athinkle

<p>The 580 EX II really is a remarkable flash, and I'd recommend it without hesitation if you want to get more serious about flash photography. While no flash I know of will consistently get you the distance you want when it comes to a basketball court, the heightened power of the 580 does have other uses. I love its ability to maintain a good deal of power when using a heavy duty diffuser, such as the Lightsphere. The battery pack does work wonders, reducing the recycle time to almost nothing. The 580 EX II doesn't make the characteristic whining noise made by most other flashes, which can be a plus in quiet environments or when working with animals (many dogs hate that flash sound.) Finally, consider the purchase of a Canon speedlight transmitter along with the flash. The ability to remotely control all your flashes with full TTL control really opens up the possibilities. </p>

<p>Thanks Puppy Face, you posted while I was writing my last long-winded comment.</p>

 

<p>Damn... I'm not too pleased with the comment in the first thread concerning the vulnerability of the joystick controller. Perhaps a bit of electrical tape over controller would help if that's the only true critical flaw. Anyway, I would still like to know any formal information about the grip itself. <br>

BTW, the tape was originally called "Duck Tape" by soldiers in WWII who used it to form waterproof seals on ammo cans (ducks of course being waterproof.) It got the name "duct tape" afterwards when it started being used for HVAC work in civilian projects. Bottom line: Both names are acceptable.</p>

<p>I recently got my hands on the 5D MK II along with its dedicated canon battery grip. I know that the camera body, when used with a sealed lens, possesses a degree of basic weather sealing. I haven't seen any information regarding whether or not that dust and moisture protection extends to the grip, though. I would hate to use the thing in a light rain or snowstorm and find out the hard way that no one at canon bothered to seal the grip. I'm sorry if this is an RTFM type of question, but I actually went through all the included literature and didn't find an answer. <br>

Also, if I use the camera in adverse conditions, do I need to cover the flash shoe? I know that using a 580 MKII strobe would seal it, but having the flash contacts exposed to the elements when I'm not using a flash seems risky. Am I worried about nothing? Anyway, any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. </p>

<p>This is a very curious problem considering the fact that the actual AF mechanisms for EF lenses are inside the lenses themselves. The problem, if there is one, would probably have to be in the AF sensor assembly (beneath the reflex mirror I believe) inside the body. This would mean that mist/salt/etc would have had to get into the body (probably through the lens mount) in the short spanse of five minutes. I guess what I'm getting at here is that I doubt your excursion damaged your camera. Try to full reset to rule out any software bugs. Then, if it really seems like a hardware issue, maybe it will be covered under warranty. I would just tell the repair center the problem and leave out the whole part about the possible water ingress. Normally I would say to just tell them and bite the bullet if you had gotten the camera wet but that may not actually be the source of the problem in this case. Best of luck.</p>

<p>The lack of fringing on the Pro1 as compared to the SX10 could be due to the fact that Canon seemed to pull out all the stops on the Pro1's lens design. They went so far as to give it a red ring, and I think there was actually a fluorite element in there somewhere. The broad zoom range SX isn't going to be able to dance with that fancy setup.</p>

<p>I think that I might be a tad more sympathetic towards Fairey if this whole "theft" thing wasn't a theme throughout a good deal of his work. I wish I could remember the specific link, but I saw a lengthy article that broke down his body of work as it related to existing political graphic art. It seems that he has a knack for tracking down obscure left-wing artwork from other countries, modifying it slightly, and slapping his "obey" logo on it. Since old propaganda art from eastern Europe or Latin America is unlikely to be recognized in the U.S. Fairey is free to sell his "work" on T-Shirts in skateboard shops for a tidy sum. The original images are not public domain, and Fairey has been sued by the estate of at least one artist who caught wind of the whole thing. Ad this to his graffiti "art" stencils that are ubiquitous in East Coast cities like Boston and Worcester and you have someone who isn't going to get any sympathy from me. </p>

<p>As to the specific work in question, was the Obama image painted or computer generated? It looks an awful lot like something that is the product of Photoshop>Posterize>Illustrator>LiveTrace>LivePaint. This perception is backed up by the fact that there is now a website that will convert any photo you upload into a Fairey "Obama Poster." We need to make a point of registering our dissaproval of this sort of thing lest our own copyrights become nothing more than cute little "C" decorations below our images. </p>

