davidrwilliams

I generally prefer the results obtained from Medium Res Narrow Edge capture sharpening for my 5D unsharpened RAW's. Using these settings, the PK Sharpener's default settings work well for me, and don't produce the same artifacts as I saw using Medium or Wide edge sharpen.

 

Since I purchased my 5D, I've never liked the results obtained using any of the the High Res digital capture sharpening set in PK Sharpener.

 

Give it a try - I'd be interested in your findings.

The 1V also has a facility for recording shooting data (provided you also have the required cable and software for downloading), a built-in diopter adjustment on the viewfinder, and a more substantial and robust feel, but at the expense of noticably higher weight.

 

The 1V will also shoot up to 10 frames per second with the PB-E2 booster and nicad pack.

Although I have no direct experience with this lens, I seem to recall one user describing the 1.0L lens as being "insanely astigmatic".

 

Looking back at the theoretical MTF modelling of this lens in an earlier edition of Canon's Lens Work, this can be seen by the wide divergance between the sagital and meridional MTF plots. I think the photo.do measured MTF plots used to show the same thing, but these plots are no longer available at the photo.do site.

 

With the superb overall optical quality of the 1.4, and the extremely high price and slow focusing of the 1.0L, I've never been tempted to consider the 1.0L.

I recently purchased a 54MZ4 to replace my 550EX expecting that I'd be able to share the MZ4 between my Canons and my Pentax 645NII (with suitable adapters). I've since discovered a few limitations in using the Metz on Canon digital bodies, which you may have come across these if you've used your Metz on a digital body, that may be of interest to others who are considering the Metz for use on a Canon digital body...

 

1. Metz uses TTL (not E-TTL) for their wireless multi-unit flash control. As the result, since Canon digital cameras don't have a traditional off-the-film/sensor TTL capability (which would require a light sensor that reads flash exposure off the highly reflective digital sensor during exposure), there doesn't appear to be any wireless auto flash control available using the Metz units on a Canon digital body - all flashes need to be set manually with the special Metz SCA slave adapter installed in the remote units.

 

2. The SCA M2 adapter manual warns that the MZ4 may not work in E-TTL mode when a Canon digital camera is set to manual. This is something I haven't yet been able to check, as the SCA adapter on my MZ4 hasn't yet been updated to M3 specification to provide ETTL support for my 20D, but would represent a real limitation for me.

 

3. The secondary reflector on the MZ4 will not fire when the flash is in E-TTL mode, and is only usable if the flash is set to either manual or "Auto" mode (auto thyristor, which uses an autoflash sensor on the flash unit just like a Vivitar 283/285). I was hoping to be able to use the secondary reflector as an E-TTL fill flash with the main unit on bounce, but this won't work unless the flash is used in non-TTL "A" mode.

 

Hope this helps...

Try here...

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=211436&is=REG

Thomas: I'm evaluating DxO Optics Pro 2.2 as well. I currently use Photoshop CS for editing my 20D images, and have been using the Photoshop Camera Raw facility for my raw conversions.

 

After comparing the PS Camera Raw capabilities to the DxO raw converter, I think I'll continue to use Camera Raw for my raw file conversions. However, I like the lens corrections from DxO so much, that I worked to find a way to incorporate the DxO Optics capabilities within my workflow.

 

The Photoshop Camera Raw features I'd miss by using the DxO raw converter are the much faster image previewing within Camera Raw, the capability to choose from many colour spaces (I use ProPhoto RGB which I don't think is supported in DxO) in Camera Raw, Camera Raw's highlight and shadow clipping display which allows the exposure adjustments in the raw conversion to rescue overexposed highlights, etc., and the integration of the Photoshop File Browser and Photoshop batch conversion actions with Camera Raw.

 

The problem I found when trying to incorporate DxO into a PS Camera Raw workflow is that the DxO Optics Pro corrections can't be applied to any file that's been touched by anything other than itself (raw files converted using DxO raw converter) or the camera (unadjusted out-of-camera JPEG's)...in other words, if you run a raw conversion using PS Camera Raw first, the resulting file can't then be processed by DxO Optics (unless the EXIF data tags on the resulting file are modified, etc, etc...) As the result, I almost gave up on DxO, but...

 

...one nice feature of the DxO raw converter is that it will output to Adobe's new Digital Negative .dng file format, which is intended to provide a universal standard for raw file formats. The resulting .dng file can then be read and converted into a modifiable file format by PS Camera Raw, with all the usual Camera Raw features being available for this final conversion step.

