karl_lehmann

<p>Get the Kenko set (12 mm, 20 mm, and 36 mm), it's the best deal and offers the most flexibility.</p>

<p>But before you do that, try a flatbed scanner (you can leave it open for a black background). You may find you don't even need the tubes.<br /></p>

<p>Your computer almost certainly has a built-in card reader. Look for a slot in the front labeled "CF" or "Compact Flash" or something similar. Just stick your CF card in that and transfer the files with windows explorer (copy and paste them to a folder on your hard drive). It will almost certainly be slower than a stand alone card reader but it will work. You can shoot with another card while the files are downloading, so it's actually more convenient than transferring by USB.</p>

<p>Put your lens (preferably with camera attached) in an airtight plastic bag just before you go outdoors and don't remove it until it has warmed up to the outside temperature. Then you will never get fogging. Keep it out of the plastic bag when you are indoors.<br>

You can do this with your entire camera bag but it takes much longer to warm up.<br>

If you let your equipment fog up every time you go out you are risking fungus (mold) over the long term. It can ruin your lenses.</p>

<p>Thanks for the clarification, Mark. It seems your generalization to other Canon products with respect to Auto ISO as it's implemented in the 7D was incorrect.<br /><br />Unfortunately it also appears the new firmware (v 2.0.7) does not correct the problem in the 5DII.</p>

 

<p>"Peter, it's only fixed at ISO 400 in Manual mode when using flash and Auto ISO is selected"</p>

<p>But we are talking about manual mode with Auto ISO selected. In that case, ISO defaults to 400. You are correct that it also does so with flash.</p>

<p>It is explained on page 58 of the 5DII manual. It is an egregious case of poor design. Perhaps the new firmware 2.07 will fix it.</p>

<p>You seem to think the 7D is different and you may be right, though it's hard to believe. Why would Canon deliberately cripple only the more expensive model? It's irrelevant to most shooters anyway - nobody is going to switch to a cropped sensor just to get Auto ISO.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Michael asks, "Well, in the manual mode you set the shutter speed and the f/stop...and the ISO... How exactly would you like Auto ISO to behave in the M mode..?"</p>

<p>Presumably one would want it to set the ISO in order to achieve correct exposure.</p>

<p>The point is that Auto ISO is a great idea but as currently implemented by Canon it is worthless. Like P mode it takes two or more variables and chooses between them, basically, at random. But if it worked in M mode it would be predictable and would be an excellent time saver.</p>

<p>Here is an example:<br>

Suppose you have determined you require 1/250 to stop motion and f/16 for depth of field. Naturally you want the minimum practical ISO. So you choose 1/250 and f/16 in M mode. Then, if Auto ISO worked in M mode, you would press the shutter release. But since it doesn't you pause to increase the ISO manually. Then you realize, unfortunately, the moment has passed. Your subject is gone.</p>

<p>This is so obvious that it's incredible Canon has never implemented it.</p>

<p>"it has that annoyingly-ancient push/pull for the zoom rather than rotational zooming in the newer lenses"</p>

<p>The push-pull zoom is better ergonomically. It's much faster and easier to use because you can zoom and focus at the same time without repositioning your hand or removing your finger from the shutter button. It also prevents you from twisting the wrong ring by mistake, and it makes the lens short enough to fit in your camera bag.</p>

<p>It's nothing to do with "ancient" vs "newer", there were already plenty of those annoying rotational zooms on the market before the 100-400 IS was released. It's just case of better design.</p>

<p>No, it is not a problem.<br>

The first thing I did when I got my 24mm TS-E was align the two axes. I wanted both controls on the same side and the cable looked plenty long enough so that's the way I did it. I've been using it that way for almost 8 years with no problems.</p>

<p>Or fix it for $640, sell it on eBay for $1200 and put the surplus toward a new 5DMKII.<br>

If you are eligible for CPS you should definitely join before getting your 5D repaired. Even at the lowest (free) level it will save you 20% and you'll get faster service too.</p>

<p>The problem is more often how to keep the sky from getting TOO bright. If you want a dark sky you need to shoot on a moonless night at high altitude, in the desert, or in a place with strict light pollution controls (like Hawaii). Antarctica in winter would work nicely too.<br>

I don't think the people were painted with light. If you follow the link under the photo he tells you exactly how he does it.</p>

<p>Just make sure your camera & lenses are warmer than the bathroom and you won't have any problems.</p>

<p>I have scorch marks on my flash from shooting backlit wildlife with the Better Beamer. The photos are great though.</p>

