 |
|
|
|
Next: Help... Sony "Picture Package" does not..
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3
|
(Msg. 61) Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:52 pm
Post subject: Re: [K-M - Sony] Damn! Now let's move on... [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: rec>photo>equipment>35mm, others (more info?)
|
|
|
"Kinon O'Cann" <somewhere.RemoveThis@over.the.rainbow> wrote in message
news:RasBf.1$%N5.0@bos-service2.ext.ray.com...
>>
>> After all the postulating and position manoeuvring, it is finally back to
>> what I said in the beginning. The 5D and all Canon DSLRs before it except
>> the 1D series are sadly lacking in basic functionality. Thank you
>> gentlemen.
>
> Sorry, I dont' agree. What if you WANT to use a lower shutter speed for
> your flash in AV mode? Can you do it on a Nikon? If not, isn't the Nikon
> lacking in basic functionality?
>
> I agree that it's different, that's all. If you don't like it, use
> something else. Very simple, really.
>
>>
>>
>
It seems to me Kinon, that your "solution" is no solution at all for someone
who has read the brochures and made a purchase based on the performance
information and specifications provided by Canon.
"Use something else" carries with it the presumption someone who sold their
car (for example) to pay for their new camera outfit, can actually afford to
find out these problems using the buy-and-discard method which has led so
many to bankruptcy in other industries.
At some point in the bullshit spewed out in over zealous advertising blurb,
there has to be some accountability for the truth. Canon lead you to believe
their 580 EX speedlite in combination with a DSLR of theirs will produce
consistently acceptable results. This is blatant lies.
At best, the correct exposure count when using their equipment in basic Av
or Tv mode with the speedlite set to "work in harmony" ( big snigger here)
with the camera's metering system is less than 80%. Hell Kinon, the 5D
camera set to hold 5500 Kelvin white balance with a custom function, still
results in something different when using a Canon flash!
What sort of "control" does that give you when the camera goes into it's own
idea of what you set it to do? At least Most other brands have got flash
exposures nailed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Nov 23, 2005
Posts: 152
|
(Msg. 62) Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:52 pm
Post subject: Re: [K-M - Sony] Damn! Now let's move on... [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"no one noteworthy" <only DeleteThis @the.group> wrote in message
news:8swBf.226035$V7.131180@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> It seems to me Kinon, that your "solution" is no solution at all for
> someone who has read the brochures and made a purchase based on the
> performance information and specifications provided by Canon.
Which marketing info is inaccurate? I haven't read a single Canon brochure,
so I'm at a loss.
>
> "Use something else" carries with it the presumption someone who sold
> their car (for example) to pay for their new camera outfit, can actually
> afford to find out these problems using the buy-and-discard method which
> has led so many to bankruptcy in other industries.
Agreed, it's not that simple. And with cameras costing thousands, many times
not possible.
>
> At some point in the bullshit spewed out in over zealous advertising
> blurb, there has to be some accountability for the truth. Canon lead you
> to believe their 580 EX speedlite in combination with a DSLR of theirs
> will produce consistently acceptable results. This is blatant lies.
Uh, I get consistently good/excellent results. It has it's idiosyncracies,
for sure, but it works very well. My experience is different from yours, I
guess.
>
> At best, the correct exposure count when using their equipment in basic Av
> or Tv mode with the speedlite set to "work in harmony" ( big snigger here)
> with the camera's metering system is less than 80%. Hell Kinon, the 5D
> camera set to hold 5500 Kelvin white balance with a custom function, still
> results in something different when using a Canon flash!
Custom white balance is whatever you set it to. Have you tried this
function? I have, and it works nice. Of course, I shoot RAW most of the
time, so I don't care about white balance most of the time.
>
> What sort of "control" does that give you when the camera goes into it's
> own idea of what you set it to do? At least Most other brands have got
> flash exposures nailed.
Like I said, I agree that Nikon's metering systems, both flash and ambient,
are better. But Canon's aren't at all bad, based on my shooting experience.
I'll post a few flash examples, if you want.
>
> |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Sep 25, 2005
Posts: 261
|
(Msg. 63) Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 9:20 pm
Post subject: Re: [K-M - Sony] Damn! Now let's move on... [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <87d5ii7bro.fsf RemoveThis @gw.dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet
<dd-b RemoveThis @dd-b.net> writes
>
>You seem to be saying that, reading descriptions of the system, you
>can't find the superiority. Okay, but that's a theoretical approach,
>and the proof of the system is in the actual field results.
>
That isn't the approach I am taking at all. I have had years of success
with the Olympus system in its various refinements. I am asking someone
who has the experience of using the Nikon system whether it would cope
in the situations where the Oly excelled, since it is not obvious from
their technical descriptions that it would.
