alan_bryant1

<blockquote>

<p>Any thoughts on suggesting the mirrorless route? Is that going to be the new technology?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'll defer to Roger over at LensRentals.com, who has written an excellent two-part essay on this subject. Part 1:<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/08/mirrorless-mirrorless-on-the-wall-part-i">http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/08/mirrorless-mirrorless-on-the-wall-part-i</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Tamron, 80-250 mm</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That one is probably a Tamron Adaptall mount lens. If so, it can be mounted on Canon EOS with a simple adapter. Adapters can be found on eBay for quite cheap - $15 or so. Look for "Tamron Adaptall EOS". These adapters contain no glass and do not degrade image quality.</p>

<p>However, as Henry points out, it will be an all-manual lens - manual focus, manual aperture, and perhaps not worth the trouble.</p>

<p>The firmware has been released. It is for the lens, not the camera. Apparently some people have had trouble installing it. Here's a post about it -</p>

<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=2899">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=2899</a></p>

<p>It's an EF lens and I assume it will work on any Canon EOS camera, including film cameras. It also supports new AF-during-video features that currently are only supported on the T4i. I don't know about DEP(th).</p>

<p>I made some progress last night with this:</p>

<p>- I uninstalled everything that had been installed.<br>

- I downloaded the OpticFilm 7600i 4.2.1 software from PlusTek; file name A28_V4.2.0.1_13L_x64.zip<br>

- I unzipped that file and manually installed the driver. There are instructions to do this in the PlusTek FAQ, under "Q: How do I manually install my scanners device drivers under Windows 7?"<br>

- I downloaded SilverFast 8.0.1r15 from silverfast.com, file name SF-8.0.1r15(Plustek)_x64.exe<br>

- I installed that file normally<br>

- The SilverFast key provided with the scanner didn't work with version 8, so I requested a demo key from SilverFast.</p>

<p>It appears to be working, though clearly I'm going to have to spend some time with documentation. But I managed a scan. The demo key puts a watermark on the image, but I think I can get a permanent key either from PlusTek or SilverFast.</p>

<p>Quick question: Has anybody gotten this to work?</p>

<p>So far the software isn't working, error messages meaningless (every piece reports all the other pieces are not installed, even though they are all installed), nothing can see the scanner, tech support hasn't replied to my queries.</p>

<p>Just wondering if anyone has made it work, and if so, if they recall how.</p>

<p>For sure I'd take 16-35 and 24-70. And probably rent a 70-200 f/4 IS and take that and extension tubes to cover tele+macro. If your weight budget is higher add the 17 TS-E, 50/1.4, and 1.4x extender. If the weight budget is really high just take the 70-200/2.8 IS. I wouldn't consider the 300/2.8 IS unless I had a Sherpa to carry gear.</p>

<p>Another option would be leaving the 16-35 and taking the 17 TS-E plus the 1.4x extender. Depends how quickly you need to work. If you'll have to work fast when shooting, or you have to shoot in low light, the 16-35 would be better; if you have time to set up the 17 TS-E, it will probably get better shots.</p>

<p>Personally when I travel I prefer to take a lot of gear, then pick a few lenses for each day's adventure, and leave the rest in the hotel. But from what I've heard of travel to India, it's advisable to take everything with you at all times.</p>

<p>Another pair of reviews, from the-digital-picture.com -</p>

<p>Mk II at <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24mm-f-1.4-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24mm-f-1.4-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</a></p>

<p>Mk I at <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24mm-f-1.4-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24mm-f-1.4-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</a></p>

<p>Personally I have the mk I and have no plans to upgrade. The mk II does appear to be sharper, but for my uses (hand-held in dark interiors) I don't need spectacular sharpness.</p>

<p>The most detailed Error 99 document I'm aware of is the one at LensRentals:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/12/canons-error-99-the-man-the-myth">http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/12/canons-error-99-the-man-the-myth</a></p>

<p>Their own troubleshooting checklist is on the last page,</p>

<p><a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/12/canons-error-99-the-man-the-myth/6">http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/12/canons-error-99-the-man-the-myth/6</a></p>

<p>For what it's worth I prefer 24mm for shooting environmental portraits.</p>

<p>On the other hand I kind of like tightly framed face portraits. Here's a family portrait, shot indoors at 400mm. (200/2 + 2x converter. Hand held at 1/10 second, it is slightly blurred.)</p>

<p><a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v490/alanpix/IMG_3958M.jpg">http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v490/alanpix/IMG_3958M.jpg</a></p>

<p>To elaborate:</p>

<p>Canon seems to be saying the autofocus on the EOS-M is like Live View autofocus but substantially improved over previous implementations. At least, that seems to be the message, I haven't read it in detail.</p>

<p>If that's the case, then this might indeed be the best way to put pixels on a small distant bird, because the Live View autofocus ought to work even with an f/8 lens, like the 800/5.6 + 1.4x converter, or 600/4 + 2x converter. The pixel density will be somewhat greater than is achievable with a 1D4, the last Canon DSLR able to autofocus at f/8. Whether the image quality is up to snuff can be debated, but it would work for putting pixels on the subject while retaining decent autofocus.</p>

