isaac sibson

<p>Craig- I'm interested in the source of info about the 100-400 improving over it's production run? I've never heard that before, would be interested to see something on that.</p>

<p>I agree with Bill, and suggest that the EOS 3 or 1V would be the best choices. I had a 3 before I sold it (and my D30) for a 20D (the writing was on the wall for film for me). Never liked the 20D, and now have a 5D with which I'm much happier. The 3 is still just a bit better camera (ie the photographic side, ignoring the digital side) than the 5, particularly in AF. Please bring back F8 AF canon!</p>

<p>The 3 and 1V are very similar. The 1v more solid, rugged and feels hewn of a single piece. The 3 feels a little creakier, more plasticy (more so than the 5D - the 3 came out before magnesium casting became as cheap and ubiquitous as it is today). The 3 has ECF (never really worked for me... almost, but not quite good enough) while the 1v has the home position button instead. Ultimately, it's very unlikely that you'll come across situations where the 1v would work for you but the 3 wouldn't, or vice versa, unless you dunk the thing in water or use it to hammer in a nail (in either case, my money would be on the 1v). </p>

<p>Well there you go, learn something new every day. That does indeed work, and the explanation does make sense. I'm happy to stand corrected!<br>

 <br>

In which case, Alec, would you suggest that the answer is to use a TS lens for this sort of shot? (ie to achieve the effect that David appears to be looking for)</p>

<p>Your first image is an example of perspective projection distortion - your camera was pointed downwards, causing the verticals to diverge. This will happen with ANY wide angle on ANY camera in ANY system. If you wish to avoid this you need to keep the camera level and use shift to achieve the framing you want (requiring a shift movement, ie a TS lens or a large-format camera with such movements). </p><p>Your second image does indeed display barrel distortion. This is endemic to WA zoom lenses (and some primes too). Some lenses are better than others, none are perfect. DPP will allow you to correct for this. </p>

<p>If you find one that was made in the US, probably a good idea not to buy it...</p>

<p>Rebels have always had poor man's AF point marking.</p>

<p>Mid range bodies (eg 50D, 5D, etc) have the AF points etched on the focusing screen with the selected point lighting up red (not a dot in it, but the square itself lights up). </p>

<p>High end bodies (starting with the EOS 3, and every 1 series camera since) have a largely clear focusing screen, and the illuminated AF frames only appear when required. </p>

<p>The 7D brings the next step, which is indeed an LCD as you said. Looks good, would be interesting to use sometime... roll on the 5D3!</p>

<p>You would think that in the 11 years since the EOS 3 came out, F8 AF would have become a little more widespread... IMO it has MORE application for consumers and amateurs (with their slow lenses and TCs) than pros (with their F2.8 lenses). Yes, that's a generalisation, but I think a reasonable one. </p>

<p>Certainly I only bought the 2X II TC because my EOS 3 could make use of AF when using it (on my 300 F4L IS and 70-200 F4L). That TC has gathered a LOT of dust (performance and lack of AF on subsequent bodies)...</p>

<p>I'm a great fan of the panasonics. I bought two sets of 2100mAh panasonics for my Coolpix 700 in 2002. They still do a fine job of powering my 550EX. </p>

<p>In 12.5 hours time.</p>

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

<p>Karl - I missed this post until now.</p>

<p>I haven't done any comparative testing. The filed DII is more compact and neater and for that reason is the one I use. Since the DII has been filed exactly to the edge of the visible frame (sensor, not VF) then maybe it is the more effective? I'm not sure... either way, both are better than the E by a long shot. </p>

<p>A colleague at work recently bought a two-lens EOS 450D kit. He bought cheap chinese copy hoods off ebay for a fraction of the price of the canon hoods (and the "hood" for the 18-55 is quite laughable). They're perfectly decent bits of plastic, but don't have the light-absorbing flocking on the inside that the canon hoods do. Whether that's worth the price of the canon hoods is your call (I'm thinking probably not). </p>

<p>I strongly disagree with JDM.</p>

<p>The EW-83DII just barely vignettes on full frame at 17mm. On 1.6X, you can use the much longer EW-83J without any problems. </p>