<p>As mentioned before, excellent images. If you were to show me a portfolio in person or in a .pdf I would not hesitate to hire you to shoot a wedding. However, as mentioned before, there are critical problems with your site. I think people need to acknowledge that, although you approved the site, the technical issues are the fault of your web designer. They should know that one needs nav buttons on a slideshow and that playing music automatically is amateurish. One of the reasons people hire designers is so they don't need to know all of the conventions and technicalities. My advice? Tell your web designer he/she needs to do a serious overhaul, and you should address the possible legal issues surrounding your music and logo. All of this criticism is harsh, but think of this as a series of growing pains towards refining the professional facet of your craft.</p>

<p>I can't find any reference to this on Sigma's website so someone feel free to contradict me, but I remember reading about a DP2 being in development that would address many of the DP1's failings. It would also be sporting a 40mm equiv. lens, which in my view is far more versatile than the current 28mm version. However, if the development time for the DP1 is any indication, the DP2 might be far off or even vaporware at this point. <br>

If you are concerned about sensor size because of noise levels, you might want to seriously look at the Panasonic LX3. I'm a G9 man myself, but a colleague of mine uses the LX3 and obtains stunning results out of a camera that is far more compact than Canon's offerings. </p>

Kelly, while the OP does mention Vista 64 in the post title, the 32 bit vs. 64 bit issue is still relevant. A 32 bit

version of Windows, while limited by the RAM cap, is going to be more compatible with older software. I made a

conscious decision to go with a 32 bit version for that reason, and I have yet to run into any serious RAM issues

even while running Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Flash, and Illustrator at the same time. For this reason, a well made

rig using Vista 32 isn't a bad idea for some users.

 

 

I would suggest the OP just get whatever version of Vista suits him right now and not cross his fingers for the timely

release of 7. Even if it is in fact released on time, it does pay to wait awhile for the first service pack to avoid the

inevitable release bugs.

Considering the fact that you are working in a studio and therefore need not consider weather sealing or extreme ISO performance, may I suggest a pair of 5D (original) bodies? Redundancy is a beautiful thing when your business and reputation are on the line. Besides, in a studio, good lights are your most important concern anyway.

Keep in mind that you can lessen or remove that distortion using software in post, although it usually requires cropping into your images at the end. You lose a little of your angle of view, but your lines are straighter. There is also software to "de-fish" a fisheye, but I haven't had the desire or resources to experiment with any of it.

I'd agree that the Mamiya C series of TLRs would make an interesting platform for digital. However, even if it were possible to manufacture the thing in a practical configuration the demand would be so low as to make the development costs pointless for Mamiya. Dang...

If you can afford it I would seriously consider the 24-105 f4L IS. It covers a fantastically useful range, it's relatively lightweight, and I know that mine is sharp as a tack. Once you've use the IS you'll wonder how you got along without it. As an added bonus, the lens is environmentally sealed so when coupled to the EOS 3 you have a quite a tough combination.

Thanks everyone for the prompt responses. Looks like I'll be picking up the Lightshpere, and worrying about the bracket some other time. It's very reassuring to know that I don't need to be particularly concerned about the contact issue... Maybe the occurences of the problem I experienced were due to me hastily and improperly seating that weird new locking switch.

I'm considering purchasing a Lightsphere kit for my 580 EX II to use for an upcoming job. I'm photographing

physicians in their offices for a company website, and I'm going for a natural "wasn't shot with a flash" sort of look.

Due to the situation I can't use lightstands or other such cumbersome things, so the Lightsphere seems like the best

bet.

 

Anyway, I was wondering if the added weight of the Lightsphere worsens the problem that the 580 II has in

portrait orientation. I have experienced this before, where the new locking mechanism allows the weight of the flash

to pull the contacts away from the shoe. Can anyone who has used this combination tell me if it works okay, or if I

have to suck it up and spring for a flash bracket? I use a 5D if for some reason that makes any difference. Thanks.

