jim_krupnik

May 21, 2010

Don't sweat it. Your gear can cover the action very well. Do you have flash (shoe mount) available? If so, use it the best you can. You will be fine! The bottom line is that the event is coming up soon. There is little time to buy more gear, and learn new techniques. Can a pro, or semi-pro deliver more with your gear and a few more accessories? No doubt about it. Is this the time for you to learn lots of new stuff? Hell no.

Just go there and shoot. Use higher ISO settings when you need to, and back the ISO down when appropriate. Do not go crazy trying new ideas now, as they are likely to cause brain freeze at the worst possible moment, and the time machine is still on the drawing board.

For now, trust your camera, and shoot. That will at least get you honorable mention in the end. There will be more graduations, marriages, and celebrations in the future. As soon as this event is in the can, then it is time to bump your photo game to a new level. Trust me. Do not do the "cram-study" thing right before the photo-test, and do not fail to take advantage of the lull between high importance moments to learn more, and buy more tools.

No kidding, go with what you know for the most part at this late date. Add a bit here and there, but if you change too much of your game this late, you are likely to crash and burn at show time. You don't happen to live near NJ, do you? I wouldn't mind giving you a hands on pre-game drill for fun and a cup of coffee if you do, but barring an available local tutor, do not push yourself too far to learn too much in a short time. At show time, it is very difficult to remain focused on pure photography technique. In reality, the things you have already done before with a camera most always trump the things you would like to try doing. Any mental deliberation between the two normally results in failure, as the moment has passed before the choice was ever made.

Just enjoy the graduation with the gear and techniques you already own, and know that you will have a great time, and deliver better pics than most parents have had the technology to capture for well over 100 years. You want to raise the bar? Start training, as there will always be another important shoot down the road for as long as you live...

May 21, 2010

The J hood only costs about $50. Just suck it up, and buy it. The EF-s 17-55 is currently a $1,000+ lens. In fact, my 5 year old lens is worth more on the used market than I paid for it new. It is also very true that you can use it without a hood at all, but what is the point of taking "self denial" to ever greater heights of silliness?

Not only does the factory hood deliver the best IQ in a passive manner, no matter what the reality of your lighting might be at shot time, but it is the absolute best protection for your camera and lens kit possible within reason. Over nearly 5 years, I have never used my 17-55 (or most any other lens) without the hood in place. Canon factory hoods have saved my gear from everything from casual bumps to poking fingers to gravity kisses, time, and time again over the years. Of course, people who refuse to use a hood as a mandatory accessory would have no clue about the benefits offered by a fine lens hood.

Pardon my intensity here, but anyone who suggests otherwise is either a fool, or has a budget so large that they don't even care. There is no excuse for refusing to spend an additional $50 on a factory hood after spending over a grand on the lens in the first place, unless you are seriously into self flagellation. That said, there is no excuse to not use the hood either. The only times I remove a hood are when I'm shooting macro subjects. Even then, it does not apply to the EF-s 17-55 f/2,8 IS lens. NEVER leave the hood behind!

If anyone cares to offer a different perspective, go for it. Don't just tell me that you have managed to get along without the lens hood, as some fools have survived jumping out of an airplane without a parachute in the past. Explain the benefits of purchasing and using a better than $1,000 lens, and refusing to buy or use the dirt cheap hood made for it. Is it a matter of depriving Canon of a few extra Dollars, because they have the nerve to ask for extra money beyond the initial lens price?

That's not very bright, if it is the reason. The cost of the lens, as well as the additional cost of the hood for those smart enough to buy one are clearly indicated in all retail market forums. Why should someone who will never use a hood pay the additional cost of including it in the package? They really shouldn't have to pay a dime extra, while people who are smart enough to recognize the utility offered by a hood should be prepared to buy it as a matter of course. After all, they are cheap. They take serious abuse for years without complaint, and they keep IQ at the highest level. They are a bargain.....

As a bonus, people who know better are less likely to give you strange looks for using naked lenses in the real world....

