tim_r4

<p>Let's face it, Converters are a compromise for those of us who either don't want to carry a long lens everywhere we go, or don't want to dish out the big bucks for a prime 2.8 300, 400 or 600mm. My TC is used infrequently, but when I need it, it is good to have in the bag. Just another tool. It is definitely not an equal replacement for a the big guns, but if all you want to spend is $1000. to $1500. the 2x gives you extra reach for a lot less bucks. As with all compromises, there are sacrafices.<br>

I was not aware the 2x works in AF at f/8. My statement "<em>With the EF 2x II, AF is possible with any EOS body ONLY if the lens has an f/2.8 or faster maximum aperture"</em> was actually taken direct from the Canon website! So they are wrong? It will autofocuse with a 1DsMarkIII and the 5DMarkII? Gotta try that. Normally I don't try to do things with my gear that the manufacturer says doesn't work/ Why would Canon omit that from their product description?<br>

So did you get your answer anywhere in this thread Matt? Let us know!</p>

<p>Thanks Bill for the information, that link is a maze of links to more links. Maybe when I retire I'll have time to read it all. In the meantime I was hoping for some OPINIONS based on actual experiences photo.net members have had with their own website. I'm not a webmaster or even a creator, I'm trying to work with the designer to a common goal: a website that is easy to find. I haven't added backlinks on my site yet, but have registered with more than 50 web directories based on art, tourism, picture framing, stock etc.</p>

<div>[ATTACH=full]394046[/ATTACH]</div>

<p>I've been working on my web page for several months, tweaking it. Except for adding prices and sizes to some of the new photographs, it is almost done. The old site had been online since 1999. My web guy and I keep discussing keywords. When he set up the site he used words like "photographer,Virginia Beach, art, photo,Norfolk, pictures,photos,skyline" All of those, in my mind, do little or no good to a photographer that has a specialty product. It's like the bing.com commercials where you get swamped with 7,685,679,321 results by googling "photographer". A single keyword works well for Canon, Nikon, Sony, but not for me.<br>

Keyword phrases that will bring more specific results seem to be the answer. Put Virginia Art Photo together, and you might find me. Search "Virginia Images Photography" and I pop right up. I think you can narrow results by using zip codes, I search that way a lot. "Photographer 34567" narrows results quickly to that area.<br>

My first question: Do people use keyword phrases, or do you search as my webmaster suggests, one word ?<br>

Secondly, I already mentioned I have a specialty product. I make my living by selling Virginia theme art photos, stock images and vintage photos of the Commonwealth of Virginia. It's a niche market I set up ion 1993, and it works. There are several smaller websites with just a few photos, that consistently rank high in search results. One has a very logical name Virginia Photo and a few others that are portrait/wedding photogs that somehow, much to my dismay are able to rank higher even though they do not sell art photos, landscapes, stock or anything except portraits. To address my concerns, the webmaster placed keywords on the front page, the show up as the cursor moves over objects. In most cases, it says Virginia Beach Photo. This doesn't seem to improve my page ranking, and it is distracting.<br>

Second question: What tips can you offer on hiding keywords on the front page in this manner, and does this violate any google or other search engine rules (could they be working against me)?<br>

Other comments/suggestions on my website welcomed. \Please keep in mind this website is designed to sell photos - art-stock-media-murals-wallpaper-etc. It remains a work in progress. <a href="http://www.VirginiaImages.com">www.VirginiaImages.com</a></p>

<p>The biggest problem is the limited lenses that will allow Auto Focus.<br>

With the EF 2x II, AF is possible with any EOS body ONLY if the lens has an f/2.8 or faster maximum aperture.<br>

I borrowed a EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM and used the 2X with it. Sweet Combo! It was still fast (in bright sunlight) enough to freeze a baseball at the edge of a bat, and I didn't notice any degradation. Other subjects may show more visible problems.<br>

All of my short to medium lenses work, but at the moment I don't own anything longer than 70mm that will maintain AF. To me that is the big downside. My EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM can be used only in manual focus.<br>

I did get an outstanding deal on eBay for a EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM, and am anxious to try it out on that lens, not sure what magnification it will provide but suspect it will be greater than stacking extensions tubes. AF won't be an issue with macro. Anyone had experiences with the 2x and macro lenses?</p>

