paddler4

<p>I use an old Canon 430 EX II flash. It has worked fine for years. However, in recent months, it will sometimes malfunction when first turned on with freshly charged batteries. It will very rapidly discharge several times, perhaps 5, in quick succession. after that, it generally works fine. This only happens once in a while.<br /> <br /> This got me worrying yesterday when it happened on my 5DIII, and all of the buttons on the back of the camera stopped working. I took the flash off, turned the camera off for a short time, and it was fine when I restarted it. It seems as though there was a surge from the flash.<br /> <br /> To try to diagnose this, I have been swapping batteries and camera bodies. So far, it has not happened on my old body (50D), but it happens infrequently enough that I can't tell if that is coincidence. It takes a while to fully charge the batteries and try again, so it would be days to test it often. I know this is happening with Ansmann 2850 mA rechargeables, which I have been using for years. It has not happened today with Powerex 2700 mA rechargeables, but again, that could be coincidence.<br /> <br /> I called Canon, but they said there is no easy way of knowing what is what. The fault is sufficiently infequent that they might not see it if I sent the body and flash in. The rep suggested that most likely, the only way to know would be to have a second flash malfunction on the 5DIII or keep trying to see whether the old one fails on the 50D.<br /> <br /> I'm close to the point of buying another used flash just to figure this out, but I thought I would ask for opinions first. The only thing that seems clear to me is that the capacitor is discharging when it shouldn't. It seems to me that the fault could be with the flash, with the batteries (if they are over charging), or with the body. If it is the body, it is mystifying that this only happens when I first put the flash on. Once this happens once (or perhaps twice, I can't recall), the flash functions perfectly on that body.<br /> <br /> Any suggestions?<br /> <br /> Thanks<br /> <br /> Dan</p>

<p>For decent candids of kids, I would strongly recommend a TTL flash (one that is controlled automatically) that can be aimed to bounce, a cheap diffuser, and if the flash doesn't have its own, a bounce card (like a Demb Flip-It). The bounce flash will give you nice lighting that you can't get from direct flash and will free you from worrying about insufficient light. The bounce card directs just enough light forward to avoid shadows under the eyebrows and to put a little catch light in the eyes. People use all sorts of more complex lighting, but this is enough to get very good candids of kids.<br> <br />For a lens, you might want something a little longer and faster. When I shot with a crop sensor camera like yours, I did a lot of candids of kids with a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. With a crop, I found that I usually shot candids around f/4--it's very easy not to get everything you want in focus at apertures wider than that--but f/5.6 is on the slow side, and it is occasionally nice to open up wider than f/4 for narrower depth of field. However, if I had to pick, I would put flash first. Try it at the long end of the lens you have, as someone suggested, and see how that goes.</p>

<p>I used one for years with a crop-sensor camera and liked it. Concerning the focal length: the issue in my mind is tnot what angle of view is standard, but rather what angle of view you want. As Daniel D and Eric wrote, The standard walk-around lenses for crop sensor cameras are 17-50 or thereabouts. However, I didn't use my 28-75 as a standard walk-around lens. I used it for candids of people, and for that purpose, I rarely wanted anything wider than 28mm (45mm equivalent on a film camera, as Eric noted). The standard portrait range on a crop is 55-66 mm (90-105 mm equivalent), so the 28-75 was ideal for that. My experience was that the optics were good and the AF adequate, although not extremely fast. It's not on a par with the lenses of that length that cost several times as much, but then again, it doesn't cost several times as much.</p> <p>So I would go back to square one: what do you want it for? If you want a walk-around, it's too long on the short end. If you want it for candids or portraits, it could be a good choice.</p>

<p>White balance is a matter of color temperature, not exposure. As long has you have any reasonable exposure in all three color channels, you can set white balance.</p> <blockquote> <p>For metering purposes, what is the standard? I use my camera's internal reflective white meter. Do most folks meter off something 18% gray, such as a gray card?</p> </blockquote> <p>As usual, Sarah hit the nail on the head. Metering is an art. Metering off a neutral card insures that the camera will record that level of brightness as being at the midpoint of luminance. (Adams did all this in the day of black and white, so people would have simply said "middle gray" or something similar.) that is useful to know, but it is not always what you will want. For example, suppose you have a very wide dynamic range, such as people silhouetted against a sunset. Metering off a neutral gray card might not get you what you want, You have to decide whether to meter to expose the sky properly and have the people just black silhouettes, or to expose the people correctly and let the sky blow out. The point is that you often have to decide for yourself how you want the photo exposed. then pick the metering methods that will help you get there.</p> <p>When dynamic range is not an issue and I think a neutral exposure might work, I do use an old trick from the film days: switch to spot metering, meter off the palm of my hand, and open up one stop. The palm is roughly one stop lighter than neutral gray. If that exposure is off, I adjust from there. As a result, I carry a whiBal for white balance but carry nothing to help with exposure.</p>

