craig_meddaugh

<p>I very rarely use mine... in fact... I think its been about three years since I used mine. It can be theoretically helpful under certain circumstances, but I've found in practice that those situations are rather rare, and given the dynamic range of recent cameras, those situations can usually be corrected in post in any case. </p>

<p>For example, a couple days ago, I was working with an elk being directly lit by the sun while the fore= and background was being lit by diffused light scattered from snow/sky/clouds. I could have used the filter to cut the EV on the elk by a stop and a half to get the proper effect but it was just easier to fix everything in post. </p>

<p>As for the filter itself, its effect is independent of aperture and the filter itself has causes a very small decrease in IQ. The primary issue is the loss of light. </p>

<p>William W,<br>

I hate parsing posts, but science is nothing more than a collection of opinions hopefully rooted in truth (too often this turns out not to be the case, but this is hardly the forum for that sort of thing).</p>

<p>I do apologize for my lack of nuance and you are completely correct in asserting that mixing capacity will increase the risk of some undesirable outcome. However, this increased risk is so low as to be absolutely nothing to worth worrying about as the cost of reducing the risk far outstrips the cost of a new flash multiplied by the very, very low probability that something unfortunate happens. </p>

<p>As we all agree, cells vary substantially as to their actual capacity. This is true out of the box and certainly true after more than a couple cycles of use, even when used together as a "set." Thus, if you or anyone else is truly concerned about the issue of mismatched cells, your only choice is to buy several charger/testers (even the fastest take about an hour for discharge/recharge cycle) to manage all of your batteries. This has to be done prior to every shoot and each battery will somehow need to be labeled with its actual capacity and grouped in such a way that you don't inadvertently mix things up when pulling new batteries from your vest. </p>

<p>This sounds like a lot of work to reduce an already tiny risk. </p>

<p>Just as a general note I actually played with some batteries today and the best I could do was to get a discharged low capacity battery slightly warm by pairing it with three fully charged higher capacity batteries. I'll experiment with different loads on the circuit tonight, to see what it takes to create problems. Also, just for grins, I'll also be testing some batteries to destruction to see what sort of current flow is necessary to get a cell to actually vent. </p>

<p>As a note, I tested a selection of my cells last night and I found a lot of cells that were well down from specs (a couple were no longer holding 1000 mAh... these will be the subjects for tonight's experiment) and a lot of cells that remained at spec. I've been mixing and matching these in multiple flash setups (typically with external high voltage packs) for years with no problems. Again, we mismatch cells, intentionally or not, all of the time and I haven't seen or heard very many horror stories. </p>

<p>William,<br>

That's not that big of call. Simple science determines the typical outcome of the situation in question. Now of course, all sorts of unusual things can happen in batteries (see my experience with a SLA that should have never have done what it did) that mess up the simple science and create a vast array of complicated, dangerous, but <strong>rare</strong> situations, but the vast majority of the time, nothing catastrophic can happen with the low capacity/voltage cells used in camera flashes.</p>

<p>Of course, something could happen, but as I pointed out, we always mismatch batteries, and even if you treat them as a set, all batteries age differently. Even if you use a high-end charger, there is still a possibility for internal crystal growth to occur that will short a battery, with <strong>rare</strong> but disastrous consequences. However, given what you would have to do (discharge and recharge batteries prior to <strong>every </strong>use) to avoid these rare situations, it is hardly worth worrying about. </p>

<p>As for the yacht experience, that is perfectly plausible, but only due to the wiring <strong>between </strong>the batteries. Given the power capacity of house batteries on a boat and the typically corroded or mis-wired connections between the batteries, inadvertent current flow due to the uneven charge state of multiple batteries can certainly cause a fire by overloading the wires or other electrical devices separating battery banks. I've never had a fire, but have come close (wires boiling off insulation is never a good thing!). However, given the vastly different current capacities in the two scenarios, this is an apples/oranges comparison. </p>

<p>If it doesn't stick in MF, the focus cams are fine so lube won't help you there. Usually I'd suspect the clutch on the motor, but this is a USM lens so I guess the motor is going bad. Actually, now that I think a bit more, this is a micro USM lens so the gear train could simply be in need of lubrication. However, this isn't something that you can get at easily and simply spraying some lubricant on the barrel is going to cause more problems than it solves. You'd have to tear down the lens a bit to get to the focus gear train which will be a PIA. </p>