 

As the result, the workflow that I'm now experimenting with is as follows:

 

1. Process the raw .cr2 files to digital negative .dng files with DxO while applying DxO lens corrections,

 

2. Batch process the resulting .dng files using Photoshop CS Camera Raw to create editable ProPhoto-RGB 16-bit .tif or .psd files,

 

3. Edit the resulting images in 16-bit mode within Photoshop CS.

 

I'm not thrilled with the idea of having to add an addition step in the raw conversion process (having to set up the DxO Raw Converter white balance and basic exposure, in addition to doing the same for smaller adjustments in Camera Raw), but to gain the optics processing of DxO while retaining 16-bit image data, it seems worth the extra time to me.

 

Hope this helps...

Rodrigo: You can get the same B&W glass for less than $110. The B&H website shows that the "slim" (ie. no front thread) and "extra-wide" (larger than 77mm front tread, and oversized glass) are $109, while the "standard" model of 77mm 010 MRC filter is $76.50.

 

I doubt that the extra-wide filter would fit within the 24-70 lens hood (and you certainly couldn't remove the hood with filter installed, if the filter could be slipped inside the hood once the hood is attached), and with the new 3mm deep filter mount on the B&W pro-line filters, I don't think you'll need the slim mount for this lens (the slim mount filter doesn't have front threads, so won't accept a clip-on lens cap).

 

Hope this helps...

I'm in the same position - bought a 20D a few months ago, love it, and even considering the lower price point of the new D-Reb XT, I'm still pleased with the decision to buy a 20D.

 

As I posted earlier, there is one more small difference between the D-Reb XT and the 20D that can have an major impact on the total purchase price of the camera for certain first-time buyers...the difference relates to the image editing software that Canon packages with the cameras, with the 20D including a packaged version of Photoshop Elements 2.0, while the 350D incluces Arcsoft PhotoStudio.

 

I don't know a thing about the Arcsoft product packaged with the D-Reb XT, so there may not be much difference in capability between these two applications on a direct comparison - likely not a big deal in itself...

 

BUT...for North Americans that buy a Canon DSLR with packaged Photoshop Elements (20D owners included), Adobe offers a special $299USD upgrade from packaged Photoshop Elements to full-blown Photoshop CS, rather than the usual $589 USD for a standalone Photoshop CS license.

 

For someone who wants the full Photoshop CS capability (which likely isn't the majority of target buyers of the D-Reb XT) and is making their first DSLR purchase, the net price differential between the D-Reb XT and the 20D (after accounting for the special Photoshop CS upgrade pricinge) is halved if the net price of the Photoshop CS license vs upgrade offering is included in the decision process.

One more difference between the D-Reb XT and the 20D is the packaged image editing software that Canon includes with the camera. The 20D is packaged with Photoshop Elements 2.0, while the 350D has Arcsoft PhotoStudio.

 

I don't know a thing about the Arcsoft product packaged with the D-Reb XT, so there may not be much difference in capability between these two applications on a direct comparison - likely not a big deal in itself.

 

However, for North Americans that buy a Canon DSLR with packaged Photoshop Elements (20D owners included), Adobe offers a special $299USD upgrade from packaged Photoshop Elements to full-blown Photoshop CS, rather than the usual $589 USD for a standalone Photoshop CS license.

 

For someone who wants the full Photoshop CS capability (which may not be many of the target buyers of the D-Reb XT) and is making their first DSLR purchase, the net price differential between the D-Reb XT and the 20D (after accounting for the special Photoshop CS upgrade price) is much less than their body-only prices would indicate.

Renato: I've shot with two 17-40's and had the same experience as you noticed - pretty good perforance near the center, really nice colour, but lots of softening towards the edges even on a 20D's cropped frame.

 

While I was testing the 17-40 I was also able to shoot with a 10-22 EF-S and found that within their overlapped focal lengths, although the 17-40 was slightly sharper in the centre, the 10-22 blew away the 17-40 for off-axis sharpness and definition. And not by a little bit.

 

I had high hopes for the 17-40, but was left very disappointed with its edge and corner performance. The 10-22 is on my wishlist, if only I can get past the EF-S compatibility issue.

 

After this 17-40 experience and others, I don't buy into the general "sample variations" view of one person's lens having substantially different performance from another copy of a lens unless the particular sample is clearly defective. After seeing the identical performance of the 17-40's that I've used, I have a hard time believing that both of these lenses could be identically, ramdomly, equally poor in exactly the same way, and that your 17-40's performance could be so similar, and all three be equally defective.

