lanierb

Thanks! That link really is tough to figure out, but I got it and the bottom line is that the metal shim was in wrong way around.

 

Lanier

Okay, so I took out the focussing screen to clean it thinking it would be like

past film bodies I've had and found that it is much more complicated. It has

three pieces: the screen, a metal shim, and a metal bracket to hold everything

in. When I put it back in in what I thought was the correct orientation, the

focussing is very slightly off on the screen (that is, the AF focuses the

camera at a point that seems out of focus on the screen, but the AF is right

and the screen is wrong).

 

So that means that I think I put something back in wrong. Does anyone know of

a source (preferably online) where I can verify the correct orientation of the

screen and shim?

 

Thanks!

 

Lanier

Thanks for the link Mark! That was super informative. So the cos^4 law depends a lot on lens design, which is a trade-off I wasn't aware of. I'm guessing that in the future, changes in sensor design as well as lens design will improve the light fall-off issue somewhat then.

 

I still have one question which I was not able to figure out though, which is: Holding lens design and sensor design constant, if you were to scale down the system by a factor of 1.6, is there any theoretical difference in light fall-off? It seems to be conventional wisdom that there is, but I'm wondering if it that perception has simply resulted from people using full-frame lenses on 1.6 crop cameras.

Bob's response is closest to what I was thinking. "Vignetting" means that some physical part of the lens is causing light falloff. This can always be cured by making the lens bigger. The problem I was thinking of was the cos^4 light falloff issue, which is an optical phenomenon that cannot be cured. My hypothesis was that this problem would be identical on smaller format sensors for equivalent angle of view, but I'm still not sure about that. I know it can be fixed easily in Photoshop. I was just curious if there's something "real" to the issue.

This is an optics question (Bob?). Everywhere these days people

cite "light falloff" on wide angles as being a weakness of full frame

cameras. My question is whether there is any theoretical reason that

light falloff would be worse for the same angle of view for a larger

sensor than for a smaller one. I always thought light falloff had to

do with the angle of the light rays leaving the lens. Wouldn't that

be constant across formats for the same angle of view?

 

Second: if there is no theoretical justification for this, then has

this conventional wisdom come to exist simply because there a design

flaw (slight vignetting) in the Canon wide angle lens lineup that

wasn't noticed before?

 

Lanier

Thanks! I just tested the new profiles and they are much much better! I've wasted a lot of time, ink, and paper on this problem so this is very helpful.

<p>I'm using ICC profiles with an epson R800 and most of the time

they work pretty well. However, sometimes I find that when applying

the ICC profile certain areas of a photo become blocky and muddled.

Here's an example:

 

<p><A

href="http://www.stanford.edu/~lanierb/photos/test1.jpg">Original

file without ICC profile</A>

 

<p><A

href="http://www.stanford.edu/~lanierb/photos/test2.jpg">Version with

ICC profile applied</A>

 

<p>When I print the photo it looks something like what you see on the

screen, not good. For images where this happens I find I get better

prints not using the ICC profile, though in that case the color isn't

as good in the rest of the photo. If I use the ICC profile the color

is better elsewhere but there are these blocky sections.

 

<p>What is causing this? Have I done something wrong? Is there a

way to fix it? Is this normal? Thanks!

You have two main choices in winter: north and south. The Yahoo maps route is the south route via 99. As someone else said, I would prefer I-5 to 99, but other than that it's probably the fastest route from the city to Lone Pine. I-5 is mostly pretty boring.

 

The other option is to go north. A good option from downtown is the one you already saw: 80N to 50E to 88. The north route is a bit (perhaps one hour) longer but is, in my opinion, a nicer drive. It passes through Tahoe, by Bodie ghost town (maybe closed in winter), and Mono Lake, near Mammoth, and countless other beautiful areas following the eastern sierra the entire way. If stopping along the way interests you, take the northern route. If you want to drive point to point as fast as possible the southern route is probably best.

See the previous post for directions to the best viewing spot. The best time to go is just before sunset. The viewing spot is just east of the flows, on a bit of coastline that runs east-west, so you can get great shots of red hot lava flowing into the sea, with the sunset in the background (would post pics but they're not scanned!). I would use the provia 100 and a good tripod. This will probably be enough, but if need be you could push it one stop as it gets darker. Remember that long exposures will blur the ocean waves, but also will capture more of the lava flow on film. For most purposes a 28-135mm lens will be about right (depending on whether you zoom in on the flow or do a wide angel shot to get the whole sky). Your biggest problems are going to be two-fold: First, the lava changes *every* day. One day you won't see any and the next it will be raging. It could easily not flow at all during your whole stay (there's a phone number to call that gives daily lava conditions reports). Second, depending on when you go, there could be throngs of tourists fighting for the best view behind the barricades they put up near the flows. This will make it difficult to setup a tripod in the best spots. By the way, assuming they are actually flowing, you most definately can see the flows during the day, but they show up better at sunset and just after dark. Hope this helps.

