paul_nicol

A product of digital cameras. It is probably caused by the brightness of the birds feathers against the slightly out of focus but darker branches in the foreground (as you said the blur). Shot with another lens with the exact same lighting conditions and f-stop may not necessarily correct it. I have the 100-400, 70-300, 75-300, and the 100-300 lenses (to lazy to sell when I change up) and I am sure I can induce the same result or some variation of it given similar shooting conditions with them all. Stopping down a bit more may have improved it but ultimately you just want to get a cleaner shot without the junk in the way if that is at all possible.

 

My two cents...

Why not take 3 pictures (100,200,400 iso) of the same thing then enlarge all pictures to 20 * 30 in photoshop and print a 8 * 11 section of each one. That would end any discussion as to what you are trying to figure out.

 

Worth a try?

Try http://www.ptgui.com/

 

Of the 3 or 4 programs that I have tried this one has been the easiest to use with outstanding results.

you could try

 

http://www.pbase.com/copperhill/image/42963246

 

or one of their other kits...

I would just call Canon Canada and see what their policy is. They did not charge me for the focus repair (I live in Newfoundland). As for test shopping you could go through 4 or 5 lenses till you find one that will work as the problem could be the camera or a combination of both. I read too much of that in these forums and do not agree with the practice. To my mind you would serve yourself better to send the gear to Canon. At least then you can be sure that everything is working well. Again my two cents...

I had the 50 1.8 for years with my Elan II. Never really happy with it as focus was always hit and miss. Wrote it off to a cheap lens. Bought a 10D and tried it on that. Worse than before (front focus every time and easy to see when pixel-peeping). Then bought the 135SF. Same problem. Seeing I wanted to 135 to work and it was under warranty I sent it back to Canon along with the 50 1.8 and the 10D. (I have several other lenses that give me no apparent problem). Got it back and was quite happy with the results, no focusing problems period. I guess it?s time for you to send it to canon for a look. My two cents.

Adobe RGB is bland looking initially and does require Photoshop to bring out the colors as you have found. If you want to do it in camera then set to sRGB with the saturation to maximum and possibly also set the contrast to +1. If you shoot raw with large jpg then you get the best of both worlds in that you can extract the jpg?s for regular viewing but when you find a picture that you really want to work on then you can go back to the raw capture and reset to parameters to what you want to use. I shoot with a 10d but I would think you can set the parameters to what ever you would want to. My take on it, hope it is of some use.

John,

 

I had a similar problem with my 10d and my 50 1.8 and 135 2.8. I had the 50 for several years used with my 鬡n and when I initially tried it on the 10d (purchased over a year ago) it did not work too well so I wrote it off to a cheap lens and stored it. A few months ago I bought the 135 and had the same problems as with the 50 with regard to focusing, never quite accurate with a tendency to back focus when some distance from subject or front focus when much closer. One out of three would be ok. I had no apparent problem with my other 6 lenses, all usm focusing or 3rd party (with exception to the 30 f2 I think the problem could have been masked by f-stop, 3.5 and greater). I sent the 50,135, and 10d camera to Canon to check the focusing. The camera and lenses came back all working properly. I think that Canon worked on the body more so than the lenses. What ever they did it worked and now I am using both lenses with confidence. Could be something to think about.

You are right about outdoors, in that it is not as good as indoors but on the rare occasions that a flash doesn't fire due to lack of line of sight you will just have to come up with a "work around". Reposition the flash or, as I have done on a couple of occasions, put tinfoil over a piece cardboard laid just out of frame to "re-direct" the signal to the flash. Works fine.

 

There are limitations to this system but if you are only casually using it then it's fine. If I was making a living doing on location type jobs then it would probably be radio transmitters and mono-lights. For a small, very portable and versatile system this is still a very good setup.

"It makes for an excellent portable studio with a couple of 550s and a couple of umbrellas or boxes."

 

Exactly what I have been doing for the past 4 years, first with my élan II, and now my 10d. Works great and I will often just leave the ste-2 on the camera and carry a flash in my other hand positioning it as needed. I think you will still buy a ste-2 no matter how many flash you have as it frees up an extra flash and it makes the camera so much easier to manage (weight wise as said above). I did a wedding a couple of years ago where I setup 2 550's on stands. Worked great for large group shots (with the help of medium slow shutter speeds).

 

You can also mix and match 420's on auto and 550's on manual plus use ratio when using a ste-2. I wanted a small 4 light kit but, at the time, did not want to spend the money for 4 550's so bought 2 420's to go with the 2 550's I already had. I tried to do portraits with small umbrellas on 2 flash but could not set up the hair light and back light to work correctly in auto. Being that the 420's are fully auto, and I did not need the same amount of light for the hair light and back light, I used the two 550's (in manual) for the back lighting and set them to a much lower power setting. This worked great I was able to achieve the effect that I wanted, left / right ratio plus the right amount of back lighting. (You do have to set up the manual lights independently of the rest and then use FEL to set the auto lights when actually taking the picture. (the manual flash will not fire when using FEL so you will get the correct exposure without the back lights throwing it off). This also works great with a 3 flash setup (2 420 and a 550)

 

What I am saying is, get the ste-2. You will not go wrong.

