obi-wan-yj

<p>I have the opportunity to buy a Sunpak 544 locally. I've been looking for a second flash ever since I got a set of two light stands/umbrellas and a pair of radio trigger receivers. The 544 sounds like a great flash, except for that handle. While it would be possible to mount the end of the handle to my light stands, the flash head would be so high up that I couldn't really use it with the umbrella attached hear the base of the handle. I also anticipate setting the flash down or on a make-shift foot in order to handle other off-camera lighting needs. I don't ever expect to use it on the camera bracket.</p>

<p>Consequently, I'm wondering if it's possible to remove the flash head from the handle with anything less than a hack saw. Since the batteries and sync cords all connect to the head itself, the handle appears to be nothing more than that. Does it screw into the head, by chance? If I were to cut it off, does anybody know what I'd find inside? I'd just need some way to attach either a cold shoe or a 1/4-20 nut to the bottom of the head in order to use it on my light stand.</p>

<p>Any ideas?</p>

<p>I got my answer in a different forum already. It turns out that the Gadget Infinity radio triggers support up to 300V.<br>

http://www.gadgetinfinity.com/product.php?productid=17204</p>

<p>I'm in the market for a wireless radio flash trigger. I'm an amateur and want to spend as little money as possible. The catch is that I also like to use old accessories (like flashes & lenses) with my new digital SLR body (currently Canon 400D). All of the radio triggers that I've seen advertise that they only work with flashes that trigger at 12V or less. Does anybody make an inexpensive radio trigger that works with high trigger voltages, like 200V or so that is common on 30-yr-old flashes?</p>

<p>Thanks, I'll look into that. Professionally, I've been a Unix sysadmin & C programmer for the last 20 years, so LAMP stacks don't scare me. The church IT guy (who I just found out was never even consulted about this project) is open to Linux, so that's good. I've never messed with Drupal and know nothing about it other than having heard the name before. Do you know if there are modules for Drupal that cater specifically to cataloging images rather than just treating them like normal files?</p>

<p>Storage space and backups might be an issue. I'm not sure what the in-house capacity is for such things. I'm assuming any remote service would handle backups for us. Uploads will mostly be from outside the church and downloads mostly from inside, so the bandwidth is probably a wash.</p>

<p>I attend a large church that frequently needs all types of photos for things ranging from newsletters to wall art. There's a group of a couple dozen photographers (amateur & professional) in our church (myself included) that are frequently asked to contribute to such needs, but only on an as-needed bases. The church wants to setup a stock photo site to house photos which are for the church's private use, but to which any of our group of approved photographers can contribute whenever they like. It would be the photographer's responsibility to upload & tag photos appropriately, but then the church staff could search the gallery whenever they needed a certain type of shot. From the staff's perspective, it would work much like any of the professional stock photo agencies, except it would be open only to a select group of people.</p>

<p>This seems like a reasonable thing to set up, but we're having trouble finding any software or 3rd party service that will do this for us. The best they've found so far is box.net, which is really more of a file sharing & collaboration tool than a stock photo site, and I don't envision it working very well for what they want. Do any of you have any suggestions on what we should use? I imagine the number of photos in our collection will number in the thousands within the first year or two based on what I've seen our group produce so far.</p>

 

<p>I'm with Kent on this one. You've already got a good selection of gear. Until you find some direction that really interests you, buying any more gear will just be a crap shoot, and asking strangers to recommend lenses for you will do no better. If you've got money to burn on photography, I'd highly recommend enrolling in a photography workshop in a different town (or state), or simply taking a vacation to a unique location and experimenting on your own. First spend some time finding a niche that interests you, and THEN buy more gear that supports that niche.</p>

<p>Myself, I enjoy close-ups, details, and macro photography, as well as tinkering with old, manual lenses on my new DSLR body. Almost every lens I have caters to those interests. Even my wide-angle walkaround lens will focus down to 1/2" from the glass. Knowing where my interests lie makes it a simple matter to identify the deficiencies in my equipment and compile a wish list.</p>

<p>So what's the image quality like on these Spratone lenses? I saw a 28/2.8 in a pawn shop today for $15. It's a PK mount (perhaps using an included adapter, I didn't look closely), and is labeled E-723559, YS-PET Japan (where the "E" is a Greek sigma). I'd like to have a 28mm prime, but I don't want to waste $15 on crap. I found this thread while searching for info on the lens.</p>

 

