erik_dahlbeck

But doesn't the light loss affect the lens already when metering at full aperture, thus negating the need for exposure compensation?

Try http://www.zieger.se/

 

Or take a look at the forums over at http://www.fotosidan.se

I doubt it. I can't find a way to get my 3 to do that and most of the handling is fairly similar to the other pro bodies.

It ordinary film after all. You can rinse B&W negs, why not E6? ;-)

My vote goes for some Provideo Active Whatever lightweight (only positive) video tripod. At least my Sigma 27-70/2.8 EX which wouldn't AF and expose properly on my EOS 3 yielded some good pictures...

Why not use CF 4:0, that is shutter release half-depress for AF-lock and the AE-lock button for AE-lock? Do you seriously mean that it cannot be done other than in Evaluative on the 10D?

 

At least it works that way on my EOS 3 and thus it should work on the 1Ds.

 

Or am I confused as to what you're asking for? Do you want to lock both AF and AE on the shutter release? Why? It might be convenient for shooting faces only but what are you going to do if you want to meter anything else than whatever you want in focus?

CF 4:0 and 4:1 are essentially inverted functions. What is the problem with using two buttons?

 

By the way: Why not use manual mode and partial ("fat spot"). All you have to do is meter at whatever you'd otherwise AE-lock onto, dial in you exposure and start shooting. It's a lot easier to make a consious decision this way than by using Av, Tv or P mode and tuning exposure using the expose compensation. After all, you probably don't want the faces middle toned ("middle gray") and often I'd say you cannot be sure that the partial metering pattern really covers only the face and not part of a white dress or anything else that might mess things up.

But Maury, why are you talking about "variation from perfect exposure" and the zone system at the same time? The zone system is all about calculating that perfect exposure, not about how much you can miss it.

 

You seem to be confusing dynamic range with error margin. And yes, the tolerable error margin of slide film, if any, is closer to one (or one half) stop than the full range of 5 stops but neither you can say that the error margin of B&W is 10 stops because that's the film's full dynamic range. Don't compare apples to oranges.

 

Example: A 2,5 stop overexposure of anything on a slide film will give you just about all white and the same goes for a 4,5 to 5 stop overexposure of neg B&W.

 

However, when we're using the "zone system", we assume that anything we expose as +2,5 or +5 respectively, is supposed to be plain white. It's only after you've made your decision that a certain rock in the picture is to be -1 stop, the sky +1,5, that green grass +/-0 and that strongly sunlit snow +2,5 stops, that you need to start worrying about error margin. And still, "error margin" is a pretty bad term. It's not like you really have a margin, because you will lose detail in either shadows or highlights (unless using negative film in a low-contrast enviroment), but rather a certain non-disasterous span within which you will still have a middle tone subject appear as reasonably middle tone.

Maury: Where are you getting your numbers from? Normal slide film has a range och about +/- 2,5 stops which gives a total of about five stops. I'm unsure about colour negative but I'd say it definately ought to be at least seven stops though I've always thought colour neg and B&W neg are about the same...? I guess the films all differ in a varying degree...

 

The best favour one can do to oneself when talking about the "zone system" for other films than traditional B&W, is to skip the zone numbers and describe the "zones" as positive or negative deviations from neutral instead. The reason is that the number of middle zone shifts depending on the dynamic range of the film.

I guess it all depends on where you actually want to have your point of focus? What is the aspect angle to the subjects? Are they parallel to the focus plane or is either person closer to the camera than the other one?

Perhaps I'm retarded or we're not talking about the same thing but I'd say the MZ-4 can work with ANY aperture setting your camera can use.

 

At least when I tried it on my EOS 3 a minute ago and when in A (Auto) mode, the camera fed all aperture data to the flash, as indicated by the aperture setting on the flash changing accordingly. I tried it from f/2.8 to f/22 in 1/3 stop increments (didn't bother with my 50/1.8 to prove this) and the flash took any f-number I could set on the camera, without protesting. Why should it be a problem? It's just a basis for the Auto mode's exposure calculation, not some mechanical limit as on the camera.

I really don't have a clue of what you mean by "how many auto settings"? The flash has an "Auto" mode in which is picks aperture, ISO and (if available and applicable) distance data and meters the flash with it's own meter (a small hole in front of the flash.

 

First thing you should do is go to metz.de and download (as well as read) the manual (in English and a bunch of other languages):

http://www.metz.de/en/photo_electronics/manuals.164.html

 

Regarding choice between models, any newer model will do. The only difference between the MZ-3 and the MZ-4 is that the MZ-4 supports Nikon D-TTL as well as Canon E-TTL (and TTL, Metz's own Auto mode or manual mode).

 

What is more crucial however, is that you get a modern SCA adapter. The Metz Mecablitz flashes have interhangeable adapter foots, so that you can use the same flash for both Canon, Nikon and for an example a Hasselblad or Pentax camera by only changing the foot.

