obi-wan-yj

Just last weekend, I spent the night in the Strategic Air & Space Museum near Ashland, Nebraska. I didn't have the good sense to bring my tripod (was packing for the Cub Scout event earlier that day), but the lighting in the museum after dark was so cool that I couldn't help taking a few hundred handheld photos with my Canon 400D and Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 lens.

 

Most of these shots were at ISO 800 with exposure times in the 1/4 to 2-second range. Of course, I had to brace my body (and sometimes the camera) pretty significantly. I took a few shots at ISO 400 or 1600 as the natural lighting allowed or required. Since most of my subjects were static airplanes, I was able to take multiple versions of each shot while varying settings. In general, I found that ETTR by one stop helped with shadow definition, even when it meant using ISO 800 instead of 400. Moving from 800 to 1600 causes a dramatic increase in noise, so the benefit of ETTR wasn't as noticeable, but it still seemed to be there. I don't think I'd choose 1600 over 400, though. ETTR doesn't help *THAT* much.

 

Although I haven't taken the time to re-adjust the brighter ones, you can see a few of the shots from the following morning at

 

http://tatooine.jedi.com/digicam/2007/20071021/

 

I don't have the bulk of the photos from the previous night online yet. When I do (hopefully soon), they'll be at

 

http://tatooine.jedi.com/digicam/2007/20071020/

I should have pointed out that I'll most likely be using this teleconverter with a Super-Takumar 50mm f/1.4, which has speed and sharpness to spare. Having a 100/2.8 would be handy sometimes. Then again, I might be better off just downsampling a 50mm shot to the size I want.

 

Maybe I'll just see how it works on my camera/lens in the shop, and if it's tolerable, see if they'll let it go for $10. It doesn't look like they've sold many old lenses since I was first in that shop a few months ago, so they may be willing to deal.

Anybody ever heard of a "Kamero auto 2x converter?" A local pawn shop has one

with M42 mounts, which will fit a few of the Takumar lenses I have adapted onto

my Canon body. A google search didn't tell me anything, except that there are a

couple of them for sale online. I'm wondering if it's worth the $20 that

they're asking (or less, if I can talk them down). I didn't have my camera with

me, but I plan to take it back down with me sometime and test the teleconverter

out first hand.

Hmmm... as I do a fair bit of manual focusing using 40-yr-old lenses, reducing viewfinder magnification on an already small viewfinder would be inconvenient.

Have any of you used a rubber eye cup like this one?

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/Viewfinder-Eye-Cup-for-Canon-EOS-400D-Digital-Camera_W0QQitemZ190159415284QQihZ009QQcategoryZ15215QQtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItem

 

(eBay item 190159415284, in case the link doesn't come through)

 

I've been annoyed at all the oily smudges that get all over the LCD on my 400D

because my cheek is pressed up against it whenever my eye is at the viewfinder.

I'm wondering if maybe a cup like this would allow me to move my eye (and

consequently, my cheek) back away from the camera and keep the LCD cleaner. Are

cups like this comfortable for somebody withOUT glasses, or are they just

annoying? Do they still allow you to see the entire view screen and information

row easily?

 

Currently, I also have the issue of bright light from beside or behind me

peeping in between my eye & the viewfinder, making it hard for me to see clearly

sometimes. It seems like this would probably help that problem.

 

Any other thoughts on the subject?

I'm running 1.0.5, and it didn't change my exposure any from the 1.0.4 version that my 400D came with. My AF lenses tend to underexpose, while my MF lenses tend to overexpose. I haven't looked, but has 1.0.6 been released, or are you referring to 1.0.4 and 1.0.5?

I did most of the shooting at my recent wedding with my Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 lens. That range works pretty well for wedding receptions, although the f/4.5 long end was difficult after dark. I used my Takumar 135mm f/3.5 with some success on occasion, but I could have done without it. The 50mm f/1.4 worked well in the darkest environments. I guess this is a plug for the Tamron lens you suggested. However, I'll reiterate my and others' comments that there are times when you'll really want something wider than 17mm.

 

I wish somebody made a 10-50mm f/2.8 lens...

If you buy the 12-24, your break point between your two lenses will be 26m. Having just shot a wedding myself two weeks ago as an amateur/candid photographer, I think you'll spend a lot of time flipping back & forth across that 26mm boundary. Having some overlap between the two lenses would be really nice, as it will prevent you from switching lenses frequently.

