dave_hachey

I just did something similar last week using a 20D and a 70-200 F4L IS. Take a look at http://dhachey.smugmug.com for some examples. I used 800 ISO and most of the shots were done at F4.0 using a shutter speed of 1/160 to 1/320 second. A couple of tips: use AI servo mode to track a player in motion and use the central focus point. I missed several shots because the camera used a different focus point than I expected. I also had an EF 300 F4L IS, but it was too long for the venue. You should be fine with your setup.

 

Enjoy the game, ...Dave

Just to be clear, "canned air" is technically classified as an aerosol propellant. Chemically it is 1,1-difluoroethane, with a boiling point of -25 deg C. Because it is a gas at normal temperatures and pressure, it is stored in large pressurized vessels during manufacture, from which it is transferred to the cans you buy. It is not chemically very pure and contains traces of oil from the pumping systems used to fill the cans. I WOULD STRONGLY URGE PEOPLE NOT TO USE IT TO CHARGE SENSOR BRUSHES. The micron sized droplets will contaminate the brush fibers and subsequently the sensor. Use a rubber ear syringe instead.

 

...Dave

Nels;

 

Very nice. Can't say much about the optical performance from these shots, but the lens seems better than my old 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS lens. Slight vignetting, but nothing objectionable. Any feel for the sharpness of the lens at longer focal lengths? That's where the older lens fell down.

 

...Dave

Derrald;

 

I agree with the other posts about the 100mm F/2.8 macro being too long for portrait work. I've tried to use it, but was never happy with the results. But more to the point, it is a brutally unforgiving portrait lens because of its high contrast and resolution. Every blemish and skin imperfection will be noticeable. This may work for some special types of portraits of children, but be careful with adults and older persons though.

 

...Dave

Craig Ferguson , Said:

My way is -

 

"1)Create a new folder on my data drive, named "LocationDate" eg "Taipei20050930". In that folder, create subfolders for RAW, PSD, TIF, JPG. "

 

I like the way Craig thinks. But let me offer my workflow as a model.

 

I have a standalone PC dedicated solely to Photoshop and photography. On it I copy a days worth of shooting into directories named like this: "050729 - Rome Fashion Shoot Part 1" in which I store the original *.RAW files

 

In this root directory I create a subdirectory for various categories of files I modify in some way. The advantage to this directory naming convention is that directories sort numerically by date when I look for them in "My Computer" or "File Explorer".

 

Hard disks fail, DVD disks fail, whole computers fail. DO NOT KEEP your files in one place. Make multiple backup copies. I have built a custom file server from an old PC that uses a Linux RAID 5 disk array to backup each photo archive in a separate directory space. This is done once a week, but could be done once a night. So now I have two sets of files on separate computers, one of which is on a RAID 5 network attached storage system. Both are synchronized by the backup software.

 

If my house burned to the ground I would loose everything, but there is a way to have a remote Linux file server synchronized with the personal RAID 5 NAS system over the internet, but it's too expensive to do right now.

You're on the right track. You need to use a circular polarizer and shoot the exposure at 90 degrees to the axis of the sun. That should darken up your sky and lighten the clouds. Be careful with the type of polarizer you use because it will affect the light metering and/or autofocus functions. Some of the cheap polarizers sold over the net are linear polarizers.

 

...Dave

For an excellent discussion of dynamic range in digital photography, take a look at Roger Clarke's web page. http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/index.html

 

The posters above are on the right track, but the discussion isn't quite as thorough as Clarke's.

 

...Dave Hachey

Ben;

 

I haven't been to the UK for a while, but your prices aren't too much higher than what I would pay locally in the US for the same kit. B&H charge US$4,550 w/o tax. Including taxes of 9% in my area, that brings it up to about $4,960 compared to the equivalent $5,100 in British pounds. Now, there are ways to avoid paying sales tax in the US that are unavailable to you because the VAT is built into the price. Don't get me wrong, I'm not about to rush over to the UK to buy a camera, but hopefully I'll be back for a visit soon with a new 5D <grin>.

 

Cheers, ...Dave

Derek;

 

It looks too symmetrical to be a dust bunny, but I suppose it's possible. To check for dust, try shooting a blank wall at F4 and then again at F22 but keep the overall exposure constant. If it's dust, then at F4 it will seem to defocus and partially disappear. It it's damaged sensor, then it will be a constant blemish. For your sake I hope it's just a dirty sensor. Some crud can be very sticky, such as tree sap, tiny bugs and pollen grains.