Here is my 17-55 with it's factory hood condom. The battery is there for size perspective. Don't ever buy the lens without one, and don't ever leave it home. Again, if you disagree, tell me why. Tell everyone why....<img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4012/4622751913_e5b0b0658e.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" />

May 20, 2010

I think you will be fine, Erwin. However, I make a point of promoting hood use for more than just the obvious IQ reasons. The factory hood has saved my gear from damage countless times over the years. I use them as a matter of course for all but macro lenses pressed into macro duty. It's your call, but they really do bounce and absorb shock far better than any filter...

May 20, 2010

That's great news, Mary. Most of the issues I have encountered that required Canon service over the years have been my own fault from the get-go (I have had more bad camera encounters with gravity than I care to recall), but it has been my experience that if the service crew is up to speed about the details of the issue at hand, they do a fantastic job of stomping the bug, as well as tweaking the gear to spec in a general sense.

May 20, 2010

Well, if the manner of zooming is an issue, the 70-300 DO IS is ideal... The lens body has a standard function zoom ring for those who prefer it, while the lens hood makes for a perfectly smooth and accurate "push-pull" zoom control with zero slop between zooming directions. I am used the the former control on most of my zooms, but I must say that using the hood as a push-pull zoom control on the 70-300 DO lens is a real eye opener for keeping your framing where you want it while the camera AF does it's job in servo mode. Honestly, it is so easy that it seems as though the lens zooms to match your thoughts without effort.

May 20, 2010

Since someone mentioned DSLR's and water, here is a thought. It certainly isn't for diving (I'm a bit adventurous, but not totally nuts), but for pool, boat, and surf use with any DSLR sporting a weather sealed lens, a couple rubber bands and a super thin office sized clear trash bag has served me for better than a decade now. The farther along the tail of the bag you put the tie-off knot, the higher it floats if you lose it.

This series of pics is of a 40D sporting a 70-200 f/2.8 IS L lens in my shower to illustrate the point. The same "bag and band" setup has floated this same lens to safety, and protected several different bodies it has been mounted on when I pushed too far to get a shot, and dropped it overboard while on a boat, dunked it in a pool, or just busted my but in waist deep surf, and had to let go....

Even if your sensibilities won't allow you to dunk it on purpose, it's a great three minute condom for situations where your gear is likely to get seriously wet in the rain or splashed in the pool, no matter how much care you take....

May 20, 2010

Just for grins, the 30D is a fine camera that can take advantage of the higher quality of the 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens if you let it. I had two of them back in the day, as they were tops in APS-C sensor tech at the time. The 17-55 f/2.8 lens made it's debut for the 30D at about the same time. I bought one then, and I still have yet to try a lens in the range that tops it. You might well be fine with a cheap alternative, but if you have the budget, don't think the 30D isn't deserving of what the 17-55 can deliver. It's a fine combo. I have plenty of examples shot with a 30D and several lenses, including the 17-55 if you need evidence. In the first shot below, the 30D is sporting the 70-300 DO IS lens, and a 40D is wearing the 17-55 lens. It doesn't matter which lens is on the 30D though, as it is plenty capable of getting the job done with all of them.

The 30D AF matches up well with the IS of the 70-300 DO IS lens for panning a rocket going 300 MPH directly in front of the camera at a 90 degree angle just before the speed trap at the end of a 1/4 mile run....

Here are a couple of ponies off to a good start with the same lens... The 30D still delivers..

You can even shoot the moon with a 30D...

Then there is the 17-55 with the 30D for a few pre-dawn shots a little after 6:00 am. F/2.8, ISO 200, 1/8 second handheld. Sweet IS, sweet f/2.8.

The 17-55 f/2.8 IS with a 30D even does wide open at ISO 400 for a 2 full second exposure 12:30 am with your body braced against a tree.....

Or full 8 second exposures wide open at ISO 400 sitting on a backpack bracing the camera with your knees and chin...

