denny_wells

<p>My first camera was an Elan as well - enjoy! I'm pretty sure I started with the same kit lens, and it is just fine.</p>

<p>Rather than replace your lens with another lens covering the same range, I'd recommend getting a lens that has a different purpose.</p>

<p>Thoughts:<br>

50/1.8 - cheap, small, light weight, good in low light, excellent bang-for-the-buck.</p>

<p>Wide Angle - find a cheap used 20-35 (keh.com is a great source) or a more expensive new 17-40L. The 20-35 was my second lens ever, and it changed the way I look at the world through my camera.</p>

<p>Telephoto - The 75-300 lenses are ok, but if you can spring for one of the 70-200L's they are awesome (the 70-200L f/4 without IS is only a little more than the best 75-300).</p>

<p>Can't respond to the use of old glass, but with regard to the 20D/30D choice - my backup camera is a 30D, which was an upgrade from a 20D. The larger LCD on the back was worth the incremental cost to me. 1/3 stop ISO values, slow and fast continuous shooting modes, spot metering, and higher shutter count rating were just gravy. If I were in your shoes, I wouldn't spend a LOT more for a 30D than a 20D, but $40-50 would be worth the difference to me.</p>

<p>Without taking time to read the other responses since my last (apologies to all those who took time to read something that I'm skipping over right now), I just wanted to jump in again and say I was wrong. (Ah, if only we could all admit that more often).</p>

<p>Specifically, the main dial controls shutter speed in M mode in spite of my terrible memory to the contrary. Apologies to Dennis for thinking he was wrong.</p>

<p>That said, I still think changing the CF to use either the "quick control" dial or the "multi control" button to set your AF points is probably your best option. That way, you radically reduce your use of the main dial, and radically reduce the recurrence of your accidental shutter speed shift.</p>

<p>Only Rob's.... and Denny's. ;-)</p>

<p>The fascination with ettl shooting is its own interesting topic. Gotta confess, I don't even know how to shoot ettl. Love my cybersyncs and old nikon SB's (and my 5D2).</p>

<p>Current problem = shooting in manual, no ettl, using the quick control dial to change focus points (via the focus point button + quick control dial method), you accidentally changed the shutter speed by not pressing the focus point button before moving the quick control dial.</p>

<p>Solutions:</p>

<p>1 - Use a different focus point selection button/dial.<br>

Your CF's are a little different than mine on my 5d2, but per your manual, CF IV-1 should allow you to directly control the focus point (without hitting another button) via either the multi-controller or the quick control dial. If you assign this to the quick control dial, I assume that the *+main dial will take the place of the standard quick control dial function (exposure compensation or shutter speed, depending on shooting mode).</p>

<p>2 - Turn "off" the quick control dial.<br>

The button below your quick control dial, which Dennis described better than I did, is what I'm talking about. Turning this off will NOT disable the quick control dial for dual-button functions like changing metering modes or changing focus points (per page 37 in your manual). I don't have a good manual reference for this, nor do I have my camera in hand to test, but I believe Dennis is incorrect in his claim that the main dial will control the shutter speed when you do this. On my old film camera (and Elan), when the quick control dial was turned off, in M mode the main dial still controlled aperture, and it was *+main dial which controlled shutter speed. Much like a one-dial rebel.</p>

<p>No gaffers tape, super high chimping frequency, focus and recompose, or e-ttl silliness required.</p>

<p>Don't own a 7D, but on my 5D2 I have the CF set to adjust the focus point with the multi-controller rather than the dial. Combine that with the hocky-stick switch to turn off the dial (or in your case, the dedicated on/off switch for the dial), and you should have a decent solution.</p>

<p>K P -<br>

I would encourage you to learn a little more about how your flash functions before spending a lot of $$ on the 430EX (it's a nice flash - I have one - but also have other cheaper flashes that work for other purposes).</p>

<p>Check out the strobist blog and strobist flickr groups - they are focussed on getting your flash off the camera, but there are a lot of general lessons to learn there.</p>

<p>Among the flash lessons to learn:</p>

<p>Aperture and ISO affect flash exposure the same as they affect ambient light. The larger the aperture, the more light hits the sensor - no matter the source. The higher the ISO, the less light you need - no matter the source.</p>

<p>Shutter speed also affects ambient light exposure - but is generally irrelevant for flash exposure because the flash speed itself is so short. Flash speed is typically ~1/1000 or faster. It doesn't matter if your shutter speed is at your sync speed of 1/200 or at 1/20 or at 20 seconds, your sensor will get no more nor less of the light from the flash. (Sync speed it its own seperate topic - it basically boils down to the physical transit times of each curtain in a 2-curtain shutter). The difference between 1/200 or 1/20 or 20 seconds will only be the amount of ambient light that hits your sensor.</p>

