ed_avis2

<p>Craig S., thanks for your reply. I was thinking of very high speeds such as ISO 6400, combined with the best available noise reduction in post-production. Perhaps the image quality to use those speeds is not quite there yet, but with the next generation of camera bodies the question can be revisited.</p>

<p>The advice that "you need f/2.8 or greater to shoot indoor sports" has been unchanged for the last twenty years. Might it not need revising if modern digital bodies can take acceptable pictures at high ISOs? For sure, a larger aperture is better, but given a fixed amount of cash to spend it may make more sense to get a cheaper f/4 lens and a newer body which lets you bump up the ISO a stop or two.</p>

<p>When I talked to Canon UK the 28-80L was definitely non-repairable by them. They won't even attempt to take it apart since, if they accidentally make the problem worse, they don't have the parts or spare units to make it good. And that was a couple of years ago. I doubt other Canon service centres would be different.</p>

<p>Here's a part list for the lens: http://f20c.com/stuff/canon/partslist/EF%2028-80%202.8-4.0L%20USM.pdf<br> <br />From that document it appears that the electronic diaphragm is part number CY1-2303-000. While some older 'L' lenses share parts with a less expensive non-L counterpart, meaning a fairly cheap supply of donor lenses, it appears that this diaphragm is only used in the 28-80L. Searching for the part number finds somebody in Barcelona selling it for 265 euros, and that's it.</p> <p>You might possibly find a 28-80L with a complementary fault (broken autofocus motor, or broken/misaligned lens elements) and buy that cheaply to get the working diaphragm. Or possibly repair the diaphragm unit rather than replace it, though I have no idea if that is remotely practical.</p>

<p>You ask about "data" in the focusing screen being barely visible - are you referring to the read-out of aperture and shutter speed, shots remaining and so on? If that has gone dark then only Canon service would be able to fix it (and I think they no longer repair the 1D Mark II, though they will the IIN).<br> <br />If you mean that the picture on the focusing screen is just too dark to see, there is not much you can do about it. The stock focusing screen is already pretty bright and the alternative ones are usually darker.</p> <p>But make sure you are not trying to focus the lens at f/22 - keep it wide open when focusing and then stop it down to take the picture. That will also make it easier to see what's in focus. Possibly that is also a reason why the focus confirmation light doesn't work.</p>

<p>I configure my 1D Mark II to have focus on the * button with a custom function. This means that with an ordinary Canon autofocus lens, pressing the shutter button no longer focuses; instead you press * to do that if you want and you can then adjust manually. Anyway, this also works well with manual lenses and chipped adaptors, so you hit * to see the focus confirmation light up.</p> <p>I don't know why it doesn't work for you, most likely the chip is just not working, but you could try the different setup just in case.</p> <p>You can also try replacing the focusing screen. The newer Ec-CIV screen is a small improvement over the stock Ec-CIII screen that came with the 1D Mark II. Then there are screens with microprisms or other focusing aids, or a high precision screen, but they are darker so perhaps less suitable for older eyes with relatively narrow-aperture medium format lenses.</p>

Puppy Face, your review sometimes talks about the "EF 35 2.0 IS USM" - could you check?

<p>Does the 7D2 have a different sensor to the 70D? If the sensor is the same then high-ISO performance will be identical between the two.</p>

<p>William W.'s site shows that the MTF curves for the two differ, with in some cases the older version being superior. The Mark I is based on the 80-200 f/2.8 zoom with the zoom mechanism taken out, according to http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Reviews/dc_Canon_200_mm_f2.8/a_Canon_200_mm_f2.8L.html</p>

<p>It might not be reparable if it's the original 600mm f/4 L lens with 'focus-by-wire' USM. Those are the ones where, when the lens isn't attached to the camera or the camera is off, turning the focus ring has no effect. I believe these are no longer serviced by Canon but check your local service centre.</p>

<p>Does your photo editing program let you save a series of steps and then apply them to another file? If so you could download small size JPEGs for the purposes of choosing which shots to keep, and then start the post-production work on them. When you get the raw files later you can apply the saved profile (which you created on the JPEG) to the corresponding raw file and make any final adjustments.</p> <p>Whether this is at all practical depends on what kind of post-production you need to do and whether the script can be saved and reapplied to a different file (and if so, a different resolution file? or do you need full size JPEGs?). I know that basic things like tone curves and cropping can easily be saved as a script but if you are retouching the photos that might not work.</p>