<p>Yep, it's all in the manual, couldn't find mine at the time I wrote the post, but appropriate to point it out I suppose. I'll admit that I use photo networking sites for quick answers. I run a full time studio, gallery and frame shop. Pretty busy even in this terrible economy (working harder to not sink further into the hole, same in your areas?) so reading the manual is sometimes not the best option. Not as bad as using MS Help, which can make you read for hours and still not find what you are looking for.<br>

To the issue: The problem was in fact a NR related issue. ISO didn't help, and the RAW vs RAW +Lg JPG, vs just raw or just jpg, didn't make a lick of difference, Two frames in RAW, two in JPG, with NR on at high ISO will be the best a 1DSMKIII will do without being "busy". But how often do you need that fast a write speed with NR and high ISO. Surprising, maybe, but when you read the things this body and the 5DMKII cameras can do, and then all the settings than can impair/reduce performance, it's not such a shocker after all. Anyway, it was a weird combo of settings, not a usual situation.<br>

I love my Canon's and hope I never have to part with them. Let's get this economic recovery in gear!</p>

<p>Since I do mostly landscapes, products, architecture, I don't often have a need to shoot at any camera's maximum burst rate, but have recently experienced that the 1DsMark III cannot write - let me re-state that - will not shoot - three frames in a row when in RAW + LG Jpg mode. <br>

The first time I noticed this was at a baseball game. The camera was "busy" and it interrupted shooting. No flash, bright sunlight with a 300mm USM IS and a 2X Ext, lens wide open ( as open as it gets with the 2X). Can someone test this on their camera for me?<br>

I am using a LEXAR 8GB UDMA 300x CF card. I didn't think this would be an issue when I bought the camera with a 12 shot buffer. What's the point of 12 shots, if it stops firing after two? Gotta be a camera problem right? Or is it just the combo of RAW & LG jpg?<br>

Tim R.</p>

 

<p>Thanks Ben and Michael for the super quick responses.....exactly what I needed. Hope to get some fantastic and unusual shots...looking for action, not typical photos of baseball, rather images where the ball and bat collide, the ball reaches a glove, the ball leaving the pitchers hand, foot crossing first base,......see why I needed a faster lens! The ballpark I'm going to has seating along first base that can't be more than 40 feet tops to the foul line, so 300+ the 2x should get me what I want. Now it's gonna be all about timing.</p>

<p>Getting ready to shoot a AAA baseball team, decided to borrow a EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM instead of using my 100-400mm EF L IS because the 300mm is faster, and I can use it with my 2X and keep autofocus. <strong>Can someone explain how to use the EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM</strong>? Need help with all those buttons!<br>

A fellow photographer was kind enough to loan it to me, but there is no manual, and I don't have much time to learn it! Game time is 1:30 Sunday afternoon. <br>

Please help!</p>

 

<p>Two month old 5D MKII and eight month old 1DsMKIII. Totally shocked by how much dust/fibers etc on the sensor filter and on the mirrors. Thought about using a blower / brush to clean the mirror,(and sensor filter) but I'm very concerned about the partilces simply redistributing in the chamber, then of course settling on the sensor filter on the first mirror flip! Yes, I've read tons of tips for cleaning, blower brush, Sensor swabs with and without flluid, and the Visible Dust sysytem (which I have).<br>

I had a terrible experience with Canon service, they trashed my 1DsMkIII when they tried to clean it, actually made it worse, then sent it back and stated it was back to "factory specs". I wanted to vomit, and truthfully, almost did I was so upset. The camera was brand new. They sent a new body after two failed attempts by CPS. Since then, I've tried to remove spots from a 1Ds, with no luck whatsoever. The spots seem to be embedded, and wouldn't budge. Time for an eBay auction, sold that body with no statement of sensor condition, the buyer was happy so I'm just glad to be rid of it.<br>

Now, with my 5DMKII and 1DsMKIII developing spots, I'm considering using a modified vaccuum to clean it. Has anyone tried using suction? What I'm thinking of is either one of those computer keyboard vacs, or rigging something such as a modifed tip on a small shop vac. Put the vac in another room, pass the hose through an opening in the wall to prevent dust from the vac entering the air space, using a small tube to reduce the hose tip to a reasonable size (about the diameter of a pencil -1/4"?)<br>

