Marcus Ian

ISO2500 - 400mm - f/8 - 1/320s

Looks like I'm going to have to dig through the archives... (on top of being late!) ISO4000 400mm - f/8 - 1/400

No, it def. had it's pros... but mine wasn't special. In fact, at the time, there was a lively debate going about whether the exrta MP on the 50D was even worth it (over the 40D's 10MP) as, by the time the necessary NR was applied at high ISOs, you had, effectively, a 10MP image (or roughly equivalent detail), of course the 40D had H1 @ 3200, where as the 50D had h1:6400 h2:12800. The thing about the noise was that it also expressed terrible banding (on top of the copious amount).... and It also showed up much worse in even slightly underexposed images. With that camera 'shoot to the right' became a mantra - and a practical necessity. You can NOT push the exposure much at all in post - and gawd forbid you were a hair underexposed at high ISOs. Of course at the time I was shooting weddings, so I was forced to shoot in sub-optimal lighting conditions regularly. Thank gawd I had 5Ds to do the heavy lifting, but of course it had a hard limit of ISO3200, where as the 50D had 'emergency ISO' - which was often required. While the 50D's imagery was usually quite good once you downresed it, you can't do that for wedding deliverables (if the client intends to print in particular). I remember countless images that looked great onscreen, but on paper, they looked there was something just not quite right. I purchased the 50D new, because I wanted to be able to catch action sequences (bouquet tosses, aisle walking, etc), which, frankly, was well beyond the 5D's (and even the 5D2's later on) capability. For that it worked marvelously, and, on a bright day it's marvelous too. I mean, don't get me wrong, for casual use, it was always good... but for pro use (which you are not doing, so moot point)? Simply not up to snuff. The 7D OTOH? Much much better in every respect.

The key to dead on MF on a DSLR is (IMO) getting the proper focusing screen (in this case a split image or microprism one) and installing it. While I'm a huge fan of the 5D for this task (because of price & is FF), the availability of aftermarket focusing screens for them is minimal (although my understanding is that a Leica R8/9 focusing screen can be used w/ a tad bit of modification) because Canon, simply put, didn't make split image/microprism screens for the 5D (for whatever reason) . Just about every other model has them widely available though.

LOL I have fond memories of my 50D... Many long nights trying to make ridiculously noisy images usable. Seriously. That sensor was the noisiest I ever owned, before OR since. IMO, they were aiming to high w/ 15MP in that era. It was soooo fast, and had a high ISO ceiling, so was imminently usable for capturing most things in most any light... the only problem of course was when you got an image that you wanted to post and/or print. ISO400 was noisy. For weddings I couldn't reliably shoot past ISO 1600. Things went downhill fast after that... Frankly, if Canon had put a 12MP sensor in there it would have likely vastly improved the high ISO output, and would have made the camera a much better all around unit.

5D3 70-200/2.8 -- ISO500 83mm f/5.6 1/500

5D3 70-200/2.8 -- ISO 500 83mm f/18 1/500

Not much time for shooting this week, but, conveniently enough, I have some images left from a trip to the amusement park back in Oct. 5D3 - 70-200/2.8 -- ISO500 83mm f/10 1/500

I've also done it with those silicon wrist bands, and they are more consistent than regular old rubber bands, but they are usually too large for smaller diameter lenses.

I mean that in MF, most inexpensive lenses have very little resistance in the focus ring. Often there is a bit of 'slop' (wiggle before the lenses start to move consistently). The same applies to focal length (zoom) ring. Minimizing the effect of this is necessary because BOTH can easily throw off the focus. Even mirror slap can do it in a lens like the 18-55 EF-s. This also has a disproportionate effect when working right before/at/past infinity- especially WO. Well 'damped' lenses have consistent friction, little to no slop, and are easy and smooth to operate by hand. This was vastly more important when lenses were all MF, and most quality modern manual lenses are exceptionally well damped. Most high quality NON-manual lenses (like Canon Ls, Sigma Arts, etc.) are a step down in mechanical performance, but still vastly better than inexpensive lenses. ...USM/HSM w/ Full Time Manual focus are also good, though typically a step further down... lenses like the 18-55 are about the bottom of the barrel in regards to MF and consistent mechanical behavior. By using a fat rubber band put on the FL ring and focus ring, w/ about half on the ring, and half on the stationary lens body (or, in the case of lenses whose FL and focus rings are next to each other putting one across the two - not Ideal, but sometimes necessary, you substantially increase the effort to move the FL and focus rings. By adjusting the placement of the rubber band, you can make spinning the rings easier/harder. For static, tripod shooting, with an inexpensive lens doing so is an absolute must for image consistency.

