axel_farr

It is possible, with an external release or some sorts of adhesive band wrapped round the camera so the shutter remains open. First of all: Use a fresh loaded battery (since during exposure, current is permanently drawn from it as long as the shutter stays open). Then Start the exposure. After the requested time, close the shutter.

And: Even with 100 ASA, 30min are a lot of time for gathering light, and for gathering unwanted artefacts. Of these you can get rid by dark frames, which you subtract manually from the gathered images (taken with comparable or fractions of the original exposure time AND under comparable parameters (age of the camera, tempature etc). Maybe one or more photo cells saturate by themselves during exposure (this will be visible in the dark frame), then the long exposure time must be shortened or the respective cells will render black in the final image or the camera must be cooled down prior to shooting (it makes some difference if the sensor has 40?C or only 15?C!). But moisture must be avoided, so you must stay above condensation temperature or bann the complete camera & lens in a sealed box...

Greetings, Axel

When using a 35mm lens on a smaller format sensor, an "enlarging factor" occurs. This is just the same as if you would do an enlagement from a 35mm negative. For Canon D-SLRs the factor is 1.6 in most cases.

If you are interesting on the parameters for taking exactly the same photos with a native 35mm camera without enlarging in the post process, the parameters are the following:

- the focal length seems to be enlarged by the factor, so instead of using 50mm on the D-SRL the 35mm cam must use 80mm.

- the dept of field changes as if an apeture scaled by the factor would have been used, so the image would require to be taken on the 35mm cam with an aperture 1.6x more closed, f/2.0 would become f/3.2.

- the brightness of the image is the same (besides tolerances by the digital image sensor and the chemical film), so ISO 100 will stay ISO 100 and a metering of f/5.6 with 1/125s will hold on both cameras with the same subject.

The change in depth of field are the same as when you switch between a smaller medium format camera (with negative size 45x60mm?) to a 35mm SLR. In this case, the medium format requires a larger f-stop than the 35mm SLR in order to get the same depth of field. Between the 67 format and 35mm the factor is even larger, it is 2 or more.

Greetings, Axel

Some three years ago, I decided to buy a (at that time fresh released) EOS 300D (the digital Rebel in US). My intention at that point was like yours in this moment: Try to get a digital SLR body without too much costs and having the chance to use most of my old equipment with it.

It ended that way, that from the moment of purchase the chemical films started to lay and wait for getting exposed.

If you try to get only "some" images on digital, then forget about the option buying a digital SLR. The EOS 300D is so easy to use and the results are present within a second, so it is a completely different kind of photography. You will take much more photographs, and you will spent more time sorting them and selecting. And you will have immediate access to the result, which means, that you just can change some settings, take a new image and look at the result - even with the small 2,5" LCD on the back.

And another thing: Doing scans from slides is quite boring. I did it using an older Canon film scanner, which held only one single slide, so this is really ugly. So if you want to go digital, a digital SLR is the better option. Even slide scanners which can hold a whole slide mag request human interaction after each scan taken, to adjust lighting and color setting (no automatic is good enough to compete with the wishes of the photographer...).

One of the reasons I switched to digital was, that doing chemical photography resulted in having two cameras: one (an APS EOS IX) loaded with negative film for prints, an other (EOS 30) loaded with slide film for presentation. This changed with the EOS 300D, because on my projector I can use my PC to present the digital images as well as it is possible tho have prints from the digital images (the projector image is worse than the slide projection, but if you do a presentation you never look at each image to resolve the finest possible detail, so with 1280x720 resolution of the projector this is ok). And with the improvement of the digital image processing in photo labs, the quality of the cheaper prints decreased so much that they were unusable for me, so now the digital print is cheaper than a print from negative film in good quality.