<p>The focus screen's response to aperture changing is not linear. Look through the viewfinder as you manually move the aperture from f/2.8 to f/5.6. You can barely see anything changing.</p>

<p>With normal lenses with electric apertures, the camera compensates for this by knowing what aperture is actually used on the lens. But with manual aperture lenses it has no way of knowing, so it can't apply the correction.</p>

<p>The reason for the nonlinear response is complex and optical; it has to do with how the screens are designed to be nice and bright with slower zooms. If you get a super-precision focus screen (optimized for f/2.8), part of the problem goes away. However when using stop-down metering you'll generally have to apply some exposure compensation to get the exposure right.</p>

<p>There's a Canon museum website with information on their old lenses. The page for the EF 400mm f/2.8 mark I non-IS is</p>

<p><a href="http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/super_telephoto/ef_400_28l_usm.html">http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/super_telephoto/ef_400_28l_usm.html</a></p>

<p>I would suggest looking at the 85mm f/1.8. It's not an L but it is an excellent lens.</p>

<p>Also try different techniques. There aren't many stage events so dark they can't be handled with a 70-200/2.8.</p>

<p>I'm with Nathan, for my pictures anyway (largely theater), I need silent shooting more than I need 6 fps. Silent shooting is limited to 3 fps, but is much quieter.</p>

<p>Another new feature - new if coming from the 5D mk I, anyway - is auto ISO. It works pretty well and I use it a lot. I shoot in Av mode, I specify the aperture, give the camera a target minimum shutter speed and an ISO range, and it varies the ISO and shutter with the aperture I select and whatever exposure compensation I dial in. Basically lets me adapt quickly to changing light on stage, in bright light I'm shooting at ISO 400, when the scene gets dim it cranks up the ISO to 25,600 to keep my shutter speed in a usable range.</p>

<p>Speaking of exposure compensation, they widened the limits somewhat. 5D mk I allowed +/- 2 stops, I think now it's -5 to +3.</p>

<p>I've used both and, after some careful testing, decided the 5D3 has about a two stop advantage over the 5D1 at higher ISOs, when shooting RAW. It's not as much as I'd hoped for, but it's still quite worthwhile. The difference from 5D2 to 5D3 must be very small.</p>

<p>The autofocus is a whole new ballgame. Take the time to read the manual carefully. There are a lot of options.</p>

<p>LiveView is awesome. Video is really cool too. The sensor cleaner seems to work well. The rear display is much improved.</p>

<p>I've taken a lot of pictures in DFW and Denver International and nobody seemed to care or even notice. Mostly I've used a 24-105 and Sigma 12-24, maybe those aren't large enough to arouse suspicion.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>the top level of the parking garage is often a functional observation deck</p>

</blockquote>

<p> I've watched enough anime to know that, in Japan, the top level of the parking garage is used only for romantic liaisons and heartfelt confessions of love.</p>

<p>I'm surprised Tamron or Sigma hasn't released a stabilized 500mm f/5.6. Seems like it would be very popular with birders.</p>

<p>Sigma does have some crazy-long lenses, including a 300-800mm f/5.6 (for $8,000) and an 800mm f/5.6 (for $6,600). Neither is stabilized though.</p>

<p>In a quick test I found no evidence that this is a problem. Gear is a 5D mk III with CF card a SanDisk Extreme 32 Gb UDMA 60 Mb/s. I shot two 12 frame bursts at 6 fps, recording nothing but RAW to the CF card. In one test I had only the CF card in the camera, in the other test I also loaded a very old 1 Gb Toshiba SD card. It has no speed marked but it can't be very fast.</p>

<p>In both cases, clearing the buffer after the 12 frame burst took 5 seconds. This was measured by watching the card-in-use light.</p>

<p>To verify that the SD card is indeed slow, I shot another test in my usual mode, RAW to CF and JPEG to SD. This time the buffer filled at only 7 frames (shooting RAW+L kills the buffer performance, independent of card settings) and flushing the buffer took 12 seconds.</p>

<p>Final test, flipped it to JPEG to CF, RAW to SD. Again I got 7 frames before it halted, and it took 32 seconds to clear the buffer.</p>

<p>Extrapolating from 32 seconds to write 7 RAW to the SD card, writing 12 RAW would have taken about 55 seconds. But I saw writing 12 RAW to the CF card took only 5 seconds, whether or not the SD card was installed. So at this point I'm thinking this is less a problem than they are implying. I'd be happy to see evidence to the contrary.</p>

<p>John, if you're shooting RAW to the CF and JPEG to the SD, and you wanted neither card to get ahead of the other, the CF card would need to transfer information about five times faster than the SD, since the RAWs are about five times larger. But according to this article, using the SD card will throttle back the CF card. Which means this is a problem.</p>

<p>However, if I'm reading the article correctly, having an SD card in the camera throttles back the CF card *even if the SD card is not being used at all*. I have some old, very slow SD cards, so I can give this a test later. If that is accurate, I would count it as a design flaw, or at least as something that ought to be made clear in the documentation.</p>