<p>Why don't you just tape over the contacts? You could try nail polish for a more permanent fix.</p>

<p>"Is technology sucking us in?" - Bob<br>

Those who bought the D30 were definitely being sucked in, because they would have gotten far better results with film. But we should all be thankful they got sucked in - otherwise film would STILL be state of the art. It's the early adopters who drive the market.</p>

<p>Tabis are the best footwear on slippery, wet rocks. They are also inexpensive, and very light & compact - so if you'd rather wear hiking boots on the trail they're easy to carry. I've never seen them for sale outside Hawaii but I'm sure you can find them online. In Hawaii you can find them at places like Long's Drugs, Walmart, etc. The product mentioned above by RL Potts may be similar.<br /> <br /> Tevas, hiking boots, etc. are dangerous on slippery rocks, especially when you're carrying expensive equipment.</p>

<p>What Robin said.<br /> <br /> Except I'm wondering, in what way is the new version "clearly a great improvement on the original version"? The tilt and shift axies are at right angles in the original version, but you can repair that in a couple of minutes with a screwdriver. In the unlikely event you ever want to, you can switch it back just as fast. Were there any other significant improvements made in the new version?<br /> <br /> IMO 24mm is a much more versatile focal length than 17mm (at full frame). And if you decide you want both, the money you save by going with the original 24mm would go a long way toward purchasing the17mm.</p>

<p>And now I see that Adorama offers a knockoff of the EW83J for less than half the price of the real one. Has anyone tried this? Is it truly the same as the overpriced original?</p>

<p>Hi Isaac, this is great information.<br /> <br /> Since you've tried both the EW-83H and the filed EW83DII on the 17-40 F/4L, which of them would you say is better at blocking flare?<br /> <br /> I am inclined to buy an EW83J for my 24-105 f/4 and transfer the EW-83H to the 17-40 f/4. But if the filed EW83DII is significantly more effective I'll order one of those too.<br /> <br /> Thanks!</p>

<p>This is a great idea, because at noon Antelope Canyon is packed with tourists and guides throwing sand. It would be deserted at midnight. The lower canyon will be very dark at night, it will be easier to work in the upper canyon. Flash flood danger is much lower at midnight than in the afternoon.</p>

<p>What you need to know is, the full moon is at about the same altitude as the sun 6 months earlier. So the lighting by full moon at midnight in July will be similar to the sunlight at noon in January. Because the canyon is so narrow and deep, I believe the lighting by full moon would be better in winter.</p>

<p>Having said that, I still think you should try it! But try to go the day before to choose your compositions (I think if you pay for admission the day before you won't have to pay again at night, but of course you can expect to pay again for a guide & transport to the upper canyon). When you try something like this you are often disappointed... but occasionally you get the shot of a lifetime. I think it's worth taking a chance.</p>

<p>Hey Pupster- I usually agree with you (except about ECF), but the RT blows away liveview. It also gives 10fps with no mirror shake and almost instant shutter response... the only major problem is you need to put film in it :-(</p>

<p>I'd buy a full frame digital RT in a heartbeat. Say, based on the 5D MKII... Dust on the pellicle mirror is actually much less of a problem than dust on the sensor, and the minor light loss is a nonissue with digital. With film you are limited to ISO 100 for high IQ, but with the 5D MKII you can crank it up to 200 or even 400 with very little penalty...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"- isn't that the same as using a bracket?"</p>

<p>No, you need to separate the flash from the camera. The lens, flash and subject form a triangle. If the triangle is too narrow, you will get eyeshine. All that matters is the angle between lens and flash, as viewed from the subject's eye.</p>

<p>"...it is now used to invoke liveview, so it does lock up the mirror."<br>

Hey, I never noticed that because I've never had a reason to try liveview! It works, but unfortunately liveview also heats the sensor and drains the battery. If only I can figure out how invoke liveview without actually activating the sensor I'll be happy... (sort of like asking for spam, spam, spam, toast and spam without the spam, LOL).</p>

<p>If you find a good one let us know - I need one too. I'm pretty sure any screen that's useful for focusing is going to be darker than the stock screen.<br>

Another member, Sarah Fox, was going to try modifying a 1 series split screen to fit the 5D; you could try emailing her.</p>

<p>I'd like an update that converts the direct print button to an MLU button :<)</p>

<p>"I very much dislike the 100-400. Too large, too slow."<br>

Aperture is a function of size. So take your choice - smaller and slower or larger and faster. Or you could stick to wide angles. But it's pointless to complain about the laws of physics because Canon isn't going to revise them.</p>