>In particular, the Nikon system reduces the incidence of having the
>main subject blown out in an attempt to get the background levels up a
>bit, in large rooms or outdoors,
That was only ever a problem with the very early OM-2 systems before
they changed from a single sensor to two complex ones.
> or where the main subject is
>unexpectedly close.
Never had that problem with the Oly system ever - in fact, I would say
that was one of its strengths.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) >> Stay informed about: [K-M - Sony] Damn! Now let's move on... |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Sep 25, 2005
Posts: 261
|
(Msg. 64) Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 9:22 pm
Post subject: Re: [K-M - Sony] Damn! Now let's move on... [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <cOfBf.225359$V7.39615@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Douglas
<reply.RemoveThis@the.group> writes
>
>>
>> It's the same tripod, the same lens - all that has changed is the camera
>> body, and that is almost twice the mass (540g vs 950g inc. battery), so it
>> is one heck of a lot more shutter inertia to cause a problem.
>>
>> One of the few disappointments I have with the 5D. 
>> --
>Few disappointment?
>This effect in itself guarantees a large number of fuzzy pictures at shutter
>speeds other cameras are quite comfortable with.
You shoot a lot with 2000mm lenses, do you?
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) >> Stay informed about: [K-M - Sony] Damn! Now let's move on... |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 11, 2005
Posts: 29
|
(Msg. 65) Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 10:00 pm
Post subject: Re: [K-M - Sony] Damn! Now let's move on... [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: rec>photo>equipment>35mm, others (more info?)
|
|
|
Sander Vesik <sander.TakeThisOut@haldjas.folklore.ee> wrote:
>In rec.photo.equipment.35mm David J. Littleboy <davidjl.TakeThisOut@gol.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Bill Tuthill" <can.TakeThisOut@spam.co> wrote in message news:43d513cf@news.meer.net...
>> > In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Douglas <reply.TakeThisOut@the.group> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On the Nikon flash control thing... Olympus also have excellent flash
>> >> control. The puzzle is why Canon do not.
>> >
>> > Minolta and Pentax also have excellent flash systems.
>>
>> Canon does, too. People who figure out that Canon flash is a spotmetering
>> system (and know how to use a spotmeter) get excellent exposure every time.
>> People who don't know how to use one of the most basic and most powerful
>> tools in photography complain.
>
>If you are happy with just spot metering - and fairly limited choice of spot
>for the flash system - the sure you get all. But shouldn't a 21st century
>flash system pull a bit more weight than that?
The Nikon flash system does, yes!
 >> Stay informed about: [K-M - Sony] Damn! Now let's move on... |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 11, 2005
Posts: 29
|
(Msg. 66) Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 10:03 pm
Post subject: Re: [K-M - Sony] Damn! Now let's move on... [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl.RemoveThis@gol.com> wrote:
>
>"Tony Polson" <tp.RemoveThis@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:ktpat1dfhp87uuri8pe5t7iprc2btf84n6@4ax.com...
>> Sarah Brown <sarahlizzy.RemoveThis@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>>
>>>OK, tell me more. If I want to combine ambient exposure and flash exposure
>>>with the 5D, I'll select one of the autoexposure modes, select EC and FEC
>>>appropriately, and that pretty much does what I want. If I'm using flash
>>>as
>>>the main source of illumination, I actually want AE turned off, which is
>>>why
>>>selecting manual mode is the obvious thing to do.
>>>
>>>I've not used Nikon's system, so what does it do differently that gets me
>>>something I'm not getting now? As it is, autoexposure seems to work, flash
>>>autoexposure seems to work, and I can combine them or not depending on
>>>what
>>>mode I put the camera in. I'm quite happy to believe that Nikon does
>>>something much better, but what you've said so far is a bit non-specific.
>>
>> The Nikon system works flawlessly whether you are using flash as the
>> sole source of illumination or as a fill to ambient. The Canon system
>> doesn't work consistently in fill mode, balancing ambient and flash,
>> and there is simply no predictability as to the manner in which it
>> doesn't work.
>
>That's complete BS. The Canon system works fine if you realize that the
>flash exposure is a spotmetering system based on the active AF point.
That could explain the problem. Unfortunately, most Canon users are
not aware of that, myself included!
Still, my good old Metz works fine in non-TTL auto mode.
>> Stay informed about: [K-M - Sony] Damn! Now let's move on... |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 11, 2005
Posts: 29
|
(Msg. 67) Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 10:07 pm
Post subject: Re: [K-M - Sony] Damn! Now let's move on... [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl.TakeThisOut@gol.com> wrote:
>"no one noteworthy" <only.TakeThisOut@the.group> wrote:
>> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl.TakeThisOut@gol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> That's complete BS. The Canon system works fine if you realize that the
>>> flash exposure is a spotmetering system based on the active AF point.