The response above is wrong. The M7 lenses are designed to focus slightly past infinity to allow for expansion/contraction due to temperature. The behavior of the lens above sounds normal -- all my M7 lenses act this way.

 

The way you are supposed to focus the M7 is "near to far". That is, you should start with the focus set nearer than your subject, then turn the focus ring until the split image exactly aligns. Do not "hunt" back and forth as any play that exists in the rangefinder cam will lead to slightly inaccurate focus if you do (though you may only notice it with the 150 at close range). The same is technically true at infinity, though depth of field at infinity is great enough that you might not notice.

Canon announced the 400/4.0 DO last September so I think

it is more likely to get a 400/4.0 than a 300/2.8. Besides, they just

released a new 300/2.8 year before last! Is there anyone out there

who actually knows the answer to my question?

I was just wondering if anyone had heard anything about potential

release dates for the 400/4.0 DO. It seems like it has been a while

since the press release.

 

<p>

 

Lanier

Hi Berard,

 

Well, I hate to repeat what others have said, but for big mammals I think the Banff/Jasper area is better than BC. It's also great for landscapes (as is BC). I'd say that in just a few days in the Banff/Jasper area you should expect to see all the big mammals (black and grizzly bear, elk, moose, bighorn sheep, mountain goats), often from your car. The elk and moose and bear will look fine in the summer, but the sheep and goats will have ratty coats so be aware of that. I don't know Alaska very well so I'll leave that to others.

 

Also, if you feel you need to buy a pistol before entering bear territory, you shouldn't be going there at all! You should read up on bear behavior, learn to tell the difference between black and grizzly bears on first sight, buy some pepper spray, and then use caution. Remember that this is their home, not yours, and you should respect that.

Jeff- I'm a climber also so I understand your intended use pretty well. I've never used a T4, (I have a Stylus Epic which I'm happy with), but my guess is either P&S will do well for you as a summit camera. I might have some bias toward the 28mm for mountaineering since you are often close to huge walls and need something wide. If you decide to bring your Canon, my advice would be to bring both the Canon and the P&S. The P&S is easier to carry and more likely to get used a lot, especially if you are at altitude and tired (or not feeling well), or if you are under time pressure, and its more likely to get carried on every side trip. If you don't bring it, you will invariably miss some shots.

Just one quick note if you own Canon 35mm equipment -- it is difficult to use Canon flashes with the M7 because they have no "auto" mode. I think you can use them on manual, but you would have to do the calculations yourself.

Well, I guess it must depend a lot on what airlines you fly. I'm really surprised to hear that other people have had trouble because I really do fly a lot (Continental Gold Elite for 8 years now, flew Singapore airlines to India last year and then Air Lanka, Air India, and Jet Airways within Sri Lanka and India, flew around Central America a lot last summer, including some very small planes (where I was more worried about the weight than the pilot!), three trips to Canada in the last year, and now I'm living in London for three months and just got off a plane from Munich this morning -- however I haven't travelled to Africa since 1995) and not once in the last four years have I had a complaint about my carry-ons, which are as described above.

 

My experience is that if you make sure that both bags fit within the guidelines, and that they don't greatly stand out, and you get on early, you shouldn't have trouble. If you are the last guy on the plane, good luck finding space. The newer planes have larger overhead compartments, and as a result, [my experience is that] carry-on hassles have gone significantly *down* over the last decade rather than up.

 

Another solution that would work for me (but maybe not you) would be to have my non-photographer wife carry a small bag to go along with my own. However, whatever you do, taking a big photo trip with your gear in the hold is a recipe for disaster! It could easily get lost or stolen, and then you not only lose your insurance deductible (or worse, the cost of the equipment), but you lose the whole trip, which would really suck. My advice: find a way to take enough on the plane to *more than* get by.

I don´t entirely understand the question because I always carry most of my gear on the plane, and I can´t imagine anyone having more gear (without having a whole film crew in which case you´re fine too). The 600/4 goes in a long lens bag as one carry on, and my Lowe nature trekker with everything else important (which depends on the trip) goes on my back. The nature trekker is big enough to hold pretty much anything else I might need that absolutely can´t go in the hold. The tripod goes in the hold, as well as some filters/battery packs/etc. Make sure to have insurance for anything that goes in the hold (at least -- for everything is even better) because the airlines won´t reimburse you under any circumstances if it is lost/damaged.