Sounds strange right? But has anyone tried this already?</p>

<p>Bob, thanks for the link to Canon CPS page. They do make it hard to find! After reading your email, and briefly scanning their requirements, I'm sure glad I have up to date equipment.<br>

Tougher requirements than the last program, but it makes sense for Canon to impose them. It wouldn't really br PROFESSIONAL service if everyone photog wannabe with a Rebel qualified. For those that truly depend on their equipment (as their primary tools that generates income) and willing to pay a fee, the new policy makes a lot of sense. I had a horrible experience with a defective 1DsMkIII and it took two attempts by CPS to get it right. Some photo.net members might remember the issue I had, the lubricant exploding and then spreading across the sensor filter after just 300 shots. In the end, after months of nastiness, they finally caved and sent a new camera. Consequenlty, I'm not anxious to send a body in for sensor filter cleaning or anything else unless it's affecting performance.</p>

<p>What's the latest from Canon regarding joing their CPS? (canon Professional Service?) I know the program was on-hold and they were not taking new members back in Jan-Feb '09. That must have changed by now, but they've not sent me any info. Do any Photo.net memebrs belong to this service? What's the cost to join now,and where do I find a link for it?</p>

<p>I noticed something wierd tonight. Shooting in low light, I could see all of the af points - when only one was selected - all the others glowed softly in the background. Am I cracking up and just never saw this before, or is something going wrong? I've also noticed a little play in the lens mount - the lens can shift, ever so slightly in the mount. Doesn't affect anything, electronics etc. Less than 5,000 shots on this body. Are these things normal, or should it go back to Canon?</p>

<p>Arthur, I went through this same process a couple of weeks ago. I did find <strong>One</strong> company through Amazon that had them on stock for $110.00. During my phone <strong>Call</strong> with the order dept, I asked for a supervisor, who promptly, but courteously, explained the principals of supply and demand. Undaunted, I remained persistent with my argument that they should not be marking up the battery even if demand exceeds supply. </p>

<p >I calmly and courteously explained my position, that I would pay the $110.00. However I also expressed that I would be unlikely to buy from them again if they insisted on selling it for the $110.00 that had it listed on Amazon for. I did promise not to tell anyone the name of the company that made this deal with me, so I just can't say it in a post, although since you've already done some research you may recognize clues in this post.</p>

<p >What I would suggest, is to confirm someone has it in stock, then ask to speak to a customer service manager. Even in this economy, I do not understand why any retailer would tarnish their otherwise stellar reputation by price gouging on what is already a fairly expensive battery. Paid $65.00 plus shipping and handling fee.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >BTW - I saw a lot of negative reviews of this battery on the internet. Short life. Perhaps a bad batch out there? For the record, I've charged mine only once (the initial charge when I unwrapped this really cool camea) since I bought it, have used the camera for approx 400 exposures, it's been more than a month and it still has more than 1/2 a charge. Haven't even used the back up I needed so badly. Is your original battery holding a charge satisfactorily? I won't go out without a spare, but so far it's not been needed. Obviously 400 clicks is not heavy use, but it holds it's charge during storage.</p>

<p >IMHO, there is no way I would ever use a OEM battery in a $2,600 camera. Even if I had to pay $150.00 for the battery, it's not worth ANY risk, no matter how much an OEM supplier might downplay the risk. It's not his camera - all he cares about is making $20.00 profit. </p>

<p > </p>

<p>THis has been very inforamtive, all responses appreciated. Many, Many great points. Sunday Ihad an opportunity to try something new. Faced with late afternoon sun, I found myself photographing an American Bald Eagle high in a nest, approx 40 feet off the ground. My vantage point was about thirty feet inthe air, but approx 175 - 200 feet away. Even with a 400mm and a 2x Extender - the eagle only filled approx 20% of the viewfinder (top to bottom). Since he was such a tremendous distance from the camera, I decided to try the Better Beamer. <br>

The eagle noticed the very first flash, instantly looking at me. When I fired the second flash, he leaped from the nest and began circling above my position. Several other photographers were approaching my location and I think they may have deterred the eagle from coming closer to me. The interesting thing, as Linda Jones pointed out, is that he did not come back to the nest for the remainder of the time I spent there, about 1.50 hours. His mate returned to the nest to guard the three hatchlings while the other eagle circled.<br>