 

I've had the same experience with two copies of the Canon 24/2.8 - identical performance to each other, decent centre performance, and not what I consider acceptable sharpness off-axis. Once again, there's no shortage of folks that will claim that I must have had "bad copies", that theirs are great, or blame the lack of performance on bad technique. To my eyes, both copies of the Canon EF 50/1.4's I've used were identical to each other in performance.

 

Want a sharp wide-angle lens (albeit lenses that aren't exactly DSLR "digital ready"? Try a Zeiss/Blad Biogon or a Pentax 645 35/3.5 AF/AL...then you'll be spoiled forever!

Tom: I feel your pain, as I think I've been through most of the labs in Calgary. Recently I've been generally pleased with the processing and proofing work that Vistek does for me.

 

Ages ago I sent my film out to Winnipeg Photo who did a great job, but their service was painfully slow, expensive, and their depot location hours didn't work with my schedule, so I tried Costco for while. Costco was, well, cheap - until I noticed that their bone-headed operators consistently mis-cut the strips (cuts into the image frame, like you're experiencing) and denied any responsibility for damage to the films. Ya, right.

 

With a London Drugs nearby, I tried them for a while but wasn't happy with their hit and miss print quality, so tried a few rolls at West Canadian Colour, and then Nova Photo who used Kodak Royal paper and did a decent job on most films. However, after Nova messed up a number of rolls with dirty processor pinch rollers (and ended up cleaning and reprinting 10 rolls that had neg gunk showing up on the prints)...and then did had the same problem with the next rolls I processed with them...I was looking elsewhere.

 

Next was Camdale Photo, which was run by a couple of studio pro's that run a lab when they weren't shooting. They printed on Kodak Supra pro paper and did a reasonably good job, but their portrait-oriented bias for colour and density left something to be desired.

 

After trying a few others (Saneal, ABL, Photo Image 2000, etc..) next was Time Photo...the first proofs they processed for me (NPH Gen 1 on original Kodak Royal paper) were absolutely stunning - beautifully neutral, good colour, beautiful skin tones. Generally, their printing of Reala and NPZ were almost as good as the NPH, and led me to use and recommend Time to others for a few years. However, after they started having trouble with calibration and colour consistency (I believe this started when the Kodak Royal paper emulsion was changed and their lead Printer left), I was back to London Drugs for a while until (yet again!) seeing dirty negs and pinkish "silly putty" skin tones even off a Frontier.

 

Frustrated with London Drugs, and lamenting the quality I used to receive from Time Photo, a couple of years ago I tried Vistek and have been generally happy with them since. I've never had a dirty negative, the proofs are very consistent, well balanced and well exposed - their proofing of new NPH on CA glossy is excellent.

 

Vistek prints on Fuji CA Supreme glossy or regular CA semi-matt papers using a Frontier. To my eye, there's no difference (other than cost and speed) between their same-day, next-day and 4-day 35mm services. Their only spots on an otherwise spotless record were one roll of misplaced slide film (gave me someone else's slides in place of mine - but we got our films back to the right owners in the end)and when a couple of rolls of 120 NPZ that I had pushed that weren't loaded in the processor properly and were fogged part way into each roll's last frame.

 

Through this time, there's been a lot of change in the Calgary lab business. The Lab is gone, West Canadian Colour merged with Vistek (so the WCC lab that I tried several years ago is now the updated Vistek lab), The Camera Store is doing D&P work (contracting it out to Nova, I think) and Time Photo is now Don's Photo owned by the folks that run Don's in Winnipeg and Regina.

 

Anyway, these are the experiences that I've had over the past several years - I know it's very likely that some of the labs that I've tried have improved, but with Vistek doing a good job for me, I figure why take a risk?

 

I hope this helps - please post back with what you discover

Adobe's site has nothing (that I can find) to indicate that there is a special offering available. Where is this information?

It's likely sensor bloom. CA generally increases the further off-axis the subject is, and shows different fringe colours on inner vs outer edges of the subject showing the CA. This appears to be on-axis, or very close to on-axis, so is more likely to be high contrast sensor bloom.

I've never seen flare like this from my 70-200/4L.

 

This may not be traditional "lens flare", in the usual sense of inner reflections within the lens' elements.

 

There have been similar posts showing that extreme highlights within a dark subject, shot with a long exposure shot on a digital body, can cause these highlights to be reflected between the sensor and rear element of the lens, leading to a ghost image being recorded by the sensor.