<p>For what its worth, playing with it will damage it further (at least if the gear train is sticking) so you should send it in. </p>

<p>As for damaging the flash, Bob is correct in this case. The low voltage, limited stored energy, and the internal resistance of NiMH guarantees that there is no way one of the higher-capacity batteries could run enough current through the lower-capacity batteries to cause any adverse consequences. </p>

<p>As for the batteries, the smallest capacity battery determines the capacity of the entire system, so if you are trying to maximize flash life, this is the wrong way to go. Additionally, the lower-capacity batteries will be subjected to a greater net discharge which is not good for their lifespan.</p>

<p>Personally, I mix and match NiMH all the time with no problem. Also, just because a battery claims it has xxxx mAh doesn't mean this is actually the case. They have substantial variance (+-) 200 mAh out of the box and, after some use, I find that the max capacity has often dropped by 25-40%. So even if you "match" stated capacity, all of us mismatch actual capacity all of the time.</p>

<p>However batteries can be funny, science be damned. I once had a SLA (a modern one) blow up on me when I tried to start my truck. Should be impossible, but it happened anyway. Put a very nice dent in my hood and the cloud of gas was very impressive. </p>

<p>If you want to worry about batteries and cameras, worry about the lithium-ion cells that power the camera. People toss those about all of the time, but short the leads and the result is impressive!</p>

<p>Personally, I'd just get the combo if money is no object. I can't speak to the Oly or Nikkor from first-hand experience, but given what I have read/seen I cannot believe that the combo is going to require any optical sacrifices. In fact, dime to a dollar, the combo is going to be better in the real world at real apertures. However, I think there are some very important considerations other than optics that should heavily favor the 24 TS-E II. </p>

<p>For me, the key advantage with the 24 TS-E II is the ability to tilt/shift however you want. Older lenses (Canon and others) have substantial limitations on the geometric relationship between tilt/shift (some don't even offer tilt) which really limit creative possibilities and cause endless headaches in the field. I love my 45 TS-E, but having to take a screwdriver out to get the proper orientation of the tilt/shift axis is a a real PIA and oftentimes I get lazy and just throw a 2x extender on the 24 and bite the bullet. Sure it sucks to give up IQ and have to deal with a very small max aperture (makes focusing difficult) but if I cannot get the tilt/shift orientation I need, who cares about IQ. </p>

<p>Only real disadvantage to the 24 TS-E II is the price and the relatively odd filter size. </p>

 

<p>It will be fine, but if all you are going to bring is your nifty-fifty I'd recommend that you look for a compact camera instead. That will give you a lot more flexibility in framing your images as 50mm is going to get pretty boring pretty quickly and will likely not always fit your desires. That and it will be a lot lighter!</p>

<p>A quick summary: Unless you buy an adapter specifically designed for the G lenses, you will have no control over the aperture. These used to be very, very expensive but as John noted, there are now a selection of cheap Nikon G to Canon adapters that let you control the aperture. Some are probably better quality than others, but I am unaware of any preferred brands/vendors. </p>

<p>I don't bother with side-by-side comparison shots (a bit over obsessive in my mind and a PIA with wider lenses) but the images I get with the combo in the real world are excellent.</p>

<p>In the non-real world of lens testing, shooting wide open with the combo produces softer corners, more CA, and more vignetting. The effects get worse as you increase the tilt/shift (no surprises there) or as your subject distance decreases (again, no surprises there). If you shoot a 135 format sensor, need wider working apertures, AND are doing very close-in work, you might not be satisfied with the performance, but in Canon-land, if you need a ~35mm focal length TS lens, this is your only option. </p>

<p>At working apertures (say f/8 or smaller) the only difference is that there is a bit more CA with the combo, but nothing that cannot be easily fixed in post-processing. After some very basic PP, I typically cannot tell which images were taken with the naked lens and those with the combo without looking back at the exif files. </p>

<p>Unless they have withdrawn their initial results, who cares about their methodology. They reported a dynamic range over 14 EV for a camera with a 14 bit ADC. Even assuming that everything is absolutely perfect, the best dynamic range you can get with a 14 bit ADC is exactly 14 EV, no if ands or buts. </p>

