e_dawg
Storage Freak
You mean lighting wise, LM?
New firmware for 1Ds MK III and 1D MK III.
http://www.canon.com/eos-d/index.html
Includes the following new features that were frequently requested by customers to the new firmware.
Direct selection of AF points by the Multi-controller is added to C.Fn III-9.
Settings 3, 4, and 5 of C.Fn III-9 allow the user to select AF points directly with the Multi-controller instead of the Quick Control Dial or Main Dial.
In setting 3, you can select from all 19 points with the Multi-controller.
In setting 4, your selection is limited to the 9 inner points with the Multi-controller.
In setting 5, your selection is limited to the 9 outer points with the Multi-controller.
Alternate access to Exposure compensation is added to C.Fn IV-3.
Settings 3 and 4 of C.Fn IV-3 allow the user to control Exposure compensation when using the Quick Control Dial to control AF Point Selection or ISO Speed selection.
In setting 3, AF point selection is controlled by the Quick Control Dial while metering is active. Additionally, the functions of the Exposure compensation/Aperture button and AF Point selection button are reversed, allowing easy access to Exposure compensation through the Quick Control Dial.
In setting 4, ISO speed selection is controlled by the Quick Control Dial while metering is active. Additionally, the functions of the Exposure compensation/Aperture button and ISO speed set buttons are reversed, allowing easy access to Exposure compensation it while holding the camera.
For details, please see the explanations on the new features (PDF file) that can be downloaded from the bottom of this page.
Improves the stability of AF accuracy in AI servo AF when shooting extremely low-contrast subjects continuously.
http://www.canon.com/eos-d/index.html
Includes the following new features that were frequently requested by customers to the new firmware.
Direct selection of AF points by the Multi-controller is added to C.Fn III-9.
Settings 3, 4, and 5 of C.Fn III-9 allow the user to select AF points directly with the Multi-controller instead of the Quick Control Dial or Main Dial.
In setting 3, you can select from all 19 points with the Multi-controller.
In setting 4, your selection is limited to the 9 inner points with the Multi-controller.
In setting 5, your selection is limited to the 9 outer points with the Multi-controller.
Alternate access to Exposure compensation is added to C.Fn IV-3.
Settings 3 and 4 of C.Fn IV-3 allow the user to control Exposure compensation when using the Quick Control Dial to control AF Point Selection or ISO Speed selection.
In setting 3, AF point selection is controlled by the Quick Control Dial while metering is active. Additionally, the functions of the Exposure compensation/Aperture button and AF Point selection button are reversed, allowing easy access to Exposure compensation through the Quick Control Dial.
In setting 4, ISO speed selection is controlled by the Quick Control Dial while metering is active. Additionally, the functions of the Exposure compensation/Aperture button and ISO speed set buttons are reversed, allowing easy access to Exposure compensation it while holding the camera.
For details, please see the explanations on the new features (PDF file) that can be downloaded from the bottom of this page.
Improves the stability of AF accuracy in AI servo AF when shooting extremely low-contrast subjects continuously.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
Nice to see that news, Lunar. I finally sent my ID III off for the sub-mirror fix just today, so I'll look forward to trying the new firmware out when it gets back. One of my 40Ds died the other day as well, so I sent them both in together. This weekend, I'm down to two bodies: 20D and 40D. Just as well I have spares!
Stereodude
Not really a
My 10D is still alive and kicking after 5 years. 
I almost wish it would die so I would have a good excuse to replace it.
Maybe when the 5D Mk II rolls around I'll upgrade.
I almost wish it would die so I would have a good excuse to replace it.
Maybe when the 5D Mk II rolls around I'll upgrade.
I was sweating bullets there for the 3 minutes it takes for the 10MB firmware file to load into the 1Ds MK III. The AF selection options (including return of the MK II registered point modes) are well worthwhile.
