chris_seldon_lady

<p>Thank you Arthur, even on behalf of my biz partner, since some of the pictures you see in the website are his. I'm happy you enjoyed Lucca, I have been living here for few years, but I already feel like this is my city. And it is really a great place for photography.<br>

Your suggestion makes sense, but I don't feel secure in removing the condenser, since I worry I could be in trouble if I have to go behind. I'll try to send an e-mail to Gerry Smith to have his advice.<br>

Of course, more suggestions from other members are always welcome.</p>

<p>A local store is selling an heavily-used Pradovit PC with Super-Colorplan for a cheap price. I know it uses an improved version of the same condenser I have in my Pradovit P600 IR which delivers 20% more light and better heat dissipation. These condenser are interchangeable, so I could buy the cheap PC, remove both the lens and the condenser and put them in my P600 IR, which I would prefer because it's in mint condition and has IR remote (not to mention that I don't need PC's serial interface).<br>

<br />Can I remove the condenser from the Pradovit PC and place it in my Pradovit P600 IR by myself? Or is that something that would require Leica service?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What happens if you are in manual focus point mode and have already selected a focus point. My understanding is that AI servo will then not overide the manual focus point you have selected.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As long as you are using manual focus, no one of the focus point is working: they can function as focus confirmation points, but can't focus. When you start focussing in AI servo, the central focus point will always be used as a starting position, regardless of the previous focus point and focus mode.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>BTW, at least on the 50D, if AF selection is automatic, AI servo starts with the center point but uses the others as well to continue tracking movement.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, all Canon DSLRs work in this way, at least since EOS 3 (more than 10 years ago...).</p>

<p>The 70-200/4 IS is the obvious choice, but I'd rather buy a 135/2: it's much faster, slightly cheaper, slightly lighter and easier to transport. It compensate the 24-105 long end very well, especially when crop is an option.<br>

For casual shooting, I usually pick my 24-105 and the rare Voigtlander APO-Lanthar 125/2.5, which IMHO is the best choice if money, time and the lack of AF are not issues.</p>

<p>The vivid look is trendy these days, exactly like Kodak Portra was trendy ten years ago. I think few "special EFX" versions can be included next to "pure and true" pictures and, if possible, to some postprocessing that expresses yourself and your personal interpretation more than the last minute trends. Anyway, as long as your Customers are looking for high-end services, you can't rely on the vogue merely.</p>

<p>Stan, I often use a similar lens, my Voigtlaender Apo-Lanthar 125/2.5, with good results both for wedding photography and for other events. IMO, you need a focusing screen optimised for manual focusing in order to reach consistent results. I use my Apo-Lanthar with 5D mark II with Eg-s focusing screen and the results are outstanding, with more than 95% of pictures in focus and unrivalled bokeh.</p>

<p>Hello Tracey, many different approach can make your post-wedding organization easier. I'll try to summarize mine, but only you can find the way your work needs.<br>

As other guys before me do, I sync time and date of my cameras before the wedding. I only shoot RAW and then use Aperture for asset management, selection and most of post-production. I always import as soon as I can all files in a project created ad hoc for the couple, within Aperture library, and I create a backup copy of my vault. Then I start the only phase I don't like in my work...<br>

I'm quite slow and accurate during the selection phase, maybe too much, but I prefers to give an all-printable group of pictures to my customers. I reached good results with a two-passage selection technique.</p>

<ol>

<li>In a first phase I reject all pictures that I find clearly unusable, both technically and aesthetically. The corresponding files are deleted from the library at the end of this phase, but I'll keep them in the backup hard disk.</li>

<li>In the second passage, I pick only the pictures that emerge form the mass, putting a rating of 2 or more stars in Aperture. In this phase, I can be more benevolent if the couple wants lots of pictures or, on the contrary, critical if my clients let the choice in my hands.</li>

</ol>

<p>In this way, I select just the pictures my work needs, but all other RAWs are still available, just "in case of". They are lost as long as I want, thanks to Aperture filters. Since then I can organize the selected pictures within finer subgroups, accordingly to customers expectations and album layout, still using Aperture rating by stars and colours.<br>

I hope this can help. Cheerio</p>

<p>Hi Robert,<br>

maybe I'm wrong, but it sounds just like another failing 50/1.4 AF module... Nevertheless I wouldn't send it for a check, unless it is still under guarantee: this is a cheap lens and the price for any AF repair would be relatively high and hardly worthwhile.</p>

<p>P 0%<br /> Av 85%<br /> Tv 10%<br /> M 5%<br>

I wonder if P mode works in my cameras, I never gave it a try.</p>

<p>Stacy, Album Epoca has some colourful covers, especially in their "Teen" collection (that is not targeted at wedding). Nevertheless, I don't see any nice spine nor canvas covers...<br>

http://www.albumepoca.com/en/covers/collection-baby-e-teen<br>

Epoca is one of my secondary supplier: they have some stylish covers, good craftmanship and good printing quality (if you avoid their terrible colour management). They definitely lacks skills in customer support and are not so reliable as I like.<br>

I hope this helps, cheers.</p>

<p>Christian</p>

<p>Thanks for sharing, an article among these confirmed a doubt I had: exposure levels are sometimes different in the latter Aperture release.</p>

<p>I was always loosing mine... I was used to buy the replacement part at the local Canon support (Cameraservice in Rome). It wasn't an expensive item, but it was only available upon order.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My prediction is that a camera company starting with P (Pentax or Panasonic) will offer ETTR before Leica. I find center-weighted (not spot!) metering completely useless, so camera manufacturers should just replace it with ETTR.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree, after all, Pentaxian TAv has been the biggest innovation in metering approaches in the last years. I agree about the center-weighted metering, too: it is an heritage of the first, older TTL systems and today sounds a little useless. At least, I never use it.<br>