<p>Back to your stopping-action-in-the-gym scenario: Novist, Ranier & Dan are right, your shutter speed is irrelevant to stopping action - IF you have little (or no) ambient light in the exposure. So, if a picture has the flash exposing the players properly, but the bleachers in the background are very dark, this is what they are talking about. This will freeze the action.</p>

<p>If you want a picture where the players are properly exposed, AND the bleachers in the background are properly exposed, AND the action is stopped, your options (as I see it) are these:</p>

<ol>

<li>Shoot with ambient light only. Increase the ISO on your camera, shoot @ your maximum aperture (2.8), and target shutter speeds 1/500 or faster. </li>

<li>(an extension of #1) Follow Ed's suggestion and buy a faster lens like the 50 1.8 or 85 1.8. </li>

<li>Shoot with multiple flashes - one flash for the player and one flash for the background (or more). Choose an exposure combination that under-exposes the ambient light while giving proper flash exposure. Shoot at your sync speed of ~1/200. </li>

<li>Compromise. Let go of one of your 3 exposure criteria (subject, background, stop motion). </li>

</ol>

<p>The 430EX is a nice flash, but it won't solve this issue for you.</p>

<p>Being a nerd when it comes to numbers, I counted. To this point in the thread, the most mentioned lenses were:</p>

<ul>

<li>50 1.2 L (20) </li>

<li>16-35 2.8 L (16) </li>

<li>70-200 2.8 L IS (15) </li>

<li>135 2 L (15) </li>

<li>85 1.2 L (14) </li>

<li>300 2.8 L IS (13) </li>

<li>24-70 2.8 L (12) </li>

<li>70-200 4 L IS (11) </li>

<li>500 4 L IS (11) </li>

<li>24 1.4 L (10) </li>

<li>35 1.4 L (10) </li>

</ul>

<p>If I were picking my own half dozen - assuming Santa also brought a 5D - they would be:</p>

<ul>

<li>14 2.8 L </li>

<li>24-105 L </li>

<li>70-200 4 L IS</li>

<li>50 1.2 L</li>

<li>100 2.8 Macro</li>

<li>400 4 L IS</li>

</ul>

Scott -

 

If I understand where you are heading with this, I think a more interesting spin on the question may be:

 

At what pixel size (or megapixel resolution + sensor size) does the diffraction limit take over so significantly that additional pixels add no additional detail. With this question you can remove the crop vs. not crop issue that tends to get people so hot.

 

Thus, a comparison between the 20/30D and 40D and 50D at a point where the camreas have exceeded the diffraction limit for an aperture becomes an interesting question (or 5D vs. 5DII vs. 1DsIII). What does a print actually look like when the diffraction limit is exceeded? Does a print from the higher MP camera add anything?

 

The Cambridge Color article discusses this rather well I think:

"Are smaller pixels somehow worse? Not necessarily. Just because the diffraction limit has been reached with large pixels does not mean the final photo will be any worse than if there were instead smaller pixels and the limit was surpassed; both scenarios still have the same total resolution (although one will produce a larger file). Even though the resolution is the same, the camera with the smaller pixels will render the photo with fewer artifacts (such as color moiré and aliasing). "

 

Applying the Cambridge Color comments back to your original question of 5DII vs. 50D:

 

50D has smaller pixels, therefore the piece of the image circle it captures should be more detailed vs. the 5DII cropped, up to the point where the cameras both reach the diffraction limit for the shot. Beyond the diffraction limit for the shot, the cameras should yield basically equivalent images in terms of resolution (except that the 5DII will have a lot more image around the edges, and the 50D may handle aliasing and moire with more granularity).

 

This remains fun theoritcal stuff - and yet I still need to focus on non-megapixel related photography fundamentals if I am going to improve my images.

I was going to chime into this conversation with the cambridge color diffraction limit link (posted by MarkU). Note

that the link includes sample images from a 20D displaying the diffraction limits at various apertures. Pretty obvious

differences to me. My take from their description - we are fast approaching a limit where pixel sizes will be reduced

to a point where small aperture, large DOF photography becomes problematic due the basic physics of light and

diffraction.

 

I was also going to chime in with the digital picture tables of pixel sizes (posted by Mendel). Interesting note there:

5D Mk II pixel size = 20d pixel size = 6.4µm. The 20D diffraction limits are already displayed in the cambridge color

piece.

 

Taken together, here's my take relative to the original question of (paraphrased) is the crop sensor better at resolving

detail in the middle of a long lens:

 

There are more pixels in the middle of the image on a 50D than a 5D Mk II - simple math with the pixel size.