 

That said, there are times (though rarely at a wedding) when I wish I could go wider than 17mm, and the 12-24 would do nicely in those situations...

 

Sorry, I guess this wasn't much help. I don't have any first hand experience with either of those lenses, BTW.

I've decided that I really, really need to get a speedlite flash for my XTi.

Since I've generally had decent luck on eBay, I wondered if that was a wise way

to get a used flash. My concern was with the expected lifespan of a flash. How

long is something like a 430 or 580 supposed to last? Would this be like buying

a used light bulb, or do they tend to last many, many years, making a used flash

a potentially good deal?

Sorry I haven't replied back sooner. I've been traveling home from the wedding since I first posted this. I really appreciate all the responses from you folks. You've mentioned somethings I hadn't thought of, but overall, it sounds like I was OK with what I was doing. However, the next time I'm in that situation (I still have one unmarried sibling), I'll be sure to ask the prof's opinion first. Here's some answers to a few of the questions that were posted.

 

My brother, the groom, is a semi-pro photographer (lives in Nashville & shoots album covers as a side job). He's the main reason I got into photography in the first place, and we discuss camera stuff almost every time we talk. He didn't explicitly ask me to take photos, but if I'd shown up without my camera, he probably would have sent me home for it. He even had his own 10D and 550EX flash hanging from his neck throughout the entire rehearsal. I'll probably just give him my pictures on a DVD (or two) rather than trying to print anything.

 

Since my son was the ring bearer, I had to show up early for the entire formal photo session anyway. I did take numerous photos during the formals, but never over the prof's shoulder or from her spot. My main goal was to capture candids of the event, so most of my photos of her poses were either from a different angle or contained her in the shot posing people. Much of the wedding party & family were milling around watching, so I was standing in that crowd most of the time. I'm pretty sure I was far enough off so as not to distract the eyes of any of her subjects. I only posed two shots on my own all day -- one of my two kids (ring bearer & his sister), and one in the men's dressing room where the prof wasn't allowed.

 

I didn't touch my camera during the ceremony, leaving that job to the prof. I was seated in the front row, so it would have been awkward anyway. However, I was still dying to grab my 135mm lens and capture the antics of the flower girl, who was standing off to the far side where the prof couldn't see her...

 

Of the 500 I took, I'll be happy if 200 are keepers. I haven't taken the time to look through them yet. I like to tinker with old, manual lenses (I used two 40-yr-old Pentax Super-Takumars in addition to a new AF lens), and I prefer natural light to flash photography (it was an outdoor evening wedding), so I'm sure I'll delete at least half of those photos based purely on technical problems. I use a Canon XTi/400D body (their newest low-end DSLR). There's a good reason that I don't do this for a living. Although I really enjoy photography, I'm much better at programming computers than I'll ever be at photography. I'm sure the quality of what I shot won't threaten the prof.

 

As for enjoying myself at the event rather the acting as a PJ, that's a long story that I won't bore you with. Basically, the event was 800 miles from home, so the only people I knew were the couple, my parents, and my wife & kids. I probably wouldn't have attended at all if my son wasn't in the wedding party.

My brother got married today. He hired a professional photographer, as he

should have, but I still managed to take over 500 candids (sometimes of poses

that the prof had setup) during the event. Although my brother didn't

specifically ask me to take photos, I'm sure he expected that I would.

 

After we got home tonight, I got to thinking. What do professional

photographers think of amateurs like me who take gobs of photos at "their"

event. I tried very hard (and I think succeeded) to not get in her way, and

since I don't like to use a flash, I know I never interfered with her lighting.

Is she likely to think I was stepping on her toes, or are people like me simple

one of those things you professionals have to work around at an event like that?

I agree with the protection issue of having a filter on any reasonably expensive lens. "Reasonably expensive" being the operative term. I won't bother buying a $50 filter merely as insurance against damaging a lens that's worth less than $100. None of my cheap lenses have filters, but both of my bought-new Canon lenses wear them 24x7.

 

I've never seen any difference in pictures with or without a UV filter, so I don't think the style of filter really matters. I just get a good brand (both of mine are Canon) and whatever style is cheapest.

