nigel_craig

<p>Scott</p>

<p>Where did I say she shouldn't use a 50mm? Just responded to her indication of what she will be using the lens for - of course if using an APC camera, a 50mm would indeed be a standard portrait length. Re. your last comment, 50mm on a crop is equal to 80mm on a full frame irrespective of maximum aperture, so I don't see the relevance of "legendary 85f1.2 portrait lens". Therefore I would include your response in the "overloaded" category.</p>

<p>No doubt you have your reasons for wanting a 50mm, but usually something a little longer is best for individual portraits, like maybe 85/1.8 or 100/2.. I haven't myself used it (have 100IS 2.8L8) but 100/2.8 macro should be a good portrait lens as well giving you an extra capability close up. Of course if you are talking about group portraits you probably want something a bit wider than 50, say 35/2, which many people think is very good and comparatively cheap.as a macro.</p>

<p>Have to agree with others on AF v MF. I think I was as good as anyone with flying birds with an FD300/4 plus 1.4 and 2 X converters, but remember trying to do indoor portraits of my fast moving daughter with a Pentax 67 and 165/4 lens. Usually lucky to get 1 out of 10 focussed in the right place, and then you have to change the film. MF for me now (58) is strictly for things that don't move, except where zone focussing.</p>

<p>Henry</p>

<p>thanks - tried that but no result - shutter release creaks so think something not well in release mechanism - ebay here we go for amateur camera mechanics</p>

<p>I have an EOS1n which is showing flashing "bc" fault code. The battery is fine - the fault code shows up when pressing the shutter release and the shutter does not fire. It fell off a coffee table onto a metal object but the inpact was absorbed by the lenscap, so shouldn't really be an issue for a pro body.</p>

<p>Any ideas on what might clear the fault before I put it on ebay as non-working?</p>

<p>Re. the focusing issue, just tried my 50/2.5 macro on EOS1n body - this lens is not renowned for its fast AF, but it managed to do what my all singing all dancing 100L couldn't manage.</p>

<p>In response to Dan M, no I am fully aware of the uses of the focusing range slider - this was on full range AF setting - I would expect it to be sluggish going from macro to distant but be able to lock on eventually</p>

<p>"I have read your post twice. I am sorry for your loss, but what is / are your question(s)? ....."</p>

<p>a) is my impression of rigidity of CF door on 5D2 typical or untypical?</p>

<p>I think other questions re others experience of AF on 100IS macro, and merits of 17-40 v 16-35 have been answered</p>

<p>Whilst on holiday my Lowe Pro bag was stolen with almost new Canon 5D2 body and 100L IS macro, and rather older 17-40 and 70-200f4L IS, plus assorted cards, batteries, remote release etc. In case they end up on ebay, serial nos are 5D2: 1831111527, 17-40: 00579249, 100 macro: 2191533, 70-200: 254491</p>

<p>I expect insurance company will just replace like for like. There was a bit of an issue with the 5D2 body – after using a 5D for over 4 years and finding it as solid as a rock (and still commanded good price on ebay) I was somewhat irritated by the fact that the CF door on the mk2 kept lifting slightly as it stuck to the (sweaty – it was over 30C) ball of my thumb – perhaps a slight manufacturing variation? Also, why will (my ex) 100L macro not refocus from macro AF setting to distant object without a helping hand from the manual focusing ring? – don’t recall this coming up in reviews – a fault perhaps?<br>

If I am able to top up insurance I would be inclined to replace 17-40 with 16-35II – I was increasingly using this with 70-200 instead of 24-105 and I think 16-35 would be better at bigger apertures, particularly in 24-35 range – I would seriously consider Nikon 14-24 with adaptor as don’t believe AF is important at these focal lengths but I wouldn’t be able to use ND filter – Zeiss 21/2.8 is fantastic but lot of money for just part of what I need. I will also keep a look out for reviews of new 70-300L as possible substitute for 70-200 plus 300 prime.</p>

<p>Don't know specifically about 50D, but I have EOS 1n and 5D2, previously had a 5D. In my view 5D equal to EOS 1n. Of course mode dial inherently vulnerable compared to all button press on 1n (like my old T90), but never had mechanical problem with any Canon camera and I do not treat them with too much respect. (AT1, AE1, 2 x T90, EOS 1n, 5D, 5D2)</p>

<p>BTW, Leica S2 has mode/shutter speed dial!</p>

 