The Better Beamer on my Canon 580EX made all the difference in the shot, even at that distance. I was quite surprised how much it filled the area with light and even put the catchlight in both eyes. From 175 feet away - now that's amazing. Question is, was it worth it, and did it have an adverse effect on the eagle? More than likely he just went hunting for another fish in the nearby pond. But I'll wonder about it. I think the best thing to do is to NOT push the shutter release when animals /birds are looking right at the camera. Of course, that's the most tempting instant to shoot - but it's not best for wildlife, and it is afterall, their environment - more than it is ours.</p>

<p>Thanks for the input, all good advice, it's better to ask than just assume logic will lead me in the right direction. Infants (human) are sensitive to flash and I have been told it can damage their eyes. When I started thinking of that, I became concerned about startling an animal and temporarily altering it's passive zoo like behavior. I actually caused a stampede of horses at Chincoteauge Island a couple of years ago....don't want a repeat. I'll try to attach a photo here.<br>

<strong>Richard</strong>, as fas as zoos go, any others on the east coast or as far west as Chicago that you'd reccommend? I was at the National Zoo last year, without flash and only with a 70-210 L. You are correct, it wasn't nearly long enough. Returning this year, better equipped with various flash and a 100-400mm L IS USM with a Extender 2X EFII. That should do the trick!</p>

<p>I have two new cameras , and want to protect them from possible voltage spikes from flash equipment.</p>

<p >In the Studio, I have Speedotron BlackLine Power Packs. When I bought them, and my original 1DS, the photographer gave me a Radio Slave system to mount to the hot shoe. His explanation was a "possible voltage spike" that could d amage the camera. </p>

<p >Also obtained at the same time was a Lumedyne syste m. Is it necessary to use this slave with that system as well? What is a good radio slave? The one I have is older, larger than a pack of cigarettes and doesn't stay put on the mounting shoe very well?</p>

<p >Should I just plug them into the PC outlet or not?</p>

<p >All comments welcomed! I'm pretty new to flash photography -</p>

<p >Here's a list of the Lumedyne equipment:</p>

<p >System 244 - #065 Power Pack Module 7066TP with 400/200 - 100 - 50 Watt Second Settings ;</p>

<p >Vari Strobe w/ Flash Tube - General Varionics -</p>

<p >Lumedyne Head w/ Flash Tube # 119 2 - #092</p>

<p>Most of us have experienced people objecting to our flash equipment - goes something like this -"WOW - that was so bright I can't see a thing" or "I've got spots". I am taking a trip to Washington DC, plan to visit the National Zoo. My question is this: How much care should be taken when taking flash photos, say for instance the gorillas, or tigers? While some animals may not react to an on camera flash, other reactions could be vastly different. Especially with pre-flash. Point is, I'm concerned about disturbing the animals, harming their eyes, possibly causing a problem for me, the zoo, patrons, and of course the animals. <br>

I can't imagine using something like a Better Beamer when shooting a face of a large animal, but perhaps I'mm wrong, and there is no issue. Advice welcome.<br>

I shoot with a 1Ds Mark III , a 580EX Flash fitted with a 6 x 9" softbox diffuser. Secondary rig when I feel like lugging it around is a Lumedyne system.<br>

Any suggestions?<br>

Tim R</p>

<p><em><strong>Final decision made!</strong></em> <br>

<strong>MACRO RACK</strong>: You are correct <strong>Gabriel</strong>, this issue is # one or I'm facng the wrong direction. So, unwilling to give up the only piece of German engineering I'll ever own (the BMW's definetly out of my budget) I'm hanging onto my beautiful Castel-Q.<br>

I have concluded the option of adding Kirk's Long Plate w/ the 90 degree rotating QR doesn't solve my Really Rong plate orientation. Why? IMHO the QR is on the small side, too short for a sturdy Lens plate. <strong>Solution</strong>: Add another Castel-Q to make it a Double Cross. More $ spent, but I'd want to get there eventually (indexed movement both directions) anyway. And now there's precise <em>Stereo capability.</em><br>