>>>
>>> Once you figure that out, it creates exactly the ambient/flash balance
>>> you select.
>>>
>> As an owner of both Nikon, Olympus and Canon systems, I'm confused by your
>> explanation of Canon speedlites here, David. Let's suppose your theory of
>> a spot metering flash is right (it probably is but I have a niggling
>> suspicion it may not be).
>
>That's how it works on the 300D. The ambient exposure is determined by the
>normal metering, and the flash exposure by what lies under the active AF
>point. Put the wrong thing under the AF point used, and you get the wrong
>exposure.
>
>Exposure is completely consistent if you select the AF point and put it on
>the subject's face.
>
>> Using the centre spot to meter a subject is normal practice but it is not
>> that point the flash needs to meter on in order to fulfil it's role of
>> illuminating areas below correct exposure, if you use a means of diffusion
>> to soften the flash. In this condition, all it will do is produce a
>> correct exposure for the point you already have correctly metered. This
>> excludes using the flash in swivel mode, firing into a brolly, does it
>> not?
>
>If you use focus and recompose, you have to persuade the flash to prefire at
>exposure lock time and lock flash exposure at that point. I'm under the
>impression that it is supported on the better Canon flashes. Maybe.
>
>Otherwise, you have to do pre-exposure lock, recompose, and focus with a
>non-center focus point.
>
>But with flash, you don't want to spotmeter ambient, you want to measure
>ambient everywhere but the subject; the subject is the flash's job.
>
>> Olympus have an adaptive flash metering system. If you spot meter, the
>> flash will too but if you use ESP metering, the flash will also.
>> Swivelling the head of the flash to fire into a brolly, still produces
>> correct exposure for the metering mode you choose. This is true TTL
>> metering in harmony with the camera's metering system.
>
>Spotmetering flash with the Oly shouldn't work at all, since you don't have
>a spot at the subject during exposure (if you meter and recompose; you can't
>meter and recompose with the Oly since it does real-time metering and the
>spot will be at the wrong place); Canon does have a (flash) spot at the
>subject during exposure if you select the AF point and use AE lock.
>
>But, as I've pointed out, flash and ambient metering have different
>requirements: flash is responsible for the subject, ambient for the
>background.
>
>> Your description would have a person using spot metering when they really
>> need to meter for a broader range
>
>No. The idea of fill flash is for the flash to expose the subject correctly.
>So spotmetering the flash is a very good idea.
>
>> yet as I understand your description of the flash meter, it still meters
>> in spot mode regardless of any wishes of the photographer or custom
>> functions which have been programmed into it.
>
>I don't understand any more than the basics (E-TTL-II is claimed to take
>more stuff into account): but I don't understand why you'd want anything but
>spot metering _assuming you have a subject_.
>
>> This would result in highly variable results - which incidentally I get
>> when using Canon Speedlites with any Canon DSLR.
>
>Try selecting the AF point.
>
>> A (relatively) cheap Metz Mecablitz 38C-2 manual/auto flash produces more
>> consistent and predictable results than the 580EX does with 20D or 5D,
>> DSLRs. Why would this be?
>
>Well, my claim is operator error (for example, using all the AF points<g>).
>My 300D is very consistent about flash exposure; it consistently nails the
>exposure at the active AF point.
>
>> Presumably when you purchase a speedlite, it is not your intention to use
>> it in spot metering mode and the fact it has a swivel head, suggests in
>> itself, you can expect accurate results without spot metering.
>
>Why would the desire for spot metering differ depending on whether or not
>the head is swivelled? It doesn't know whether or not you are bounced, and
>you don't want it to know.
>
>(Truth in advertising: I don't own a bouncable Canon flash. But logic would
>have it that the flash metering system shouldn't be able to tell the
>difference between bounce and direct flash.
>
>> And what happens with your description when all the points are used for
>> metering?
>
>My understanding is that when all the points are used, the camera selects
>one, and that's the subject. The camera decides what the subject is and
>meters it correctly. Since it will decide differently every time, you'll get
>different exposures every time according to what's under the AF point
>actually used.
>
>> Is it still in spot mode and if so, which sensor is the flash using? It
>> surely can't be all of them because this is when the most variation in
>> flash exposures occur.
>
>If you let the camera decide what the subject is, it will decide according
>to its own criteria.
David,
I am impressed with your knowledge about spot metering being used to
control the flash . Where did you acquire this knowledge? I don't
have the camera or manual to hand - they are locked in the studio - so
I cannot look at them until tomorrow.
