photobyalan.com

I think this "vibration" is a non-issue. It seems to be either the shutter cocking mechanism or the mirror return motor. At any rate, it can't be any more jarring than the mirror slap of the 20D.

Mars,

 

Metering seems to be very good and accurate in ambient light and with flash. Keep in mind, however, that I have taken only a few photos so far and my judgment of exposure is based on the camera's histogram and what I see in the LCD. Give me a day or two of shooting and I can get a better idea of the real-world performance of the 40D.

I received my new 40D this afternoon and have been examining it, thumbing

through the manual and taking some photos.

 

I decided to add the 40D to my bag after using a 20D for the past 3 years. My

main reasons for upgrading were to get the 3" LCD and better autofocus. It has

always been my opinion that the image quality on the 20D, all things considered,

is fantastic and, quite frankly, I'm not looking for a huge improvement there.

 

Upon holding the 40D for the first time, I definitely notice a bit more heft and

a more "solid" feel. There is a different texture to the body, somewhat

rougher, which may provide a bit more grip. The grip is a bit more comfortable

to me, but it is not a huge difference. The controls are familiar, although

some have been moved to accommodate the larger LCD screen.

 

The LCD is spectacular. For someone who is beginning to have trouble with near

focus, it is a godsend. I can shoot without my reading glasses and still see

whether I have a good shot. The large size also makes it easy to read the menus

and data. The histogram and thumbnail display is now large enough to be useful,

whereas on the 20D they were both too small to see well. One nice feature is

the ability to decline auto-rotation in the LCD while still having it when

photos are downloaded. When playing back photos I am now able to see them fill

the LCD instead of being rotated and shrunk to fit.

 

I had heard the shutter/mirror mechanism was quiet, but I was not prepared for

just how quiet it is. It will never be mistaken for a Leica rangefinder, but it

is a vast improvement over the 20D.

 

I am not terribly impressed with the new viewfinder. While it is indeed larger

and brighter than the 20D, neither of these improvements are earth-shaking and

it still falls well short of a full frame digital or 35mm camera.

 

Autofocus, as judged by my perception of speed and accuracy, has improved

significantly over the 20D. Not only is it faster, it seems to track moving

subjects much better, especially in dark scenes such as indoors at night.

 

6 1/2 frames per second is pretty darn cool. It's faster than my old EOS 1 with

the power booster, and I can play with it without burning up a dozen rolls of

film in 10 minutes.

 

The EOS 1D-style menus are great. They seem easier to read and to navigate, and

I haven't even gotten used to them yet.

 

So far, I have not noticed any significant improvement over the 20D in

autoexposure or auto white balance. However, I generally found the 20D to be

adequate for my needs and I always shoot in RAW anyway, so I am able to make

adjustments after the fact. There hasn't been time for any serious

pixel-peeping, and there may never be. It appears the image quality is somewhat

better than the 20D; the first few test shots I have made look quite nice but I

have only viewed them on the LCD, so the jury hasn't even gotten the case yet.

 

Am I happy I spent the money? Absolutely. To me, it's worth it just for the

big LCD. Everything else is gravy, and there seems to be plenty of it. Now I'm

lookng forward to getting out and taking some real photos to see what this thing

can do.

Sorry, here's the link to <a href=http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&tabact=SNAModelSuppliesTabAct&fcategoryid=803&modelid=15653>my source</a>.

No, you are not reading the specs right.

For the 30D, I vote for the EF-s 60mm macro. It's been my favorite lens ever since I got it a couple months ago.

<p>

<a href=http://www.photoshelter.com/gallery-show/G00008C0BYij3zM0>Here</a> are a few images from my fist few weeks using it.

If it's "Manufacturer's B-Stock", then that most likely means the items have cosmetic blemishes (scratches, sloppy paint jobs, dents, gouges in rubber pieces, etc.), or the box has been damaged (not the item). Sometimes the item has been used at a trade show booth or for product photography, or in some other kind of display requiring it to be removed from the box. Once the factory seal is broken, it no longer qualifies as "A" stock. "B" stock items are frequently available at manufacturers' employee-only stores and are essentially brand-new items, with brand-new warranties. They are not perfect, and a small portion of them do indeed have operational problems but most work just fine and can be had at a substantial cost savings over "A" stock merchandise.

 

In my experience, B-Stock items are NOT customer returns or items that have been repaired. Returns would go back to the store, not the manufacturer, so would not qualify as "manufacturer's B-stock". Items that have been to a service center, even if they were working fine when they got there, go into the "refurbished" or "reconditioned" categories, not B-stock.

 

This is how it was at Aiwa America when my wife worked there. We bought quite a few B-stock items and were very pleased with them in general and we saved a lot of money.

 

Disclaimer: B&H may have a different definition of B-Stock, so caveat emptor.

Umm...Puppy Face isn't pulling your leg. He's absolutely correct.

 

There is a sensor in the camera with a little gravity-actuated switch that tells the camera whether it is horizontal or vertical. That sets a value in the image data which tells imaging software whether the JPEG needs to be rotated for viewing. That switch makes a little rattling noise when the camera is turned.