<p>I'm in the market for a 1.4x teleconverter. The Canon model isn't an option, because I don't own L lenses. This will be used initially on an XTi/400D crop body, but eventually on either a 50D or 5DmkI. It'll most often be used on a 70-300 IS lens, but occasionally on a cheap 500/8 or in various macro configurations. Until I can shell out the cash for a longer macro lens, my current favorite macro lens is a 55/2.8.</p>

<p>I'm currently only looking at the Tamron TC's, but I'm torn on whether to get the SP model ($180) or the non-SP model ($110). From Tamron's web site (http://www.tamron.com/lenses/tele-guide.asp):</p>

<p>"<strong>Tamron Teleconverters: Standard vs. SP-Which do I need?</strong></p>

<p align="justify">Universal-type teleconverters have certain limitations in performance when used with ultra-telephoto lenses of 200mm or longer as compensation of chromatic aberration alone becomes highly critical in this focal length range. The new PRO-series teleconverters are specifically designed and optimized for use with such ultra-telephoto lenses to deliver maximum resolution, contrast and color rendition without degrading any aspect of the master lens performance.</p>

<p align="justify"><strong>Tamron SP Pro-Series Teleconverters</strong></p>

<p align="justify">The SP AF PRO-series teleconverters, with a newly designed optical construction (4-group/5-element for 1.4X and 4-group/7-element for 2X), are designed to be used with lenses that are F/2.8 and of focal lengths of 90mm or greater. This would make the use of the SP teleconverters ideal for the Tamron SP90mm F/2.8 macro, 70-210mm F/2.8 and 300mm F/2.8. Relative illumination is significantly improved resulting in better overall contrast and resolution across the entire image field. In addition, chromatic aberration and astigmatism are better compensated for by virtue of the use of higher-grade glass materials and more sophisticated design techniques than used in universal-type teleconverters. When used with lenses with smaller maximum apertures (F/4 and F/5.6, for example), there will be little difference in image quality as compared with the standard Tamron teleconverters. When used with lenses wider than 90mm, the SP teleconverters can actually comprise [compromise?] image quality.</p>

<p align="justify"><strong>Tamron Standard Teleconverters</strong></p>

<p align="justify">The standard Tamron teleconverters extend the focal length by a factor of 1.4 or 2 respectfully and sustain the same light loss factors as the Pro-series. Though using a teleconverter on wide-angle lenses is never really recommended, these converters can be used with lenses that are wider than 90mm and are ideal for all lenses that are not F/2.8's."</p>

<p align="justify"> </p>

<p align="justify">OK, so my current primary macro configuration may see reduced IQ with an SP teleconverter, but CA will be reduced on longer telephoto lenses. Does anybody have any first hand experience or examples you can share that compare the two? What does an SP TC really do to a 55/2.8 lens? Is there a difference in quality at the corners (in case I switch to a full frame 5D)?</p>

<p>Do you know of any web sites that have comparison photos of high ISO noise on the 50D and the 5DmkI? I shoot lots of low-light candids (pick your own definition of "low"), and I'm continually frustrated with my 400D at ISO 1600. Being able to go down to ISO 12800 has some appeal for those situations. I know the IQ is poor at that speed, but I've always had the opinion that ISO noise is easier to correct than motion blur. Most of my photos never get printed larger than 5x7, anyway.<br>

<br /> I also enjoy using manual lenses on my digital body, which of course favors the massive viewfinder of the 5D. Of course, the autofocus ability of my 400D isn't all that great, so moving to a camera that's two years newer rather than a year older has some appeal.</p>

<p>Anyway, the noise is what I'm really curious about. There's a 5DmkI available locally for $1200 that's caught my eye.</p>

 

<p>I'm in the market for a circular polarizer for my 17-70mm lens (72mm filters). Checking prices online, there seem to be a number of models in the $45-55 price range, and then a number of them in the $100-200 price range. What's the difference, and is it really worth it? I'm guessing that the expensive models are multi-coated. Are the cheap ones single coated or uncoated? How often will that make a difference for me? I'm an amateur and hence don't have to worry about image quality affecting sales, but I am an engineer and am somewhat picky about image quality. I don't want a filter that will noticeably degrade the sharpness of my photos or cause ghosting. However, I also don't want to waste money on something I don't need.</p>

<p>Within the $50 range, are there any particular brands that are better or worse than the others? Tiffen? Hoya? Judging from prices, are B&W extremely good filters? B&W doesn't make anything cheaper than $100, unfortunately.</p>

<p>Any advice you can provide would be appreciated.</p>

 