<p>Do the shooters have Internet access via a wireless local area network? Possibly an Eye-fi card would be the most convenient way but you will need to do some testing to make sure it is reliable. (Even if the Eye-fi card fails to upload the pictures to the Internet it still stores them on the card, so there is not much risk of data loss, but you should check it can cope with the large files and high burst rate of your cameras.)</p> <p>Canon make a wireless attachment for the 1DX (and possibly for the 7D) and it is reliable but expensive, and might need a bit more configuration.</p> <p>You could take a wireless Internet 'personal hotspot' with you and have the files uploaded over that. Some of these, using 4G wireless, are reasonably fast - but it would still take a minute or two to upload a single raw file.</p> <p>Perhaps the best way to get the job done is to abandon the idea of transferring the files wirelessly from the cameras. Instead, get the shooters to use memory cards as normal, and bring a laptop and card reader with them. They can upload the files wirelessly using either a 'personal hotspot' or some paid-for Internet access.</p> <p>Unless you have a particularly fast Internet connection you might find the best approach is to make the cameras record both raw and small JPEG, and download the JPEGs first to choose which shots to keep. The raw files are big and slow to transfer so you want to avoid transferring all of them.</p>

<p>See if you can get them to produce a definitive list of which lenses they are able to update and which they aren't. I have asked for that in the past but Sigma support couldn't say. But I guess if you are in contact with the people who really do the 're-chipping', there's a chance somebody with a clue will be able to respond.</p>

<p>Sounds like it was 'declicked' for video use. I don't know why they would also move the index mark.</p>

<p>The 40mm STM is your best bet, even though it is a slightly narrower angle of view than a 50mm lens on a full-frame camera. The old Canon 28mm is okay, but you'd have to find it second-hand, while the 40mm is really good and can be bought cheaply new. Of course there are plenty of very cheap manual 28mm lenses you can use with an adaptor, like the Olympus 28/3.5 or 28/2.8.</p>

<p>I think the Power Drive Booster for the 1V uses the same batteries as the 1D / 1Ds / 1D Mark II / 1Ds Mark II. These are plentiful on ebay, probably even in Australia.</p>

<p>Golf is usually played outdoors in good light. The maximum aperture of the lens, the high-ISO performance of the camera body, and even image stabilization hardly matter. If the game goes on into twilight, golfers are static enough that you can use a tripod or monopod to stabilize the camera.</p>

<p>I believe that the 10D is where the trouble started, yes. A friend had a 10D and my Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 needed rechipping to work with it, even though on my bodies it worked fine.</p>

<p>My experience has been consistent with (1) and (2) and inconsistent with (3) and (4). I have successfully used a variety of older Sigma lenses on a D30 and a 1Ds. They also work with old Kodak EF-mount DSLRs (DCS 560 and DCS Pro SLR/c).<br> <br />Here is a DIY modification to convert the lenses: http://www.martinmelchior.be/2013/04/conversion-of-old-sigma-lens-to-work.html</p>

<p>FWIW, you don't really need a faster computer to plug in a 4k monitor. Just one with the right video connector (usually DisplayPort, and ideally DisplayPort 1.2 or later). If you want to edit video at that res, of course you will need more memory and CPU compared to lower resolutions.</p>

<p>I guess if you've cleaned the contacts and you don't see the problem with other lenses, then the lens must be at fault. That doesn't tell you whether the diaphragm is physically broken or just a wire has come loose. Tho' the fact that it is erratic suggests a mechanical problem perhaps?</p>

<p>You could try attaching the lens, setting the camera to f/16 aperture priority, and pressing the depth of field preview button. This should cause the lens aperture to close - if not, I guess you may be right that some cable to the aperture diaphragm is broken.</p>

<p>The image quality of the 18-200 is not as good as the 24-105, I believe, although of course it lets you get some shots the 24-105 wouldn't. Check out the new 10-18 EF-S zoom, it could accompany the 24-105. You would have to sell the 10-18 if you move to full frame but since it is quite cheap this might be okay.</p> <p>If you burn with desire for a red ring on your lens then the new 16-35 f/4 zoom might be good, but it is more expensive than the 10-18.</p>

<p>Canon service personnel refer to the plastic grip substance as 'leather' although it isn't. Your local service centre would also be able to peel off the 'leather' patch and attach a new one.</p>

<p>Certainly useful for deciding whether to buy a new lens. You have a 100mm lens, and you want to see what things would be like with the 200mm... On the other hand you might decide that the image quality from cropping out the centre part of the image is good enough you have no need to buy the longer lens!</p>