can be fit is very useful.

November 1, 2009

I just picked this bag up, and it seems excellent for my purposes - I like belt bags (and have played with belt systems - CCS, lowepro, kinesis), and the size of the speed freak fits the kit I wanted it to, as well as surprising me by fitting in a bit more. I had a specific set of kit I wanted it to be able to take, but here are the useful combos I have found:

Combo 1 (my original requirement):

EOS 5D with 24-105 F4L IS attached with EW-83J hood (from the 17-55)

17-40 F4L with modified EW-83DII hood (from 24 F1.4)

70-200 F4L with hood.

Battery, cards, etc...

This combo fits neatly with no problem at all.

Combo 1+

I quickly discovered that in addition to the above, I could fit a pair of 10x42 binoculars in the front pocket, and attach my Crumpler Tube'o'lager case (for my 300 F4L IS) neatly to the outside (either to the shoulder strap loops or one of the belt positions).

Combo 2

A bit of discussion with my father prompted me to try something, and to my amazement I found this fitted, although a little tight:

EOS 5D with 70-200 F4L attached with hood.

300 F4L IS (without tripod ring)

24-105 with EW-83J

To get all of that inside the one reasonably sized bag is very impressive, but I have some concern over it putting some pressure on the main zip. However, once you've the camera and one lens out of the bag for actually shooting, I'm sure it would be fine. Additionally, without the binoculars in the front pocket, there's plenty of room in there for my 1.4X TC.

Observations

I did notice a couple of things which people might want to be wary of... The sewn loops for attaching sliplock style pouches are slightly variable in their width - my crumpler tube'o'lager only fits in one of the 6 positions. However, I preferred mounting it to the side of the bag on the shoulder strap loop

Side pockets. Very good and useful, something I missed on various other bags. Perfect as a place to carry a bottle of water, packet of sweets, etc... I've yet to determine how useful the the inner ones are (there's an outer mesh pocket, like many lowepro bags, then inside that there's a more solid one.

Overall, I'm very pleased with this bag - it should allow me to clear out a bunch of old camera bags and belts etc, and provides a flexible base around which to work with additional pouches providing additional capacity as necessary.

October 31, 2009

I bought the 2X II to use with my 300 F4L IS with my EOS 3 which would AF with it.

I've never had a good result from it. I have had great results with the 1.4X, but never with the 2X. The same is true with the subsequent bodies I've tried it on (20D, 5D). The 2X sits gathering dust.

October 28, 2009

I have owned both.

The 24-85 is a decent lens IF you use it properly. At F8-F11, and shorter than 50mm it can produce excellent results. Beyond 50mm it is really nothing to write home about at any aperture.

The 24-105 has a much wider envelope to deliver good results - wider apertures, longer focal lengths. IS is an additional bonus.

October 27, 2009

<a href="http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/0055CB">http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/0055CB</a>

October 23, 2009

Or in fact the Titanic Goddess of the Dawn, from greek mythology?

October 16, 2009

Live view consumes very significant amounts of power - the sensor is in constant use (and gets quite hot in the process), in addition to the ~400mW that the LCD consumes at full brightness. Combined with the sensor power consumption (which I'm guessing to be rather more than that of the LCD, probably in the region of 1W), and everything else (lens communication and AF, image processing, card writing etc) means your power consumption is very heavy - perhaps 2W is not unreasonable, if not more. Given that most LP-E5 batteries are around 1000mAh (claimed), giving you 7.4Wh in the battery, you can't expect more than about 3 hours battery life, particularly once you take capacity loss as the battery ages into account.

October 16, 2009

No idea about a camera, but with laptop computers the USB port is usually part of the motherboard. If the USB port is wrecked and you want it fixed, you need to buy a new motherboard, which means you might as well buy a new laptop. I know because my wife is in the habit of abusing USB ports ;-)

</blockquote>

Nothing to stop the bad port being desoldered and replaced once the board is removed from the camera/pc/whatever.

October 14, 2009

Steve - The 1DS is a different case due to its higher voltage requirement. The suggestion I have made to Leo is solely for the lower voltage cameras.

October 14, 2009

100-400 f/4.5-5.6 IS and give it a constant aperture of f/4, or lets dream a little bit more and ask for an f/2.8

</blockquote>

The former would add a few oz and a thousand or so dollars to the current variable aperture model but the latter would be 15 lbs @ $1000/lb... Some things are possible but not very practical.

</blockquote>

If your definition of a few oz is in the region of 4lbs... And for a thousand dollars or so, try several thousand dollars. A 400 F4 is a VERY different animal to a 400 F5.6.

Hybrid IS probably won't make its way into the 70-200. What might well would be the 5-stop IS from the 200 F2L.

October 13, 2009

Sure, there are bad samples. My 70-200 F4L became one after it took a knock in an airport. It was recently serviced and is back to being extremely sharp. It is entirely possible that a lens could leave the factory as a good sample and arrive in the consumer's hand as a bad sample.

I do also wonder if there's a lot of double, triple, quadruple etc counting of bad lenses, because the buyer returns the lens to the seller who then tries to pass it on to another buyer who also returns it (and then by chance they both post on the same internet forum "I had a bad sample of that lens" "I did too" - it gets counted twice).