The AF selection options (including return of the MK II registered point modes) are well worthwhile.
ddrueding
Fixture
While I'm in Russia I'll be carrying around my camera gear in a rucksack because all of my camera bags scream "rob me!". I'm thinking of sticking my spare lenses in 2 layers of thick hiking boots, would that be protective enough? What should I be thinking about?
Gilbo
Storage is cool
Domke's canvas camera bags don't look too much like camera bags (for example). They may be a good option.
Some of their satchel options will hold laptops too.
Some of their satchel options will hold laptops too.
udaman
Wannabe Storage Freak
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 1,209
News flash dave, you look like a tourist, anything you have not a close grip on is screaming "steal me" (best hope they don't rob you too
).Will you make it onto the internet (SF) everyday as per usual, via a lappy & wifi at the local Starbucks
, and post up some pix from Russia with love?
ddrueding
Fixture
Actually, my hair is cut like a local, I'll be wearing local clothes, and my bag will be a local rucksack. And my Russian is picking up a distinct Moscovite accent
This means that the bag will not be padded and divided properly for camera gear. What level of padding should I be considering?
In theory, I'll have a couple laptops with me and high-speed internet. I'll also have my cell with me and be on-call with my clients (at a cost of $2.50/min for calls, 11 timezones away). I wouldn't be too surprised to see me on at least once a day while I'm there.
This means that the bag will not be padded and divided properly for camera gear. What level of padding should I be considering?
In theory, I'll have a couple laptops with me and high-speed internet. I'll also have my cell with me and be on-call with my clients (at a cost of $2.50/min for calls, 11 timezones away). I wouldn't be too surprised to see me on at least once a day while I'm there.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Yeah, camera bags tend to be a dead giveaway if you know what to look for. And like udaman said / implied, you are probably going to look like a tourist no matter what. Being a local is not something you can just pick up through intensive language courses and adopting the local fashion. It something you acquire through years of living there. That's just the way it is.
Anyways, as far as more non-descript camera bags go, the Tamrac Express 5 and 6 comes to mind, as do the Crumpler $4 and 5 Million Dollar Homes. The Domke bags look interesting Gilbo -- I always forget about them as an option since they are not readily available to me. The Lowepro Rezo 140AW also seems like it could work.
Anyways, as far as more non-descript camera bags go, the Tamrac Express 5 and 6 comes to mind, as do the Crumpler $4 and 5 Million Dollar Homes. The Domke bags look interesting Gilbo -- I always forget about them as an option since they are not readily available to me. The Lowepro Rezo 140AW also seems like it could work.
ddrueding
Fixture
Guys, I really appreciate all the discussion on camera bags; but that is not what I am after. How should I protect my camera and lenses when they are sitting in the bottom of a regular bag?
ddrueding
Fixture
While I was out, I bought some lens cases and toploading camera holder from LowePro. These should handle some jarring in the backpack pretty well.
I also got the EF-S 10-22 as an impulse buy; I just couldn't help it. Time to go outside and play.
I also got the EF-S 10-22 as an impulse buy; I just couldn't help it. Time to go outside and play.
Will Rickards
Storage Is My Life
As you may know I have a Nikon D40. I'm going to purchase the Nikon 70-300mm VR lens. Just wanted to run it by you all in case there was something to be concerned about. Mostly I want it to increase the zoom capabilites when taking pictures at the tee ball and soccer games. I realize it isn't the fastest lens but I don't think I can afford the f2.8 lens.
ddrueding
Fixture
Something I realized when looking at Handruin's fast zoom is that they get big and heavy really fast. Unless you are having a tripod in front of you, the lighter lens will be more useful after hours of watching/shooting. I ended up getting the lightest 75-300 they made (slow and no IS) because it was the only one light enough to hike with. f5.6 should be fast enough to shoot during the day anyway.
ddrueding
Fixture
I went to the nicest photo store in Moscow today, and the prices are exactly the same. Canon 1D III is 172,000 rubles. The small Gitzo carbon fiber tripod was also within ~5%. Only difference is no sales tax.
udaman
Wannabe Storage Freak
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 1,209
Current Canon rebates
http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1211257339.html
40D is $200 off, 5D $300
Difficult to consider the 450D at current newly released price of $800 for the body alone, when with rebate the 40D goes for just $140 more, only thing the 450D has over the 40D is an extra 2MP, and smaller size/weight, but in so many other performance parameters the 40D has much more to offer than the 450D.