<strong>TRIPOD HEAD: Bogen 405 Pro</strong> ....<strong>Steve & Joseph</strong> -you both convinced me that the all geared movements are most logical for macro. Probably won't use it for Telephoto because I have a Wimberley II for that.<br>

<strong>TRIPOD</strong>: <strong>The Benbo 1</strong> ...the B "2" version at 110' high & 45" folded seems a bit much for what will now be my "dedicated" macro pod. Tube size is the same so I should get the same support, right? Interesting enought, they rate the "2" at 27 lbs but the "1" has nothing specified other than the tubes are the same diameter.<br>

<strong>BOGEN TO ARCA-SWISS QR MODIFICATION:</strong> Pretty much I'll attach the Castel Q Double Cross to the standard Bogen QR plate on the 405 and forget about it (hopefully). If I find twisting, then I'm going to use <strong>Joseph's</strong> method of attaching the Arca Swiss System. Thanks for all the time you spent on this Joseph. Ironic you mention a shop in F.Hills, I lived there from 1970 - 1975 there. Now I'm a southerner, no snow, just hurricanes.<br>

<strong>Flash Arm</strong>: Wimberley Arm for Macro for 580EX and Lumedyne (slaved to the 580EX) is what I'm going to start with. Adding the MR-24 Canon Macro Lights is a luxury I'll deny myself for now. (my wife's starting to look at me funny, each time I pick up the computer she thinks I'm buying again). But it's for work honey, it'll make us money. besides, that's all I'll ever need. Oh yeah, I already a weight bag or teo for anchors,but gonna need a cart for transporting this rig around.<br>

Gabriel, I'm sure that's not your best photos, nor your preffered set up. But whattheheck, we sometimes have to adapt to a situation quickly just to get the shot, right? Thanks for sending the photos, really - - I appreciate the effort!</p>

<p>Joseph,<br>

<strong>Thanks for the photos</strong> - that is an amazing set up, a lot of components. I should say that I'm totally new to MACRO so seeing actual set-ups is a big benefit. You are correct, the Castel-Q by itself is oriented the Really Rong Way. Until you mentioned Markins, I wasn't aware of the bi-directional plates, but just viewed their website. This looks like a better option than adding another Castel Q, or a Kirk Long Plate with the rotating QR Clamp. If I later decide that it's important to have <em><strong>geared</strong></em> movement on both axis I'll add another Castel Q, or the Kirk Rail with thr rotating QR Clamp. For now the Markins BiDir. QR resolves the issue cheaply! THANKS. This is what makes photo.net so great, exchanging ideas, techniques, work arounds!<br>

<strong>Steve - Bogens Geared Head, OK - you've convinced me, I'll try it.</strong> The 405 is within budget, and at 16 lbs it's rated for more than my max load. I like really precise things, so using a gear drive to get to exactly where I want to be sounds perfect for me! So, Joe, if you say it handles the 500mm, and all the other gear plus the weight bag, then it should be tough enough for my macro set up. <strong>QUESTION:I'm not too skilled in a machine shop environment, can you reccommend someone knowledgeable to do the A/S QR conversion? I haven't looked at the link you provided but will.</strong><br>

I'll trust your actual day to day use much more than manufacturers ratings. This is contrary to what I have come to accept about how manuafacturers rate them for load capacity. I've talked to pros and to some sales reps, who've said that the load rating should be at least two to three times the actual load. <strong>QUESTION:</strong> <strong><em>doesn't this becomes more important when using the tripod with a tilting cener column that transfers the load off the center of the tripod?</em></strong> <br>

My thought is this would explain some of the outrageous claims of 130 lbs (arcaSwiss Z1 -who's going to put hat much weight on a ballhead, what would it be, your wife?), and then others like Acratech rates their Ultimate ballhead at a more realistic 25 lbs, the same for the V2 that is suitable for Gimbal use? I can't believe the ball doesn't just pop out of the socket. However, I see by Joseph's set up that his Acratech Ultimate is <em><strong>updside down</strong></em>, with a heavy Nikon, two Novoflex rails and much more. And, it's looks solid.<br>

Joe, your calculations as the total load I'm using is very close, there will be other components - Wimberley Macro Flash brackets, trasmitter. When I added it all up it came out to about ten pounds, a little lighter without the canon Ring flash. So, you are right,that puts me under the load capacity of the Bogen 405.<br>