According to Rob Galbraith's site, SanDisk's Ultra II cards (10 MBps) are already a shade faster than the 400D can handle (7 MBps). From a shooting standpoint, there's no need to go faster than Ultra II.

 

However, if you have a good CF card reader (like the Omniflash Uno CF 2.0 that I just bought), a faster card will significantly improve your download speeds. The Omniflash can make full use of an Extreme IV card. With the 8GB Extreme III card that I use in my 400D, I can download a full card (450 RAW+JPEG photos) in about 7 minutes. Given the price jump from Extreme III to Extreme IV, I can live with the extra 3 minutes it takes to download photos to the computer.

 

For comparison, with my old, no-name card reader, it took about 90 minutes to download a full card. :-(

I've no knowledge of how the 1D works (too rich for my blood), but I do connect my 400D/XTi up to my Ubuntu box. I used to hook it up directly via USB using digikam, but transferring raw images was dreadfully slow. Using a no-name, free-after-rebate CF card reader was about twice as fast, but still dreadfully slow. It took about an hour to download 300 RAW+JPEG photos.

 

Just this week I spent $24 on a new Omniflash Uno CF 2.0 card reader from http://www.MyDigitalDiscount.com. According to Rob Galbraith's site, this is hands down the fastest CF reader available -- able to handle everything a SanDisk Extreme IV can dish out. After downloading just a few photos so far, I can't dispute that claim. I think this will be a wonderful time saver for me.

 

BTW, in addition to being faster, using a card reader saves your camera's battery from being drained during transfer. The Omniflash card reader is also smaller than a coiled up USB cable, so there's less to carry around in my bag.

Focusing speed certainly isn't the problem. When the AF confirm works, it does so while turning the ring reasonably fast. When it doesn't work, turning it at a snails pace doesn't help any.

 

And I do want to use all nine points. Shooting candids doesn't afford me the time to select the correct AF point before shooting. I want to be able to compose the shot and focus at the same time, then snap the shutter before anything changes. The subject is sometimes moving fore/aft, which makes composing and focusing simultaneously difficult unless the subject happens to be under the one focus point that I've selected.

 

Andrew, did your adapter exhibit the same behavior that mine is before you dismantled it? I'd love to hear from somebody who's experienced and then resolved this problem--or at least determined its exact cause.

I recently bought an M42 AF-confirm adapter from Haoda (the split screen maker,

and apparently the only AF-confirm adapter maker who ships from the USA). I'm

mating it to a Pentax Super-Takumar 50/1.4. In testing it, I'm somewhat

underwhelmed. First, the correct focus seems to be somewhat in front of where

the focus light tells me it is. More pressing is the issue that the AF lights

sometimes don't come on at all, even in good light at wide apertures. The

problem seems to happen most often (like more than 50% of the time) when I'm

using all 9 focus points. If I limit it to just one focus point (any of them),

the likelihood of failure drops to below 10%. When it fails, simply releasing

and repressing the shutter button a few times while manually focusing the lens

back & forth across the correct point will eventually cause the lights to turn

on. The hard-coded aperture shows correctly on the display all the time, and

I've visually inspected the pins as they contact the adapter, so I'm sure that

electrical connectivity isn't a problem. I'm also quite certain that I'm

pressing the button sufficiently.

 

Is this common behavior for these adapters? Why would the light fail to even

come on more than half the time when all 9 points are used, but usually work

fine when only 1 point is used? Is there some kind of voltage level that's

dropping below a certain threshold? This isn't a big deal when I'm testing the

lens in my living room, but it'll be a lot more annoying at my brother's wedding

next week (I'm not the official photographer, but I intend to get some good

candids).

 

I've gone several rounds with Haoda via email. He was very willing to help and

offered several suggestions (none of which worked), but eventually just threw up

his hands and indicated that I'd have to live with it. He didn't admit to

anybody else reporting this problem.

Thanks for the input. The problem with getting a non-photography mag with lots of photos is that I don't get the details on how any of those photos were shot, which makes it hard to learn much.

 

As for just donating the money, this is a private school that already gets plenty of my money. I only do the magazine thing to help my kids earn prizes for selling subscriptions (as if they need more trinkets around the house).

 

For those magazines that offer online as well as print subscriptions, what's your opinion on the online version? Do they generally offer access to all back issues, or only the ones that printed during your subscription period? Do they contain all the same editorial content?