I read a rumor of a 1000D to compete with the Nikon D40 at entry level prices. D300 is clearly a step up from the 40D, but now the price differential is huge, just between bodies alone.
http://www.photographybay.com/2008/05/21/canon-rebel-xs-1000d-specs-surface/
then again, Photog Bay, has lots of silly rumors, like the Nikon D10:
http://www.photographybay.com/2008/05/07/nikon-d10/
I still want an OM1 size body, with FF sensor, ISO6400, IS for the sensor, <$1k too.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1211257339.html
40D is $200 off, 5D $300
Difficult to consider the 450D at current newly released price of $800 for the body alone, when with rebate the 40D goes for just $140 more, only thing the 450D has over the 40D is an extra 2MP, and smaller size/weight, but in so many other performance parameters the 40D has much more to offer than the 450D.
I read a rumor of a 1000D to compete with the Nikon D40 at entry level prices. D300 is clearly a step up from the 40D, but now the price differential is huge, just between bodies alone.
http://www.photographybay.com/2008/05/21/canon-rebel-xs-1000d-specs-surface/
then again, Photog Bay, has lots of silly rumors, like the Nikon D10:
http://www.photographybay.com/2008/05/07/nikon-d10/
I still want an OM1 size body, with FF sensor, ISO6400, IS for the sensor, <$1k too.
Stereodude
Not really a
In an bold act of sacrilege I bought an EOS-3 with PB-E2 grip. Got 'em today in the mail. Haven't put any batteries in it yet though.
Stereodude
Not really a
Maybe if I get some time today I will actually put batteries in it and see if it works (bought it used). And, if I get really adventurous I can run a roll of film through it.
ddrueding
Fixture
Maybe if I get some time today I will actually put batteries in it and see if it works (bought it used). And, if I get really adventurous I can run a roll of film through it.
Crazy. Do you plan to do the developing yourself as well? I know some people who enjoy that process.
udaman
Wannabe Storage Freak
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 1,209
1/2 way around the world and dd's still silly :bglaugh:
4x5 sheet film, medium format (don't you read Ken Rockwell
)...or 8x10. real men like Ansel Adams.Last time I used the OM2 was in 2000, took fine picts during the daylight, that on a 10-15yr old silver oxide battery replacement for the original, and it still turns on the analog metering system/limited camera electronics
....not sure if it's an Energizer Bunny though.Pro lab development is preferred for consistency of chemicals/temps developed at. Doing it at home sucks, assuming you have the brand of film (not sure how many still make them) that allows for self-developing rather than commercial. Mostly B&W I assume.
Stereodude
Not really a
I used to develop my own B&W in HS and a little in college. I plan to get back to doing that again. I also want to get a slide / film scanner.
The EOS-3 is a nice camera. I put batteries in the grip and powered up the camera today. It seems to be working ok.
Developing is not fun, IMO. Printing can be interesting, but I for one am too old to go down that route again. Even scanning MF and LF are a hassle compared to direct digital. My LS-8000 has not been used in years.
...and no warranty in the US one supposes.
