JohnMWright

For ballheads, there are many good ones with Arca-Swiss type quick releases.

 

I have the Kirk BH-1 ballhead and love it. I suggest you also look at Arca-Swiss, Acratech, and Really Right Stuff. Each has different models, something should suit your needs.

 

Oh, and after about 20 years with my Bogen 3221 tripod, I'm about to get the Gitzo 3530. ;-)

Also:

 

http://www.tripodhead.com/

Also... lots of links here for repair manuals that might be handy if you break out the tools:

 

http://www.geocities.com/eskoufos/fmm.html

Superior Camera Repair and Exchange, in Woodland Hills, CA, can probably beat that price if you decide to do the repairs. Look them up in the white pages for the number.

 

Also, there is an adapter for the battery available, I have one for my SRT. http://www.criscam.com (click mercury battery adapters).

 

You can get a lot of really good Minolta lenses very cheaply, so if film is your thing, and you don't need AF and motor drives, etc, you won't go wrong.

I didn't know about Ufraw. I'd have kept using the GIMP if I'd known. That was part of the reason I abandoned Linux as a home desktop system.

 

I too read of several people saying that PS and GIMP are very different, but I don't understand why, I think the interfaces are quite similar. I do hope the GIMP supports 16bpp sometime soon. On the other hand, I'm quite quite happy with CS2 and don't regret the purchase.

I have the Bogen 3232 with a Kirk QR clamp on my monopod. The 3229 looks similar so I would expect it to be OK. I used a 400mm f/4 on mine, as well as a 70-200 f/2.8 with 20D without a single problem. Does the 3229 QR have a safety lock? That would be a deciding factor. However, I still recommend you hold out and spend a little extra on a Wimberley, Kirk, or RRS QR clamp, they are worth it.

 

One word of caution, the 3232 loosens quickly so always hold the lens when making an adjustment!

I started with GIMP because it was free. It works similarly to Photoshop in many respects. But as mentioned, it is limited to 8 bits per pixel. If you only work with JPGs that is fine, but for RAW it won't be good enough. When I went digital, I needed to work with RAW right then, not wait for 16bpp support, and there were few choices. Photoshop CS2, Elements, and Picture Window Pro were about the only ones as I recall. I had a strange conflict between Elements (3.0 at the time) and iTunes. PWP is good but after using the GIMP I was more comfortable with Photoshop. I went with CS2 and don't regret it for a second.

 

If you own a Mac, check out Aperture too.

Having just looked at the Panosaurus website, I think you will need a fixed cavity quick release system, but I'm not sure how well it will work. There could be strength issues, and there could be alignment issues. I believe the open channel of the Arca-Swiss style system will cause you to lose the optical center required by the Panosaurus.

 

The Bogen hex plate system might be worth looking into. I found it on B&H, called: Bogen / Manfrotto 625 (3296) RC0 Hexagonal Quick Release Adapter Set

Well, I've never had any problem with the clamp holding these plates, and I did try the knob in front but I find it too cramped (the knob is too close to the lens) for comfort.

Just a random bit of trivia...

 

I've been using generic Arca-Swiss type square camera body plates with a lip,

model PZ-31 from Kirk photo. They fit every camera I've tried so far (including

Minolta SRT-101 and XD-11, Canon 10d and 20d). I did have to file a little metal

off the lip to get it to fit my Minolta SRT-101 (I could not load or unload the

film with the plate attached until I lowered the height of the lip), but

otherwise zero problems.

 

I like the square plates because I can orient the tightening knob on the

ballhead out to the side, rather than back into my face. For the short bodies

I've used to date, this is a good thing. ;-)

 

To point out the obvious... I do use lens plates on all of my heavier lenses

with tripod collars, I only use the camera body plates with smaller, lighter

lenses (missing tripod collars) attached.

There is a time and place for each. I generally use no filters at all. I use UV or 1A skylight at the beach or in the rain. I rarely use my warming filters. What you use and when is a matter of taste. I do think having an 81A is worthwhile though. I'd say get one for your most used lens and try it. Take shots with and without it, see what you like.

This might not fit your needs, but to keep it simple and cheap... You can do this without the need for cantilevers or balances. Just use a standard tripod and head. Currently I have a Bogen 3221 with a Kirk BH-1 ballhead. I just aim down between the legs, which can be spread sufficiently for most small objects.