Greetings, Axel

Hello,

to give a short answer on the question: To get approximately the same photo on a digital EOS body with 0.65 FOV crop (1.6x focal length multiplier) as with a 85mm lens on 35mm, you have to choose a lens with 0.65x the focal lenght and chose an aperture with 0.65x the f-number. E.g., 0.65 x 85mm = 55mm ~ 50mm and if you used f/2.8 with the 85mm lens, you now would use f/1.8 (but attention, some f-numbers are not exactly the value they appear to be in half-stop-notation, e.g. f/4.5 should rather be f/4.8 in half-stop-notation - only the full f-stop-numbers are precise, in addition third-stop-notations are often more precise than half-stop notations; but the error will probably be not visible, since 8% of opening only deliver the same difference in DOF).

The reason why DOF changes with a cropped view is simply mathematics: You only have to remember that you have to change the f-number according to the focal length in order to get the same image with a scaled sensor or film size. It is the same with medium or large format: In 35mm, the most commonly used f-stop for portraiture might be f/2.8 (with around 100mm). In 6x4.5 medium format, this is f/4 (with around 150mm), in 6x6 or 6x7 it is f/5.6 (with around 200mm). In large format, you will probably take f/11 on 4x5" (on a lens with 350mm). So with a D-SLR, take f/2 or even f/1.8 (with 50mm). The focal lenght is only relevant to give the right angle of view (for portraits, you want a short telephoto), the aperture makes the DOF.

The shutter time must be choosen according to the EV you (or the camera) measured and the film speed choosen. This is one reason why one wants to take 100 or 160 ASA speed film on 35mm for portraiture while most pros use 400 ASA speed film on MF for portraiture. The exposure times come out to approximately the same value.

Greetings, Axel

Hallo John,

I would be glad if I had your lenses. To me, it is not understandable why you want to leave some of your glass at home because it is a really good collection.

The problem you have is that you own good glass, but good glass is heavy glass. I myself own an EOS 300D with the kit lens, and additionally I have the 50mm 1/1.8 lens (the cheap II one), 24/2.8 and 100/2 as well as 24-85mm, 28-105mm, 28-135mm, 75-300mm IS lens and a 180mm macro (from Sigma). When I want to have small package, with the EOS 300D I used the kit lens and the 75-300mm IS lens.

With 35mm, I sometimes used the 24-85mm and the 75-300mm lens. If space is left, the first lens I additionally take with me is the 50mm prime lens.

In other words: It is important to have a wide angle lens. In your case, it is the 24-70mm lens (not true wide angle on the 10D, but a good starting point). If that lens is too big, try to get a 24-85mm lens. Then 50mm prime is good, a f/1.4 is a little bit larger, but still of acceptable size, much smaller and of better suited focal lenght would be a 35mm f/2 lens. The 100mm is not so important, as 50mm on your EOS 10D is allready a good portrait lens. If you want to have a tele, take the 200mm with you. If you want to stay with one lens, take the zoom (the only advantage of the 50mm prime would be it is 2 f-stops faster, but with a digital body capable of doing shots at 1600 ISO without much quality loss you will only need it for portraiture when you wand to throw the background out of focus).

Greetings, Axel

ps.: In such cases, an EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM and your 50mm prime would be the ideal combination.

If you consider the 500 lens, it is as good as a simple magnifying glass in front of a real 35mm lens can be - good up too a focal length of about 100mm, when stopped down a bit to f/8 or f/11. With 300mm, you will not be able to focus so blurry gets the image.

Better stay with the 500D lens, which is not a single piece of glass but is a so called acromatic corrected close-up lens. It does not do miracles when used with 300mm, but it is usable and stopped down to f/11 the images will look quite sharp.

Using the (stronger) 250D lens on 300mm is also not a good idea, because the focal length of the close-up lens is shorter than the focal lenght of the lens itself, and so you have to ask why the 75-300 uses 12 to 15 pieces of glass to get an image while you could use two pieces in an acromat to get a lens - but the many pieces of glass in a lens have a reason, and that reason is "image quality".

Greetings, Axel

Hello Ethan,

what you should consider in your decision is: Do I need the extra functionality of an EOS 10D or can I live with the limited functions of an EOS 300D?