For that task, you really, really, want a lens as fast as possible. ie. an f2.8 zoom. The 14/2.8 Samyang is great for the price, but is going to really limit your focal range... while you can always crop, that sacrifices pixels, which are really necessary for a quality output - substantially better to use a zoom than a prime unless you are using most if not all of the image. Since you want to work in the 24-35mm range, and are cropped, I'd advise looking at a Tamron 17-50/2.8. It is faster (necessary), and for you has a proper focus ring, also, the front element does NOT rotate when focusing, making fine manual adjustments VASTLY improved. They have much better IQ than the 18-55 you are using. Best of all, you can find them very inexpensively used (as in under $200). That said, when doing this shooting you'll want to damp the FL ring (easy with a fat rubber band, or gaffers tape), and to a lesser degree, damp the focal ring (with just a fat rubber band carefully placed). No modern cheap lense is going to be well damped for precise MF duties, but, it's fairly easy to DIY for static shooting. You could probably improve the results out of your 18-55 by doing so, but since it's front element does rotate (and is, in effect, the focus ring), it'll be much more difficult than with a better lens.

Thought I'd post because no one's done it, and it's getting late ;) Canon - Up to 3 images - 1000px (long side) I'll start. These are a few more from our rare snow day. Even though the last of the snow didn't disappear till Monday (5 days later!), and temps are now back to a much more normal ~75F... sigh... For those of you who live in this 3+mo out of the year, please forgive me... 5D3 - 24-70/2.8 -- ISO800 - 70mm - f6.3 - 1/250s 5D3 - 24-70/2.8 -- ISO800 - 70mm - f7.1 - 1/640s 5D3 - 50/1.4 -- ISO 800 - 50mm - f7.1 - 1/125s

I should add that I've been pondering this seriously for awhile as well, and a local retired weatherman, whom I've been following on FB for awhile recently started getting serious w/ his 11" Celestron f/10 paired to a T2i. While moon shots are childs play, he routinely posts shots of deep space objects (as in galaxies and nebulae). These regularly require 20-40x 30-60sec exposures stacked (obviously depends on the object) - That is w/ an 11" unit w/ aprox 25X the light gathering capability of a 114mm. I mean the results speak for themselves, but that is literally an hour+ of exposure time (esp if you use LENR - a must in warm temps, and the higher ISOs used) on the 11" to obtain a galaxy or distant nebula. On a smaller telescope, an equivalent exposure could easily take 24+ hrs (across, obviously, several days) . That said, with tracking, you could probably easily get imagery of Jupiter and Saturn, in a reasonable amount of time, but without, you would be stuck w/ direct observation (mark1 eyeball) only. The only practical object you'll be able to image is realistically going to be the moon. None of this (of course) is meant to dissuade you. I think it's fantastic (especially for the kids!), even w/ a smaller unit, but I've found (in general) that having realistic expectations is a must. in case you are interested, the local I mentioned is "Pat Prokop's Weather and Nature Page" on FB.

You should set realistic expectations. Specifically, without a power tracking (usually computerized these days) head, you'll have real problems getting images of anything beyond the moon. The long exposures and stacked images that are necessary make the attempt without a tracking head nearly impossible. You'll be able to capture the moon fine, with a bit of practice, but that's likely the practical limit of such a setup.

Yesterday was a heckuva day for SE Georgia... It hasn't snowed like that in Savannah since 1989. And, being suddenly free of work, gave me a rare opportunity. 5D3 - 24-70/2.8 - 70mm f/11 1/200 ISO800 5D3 - 24-70/2.8 - 30mm f/11 1/320 ISO800 5D3 - 24-70/2.8 - 70mm f/11 1/100 ISO 800

It is common with EF glass for the street price to drop significantly after introduction. This tends to occur to a greater degree with the consumer grade lenses than the Ls, but they too drop... just usually takes longer, but usually the price drop can be pretty significant depending on production volume and demand (for example the 24-70/2.8L II started at $2300 but now can be bought new for under $1700). Most of the lenses in the line have dropped significantly in price since their introduction, though some only minimally (like a 50/1.8 ;) ), and some of the most expensive not at all (think 500/4L IS II - my understanding is it was introduced at $8999, and still commands that street price new)

I would use a more impact resilient adhesive than super glue (it tends to crack apart when subjected to high numbers of impacts - such as a mirror in a camera), it also tends to outgas as it dries and adhere to organic residues leaving residue that is darn near impossible to get off the pentaprism assembly - not good for an optical path if it affects you. Not to say you can't get get lucky, but the two issues make cyanoacrylate not an adhesive of choice for this application.

Yes, you would want to pay attention to the s/ns if you are worried about the green LCD. All of my copies were #0... and none suffered that particular problem. They all had to have the mirror fix, which Canon did for free, but, like nearly all digital cameras of the era, regular sensor cleaning was a requirement. While I understand that some people are scared of this chore, if done properly there is virtually no risk to the sensor. In fairness, I also found that it was much less of an issue than many made it out to be - although if you lived in the desert (which I don't) it may be much worse than my experience would imply. As far as the subjects gimping off my camera back? Yes, I can see how you'd want a clear LCD for that... but... in fairness, the 5D's LCD is frankly pathetic by current standards - even prosumer/consumer standards, much less professional standards. The best it gets on a 5D is still going to look like utter crap compared to the LCD of a modern el-cheapo Rebel...