Even with the EF-s 10-22 lens wide open at 7:00 am on a tripod while most are sleeping, ISO 200, 1/13 second, the 30D fares pretty well... Don't ever use the 30D as a reason to buy a lesser lens. It's fine to buy cheaper glass because you want to, but as "old" as it is today, the 30D will not only use more lens if you offer it, but it will help you as well, since cropping images is a far more critical operation with an 8 MP sensor than with a recent generation crop sensor. This last shot is a bit big, and may require you to save it to your PC, and view it locally to see full size with no rendering distortion.

May 19, 2010

I have always considered the EF-s 10-22, the EF-s 17-55 f/2.8 IS, and the EF 70-200 f/2.8 ISL to be the "foundation trinity" lens kit for any APS-C camera camera. You might substitute something else for the big 70-220, like the 70-300 DO IS lens for a foundation kit, but a fast zoom will grab your attention one day in the end.

The most core lenses in the kit to me are the 10-22, and the 17-55. They are the most often used, and there is nothing else to surpass them (in my opinion) for the APS-C camera series to this day. Those two would be the absolute core of my kit again, even if I were starting from scratch right now. Expanding from there, the EF-s 60 f/2.8 macro is pure joy (pictured here), and the EF 50 f/1.4 is a classic for being able to see in the dark, and deliver razor thin DOF (not shown here). Lots of choices have been offered for you to sort through, but considering what you already own, the 17-55 f/2.8 IS is the perfect next step.... It is a beautiful, ultra-high performance standard zoom that is also tough as nails. By the way, whatevewr you get, buy a hood for it, and always use it (except for macro duty). The lenses pictured here all have hoods, and are rarely seen without them in place. Aside from the obvious reasons, they will protect your gear better than a bodyguard for years to come.

May 19, 2010

Depending on the camera you use, why not go for one of the cheap 15' long off camera ETTL flash shoe cords, and change settings at your camera? As far as even lighting with various softboxes, pick one, and as you learn about lighting, you will be very satisfied with how well you can tune it's performance with a little bit of creative tweaking at home.

May 19, 2010

High five! Your husband will love the lull in budget busting discussion, and when the inevitable chorus of "wow" moments reaches a fever pitch after the lens arrives, he will at least be able to look at images captured with the lens that will put a smile on his face...

You will love it. Don't resist the factory lens hood when you buy the lens (remember, he did give the green light). Get used to it, and always use it. It will become a comfortable part of your identity in short order, maximize IQ in all situations, and it WILL save your camera and lens from a date with gravity at least once in the future. Even with all the many knocks, gravity adventures, and scars my hood took for the team over nearly 5 years of commercial use, you have to admit that it still looks beautiful....:). The little battery is there to keep things in size perspective.

Considering the high level of praise offered by folks here who already own this lens, I can't wait to read your impressions over time.

May 19, 2010

Sorry, I was still considering the question after I posted my answer. For me, one lens does not replace the other at all. They greatly overlap at first blush, but after working with them for a time, their unique personalities and abilities become very apparent, and you just match your creative thoughts to right lens as a matter of routine.

It also becomes clear in use that not only does each lens have an edge over the other when performing certain tasks, but that each lens offers you distinct capabilities that the other cannot duplicate at all. I take exception to the thought that most studio portraiture is shot at f/5.6 to f/11. Perhaps that is true for some studio work, and some subjects, but more often than not, my head/head and shoulders studio portraits (and even more so with low light candids) are purposely shot at wide to very wide apertures in order to take advantage of the creative potential offered by very shallow DOF in composing a shot.

You can live without razor thin DOF, but you can't really add it in PP either. Consider that crop cameras are already at about a one stop disadvantage in matching the DOF of a FF camera, and it becomes a bit more important. In fact, I take advantage of MF cameras in portraiture very often, as a "run of the mill" portrait lens for a MF camera can deliver shallow DOF that even a FF 35 mm DSLR would require an f/1.2 lens to duplicate!

Never underestimate the value of owning a super fast lens like the 50 f/1.4. There are many situations where even though it isn't the sharpest tool in your kit, it is the best tool for the job, and what it offers is tough to duplicate in Photoshop.

