lester_wareham

I have had one instance of a lockup.

 

I think what triggered this was turning on , switching to M and poping up the flash in close sequence. Everything was on but the camera did not respond to anything. Battery removal fixed it.

 

However the battery was almost flat when I put it back, I think perhaps the camera crashed with an actuator on and draned it (the battery was warm when removed).

 

All OK after a charge but I lost a days shoot. As the 20D battery lasts so long a spare was not an issue I had thought.

 

Needless to say I ordered a spare battery as soon as I got home and charge the two alternatly.

In manual mode you adjust the shutter with the main dial near the shutter button and the aperture with the quick change dial at the back using your thumb. Just make sure the on switch is in the full on position.

Read the downloadable PDF version, it's a lot easier.

 

Follow the steps in the manual with the camera in your hands.

 

Like most things if you do it rather than reading it the information will stick better.

The only work (physicly fit) on L series lenses of 135mm and above and on some of the L zooms 70-200 and 100-400 I think it is).

 

You could use an independent make however, but a wide range zoom will probably not give very good results with a 2X due to the limited sharpness of a wide range zoom. Also AF will either not work or be inaccurate due to the 2-stops light loss.

 

Ideally you want a f2.8 lens with a 2X for the AF, but even then you can have issues with an independent make as they do not signal the camera that the apperature has been reduced. This can cause inaccurate AF.

Canon publish a lot of MTF data and much but not all can be told about a lens from this. Issues

1) Canon data is computer simulation so lens build quality and complexity losses are not included. Probably a usefla

 

relative guide though.

2) Will not tell you anything about flare, distortion etc. Does give a good indication of contrast and detail and to

 

some extent bokeh.

3) Canon publish a book with these in the back for most lenses and telecnverter combination (Lens Work III). A lot

 

of the data is available from the USA and Japan webs but is sometimes contradictory so I recommend the book except

 

for the new lenses EF-S and the new 24-105.

USA web: consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=111

Japan Web: http://cweb.canon.jp/camera/ef/catalog/category

 

I have looked into the comparision between lots of lenses MTF data to guide my lens selection. This is on my web

 

pages at http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/lensselection.htm and

 

http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/MTF_Files/Index.htm.

I went through the reversed wideangle lens on belows with my FD system and will wait for the MP-65, high magnification macro is hard enough as it is. I think I got up to about 2.5X like that (28mm lens reversed) but no realy good results and almost zero working distance.

 

At present I too have the 100mm f2.8 macro and no external flash.

 

My roadmap it to get the MT-24EX followed by the MP-E 65 as and when.

 

You can BTW use the internal flash with the 100mm up to 1:1 if you set ISO of 200-400 and +2 stops of FEC, a bit of a stopgap and no lighting control but already better than manual flash on my old FD system.

Well done these look like well conducted tests, are these 100% crops, corner, centre? Did you apply any capture sharpening.

 

I tend to think we should collect a database of tests like this if we can get them done in a standardised way.

Anyone know what the new features are on the DPP 2.0 that was

released with the 5D. Hopefully it will be available for download.

Ditto for the MT24-EX Manual

I can see from the MTF plots the 17-40 degrades quite a lot beyond the 1.6 crop frame at the edges even stopped down, this is to be expected with this degree of wide angle.

 

However, the smearing of the wood pile to the right is quite obvious at 100%.

 

Is this typical o the 17-40?

 

Could it be be due to the interpolation caused by correcting for barrel distortion?

The lens seems to be the defining factor is picture quality for 6Mp and above, but this is becase the most important thing is the contrast at line frequencies of 5-26 lp/mm depending sensor crop factor.

 

I think the main advantage of more pixels (like 30-50Mp) is no need for capture sharpening to compensate for the anti-alias filter. Sharpening, even using edge masks and Blend If to protect the shaddows and highlights results in artifacts.

 

Many good lens will have some contrast up at 100-150 lp/mm but the effect on image sharpness is limited.

I like DPP. Wish lists for 2.0:

 

Acurate previews and thumbnails including sharpening and adjusments, cropping and spotting. Visual indication of black and white point clipping al la ACR 3.1. Some of the basic lens correction tools and strightening tool from ACR welcome but not as important as above.

 

The thing most missed compared to ACR is the gamult clip.

 

DPP feature mossed missed on ACR is spotting of RAW rather thand having to save as a TIFF.

"The 24-70 f2.8 L probably ought to have IS"

 

The new 24-105 f4L IS address the f4 whole and adds IS. Upgrade to 24-70 expected.

 

"- The 70-200 f4 L really ought to have IS"

 

Yep, like the 24-70 upgrade expected soon. Probably the most glaring L zoom odd one.