I think there are plenty of cases where people will complain of a bad sample where there is operator error also. For example, someone buys a 450D and an 18-55IS, shoots with it for a while, then buys a non-IS 300mm lens (75-300 or something) and thinks that it is due to the lens that most of their shots at 300mm are not sharp at 100%. Geoff's point about the requirement of "an experienced photographer" is right. The problem is, on the internet you do not know who knows what - there's plenty of people on forums (not so much this one, but I do have another in mind) who come into dslrs as a plaything, get carried away with the technology and never stop to actually learn photography. They are often the ones who will put significant time and effort into testing every new lens.

When my 70-200 came back from being repaired, I tried all sorts of indoor test shots, outdoor test shots of stone walls, etc. I couldn't draw any conclusions from them. I took the lens out and actually used it for the sort of subject I like to take in the real world, and was able to determine that the lens is now <a href="http://www.askisaac.com/images/5d/_MG_1594.jpg">sharp</a>.

I've seen some great photographs taken with the canon 17-40. I've never taken any particularly stunning ones with mine - probably because I'm not an avid nor talented wide-angle user. Nothing wrong with the lens...

October 12, 2009

Did you get my email Leo?

October 10, 2009

Leo - I'm in the UK also. I'll drop you an email.

October 10, 2009

I am going to put my work hat on here, and speak as an electronic engineer.

First of all, I would not follow what the chap in the link above did. The use of a linear regulator is fine, if somewhat inefficient, but packaging it inside a plastic battery dummy, with no heatsinking is foolish.

Second, the 1DS II requires 12V, unlike the other cameras you mention.

On the basis of the different requirement of the 1DS, and future proofing with different models that may require different voltages, I'd look at using one module per camera. There's plenty of integrated switch buck regulators that will give you a very efficient converter. I would make a suggestion, but as it's a product of the company I work for, it might seem unbiased or advertising

October 6, 2009

There's a couple of points I would add...

First is that the hood mount on the mk I is a clip ring, not a bayonet (the hood rotates freely once mounted). The ET65 hoods work, even on full frame and are slightly deeper than the intended ES65 hood.

Second is that there is a lesser known difference, which is to do with AF calibration. There appear to be more points at which the mk II can be calibrated (iirc 3 compared to the 2 of the mk I).

I have the mk I, and it produces fine images. I have no plans to change it (since I don't use it all that much). I paid £65 second hand for mine in a shop in 2003. As mentioned, they go for more on ebay, so you could sell it on if you don't get on with it, and buy a new mk II and have some change left over.

October 3, 2009

Which is remarkably similar to mine... 5D (I), 17-40, 24-105 and 70-200 F4L (non IS), and sometimes the 1.4X also.

That said, the 24-105 is wide enough on full frame for the majority of what I do. I only carry the 17 if I know I'm going to need it, where I might be in close quarters - eg urban or trains or something like that.

My previous full-frame (in fact, film!) kit was 20 F2.8 USM, 24-85 USM and 70-200 F4L. I sold the 20 and 24-85 as part of funding for my 20D and 17-40. I had the opportunity to do a comparison of the 20 F2.8 and the 17-40 and found the 17-40 to perform generally a little better, stop for stop. The F2.8 didn't do much for me with the 20.

October 2, 2009

I have been having a play with an XPS Studio 16 (1640 in USA) laptop with the RGB LED screen. I've also done a bit of reading around it. There's quite a bit about calibration of this screen and use in a photographic environment on notebookreview.

The one I've been using isn't calibrated. As it comes from the factory it is very bright and extremely saturated. Overly so for many uses in fact. Certainly red title bars and logos in applications (eg ATI catalyst, mcaffee) that keep popping up are incredibly intense. I can't say the red bothered me really (in a sort of turning-up-the-bass guilty pleasure kind of way... it's not right, but it can be fun). However, the blues and greens could be rather glaring in windows - title bars, and particularly the msn window that windows keeps popping up - there's a green button on that which glowed rather objectionably.

I'm not sure if whatever IE is installed on there is able to colour manage, or whatever, but I looked at a couple of my photos on there and they looked very good. It needs setting up, and it was too blue when I first tried, but after tweaking things a little (just through catalyst) it looked very nice. <a href="http://www.askisaac.com/images/5d/_MG_1594.jpg">This</a> image looked much better on there than other screens I've seen it on - the shadow area down the front of the bird showed much more detail, and particularly notable was the smoothness of the background areas (compared to my Dell 640m and also a Samsung 245B) - I imagine this is down to the screen being 8 bit. Notable also was the vertical viewing angle is hugely much better than my 640m (14.1" 1440x900 Trulife).

I think with calibration there's a lot of potential for this screen. Certainly Dell seem to have pitched it as one of the very best laptop screens for photo work (although not perfect) and at a very attractive price. I hope I may be able to report more in time...

September 30, 2009

Obsessing over sharpness when selecting a lens is like obsessing over the shape of the door handles when you buy a new car.