<table cellspacing="1">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td id="post-main-364872" width="100%" valign="top">

When I noticed that my hardly used (but more than 12 months old!) EF 50/2.5 macro had uneven sharpness across the frame at 2.5 at wide apertures, I sent it off to be reset. I tested it on return at all apertures (raw, on tripod, MLU, viewed at 100% on screen), one set on AF one-shot and a second set manually focussed. The manually focussed shots are noticeably better at 2.5 and just detectably at 4.0. (I really need to do this test with all my lenses but haven't the time right now.) Does this point to a focussing error with the body? It occurred to me that if I sent the body off for recalibration, against what would it be measured? Without the benefit of AF calibration for each lens/body combo (which of course is available if/when I get a 5D2) I could easily get the AF reset but it could actually be worse, not better?

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td >

<a href="javascript:scroll(0,0);"><img src="http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/style_images/1/p_up.gif" border="0" alt="Go to the top of the page" /></a><a href="http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?act=report&t=43539&p=364872&st=0"><img src="http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/style_images/1/p_report.gif" border="0" alt="Report Post" /></a>

</td>

<td >

 

 

<a id="edit-but-364872" href="http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?act=post&do=edit_post&f=4&t=43539&p=364872&st=0"><img src="http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/style_images/1/p_edit.gif" border="0" alt="Edit Post" /></a><a title="Toggle multiquote addition" onclick="multiquote_add(364872); return false;" href="http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=43539#"><img src="http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/style_images/1/p_mq_add.gif" alt="+" /></a>

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>Peter - I thought what calibration gave you was consistencey between what you saw on the screen and what comes out of the printer, not consistency between different set-ups. You are right I should try compare the output from same printer with input from a) cailbrated laptop and b) calibrated desktop. However the laptop screen has some shortcomings in trying to optimise image adjustment. I'm still going to try my idea of an adjustment layer.</p>

<p>Peter - it would still be different to my calibrated home system - also even hi-spec windows laptops seem only to have analogue outputs for external monitor. I was wondering about the possibility of building a set of edits that could be applied as an adjustment layer when images uploaded to home desktop I guess they would have to be kept in phase with succesive recalibartions of both desktop monitor and laptop.</p>

<p>I have a Nikon Coolscan V using Nikon Scan 4 something and a a Canoscan 9950F using Silverfast SE Plus. Neither are compatible with my desktop which is Vista 64 bit. As my XP Pro laptop is getting on a bit it is likely I will get a new laptop at some stage running Windows 7. If I get 7 Business, the cheapest with XP emulationn mode, will my scanners run successfully with this?<br>

I know Vuescan is available which wold solve the Coolscan problem but I prefer to use Digtal ICE. Ed Hamrick confirmed this solution doesn't work for the 9950F (anything that involves using Scangear is not a solution - scans are visibly inferior to using Silverfast.</p>

<p>I may soon have a contract (not photographic) which involves being away from homebase during the week for a couple of years. I would like to think I could use the evenings to do my (huge backlog) of photo editing on a laptop. However, I just cannot see any way of doing this where I could then just print them off when I got home without starting all over again - the images are not going to look the same on the ACD . I have a set up which satisfies me currently with an Apple ACD 23" monitor, Huey Pro and Epson 3800, using the generic profiles for my printer from the paper manufacturers.</p>

<p>Even if I got a new laptop with a better screen, calibrated it and plugged it straight into the Epson, it would give a sort of solution, but would presumably less accurate because no laptop screen can be as accurate as the ACD (even though that is far from being the best). Can anyone think of a solution? </p>

<p>Alternatively, I can spend the time editing and scanning slides!</p>

<p>My 50/2.5 Macro is soft on one side of the frame and is only sharp across the whole frame stopped down to about f8</p>

<p>I didn't really want to get into a debate about my motive's and justifications for a particular course of action - I'm old enough to work that one out myself. I could have stripped my post down to one line, which is the specific question on comparison of image quality, but I thought I'd give a bit of background. Paulo, its not really possible to rent a 7D with the lenses required in my locality.<br>

With greatest respect and thanks for your responses if this information is not available I think we should wrap this question up.</p>

<p>My obvious upgrade route is to replace (if I do, as opposed to holding off for a while) my nearly 4 yr. old 5D with a 5D2. I'm concerned my 17-40 and 24-105 lenses are not really up to realising the theoretical benefit of the improved sensor, although that would not be my primary reason to upgrade. I think the 50/2.5, 70-200/4 IS and 300/4 IS will be OK.<br>