<p>Maybe Nikon gamed the test, but if DxO wants to be taken seriously, they should look at their results prior to publishing them. </p>

<p>Canon still says the 1D4 is in production... maybe that will change, but until Canon says otherwise, who cares. </p>

<p>Why not just get the 35/1.4 and be done with it. It costs just a bit more than the Zeiss, but you get more light and AF. Simple solution to a stupid problem</p>

<p>Why do people even bother with the DxO rating? With a 14bit A/D converter, the maximum possible dynamic range is 14 EV. Anything higher is a mathematical impossibility, so god knows where they get these numbers. </p>

<p>I'd recommend the 100-400 whole-heartedly. The Tamron lacks stabilization, is pretty slow to focus, and isn't very good optically. The Sigma 150-500 has stabilization, is pretty fast to focus, but is optically inferior to the 100-400 (even cropping a 100-400 shot at 400mm to match the field of view of the Sigma at 500mm gives you a better image). I don't have any first hand experience with the other Sigma lens, but I haven't heard anything terribly good about it. </p>

<p>Unless you have a very nice, evenly lit arena, shooting in M is a bit silly as the camera is better at "guessing" the exposure than you are and you will find that the EV in most venues varies quite a bit across the playing field. </p>

<p>As for Av v. Tv... things get more complicated as it really comes down to your preference, your gear, and what the lighting is like. For example, if I am shooting with a very nice lens (say a 500/4), I don't care if I have to shoot wide-open and Tv is just fine. However, if I am shooting with a lesser lens, I may be willing to stop down a bit to gain some image quality at the price of shutter speed, in which case Av makes more sense. I guess to make a long story short, there is no really good answer here as it really depends on what you are comfortable with, what kind of gear you have, and what sorts of shots you want. However, unless your arena is evenly lit (and many are not), <strong>do not </strong> use M as you will be fighting exposure issues as you change perspective from midfield/court to the sidelines. </p>

<p>Personally, if you are invested in the Leica/Zeiss RF world, you will be much better biting the bullet and scoring one of the Leica digital RF cameras as you will be able to use all of your favorite lenses. As good as modern SLR lenses are, wide-angle lenses for SLRs must be retrofocus designs which affects the quality negatively. That being said, there are some great lenses, but all are bigger and not quite as good as their Leica/Zeiss counterparts. </p>

<p>Of course, in SLR world you have the option of using all of the wonderful TS-E lenses offered by Canon. While still retrofocus designs (at least the wider ones), they are all excellent lenses and offer better control over the plane of focus (and hence your depth of field) than you can get from a RF camera.</p>

<p>As for the camera, you will be completely satisfied. The AF is good enough for anything other than serious sports/wildlife shooting and while a bit slow, it is dead-on accurate. </p>

<p>Just as an exploratory note, using a non-reporting TC or by taping up the aperture communication pins, the 5Diii focuses pretty well (just as well as the 1D4) with the 100/400 + 1.4x TC. Performance was pretty reliable down to about 4EV and then got pretty sketchy after that. </p>

<p>I'll be testing more lenses in the future, but I can also report that with the 2x mkIII extender, f/8 AF does not work with either the 500/4 or the 600/4. I'll be investigating this matter further, but I suspect that it has to do with the onboard electronics of the 2x mkIII. Those using the 2x mkII may find that these combinations work. If you have a chance to test this, please do let me know. Thanks.</p>

<p>Craig </p>

<p>Personally, I wouldn't waste my money as collecting anything is a hit or miss affair if you are looking for profit. If you are going to collect, I would "invest" in Nikon as there is a much larger culture of collectors on the other side of the fence. That being said, most of these cameras will end up being worthless bricks (what happens when SD/CF is eventually discontinued... what about software to process the images... what happens when replacement batteries are no longer available?) that I doubt anyone will have any real interest in older digital cameras. </p>

<p>Film is film and I can load 135 in anything and appreciate the mechanical marvels of the past while still making great images. With digital, I get the same old images that I discarded those cameras for in the first place. </p>

<p>For what its worth, here is the service manual:<br>

<a href="http://lens-club.ru/public/files/pdfs/d40ad3cfdaf5587bd72f5d8429547c3d.pdf">http://lens-club.ru/public/files/pdfs/d40ad3cfdaf5587bd72f5d8429547c3d.pdf</a><br>