<p>The EW-83H (from the 24-105) is an easy fit to the 17-40 and works without vignetting on full frame. Otherwise, for a slightly more compact solution, you can file down the EW-83DII. For more discussion of this, see <a href="http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00TCO3">http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00TCO3</a></p>

<p>Be sure that it's not an E-D screen, which is for the EOS 600 series. </p>

<p>IIRC, the Ed-C and Ed-NE was similar to the difference between Ec-Cx and Ec-N, and Ed-NE was the standard EOS 5 screen... I'm not totally sure on this, however. The standard EOS 5 screen was even more spectacularly hopeless for manual focusing than Ec-N. </p>

<p>I'm sure that I still have the EOS 5 brochure somewhere which would, of course, reveal all. </p>

<p>Probably not oxide, given that the contacts are gold plated for that very reason. However, it is perfectly feasible that <em>something</em>, probably grease and dust etc, gets on the contacts, and they do indeed "self clean" as you say. </p>

<p>William- why would we want to fix the rain? Two more draws after Edgbaston and we will win the series ;-).</p>

<p>It's amazing how many people are saying it's the hood when the OP has confirmed that he was not using one. It suggests I can write whatever I like in this post and it won't actually be read by anyone who subsequently contributes, other than the OP. In the vein of Monty Python, "PS, I object to the next letter!"<br>

Jonas - my lens does not exhibit this effect (since I use a non-standard hood, I've tested it extensively for vignetting at small apertures and have not seen this effect). I'd suggest getting it looked at. </p>

<p>What lens hood and filters are you using?</p>

<p>I had a similar issue with some early images from my 20D, but never noticed it again after that. You can see it in the top right of the image - I'm sure it's not due to the sofa fabric because in that region it is far too defocused to interact with the image resolution. It was taken with my 50 F1.8 mk I, and might have been AI Servo (I don't remember):<br>

<img src="http://www.askisaac.com/images/suzes.jpg" alt="" width="848" height="565" /></p>

<p>There were some issues with lenses in AI Servo mode, with RF from the lens itself interacting with the camera. It would be worth looking at the RAW info on the affected images and noting AF mode, lens in use, etc, see if there's a pattern (eg only in ai-servo, only with non-USM, etc). </p>

<p>I would recommend AGAINST a manfrotto carbon tripod. I chose one a few years ago (Carbon One 441) for the same reason - flip locks. However, the tripod was, when only a few months old, packed into a suitcase full of clothes and travelled with me to the seychelles. When it came out of the suitcase I had a duopod and a monopod. </p>

<p>The way that manfrotto built it, the legs are held into the top of the tripod by an internal collar that expands when a nut is tightened into it. If it were me designing that I'd have made that collar of some sort of spring steel. Manfrotto, for reasons that I just can not fathom, chose to make it from cast magnesium - great material for camera bodies and suspension fork legs, but hopeless for an expanding collar.</p>

<p>My father has a Gitzo (not sure what model, but has the anti-rotation legs), and the twist-locks on that work well and with little effort. If I were buying again I would buy a gitzo legset. </p>

<p>There are lots of great tripod heads on the market - Markins, Kirk, Acratech, Arca-Swiss, RRS... None of them will be a bad choice. All it comes down to is whether one has a particular feature you want, or like the look of. In other words, personal preference. I chose a Markins which I am very happy with. My father has an Acratech that he's very happy with. </p>

<p>Since you're after the lightest weight, I would look closely at the Markins Q3. </p>

<p>Also, you say you don't want or need a QR system, and I'm surprised that no one else has commented upon that. The Arca-swiss QR system is de rigeur on this sort of level of equipment, and provides a much more solid, stable mount than does a typical screw-platform head. I'd also think that it would be much easier to use in the dark.</p>

<p>In Av and Tv mode, the camera exposes for background and uses the flash for fill-in, thus your exposure is much as if you were not using flash. <br>

The easiest way to do what you want is to go into M, set the shutter speed and aperture that you want for handholding and DOF, and the camera will set the flash output to expose the subject correctly.</p>

<p>Julian - Interesting! I hadn't tried that combo (rather assumed it wouldn't work, and the wider, squarer shape of the H looks like it would need more filing), but as you say, it does not vignette at all. It's an easier solution than filing the DII for sure, although not quite as neat looking (the D is a smaller hood in OD, that will fit entirely inside the H). More options...</p>