That the door handles on my car are not sharp is something I'm very glad of each time I get in...

September 30, 2009

It comes down to personal preference, but mine would be for a 5D II with 24-70 over a 30D with 16-35.

5D II AF will outperform 30D AF. In fact, I agree with Tommy that the AF performance of the 5D (mk I) is not as bad as people make out - it's a case of internet whispers where one person says "The 5D isn't as good as..." which the next person repeats as "The 5D is bad at...". I'm sure that many of those on the net saying that the 5D can't cope with wildlife have, in fact, never used one for that. The additional assist AF points around the centre point make tracking birds in flight somewhat easier than other bodies at times. I find myself happy enough with its performance for now: <a href="http://www.askisaac.com/images/5d/_MG_1483.jpg">1</a> <a href="http://www.askisaac.com/images/5d/_MG_0552.jpg">2</a> <a href="http://www.askisaac.com/images/5d/_MG_1579.jpg">3</a>. Is it as good as my EOS 3 was? Not quite. Is it as bad as my D30 was? Nothing like.

September 29, 2009

because they would have gotten far better results with film

I can't say I totally agree with that Karl. Of course you can't print a 3MP image up at big sizes, but for small prints the D30's results were fantastic.

It was at the fairford airshow that the D30 really made me realise that film was over. I was carrying both the D30 and the EOS 3, and took most of my photos with the 3 (of all the cool stuff, like the F117, B2 and the Red Arrows). Later in the day as the light faded and my 200 ISO film wouldn't cut it anymore I decided I had nothing to lose in taking a few shots with the D30. My <a href="http://www.askisaac.com/images/B1B.jpg">favourite shot of the day</a> was one of those.

And, of course, there's the well known article on the subject: <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30_vs_film.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30_vs_film.shtml</a>

Far better results with film? Given the number of poorly made prints and scratched (unscannable, even with ICE) negatives I was getting, even by 2003, the balance tipped to digital incredibly fast. My EOS 3 had its last hurrah in 2004, and was sold in early 2005 before it became worthless (in monetary terms). As much as I loved the EOS 3, the D30 proved the way forward (and it was sold at the same time as the 3, both replaced with a 20D).

September 29, 2009

(hello Isaac)

Hello.

Not much to add to what has already been said really. My personal preference is for a standard zoom from 24mm on full frame - in the past I had the 24-85 which was fine if you worked within its limitations. This is perhaps one of the reasons that APS-C never worked for me (ie there was no canon lens that gave me equiv FOV to a 24mm on full frame. The 15-85 changes that, but is as yet an unknown quantity). On APS-C the range of the 24-105 is something that I wouldn't really use (I would tend to switch from a 17-40 or 17-55 to a 70-200).

In terms of performance, there's plenty of reviews out there - the strengths and weaknesses of the 24-105 are well known and well discussed. Whether it's worth paying for isn't something anyone else can tell you - they can only tell you that it was (or was not) worth paying for for them.

September 28, 2009

Just because something was good before doesn't mean it can't be done better, and certainly should never mean that it shouldn't be done better. "Technology sucking us in" would be fair comment if it weren't achieving anything and caused us to upgrade. For those to whom a newer camera would deliver no benefit then maybe so.

With reference to the D30 which I used to have... I used to say that it was a terrible camera (in the sense of a film camera - box, shutter, AF, metering) married to a great sensor. That remains the case. In terms of comparison to my 5D, the 5D delivers much better high ISO performance, better AF, far better file handling, metering, etc. These things are not frippery, but real-world benefits. The larger screen, more solid construction, auto-ISO, etc are nice to haves, but there's no need to NOT have them when we can.

Yes, those older cameras still take photos as well as they did. But I like to think that I take better photos now.

September 27, 2009

I liked my D30... I never got the best out of it (as at that time I used my EOS 3 for serious work), but it produced lovely, clean images. I sold it while it still had some value to go toward a 20D (which I was never truly happy with).

September 27, 2009

Dave's suggestion sounds correct.

I also had an issue with my D30 in that the chassis of the camera isn't quite like modern ones and has a bit of flex to it. I put a Wimberley universal QR plate on the camera and started getting Error 99. The plate screwed into the tripod mount was flexing the mirror box just enough to upset the camera. Removing the plate solved that problem.

September 25, 2009

Preference.

I shot 35mm film since 1992 (nothing like as long as many here, but I couldn't sensibly have started much earlier...). I bought a used D30 in 2003, used it alongside my EOS 3 until 2005 when I sold both for a 20D.

I was never really happy with the 20D. I just couldn't get on with the crop-frame. I can't totally say why, it just didn't "feel" right. I took about 2000 shots with the 20D over 4 years (mostly of things for ebay or car parts, etc), and became somewhat fed up with photography.

Earlier this year I was very generously given an EOS 5D. I've taken almost 2000 pictures with it in 5 months. I find that I'm enjoying photography once again.

Ironically, I find that I crop LESS with FF than APS-C. I get what I want in the frame to a much greater degree with FF. I find that the images need less PP.

Ultimately, for me, the reason for a full frame body is that I prefer it.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by isaac sibson