ac_gordon

the faster f2.8 lenses may be easier (brighter) to view through and focus with filters attached (especially polarizer which chops about 2 stops of light) or when the light begins to fade or both.

To arrive at 89.33, I first figured the antinodal departure angle incident to the anamorphic phase conjugation. That's rubbish, of course. I actually used the D/4 formula and somehow (oops, sorry) plugged in the wrong D (subject to film distance). Using the correct D (310mm), the effective focal length would be 77.5mm, which isn't too far from Julian's more precise calculations. Where'd you come up with the working distance/2 formula? I believe you and am just curious.

At closest focus distance, the focal length is 89.33mm.

I don't know how much better E-TTL is than A-TTL, but my experience shooting slides of mostly macro subjects is that E-TTL works as well as Nikon's D-flash technology.

I have both. The 420ex is a nice general flash without much many manual controls. The 550ex is a big, multi-function flash that you have more manual control over. I like the 420ex for traveling lighter and smaller. I use the 550ex mostly.

Having owned both, I found no discernable difference in optics or quality (I didn't do any critical testing). One thing I like about the Canon 180mm is that you can use a Canon 1.4x or 2.0x telecoverter and still maintain all the electronic connections with the camera's metering. With Nikon, you need an off brand TC (like a Tamron, etc.) to maintain those connections; the Nikon TC-14e isn't designed for the Nikon 200mm. That may save room in your bag. Also, I believe the Nikon 200mm uses a screw on hood (a beefy metal one it seems like I may have had to purchase separately), and the Canon 180mm comes with a hood with a bayonet mount that I prefer. Of course, I haven't found a camera body that I like as well as Nikon's F5. And I don't think Canon's bodies show effective aperture like Nikon's do.

I hate split-ring focusing for reasons you have mentioned. With slow lenses and low light, it is useless. In every camera I've owned where the change was possible, I have replaced the split-ring screen with a matte screen (B) or matte with grid (E) or low light microprism screen (H, not available for the FE). To me, these types of screens are easier to use than split-ring screens under all conditions.

Having owned both, I'd recommend the FM3a over the F3 for your intended purposes: it's lighter, smaller, newer, and has TTL flash-sync of 1/250. However, the F3 is a marvel of a solid, reliable camera with a better viewfinder. Get whichever one makes you want to take pictures; both are excellent.

i personally dont care for the double flash setup. most of my macro work is of mobile little critters and i find one flash heavy enough and capable of pleasing results. i also found i did not like the shadows produced with just two flashes. i could probably have improved things by altering flash positions and ratios and diffusing one of the flashes more, but that additional complexity has held no appeal for me (at least so far), especially when one flash seems to get the job done for me. also, although i used manual macro flash extensively in the past, i find e-ttl extremely useful and accurate. i think you might be able to get some more useful info if you explained what problems one flash is causing you, what you are hoping to gain with the added flash, and what your main subjects are.

100% viewfinder coverage requires a larger, heavier, and more expensive prism. many folks also do not mind a less than 100% viewfinder because slide mounts usually cut off the edges of a photo, and prints usually do not reflect 100% of the negative. it's probably just a marketing decision to not want to produce a heavier $800+ FM3a with a 100% viewfinder.

i second (or third) the others' suggestions. the f4 handled very

nicely on my elan 7 while i had the f4. in fact, i have used several

larger lenses on the elan 7, like the f2.8 version and the 180 macro,

with no problem. in my experience, the larger the lens, the more

likely i will hold the camera/lens combo by the lens. i find that

being able to use light bodies with larger lenses is very ergonomical.

i'm no pro, but some might think i am simply by the amount of money i

spend on photography. (if only it were that simple to make great

photos.) i now have an EOS set up, but i have previously owned oodles

of Nikon autofocus and manual focus equipment, including most of the

stuff you have. i still think the f3 was one of the greatest SLR

bodies ever made. if i only shot macro or landscapes, i probably

would have never thought about owning another body. the meter and

viewfinder are awesome, and it's built like a tank. the nikon 200

micro manual focus is a great, lightweight macro lens. if you don't

feel your current set up lacks something vital for your work, then

keep it. think how much film or scanners or other stuff you could buy

for what you'd fork over for a 1v and L lenses (although they are

nice to have if you want to go that route). if i were a landscape

type and wanted to upgrade, i'd consider moving up to medium format

before switching to another 35mm system. i suspect the folks at the

camera shop may really believe they are giving you good advice (and

they may be giving you the right advice depending on your needs), but

after having owned and used different equipment i see no reason to

change unless a Canon 1v and L lenses will give you something you

need but dont get from your Nikon stuff.