I use the 70-200/4 IS more and more compared to the 70-200/2.8 IS that tends to sit in the closet. The former is the 4th of the four existing Canon 70-200s (I've owned at least one copy of each at various times) and optically the best. It performs exceedingly well on the demanding 1Ds MK III, being better overall from corner to corner than any Canon zoom I have used, which is quite a few. Unfortunately none of the 70 or 75-300 lenses are in the same ballpark.
ddrueding
Fixture
I'm loving this 10-22. I'm sure that I'm using it more than I should, that many of the pictures I've taken would have benefited from my 35/2 (which is a very nice lens). But it's a new toy, and I like the different perspective it brings.
ddrueding
Fixture
I have the original 18-55 that Tony gave me with the camera. Unfortunately, it is fairly beat up, so shooting at high f-numbers causes the scratches to become visible. I'm really enjoying using the 10-22 @ f29. The DOF is really awesome.
ddrueding
Fixture
I like large prints. How does shooting with a high f-number affect that? I thought it was strictly an exposure time vs. DOF thing?
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
Hi Dave. Been mega-busy and barely on-line lately. Shouldn't be on-line now. No matter.
Sharpness is a balancing act between lens issues wide open (no lens is perfect wide-open, though the very best ones come close) and diffraction stopped down. The more you stop down, the worse diffraction becomes. On the other hand, the less you stop down, the worse the glass in your lens performs. (Again, excepting unusually high-quality lenses.)
The best compromise is normally in the middle of the aperture range. It varies from lens to lens, but a good rule of thumb is to try to stay near the middle (say f/8, give or take). Let's do an (imaginary) sharpness table for an (imaginary) typical lens - something a bit like your 18-55.
f/3.5: blurry
f/4: a little better
f/5.6: better again
f/8: excellent
f/11: still excellent
f/16: a bit fuzzy
f/22: noticably fuzzy
>f/22: don't go there.
With a really really high quality lens, it's different. Something like, say, a Canon 300/2.8L is as sharp wide open as it is at f/8, or possibly even sharper. Mind you, that's an $8000 lens, and it's a prime, and it's a focal length that is relatively easy to design for - zooms are harder, wide-angles are harder still, an ultra-wide zoom is possibly the hardest ask in optics. (Which makes the Canon 10-22, by the way, a bit of a miracle product - it's astonishingly good.)
People often say that diffraction starts to kick in at about f/11 and gets worse from there. Actually, that's not so. It kicks in at f/2.8 (on an f/2.8 lens, that is) and increases from there. On most lenses, in the wider-than f/6.7ish range you gain more optical improvement by stopping down to use the "best part of the lens" than you lose because of increased diffraction, then you level peg from f/6ish to about f/10; from there on your optical improvement with smaller apertures is essentially nil while diffraction gets lots worse with each f stop.
Diffraction is proportional to the dimensions of the hole that lets the light in. It is caused by the edge of the diaphragm - i.e., the diffracted light ("bad" light = blur) is light that passes close to the edge, while non-diffracted light ("good" light = sharp) does not pass close to the edge. It follows that diffracted ("bad") light is proportional to the circumference of the diaphragm, while non-diffracted ("good") light is proportional to the area of the diaphragm. (Well, the area of the hole in the diaphragm, actually, but you know what I mean.) In turn, this means that when you make the hole bigger you increase both the diffracted and the non-diffracted light, but the diffracted light change is a linear function while the non-diffracted light change is a square function. In short, the bigger the hole, the less significant diffraction becomes.
Note that "raw" optical quality (by which I mean everything else except diffraction), and the changes in "raw" optical quality with increased or decreased aperture vary from lens to lens - in broad, the most expensive lenses in the easierst-to-make focal lengths are sharper wide open or stopped down only a little. BUT diffraction has nothing to do with the quality of the lens. At the same f stop, your $80 18-55 zoomed to 50mm and a $2000 50/1.2L have exactly the same diffraction. There is nothing Canon or any other lens designer can do about it. It's just physics.
For any given size of photosite on the sensor and any given sized hole to let the light through, diffraction is a constant. Make the photosites bigger to reduce diffraction and you lose resolution - in a tiny-sensor 12MP P&S it's worth doing, in a big-sensor 20D it's not worth doing as you gain less diffraction reduction than you lose in resolution. (Which is to say that a 12MP P&S is a bad design where an 8MP APS-C 20D or a 10MP D40X are good designs, both are in the ball-park of the best possible compromise. But we already knew both those things.)