However, those "more pixels" may not produce better / sharper images. There can be many reasons: shooting

conditions, hardware or firmware differences of each camera and their processes of handling the information from the

pixels, etc. Beyond any general difference in the cameras, there will be a difference in the limits of physics and

diffraction. The crop sensors with their smaller pixels may out-resolve the FF larger pixels at wide apertures, but as

apertures are reduced, the sharpness of the images will be reduced more quickly in the smaller pixels of the crop

sensor. At some point in the megapixel race, pixel sizes will become so small that diffractions limits are reached

even with the fastest lenses. Of course, all of these limits may only be noticeable when pixel-peeping.

 

Fun theoretical stuff - but unlikely to affect the quality of my images much. Lighting, composition, basic camera

settings, white balance, holding the camera still, choosing compelling subjects - these will affect my images much

more than any effects I would get by upgrading my 20D to a 50D (unlikely) or a 5DII (likely - I desperately miss my

wide angles).

Chris - the 430EX doesn't have a PC connection, but hotshoe-to-PC adapters are pretty easy to come by (flashzebra has them, and I'm sure you can get them at B&H, etc.). I haven't had my 430EX "lock up" with an optical slave - I believe that may be a symptom of trying to optically trigger a 430EX when using an on-camera flash in ETTL mode, or when using the 430EX off camera in ETTL mode. But a manual flash triggering a manually set 430EX via an optical slave works fine for me.

 

Ron - for your original question about remotely triggering your 430EX, there are a ton of options. Check out the Strobist blog for a good intro to off-camera flash. A couple of things to keep in mind:

 

If you want ETTL flash exposure, you will be limited to the expensive Canon ST-E2 or a master flash like the 550EX or 580EX (I/II), or Canon's off-camera hotshoe as MarkU described.

 

If you are willing to learn manual flash exposure, your options are broad. The cheapest option is a simple PC cable and a PC-to-Hotshoe adapter. You are limited by the length and tripping hazard of the cable, but reliability is high and the solution is cheap. There are other wired solutions as well as wireless solutions ranging from the cheap cactus triggers to the expensive pocket wizards with several options between. Like I said, check out the Strobist blog for a good discussion of your options.

 

For me, I went through the PC cable and the cactus trigger and have now landed on the Cybersyncs. I'm very happy with my current setup. Reliable, fast, more range than I need, and much cheaper than the other reliable alternatives.

In case William's answer wasn't enough - I've successfully triggered simultaneous flashes from the PC port and hotshoe on my 20D as well.

Continuing your options list:

 

5 - PC cord and PC to Hot shoe adapter on the flash. Total cost less than $30. Effective, and cheap enough to check it out and see if you like the effect.

 

6 - Cheap Ebay triggers with very erratic reliability. Total cost less than $50.

 

7 - Mid-priced wireless triggers like Alien Bee Cybersync or Elinchrome Skyports (plus a cheap adapter at the flash). Total cost $100 to $300.

 

8 - Pocket Wizards (plus a cheap adapter at the flash). Total Cost more than $400.

 

Don't forget that with any option you take, you will also want to get a light stand and an umbrella or two.

 

You might check out the strobist blog or the strobist flickr group for ideas. I've moved from solution #5 with my 430EX to solution #6, and am about to try #7 due to frustrating reliability issues.

check out the strobist group on Flickr. Fun stuff!

Susana -

 

 

I assume you meant that you shot at F 1.8 and NOT F18 (F 18 is a really small aperture, and it would have been

difficult to get anything but a black image with your shutter speeds indoors).

 

 

That being the case, I wonder if you are experiencing front or back focussing with your lens and camera.

 

 

At F 1.8 and at close (portait) range, the depth of field is very thin. Thin enough that a head-shot can have the nose

in focus without having the eyes in focus.

 

 

My 50 1.8 focusses perfectly on a Rebel XTI, but front focusses several millimeters on my 20D. I could get the

camera & lens calibrated to each other - but then it might affect the focus on my other lenses. Since my front-

focussing problem is small, I choose to be aware of it and compose my images accordingly (often choosing a focus

point slightly behind my intended focus subject).

 

 

In your first image, it looks like the problem might be front focussing. Notice that the button at the bottom of the

picture (closest to the camera) is in focus, but the buttons near her hair (farther from the camera - perhaps only a few

centimeters back) are not in focus.

 

 

There's a good focus test chart here:

http://focustestchart.com/focus21.pdf

 

 

I'm certainly not an expert - just my guess based on what's here.

There are others who can better answer the technical "is the image different" question.

 

But even going back to the days of film, at the same shutter speed and aperture with the same film and glass and focus distance, you could theoretically get the same image from a cheap manual focus camera, or a Rebel level camera for a couple hundred bucks, or a EOS 1(fill in the blank letter for the generation) for a couple thousand bucks.

 

The differences in harware price - if composition and technical elements were the same - was not image quality, but ease of use and robustness of build to withstand that use.