 

I'm not sure which adapter you need for the 20D but if you buy a new one and make sure it's supplied with a Canon adapter, you should be alright. I have an SCA 3102 M2 and I think that's the current one, but I'm not sure.

It's worth noting that the Sigma 24-70 and 28-70 f/2.8 EX lenses are also designed in this way. They differ however, in that the hood is fixed on the front of the lens so that advantage is not their reason.

I don't think anyone (besides possibly the real giants like B&H) are stocking pro film bodies because they are too hard to sell.

 

In Sweden (a country with roughly 9 million citizens), Canon sold something like four new EOS 1V bodies in 2003. Go figure...

No. It's pretty much all about being at the right spot at the right time (the latter is usually where people miss out) and using high-contrast, high colour saturation film.

 

However, if you want both the landscape and the sky exposed "correctly" (very relative term here) you may need a graduated neutral density filter, which is a filter where part of the filter i darker in order to tone down the very light sky and allow fairly normal exposure of both sky and landscape.

 

All the current shots in my folders are non-filtered.

Well, I think it's good. Especially if you make sure to shoot it at 640 ISO or at least generally expose it rather generously. But then I can't say I puke at the Superia 400 either.

Can I have one made of tungsten? Weight distribution is what bothers me the most whenever I'm using my EOS 3 with EF 50/1.8 II and a flash.

First of all the Elan, Rebel names and such aren't very logical at all.

 

If you look at it in an international perspective, you can easily see the "lines" by checking the number of digits in the model number:

 

- Top line: EOS 1, 1n, 1v, 1D, 1Ds, and mark II's for the later ones. The D2000 is no prosumer camera but a pro digital one based on the EOS 1n body.

 

- Close to top line: EOS 5 and 3 -- No digital equivalent at all.

 

- Middle ("prosumer") line: EOS 50 (Elan II?), 33/30 (Elan 7[E]), D30, D60, 10D and 20D

 

- Lower/amateur line: EOS 500(n), 300(v) (Rebel 2000/Ti), EOS 300D (Digital Rebel?)

 

- Lowest of the Lowest: EOS 5000, 3000, etc..

 

 

I'd say it's at least a fair guess that they'll someday land on 1(V/D), 3(D), 30(D), 300(D) and 3000 (perhaps even a D?).

I live in Sweden but I think our laws and those of Norway's are fairly similar (the nordic countries historically have passed many major codes with at least a similar philosophy) and at least here, there is no need to register any copyrights. Judging from the above posted text, the same should apply in Norway.

However, one should note that the Sigma 70-210 is of an earlier generation (is it even an EX lens?) than the 70-200/2.8 EX HSM.

I'd *guess* that it somehow (mathematically) identifies whatever small points that contrast out like grain and reduce their contrast. So, yes, at least in theory it should reduce the contrast and thereby the apparent sharpness of the image. "Throwing it out of focus" might be a little rough wording though.

 

In practise, I don't see much (if any) difference in sharpness. It doesn't seem to kill edge contrast (much, if at all) since that can be enhanced using USM without enhancing the grain as much.

That comment on 155 mm howitzers was pretty close. Try photographing 120 mm mortars firing. They're about slow enough for it to be done with normal equipment. :-)

 

Small arms tracers are also fun to shoot (with either MG or camera, hehe...).

 

84 mm recoilless rifle (Carl Gustaf) and similar rounds should also be possible to photograph. You'd need an army though... ;-)

I have to second that. Your lighting and colours are spectacular. What are you doing?

And that would be a ")" just after "reflectance". Why can't we edit posts...? ;-)

Fazal: Sorry but that's just FUD from the ignorant...

 

Put the camera in manual mode, aim the spot at whatever you think is important, set the exposure so that it (and anything with the same reflectance appears as whatever tonality you want it to appear as, check a few other parts (highlights, shadows, obvious middletones) and adjust as required. - Shoot.

 

For an example, you might put white snow as +2, a light gray stone as +1, skin as +1, dark wood as -1.

If you start thinking about what you're doing, you'll become fast at it in no time. Especially with a digital. - I learn't it with slides.

 

It's basically the same as multi spot, only you make the decisions and not some averaging algorithm in the camera.

The answer to the question of whether or not to use a bouncerfor fill flash outdoors is: Don't bother.

 

A bouncer (OmniBounce) doesn't magically diffuse the light because it's a soft milky white plastic. The only thing it does is spread the light so that it can bounce off other objects and then hit the subject from many different directions.

 

Needless to say, if you're outdoors, you'll only be making flashes for outer space (perhapsnot if it's overcast but you get the point). It's a waste of flash power.

 

Now, I guess that one of those "card" attachments could be large enough to make a slight difference but I think that without anything that the light can bounce off, there's no or little point in that either.