frank_ernens

You will need to change the focussing screen to the Ee-S one to get correct metering. The screen that comes with the

5D boosts brightness around f/2.8 to f/4, but that makes its response nonlinear. Since the camera's exposure meter

looks through the screen, the camera needs to know the shooting aperture in order to correct for the nonlinearity (and

that's why you need to tell the camera which screen it has in it).

<p>

As far as I can tell, the Ee-S screen needs no correction. I regularly use several adapted Zuikos at apertures from f/2 to

f/11. I have tested it for correct exposure, in spot and centre-weighted modes, at focal lengths from 24mm to 300mm and

up to f/16, and exposure is correct. I mean <i>correct</i>, to within 1/3 stop.

<p>

I don't know why some people claim not to get correct metering. Perhaps they're using evaluative metering, and the

results are merely <i>unexpected</i>. Presumably, evaluative metering uses focal length and distance as inputs, and

those aren't available. I don't know, and can't test, since I've never used evaluative metering on this camera, even with

the Canon lenses. I use a purely mechanical adaptor with no focus confirmation.

Geoff Francis wrote:

<p>

<i>Another trip to think about is the Great Alpine Road... Check the weather conditions before you travel...</i>

<p>

This road remains open during winter, but you must carry (and will probably need to use) snow chains. One-way chain hire

may be possible.

I've owned the Olympus 300mm f/4.5 lens for about a decade and used it for larger birds and other wildlife.

I would agree the handling is not ideal, especially for passerine birds. The lens lacks internal focus, which means the

barrel gets longer as you focus, altering the centre of gravity. As you focus, you have to keep changing your grip.

There's a big solid tripod ring, which is another advantage over an ordinary zoom. Make sure the lens comes with that. It

looks like an L-shaped protrusion with a knob.

There's also no special glass (variously called UD, ED, SD, APO glass by manufacturers), which means higher

chromatic aberration. The lateral chromatic aberration is not too bad and probably correctible in Photoshop; the axial has

been more trouble. You only see either of them in high contrast edges - like branches behind a bird with bright sky.

According to posters above, the other lenses you're considering also have this problem.

Apart from the CA, the Zuiko is likely to have better image quality than the other lenses mentioned. Its colour is

excellent - equal to or better than the expensive Canon 300mm f/4 L. It's behind the Canon in sharpness.

You can get adaptors for Canon EOS. To get correct metering with the Canon 5D you need to change the focussing

screen, which you can't do on the cheapest bodies. Of course, you'll be shooting wide open or close to it most of the

time so that won't matter much.

There is a matched Zuiko 1.4x adaptor to make 420mm.

typo in my previous post - last line "x sqrt (2)" should be "x sqrt (2)". Also, I could have made explicit that "four times as

much light" is "four times as long".

No-one has mentioned the quality of the coatings yet. The colour and contrast and even maybe the flare resistance is likely

to be much better on the zooms you already have.

Sorry, I didn't think to look for the EXIF, since as far as I knew photo.net always used to strip it. Since it's not up around f/22, I

agree this isn't diffraction.

As penance for the bluntness of my first post, I'll try to give a simple and correct explanation of f-numbers. I'll let others do ISO

and explain why using a polariser as an improvised ND is a bad idea in this case.

The f in f-number is the focal length, and the "/" is division. (It's always written in italic in books, which would have been a hint to

you that it was just algebra if you'd been learning from a book, but no-one bothers on the net.)

The aperture on a 100mm f/2 lens is 50mm, and you can measure it with a ruler. (That's a bit less than 2 inches for you guys in

the US.) When you set that lens to f/5.6, the aperture is 18mm.

To get the same amount of light with a long lens as with a short lens, you need a larger aperture, because the lens is looking at

a smaller angle in front of the camera. How much bigger? You get the same amount of light from both lenses when each is set to

f/5.6: for a 100mm lens that's an aperture of 18mm and for a 300mm lens that's 56mm.

Every time you multiply the f-number by the square root of 2, you get half the light, so have to expose twice as long. The square

root of 2 is approximately 1.4, so the progression is ..., 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, ... .

Hence, f/12 would not require "slightly" longer exposure than f/6, but two stops ( 6 x sqrt (2) + sqrt (2) = 6 x 2 = 12 ) or four times

as much light.

Masonite doesn't like damp - it warps.

I got a large print done at a lab and bonded to some kind of very light foam. There's no frame, and a white border included in the

print. I've occasionally seen this used in exhibitions. There was a slight outgassing smell when it's new, though, and for that

reason I wouldn't use this method again.

Unstructured learning from an unreliable source like the internet obviously isn't working for you, so perhaps you should try a

book.

There's no kind way to say this: most of what Sherle said is wrong.

Your first image is probably stopped down so far you got diffraction.

Sydney is 990km by road, not all of it good road. Flights take 1h 40min. Something you may not have realized about

Australia is that it is highly urbanised. Most of us live in the major cities of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane/Gold Coast and

Perth and most of the rest in the smaller cities. Therefore there is not good public transport in rural areas.

