JohnMWright

I can't answer which is best, but I will say odds are you do want one. I scratched a set of glasses on a Minolta XD-11. I found a good eyecup for it finally and eliminated that worry. Prior to locating that rare eyecup, I found some cork pads and placed those around the edges of the viewfinder.

 

Even with my 20D which has a better eyepoint than my old Minolta, I find myself pushing my glasses up against it, so I'm glad for any rubber eyecup at all.

I want to use my 20D on an old Minolta bellows system. My idea is

simple enough: I plan to use an extension tube with a Minolta MD/MC

mount on the front (side facing lens/bellows) and a Canon EOS mount

on the back (of course to attache to the 20D), which leaves the

bellows totally intact, plus gives the clearance I'll need between

the body and bellows. I thought I'd buy something like a cheap Kenko

25mm EOS tube and put the Minolta mount on the front of it.

 

Obviously, I'll have to use stopped-down metering and focus manually,

but can anyone think of any other problems that may arise?

 

Can anyone recommend someone who can do this work?

Seems like you already have the wide angle side covered, since you are happy with the 10-22. I guess I'd go for the 24-70.

Even if your topic is not nature, I recommend you pick up a copy of "John Shaw's Closeups in Nature", it will explain many of the techniques you might use very clearly. It will also show you what kinds of photos you can get with certain equipment.

 

A solid tripod is a must, as is a 'cable' release (now called remote switches). It should go to ground level if you will work outdoors. Don't skimp on a good head. I use ballheads, some prefer 3-way pan/tilt heads for this.

 

To get the absolute best 'macro' photos, you won't want a zoom at all, but a dedicated macro lens. I prefer 100mm f/2.8, but that is just my own preference. Get one that goes to 1:1. I think most modern macro lenses do this. Focal length should be determined by the subject matter. I like the working distance and the isolation of the subject provided by a medium telephoto. Any brand from any major manufacturer will be good.

 

I would stay away from a prosumer digital camera for this type of photography, because of the lag time between pressing the button and the exposure. Stick with an SLR.

 

You can start 'cheap' by reversing a wide angle lens on an SLR. Older, manual, mechanical lenses will work best for this so you can manually control the aperture. You will have to focus manually.

 

Another cheap option is a diopter. Canon and Nikon make good ones. You loose a certain amount of optical quality when you do this.

 

Yet another cheap option is extension tubes. No loss of optical quality but it will let in less light, making your lens effectively slower.

 

I have used all of these methods and I think anyone serious about macro work will eventually end up with a macro lens.

 

And finally, the equipment won't make you an expert, only practice will do that.

 

So I attempted to answer questions #1 and #2 together. I don't have an answer for #3. Good luck and have a lot of fun.

If you already have a lot of 35mm slides/negatives to scan, I recommend the Canon FS4000, and vuescan (www.hamrick.com). I've had wonderful luck with that combination. I've also read good things about Minolta's scanners. I had a Nikon coolscan III and had a terrible time with it getting dusty.

 

When using Vuescan, make sure you save your TIFFs in 16-bit (per channel, 48 bits total) format. It is possible to scan at the highest settings, then lose all that data by saving to JPG or an 8-bit (per channel) TIFF.

 

If you are thinking for future use, a DSLR is more convenient. A little more money upfront perhaps, but you save on film and developing, plus you don't have to wait for the film to be developed.

 

In either case, you will probably want to use a good editing program like Photoshop.

My concern with Nikon is the D70 is not fully compatible with some of the older Nikon lenses. My thought would have been to get a FM2n and a D70 and share lenses. With the 'G' series missing aperture rings, you can't use them on the FM2n, and the D70 can't use many of the older lenses... that strikes me as poorly thought out, as a number of Nikon users considering upgrades are obviously considering Canon.

 

If the D2x/h does not have that issue (I have not done the research), no worries, getting one may be a similar cost to "replacing" your system with a lower end Canon body and lenses.

Lamp or dust sound like good answers, but if it is dust it is very minor at this point. I think an aging lamp is more likely. I recall seeing something about calibrating the lamps periodically on some scanners, you may want to look into that.

 

If you replace it, stick with Minolta or Canon, they have better dust resistance. My Nikon Coolscan III became dusty very quickly, and cleaning is too expensive to be worthwhile.

James is right to suggest installing the ASPI drivers. SCSI drives will run without them, but other devices such as scanners will not. It is necessary to install the drivers, even if other issues also exist.

 

KL IX is right to suggest having the device on prior to booting your computer. SCSI is not quite so convenient as USB. I don't know about Ted's suggestion, but it sounds handy and worth a try.

 

Others are correct to suggest checking for device conflicts and switch settings.

 

I used to have a Nikon LS-30 which is SCSI only and learned these things setting it up. When I moved to the LS4000, I chose USB for ease and the convenience of not having to reboot to turn the scanner on. Scanning may take longer, but oh well.

I'll add that to see the effect of a polarizer in the viewfinder very clearly, having clouds in the sky can help - there will be a greater contrast between the clouds and the sky. You should also see a difference with reflections on water and green leaves. As mentioned, your angle relative to the sun makes a difference.

