michael_madio

<p>"a lot of the time you are blinding people with your flash going off while your camera is trying to focus in low light" ... as Bueh mentioned above, this doesn't happen with external flashes as they use an LED focus assist beam. For situations where you can't bounce, start with a reflector type diffuser (e.g. http://www.lumiquest.com/products/pocket-bouncer.htm or http://super.nova.org/DPR/DIY01/). Get an off-camera shoe cord so you can either put the flash on a bracket above the lens or hold the flash in your hand with an out-stretched arm.</p>

<p>Looks like a Larson product:</p>

<p>http://www.larson-ent.com/items276_Reflectors_-_Rigids_-_50_50.htm</p>

<p>Hot-shoe flashes are generally ~50Ws so based on Ws alone, the Flashpoint unit is ~1.5 stops more powerful than the Flashpoint units. That being said, a friend of mine has the Flashpoint units and the stated GN matches what was measured with a light meter. I have also measured the 580EX flash and it produced 2/3 of a stop less than the stated GN. Assuming a similar discrepancy with the 430EX flash (I don't have one to measure), I would say that the Flashpoint units are at least 1.5 stops more powerful and most likely 2 stops more powerful if you measured them.</p>

<p>Stuart,</p>

<p>That looks better than what I'm getting. Are you using any sharpening and/or adjusting the film holder height?</p>

<p>I recently acquired an Epson V750. The scans I get from MF and LF negatives are great so I decided to try it with 35mm film. The scans look good on their own but when I compare to my lowly Minolta Scan Dual IV, it's clear that the Minolta scanner, despite it's having half the resolution, resolves much more detail. I did A:B testing using the same software (VueScan), same settings, and the same negatives, that clearly shows the difference. I know the Epson scanner is working fine as the MF and LF scans demonstrate but I'm wondering if this relatively poor performance when scanning 35mm negatives is common with this scanner?</p>

<p>A few quick suggestions:<br>

1) Shoot in manual mode as the black background is fooling the camera's meter<br>

2) Get more distance between the subject and background<br>

3) Position the lights closer to the subject to get the background darker</p>

<p>"The guy at the local camera store had me looking at the Canon 7d and the Nikon D300 (after determining that I wasn't quite ready for a Canon 5d II or Nikon D700) but recommended the full-frame compatible lenses with either so that when I did upgrade, I'd have lenses already." ... have to be honest and say that the notion of "being ready" for full-frame is a load of B.S. Full-frame or crop-frame is a deliberate choice and full-frame is not necessarily something to aspire to and be "ready" for (35mm film shooters have been full-frame for decades ... even point-and-shoot and single-use cameras). I don't quite understand when someone is "ready" for full-frame ... how does one qualify?</p>

<p>If you're looking for affordability, consider used gear. With digital cameras, the bodies will always be obsolete as technology changes so it's never a true investment. This also works in your favor as you can get very capable older bodies for relatively little (e.g. you can buy 3 x 30D cameras for the price of a single 7D). If you use good lenses, good lighting, and good technique, the older bodies can produce results just as good as the latest bodies and with the money you save you can even get redundant equipment for when things break. Don't get me wrong, the latest bodies are great and they do some things that older bodies cannot, but for the type of work you describe, bodies such as the 30D or 5D (original) can easily satisfy client requirements.</p>

<p>Lenses are an investment as good quality units can be used with future bodies. Get some fast zooms (e.g. 24-70/2.8 or 17-50/2.8 and 70-200/2.8) and some primes for redundancy and low light use.</p>

<p>Lighting (flash) is probably the most neglected area but ironically it can have the biggest impact. A well lit photo taken with a Rebel + kit lens can look worlds better than a similar photo taken with the latest 1D series + L lens using poor light.</p>