<p>I've used small bean bags in the past, and they work OK, but I have trouble keeping them in place under the lens. Kirk makes nice stuff, but it's way out of my price range. I went ahead and bought the Bushnell mount. I haven't tried it yet -- maybe I'll test it out shooting birds at my office before I make a real photo trip in a couple months. Thanks for your input, folks.</p>

<p>How sturdy are car window mounts for SLR's with medium-sized lenses? Say for a Canon 40D with 70-300 IS lens? I've got a chance to buy a cheap Bushnell 78-4405 locally:</p>

<p>http://www.adorama.com/BS784405.html?searchinfo=bushnell%204405&item_no=1<br>

<br /> Will this do a reasonable job for stabilizing the camera for wildlife photography, or will I be just as well off resting the camera lens directly on the top edge of the window? Any other recommendations, in case this deal falls through and I end up buying a new one?</p>

<p>Thanks for everyone's suggestions. I seriously considered picking up a used 3030 on eBay, but eventually broke down and bought new equipment. I received a 804RC2 head for Christmas and bought myself the 055XProB legs as soon as the gift-giving season was over. The legs and an architectural quick connect (200PLARCH-14) showed up yesterday. I haven't used it yet except to set it up on the carpeted floor in my living room (not the most stable base).</p>

<p>So far, I'm quite happy with the legs. If they weighed half as much (without the added cost of carbon fiber), then they'd be perfect.</p>

<p>I think the head is fine for me, although there is a bit of flex in the mechanism if I push it. To be fair, the head is only rated for about 5 lbs less than the legs. I imagine it'll be good enough for my purposes. Given the 055XProB's horizontal center shaft ability, it would be nice if the head had the ability to angle (pitch) straight up, which would mean straight forward in landscape mode on a horizontal shaft. I suppose I can mount the quick connect backward on the camera with the handle pointing toward the lens in those odd situations where I can't shoot landscape mode.</p>

<p>The architectural quick connect would work very well on a bare camera body. However, the extra battery grip that I own has a softer, rubbery surface which allows quite a bit of play between the quick connect and the body. This isn't really the fault of the quick connect, of course. Still, it means that in my default shooting configuration, my lens won't be quite as rock-steady as I'd hoped it might be. It'll be worlds better than my old $35 tripod, though.</p>

 

The geared 410 head looks really sweet, since I do a lot of macro work. However, I don't think I can stomach the $200 price tag for just a head.

 

It appears that the 804RC2 is not a direct replacement for the 3030. The 3030 has about 50% more weight capacity and larger handles than the 804RC2. While the 3030 does appear to be a better match to my legs than the 804RC2, I'm a little leery about buying a discontinued head off the used market. You never know what condition it'll be in. Does the 3030 use the same RC2 quick release system as the current heads? I'll surely want to pick up at least one spare QR plate for my long lens.

 

Does the 804RC2 (or any other similar head that you'd recommend) have a bubble level that will indicate true 0 or 90 degrees at the camera mount? That'd be really handy. I know people complain that the 3030 has no levels.

 

On that note, I'm open to considering other brands besides Bogen. Are there any others worth considering that cost no more than $100 or so?

Kenko has two lines of tubes. The "DG" series works with both EF and EF-S lenses, while the non-DG only works with EF lenses. Canon's own tubes don't work with many of their lenses, so the Kenko tubes are pretty much the best option for Canon shooters who want to retain electronic control.

 

Since I can't afford $170 for a nice set of tubes and since I shoot with a number of manual lenses on my 400D, I found a set of tubes with no terminals for just $9 on eBay. It works for the time being.

OK, so here's another question. I often see pros carrying their tripod over their shoulder with the camera & lens attached to the tripod. I wouldn't dream of doing that with my current tripod, but it sure would be convenient at times. Are the 3030 or 804RC2 sturdy enough heads that you'd trust them to do that? If not, what would be required in order to deserve that trust? Would it basically mean passing on the quick release feature? Let's assume I've got a mid-range SLR and nothing larger than a 100-400/5.6 lens.

Thanks for the suggestions. The 3025 only has half the load capacity of the legs I want, so I think that's out. I like the separate handles of the 3030 and 804RC2 as opposed to just the large thumb screws like the 3028 has. The levers allow finer control of the angles. I think the weight capacity of those is similar enough to the legs that they'd be a good match. I'm still open to any other suggestions, though.

I should point out that on my current tripod, the quick release mechanism is a major source of flex. Do better tripods like the aforementioned Manfrotto's have this problem, or are their quick release mechanisms rock solid?