<strong>LAST QUESTION:</strong> Could any of you address the issue of the tripods with the tilting columns, a.k.a. articluating arms? Are these center columns helpful, or are they not vital to your macro photography?<br>

<strong><em>TRIPODS - Gitzo behind the times?</em></strong> I'll certainly look into Benro and Induro CX2 Series tripods. I bought into the hype of the Gitzo's as ranked # One. My 3541XLS is extremely sturdy, no doubt. And this little Gt2220 EX is pretty sturdy, and cute...looks like a baby brother to the XLS.<br>

Thanks for all the tips, this is a wonderful way to get answers and share information that actually means something to me!</p>

<p>Thank you for the fast responses! It’s great to get opinions that aren’t from the manufacturers. Based on what I’ve read from all of you I believe the Acra-Swiss Mononball Z1 (sp) is what sounds most appropriate for my field work. The Bogen gear head looks really like a perfect head, but the cost is $700.00 for the Deluxe 400, which is what I’d need to handle the weight comfortably, and it would mean retro fitting back to Bogen plates. For a studio set up—those geared head look like to perfect fit. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >For quick changes in the field, I want to stay with Acra-Swiss compatible plates. Here’s what I’ve comeup with, (but I still welcome additional photo.net member input). The combination of the A/ S Monoball with Kirk Quick Release (Kirk, because they have a built in bubble level which the AS Monoball lacks—more on that later), combined with the Novoflex Castel-Q and a Wimberley P-30 Lens Plate (with the nubs to prevent twisting) which will accommodate the Wimberley flash brackets. If I add a shorter focal length lens like the 65mm or the 100mm, I’d probably use the Novoflex QPL-3, a long camera plate (rather than mounting to the lens collar) ...that will give movement on both axis (albeit only one direction would be geared). </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Since the 180mm has the rotating ring that solves one problem, but reaching out off the center column requires an arm. I like the studio stand idea (when funding allows) but since I’m starting with the field setup, the <strong>Gitzo Explorer Series looks right because they have the center column that tilts to any angle. This is important—isn’t it? To be able to reach out off the center column,</strong> otherwise your tripods legs are going to be in locations you probably don’t want them, and thus reaching 1.1 or greater isn’t going to be as easy (in a field situation). The Gitzo GT-2220 rated at 13 lbs seems far to small for my gear, and the ones (GT2541EX or GT2531EX) that would make me feel comfortable (weight bearing load 26 lbs) are just too expensive. <strong>There is also a BASALT Explorer that’s less expensive—it’s the GT2932EX, anyone have one of these?</strong> I’d really like to work with my GT3541XLS, but the self leveling center column has only 15 degrees of pitch. <strong>15 degrees is not enough is it? Advice on this specific issue welcomed.</strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >The above combination completely removes the need for Really Right Stuff. While I appreciate the comments on boycotting a particular business just because their customer service lacks. As one member suggested, I didn’t abandoned Canon when I had a problem with a new camera, why blow of Really Right Stuff? My answer is that Canon offers something that no other camera maker can offer at the price they offer it at, nor match the quality, and everything works right and fits right and on and on. Sorry Nikonians (oh yeah, this is a CANON forum—<em>no need to fear touching off a debate here). </em></p>

<p ><em></em></p>

<p >This is simply not true of RRS: Other than the fact that they are American owned, I see no reason to force myself to do business with them, and nothing that makes them the very best manufacturer. So, why spend my hard earned dollars with them? It’s like when you were in high school, if you took time to approach someone new and they blew you off, were rude and gave short answers with plenty of attitude, you’d find someone else to befriend! <strong>The Novoflex Castel line of rails are exceedingly solid, and the Arca Swiss Z1Monoball lacks nothing.</strong> IMHO: I believe that when you add Wimberley, Kirk and Novoflex together, RRS can be effectively eliminated as a “<strong><em>must have</em></strong>” supplier. The reality is that life is too short to put up with delays from reps that don’t bother to respond or give incorrect, unhelpful answers. <strong>Leaves me wondering, what happens when I have a warranty issue? </strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Lastly, I do not understand why Acra Swiss, Kirk, Acratech and many others make tripod heads with <strong>no levels.</strong> None, zero, ziltch! The most I’ve found on the heads I’ve considered is on the QR. That’s it? Gitzo has three on the GH3780QR, but ithat head is severely effected by gravity when used off center for macro work. I get that you can use a QR with a bubble level (made by Arcatech $44.95) but why not put one on each ballhead and on each QR? When did it become unnecessary to level your tripod? Are all tripod/ballhead manufacturers assuming we’re all going to buy leveling bases, as if that were going to achieve perfect level? All the fuss about getting level for "perfectly stitched" panoramas, and they don't give us levels on a $400.00 head? Whats is the work around, or are most of use just winging it when it comes to getting a level tripod head?</p>