<p>The best way to stretch your dollar is to buy used. Look at discontinued used pro-sumer bodies (e.g. D80). Consider non-OEM 'fast' zooms (e.g. Tamron 17-50/2.8) and a some prime lenses (35/1.8, 50/1.8, 85/1.8). You need at least two of everything. A D80 with Tamron 17-50/2.8, another with a Nikon 85/1.8, some flashes and other primes in the bag can easily cover an entire wedding with sufficient redundancy.</p>

<p>What type of batteries and how old? Most common rechargeables (Ni-MH) will self discharge and this gets worse with age/use. Try leaving the batteries out of any flash to see if you get the same draining effect.</p>

<p>"will it offer me anything significantly different from my current lens" ... the 50/1.8 will give you a 1 1/3 stop wider aperture. Both lenses are good and in practical terms, any difference in image quality is negligible.</p>

<p>Generally agreeing with the above posts, both Nikon and Canon systems are good. Regarding bodies and lenses, neither system is better than the other, they're just different so it really depends on what your requirements are. However, there is one big differentiator in my mind, the flash system. I shoot both systems (mainly Canon though), and find the Nikon flash system much better. I find exposures using Nikon's I-TTL much more consistent than Canon's E-TTL system (I have to ride the flash exp. comp dial much more). Also, when it comes to manual non-TTL flash, Nikon lets you do rear curtain sync with any flash while Canon's rear curtain sync only works with TTL flashes. Frankly, the only reason I have Canon gear is because it let me get into full frame digital sooner and for less than Nikon. If I had to start over now I would probably go Nikon full frame because of the flash system.</p>

<p>Lex makes a good point about fixer. I'm partial to alkaline versions as I can use water as stop (one less chemical to keep around), they wash quickly, and they remove the base colour from films such as T-MAX. I currently use TF-3 (http://www.jackspcs.com/tf3.htm) with good results. TF-4 and TF-5 also work well and are available from Photographers' Formulary (http://stores.photoformulary.com).</p>

<p>Continuing Glenn's train of thought, you should try Caffenol-C-L (http://caffenol.blogspot.com/2010/08/recipes.html). I know, you're probably thinking that Caffenol is just for fun and nothing serious, but the C-L variant works extremely well in this application (better than Rodinal for me anyway).</p>

<p>You might want to try developing film yourself. You don't need a darkroom and the equipment required is minimal. The investment will easily pay for itself the first few times you use it.</p>

<p>To be absolutely clear ... EF lenses will safely mount on EF-S cameras so don't be concerned about the physical aspects ... it's the electronics you need to worry about. Older non-OEM lenses may not be electronically compatible with newer cameras but will not damage them (you will get some sort of error ... typically Err99 ... just remove the lens and all is good again). Some lenses are known to not work with the latest bodies (this may be one of them) while other older non-OEM lenses work just fine. The only way to find out for sure is to try it.</p>

<p>What the others have said is absolutely correct ... file size is no indication of resolution or quality. If you want the absolute best quality, shoot full RAW and give them TIFF files. The files will be huge and loss-less but for most practical purposes no better than a good JPEG (large or small). When they post or print the files they'll have to convert to JPEG anyway.</p>

<p>"I am an amateur-slowly-turning-semi-pro fine art/street photographer who sometimes shoots food for local restaurants, does some studio work" ... based on that comment there's a good chance you may need equipment rentals. It's generally easier to find Canon/Nikon rental gear than for other brands. There are many pro/con for every system so you need to decide based on what factors (e.g. flash system, fast lenses, etc.) are important to you.</p>

<p>"or do Canon is really stupid to restrain users of this functionality so basic as this" ... that's it. EOS cameras cannot do rear/2nd curtain sync with non-dedicated flashes. Incidentally this does work with Canon's G series P&S cameras and Nikon's DSLRs. I've read reports of users using digital slaves (Wein, etc.) taped to their dedicated Speedlites to then trigger non-dedicated flashes. It's not an elegant solution but apparently it works.</p>