EA (effective aperture) = Aperture X (1 + Magnification). Thus, if you set your aperture to f32 at a magnification of 1x (life size), the effective aperture is f64 [32 X (1 + 1) = 64). There's more info on effective aperture on photo.net, such as <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000FIP">here<a/>.

i am assuming your homemade sc-17 cords are not causing anomalous readings, which another poster might be more qualified to comment on. that said, f32 is a pretty small aperture for closeup work (which can be an effective f64 or more depending on your working magnification), so it is not surprising the flashes fire at full output. the important thing is that your slides appear properly exposed. slides often look better slightly underexposed, and full output might be just a tad less than the flashes would like to fully expose the subject. i have experienced the same thing with Canon and Nikon macro set ups (usually at small apertures or longer than normal working distances), and my slides usually came out properly exposed despite the full output indication. <p>

the effectiveness of any exposure compensation you dial in will depend on how much more the flashes would have liked to have exposed the film. for example, if you are dialing in +2 comp and the flash only has enough power to expose at +1.5, you are not getting your full compensation, but you are still getting better exposure than if you had dialed in no comp. if you are dialing in negative compensation and getting a full output indication, however, then that means the flash would never have put out enough to meet the exposure with or without comp; no benefit would be received from setting negative comp (but you don't know that before you shoot, better safe setting the comp just in case).<p>in short, as long your photos appear properly exposed, keep setting comp and forget the "irritating" full output indicator. it serves as a reminder to me not to use too small an aperture. you might try f16 or f22, which will likely be sharper than f32 due to diffraction. i try to use f11 or f16 for most nature macro subjects.

The 180mm macro does autofocus much more slowly than most other Canon

USM lenses. The 100mm macro USM, in contrast, autofocuses as fast as

most other USM lenses. The 180mm still autofocuses fast enough with

the focus limiter enagaged, as mentioned above, to be useful for many

non-macro applications. When the lens starts to hunt, however, it

takes at least a second to recover.

You might consider the 100-400IS with a 500D as a long lens and macro

combo. Then a 20-35/3.5-4.5 would complete the wide end. This outfit

would also allow you to just use 77mm filters. <p>

Another approach would be a 70-200/2.8 non-IS (also a 77mm filter

size) with 500D plus a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter to cover the

telephoto and macro range. (I think the 70-200 IS version would be

ideal for your trip but not within your price parameter.) The 70-

200/4 (a fantastic lens) would also make a nice combo, but you would

need to use a 500D with a step up ring, it wouldn't be as useful with

a teleconverter, and without any IS I think a faster f2.8 lens sounds

more useful for what you're planning (lots of unsteady shooting

requiring either IS or a fast shutter speed). Getting the f4 version

might free up enough to get a dedicated 100mm macro, but I've found a

100mm a little short for insects, and you'd also be duplicating the

100mm focal length if you added the 70-200/4 to it. <p>

If your heart is set on primes, Canon's 24mm (or 20mm), 100 macro,

and 400mm lenses would also work well. I have no experience with the

70-300IS or Sigma lenses.

According to <a href="http://www.eos-

magazine.com/News_24_EOS30.html">EOS Magazine</a> they are identical.

EOS 30 = Elan 7e.

EOS 33 = Elan 7.

. . . and based on my experience using a 500D, it yields excellent results (which most would likely find "respectable") with most any telephoto lenses it fits on.

