JohnMWright

Take a look at a Gitzo 2540 tripod. Lightweight, compact, very strong... just pricey.

 

Look at ballheads from Kirk (BH-3), Really right stuff, Arca Swiss (Z1 comes to mind), Acratech, Markins.

Have you looked at KEH.com? Have you looked at Tamron, Tokina, Sigma? They are more likely to have a less expensive model. Otherwise, keep saving for the Canon 300mm f/4 L. Sometimes you can find the non-IS for a good price, though more than $300.

The 420EX works very well. Nothing fancy about it. Bounce and swivel, E-TTL, No overrides on the flash. I use the FEV on the camera to adjust it, up to +/-2 stops. One thing I noticed is in M mode it auto-adjusts the output to balance the flash with the ambient light. It works as a remote slave for the 550EX, 580EX, or the ST-E2.

The Vivitar remote sensor cord sits on the hot shoe. The hot shoe is the voltage you need to worry about. Jason's suggestion is a good one.

 

For example... my 20D handles 6v on the shoe, but 250v on the pc terminal. My 283 measured around 100v, so I'm safe via the pc cord but not via the hotshoe without that voltage reducer. I don't know the specs for the XSi... just make sure you are within spec.

I don't know about cheap but the Minolta MD register is shorter than the Canon register making infinity focus impossible without machining the lens or changing the mount entirely on the Canon (not convenient).

 

http://digitalrokkor.altervista.org/indexENG.html

 

http://www.pbase.com/kkawakami/mctoef_mount_conversion

You can use tubes on any lens.

 

You will be awfully close to the subject going more than life-size. I'm glad you have the ring light.

 

I'd just stick with Canon tubes but there are cheaper sets available to try, like Kenko. I can't speak about the quality but I've never read of any complaints with Kenkos either.

 

Which size tube depends on the magnification you need but they are cheap enough you can buy a set and mix and match.

It depends on whether or not you can get close enough with your existing lens, but I would think you could get close enough for most insects with the lens alone. You might find you need more distance than 100mm offers however. Particularly if they move fast to get away from you. In that case I'd look at the 180mm macro.

a split ND filter, extra batteries.

I write the date (with a permanent marker) of purchase on each battery, so I can tell which one(s) are ready for replacement. If you mark each uniquely you might be able to find the culprit(s).

At the time I switched to digital from a long discontinued film system, Canon had the best sensor tech. There are many more viable choices now so if I had to start over... who knows. The cameras also fit my hands well and the controls made sense, even if they aren't as fast as a nice old fashioned aperture ring on the lens.

It rotates freely, 360 degrees.

Well done and thanks for the pics.

Take a look at KEH.com for used lenses. They are reliable, fair-priced, and conservative in their ratings. I always had good luck getting my older MF lenses through them.

 

Minolta glass is excellent. Maybe Leica has some better lenses but I doubt you could tell the difference, and certainly Minolta prices can't be beat.

I adapted my old Minolta Bellows with a pair of adapters... one Minolta MC lens to M42 body, and M42 lens to EOS body. You could do that with other brands as well I'm sure.

 

Given what you already have, why not try a short (and cheap) extension tube from a brand name you trust on whichever end of the bellows you don't trust?

Rafik,

 

No, that wasn't aimed at you. There was a question of focal length determining DOF.

 

You are right. If you stay in one location, then the more you zoom in, the more magnification increases.

 

What Shaw is saying in his book is... if you use a (for example) 50mm and a 100mm lens on the same subject, and move the camera between shots with each lens so that the main subject in each image has the same magnification, then the depth of field at a given f-stop is the same.

 

I assume the raynox macro adapter is an extension tube? Yes they are cheap and a good way to get started in macro, though I find zooms + extension awkward. I found it easier to use extension on primes. In general, my 500D is, I think, much easier to use, though it was close to $200 as I recall, and the quality is still quite high. One of the benefits of the closeup lenses is that with zooms you don't need to refocus and move the camera around as you zoom, at least in theory. I do find I need to refocus some when I zoom in general with my Canons. That didn't seem to be the case with my older manual Minoltas.