 

Good luck, ...Dave

Shawn;

 

As I mentioned earlier, the small screen is virtually useless for judging image quality, other than to see if you have things approximately 'right'. Maybe someone with an Epson P-2000 will chime in here. It supposedly has a fantastic screen and Michael Reichmann over on the Luminous Landscape is quite enamoured of it. There are also a number of inexpensive laptops on the market that will be enormously better for this purpose than the small, portable databanks, but at the expense of weight and convenience.

 

Regards, ...Dave

Shawn;

 

See my response to a similar query by someone over on Fred Miranda's website ( http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/276293 ). Look down towards the bottom of the page for a reply about an iRiver PMP-140 device. The photoviewer software allows you to zoom in about 800%, but the quality of the 3.5" screen still isn't good enough to visually proof your shots. I'd keep them around until you can see them on a decent monitor.

 

Cheers, ...Dave

The 17-40/F4L gets my vote. With a digital camera the better high ISO noise performance than film easily allows you to overcome the slower aperture of this lens. Take a look at the Luminous Landscape article cited above, but also visit this site http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html for a more technical appraisal of its performance. It's a excellent lens and nicely complements the new 24-105/F4L IS.

 

...Dave Hachey

I'm going to second Pierre's comments above. But in addition I feel that a 50% increase in pixel count doesn't merit a 3-fold increase in price. IMHO it isn't cost effective. My trusty 20D is already a better camera than I am a photographer. I plan to fix that problem with more practice. Don't get me wrong, the 5D will most likely prove to be an outstanding camera, but right now I plan to invest in more L glass. If the new 24-105/4L lives up to the early reports, one will be mine by Christmas.

Mark;

 

Thanks for the link to the 5D white paper. It sounds like the camera I've always wanted. But I'll have to think about it a bit more before I drop $3,300 for another body (ex D30, current 10D and 20D).

 

Cheers, ...Dave

Yakim;

 

I guess we will have to wait until someone actually has the lens before we can say how good it is. I'm sure some of the beta testers have been playing with it, but they can't comment until Canon releases them from their NDA. I suspect we will hear fairly soon after the official announcement has been made.

 

As I went through the Aussie web site there were no other unreleased products mentioned, including the 5D. I for one am curious to see what else Canon has up their sleeve.

 

...Dave

As others have stated, the list price is RRM $1,999, which makes it twice as costly as the 28-135mm/F3.5-5.6 IS zoom (RRM $999). So my projected retail street price should be about $850US, after the feeding frenzy dies down. It's definitely on my Christmas list.

From the same Aussie web site mentioned above, I gleaned some more information. These are obviously real and they looks like typical "L" lens specifications. It has 18 elements in 13 groups, so this lens was probably a challenge for Canon to design. I haven't found any performance specs yet, so if it lives up to the performance of my 17-40/4L zoom I'll be a very happy camper.

 

Cheers, ...Dave

 

Focal Length & Max Aperture: 24-105mm 1:4

 

Picture Size : 24mm x 36mm

 

Weight: 670g

 

Filter Diameter: 77mm (Yeah!)

 

Diagonal Angle of View : 84 - 23deg20' (43.2mm)

 

Vertical Angle of View : 53deg - 13deg (24mm)

 

Horizontal Angle of View: 74deg - 19deg20' (36mm)

 

Lens Construction : 18 elements in 13 groups

 

Minimum Aperture: f/22

 

No. of Aperture blades: 8 (circular aperture)

 

Closest Focusing Distance (m): 0.45m

 

Minimum f/stop: f/22 (at 28mm)

 

Focus Drive: Ring-type USM

 

Dimensions : 83.5mm dia. x 107mm

Well, in addition to the 5D, I'm really excited about the 24-104/4L IS lens. We need something in that range to improve on capabilities of the 28-135/non-L IS lens. It looks like my credit card is going to be maxed out for the next couple of months <grin>.

Derrick and others;

 

Canon probably thought that ISO 3200 performance was so bad it would be best to protect users from stupid mistakes. Unfortunately last weekend I was one of the dumb ones. I accidently left the setting on H and obtained shots that were all but useless. They appeared MUCH grainier than any ISO 1600 work I've done. No amount of cleanup with Noise Ninja or PS-CS2 could salvage them. I'll never make that mistake again. IMHO they should have dropped this feature during development.