I just got the EF-S 60mm macro and it really is a wonderful lens as long as you focus manually. It has a tendency to hunt in low light because there is no focus limiter and this lens has a VERY wide range of focus.<p>

 

<a href=http://www.photoshelter.com/gallery-show/G00008C0BYij3zM0>Here</a> are some sample images from my first week with the lens.

Why don't you just get a 30D and an EF-S 10-22? Then you can take all the ultra wide angle photos you want instead of wasting your time asking people you don't know to speculate on a future that they can only guess at.

My answer to your question assumes you don't want to run out and spend money on a lighting setup, and that you don't want to do much post-processing. Many people don't, and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

Something I should have mentioned is that you should also try to use a wall instead of the ceiling for bounce. You will still get soft light, but it will be predominately on one side of your subject, giving definition to the features. If you are able to do any sort of setup, get a white card and use that to bounce your flash. Place it about a foot from your flash and angle it so the card will bounce the light directly at your subject. It won't be as good as an umbrella, but it will do an acceptable job of softening the light and getting it away from the lens axis. A smaller card will give a somewhat harder light, a larger card somewhat softer. You can play with angles and height to achieve an effect you like.

 

Keep in mind that any bounce is going to cost you a lot in light intensity so you will need to pay attention to exposure when you're shooting.

 

I agree that using curves and levels in post processing is a way to get higher contrast and more "snap" in your images. If you are particularly ham-handed you may even be able to achieve the hokey, overprocessed look of many of Mike's photos.

Yes, we certainly know <a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/4583366>who</a>.

Hopefully you will get better advice in the future.

 

If your photos are low in contrast and you are constantly having to brighten them, then you are underexposing your flash shots. If you are going to bounce, you need to make sure you aren't reaching too far on the bounce for the power of your flash. Flash metering systems are remarkable, but they can only do so much if the flash can't output enough light.

 

First, look at the distance from your flash to the wall or ceiling and then to your subject. If the total distance is more than 15 feet, you are seriously pushing the limits of that flash. Even at shorter distances, you lose a LOT of light when bouncing off a wall or ceiling, even if it is pure white and perfectly smooth (most of them are neither). Try to make that bounce distance as short as you can.

 

You can also try adding one stop of flash exposure compensation. Depending on how the Nikon camera/flash combination behaves, you might also need to add some exposure compensation to the camera as well.

 

Increasing the ISO should also help, but try the other solutions first and see how it goes.

I'm going to agree with the previous two opinions. If you can't afford L glass, then you REALLY can't afford a 5D. Put the 10-22 onto the XTI and you get as wide as you would with a FF camera for a grand total of about $1500. Heck, by the time you paid $2700 for a FF DSLR with NO lenses, you could have had yourself the XTI, 10-22 AND a 24-70 2.8L which, BTW, are both great lenses.

<i>"With prints this size you do not need 300ppi..."</i><p>

 

Of course not.<p>

300 is a number that gets thrown around a lot. 300DPI is an excellent resolution for prints which will be viewed at arm's length. At higher resolution, you are basically wasting pixels because the eye really isn't able to resolve more than that. However, most (normal) people will be satisfied with resolution of 200DPI at arm's length. As viewing distance from the print increases, the resolution needed to produce a satisfactory image decreases. At 30 feet, 72 DPI is fine. You only need high resolution when the prints are intended to be viewed from very close up, i.e. at a distance less than the diagonal of the print.<p>

 

Yes, prints will almost certainly look somewhat better with the higher resolution, but it isn't necessary to produce a satisfactory, or even a very good print.

10 FPS, 10 MP and ISO 6400, which, if Canon's bluster is justified, might look as good as 1600 on the current sensor.

 

Gee, you think any sports shooters are going to want a piece of that?

 

I wonder if the folks at Nikon are saying "No mas..."

WOW. Curse my brain.

 

"I would expect the Extreme IV to perform at least as well as the Ultra II."

 

God help me.

"I would expect the Ultra II to perform just as WELL as the Lexar..."

 

Curse this board for not having the ability to edit posts.

How did you transfer the files? Directly from the camera or through a card reader? Is the card reader USB 2? Is the computer port USB 2? Fire wire? If you are transferring files directly from the camera, that is most likely the limiting factor on the transfer speed.

 

In your continuous shooting test, did you shoot exactly the same scene? The amount of detail in the scene would make a difference when you are shooting in JPEG as the size of the files is different depending on the amount of information they contain. Otherwise, I would say that you are being limited by the write speed of the camera. You didn't mention what camera you are using.

 

I have a Sandisk Ultra II card and one of the Lexar's like you have and I can tell you the file transfer speed on the Ultra II is several times faster than the Lexar. I would expect the Extreme IV to perform at least as wekk as the Ultra II. I haven't done any continuous shooting tests.

 

I suppose it's possible that you have a counterfeit card although, when 2GB cards are going for about $50, it seems like it would be a lot of trouble to counterfeit them for such a small amount of money.