It looks like you just pry the sheet off (Nikon may have glued it down to prevent user disassembly, I really don't know) and then you can remove the front group. Personally, unless the "crud" is actually affecting your photographs, I wouldn't worry about it as off-axis light rays show all sorts of irrelevant stuff. But, since you have done this before, you should probably be OK. Just keep in mind that the lens might not be so well-collimated once you are done. </p>

<p>Sure its physically possible.... for someone competent in the machine shop and with electronics. Whether it will be worth all the effort is another question entirely. As others have pointed out, no matter how clever you are, you will be fighting the steep angle of the light rays, and as this is not something that the 5DII sensor has been designed to do, you will likely need to remove the AA and IR filters (have fun with that) and even then, performance may be a bit hit or miss, especially with the wider lenses. </p>

<p>Personally, the Leica lenses (which are only better because the can use normal designs instead of retro focus designs) aren't even that much better than the Canon equivalents, especially for film work as resolution is simply not that important when you are shooting 1080p. </p>

<p>As others have pointed out Err 02 is raised when there are problems with CF controller/bus/card. Either your card is not working properly or the CF controller/bus has a problem. Try a new card for starters and if you still get Err 02, the camera needs to go back for service. </p>

<p>In all honesty, if you are going to be shooting for pay you just need to bite the bullet and get the gear you need to be successful, not the gear that you can afford out of pocket right now. Of all the business you can get into, photography is one of the <strong>least</strong> expensive and <strong>least</strong> risky. 20K gets you in and if you bust out after a year, you can get at least 75% of that back. </p>

<p>Basically, look at this way. When you shoot for pay, your time is now money and you are responsible for getting the shots that the client wants. They don't care what you use to get the shots, but if you can't get them, then you aren't going to get a lot of business. This means that you need gear that doesn't fight you in terms of its limitations and that you have the right equipment to get the shots that your clients want. </p>

<p>Of course, given that you want to stick to natural light settings, I don't think that you have thought this through. Are you going to have to cancel gigs if the lighting is bad? What if you show up on site and the lighting isn't what has been promised? Do you simply say "sorry but this ain't my bag?" In the day and age of the internet, if you screw your clients early on, your reputation is now a google search away so if you only have 2K and haven't figured out flash yet, you might want to wait a bit before jumping in as any mistakes you make now will haunt you into the future. </p>

<p>FWIW: I'm not trying to be rude here, just to inject a dose of realism into the equation.</p>

<p>I've actually had a great bit of luck with AF adjust, but I do it right (at real focus distances and with repeated shots to account for the inherent variance in AF). </p>

<p>As for buying software to automate the process... I just don't think it would be worth it. I check calibration a couple times a year, and I only have one lens that consistently drifts. The rest are set-and-forget, so I don't see much time savings here. I suppose that if you have a vast lens library and obsess over this sort of thing, the Pro version of the software makes sense as you can spend all afternoon letting the computer calibrate everything for you. </p>

<p>Personally, I wouldn't waste my money especially as they don't offer any sort of trial... which always makes me suspicious. </p>

<p>Electronically speaking, something like this "could" occur, but certainly not due to "arcing" as the voltages are simply too low. In fact, the voltage and current are so low that any sort of damaging overload is exceedingly unlikely... as most all of us have noticed through practice. More to the point, simply cutting the camera off isn't good enough to avoid this sort of thing... you need to cut the camera off and wait a while for the electronics to discharge. All in all, a really silly thing to worry about. </p>

<p>So is there a non-zero chance of damage... sure. But then again there is a non-zero chance of a lens component failing on a dismount for innumerable other reasons. Personally, I wouldn't worry about this issue at all. You can either waste a lot of time switching things on and off (and miss shots when you reattach the lens and inevitably forget to switch things back on) <strong>or</strong> in the exceedingly rare instance of actual damage, you can simply pay to get things fixed. The rational choice is pretty easy to make in this situation. </p>

<p>They're good lenses, but very pricey and don't offer any real advantage over similarly expensive Canon lenses. If you are expecting any magic due to the Zeiss name, you will be very, very disappointed. <br>

Stick to Canon and save yourself some money and frustration. </p>