alanp

Sorry to come in very late to this one. I was just wondering if you'd considered a s/h 1Ds (mark 1) instead of a 5D? It gives you the build and AF performance of the 1V - albeit a fair bit bulkier and heavier...and the image quality remains very good, even by today's standards...

Hi

 

I've taken the plunge and bough a used 1Ds, and I'd like to get some spare

batteries. I've read all about using some aftermarket brands in place of the

Canon originals. The aftermarket ones seem to use Lithium technology, as

opposed to the original Canons which are Ni-MH. Will they charge OK in the

Canon charger?

 

Alan

Hi

 

I've got the opportunity at the moment to 'test' a second-hand 1Ds;

unfortunately I don't have the Canon software for it and I understand that you

need this to change the 'personal functions' of the camera. (I have DPP and

the software that came with my 400D, but I gather the 1Ds had some special

software specifically to configure functions on the camera).

 

I wonder if anyone knows if this is downloadable from anywhere? I have

searched Canon UK's website but to no avail.

 

 

Alan

 

P.S. It's quite interesting to compare the IQ from this 'old' beast with the

relatively new 400D...I'll post some comments if anyone is interested?

Thanks so much for these views, and for the link to those photos. I am moving towards a 1D Mk II based on what has been said here.

 

many thanks,

Alan

Sorry, I should have clarified that one of the zooms I have is a 100-400 L; it's my 'bird' lens.

 

Thanks for the responses so far. I must admit I hadn't thought about the 40D. Any more views on the IQ between the 400D and the 1Ds / 1D mark 2?

Hi

 

I am connsidering changing my 400D for a secondhand 1Ds (the original one) or

1D Mark 2. My main reason for this will be for what I hope will be an increase

in autofcus speed and accuracy over the 400D. Whilst the 400D is very good, I

find it misses too many times on pictures of my kids running around and on

birds in flight.

 

However, I am concerned about image quality. The 400D is a 1.6x crop sensor,

compared to the 1Ds (full frame) and 1D mark 2(1.3x crop) - but it is of a

considerably newer design. I wonder if any forum members has direct experience

between the 400D and these two 1 series cameras in terms of image quality? I

have searched for comparison reviews but cannot see any.

 

Incidentally, I use fairly good lenses (two 'L' series zooms, a 50mm prime and

a 100mm macro), so hopefully these won't be a limiting factor.

 

Any thoughts welcomed.

 

Alan

When I bought my 100-400, I took my camera with me and tried three lenses from the dealers stock. I took a range of pictures with each lens (from the street outside the shop) and then took my camera home and did a bit of 'pixel peeping'. I did all this because I had read that there could be sample variations between lenses. When I got home, I could not see any critical differences in the photos, so i went back to the shop (the same day), and bought one of the lenses. I did a final check of the lens for dust specs etc before settling on the one I wanted.

 

All of this was possible, in my view, because I favour a small photo store here in the UK that has excellent customer service. They also matched what was the best internet price at the time.

 

Hope this helps

 

Alan

Wayne,

 

Apologies for the delay - I've been away for a few days staying with friends, one of whom is far more mechanically minded than me and removed the baseplate and somehow straightened out the worst of the dent.

 

However, the offer you made was incredibly kind and I'm once again taken by the strength of the community here on this forum.

 

Many, many thanks to you, and with best regards,

 

Alan

Wayne

 

Apologies for the delay - I've been away for a few days staying with friends, one of whom is far more mechanically minded than me and removed the baseplate and somehow straightened out the worst of the dent.

 

However, the offer you made was incredibly kind and I'm once again taken by the strength of the community here on this forum.

 

Many, many thanks to you, and with best regards,

 

Alan

Hi all

 

My OM2 spot/program has a dent in the baseplate. It has no effect on the

functionality of the camera but does spoil the cosmetics, so I'm thinking of

sorting ot out.

 

Is it straightforward to remove the baseplate, and what chance would I have of

knocking the dent out?

 

Alternatively, does anyone know where I may be able to get a replacement

baseplate, assuming a swop is straightforward?

 

Very interested in any views and advice.

Regards, Alan<div></div>

I have an XTi, and before that an original D rebel (300D). I have treated neither with kid gloves and both have been fine. However, I do take care in heavy or prolonged rain and would also use a cloth (or something) on a very windy and sand-blown beach.

 

I don't think there is a huge difference in the environmental sealing performance of any of the Canon line below the 1 series.

 

I would acknowledge that both the Nikon D200 and Pentax K10D are better 'sealed' than the Canon offerings below the professional line-up.

 

That said, I would trust my XTi in the environments that you are visiting. I would probably buy a second body as a back-up (advisable anyway on a major trip regardless of the type of camera).

 

Best regard and good luck, Alan

Just as an update - I've loaded in a film and will test out my friends theory. Any views still welcomed however.