Besides, about six months after you add a lens to your kit, the pain of budgeting for the purchase price fades, while the comfort of owning it lasts for a lifetime.

May 19, 2010

The 50 f/1.4 can nearly see (and focus) in the dark, and also offers a significant extra step of shallow DOF over the very awesome 60.

I would not hesitate to buy a 50 f/1.4 in addition to the Super EF-s 60 f/2.8 macro lens. I have no idea about the "halo" thing at all. I have been using both lenses very often for years, and with a variety of camera. That just doesn't strike even a vague chord with me . Also, the image view of the two lenses is noticeably different, and results in a different level of compression effect of the subject when you match image sizes. Bear in mind that as the starting lens length becomes shorter, smaller differences in length become more dramatic than is true with tele lenses. That's why there is such a huge captured image difference between a 10 mm ultrawide, and a 12 mm ultrawidwe. It sounds like nothing when choosing a lens to buy, but at that level, the real difference is huge.

Here are a few shots I made from the same position with the 50 f/1.4 vs the 60 f/2.8 to illustrate wide open DOF effect of both lenses for a different thread. The camera was mounted on a tripod, and not moved at all between lens changes to highlight the difference in image capture area as well. DOF differences are even more dramatic if the distance was adjusted to match captured image sizes. Lighting differences should be ignored, as I handheld a bounce umbrella for each shot, and that isn't easy to match from one to the next.....

The first pic is the view of the setup from above, to show relative position of the objects. The comparison shots were all focused at the left front wheel fender lip of the STi model at the axle centerline. The shots are labeled at the top with the lens used. Each lens has different potential in terms of creative use. Few lenses on earth are as sharp as the 60, but the 50 is very fine by f/2.0, and is pure bokeh and low light magic wide open.

As a foot note, the setup distance was a bit less than four feet, and the camera used was either a 40D, or a 50D. Someone suggested that either lens might be too long for portrait use in a home studio with an APS-C camera. Nonsense. I can do full length shots in ny small living room with either lens. Go much shorter, and you loose all compression effect for flattering face shots.

The comparison pics are medium-large, and may be distorted when rendered on your browser. Save them to your PC for local viewing at the full size posted...

The setup... <img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4050/4539240795_19cf39ae52.jpg" alt="" />

EF 50 f/1.4 wide open <img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4057/4539857816_38b5cd7aa2_b.jpg" alt="" />

EF-s 60 e/2.8 wide open. <img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4046/4539856290_2a9ab8db07_b.jpg" alt="" />

May 18, 2010

I would love to give that lens combo a go during a total eclipse on a clear day with either camera, but the high pixel density of the smaller, new-tech 7D sensor with that lens setup scores a higher peak on the drool factor scale for me. Why not do some preliminary workups using both cameras to photograph the full sun disk with a sheet of metalized mylar film, or a commercial purpose-made filter cap over the front element of the big lens in the meantime?

I'm guessing that you plan to rent the lens for the event (high five if you own it!) as well as the 7D, but for such a rare opportunity, it might be reasonable to spend the extra cash, and rent the gear for a practice run ahead of the main event. That would settle any questions you have about the suitability of either camera sensor for the task, as well as reveal any surprises that might prompt you to add accessories to the kit well in advance.

Best of all, you can report your findings (and some photos) here!

May 18, 2010

To me, the 100-400 lens is pretty light for what it offers in raw reach, but not a very handy size for walking around all day. If it is over the top for you, don't even think about going to the 70-200 f/2.8 IS+ 2x tele extender setup that was suggested earlier. Just the basic 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens weighs more than the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 IS lens, and the tele extender bits only add to the total mass. It is a sweet combo though, and I love having f/2.8 available in shorter zoom settings. <img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4002/4617905737_e54dba201b.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" />

If size and weight are serious priorities for you, I would suggest the 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS lens as a very capable, very compact, alternative lens that weighs half as much as the 100-400 lens. It isn't cheap at all, but it is a dream lens in terms of performance and size. When it's locked in it's shortest position, it is amazingly compact. I always use the included lens hood, and it serves double duty as a silky smooth push-pull zoom control for the lens. I have owned the lens for 5 years or so now, and there is nothing else to compare to it in terms of stealthy size v IQ v weight v rugged dependability. It also has a great IS unit, and a smaller filter diameter than the 100-400 lens, despite having the same maximum aperture range. Did I mention the cool green ring at the end? Here are a few shots taken with the lens, and keep in mind that the lens plays well with 1.4x tele extenders, even though that configuration will exceed the minimum AF aperture limits of many bodies when zoomed about 3/4 of the way out.