<p>Of course most of us are aware of the idea of using a longer lens hood on a small sensor camera - the well known use of the 17-55 hood (EW83J) on the 17-40 for example.</p>

<p>However, what about full frame? Most people would simply say that the standard hood for EF lenses is designed for full-frame, and leave it at that. Since I had some hoods kicking around from my small-sensor days, I decided to experiment with a few with my 5D...</p>

<p>First of all, I already knew that I can use ET-65 instead of ES-65 on my 50 F1.8 - that worked on film. There is a practical downside though, in that the hood can't be reversed on the lens on the camera because it is in fact longer than the lens itself.</p>

<p>Next lens up is the 17-40. This is where I really wanted to improve things over the EW83E, which I find impractical. It is too big to conveniently carry around, and certainly not feasible to reverse it on the lens.When I first got the 17-40, the crop-sensor hood du jour was the EW83DII, meant for the 24 F1.4L. On the 5D this gave visible vignetting, but only very slight (worst case 30px). I'm not the first person to take a file to this hood, and surprisingly little material needs to come off to make it work without vignetting.</p>

<p>The other hood I had for the 17-40 was the EW83J. Obviously no use on the 17-40 on full frame, but out of curiosity I popped it onto the 24-105 F4L IS and gave it a try. No vignetting at all, and it is a good 15mm (3/5") deeper than the stock EW83H. This requires no modification at all on the 5D.</p>

<p>To conclude, the possibility of improved hoods isn't limited to cropped sensor bodies (where you could argue that it would be appropriate hood, rather than improved), but there's room for improvement in full-frame also. Another option to look at would be the new EW83K (24 F1.4L II).</p>

<p>Here's a picture of the EW83D2 After (left) and before (right) modification:</p><div></div>

<p>Ben - it has a recessed ring (in the shiny black plastic in which the lens name is written) onto which clip the hoods I listed (65 series). It does not use the newer bayonet style hood fitting. </p>

<p>Andreas- the mk I can use the 65 series hoods without needing to use the adaptor ring. </p>

<p>I use ET65 on mine, and have the (now discontinued) ES65 also. </p>

<p>It's not quite as simple as just that. </p>

<p>The mk II has a full polycarbonate mount and body. The mk I has plastic body but metal mount. </p>

<p>Given the low weight of this lens, that is not a big deal - my old 35-80 and 80-200 had plastic mounts and they were fine. </p>

<p>The other physical differences are perhaps where the desirability of the mk I comes from:</p>

<p>Focus ring: Mk 1 has a standard for the time focus ring, of the same type found on the 50 f2.5, 35F 2, etc. It's narrow but easy to grip, spins freely when AF is selected. Mk 2 has an excuse for a focus ring around the front of the lens. </p>

<p>Focus distance scale: mk 1 has one, mk 2 does not.</p>

<p>Hood mount: mk 1 has a clip ring for a hood to clip on to, accepting EW-65, ES-65 and ET-65 hoods (ET65 is longer and yet does not cause vignetting even on full frame). mk2 does not have a hood mount and requires an adaptor ring (screwed into the filter thread) for the ES-62 hood instead. </p>

<p>Optically the two are the same. </p>

<p>Kit 1 is exactly what I have and have had for 4 years on my EOS 20D (although I have a 300 F4L IS and 1.4X and 2X II TCs also) except that my 50 F1.8 is a mk I.</p>

<p>There's no weakness in image quality in that kit. All lenses are capable of excellent results. The downside, of course, is swapping lenses around the 50, and the 50's poor AF performance.</p>

<p>I am moving to a 5D, and with that getting the 24-105 F4L IS. I shall also be upgrading my 70-200 for the IS version in the near future. To me, the 17-40, 24-105 and 70-200 are the ultimate walk-around kit for full frame, going from ultra-wide to mild telephoto, and the 70-200 performs excellently on teleconverters so the 1.4x can be carried for more reach, or the 300 carried when needed.</p>

<p>I would agree that kit 1 will provide you a good kit for 1.6X crop and one that carries over to full frame (but imo is strengthened by the 24-105 in the full frame case).</p>