<p>

You're coming to the right state to see koalas. There has been a very successful conservation program to reestablish

them here, such that they are now being exported to South Australia. There are large numbers of koalas on Phillip

Island, and the better bus tours to see the Penguin Parade (as suggested by Andrew above) should stop to see them.

Obviously they are up trees - it's not a petting exhibit like that at Sydney's Taronga Zoo.

<p>

Kangaroos don't roam freely in the cities. You will see them in National Parks, generally at dusk in open grassy areas. In

some places they are tame. I think Zumsteins campground in <a href="http://www.visithallsgap.com.au">the Grampians</a>

used to be one of those places.

SLR cameras differ. The Canon 5D is a lot better than my old Olympus OM-3 in this regard. I simply had to use contacts

with that camera.

If you were to stick with film, have you considered a 2 1/4" SLR with waist-level viewer, in particular a Hasselblad?

Either of these options would be cheaper and better than an M8.

Edward, I took some photos on the beach here in Melbourne last week. It is certainly not illegal. As for copyright, you

are supposed to get a permit for "commercial" shooting in National Parks. That surely excludes tourists.

The two standard drives people take overseas visitors on are the Great Ocean Road to Port Fairy (doable in a day, but

best for a weekend) and the Yarra Valley to Healesville. There's a Sanctuary (really a zoo, now) at Healesville where

you can see all the standard Australian animals. Further along that same road you pass through

some spectacular mountain ash forests.

A bit further afield is the High Country to the NE and the Mallee to the NW. Don't think of attempting these in less than 3

or 4 days if you are not used to driving the distances. The High Country is "Man from Snowy River" country, after

Australia's national poem. The Mallee is a spectacular but isolated semi-arid area - do not attempt this without a local

along.

There is plenty of wildlife within the suburbs. Possums are in most streets and gardens, I get buzzed every evening by the cockatoos, and

there's a mob of roos down the road. You should see something if you go camping and walking in any of the National Parks.

One more comment: foreign tourists without the high driving skills required for some of these roads are an increasing menace. Please

remember we drive on the left (yes, I'm serious, I've seen people not on a mountain road) and please use the marked slow vehicle pullover

areas on the two roads I mentioned - the local behind you can probably drive it much, much faster than you.

Flash has the advantage of blasting away problematic lighting such as fluorescents, but you'll have to be careful to avoid

dark backgrounds or decide to like them.

If the room is lit by halogen downlights, those have a true colour temperature and are easier to correct for.

If you do decide on available light, either shoot raw or make sure beforehand you're happy with the camera's white balance

correction for JPEGs. The compact fluoros, which are replacing incandescent bulbs here in Australia, can be very tricky to

correct for in Photoshop - the canned corrections don't always work.

Obviously a thumping great shoe-mount flash makes bounce easier, and a second thumping great flash off camera can fix it when bounce

isn't possible. I bet if you get a really interesting shot the pro missed because he coudn't predict a stranger's behaviour no-one is going to

quibble about black backgrounds.

Mark, I'm not talking about the voltage on the trigger circuit. The OP already tested that...

It's the other 4 contacts that are of concern. I see no measurements of them on your linked page.

Josh, I'm glad it was "only" the card.

There indeed doesn't seem to be much on the net about hot shoes, unless you count a PDF on offer from ISO for SFR

48, so here's the detail I left out about the Canon one. The metal runners that the shoe slides into are the earth [uS:ground] (i..e.,

tied to the camera body back when those were bare metal) and the larger round contact is the other pole. I don't know

whether this is -ve or +ve earth for Canon flashes. On many other brands this centre contact is key-shaped. The flash is fired by the

camera closing the circuit between the centre contact and the runners. To "tape" the contacts on a Canon camera, cover the four smaller

contacts with black insulation [uS: electrical] tape, making sure to keep it clear of the runners and to cut a hole for the centre

contact. This should be safe for your Nikon flash in manual mode, since it is recent and unlikely to use high voltage. You know the polarity

is correct, since it worked before.

Canon flashes probably send 5.5V through these 4 contacts, because EOS was a digital system from the start. Nikon

could be much higher, since their system predates digital. That's why you might fry a Canon camera with a Nikon flash.

It may also be that contact is never made without taping - I don't have a Nikon flash to try.

<i>Canon 50mm f/1.8 prime lens . . . I saw lots of other primes lens, this one was 99 euros and people say its a must have</i>

<p>

They do, again and again and again, for no good reason. This lens is a cheap way to take the kind of posed head-and-

shoulders portrait with blurred background that went out of fashion in the 1960s. You may have noticed most people want

pictures of themselves and their friends <i>doing something</i>; for that, a moderate wide with modest aperture is ideal -

and that's what Canon made sure they included in your kit lens. That's also why point-and-shoots include that focal length and

sometimes no other.