It depends. Lots of people say yes to that question, but some will say 2 stops. You will need to try it to find out your limit. If you tend to shake, you should expect less benefit than what someone steadier will get. Try it on a non-moving subject with both vertical and horizontal lines so you can more easily see the shake.

Ah, I did not spot that, hadn't read the entire thing yet. Thanks Mark. It still seems like a strange thing to need to do... I've never specifically needed to format hard drives when moving them from one computer to another, unless of course I wanted to change the file system.

I have a Hitachi 2GB in my 20d... was used previously in a 10d. Worked fine in both, except I had to reformat it to get things running properly in my 20d. That was a darned good price you got.

Only because I didn't buy one yet. I will, soon.

I just got a Canon 20d. I installed a 2GB microdrive that had been

used in a 10d previously, and started taking snapshots learning the

camera. I was able to cycle through all the pictures in the camera,

but when the time came to view them on the computer... the software

told me "no images found on camera". I followed the directions

carefully (nothing unexpected there) with software and hardware

setup. Rebooting, trying again, using another cable all got the same

result. What finally worked was formatting the card in the 20d, even

though it had been formatted previously in a 10d, same file format

(fat32). I just thought that was odd. I never found any other

reference to this problem, although the Canon support website was

down last night when I checked.

 

After re-formatting in the 20d, it works fine.

Dan,

 

I just bought my first digital, the Canon 20d. I narrowed it down to that or the Nikon d70 or Minolta 7d. From all the research I did, and evidence in real pictures posted to this site, I think both systems are quite good and roughly equal in quality. I picked the Canon over Nikon for comfort in my hands, plus I found the Canon a little more intuitive to use. I'd stick with the Nikon, replacing lenses is pricey.

 

Since I came from a manual focus Minolta and had no digital upgrade path, I was able to look at all the options. If Minolta had kept the lens mount, the 7d would have been a no brainer, as I have some excellent Minolta MD lenses.

Hey Jonathan,

 

Check out folding rubber lens hoods too. They'll act as a shock absorber, and the Hama that I have is short, compact and sturdy. I'm not sure about vignetting at 24mm however.

Any monopod will work with any camera, assuming matching screw sizes.

 

Obviously for that lens you'll want something on the sturdier side.

 

I'm quite happy with my Bogen 3218. I use it with a 400mm f/4 when a tripod takes up too much space. Gitzo makes some with shoulder rests that will help steady the sway.

 

If you are going to use 800mm often, I suggest a tripod instead, if possible. I think it will be extremely difficult to frame your subjects accurately. If you don't have to extend it and can sit on the ground, that will help too.

I'd return it. I've never heard of such a problem with any lens, be it Minolta or 3rd party or any other major camera brand.

I recommend picking up one of these:

 

http://www.criscam.com/mr9.htm

 

I have one for my SR-T and it works quite well.

Like the others say, I'd say stick with Minolta. I have the 24mm MD and it is a great lens. The 28mm is even better if you don't need the extra angle of the 24mm. But if you look at 3rd party lenses, consider Tamron as well.

 

keh.com is another good place to find used lenses.

Hi,

 

The newer Minolta system, the autofocus system, is labeled "maxxum". The mounts are called A-mount, and often they will be listed as AF since they are auto-focus. As has been noted, they have 50mm, 100mm, 200mm and 3x-1x zoom macros for the maxxum system.

 

http://kmpi.konicaminolta.us/eprise/main/kmpi/Content/cam/cam_Attachments/Maxxum_Lenses#mac

 

Lesser known is the 12.5mm, 25mm, 50mm, and 100mm bellows micros. The 12.5 and 25mm at least use a small screw mount and so should be usable by a Nikon bellows with the right adaptor.

 

Nikon also made a number of bellows micros, as did (does?) Olympus. The Olympus macro system is held in very high regard.

 

In terms of comparisons, all the major brands are pretty close to each other in quality. Some make one lens a little better, but the competitors each do other lenses a little better.

 

I've personally been investigating switching to digital. I have the older Minolta manual focus system, so this means a complete switch. I've looked at Nikon, Canon, and Minolta. I think I know what you mean about feeling disillusioned by Nikon. The newest digitals only work (with all features) with the newest lenses... but some of the newest lenses are labeled "G" which don't have aperture rings on the lens, so you can't use those on a mechanical backup body like the FM. And yet they claim compatibility because it is the same physical mount.

 

If someone would make a digital back for my XD-11, I'd be a very happy camper.

Thanks for all the replies.

 

Beau, I'll go to the store and try it.

 

Andrew, thanks for your first-hand feedback, very encouraging.

 

Erin, nice idea. I wish Minolta had kept the mount. As Andrew mentioned there is a teleconverter forced upon you with the adaptor and I'm not willing to do that. I will check into the 7D as well.

Hi,

 

I currently have an old Minolta MD system. It is a great system and

has served me well but I'm thinking about switching to digital. Most

of my photos are scenics or closeups and I've never seen any

advantage to AF for those photos. So my question those of you with

Canon EOS macro lenses and the 20D, how easy is it to focus manually

and be precise? Can you do so by eye or do you need the assistance of

the AF system?

Do you use Kodachrome or B&W? Canon has a note on their FS4000 page about the dust removal not working with these films. I don't know if Minolta can do any better however. Just an angle to consider.