Anyway, the short answer is stick to sensible aperture values.
On the 18-55 at the wide end, these are roughly f/5.6 to f/16; at the long end, f/8 to f/16.
On the 10-22, feel free to shoot wide-open if you need to (it's not as good but it's still plenty good), but stop down a little bit (half a stop or one full stop) whenever you can. Depth of field, even wide open, is amazing on such a short lens, so you shouldn't ever really need to go beyond f/8 or f/11, or at most f/16. Odds on, though, anything you shoot at f/16 or f/22 on the 10-22 (especially at the wide end) will look better if you shoot the same scene at f/8 or f/11.
Sharpness is a balancing act between lens issues wide open (no lens is perfect wide-open, though the very best ones come close) and diffraction stopped down. The more you stop down, the worse diffraction becomes. On the other hand, the less you stop down, the worse the glass in your lens performs. (Again, excepting unusually high-quality lenses.)
The best compromise is normally in the middle of the aperture range. It varies from lens to lens, but a good rule of thumb is to try to stay near the middle (say f/8, give or take). Let's do an (imaginary) sharpness table for an (imaginary) typical lens - something a bit like your 18-55.
f/3.5: blurry
f/4: a little better
f/5.6: better again
f/8: excellent
f/11: still excellent
f/16: a bit fuzzy
f/22: noticably fuzzy
>f/22: don't go there.
With a really really high quality lens, it's different. Something like, say, a Canon 300/2.8L is as sharp wide open as it is at f/8, or possibly even sharper. Mind you, that's an $8000 lens, and it's a prime, and it's a focal length that is relatively easy to design for - zooms are harder, wide-angles are harder still, an ultra-wide zoom is possibly the hardest ask in optics. (Which makes the Canon 10-22, by the way, a bit of a miracle product - it's astonishingly good.)
People often say that diffraction starts to kick in at about f/11 and gets worse from there. Actually, that's not so. It kicks in at f/2.8 (on an f/2.8 lens, that is) and increases from there. On most lenses, in the wider-than f/6.7ish range you gain more optical improvement by stopping down to use the "best part of the lens" than you lose because of increased diffraction, then you level peg from f/6ish to about f/10; from there on your optical improvement with smaller apertures is essentially nil while diffraction gets lots worse with each f stop.
Diffraction is proportional to the dimensions of the hole that lets the light in. It is caused by the edge of the diaphragm - i.e., the diffracted light ("bad" light = blur) is light that passes close to the edge, while non-diffracted light ("good" light = sharp) does not pass close to the edge. It follows that diffracted ("bad") light is proportional to the circumference of the diaphragm, while non-diffracted ("good") light is proportional to the area of the diaphragm. (Well, the area of the hole in the diaphragm, actually, but you know what I mean.) In turn, this means that when you make the hole bigger you increase both the diffracted and the non-diffracted light, but the diffracted light change is a linear function while the non-diffracted light change is a square function. In short, the bigger the hole, the less significant diffraction becomes.
Note that "raw" optical quality (by which I mean everything else except diffraction), and the changes in "raw" optical quality with increased or decreased aperture vary from lens to lens - in broad, the most expensive lenses in the easierst-to-make focal lengths are sharper wide open or stopped down only a little. BUT diffraction has nothing to do with the quality of the lens. At the same f stop, your $80 18-55 zoomed to 50mm and a $2000 50/1.2L have exactly the same diffraction. There is nothing Canon or any other lens designer can do about it. It's just physics.