I posted a request for photography magazine recommendations over in the

Education forum, but since that's a very low traffic forum, I figured I'd post a

pointer to it here in case any of you have opinions.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00MI9t

I've really just gotten into amateur photography for the last six months or so.

I currently shoot a Canon XTi with a few cheaper lenses (probably $1200 in

equipment). My kids will soon be selling magazine subscriptions to raise money

for their school, so I'm thinking it's time I subscribed to a photography

magazine. The problem is, I'm not sure which one to get, and if I want to help

my kids, I don't have time to buy several months worth of issues at a newsstand

to try them out. I'm therefore looking to you folks for recommendations.

 

What do I look for in a good magazine? I'm a natural born engineer, so I like

technical details. Pretty pictures are great, but I want to know how they were

shot. I want honest, detailed product reviews. I want tips on how to shoot

better photos in various conditions. I want it to be well written, not thrown

together by adolescent writers. I'm not a professional, though, so I want

plenty of content that will be useful to a beginning or intermediate

photographer who wants to get better quickly.

 

Any recommendations?

I've used the Sigma 17-70 as my standard walk around lens since I bought my XTi in March. Since then, I've taken about 10,000 photos with that combo.

 

I'm quite happy with it. I love the macro capability (focusing 1/2" from the glass). I use the full range extensively, shooting at 17mm just as often as 70mm. I love indoor candids with natural light, so a constant f/2.8 would be nice, but I certainly wouldn't trade the 50-70mm range in exchange for it. Like somebody else pointed out, changing lenses frequently sucks. I've looked around for an IS lens that would cover most of that range (perhaps even longer) to help with those indoor shots, but I can't find any reasonably priced lenses (<$700) that I like better than my 17-70 unless I wanted to buy yet another lens to cover the really wide range. I seriously considered buying Canon's 17-85mm IS lens, but reviews state that it's far from Canon's best work, and it's slow, and it costs $150 more than the Sigma.

 

The 17-70's sharpness is decent, though nowhere near as good as my 1969 Pentax Super-Takumar 50/1.4. The AF mechanism is slower and noisier than Canon's L-series ring USM motor, but it's not much different than the non-ring USM on their cheaper lenses. The noise really isn't noticeable, and I doubt anybody but the photographer can hear it. I really haven't noticed any CA with the 17-70.

 

I played for an hour with my brother's Canon 17-40 f/4 L, and I don't see how it's much better. It does focus more quickly, but it still has trouble with backlit subjects. Photos in marginal light (around sunset) weren't noticeably sharper than my Sigma.

 

In short, the Sigma 17-70mm isn't perfect, but it gets my vote.

I would greatly prefer to swap lenses without having to set the pack down, and without spilling its contents all over the sidewalk. In a crowded or muddy area, laying the pack down to open it up is extremely inconvenient. This is my biggest complaint with most backpacks. Alas, I'm shopping for one anyway, because the shoulder bag style is too uncomfortable to use when day hiking in the mountains, and I want to have nearly all my gear easily accessible.

 

I like the accessibility that Tamrac's Velocity series provides, but they're not big enough for my needs.

 

When it comes to accessing lots of gear, the single-layer storage that backpacks provide is easier than the double-layer scheme of most shoulder bags. I realize that this is in direct competition to making it easy to access while wearing the bag, but that's the designer's problem... ;-)

 

Tripod straps should be provided on medium size bags, and they shouldn't block access to frequently used pockets like those intended to store your batteries & memory cards.

 

I will not store anything important in a pocket that isn't protected by a zipper. Pockets with merely a single velcro flap are for candy bars, not electronic equipment.

 

What I would love is some way for the user to configure what sort of pockets, pouches, or straps they have on either side of the backpack. If I'm traveling light, I may want just a map pocket on the side. If I'm traveling heavy, I may want my tripod hanging off one side and a 32oz Gatorade hanging off the other side. Having a way to accessorize these pockets would be great.

 

I'm shopping for a bag right now, and I'm having trouble finding one that will allow me to store my cheap 500mm lens (3" x 14") inside the bag without buying a bag that's far larger than I need for the rest of my components.

 

I'd like to see a backpack that allowed you to detach either strap to turn it into a sling pack, or replace both straps with a shoulder strap. Shoulder bags don't work well in the mountains, and backpacks look tacky at weddings.