 

Picking off the two cameras in your list that should be most comparable in terms of IQ - the XTI and 40D with the 10 MP 1.6 sensor, the difference when shooting manual will be the user interface (and build, and size, and possibly AF systems, but I'll stick with something simple). With the 40D when shooting manual you can change your shutter speed and aperture with two seperate dials at the same time. With the XTI when shooting manual you have to use one dial (and the same dial with a button) to change the shutter speed and aperture - you cannot change them at the same time. In that simple way, the 40D is more efficient to use - and that efficiency comes at a price.

Apparently no one looked at Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B00009R6WR/ref=dp_olp_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1216768974&sr=8-1

 

Canon may or may not be in the process of discontinuing, but the lens is still available from Amazon and Adorama.

 

 

KEH has a couple of used copies, but their new listing indicates "Temp. Sold Out". I have no personal experience, but have heard great things about KEH's used department.

 

 

The 20-35 is a nice lens, and the reason I was holding out for a reasonably priced FF digital as well. In the interim, I got a used 20D and am having fun.

 

 

But back to the original question looking for an economical solution to repair or replace this lens:

Take it to a local camera repair store (there may not be a formal Canon Service Center nearby, but there is likely a repair shop of some kind). If they tell you it will cost more to repair than replace, then consider tinkering with the guts of the lens yourself - at that point you have a pretty paper weight, and it really can't hurt. I successfully repaired my original Elan kit lens on my own in similar circumstances, and semi-successfully repaired a Tamron 28-200.

 

 

If you can't repair the existing lens, then your cheapest replacement options would be (in order): Used 20-35, New 20-35, Used 17-40L. The used 17-40 I picked up is very nice!

Publisher: Wiley (November 10, 2008)

 

Hmm. Interesting.

I just saw the following at KEH:

 

"There is a conditional rebate on this camera if you purchase a Pixma Pro 9000 or

Pixma Pro 9500 printer at the same time. The rebate on the 9000 is $300 and the

9500 is $350 when purchased with a EOS 5D or EOS 40D. This can be a body or

lens kit. This rebate runs from May 4 - Aug 2, 2008. This ia USA promotion only. "

 

I haven't yet found a comprehensive listing of the rebates, but there's at least

something kicking around. Perhaps someone else can find the other details.

I have some 133x Transcend cards, and they work great for me. They certainly perform as well as my Sandick Extreme III's - although Andy's catch of $99 with the rebate sounds like a good deal.

Running from your second sentence where you indicate that you walk about with a P&S because your SLR+zooms are bigger and heavier - have you considered the 18-55 IS? Not a particularly "fast" lens, but it is as small as the other lenses you are considering, has IS which makes up for a lot (but not all) of what you miss in a fast lens, and should certainly be a step up from most P&S options.

 

It certainly fit's your "small but decent" criteria. I've had good luck with mine.

Tommy -

 

I have another "I've used the predecessor" anecdote - I used the Tamron 28-200 for several years on my old Elan.

 

It certainly covered a broad range - great bang for the buck in terms of coverage and compact size on the front of the camera. However, image quality was always ho-hum. I got the Canon 35-350L second-hand as a replacement - and have not looked back. The Tamron certainly was more compact and easier to carry around, but the Canon produces dramatically sharper more vibrant images.

I have the predecessor to this lens - the 35-350L.

 

I would not use this for a walk around spontaneous lens if you will be hiking or leaving it around your neck all day - it's a heavy lens. It's also very big and very white and therefore VERY conspicuous. The push/pull design is not ideal, but once you have the tightening ring figured out, it becomes much better.

 

For me this was the first L lens I ever owned, and I was immediately struck by how silent and fast focussing this lens was, and how sharp the images were. I'm sure there are sharper lenses, and I'm sure Canon made some compromise in image quality to achieve such a broad zoom range, but your technique will need to be truely excellant before the image quality limitations in this lens affect your work. This is a great way to cover a really broad focal range with only one lens.

With specific regard to: "we haven't seen any tests of the 450/XSi"

 

See the images here:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0803/08032101canon450dgallery.asp

I just spent a while walking around with the XTI / 18-55 IS / 50 1.8 combo, and it worked quite well for me.

 

Since you are on a budget, another issue to consider is peripheral costs like memory - the XSI will use the same SD memory cards that you have been using with your A620. The XTI will require you to purchase CF cards - which tend to be more expensive than SD cards.

 

If I were in your shoes, I'd get the XSI with the 18-55 IS kit (only $900 on Amazon right now). It will leave you enough money to pick up a few extras like batteries, memory, and a new hard drive for your computer (you will be using a lot more space than you did with your A620).

 

If you want a good outside opinion of the two lenses - I have found the reviews here helpful:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/