The first pic here is the 70-300 DO IS next to the EF-s 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens for an idea of how compact the lens really is. The 70-300 is the smaller lens with the green ring....

The other shots were taken with the 70-300 DO lens on 40D, and 30D bodies, and offer a sense of it's optical and IS performance. By the way, it's IS rocks for panning shots. Enjoy! <img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2367/2515541934_d350cdbee2.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /> <img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2219/2364533653_680a5f5a82.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="333" /> <img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2339/2365395586_63872829f1.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="361" /> <img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2149/2254525348_b0600542c3.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="333" /> <img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1264/756807453_a9d2445d82.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="333" /> <img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1108/757202827_71e20dffc5.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="333" /> <img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1262/757678903_d0522b4dde.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="333" /> <img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1068/757323721_92f402c2e9_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="683" />

May 18, 2010

Is there a button labeled "info", or "display" on your camera? Those button designations are often used by Canon to toggle an LCD display in the "captured image review" mode through a series of views from the bare image, to several levels of additional information, including a histogram without having to go to the menu tree.

May 18, 2010

Kate, if you can afford it, the EF-s 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens is in a class by itself (as I see it, anyway). It doesn't matter if you are a pro or not, as images you capture for your hobby, or as a Mom recording your family history are no less important than the shots I record for a client to pay my bills. The size of the lens may seem intimidating at first, but that feeling quickly fades, and it soon becomes "just right". I suggest that the lens hood is also purchased, and always used as well, which makes it an even more imposing vision, but again, it doesn't take long before it becomes a welcome friend in your hand.

Consider that the initial cost will be long forgotten within several months to a year, yet the lens will remain for a lifetime. Camera bodies may come and go over time, but the 17-55 will always be there, and you will never second guess yourself in the way of wondering if you could have made a better choice while you review your photos in the distant future.

I have owned mine for quite a few years now, and I have no regrets. It is heavily used for both work and pleasure, and I have never found any other lens in the range that can compete with it in a "no holds barred" fashion to this day. Don't get me wrong, as there are many fine third party lenses available at less cost today, and if budget is the prime consideration, they represent a valid choice. On the other hand, the 17-55 f/2.8, like most other high end Canon lenses has a fine track record for durability that third party lens manufacturers are still trying to duplicate. The cheaper price of third party lenses always represents a compromise in functionality. That can easily be justified by folks when they press the buy button, but it is still a compromise in the end. Most third party brands offer extreme warranty periods as well, but again, it is their overall track record that forces them to do so, even though their products are far better built today than in the past.

Sorry for the third party rant, but you mentioned right at the top of your post that you can afford the 17-55, and it matches the features you desire perfectly, except for it's imposing presence, which, as I mentioned before, quickly becomes an non issue in practice. In fact, it becomes a comfort. Think carefully before you buy. There will always be plenty of endorsements for third party lenses if you pose the question, but most are really purchased because of their price alone, and the real value of the choice is taken and offered as a matter of faith, rather than as a result of direct experience with the Canon offering.

It is a beautiful lens in all respects, and it is anvil tough to boot. Rant over.... Here are a few pics. The first shot needs explanation, as it won't make sense otherwise. The setup was at a TGIFridays pub in the dead of night. The view from the inside out was coal dark, as there were only random tower lights in the parking lot, and the external signs on the building. The interior was also too dark to make out much detail, and the only illumination was from the various neon lights, and colorful signs placed around the bar. Anyone who has ever been to a Fridays at night can picture the scene.