 

Cheers, ...Dave

Todd;

 

One of the nice things about digital photography is that after the initial equipment purchase, the cost of experimenting is virtually free (i.e., no film, processing, printing costs). Well, almost free. So experiment, then ask for critiques from readers here or in the "Critique" section of the forum. Also visit Fred Miranda's web site. They tend to be a bit more civilized over there.

 

Now, regarding shooting modes, most people here seem to be advanced amateurs, with some professionals lurking about, so they tend to shoot in the manual (i.e., creative) modes. I personally use mainly the manual modes (Av, Tv, P). But when I'm on vacation and just want trouble-free snapshots, then I use Canon's full auto mode. Don't be affraid to experiment. It's a good way to learn.

 

Last week on the golf course I got some great shots at 800 ISO using Av mode with a Canon EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM lens on a 20D. Blur-free, ball frozen in mid air, dirt spray from the sand trap, etc. The lens isn't the best, but I was having fun. Such a lens would work reasonably well for you, until you catch the dreaded "L" fever. I have a couple of L's, they're wonderful. Expensive, but wonderful. I don't recommend them if you're just starting out, unless you have the money (>$1K).

 

Good luck with your hobby, ...Dave

Marc;

 

It seems you are really having fun with your new lens. I wasn't terribly excited when I saw some of the first images produced by it, but I'm coming to the conclusion that it's a decent lens. I have the 17-40 F/4L, but it isn't quite wide enough so I may consider purchasing the 10-22. BTW, I loved some of the other photos in your pbase gallery, especially the smoke images and the girl with face paint. Very nice.

 

Cheers, ...Dave

Well, this is a bit like asking which of your children you love the most. But because this an open forum I won't answer that question.

 

So far my favorite lens is the 17-40 F/4 on a 20D or 10D body. Great optics, convenient zoom range, superb build and great overall comfort factor.

 

Close second is the 28-135 F/3.5-5.6 IS zoom. Good overall zoom range, decent optics, convenient to carry.

 

Third in line is 100 mm F/2.8 macro. Fantastic lens, outstanding optics. But I don't do enough macro work to justify a higher rating. It's a bit difficult to master hand held, but on a tripod it's without equal. It's the lens by which I judge optical performance of all others.

 

Least favorite is a 75-300 F/3.5-5.6 IS zoom. OK optics, but I'm going to replace it with a 300 mm F/4 or a 100-400 "L" zoom lens soon.

 

...Dave

Patrick;

 

All lenses will exhibit flare when you shoot directly into the sun. Several factors affect the degree to which a particular lens will show flare. Mainly it's how well optically coated the lens elements are, how effective the internal light baffles are and the number of optical surfaces in the lens. Canon's L lenses are generally pretty good, but the 300 mm f/4 should be better than the 70-200 mm f/4 zoom because it has fewer lens elements and better internal baffling to trap stray light. As a test try shooting directly into the sun, but then move the lens slightly out of the sun's axis and see how that affects flare.

 

I suspect the real reason you want the 300 mm f/4 canon is to feed your L glass lens addiction <grin>. Hey, go for it. Everyone on this board has the same needs as you <GRIN>.

 

...Dave

Robert;

 

Sad, isn't it? Several years ago I gave my son an old Canon FT QL, a FTb and a collection of FD and FL lenses. They were stored in an aluminum briefcase packed with a foam lining. Last year he gave them back to me, but when I opened the briefcase the foam had turned to tar and contaminated everything. Repair was out of the question, although I have skills to tear down, clean and reassemble a lens. I just couldn't find a way to use the old equipment. As painful as it was, I decided to throw out $3,000 (1970 prices) of equipment. In the early 80's I switched over to Nikon, but last year I returned to the Canon fold and went completely digital. I'm loving every minute of it. Probably time for you to do the same.

 

Cheers, ...Dave

The controversy about using the manufacturer's battery vs. a generic or counterfeit battery has been around for a while. My philosophy is why take a chance? If the battery explodes and damages a $1500 20D and/or a $2,000 lens I can expect Canon to make good on the replacement cost, otherwise they can expect a lawsuit. Who are you going to blame if your generic lithium ion bomb explodes? For the $30 price differential, it's cheap insurance!

 

On the other hand for a cheap consumer product (i.e. my cell phone), I'll go with the generic battery.

 

P.S. Fair Disclosure: I don't sell canon products or invest in the company. I just highly value their cameras and lenses, so I'm not going to take a chance.