For any given size of photosite on the sensor and any given sized hole to let the light through, diffraction is a constant. Make the photosites bigger to reduce diffraction and you lose resolution - in a tiny-sensor 12MP P&S it's worth doing, in a big-sensor 20D it's not worth doing as you gain less diffraction reduction than you lose in resolution. (Which is to say that a 12MP P&S is a bad design where an 8MP APS-C 20D or a 10MP D40X are good designs, both are in the ball-park of the best possible compromise. But we already knew both those things.)
Anyway, the short answer is stick to sensible aperture values.
On the 18-55 at the wide end, these are roughly f/5.6 to f/16; at the long end, f/8 to f/16.
On the 10-22, feel free to shoot wide-open if you need to (it's not as good but it's still plenty good), but stop down a little bit (half a stop or one full stop) whenever you can. Depth of field, even wide open, is amazing on such a short lens, so you shouldn't ever really need to go beyond f/8 or f/11, or at most f/16. Odds on, though, anything you shoot at f/16 or f/22 on the 10-22 (especially at the wide end) will look better if you shoot the same scene at f/8 or f/11.
Stereodude
Not really a
You actually lose sharpness past F11 or so on most lenses due to diffraction effects from the small aperture. However, sometimes you're willing to give up some sharpness for the greater DOF.
ddrueding
Fixture
Tannin, why aren't you supposed to be posting? I'm glad you are, that is a fantastically informative post.
Assuming you mean the 300/2.8 IS, that is not quite so from corner to corner. f/5.6 is a very nice aperture for that lens. Of course it is very fine at f/2.8 for sports, PJ, etc. to isolate the subject, and it is often used on bodies with cropped sensors.
Ironically I have barely used the 300/2.8 IS over the past 5 years although is one of the best Canon lenses. I needed it more for the speed in the era of using 135 film prior to 2003. Now I usually use 300/4, 100-400, 400 DO, etc. lenses in that range and 500/4 for the reach.
udaman
Wannabe Storage Freak
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 1,209
Do you have some examples/links @F2.8?
From this on a 1Ds MkII Canon body, looks *much* sharper than T/S 24mm @any aperture.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...nsComp=349&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&Lens=249
True. The 24 TSE is not so great, but has a specific niche for perspective correction. It is a relatively old design that could be improved today. You should be able to use the new Nikon 28/3.5 PC-E on a Canon body with an adapter. Presumably that lens is better.
udaman
Wannabe Storage Freak
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 1,209
Nikon 24mm/3.5. Newer design, more elements, longer barrel, higher IQ; but still from what I've read, can't compare to either 90mm TS of either Canon or Nikon. I haven't seen any adapters that allow Nikon TS lens to work on a Canon body, only the other way around, IIRC. You'll see from the link I posted, the 90/2.8 @2.8 is almost comparable to the 300/2.8, contrast even looks better, 300@2.8 looks a little 'grey'. Manual DOF button on the Nikon 24/3.5 PC-E also only works on a few specific Nikon bodies, not sure if you even get 100% full functionality on a D300. Can't wait to see what FF bodies are introduced in the near term. Haven't as yet bought a body for that 24/3.5 TS, it's sitting idle. Could always sell it, then plunk down and *extra* $1k, just to get slightly better IQ with the new Nikon 24/3.5, then what body would I have to spend $$$ on also. Right now I could get a 40D for just $130 more than a XSi/Rebel 450D, if I didn't hate the fact the 40D is so friggin big & heavy in comparison. That being the case, might as well get what I paid for (wide-angle TS), and use it on a proper FF body that is relatively the same size as the 40D, in the 5D. No sooner would I purchase a very expensive (still too much at $1.8k with rebate) 5D, then I'm sure a much more advanced 5D mkII or whatever would come out for a few hundred more
. I'm thinking I'm just going to get WA, thin, pocketable Panasonic, with HD video cap, just so I have something to shoot with while I wait indecisively for these annoying dSLR developments . Think one of those would have worked for dd much better in Moscow.Every review I've seen mentions the 300/f2.8L IS as being excellent wide open, as well as being tops for IQ of all the tele L series, reason I asked for examples/links.