The shot of the woman sitting across the aisle from me was taken with the 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens mounted on a 40D body. The lens was zoomed to 55 mm, and the aperture was set wide open to f/2.8. The ISO speed for the shot was 3200. The shutter speed was 1/4 of a second, and the focus was provided by the camera AF. The shot was made HAND HELD. The Raw image was converted to jpg with DPP at the time. No Photoshop tweaking was involved. I left the WB as it was recorded as it fit the scene. The camera metering made the lighting look daytime bright, and I left that alone as well. It was just a fun shot, after all. You can clearly see that she was tapping her fist on the table, and crossed her right leg with her left leg during the exposure by the blur in those areas, but the IS performed perfectly at 1/4 second, wide open, and hand held at ISO 3200. That shot was made back in 2007, but it helps illustrate the amazing potential of the lens. It doesn't matter if you need to capture a typical scene, or if you see a shot that pushes the envelope, this lens will deliver. Birthday parties for your Kids? Family moments in natural light? It's a great lens. The second shot is just a typical NJ snow scene captured with the 17-55 zoomed short on a 50D a few months ago.

By the way, it also makes a great wedding lens... Even if not for pay, your kids will have their moment in time....

May 17, 2010

Of course, you can crop as you please. This is a crop of the jpg image above with no modifications applied at all. The original shot was made handheld at 1/125 second, ISO 400, using single shot AF for focus. It was one of the two shots made for this thread. There were no multiple takes, and no lighting adjustments made. Just grab the camera, shoot, and upload the shots. The 60 does a pretty fine job in far less than ideal shooting conditions.

May 17, 2010

By the way, the 60 does bugs too.... These are a couple quick shots of a six legged monster captured with the EF-s 60 f/2.8 macro.... They are straight up RAW to jpg conversions in DPP, and not cropped at all. <img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3381/4617038185_d051381915.jpg" alt="" /> <img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4057/4617034507_2d57a64a61.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="333" />

May 17, 2010

Yes, the 60 mm lens requires a closer position for 1:1 shots, but as others have mentioned, it isn't a real problem in practical use. The 60 also has the benefit of a bit more accurate AF, in my experience. For dual duty as a prime lens, and for portraits in particular, the 60 is pretty much ideal for any crop sensor camera. People who only use the 100 mm version often say it's no big deal, but it really is a big deal in practice, as the 60 will get the call far more often than the 100 for dual duty use if you have both in your kit.

I love the 60 on APS-C cameras. Longer lenses also invoke greater demands for higher shutter speeds before hand holding becomes out of the question. That's simply a matter of physics, and is the price paid for the extra working reach of the longer lens.

Here are some shots captured with the 60 mm lens that cover the macro range to the portrait range of use. This is a hot topic here, so these pics have appeared in the forum before. The first shot of the STi model is for size reference, and to highlight the shallow DOF of the lens at f/2.8. That pic, and all of the macro range shots were made with the 60 mm lens wide open. The two plastic model wheel shots are of the left front wheel of the STi model, and illustrate DOF and focus accuracy of the lens at true macro sizes. Notice the different points of focus between the two. The lens offers wonderful AF accuracy.

The ring shot was from a recent wedding, as are the bride prep shots. All are uncropped except for the tight crop of the one bridal prep image to highlight the optical quality of the 60. The camera used for all of the shots was a 50D. The flash used in all of the shots was an MT-24EX strobe in ETTL mode.

The EF-s 60 f/2.8 macro lens is designed to match the needs of the APS-C camera format in the same manner that a 100 mm macro lens is designed for the FF format. I think you give up more by choosing a 100 mm for a crop camera than you gain in added working reach.

May 17, 2010

You can insert a meter into the external wiring of the DC coupler to measure current draw in use, or use the shell of an old battery to build your own DC coupler. I never wondered about the active current consumption of the 40D, but a few years ago, I measured the "sleep" current of the 30D, and the 40D in response to a discussion about the current draw in the "off" mode, vs the sleep mode.