<p > Tim R</p>

<p>I am trying to set up my 5DMKII with a suitable ballhead/focusing rack/macro lights. the total set up comes in at around nine pounds with either of the ballheads I'm considering.<br>

I've already made some purchases, but feel lost when it comes to deciding if I bought the right pieces, and what I should buy next. I will NOT buy from Really Right Stuff. Their customer service dept was slow to respond and then provided conflicting answers, so I decided early on that I'd spend more if I have to just to avoid working with RRS.<br>

That said, <strong>would any members care to share their partciular set ups</strong>, what you like about it, what you don't like, and perhaps what solutions you 've thought of to resolve issues you've encountered with your equipment?<br>

<strong>Equipment I just bought but thinking of sending back to B&H</strong>: Gitzo GH3780QR Ballhead (considerable drift when locking off center, and not compatible with Arca-Swiss), a Gitzo Explorer 2220 - can't handle the off center weight., Gitxo 1780QR Ballhead, tought of using this on the 2220 Explorer, but the larger head has too much drift so there isno way the small GH1780QR is going to handle it.<br>

<strong>Equipment that I Love:</strong> Gitzo 3541XLS Systematic Tripod, Canon 5D MKII, and 1Ds MKIII, Canon 180mm Macro lens, and a Novoflex Castel-Q (just arrived, haven't used yet - but it looks REALLY solid). The Castel-Q of course, accepts only the Acra Swiss camera/lens plates, so this becomes an issue because I'll wind up buying lots of plates. <br>

<strong>What I'm Considering Buying:</strong> <strong>(A)</strong> Acra Swiss Monoball Z dp (would this be better than the Gitzo Center Ballhead), <strong>(B)</strong> Canon MR-14 EX Macro light, but unsure how it works with my long Macro Lens, is it a better design for shorter focal length macros? <strong>©</strong> Gitzo GT2330 EX Explorer tripod weight rating 19.8 lbs. <strong>(D)</strong> Gitzo G-1387 Dovetail Quick Release Adpater (arca-type) - does anyone have one of these? Is it as sturdy as other QR adpaters?<br>

Any suggestions?<br>

Tim R</p>

Before any of you invest into a 1Ds Mark III you should know what I've been

through with mine! After a 40 minute flight, taking just 335 exposures on

the first time out with the camera, and NO lens changes - there appears to

be a fluid on sensor. Shows up first on exposure # 135.

 

Sent the camera to Canon, who promised "because it's the high end camera,

and it's brand new, we will expedite it for you and have it back in two

days" ...Laugh - go ahead - I did, when on day five they were not even aware

they had it in their possession.

 

To make a long story shorter...my camera just came back. When I sent it in

for sensor cleaning, there were 32 distinctive spots. Now, after cleaning,

replacing the top cover, the front cover and a list of other parts, there

are more than 100 spots . Great Job. I'm so happy I invested $8000. into a

new body. When I explained I need the camera for a job I've had on hold

since before buying the 1Ds Mark III, the rep suggested that I "should just go

buy another camera body and then I'd have a back up". I did not bother to

explain how idiotic that suggestion was. Of course I have a 1Ds as back up,

but I invested $8000.00 so I could shoot with a 21 MP camera, not my back

up.

 

According to Canon, it takes five weeks to get approved as a CPS member, so

Canon says it will take another ten days to go through the cycle again. At

this point, they've had it in their possession longer than I have.

 

WORST CAMERA BUYING EXPERIENCE EVER

 

Member comments welcomed.

 

Regards,

Tim Rudziensky