Since Popo's eruptions to date haven't been very large, and more importantly, since prevailing winds generally run from west to east, I doubt that Popo will have much effect on western sunsets. If it will have an effect anywhere I would expect it to be in Europe/Africa. Pinatubo was a massive eruption in comparison and it was perfectly placed to affect sunsets in the western US.

Edward, Any 6V cell should be fine. A big one will last a long time. However, I happen to think that a great solution is Canon's CP-E2 (I think that's right -- the one that holds eight AA's). I place 4 1600NiMH batteries in the flash itself and 8 in the CP-E2 and I get a very portable setup with fast (<1sec) flash recharges and I can recharge the batteries easily even in most third world countries.

Mark- Your question is too general to answer. Costa Rica is great for wildlife photography almost everywhere (never been to Belize). I have stayed at maybe 15 or so different places there and all of them were "photo-friendly".

Regarding the following quote:

 

"...my 600 4.0 non-IS is more than enough for the pictures I like to take,and I NEVER felt that I missed a shoot cause the lack of IS."

-- Martin DeFavero, October 17, 2000

 

With all due respect, are you a nature photographer? Because based on my experience (which is considerably less than yours in general), I just can't believe that anyone who uses a 600/4 for nature photography would make such a statement. Using any tripod which is possible to carry for any distance from the car, e.g. Gitzo 1548, I find that shots at less than about 1/80 have a high probability of being unsharp using a 600/4 without IS. IS *does* help substantially with this, and personally I have missed many shots with my non IS 600/4 that I know I would have made with an IS one (I own many IS lenses and have tried out a friend's 600/4 IS with much envy!). In fact, in my photography there are very few occasions where I am *not* worried about camera shake with a 600/4 because I frequently shoot at dawn and dusk with slow film out in the field where a bigger tripod (bigger than 1548) is simply not an option.

I just got back from a trip up to the Yolla-Bolly / Middle Eel wilderness area. It is every bit as remote as Gary says. However, that also means that the wildlife there is unfamiliar with humans and thus quite unapproachable. Though I did see all kinds of sign there (coyote, bear, bobcat, mountain lion), some very fresh, I did not see much wildlife other than deer. Either Gary is very lucky, or his skills are much better than mine, or more likely both. Don't expect the wildlife there to be posing for you! I was left with the feeling that the wildlife possibilities there were no better than many other more easily accessed California parks (though it was certainly nice to avoid the homo sapiens), and possibly worse due to the animals' skittishness with humans. I also spoke to a guy I ran into there who said (regarding mountain lions) "I've been coming here 15 years and I've only ever seen one.", which was consistent with my experience.

FYI: I've been trying to find out for months whether Canon has

sufficiently improved the AFPS performance on the 1V to the point that

it is usable for birds in flight (which it isn't on the 3), and I

think I finally got an answer in Arthur Morris' latest e-mail

bulletin:

 

"It is my recommendation that EOS 1v users NOT use Automatic Focusing

Point Selection AF mode for photographing birds in flight. On my

upcoming New York/New Jersey trip I will test the 1v for flight

photography using the central sensor only. I had hoped that AFPS

would perform better than it did for flight photography on St. Paul

where we had spectacular chances with flying Northern Fulmars. While

I did make many sharp images, there were many soft images as well.

And though conditions were difficult, we were largely making "top

shots" as the birds were hanging just below our position high on

Southwest Cliffs. It is my strong belief that the unsharp images

WERE a result of improper focus and NOT a result of the relatively

slow shutter speeds (1/250 sec.) that were used."

I agree with those above that your meter was probably tricked. However, I think that it was more due to the light falloff of the lens than it was due to the presence of a big sky. Most meters are pretty center weighted, and with the light falloff of a 17mm lens being as much as 2 stops at the very corners (wide open anyway), I find it helps to add some exposure to lighten things up a bit.

John,

 

I don't think you have to worry about the flashes being on for different durations. The only things that matter are 1) that they start firing at the same time, which should happen automatically, and 2) that none of the flashes have duration that is "too long". Basically, if neither flash causes ghosting on its own, then the two should not cause ghosting together. The reason is that if neither flash causes ghosting on its own, then neither has duration long enough to cause blurring, so you're okay even if one outlasts the other (as long as they start at the same time).

 

Also, you ought to be able to get approximate durations from the link posted by Dave Herzstein above, which gives exact durations for the other Canon flashes.