These links: (<a href="http://space.tin.it/arte/ripolini/Close_up.htm">space.tin.it/arte/ripolini/Close_up.htm</a>,

<a href="http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/diopter.html">people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/diopter.html</a>, and

<a href="imaginatorium.org/stuff/cufilter.htm">imaginatorium.org/stuff/cufilter.htm</a>)

help explain the math behind figuring out the answer to your question. One even calculates that the magnification for a Sigma 300mm with a 500D lies between .6 (infinity focus) and .9 (closest focus) lifesize, and the Nikon should be similar.<p>

The focusing distance for the Nikon 300 at infinity focus will be the same as the Sigma, .5 meters [1/diopter power, and the 500D is a +2 diopter], yielding a magnification of .6 [(focal length x diopter power)/1000]. The minimum focusing distance of the Nikon without a diopter is listed as 1450mm on Nikon's website with .27 magnification (1:3.7), not quite as close focusing as the Sigma 300 that yields a .9 magnification.<p>You need to calculate the actual focal length of the lens when focused at 1450mm (from the film) to then calculate the magnification with a diopter at the closest focusing point. The actual focal length at the minimum focus distance is 243mm [distance/(1/R + R + 2)]; which makes the overall focal length of the lens at minimum focus with the 500D 243mm [(actual focal length x diopter focal length)/(actual focal length + diopter focal length)]. This results in a magnification of .84 [(focal length/actual focal length) - 1] at the closest focusing distance, 657mm from the film (using the 1/f = 1/v + 1/u formula).<p> I guess the short answer to your question is you have about a bit over a foot of working distance and .84 magnification at the closest focus point with a 500D on a Nikon 300mm AFS.

washed out skies usually result from the sky being much brighter than

the ground. when the sky is much brighter, an exposure that properly

exposes the ground will render the sky white, even if it looked blue

to you. to even out the exposure difference between the sky and

ground, some people use graduated neutral density filters. before

resorting to filters, you might just experiment with different

exposures (e.g., shooting photos after exposing for the ground, then

shooting some while exposing for the sky, and then maybe trying to

shoot some intermediate exposures) for a scene and check your

results. experience is a great teacher, and you should treat each bad

shot as learning opportunity. however, washed out skies can also be

caused by your local lab if you are using print film and they don't

know what they're doing. you could ask them to reprint some of your

shots to darken the sky to see if that helps.

I agree with Lee on the use of close up lenses such as the 500D, 5T,

or 6T. Regarding film, 100 ASA film should yield acceptable 8x10's.

If you are scanning with grain reduction software, such as GEM in the

Nikon scanners, then you can get pretty good 8x10's from even 800

speed film. If you are dealing strictly with prints from negatives,

however, you might be satisfied with 400 ASA film and probably would

be OK with 200 ASA. You'll need to burn a lot of film anyways on

butterflies since they are so active. 100 ASA film might be too slow

if you are not using a flash, as your maximum shutter speed may be

too limited with an aperture that yields acceptable depth of field

(often f11 or f16).

Right next to Indian Point is Sunset Lake, which is worth a look. Pollywog Pond can also be worthwhile, both along the trails leading to the ponds as well as in the ponds themselves. When the weather warms up (it's never really that cold, but in the spring and summer and fall . . .), the mosquitos at Pollywog Pond are as numerous as they are relentless. There's just something extra nasty about mosquitoes that grow up near salt water.

In addition to the 135mm and 200mm, you may want to consider the

100mm f2 or 100mm f2.8 macro. I would go for the 100mm f2 unless you

alse felt macro work was in your future (or present). Only your style

of working will let you know whether 100mm will be long enough, but

if it is, the 100mmm should be more hand-handholdable than the

others. As for the 70-200 f2.8, it is a fantastic lens. My only

criticism of it as a lens for candids is that a white Canon L lens

draws more attention than you might want. Even a 70-200 f4 gets a lot

of looks.

. . . oh yeah, and the thinner filter rings mean less chance of vignetting with wide angle lenses and/or if you are using more than one filter at a time.

The B+W filters I've used have been excellent, especially the multi-coated ones. The only drawback to them as compared to other brands of filters that I prefer (Heliopan and Nikon) is that the B+W filter rings are usually thicker and, thus, heavier. I use Nikon or Heliopan filters whenever I can (I shoot Canon 35mm) for that reason. For medium format, however, weight and thickness may be less of a concern for you.