Speaking of the implementation point of view, I read with much interest Alec, Eric and Steven suggestions. Unfortunately I'm more a photographer than a techie guy, and my contribution here is of no value.</p>

<p>It seems that not many are interested in this feature. I don't thing it could be complex nor expensive to develop. Joel suggest a way to put in practise an "expose to the right" metering mode, but IMO it could be done simpler, exactly like any other metering mode: implementing an algorithm based on sensor response curve and TTL metering.<br>

IMO, how useful this mode could be depends on your shooting needs and applications needed. I can't check the histogram for most of my pictures, as Stephen says, since I can't take a second shot. Knowing your gear can help, of course, but it remains more a guessing game than a science. I think that a camera should be able to take care of this things. After all, there is a reason why most of us use TTL and AF!</p>

<p>I recently read an article fom <em>Michael Reichmann:</em><br>

<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/leica-open-letter.shtml">An Open Letter to Leica</a><br>

He suggests new features and improvements for Leica M series. One of the proposed features caught my eye: the "expose to the right" metering mode. This is something I've been continuously lusting for, at least during the last year. It seems to me that, if your digital workflow is based on RAW, you can benefit from such a metering mode in 95% of your pictures. No more rough guessing about sensor reaction to the highlights and exposure compensation needed!<br>

Michael's article and following contribute from Mark Dubovoy let me hope that many photographers feel the same way.<br>

What do you thing about? Would you find this feature useful? Is this something we'll see in a future DSLR?</p>

<p>Thank you all for the contributions. It seems that my lens is just another 50/1.4 with AF issues. I'll (occasionally) use my 50/1.4 in my spare time, at least until the AF works (although with some extra care). Of course, I won't use anymore such an unreliable lens on assignment.<br>

Jan, you're right: it takes much more than anything I want pay to have the lens repaired. BTW, it was a good lens during the film era, but with digital sensors it became a flare machine, so I doubt its actual value could ever reach 240 euros!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I had the same problem with my 50/1.4. But Canon wanted 240 euro's to repair it. (Netherlands) , and something like 60 euro's to send it back as is. So i let them keep it."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Russel, my lens lives with the hood on and nothing can push on the front cap nor the extended barrel, nevertheless its focus don't work as it should.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I suspect that the reason for the high amount of AF failure in the 50 1.4 is folks rest the lens face down and that pushes the exteneded lens back into the barrel and messes with the AF mechanism."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've got my EF 50/1.4 USM in 2003. Since the first day it focuses normally, I can use its odd "mechanical full-time manual focusing" as described in the original handbook, that is:</p>

<ul>

<li>while in one shot mode (at the end of AF routine, with or without focus achieved/confirmation green light);</li>

<li>when the focus switch on the lens is set to manual mode.</li>

</ul>

<p>Unfortunately, if I move the focus ring in other modes, the focus jams: I can hear the AF motor spinning quietly as usual, but the lens don't focus for a while. Then, after I try focusing two/three times, everything returns ok.<br>

I'd like to know from other 50/1.4 owners if this behaviour can be considered normal, or if my lens is malfunctioning.<br>

Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>Christian</p>

<p>Harry, thank you for your feedback. Your point is interesting, since I never stressed so much the Metz before. Il''try if the Mecablitz gives an error message, when the user hit the maximum number of continuous flashes. Reading the manual, I thought it could be a firmware error. If so, I wonder if it is related to the last firmware upgrade to version 3.0. The flash never went in such error with the previous firmware version, but has always been used in less excited assignments .</p>

<p>Having used extensively both, I think Canon is much more user friendly, at least when you use on-flash commands. Nevertheless, since last firmware upgrade (3.0), Mecablitz 58 AF-1 supports on-camera adjustments for some of its features. Once you put the flash on 1D Mark III or more recent EOS cameras, you can choose among E-TTL and manual mode, for example, and adjust flash exposure compensation. You can't interact with some of the features, notably all those specific to Metz models (such as secondary flash on/off and output). If you need an in-depth look at the commands, I suggest to download both user manuals, available on the manufacturers websites.<br>

Cheerio,</p>

<p>Christian</p>

<p>Two weeks ago I successfully upgraded the firmware of one of my Mecablitz 58 AF-1 to the version 3.0. Since then I have shoot some dozens pictures with the flash on, just to check the user interface. Last sunday we have been working the full day covering a wedding and this has been my first use of the upgraded flash "on the field".<br /> <br /> During the ceremony and the reception I ran in serious troubles with the Mecablitz, seven times at least. The flash did not fire, it hang up with black screen and, when I tried to shoot, it made a sound similar to that I hear when it is zooming through different focal lengths. The Mecablitz didn't respond to any command via the camera, nor through the buttons. I had to overcome this halt by shutting the flash unit off. I was working in E-TTL mode, for the most part using my Mecablitz as a master unit in remote mode (slave units: Canon 420EX, 580EX II).<br /> Have you experienced something similar with this flash? Is this an issue related to the firmware upgrade, or just an inglorious equipment casualty?</p>

<p>Thank you,</p>

<p>Christian</p>

<p>I think both rumours are fake. By the way, a full frame sensor in a small M body seems just impossible to me, at least with current technologies. But who knows? after all, Leica should do something special with M series, after M8 flop. I think I would buy a full frame M9, if reliable and sorted in true Leica style, while I never considered M8 a serious option.</p>