 

What appears to happen in these situations is that the sensor (which is quite reflective) reflects the image that is being projected onto the sensor back onto the rear element of the lens (where the lens multicoating subdues the reflection) and the brightest highlights (given enough exposure time) then reflect back onto the sensor creating a "ghost" image.

I would not recommend the 50/1.8 as a portrait lens - compared to the 50/1.4 (I've had both), the 1.8 has bad bokeh (background blur) that leads to harsh and distracting backgrounds if your subject is posed in front of anything but a backdrop. The 1.4 has much better bokeh which, for me, easily justified its additional cost.

Dan: Yes, Calgary it is.

Ok - here's the scoop to any who are interested...

 

I managed to try a 77mm filter with an 82-77mm stepdown ring on my lens. From f/3.5 to f/8, the filter clearly vignettes on film, with the degree of vignetting lessening as the lens is stopped down. From f/11 and smaller, there's no filter vignetting.

 

I then tried using the Lee 4" gel filter system, but found that the Lee quickfit 4" filter holder won't mount properly on the lens as the bayonet mount base for the lens hood interferes with the holder...I'll be buying 82mm filters.

No. None of the Canon EF extenders will mount on the 85/1.8 unless an extension tube is placed between the lens and extended, which then will not permit infinity focus.

I am about to purchase a number of filters for my P645's 35mm f/3.5

AF/AL lens, which uses an 82mm filter diameter. With 82mmm filters

being relatively uncommon, and with limited availability of B+W MRC

filters in this size, I'd prefer to use 77mm filters on a step-down

ring if a single 77mm filter with an 82mm-77mm step-down doesn't

vignette on this lens.

 

The front-end design of this lens allows a lot of space for filter

mounting (at least enough for a thick 82mm polarizer) and would

appear to make this possible - holding a single 72mm filter in the

usual filter position doesn't appear to vignette - but I don't have

access to a 77mm filter and step-down ring to test this for myself.

 

If you've used a 77mm filter with this lens with a step-down ring,

does this combination vignette?

I ran into the same problem one day - check your multiple exposure lever to ensure it's not set to multiple. In my case, accidentally setting the camera to multiple exposure mode meant that the shutter would dry-fire, but would not load film. The problem corrected itself as soon as I set the camera to regular file advance.

I ran into the same problem, and discovered that the settings I use on my EOS3 was leading to the problem. I use CF4-1 to move AF to the AE Lock on the back of the body, and usually have AF mode set to AF Servo - great way to be able to actuate focus on what I want, when I want, how I want. Anyway, turns out that the AF assist lamp won't fire if the camera is in AF Servo (which makes sense for moving subjects where AF is actuated for longer periods of time). Check to see if your body is in AF Servo mode - if so, try AF Single.

Nope - the only one who notices the normal E-TTL pre-flash is the photographer - the pre-flash fires just before the mirror rises so the photographer (looking through the viewfinder) can see a weak flash discharge just before the mirror rises.

 

The tiny pause between the E-TTL pre-flash and the main flash is too short to contract the subject's iris - this pause is so short that it's pretty much impossible to tell that two separate flash discharges have taken place. Anyway, the preflash fires at such a low power that it wouldn't do anything to close down a subject's iris anyway.

 

If you're far enough away from your subject that you're still worried about red-eye with direct flash, you could try either triggering a few FE Lock pre-flashes (or a few full discharge manual flashes for that matter) before the exposure.

 

I've never had any red-eye with my 550EX using direct flash. I generally use some form of indirct/bounce flash, usually with a Lumiquest bounce diffuser. Using the Lumiquest diffuser attached above the flash, and with the flash head in the vertical position, this adds another 8 inches to the distance between the source of the flash and the lens axis.

Chad - I've used this lens with the tripod collar on an EOS3 with booster. I've had no problem with the booster getting in the way, so don't believe this will be a problem with a 1V HS.

Haven't had a payment problem with them - just a challenge getting a response to a recent email request for information. Sent them a request to ask if a couple of used P645 lenses, listed on their website, are still available and for some further info on their specific condition. 3 business days later and still no response - guess they've either sold them and haven't updated their online inventory, or they aren't too interested in providing customer service for prospective customers.

 

I found it somewhat disturbing that their website no longer indicates whether something is in stock (as it did in 2002) and that their website allows you to put any quantity of the same used item in your shopping cart.

Photodo has tested further lenses that they have not yet posted to the site. When I asked a couple of years, ago, they provided me with the summary data of their test of the Canon EF 100/2.8 USM Macro, which received a weighed MTF result of 4.6. This result is supported by my experience with the lens - very good sharpness and contrast.