<p>I think you are confusing two things, white balance and exposure. WB has nothing to do with exposure, assuming you have not under- or overexposed so badly that the detail is lost. Some gray cards are designed for exposure too, but others are not. I use a whiBal for white balance, and it is not intended to be precise for exposure.<br> <br />If you are shooting raw, the simplest is to take one shot in the particular lighting and adjust white balance in postprocessing. Setting a custom white balance will have no permanent effect on a raw file. If you are shooting jpeg, then set a custom white balance using the gray card. Follow the instructions in the manual for doing this. Then once the custom white balance is set, use the meter to get a proper exposure.</p> <p>I don't know what you mean by "reflective white meter." I have never heard the phrase. </p>

<p>A PS to JDM's note: anyone holding back on a 70-200 f/4 IS L (I use one and love it) should take note. The US-channel price is $1349, and I paid close to that, but B&H is indeed selling imported ones (gray market, guaranteed by B&H) for the $709 that JDM noted. A steal for a lens of this caliber.</p>

<p>In case you do decide to follow William's advice and consider a zoom (I would advise the same thing), I will comment on the three lenses in the posts so far, since I have owned all three and currently own two.</p> <p>I owned a Tamron 28-75 for years. You must have gotten a bad copy. It is a good lens and an excellent bargain. The main drawbacks are the lack of image stabilization and its old-fashioned AF system, which is not terribly fast (although I found generally fast enough for me) and does not permit full-time manual focusing. <br> <br />The 17-40 is a nice lens--I own one currently--but it seems to me that it would be a bad choice for the uses you suggest. It's just short for those uses. I can see occasionally going shorter than 50mm for those uses, but I would not want to use a lens that tops out at 40mm. I never pack that lens when I am going to shoot the kinds of things you mention. Instead, I pack a zoom that goes shorter than 50mm. The one I currently use is the 24-105. I don't know whether it is optically better than the Tamron, but it is a more convenient range, the AF is fast, it has IS, and it has full-time manual focusing. That is my default walk-around lens now.</p>

<p>+2 for Lightroom Enfuse. I no longer use anything else. If you want natural colors, exposure fusion is the way to go. google it.</p>

<p>Indoors, a shorter length is often handy. However, keep in mind that as you use a shorter lens, you will get closer, and perspective changes. On a crop sensor camera, once you get shorter than about 30 mm, you will get closer, and perspective will gradually become exaggerated--for example, noses will look bigger. The effects of moving forward and back are gradual, but they are real. The classic portrait length for a crop sensor camera is about 60mm, but people often go considerably shorter or longer.<br> <br />To see this, take the lens you rented. Set it at 17 mm, and walk forward until you have a face and shoulders framed. Take a shot. Then set it for 55mm, walk backwards until the framing is identical, and take another shot. Compare the two shots on the computer.</p> <p>When I used a crop sensor and had enough space to get far enough back, I used a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 most of the time. It's an inexpensive lens, so you lose some niceties, but it is optically very good, particularly on a crop sensor. (It's a tad soft in the corners, but the crop sensor lops the corners off.) </p>

<blockquote> <p>if the OP doesn't do too many >13" wide prints, it might be best to simply get a lower cost 13" unit and continue to send out the larger ones to a lab.</p> </blockquote> <p>That's what I do</p>