 

(It's a lovely little camera to handle. I am starting to see what all the fuss about regarding this line of cameras. I hope it is working correctly - I'd hate to get rid of it so soon!).

Hi there - new to this forum - I normally hang out on the EOS board. But

please don't hold that against me!

 

I've been adding to my camera collection and have just picked up an OM2

Spot/Program in pretty good condition. I have noticed that occasionally the

shutter seems to open and close for longer than the indicated time when in

program or auto modes. in manual mode the acuation speeds sound fine. I have

yet to put a film through the camera.

 

Someone at my local club suggested that these models sometimes do this when no

film is loaded as the light meter is taken off the film plane in auto modes.

With no film in it gets thrown by the refelctance of the pressure plate.

 

I have no idea if this could be right? Any views or experince? Or have I just

got a faulty example of this model?

 

Best regards, Alan

I've been having fun with all the film kit that's being sold-off cheaply. Last week I bought a T70 to go with my A1. Think I'll get a T90 next. And I still have my EOS 5. They are all soooo cheap these days. That said, most of my pictures are taken with my 400D...

I'll put in a vote for the cheap and nasty (build wise) Cosina 100mm f3.5 macro lens. It goes under other brand names as well. I got one off e-bay last week for GBP 45. The optical quality is quite decent - it reminds me of Canons 50mm 1.8. Looks and feels horrible but delivers the goods!

I bought an 'obsolete' camera on a whim just yesterday. I have no idea why I bought it - I guess it was just calling to me. It's a 1984 T70, and it cost me GBP 30. I stuck my old 50 1.4 on it (having removed a layer of dust first), shot a roll of Ilford XP2 (my first roll of film for about 3 years), and had the negs scanned. I'm sat here looking at a lovely B&W picture of my daughter. Grain the size of golf-balls and at least 12 pictures of her with her eyes closed (no delete button on a T70!).

 

Worry not about your 1DmkII. Take some piccies and enjoy!

Another nod for the Lowepro Rover AW II. Mine carries an XTi, 100-400L, 17-40L and 50 1.8 all with hoods (reversed on the 100-400) plus a 550ex. The XTi is fitted with the battery grip as well. I can get the 100-400L to go in when fitted to the camera without removing the upper/lower divider from the bag.

 

All in all I couldn't be more pleased with it as a carry bag; accepting the limitations of a dual purpose bag.

Just a thought - it may be that the larger size of the 17-85mm is blocking the flash output and causing some of the effect you are seeing. This happens with the 17-40 mm lens at the 17mm setting for example. The lens is larger than the kit lens and the pop-up flash is not tall enough to miss it completely at the wider settings.

I've handled both at a shop. The 17-55 cannot match the overall build quality of the L lens but it is nevertheless a very solid feeling bit of kit. Ultimately the decission needs to be yours - both get very good reviews for image quality.

 

I also would not worry about 'dust' issues. I have used a 100-400L push-pull zoom on digital bodies for over two years - including most recently on a 400D (complete with it's air vent through the CF compartment! (see my earlier post)). In all that time I cleaned my 300D sensor once, and my 400D sensor remains clean at the moment.

I have uncovered a design feature not covered in the users manual...

 

If you attach your trusty 100-400L to your 400D, and pull the zoom back from

400 to 100mm, your right palm; which is probably getting quite hot holding the

small hand-grip; will receive a welcome outward blast of cool air via the gaps

in the CF slot door.

 

One hopes that the said sweaty palm does not ingress into the camera when you

choose to push the zoom back out again!

 

Alan

I did a few comparisons when I got my 400D (XTi) a month or so back. In summary, I leave the NR features OFF in DPP unless I have shot at either iso 800 and underexposed, or at iso 1600. I would say however that a well exposed iso 1600 shot remains highly useable at A3 size even without the NR.

 

I think, from other forum threads, that a dedicated NR program is likely to yield even better results. (Also I do most of my post RAW conversion adjustements in PS - I only use DPP for exposure compensation, white balance and occasional NR).

 

I'd recommend that you take a test shot and try the settings to see what suits you best?

The 17-40 was my first L lens also. It's a very nice bit of kit. Enjoy it! and merry christmas to all.

I have the 100-400IS and to be honest I do not think it would stack up well in terms of your main critria of IQ and sharpness when compared to most of your other options. However, it is very versitile - which is what swung my own purchase decision, and the IQ is 'good'.

Simon

 

Many thanks for the information! I'm hoping that the 24-105 hood will be a more compact, yet more effective, fit on the lens. (To pick up the other quries, I am using this on a 1.6x crop body)

Apologies that this is such a specific question, but I wonder if anyone who

has fitted the 17-40 L with the hood off a 24-105 L could give provide the

overall dimensions of the lens + hood?

 

I'm about to order the hood to go on my 17-40 and would like to order at the

same time a lowe-pro lens case that will take the lens with the hood fitted

and ready to use.

 

I'm very grateful to anyone who can help here.