The current draw was identical in either case. It was in the microamp range, which is why the cameras can sit idle for months without draining the battery. As a rule, I never switch any of my xxD cameras off unless they are packed for transit. Sleep mode with the power switch on is identical in battery drain to switching the power off in all of the xxD cameras. The power switch is not a hard switch. It is nothing more than a software selection device. Switching it off limits the wake up call to the power switch itself, and invokes the sensor cleaning routine on startup. Leaving the power switch on allows several other buttons to remain active for a wake up call, and does not start the sensor cleaning operation. I prefer to have a camera ready at all times with a press of the shutter button, and not have to remember to fumble with the power switch, so the xxD power system suits me just fine.

If that is the current draw issue you had in mind, there is the answer. If you are looking for peak operational current draw, you have to build your own metering setup. My best guess is in line with Charles though. I would be surprised if it was higher than 600 milliamps, based upon battery life in regular use.

May 17, 2010

The perfect carefree pocket camera for poolside use, ocean surf, or even diving is ANY favorite Canon point and shoot with the factory waterproof case. This is my old, beat up SD900 IS camera. It lived in my pants pocket for so long that the finish is ruined, and even the protective lens cover fell off years ago. It still takes great photos though, and I still use it with the factory underwater case. I also have a case for my G9. They are fantastic. All camera controls are fully operational, and the case does not interfere with the LCD view, or the lens zoom range. All of the cases also include a snap on flash diffuser for using the built in flash for underwater shots. They are good for diving to 60 feet or so (I have had this kit down to 80 feet in the Keys without issue), and it floats. Perfect for poolside use.... The first shot is for size reference with the units side by side. The other two are with the camera inside the case, front and back views. The cases are incredibly tough, and still cost well under $200. The optical viewfinder is blocked by the nice glass image port at the front, but the big, bright LCD looks great in practice. The added bonus is that your point and shoot is still ready for dry weather use with a snap of the locking lever!

May 17, 2010

I won't go out on a limb here for the Kiev cameras, as I do not own one, and already have Hasselblad and Bronica cameras in that format (which I don't really care for anyway), but.... Over the last five years or so, I have played with Kiev cameras owned by people who I know well enough to loan/exchange camera gear with, and I have to point out that I was very impressed with the Arax, and the Hartblei (I think that's how it's spelled) offerings. No kidding, they are impressive cameras at a dirt cheap new retail price.

The funny thing is that it seems that they are everywhere but in my MF kit, and I have not heard a complaint from any of the people that I know to own one (in person, as in I have seen the camera, and I have touched it). On the Internet though, I get the impression that they are all junk, and if they work at all when they arrive, they will fall apart within seconds of removing them from the box.

I cannot help to think that the Internet stories are heavily based upon either old news relating to older camera imports, or just good old fashioned BS where premium brand loyalty, and the thrill of keeping any bad news about a different product in the spot light, no matter if it is currently true or not is the order of the daily post.

It's just a thought, and I have no skin in the game, as I am a rabid fan of the Mamiya RZ67 for medium format film shooting, but as I said, all of the many people I know that own recent builds (five years) of the Kiev line love them, and I have been impressed with them as well. Even the lenses and accessories seem to be well regarded, by and large. My only gripe is that I prefer lens shutters in MF cameras, as I like to mix flash with ambient light whenever it suits me, and focal plane shutters in medium format sized bodies just don't sync at the speeds I expect to use. Then again, that is one of the prime reasons that I would never consider a Pentax 67, with it's earthquake FP shutter, and sundial flash sync speed, yet I don't recall anyone describing them as junk cameras...

Still, you can buy a sweet used RZ67, as well as fine lenses to fill out your kit for even less money than you would spend on a new Kiev kit... :).

May 17, 2010

Adam, the entire FD series will mount on the latest F1. I started with Canon back in 1970 or 1971, and still have some of the better lenses I bought in the Breech Lock era. In fact, I have recently purchased FD lenses with the old style mount that offer the best value in their focal length. The Vivitar Series 1 zoom lens shown on my T-90 in the pic above also has a Breech Lock mount, and also has the "A" setting on the aperture ring for shutter priority AE operation with later model FD cameras like the New F1 with a motor drive attached. Aside from lacking that new FD lens feature, the old FD lenses work perfectly on later FD cameras.