This thread inspired me to go fetch my C330 out of the cabinet... I'm not sure if the 220 uses the same lens sets as the 330, but if it does check out the 80mm 2.8. Dang that thing is sharp. Also, don't you love the close focus ability of the bellows setup? The 330's exposure comp/parallax adjustment needle thingy in the viewfinder is just an excellent design. Also, the ground glass on the thing makes my 5D's viewfinder look like a squinty piece of junk. As I handle it this thing is just calling me to go downtown and shoot a roll of Neopan. Too bad I have to go to work...<div></div>

Another vote here for the G9. At low ISO, prints from the G9 cannot be easily distinguished from those made from my 5D files. The G9 has very little "Fiddle Factor" (I like that term by the way,) due to the fact that its metal soap bar frame has external buttons for almost everything. Lag can be an issue, especially with flash and ESPECIALLY with an external flashgun. Noise above ISO 400 is also a problem, but I've found that by shooting RAW, watching my lighting and using Noise Ninja that I can get usable files out of ISO 1600. In short, fantastic little piece of engineering. You will be very happy with it as a sidekick to your EOS gear, and you won't be making too many sacrifices.

I'd have to agree with the statement that "pirated versions don't see much use because people don't bother to learn the software." People I've met with the cracked versions tend to be those more interested in computers than with art/photography/design. They'll dabble and throw together some funny composites as jokes, but that's about it. Pro users buy the real thing due to fear of audits and many students acquire legit versions through the generous discount programs. I'm sure those sales, at hundreds of dollars a piece, are enough to keep Adobe happily afloat.

Okay, this is heresy but I swear it works: You can get away with not using a tripod if you use a macro flash. It is enough to prevent the insane perceived camera shake you will experience with a macro lens. The Sigma unit works very well, and allows you to ratio the flash from side to side to avoid the flat "ring flash" look. However, handholding a macro lens makes for VERY difficult focusing. In bright light you can brace yourself and trust the autofocus, or practice using the technique where you slowly lean towards your subject and fire when you see that focus has been achieved. This effectively turns your body into a crude rail focusing system. The best bet is still a tripod, but this works for those situations where carrying one just isn't going to happen. This whole thing works even better with a monopod. I use a Bogen with a tilt-pan head, but I'm cheap that way. When collapsed, the bogen is extremely light and very compact. Heck, I can't seem to find mine right now...

The principle concern with the DP1 isn't the image quality. Everything I've read claims it's fantastic in that regard. The problems apparently lie with the overall handling of the device as a camera, not just a sensor. Perhaps those with personal experience will correct me if I'm wrong, but the shutter lag is supposed to be innapropriately nasty and precludes using the DP1 for anything but static subjects. This is much less of a problem with the G9. Also, I'm sorry, but 4 seconds shot to shot with RAW files isn't acceptable. The G9 seems to do it at around 2 seconds at the most. I've never had the G9's write speed get in the way of anything I was doing. The final image is the most important factor, granted, but you need a camera that will allow you to actually capture it.

One more vote for the 24-105. I know it's not particularly wide on an APS body, but I got to spend some trigger time with both the 17-85 and the 17-55 2.8 and I wasn't that impressed. Maybe there was something wrong with them or with the 40D I was using at the time, but they just didn't hold a candle to what the 24-105 could do. To be a REAL nuisance, I'd have to say that the most useful ONLY lens I've used is the one stuck to my G9... 35-200 IS in a pocketable size takes you a long way.

IF what you're looking for is truly pocketable, the 220EX fits the bill perfectly. Think of it as a pop up flash that 1. is MUCH more powerful 2. Has an AF assist beam and 3. Is raised up much higher above the body. I got mine years ago for my EOS 3 (no flash on that thing either) and it is great for fill and/or emergencies.

Any chance you can come up with enough money for a 5D? A 5D and 50mm prime make a fantastic low light setup.

I recall seeing an ad of theirs in the back of a magazine recently. Several packages stated that they included a several gigabyte memory card, but the product photographs clearly showed a MICRODRIVE. Not a good sign, to say the very least. Also, take the time to actually read the reviews on Resellerratings. The bad reviews are the standard gray market nightmare stories, while the glowing ones are the standard "everything was great and (insert name) is the greatest salesman in the whole wide world!" Those often indicate reviews planted by employees.