<a href=http://www.jigzone.com/>Here</a> is the link you need.

Considering your current equipment, I would recommend using the on-camera light as a fill light and the off camera light as a key. I don't know if I would go 45 degrees off-axis for the key, though. Try around 30 degrees off axis horizontally and 20-30 degrees vertically for a "conventional" portrait. This will result in a noticeable but not huge nose shadow and should get the main light into the eye sockets. Set the fill at around 30-50% power, the exact setting is going to depend on your taste and the effect you are going for.

 

A better option, IMO, is to use your on-camera light (I'm assuming it is able to tilt and swivel) bounced against a white card, light-colored wall, or other reflective surface. Try to set up your angles so you get an angle of incidence of around 30-40 degrees on your subject. This serves the dual purpose of getting the key light away from the lens axis and softening the light considerably. In many cases, this will provide a nice, flattering light and you won't even need to use your second flash. Alternatively, you could use the second flash for a rim light or back light but you would need to beware of causing flare with the second light.

 

The attached photo was lit with a single speedlite bounced off a wall/ceiling.

<i>So a frame that is full of dark values will have the histogram all the way to the left and may bleed out, but may Not necessarily be underexposed. And conversely a high key image will have the histogram pushed all the way to the right, and may bleed off the edge, but is Not necessarily overexposed. Unless there is highlight flashing in the lcd screen image.</i>

 

<p>Not exactly.<p>

 

The histogram can't "bleed" past the right or left edge. Pixels can not be anything darker than black nor brighter than white, which is what the edges of the histogram represent. Highlights are "blown" when there is no detail in them. Even snow in sunlight should ideally have <i>some</i> detail and would be considered "blown" if it were pure white. Of course, sometimes the brightness range of a scene forces the photographer to sacrifice highlights in order to get sufficient detail in shadow areas or vice versa. But in such a situation, the histogram is going to represent the snow as a high peak on the far right of the histogram (a value of 255). No matter how much more exposure you give the scene, there will never be a value higher than 255, only more pixels at that value. The same goes for the left side of the chart. There are no values below zero, underexposing further just places more pixels at the zero value. It's my understanding that no amount of post-processing can recover detail from pixels that are exposed at 0 or 255 (pure black and pure white, respectively).<p>

 

What does this mean in practical terms? To me, it means that I try to keep the histogram from spiking at the highest or lowest values unless it's absolutely necessary. If possible, I "expose to the right", meaning I try to get the histogram as far to the right as possible but without pushing a whole lot of pixels up against the right edge unless I have a darn good reason to do it (like the aforementioned snow scenario). This allows for a better control of shadows in post-processing because I can bring them <i>down</i> to where I want them instead of <i>up</i>, which generally adds noise to those areas. <p>

 

To answer your last question, I think it is preferable to have a tiny bit of room at each end of the histogram if possible, that a large spike at either edge probably does indicate over- or under-exposure in the vast majority of cases. There will, of course, be exceptions to that; but they should be fairly rare and quite obvious to the photographer when the exposure is being made.

<i>"Don't waste your time on the histogram..."</i><p>

 

That's not the best advice. While the preview can show by flashing which highlights are blown, it does nothing to indicate muddy shadow areas. By looking at the histogram, you can judge the overall exposure, not just the highlights, and avoid losing shadow detail and/or adding noise in post processing. <p>

The rear LCD histogram is not perfect but, properly used, it is an excellent tool to estimate exposure in the field. To dismiss it so casually is a bit silly, IMO.

It's the hood. Absolutely, positively.

 

The hood does not need to be 90 degrees off, and I believe it's impossible to "install the hood 90 degrees off" anyway, since it will simply fall off the camera in that position. Try it. In your case, the hood was installed but not quite locked properly into place - maybe 10 or 15 degrees off from where it should have been. With a petal-shaped hood, that's going to put the longer parts of the hood right on the corners of the frame and you see the result.

 

This has happened to me and the results were identical. Anyone should be able to duplicate it on their own camera with just about any wide lens and petal hood. I'd post an example, but I'm not at my home computer right now.

Let's get this back on topic.

 

There are two things I can think of that may be causing your problems. The first is that you say you have problems on "very bright days". Do you have the flash set in high-speed sync mode? If the ambient light is bright enough to push your shutter speed past the flash sync speed (I think it's 1/200 sec., but I don't have the manual handy to look it up), then you must use high speed sync, which has to be manually set on the flash itself.

 

The other is related to the way Canon EOS Cameras set flash exposure. The flash exposure is heavily weighted toward whichever focus point was used for the shot. This can be a real problem for someone who tends to focus with the center point and then re-compose the shot. If that happens, the camera reads the exposure off the center focus point, which could be completely off the subject and on the background, causing the camera to expose for the background, or it could be on a piece of white or black clothing which will throw the exposure off by a couple stops. If you think this may be the problem, you can solve it by making use of the focus point selector to focus without having to re-compose the shot. That way you can see if the focus point is on a really light or dark area and you can use the flash exposure compensation if necessary.