I think this is an unrealistic 'plan'. If you enjoy the work, then making it a hobby could be very satisfying... however, it may also be extremely frustrating. Keep in mind that the sensor must be perfectly aligned with the lens mount. If, while disassembling to swap out a green LCD w/ a clear one, you dislodg/lose a shim, after you've put it back together, the left sides of the images are always a smidge fuzzy (or whatever)... you are going to have no way to correct that fault, and that will be immensely frustrating. ...further, it is unlikely that it will ever be cost effective, or profitable. The lifespan of these cameras almost always exceeds the demand for them. The 5D is an excellent example. You have 4 copies, all of which seem to function properly and produce, 10+ years after manufacture, images equivalent to those produced the day they rolled off the production line. An excellent condition used copy can reliably get under $400. With the amount of time and money you'd invest in a) learning to disassemble/reassemble properly b) parts (presumably 'for parts' cameras - which can be hit or miss), c) tools (things like JIS screwdrivers, service manuals (and specs), maybe some sort of calibration rig). You are still capped by the market in what kind of return on that investment you'll get. A 'tweaked' 5D for example (unless you've done something like an IR/astrophotography conversion) is not going to sell for significantly more than one of the dozens sold on ebay this week.

In fairness, a complete kit, in good condition, you can probably ebay it successfully for $8-900 they go for that (or more) on a continual basis. Replacing it w/ a 17-40/4 L (which shouldn't cost you much more than $400-450 used) does put 4-500 in your pocket. If you are shooting group portraits, while I almost never need to go wider than 24mm, if you do need to go wider, a zoom UWA is really a must, because you want to zoom 'in' as much as possible (to prevent unpleasant distortion to faces) at all times, - so a prime is NOT a good idea for that work... plus of course you don't need anything wider than f4...

I remember the 5D fondly. OOC Raws were buttery smooth till ISO 800 - as in far smoother than modern sensors, but the hard ISO3200 cap is disheartening in this day and age. I highly recommend getting a FF camera cheap. FF imagery changes the feeling of an image. DOF is narrower (and can be much more narrow than the same equiv FL on a crop). It was never a fast camera, but it was fast enough to keep up with running children (though I wouldn't try BIF ;) ). I frequently hear people complain about the LCD, but, as I never relied on the LCD for anything other than basic exposure/focus checks, it never really bothered me... If you can get one for under $300 in good condition, it'll likely be a great addition to your bag...

Even a used 70D is likely going to be considerably above that budget - I see only a few in that price range - though they are out there if lucky. The 7D, OTOH is going to cost you considerably less. While there are newer better options out there, the 7D is probably the best anywhere near that price range. Another thing to consider is that the buffer on the 7D is more capacious (slightly - possibly only because of slightly smaller image file sizes), but can write images to a fast CF card (and clear it's buffer) much much faster than a 70D writes to it's SD card - 7D write speeds are documented at up to ~ 56MB/s, whereas 70D write speeds cap out in ~ 35 MB/s range... IM(limited)E, that alone can make a huge difference shooting sports.

No, I understand the difficulty with diagnosing highly intermittent faults. I also prefer to shoot with a grip on all my cameras and an EL1 instead of a strap, so I understand the impact removing the grip can have on your shooting. Most recently (and this was several years ago), I had a similar problem w/ the BG-E6 on one of my 5D2s. The fault would present almost identically to your description. At first it would only happen once in a while, but it got worse and worse over the months. I assumed originally that there was a fault w/ the camera or the batteries, but I came to understand that there is some electrical plumbing that the power flows through, and that was what turned out to be causing the camera to behave erratically - the 40D's grip may be a simpler circuit than the BG-E6 (as it doesn't have to tie battery power into the camera's CAN to report chip info (etc.) since it is just using 'dumb' BP511s), but there's still plenty of potential to introduce problems. Here's hoping you are able to isolate the problem easily!

Actually, that sounds to me like a problem with the grip. I've had similar problems over the years with grips, especially once they get some knocks & scrapes (ie a decent amount of wear) on them. The way to check is to see if you can replicate the problem when NOT using the grip at all?

Lensrental's tests also take lenses out of their rental fleet to test. While they do in house maintenance, and optics testing, their lenses are ones that have and are spending time in the field... not new out of the box, tweaked, and tested (my understanding is that is what dxomark does)... All that said, if it has Sony on the box, or has Sony components inside, that seems to add a bit to the score at DxoMark. The math gets a bit fuzzy (which it should NOT), but if you use the same subscore valuation for Canon sensors as is used for Sony sensor scores (w/ the exception of the a9), Canon's overall sensor scores, are consistently below their 'earned score' ( every SINGLE one -> ranging from -1 to -4.5 pts) ... IDK, but they don't exactly seem to be to free with their method of calculations... ...and their math is DEFINITELY WAY to fuzzy for my liking... Interestingly the a9 is the only Sony sensor (which I crunched numbers for) which is significantly underrated... IDK maybe it's just a software bug?