By the way, I lied (by accident) about the flash sync speed on the T-90. I claimed that it was 1/125 second, when in reality, it is 1/250 second. I prefer to be wrong when I understate the truth though, so all is well.....

May 17, 2010

Yes indeed, the T-90 does sync strobes at 1/250 second! It is a brain drizzle thing. I post about the T-90, and I type 1/125 sec for flash sync... I do it often, and have no excuse. Perhaps I still can't get comfortable with the idea that a 24+ year old FD camera can accommodate flash sync at that speed, as it is still a premium feature on modern DSLR cameras with lighter and smaller shutters. Anyway, thanks for the correction, Mark. I'm glad I erred on the slow side though, as it makes the T-90 shine a bit brighter than the way I described it. I'm pretty certain that I repeated the accidental lie several times since, and even yesterday though. That's pretty bad, considering that the T-90 by far my favorite "go-to" FD body, and is used very often....

Gordon, the Canon family tree you present here is fine work. I only have a few points of differing opinion, and they are not meant to be taken in a negative personal manner at all. They are simply my thoughts about the topic offered in response to your own posted opinion. As another "old fart", I think that is reasonable, and in no way calls your expertise to task. It is simply the expression of slightly divergent points of view in an open forum. It is not a matter of relative passion either, as passion is a given among fans of FD imaging today. I am certainly passionate beyond reason about FD cameras, and I know from your posts that you are as well.

That said, I stand by my view that the New F1 is an integral part of the F1 family as a group. It is a logical progression of the theme. It is recognizable as an F1 to even a casual observer. In form, mechanical design, material choice, system architecture, control layout, and feature set, it is clearly an evolutionary extension of the previous F1 offerings. Even internally, it's heritage is abundantly clear. It is a very significant advance in the F1 lineage, but it is pure F1 in it's soul. At least it is to me... I repaired the oldest F1 bodies back in the 1970's as an apprentice bench tech, and to this day, I can clearly trace the F1 heritage through to the latest model with a pile of parts from each laid out on a table. They are all family as I see it. The New F1 is just the most recent, and offers the most refinement. That it adopted some of the best technology developed over the life of the F1 series prompts many to label it as a "hybrid", but it is still an F1 through and through. Again, that is how I see it.

By comparison, the T-90 was created as a result of a "clean slate" corporate mandate to build the ultimate FD camera in all respects, and with little concern for any previous design elements beyond the FD lens mount. It shares almost nothing with the other T series cameras at all. Unlike the New F1 compared to the older F1 cameras, the only heritage shared between the T-90, and the other T series cameras is the "T" in the series name. It was not an evolutionary build in any sense. It was a bold, breakthrough design effort that tossed all desire to maintain family identity with any previous FD mount camera out of the corporate window right from the start.

Those elements are the only areas that I disagree with your well thought out Canon family tree. Obviously, you think the New F1 is a completely different animal than it's predecessors, yet you consider the T-90 to fit reasonably well in the evolution of the T series family of FD cameras. I suppose that we will just agree to disagree on those points. Thoughtful and passionate people are allowed to do that kind of thing, as different perspectives provide all of us with a broader base of information to draw from. That's what a forum is all about, in my my view...

May 17, 2010

I doubt the stuff would ever migrate into the lens mechanism, no matter how long you waited, or where and how often you used the lens. The current owner likely found it to be a great solution to his need for manual aperture control, and considers it to be an asset. I do agree with the others that the lens was very popular when new, and can be found in great condition for very little cash today. If I could look at the lens first hand, the blue tac wouldn't be a real concern, but I would make it a bargaining chip for getting the best deal if the lens was in fine condition.

That said, if the lens is offered at full value price for it's overall condition, and you are put off by the goop, shop around. There are plenty of them on the market to choose from. Get one though, as it is a fine lens. It is one of my favorite FD zooms.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by jim_krupnik