I'm in the market for a new tripod, as the flimsy $35 model I've had for 10 years has become too frustrating.

I'm tentatively decided on a Manfrotto 055XProB due to its height and horizontal center column, but I'm open to

other similar suggestions.

 

What I'm not sure about is the head to use for this. I kinda think I'd prefer a pan/tilt head rather than a ball

head, because I frequently want to adjust my tripod angle in only one direction. I was thinking that I'd prefer

a quick-release head, but maybe that's not such a big deal. The 055XProB legs will support 15 lbs, so I'd prefer

a head that will do the same. This will frequently be used for wildlife and macro photography with telephoto

lenses (perhaps a Canon 100-400 or 400/4 someday).

 

Manfrotto and Gitzo ($$$) are really the only brands I know enough to respect. Are there others that are worth

considering?

 

Is the Manfrotto 804RC2 a decent head? The 808RC4 might almost be a little big & pricey, but I'm not sure.

I ended up taking a chance on a Dynex DX-CRD12 internal card reader from Best Buy. Its speed specs weren't published, but since I bought it locally, there wasn't much risk involved. It's worked quite well, and can easily keep up with my Sandisk Extreme III cards at 30 MB/s (about half the max speed of USB 2.0). It can access multiple cards simultaneously, so you can copy from one card to another of a different type if you want. It uses a 3.5" drive bay, so I replaced my useless floppy drive with it. It comes with both black & beige front bezels. An internal reader is far more convenient than an external reader that takes up more space on my desk, and I'm not burning an external USB port with it.. My only beef is that it doesn't have a front USB jack, even though there's space on the front panel to put one.

 

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7903003&st=dynex+card+reader&lp=4&type=product&cp=1&id=1149206642856

OK, this post is specifically about non-Speedlite flashes, but this seemed like the most appropriate forum anyway.

 

Is it possible to power a cheap, off-brand flash using the hot shoe on a Canon EOS 400D, 50D, or similar? I want

to rig up a flexible flash bracket for use in macro shots. I have a 430EX, but I fear it may be heavy enough to

deform the flexible conduit that I plan to use for the bracket arm. Macro shots have very short range and don't

need much power, and I usually set everything manually anyway, so I was wondering if I could just pick up a tiny,

old flash at a garage sale to use on this bracket. I don't mind setting the flash power manually if I must, but

I obviously need it to be triggered by the body's shutter. Better yet, are there any older, tiny Canon flashes

that can be completely controlled by a new EOS body yet weigh only half what a 430EX does?

One new feature I'd like to see (I don't believe it's currently possible) is for the owner to be able to post a

couple paragraphs of description that's tied to a particular folder in their gallery. For instance, when I

upload two dozen photos from my brother's wedding, I'd like to write a brief note describing the pertinent info.

This would be much easier than trying to do it for each folder. With only a few folders and/or only a few user

comments, you can approximate this by posting a gallery-wide comment. However, it's easy for those to get lost

in the clutter if many people most comments on your gallery. How hard would it be to add something like this?

Lilly, thanks for those old forum links. Great info. I already plan on bringing zip-locs for all my gear just in case, although I'm told that this is a very dry time of year for this location. Yes, the 4-day basecamp hike you describe is exactly what we'll be doing. I probably wouldn't bother bringing the macro gear or tripod otherwise.

 

I do have a small, top-loader style bag (Tamrac 515) that can house my body, short lens, and a few small accessories. It has both a neck strap and belt loops. After reading what people have written, I'm starting to think I should just try to find a couple lens pouches that can be attached to the side of this bag, then attach the whole mess to the chest straps of my backpack. I'm borrowing the backpack from a friend, and haven't seen it in three years, so I'm hoping that will work. I should probably test it out soon just in case.

Thanks for those links, Dan. Very helpful. I wouldn't have ever through about visibility of the trail at my feet.

 

Randall, I'm not nearly such a slow & deliberate photographer. Three years ago, this same group took a 3.5-day backpacking trip to Colorado, during which I shot about 250 photos with a little P&S camera. Most of those were shot on the spur of the moment, after which I hurried to catch up with my friends who'd kept walking (none of them are photo buffs). If I'm going to keep my SLR in my main pack on this trip, I may as well not even take it.

I've posted a question in the "bags & storage" forum about how best to safely

carry my gear and have it at the ready during an extended backpacking trip in

Oregon. I figured you travelers may have some input on that, too. If you care

to share ideas, you can see the main thread at

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Paml

 

Thanks.