<p>

Of course many professionals and amateurs have good reasons for shooting this type of portrait, and do so using fast, short

telephoto lenses, generally on larger cameras. Those who use a crop camera like yours would probably choose the 50mm f/1.4

for this; it has better "bokeh" and (as you seem to have noticed) is better built.

<p>

The 10-22 is not a "prime" but a zoom. A "prime" is, within my memory, a lens of normal focal length (30mm on your camera,

50mm on full frame). More recently "prime" has become a synonym for the more correct "fixed focal length lens", which is what

Canon call them.

<p>

Get a waterproof "topload" bag.

Alan Peed wrote:

<p>

<i>3. Format the 2nd picture card in the camera 3 times sequentially. If you can do the FORMAT 3 times, without any

sign of any problems, and the FORMAT response looks OK, thats good confirmation that the card component is

functioning OK, as far as camera is concerned.</i>

<p>

No, it isn't. Formatting just writes to a few blocks at the start of the card. You'd need to write and read back every block

on the card, which would take several minutes at least.

<p>

My money would indeed be on the flash. The size and position of the centre contact is an ISO standard, but, after that,

all bets are off. You could easily have damaged not only the card but the camera. If you're going to use a dedicated flash

of the wrong brand, <i>always</i> tape all the contacts except the centre one.

You can easily verify with a folded piece of paper and a rubber band that this lens is actually very resistant to vignetting

with filters.

I put a front-threaded B+W UV filter on it permanently to complete the weather sealing and (gasp!) stack a B+W thin

Kaeseman on top with no trouble.

Sorry, I read Dan Ferrell's post carelessly - he did in fact recommend a more suitable lens. I still think you shouldn't buy

a tele yet.

Stuart, unless you have a specific photographic problem to solve another lens will just sit in the cupboard reproaching

you for not being good enough to need it yet. You can get lots of different kinds of lenses, each designed to solve a

particular kind of problem, but you need to have run across the problem before you know what it is. The kit lens you have

is actually ideal for you. When I started in photography, a lens like that was high-tech and expensive and only a fortunate

few beginners like me could afford one.

I find the advice given above (and continually on this site) to get a 50mm f/1.8 particularly inappropriate for an 18 year

old boy from an outdoorsy country like South Africa. I'm guessing you don't spend Saturdays with your friends trying on

makeup and hairstyles and taking pictures of each other. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

Also mentioned was a 70-200 telephoto zoom. But again, your needs in SA with the game parks and surfing etc. are not

the same as those of someone from a city in the US or Europe. I made the mistake of getting one of these when I

started out (I'm in Australia).

I should add that I am guessing here that "EOS Utility" is somehow screwing things up

for Adobe's software (which works for the 5D - I use it), and that after using Jon's

method to take control away from it you might need to reboot.

If "EOS Utility" is really badly behaved you might need to do more to disable it - ask again here.

Jon's answer is the right one. This is exactly the problem people have been having

with the 5D and Canon's software on Leopard (OS X 10.5, as shipped with any

recent Mac).

<p>

The advice top get a card reader may be appropriate for PC users, but not for the

typical amateur photographer using a Mac, since OS X comes with software

("Image Capture", as already mentioned) to upload images from Canon cameras and

many or most of the card readers around are not up to the quality and reliability

standards expected by Mac users. Yes, uploading via a USB cable slower, but you can leave it

and go cook

dinner.

<p>

You should get it working with the USB port. If it is faulty, one probable cause would

be a cracked circuit board. You want to track that down now, not after the warranty

expires.

<p>

Puppy Face wrote:

<p>

<i>you need to practice regular disk maintenance--rebuild permissions, rebuild

directory with Disk Warrior, toss corrupt preferences, etc.--or you've cruising for

bruising.</i>

<p>

None of this is necessary, especially "rebuild permissions".

I'm guessing from your gallery that you're a big fan of Charlie Waite. You'll instantly make

the lens you have wider by not cropping into a square. The two filters you can't emulate in

Photoshop are the polariser and the ND. To put it bluntly you need to be somewhere

sunny to really need a polariser, and if you ever go to such a place by all means get one.

You simply don't need a ND since you don't appear to believe in shallow depth of field.

But perhaps the biggest advice would be to break out of that one style, which is not yours

but his. Start by attending a few exhibitions around London, in all the visual arts. Adams

is indeed an artist to see (it happens I first saw his prints in London), but I suspect his

work won't speak to you as it does to an American or Australian.

The name of what you want to ask for is a "lens element". Camera repairers tend to have

them lying around (because, like cars, the parts that fail tend to be the same on every lens

of the same model). They might scrounge up a really impressive big one for you that you

can't find in a pawn shop as Lex suggests, if that's what you want.

Be aware that, until very recently, most lens elements had lead in them, and you will need

to dispose of them as hazardous waste when you have finished. A few very old ones

(1960s-1970s) were even radioactive; those tend to look yellow by now.