The main advantage of the 300D over the 10D is the newer lens mount: The EF-S 18-55mm lens is not an L-class lens, but it is good enough to take photos with it, and you have the possibility to upgrade if a better EF-S lens occurs. With the 10D you have to remember that there is only one usable solution for an every-day lens, that is the EF 17-40mm L USM lens. Thought it is nearly 10 times as expensive as the EF-S lens, it covers only a (comparable) focal range of 27-68mm. The EF-S lens gives you 29-88mm, which is enough for, let's say 90% of all images I take.

The main problem of using a normal or wide angle EF lens on a D-SLR with an APS-C sized sensor is the extra image angle the lens delivers. I do not want a lens which can capture 100° image angle if I only can use 65° with my camera, because the extra 35° can do harm to the image if I get the sun into it, while it is still out of my imag frame. The EF-S lens blocks the extra light by a fixed aperture inside the lens, an EF 17-40mm would let the light into the camera, and the reflections inside the lens can spoil your image with flare. I know what I am writing about, as with an EF 24-85mm lens mounted on my EOS 300D I have some 10 photos made useless by light entering the lens when I expected the sun to be far enough out of my image. And a lens hood can not solve this problem, as Canon's lens hoods are designed for 35mm format film.

If you think you need the features of an EOS 10D, then I would wait for the successor, which probably will also have an EF-S lens mount, and when it will be released, there will be better EF-S lenses such as an EF-S 18-65mm USM lens with opening f/2.8-4 or at least f/3.5-4.5. I suppose that spring 2004 will be the end of the production time of the EOS 10D, since its predecessor, the EOS D60 was in production for nearly one year.

Greetings, Axel<div></div>

There is a good (and cheap) solution to this problem: I bought PhaseOne's Capture One Rebel Edition (Short C1 Rebel). It is a "scaled down" version of C1, but it has all the things necessary for getting good JPEGs out of the RAW files from an EOS 300D. It is possible to adjust WB and exposure after shooting the image, to an extension to approx. +/-1 fstop without loss of precision (the Canon RAW data contains nearly one fstop reserve for overexposure!).

The RAW format of the EOS 300D differs from that of an EOS 10D, so programms designed for other Canon RAW formats do not recognize the EOS 300D RAW format - but there will soon be a solution, because the adaption can not be that difficult.

You can see some of my images on

http://www.familie-farr.de/HomeGallery/Fotoindex.htm

(the page is in German)

Greetings,

Axel Farr

I bought an EOS 300D a month ago and with it a 1GB Microdrive, labelled IBM but produced by Hitachi. So far no problems. The speed is comparable to the 512 MB CF card of a coleague, so speed is no question. Price is also comparable, the 1GB Microdrive being a little bit cheaper than the Kingston CF card with half the capacity.

Energy consumption is not so much a problem, since the drive does only spin when it is used. The allways discussed fragility of the microdrive has to be seen in two ways: Yes, it is a little bit more fragile when it is spinning (it is stated to survive up to 10G in that state, which is more than I would like my camera to endure), but in stopped state Hitachi states the Microdrive to survive 100G, which would certainly also smash my camera...

So, if you like to throw around your storage media and crash it against concrete walls, buy a real flash card. If you are using your equipment in not to rough way (as probably every photographer does in order to keep his stuff alive), than nothing speaks against a microdrive, especially when you are taking RAW images (some 145 fit on a FAT 32 formatted microdrive).

Greetings, Axel

Well, some lenses of the Canon sortiment would be able to nearly cover the image circle of - at least - a 35 x 45 mm negative. The Canon bayonet is huge, with some 55mm diameter and 44mm distance between film and lens it is one of the largest mounts in 35mm.

For medium format, there are som 10 mm lacking - that's true. So, if you would not want a peephole MF-equipment, it does not make so much sense to use EF-equipment on MF. Not even for macro work, except with some special lenses. Most of the EF lenses have internal focussing elements, and such lenses do not like to get too far away from the film by an adapter, a larger bayonett or even a distance ring.

The last are the electronic controlled apperture and focus: it would not work on any MF camera, so there is no adapter.

Greetings, Axel