<blockquote> <p>A co-worker advised me against buying any EF-S at all, he said only buy L lenses or I'd regret it. Any truth to this at all?</p> </blockquote> <p>No</p> <blockquote> <p>The Canon [EF-S 15-85] didn't really convince me in terms of sharpness in the wide angle department,</p> </blockquote> <p>That surprises me. I shot with one for years, and it was an excellent lens, even at the short end.</p> <blockquote> <p>I don't use it [Tamron 17-50] a lot because I feel it's severely lacking in sharpness and image quality and because it has no IS.</p> </blockquote> <p>I haven't owned either, but I considered both when I shot crop sensor bodies, and every review I read said that the non-VC is sharper than the VC. Moreover, almost everything I read said that the 17-50 non-VC is a very sharp lens, and that was my experience the one time I borrowed one. The fact that you find both this and the EF-S 15-85 not to be sharp suggests that perhaps there is something in your technique that can be improved. It might help to post a few examples.</p> <blockquote> <p>how important is full format at the end of the day? I've always played with the thought of getting a full format camera and I have friends who claim it's a must. But I've ultimately come to the conclusion that for my purposes (birding, macro) it would be a waste of money and I always kinda figured a good lens was more important.</p> </blockquote> <p>For your purposes, I'd say that you're right, they are wrong. I own both formats. I don't do birding, but I do a lot of macro. If I did birding as well and intended to buy only one body, it would be a crop-sensor. FF is nicer for some things--better behavior in low-light, shallower DOF at maximum aperture (not an issue at all for macro or birding), and better detail if you print large. However, assuming a reasonably similar number of total pixels, the extra reach of the crop will be a big help in birding. For macro, the extra reach helps, and you get far more pixels on the subject at minimum working distance.</p>

<p>I'm pretty sure the XSi came out after the XTi, but it doesn't matter.<br> <br />I don't climb, but consideration #1 for me if I did would be weight. Upgrading your SLR equipment is almost certainly going to mean more weight, in some cases, a lot more weight. On the other hand, while I don't own a mirrorless camera and may have this wrong, my understanding is that many of them use only contrast-detection AF, which is not a good thing for action photos.</p> <p>I owned a Rebel for several years (an XTi), and I found that the biggest drawback for me was the controls, which are not as well designed and fast to use as in the more expensive models. I moved to a 50D with better lenses and then a 5D3. Each of these was a step up in weight, particularly when you factor in the weight of lenses. I hike with my 5D and a few lenses, but I don't think I'd want them if climbing.</p> <p>It's all tradeoffs, I think.</p>

<p>Another option would be a 430 EX-II, which would give you a more full-featured flash. However, with rechargeable batteries, that weighs about a pound (roughly 460 g).</p>

<p>Not only would I, I did. I bought a Canon refurb 24-105 from Adorama some time ago because the price was very good (and Adorama is one of the merchants I trust). The lens was spotless, looked exactly like new, and functioned fine. The only sign that it was a refurb was a tiny, faint mark on the hood. I'd do it again without any hesitation, and in fact, the next time I need a lens, I'll look to see what refurbs they are offering.</p>

<p>Who knew? Every time I have typed lense, I thought it was an accidental typo.</p> <p>If you want to be pedantic:</p> <p>Eminently, not Emminently<br /> Imminently, not Immenently.</p> <p>Then again, there is also immanently, but that is something completely different.</p>

<p>I've never owned anything with more resolution than my 5D mark III, so I have no hands-on experience. But I think it would be more helpful for the OP to focus on the less technical question, as Jeff did: how much practical difference would it make? I can't imagine getting any practical gain in portraiture from more MP, unless one is printing poster-sized. In the case of landscapes, would it much matter? My guess is that unless one prints VERY large, the answer is no. Am I missing something?</p>

<p>As someone who has both full frame and crop cameras and a 24-105, I have to agree with Jos, JDM, and Sarah. At least for my purposes, it is an ideal focal length range for a walk-around lens on a full frame camera but much too long on the short end for a crop sensor camera. The lens I used on my crop sensor camera for the same purpose was the EF-S 15-85. If you need something faster, there are a number of options, although with smaller zoom ranges--Canon, Tamron, and Sigma lenses that are 17-50 or 17-55.</p>

<blockquote> <p>My understanding is that evaluative metering <em><strong>is</strong></em> linked to the manually selected AF focus zone. Not sure if it links to the automatically selected zone if you let the camera decide, but I'm 99% sure it would. I'm not even sure there is any way to turn this off.</p> </blockquote> <p>Thanks, Bob. I knew that the 5D3 doesn't link spot metering to the AF point, but I had no idea that evaluative metering is linked to the AF point. I just confirmed it. Set my 5D3 to evaluative metering and Av mode and framed the edge of a window (looking out) in the center of the frame, so that one side was far brighter than the other. Then I moved a single AF point all the way to the dark side, took a shot, and moved it all the way to the bright side and took another. The camera roughly correctly exposed the half with the AF point both times, giving me a difference of 3 stops between the two exposures.</p>