On page 53 in "The Nature Photographer's Complete Guide to Professional Field Techniques", John Shaw states:

 

"Regardless of the focal length used, photographs taken at the same image size and at the same f-stop will have the same depth of field."

"It's important to understand that focal length has no influence on depth of field with macro work - that is controlled by magnification and effective aperture."

 

That is always true, regardless of subject.

25mm extension gives you about 1/4 life-size at 105mm. Having an extension tube is never a bad option, but less convenient than a true macro lens. It is a good cheap way to get started.

 

Another good option is a Canon 500d or 250d closeup lens. It acts like a filter, screwing into the front of your lens, which I find more convenient than taking off a lens to add extension. The lenses are two-element designs and very high quality, although you will lose a little sharpness by adding more glass to a lens. They are designed to work at longer focal lengths so you'd probably want to keep it near 105mm.

 

The biggest difference between the 100mm and 180mm macros is the working distance. Depending on the subject, having more distance may be very useful. The farther back you are, the less likely you are to spook small animals for instance.

 

The 100mm is lighter and smaller, the 180mm comes with a tripod collar making verticals much easier.

 

I have the 100mm and it is great, but I often would like the extra working distance of the 180mm. I don't think you'll go wrong either way.

It cannot be dirt on the lens if one of the cameras, using the same lens, looks good to you.

Jeff,

 

If Canon says there is no problem, then likely what you see is the conservative in-camera processing. Hard to say without an example.

 

The default JPGs from my 20d are softer than from my Olympus P&S. But, by shooting RAW and using good photoshop techniques (as well as good shooting technique), I can get MUCH better results from the 20d RAW files. It just takes a little more effort.

 

I admit the first time I saw the default JPGs I was disappointed, but it wasn't a flaw. There is a learning curve.

 

To test it yourself you need a solid tripod, focus manually, use a cable release. I would use the 50mm for the test. The raw file will appear soft until you work with it.

The low light will still be a pain. The 2x converter reduces the incoming light by 2 stops, making the combination a f/5.6 lens, so there is no point from a light-gathering perspective.

 

I don't have both and can't make a definitive statement but this question has been asked and tested, and the 100-400 is better.

 

If you need more light at 400mm you will need to consider the 400mm f/4 or the f/.2.8. If you just want better sharpness then look at the 400mm f/5.6. Also, the 300mm f/4 + 1.4x converter is a good combination.

Mike, I'm VERY impressed for a handheld. I usually can't do that. IS helps a lot but I find my best always come from a tripod. It is a good shot no matter how you did it.

 

I was doing the RAW + small JPG for a long time until I realized that Irfanview (my favorite viewer) could very quickly go through the RAW files, loading them nearly as fast as the JPGs. Now I only shoot raw since they are so easy to view. I customized Irfanview to send anything I want to edit to ACR/photoshop.

 

For raw conversions, I'm using Adobe Camera Raw most of the time. I've had a few shots that were difficult to process and found Canon's DPP was able to save the details in the highlights that ACR lost. ACR is just easier to use.

 

What I have found is, if the image is right in the camera, PP takes less than a minute.

Mike,

 

Very nice! I'm sure you will continue to enjoy that camera.

 

It isn't clear from your post but if you are just shooting JPGs you really need to consider shooting RAW. Canon JPGs are very mildly processed and you probably won't be entirely happy.

 

RAW gives you the chance to correct color balance/temperature more easily, sharpen the "right" amount, enhance contrast via curves, etc. And if you make a mistake, RAW has a lot more information, giving you a chance to correct it.

 

Once you get used to the PP, you won't find it takes any extra time compared to what you have to do now.

 

Enjoy!

Write or call Canon, they replaced my disk for free.

I have the non-IS version.

 

What puppy said! I cannot hand-hold it at all with my 1.6x crop sensor, but on a tripod it is one of the sharpest lenses I have ever owned. Even if the shutter speed is good enough, I can't seem to get the framing I want, so I always put it on a tripod.

 

I can use it with a monopod if I can push it up against something like a tree.

 

I do yet have any TCs yet.