<p>I concur with the underlying sentiment but disagree with the statement "The final image is what matters. This is 99% your timing and composition, not whether you used a slightly sharper lens to shoot it than you had last week." Remember that "photography" literally means "writing with light" so I would argue that lighting, whether it is existing or manipulated, is a major factor with composition and timing playing key roles as well.</p>

<p>A few years ago I would have said that having a film backup made sense as long as you did it as Nadine mentioned earlier. However, with the current limited choices and high cost of good pro processing (at least where I am), I would now say otherwise. Just having to process film for an event once can easily cost more than a used pro-sumer DSLR. So as a backup, I would say no to a film camera but as an additional medium, particularly with B&W film, I would say yes.</p>

<p>We're talking about a 5D and Sunpak 120J so there are some limitations to be aware of. The 5D can't sync past 1/200s unless using E-TTL + HSS so your max shutter speed is 1/200s. You can use Av mode with -2 comp but you must be careful and and ensure the shutter does not go past 1/200s (it most likely will if shooting during the day and using large apertures). Set your camera to manual mode, ISO 100, 1/200s. Take an incident reading with your meter at ISO 400, 1/200s ... this will be your aperture at -2 EV from "normal". For the flash exposure, adjust the flash output until you get a normal exposure on the subject (either chimp or use a meter).</p>

 

<p>http://strobist.com</p>

<p>Regarding equipment, the Rebel series can produce fantastic results. I still have an old original Rebel (300D) kicking around that produces great images provided you use good lenses and good post-processing. To get the biggest bang for your buck get yourself some higher quality zoom lenses such as the Tamron 17-50/2.8, Sigma 50-150/2.8, and a few primes such as the Canon 35/2 and Canon 85/1.8. Get Adobe Lightroom, shoot RAW, and learn how to post-process your images to get the most out of them.</p>

<p>Addressing some of your points directly:</p>

<p>"it's better to invest in lenses first. I agree with that to a certain point, but eventually there has to be an upgrade to professional aspects of photography" ... the truth is that the camera really doesn't make that much of a difference. I'm not saying that there is not a difference (there is) but lenses, lighting, technique, and post-processing can get you 90% there. The difference is new camera bodies can give you that final 10% if you have already maximized the other fundamental elements.</p>

<p>"it's beat-up" ... so what? If it works keep using it.</p>

<p>"I'm finding alot of softness enlarging my prints to 16x20" ... this goes back to lenses, lighting, technique, and post-processing. A poor shot with a top-shelf camera body is still a poor shot ... there's no "magic" going on here.</p>

<p>"the DOF and color is just not there compared to other shooters' pics I see" ... based on your current lenses I assume you are looking for shallow DoF. The lenses mentioned above will address that. Color can easily be adjusted ... shoot RAW and use good post-processing.</p>

<p>"I'm also (wondering) if perceived professionalism from others will suffer from shooting with a consumer camera as a photographer-for-hire" ... most people won't notice and won't care. It's generally other photographers that will check out your gear.</p>

<p>The latest EOS utility no longer supports those cameras. You need version 2.7.3.0, a 32-bit Windows, and the WIA drivers. You may also need to change your Firewire/1394 driver to the legacy driver (I had to do this for Windows 7).</p>

<p>Max,</p>

<p>Using fully manual flash works well when using the flash straight on which is generally the least flattering option. Bouncing manual flash will definitely make it look more natural/flattering but bouncing introduces many variables which will result in inconsistent exposures as you can no longer use simple guide number calculations. If you are intent on using the flash manually and with bounce your best bet is to use a flash meter. I would also avoid any flash "adapters" and use a simple bounce card (index card with rubber band). I completely agree about learning to do things manually so you better understand how something works but there is also the practical element that must be considered as well. Remember that thousands of weddings have been shot with medium format cameras and auto flashes (Vivitar 283/285, Metz 45, Metz 60, etc). About power, when using studio flash systems, too much power can definitely be a problem but when using mobile flashes and bounce you will be glad you have the extra power when you need it.</p>