 

My two cents.

Contrary to what a lot of people do here, I set my 10d to its sharpest setting, add lots of contrast and + 1 on the saturation and then shoot raw. The reason is I can get the imbedded jpegs a lot faster than converting the raws and I find that when I am finished processing raw pictures they are closer to this setting than not. It makes for fast turn around on proofs and 4*6s. To my eye they print well as long as the exposure is right. When I want to fuss with a particular shot (white balance, contrast, etc.), then I can convert the raw image using what ever settings I feel are needed to achieve the best shot that I can produce.

 

I suppose you will have to try out different workflow methods and see what suits you the most.

Something else to try,, I have a 9000 (similar unit) and keep the print quality on #1 (best) for everything I print. I had banding on different occasions but it all ended when I made the print quality change. Hope this is of some use to you.

Before you give up on the camera, take the lens off (or change it with another it you have one) and see if the camera still drains the battery. I had a faulty lens that would drain my Elan II�s battery within 4 days.

Gently�

I don't think you will find a compatibility problem with Tamron macro. A couple of suggestions to try would be;

 

A. (with the auto-focus engaged), move the focus manually and possibly help a dirty or oily connection within the focus motor "clear itself".

 

B. Use a pencil eraser on the lens contacts just in case there is a bit of dirt on one of them.

 

Then try the auto-focus,, if that doesn't work, I�d say it's broke. I have a 5+ year old 90mm macro and it works perfect with the 10D as yours should. Good Luck.

I have an ste2, 2 550�s and a 420. I have also tried and sent back the sigma. The sigma worked ok but was a bit inconsistent in its exposure from setting to setting. The canon system is bang on. I like the 420 + ste2 for a single light carry around, and use the 550�s when I need more lights or more control. Yes to your AF question.

I have both. Used the ATX for 5 or more years and it served me well. You will have to learn good technique as all long lenses demand it. As for the 100-400 well it�s just a much more versatile lens being a zoom and IS. At 400 it is better than the ATX but that doesn�t make the ATX bad lens, it�s just that the Canon is better. At 5 times the price the Canon should be. If you are in a pinch for money I am sure the ATX will do you good.

 

Some comparative notes.

 

Canon has faster auto focus and more precise than the ATX.

Canon focuses closer by about 3 feet.

Canon is 3 times heavier than the ATX, very noticeable.

ATX is (as said above) 5 times cheaper.

Image quality goes to the Canon but (also said above) ATX is not a dog either.

 

Make sure the ATX is a newer model. I tried 2 with the first (older and used) not working on my elan II. The second one (new) was �chipped� for newer cameras and worked well.

err,, ah when I say brackets I mean brackets on umbrella stands.

I'm sorry, key(main) and fill was what was meant. I use either one as main or fill and adjust the ratio on the ste2. I have the 550 as A and the 420 as B and keep them left (A) and right (B) sides of the camera for the most part. This coincides with the ste2. I have the flash mounted on brackets with the front of the flash bodies facing each other.

I use an ste2 on camera, 550 and 420 as main and key and a 550 set to manual for hair light (or background light when needed). You set the manual light independently of the others for hair then use (FEL) with the other flash. Doing it this way, the manual flash will not register when you pre-flash (fel) the image you are shooting. The manually set 550 will go off when you take the shot. Works for me. I had trouble mixing some of my older optically triggered flashes (did not work) so gave up on that approach.

Another 100-400 chiming in,, mine is the same way. Normal.

When the viewfinder is exposed to extra light the camera meter will alter the camera settings (f-stop and or aperture) prior to an exposure. If you have the camera in manual then it won't matter. When you take the picture the mirror covers the viewfinder so any light coming into the viewfinder will not make it any farther than the mirror blocking the way during exposure (in theory). If you want to see the effects then put your camera on a tripod with the viewfinder facing a strong light source. Looking at the lcd screen, (I am assuming you have a more recent 35mm camera), you will see the metering change when passing your hand in front of the viewfinder when in auto exposure mode. Hope this makes some sense.

I am using a 10d, 100-400 and a tamron 1.4 and it autofocuses almost as good as without the 1.4. I had the camera for 8 months before I tried it as I was certian it would not work due to previous tries on my ElanII. I was wrong. Your problem is probably the use of the Canon converter (I am assuming that that is what you have) as noted above by Jim.

Thank you Gents,, I went with the obvious consensus that the parallel port was the problem so on my way home from work I picked up a usb2 card. Installed and tested. The same picture printed in just over 2 minutes @ 1440. Much Better!

I have just bought a 2200 Epson to use along side my canon 9000

(archival reasons). My problem is, it�s incredibly slow. Over 8

minutes for a 4*6 @ 1440. I haven�t tried 2880 as I would think I

would fall asleep waiting. I am using a HP Pentium 3 - 1 gig machine

with the 9000 in a USB port and the Epson in the parallel port.

Before I head out to buy another hub for the printers I thought I

would pose the question of whether I am even on the right track with

this thinking it�s the parallel port or am I missing something else.

Any comments would be appreciated. (I have checked by a search but

found nothing on this particular problem)