 

Accessory pockets should be a variety of useful sizes, so small items don't get lost in cavernous pockets with everything else. Clear plastic or see-through mesh material is good for easily locating the right pocket containing the item you're looking for. Having a small, externally-accessible pocket just big enough for a few memory cards or extra batteries is good.

 

FYI, I carry a single body with 4-5 short & telephoto lenses, the longest of which would be either my current 3"x14" 500mm or a soon-to-buy 3.5"x7.5" 100-400mm. I want to be able to store the body in the bag with the 100-400 attached. I usually prefer to carry my tripod with me.

Has anybody used the Promaster Digital Elite Sling Pack camera bag?

 

http://www.promaster.com/products/products.asp?CatID=40&CatSM=&SubCatID=2&CatName=Bags%20And%20Cases&SubCatName=Backpacks&sm=sm2_402&dir=&page=PROD&product=4732

 

It's a smallish backpack-style case with one shoulder strap and a waist strap.

I can't find any reviews of it, but it looks nice in my local camera store.

 

My one reservation is that it has no facility for carrying either my tripod (a

cheap, lightweight, but 6' model) or my 500mm lens (a 3" x 14" cheapo, but still

my best option for long distance wildlife photography).

 

My family is visiting Rocky Mountain National Park next week (leaving Sunday),

and I need some way to carry all my camera equipment. I've acquired quite a few

more lenses since the last time I had to use my old case, and it's now too

small. During all our hikes, I'll be carrying my 9-mo-old son in a backpack on

my back, so a camera backpack won't work unless I can convince my wife to carry

it. I'm still not wild about backpack style cases even after he grows some, as

they're hard to get stuff out of without setting them down to open them up. The

Promaster sling pack suffers from this to some extent, but it's small enough

that I can probably support it with one hand while I retrieve things with the

other. Still not sure how that would work with my son on my back.

 

Does anybody have any recommendations on a good case that will work equally well

being carried on mountain hikes and into a wedding reception? Here's the gear I

want to be able to fit:

 

* Canon Rebel XTi/400D (smaller DSLR)

* Canon 100-400mm (3.5" x 7.5")

* Canon 28-80mm (2.5" x 3.5")

* Sigma 17-70mm (3" x 4")

* two small primes (1.4/50 & similar)

* Speedlite hot shoe flash

* 3" x 14" long lens

* 5" x 24" tripod (outside storage OK)

* Misc standard accessories

Speaking of losing a stop with a 1.4 extender, does that only apply to the available light, or does it affect the depth of field, too? I.e, does the 1.4 turn an f/5.6 into the deeper f/8, or merely darken it to f/8 while keeping the DOF of f/5.6?

As a follow up to my earlier post, yesterday I switched the exposure mode from evaluative (the default) to center-weighted averaging and took a couple hundred shots with my Super-Takumar 1.4/50. This exposure mode made a world of difference in the accuracy of the exposure that the XTi was able to produce with this old, manual lens. Thanks for the tip, folks.

 

As an aside, I'm really not happy with the bokeh of the Tak, especially wide open, so I've switched back to my Sigma 17-70mm for a few days to see if I can really tell a difference in sharpness before I shell out the green for a focus confirmation adapter. I am getting better at focusing manually without any in-camera aids, but not nearly enough to preclude the purchase of such a chip if I decide to use this lens frequently.

So I take this to mean that all lenses cause the body to meter somewhat differently, and there are electronics in the EF lenses that tell the body how to compensate in order to get a consistent exposure across all EF lenses, right? I guess that would explain why many manual lenses have exposure deltas. I find it very interesting that you got markedly different exposures from your EF lens just by disconnecting the electronics.

 

I suppose manual mode would work fine for severe under exposures, wouldn't it? Start in Av to get the camera's take on a "correct" exposure, then drop the shutter even farther in manual mode to take the shot. I didn't think of that because I don't use manual mode much except for lunar & firework photography.

 

Thanks for the URL. I'd read that before I discovered this problem, but the certain relevant points didn't stick with me. I'll try changing the metering method & see if that makes a difference.

 

Otherwise, thanks all for the confirmation that I'm not going batty or living in an alternate reality (at least, not that you could prove by my manual lens experiences).