I have the 50mm f1.4 which I assumed would be a good portraite lens. However, I find this does not blur the background as well as an 85mm f1.8 on full frame so allow clearence from the background.

 

Alternatively the 85mm f1.8 would be a good choice. The 100mm f2.8 Macro works well for tight head shots and for small kids. For both these lenses you will need a lot of working room with adults.

 

All these are very sharp lenses so selective mask sharpening in post processing is to be recommended.

Why not get a Nikon DSLR if you have loads of Nikon lenses?

 

They are fine cameras. I think the only downside is Nikon seem to have no full frame asperations. That may not be a major factor.

 

I started from scratch as my old system was Canon FD. I chose Canon again, but it was not a default by any means. If I had had Nikon glass I would have stayed with them.

The 35mm f1.4 is a very sharp lens, it is also expensive and heavy.

 

Although I was planning on this lens I have now switched plans to the 28mm f1.8. Although not quite as sharp it is cheaper and lighter. More importantly it will be a better focal length (for me) for eventual migration to full frame.

 

I have not heard any bad news on the 28mm f1.8 but would like to hear stories.

 

Be aware that the Canon MTF data on the USA web has an abvious error making it look poor stopped down. Refer to the eyes of EOS book.

A use the CF to move the AF to the * button - makes it easy to take full advantage of the FTM. For me FTM is a major lens differentator, more so than USM.

gareth harper , aug 23, 2005; 06:43 a.m.

I shoot film. No need to worry about exposure? The average DSLR sensor has less lattitude than slide film!

 

I used to shoot slide also but the DSLR has much more lattitude, if you shoot RAW that is. Plus the histogram means you can correct any errors and try again.

I have compared DPP and ACR conversion times here http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/convertertests.htm#DPP%20and%20ACR%20Feature%20Comparison

I still have my old system A1 and Ftb with a few primes.

 

My fav was the Ftb.

I have the 200mm f2.8L II USM. It has:

 

- very fast AF that is virtually silent.

 

- manufacture quality is excelent

 

- FTMF is very possitive and easy to use (on 20D)

 

- the lens is very sharp and quite small crops can be used if focus is accurate and a high shutter speed or tripod is used.

 

- as the lens is ~750g and relativly short (shorter than 70-200 f4L) handling is good.

 

- you can use 2X TC and retain AF although I have not tried this myself (don't have TC)

 

- light and small enough I take it everywhere as part of my standard kit.

 

If you like macro you might like the 180mm f3.5L. This is meant to be very sharp although the AF is not so fast, it is expensive and larger/heavier than the f2.8.

 

For macro I have 100mm f2.8 macro which is very sharp but does not have a long enough working distance for wary subjects, so the 180mm is on the back-burner. I am thinking of trying the 200mm f2.8 with extension tubes as a way of getting closer focus (min focus is 1.5M), but this will probably not be as sharp as the 180mm.

 

The Tamron is ment to be a good lens.

 

Try this link for a macro shoot-out http://iapf.physik.tu-berlin.de/jbohs/HKO/TUBerlin/dforum/macro/Macro100.html..

 

If you need a translation bablefish worked for me http://babelfish.altavista.com/

 

Good luck.

I think the point the previous replies have missed is the V2.0 update loosing the sensor clean option. I have not updated to 2.0 yet so I would like to know if this realy is a problem.

 

Can the OP confirm this - I have not heard of any other complaints of this.

Many thanks to both Mike and Mark for the informative answers. Despite the extra cost the twin flash looks like the best option for me over the range of applications I envisage.

"Working distances with the MP-E 65 don't change much as you go from 1:1 to 5:1 -- roughly an inch or so at all magnifications, slightly more at 1:1, slightly less at 5:1."

 

Thanks for that useful info. I had assumed the lens entry node would remain in more or less the same possition over the magification range but that can't be the case if the working distance almost constant. So is the image plane to subject plane distance quoted by Canon [http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelTechSpecsAct&fcategoryid=155&modelid=7325] (240mm) at 1:1 or 5:1?

 

"The ring flash is going to be a lot more convenient than the -24EX, simply due to its smaller size. It will also give more even lighting,.."

 

Well I want control over the lighting for creative reasons, I just worry that the MT-24EX will be too harsh for the MP-E 65mm, ideal for the 100mm though.

I have been wondering what macro flash to get of the two Canon

options. I have the 100mm macro and hope to get the MP-E 65mm some

time.

 

Looking at the MT-24EX it looks like the lighting could become very

oblique compared to the ring flash for very close lens to subject

working distances that might be expected with the MP-E at 5:1

magnification.

 

Can someone who uses that combination comment on this and indicate

what sort of lighting angle range there is at this magification

(degrees off optical axis).

 

Many thanks

 

Lester