Matthew, what adapter are you referring to? Focus confirmation could be handy. ;-)

Try looking at a combination of step-up or step-down rings to adapt your two lenses. What you need will depend on the lenses I think.

 

I assume your 100mm uses a 58mm filter? Older Minolta MC lenses generally use 55mm filters so the difference won't be that great, and they are cheap. Try KEH.com.

The reason that some cameras will work and some will not is the length of the lens register, which varies between brands. Here is a page that lists various registers.

 

http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mounts.htm

Steve's questions about your intended use are very pertinent.

 

Sigma may have improved but I had very bad luck and very bad service when I tried one years ago (sticky aperture, twice multiple times to have it fixed under warranty, never got fixed). I'd stick with Canon.

 

Your budget may decide on the speed of the lens, but if you can afford it go for the f/2.8. The Canon 70-200 (both f/2.8 and f/4) lenses both get rave reviews consistently. I have the f/2.8 and can attest to the quality. The prime may be even higher quality, but in practical terms I doubt you would notice a difference.

 

If I were to go 3rd party, I'd look at Tamron and Tokina before Sigma. My wife had a Tamron 28-200 (she didn't want to swap lenses, or carry more than one lens) and I was quite impressed. I had a Tokina ATX 100-300 f/4 and loved it. The Canon is better, but for my old Minolta MD system the Tokina was the only option for that speed/zoom range. Note that with the 1.6x factor, the 300d and 400d make the Canon 70-200 roughly equivalent to using a 100-300 on a 35mm.

Hi Mario,

 

I wondered too, and just went and tried it. When I'm logged out, I cannot see my list of equipment. The only public viewing of it is when I list the gear for a particular shot.

I don't see any obvious dust spots, but that is about all I can say. :-)

 

I found that the spot-healing brush in PS CS2 worked well when I failed to clean my sensor well.

Thanks guys.

 

I think I'll wait until I can see a 3530 before I commit. My Bogen 3221 still works fine, I just want more stability with the legs fully extended.

I dug a little further and found that the 35xx series may be the replacement series. The capacity is greatly increased, but they weigh a little more than the 1325. Still lighter than my 3221 though.

I read in a couple of places that the Gitzo 1325 will be replaced around

February 2007. Based on the specs for the 6x tripods on the Gitzo site, I guess

the model will be the 2530. Can anyone confirm this?

 

I have two concerns if so...

 

1) the gitzo site says the 2530 is for 300mm tops (which makes no sense for a

tripod rated for 26 lbs!).

 

2) The 2530 is listed as only 3.1 lbs? Maybe this is TOO light to handle big

lenses (400 f/2.8, 500 f/4, etc).

 

Or maybe the light weight is precisely why they say 300mm tops?

 

I'm interested in the 6x technology for the anti-rotation feature, but I'm

tempted to just go ahead and get the 1325 since its proven. Maybe I can learn to

deal with the leg locks...

It's a wonderful lens. Pros: sharp, excellent quality. Cons: expensive and heavy. If you don't need the extra stop, look at the f/4 version. If you are outdoors or use flash, maybe the f/4 version is a better option. Some churches don't allow flashes during weddings though.

Abdul,

 

I recommend the Canon ST-E2 wireless transmitter. They are about $200. It works with your flash, plus the 430EX, 550EX, and the 580EX. It can trigger multiple flashes, and you can organize the flashes into groups. It will make your studio setup quite versatile.

If you can view the CR2 files with Canon's software, then the files are not corrupt. I'm guessing you have viewed them with zoombrowser based on your wording.

 

Perhaps CS2 or the ACR addon didn't install correctly? Not to beat the topic to death, but did you make sure your model camera is supported by the version you installed?

Somewhere in my bags is a 55mm-55mm male to male filter adapter. I haven't used it for awhile, but... It worked fine, it was plenty strong for a heavy old 28mm on a 100mm. But I had all old lenses with all metal construction, maybe your lenses have some plastic? William's suggestion is a good one if you are worried about strength.

 

An idea that may or may not work: get a pair of telephoto lens collars, weld them together with a brace, pad as needed to ensure they clamp solidly without damage to the lenses... and maybe use it to mount the rig to your tripod.

 

I don't recall any vignetting with my setup but it wasn't the same as your gear. Just have to try it.

 

Quality: as I recall, it was so hard to focus and get sufficient DOF and avoid subject movement, camera movement, etc, that I really wasn't all that worried about the lens quality!