As an alternative, which I can do within the same budget or probably less money, I could get a 7D with a 15-85 (which has had rave reviews) and a 10-22, keeping the other lenses but selling 5D body, 17-40 and 24-105.<br>

Main concern is given I print up to A2 how will 7D/15-85 & 10-22 image quality compare to my existing 5D/17-40 &24-105 in terms of a) resolution, b) tonal gradation, c) noise at high ISO.<br>

If I had more money I would contemplate the 5D2 and some zeiss ZE lenses, but I haven't , so its not an option.<br>

The 7D is attractive for things like spot focussing, sensor cleaning, decent LCD ( I can't even see the histogram in bright sunshine on the 5D), live view, AF micro-adjustment etc. But I don't want to step backwards in image quality. I think main image gain from 5D to 5D2, given same lenses, would be useability of 1600 to 3200. I'm not sure how 7D would compare to 5D, given pixel size is about half.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I always identify folders by location/date/subject so that I can locate easily and download by copying relevant files to target folder. It seems so long as they stay in that folder there is no risk of overwriting older files? The process I had in mind was once files are safely downloaded into relevant folder I can then apply a single batch naming amendment to all the files in that folder in either Bridge or DPP, thereby making the file numbers unique again. Will this work?</p>

<p>I naively imagined that if you selected continuous file numbering in Canon DSLRs, files would have consecutive numbers up to 5 digits. Now realise they only go to 9999 and then start again at 0001. As I am now approaching that number, is there any way of distinguishing files in the second cycle once they are downloaded? Panasonic file numbering included the folder number as a prefix, but Canon so far as I see doesn't. I assign files to named folders but don't rename them. Seems I could run into trouble once I reach 10,000 if I try to move files between folders. Is there any way to assign a folder prefix, or do I need to rename all subsequent files once I reach 9999. I've never bothered with batch renaming but I understand you can do this in DPP (not sure about Bridge/CS2). BTW, I always download files via a card reader so never use canon utility</p>

<p>Don't know if anyone has come across this. I bought an eos 1n on ebay about a year ago. When I put a new battery in (respectable brand) it shows full charged, but after zero use when the camera is stored, it is completely dead after about a month. This has happened twice so not a random defective battery. I've checked I didn't leave it switched on</p>

<p>Recently bought this and Lumiquest pocket bounce for my Canon 5D as "volunteered" to do photos for school childrens Ball. Don't use flash that much so couldn't justify 580 EX. Integration with camera functions seems OK (occasionally flash and camera have difference of opinion on ISO set), but it definitely doesn't auto zoom, which I thought it should. If I put a 24-105 on, it goes to 24 setting - zooming makes no difference. Now this is quite annoying because you have to remember, often in poor light, to check the zoom setting on the LCD panel. Is this a "fact" or a "fault"?</p>

<p>I've just got one of these in EOS fitting. The autozoom works in the sense of indexing to one end of the zoom range, but it doesn't zoom automatically as you zoom the lens - is this correct?</p>

<p >I have quite a large archive of 35mm black and white negatives and colour slides. I still use the odd role of HP5 and have an Ektapro for projection but in other respects rely on digital. Seems to me there are two possible approaches to scanning; a) using Vuescan, do once only scan to raw, which become primary archive (PS what format does Vuescan use for raw scans – is it a proprietary code or DNG?); b) scan when needed, maintaining film as primary archive.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Obviously I can’t rely on my Nikon Coolscan V lasting for ever, so strategy b) depends on still being able to buy an equivalent quality scanner and software if/when it breaks so that’s a risk. On the other hand, strategy (a) depends on Vuescan raw scans being a “universal” format.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Any thoughts?</p>

<p>Assuming Phase 1 is on the left, that looks pretty decisive. Interesting to see same comparison with Canon/Nikon/Sony 21MP+ DSLRs - how far do they close the gap(/chasm?)</p>

<p>Just wondered, before I hit the "Purchase" button on Vuescan (OK, not a major investment ), do you think Nikon will update Nikon scan to run in Vista 64 bit ever/soon (not soon = never to me) Its hard to believe that with these scanners still on the market, they haven't done that since many potential Win-using customers forced down 64 bit route to use enoughRAM in applications.</p>