Tony >> Stay informed about: [K-M - Sony] Damn! Now let's move on... |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 26, 2005
Posts: 1149
|
(Msg. 68) Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:21 pm
Post subject: Re: [K-M - Sony] Damn! Now let's move on... [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Sarah Brown" <sarahlizzy.RemoveThis@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>
> Certainly I have had good results when using an autothyristor flash on a
> Canon DSLR, and there are certain types of scene where it's all that's
> needed, but for more awkward types of illumination, the ability to use
> FEL,
> FEC and what is effectively flash spot-metering is a real benefit. YMMV.
How does E-TTL II work for bounce flash? Is it basically the same story, or
are there differences?
(I was about to get a 220EX, but when I realized it didn't do bounce, I
decided to wait a bit.)
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan >> Stay informed about: [K-M - Sony] Damn! Now let's move on... |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3
|
(Msg. 69) Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:31 am
Post subject: Re: [K-M - Sony] Damn! Now let's move on... [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: rec>photo>equipment>35mm, others (more info?)
|
|
|
"Kennedy McEwen" <rkm.TakeThisOut@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:HcmLogHeqp1DFwO5@kennedym.demon.co.uk...
>
>
> You shoot a lot with 2000mm lenses, do you?
> --
> Kennedy
> Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
> A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
> Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when
> replying)
------------------------
Doesn't everyone?
You can't consistently hand-hold a 5D without bracing yourself against a
rigid object and get clear pictures at less than 1/125 with any lens over
100 mm.
The shock of the mirror slapping up is as much a part of the problem as the
rebound shudder from the shutter itself.
We can all show a picture taken at 1/60th, hand-held but none of us can
reproduce them sharply on demand because like most of the problems with any
camera that makes it's own movement at the point of capture, the only
solution is to up the shutter speed. Do this and you have to up the ISO in
low light. Do that and you get problems of image quality and shadow noise. >> Stay informed about: [K-M - Sony] Damn! Now let's move on... |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 26, 2005
Posts: 1149
|
(Msg. 70) Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:03 am
Post subject: Re: [K-M - Sony] Damn! Now let's move on... [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: rec>photo>equipment>35mm, others (more info?)
|
|
|
"Tony Polson" <tp RemoveThis @nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl RemoveThis @gol.com> wrote:
>>If you let the camera decide what the subject is, it will decide according
>>to its own criteria.
>
>
> I am impressed with your knowledge about spot metering being used to
> control the flash . Where did you acquire this knowledge?
The fine print says something to the effect of "using the active AF point"
and 5 minutes of testing with the 300D confirmed it.
> I don't
> have the camera or manual to hand - they are locked in the studio - so
> I cannot look at them until tomorrow.
Test it and tell me if I've got it wrong.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan >> Stay informed about: [K-M - Sony] Damn! Now let's move on... |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Sep 25, 2005
Posts: 261
|
(Msg. 71) Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:03 am
Post subject: Re: Damn! Now let's move on... [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <dr6j4v$dpl$1@nnrp.gol.com>, David J. Littleboy
<davidjl.TakeThisOut@gol.com> writes
>
>"rafe b" <rafebATspeakeasy.net> wrote:
>>
>> All I know is that the finder has *no* manual focusing
>> aids, and is considerably "smaller" in feel than any
>> 35 mm SLR I've ever used.
>>
>> A split-screen or microprism would have been nice.
>
>I suspect that there are third parties who will change the screen for you.
>Or just save your pennies and get a 5D + 3rd party screen.
>
3rd part screens for the 5D? Where? All the 3rd party screens I have
seen with manual focus aids are cut outs from full size screens and only
suitable for the smaller frame cameras. Who does a manual screen with
proper manual focus aids (not the coarser ground glass screen without
any aids that Canon provide) for the 5D?
>
>Yep. Irritating, since the AF system will report focus with AF lenses
>switched to MF mode.
>
>I suspect that what's happening is that the AF system needs to be told that
>the focus was changed.
>
I suspect that you are right - I initially thought all it would need
would be a set of contacts and a PIC added to manual adapter, and was
considering salvaging these from a mechanically trashed lens that came
up recently on Ebay. Unfortunately I was outbid so didn't get a chance
to prove this one way or the other.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) >> Stay informed about: [K-M - Sony] Damn! Now let's move on... |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Sep 25, 2005
Posts: 261
|
(Msg. 72) Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:11 am
Post subject: Re: [K-M - Sony] Damn! Now let's move on... [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: rec>photo>equipment>35mm, others (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <6yABf.226281$V7.211629@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, no one
noteworthy <only.DeleteThis@the.group> writes
>
>"Kennedy McEwen" <rkm.DeleteThis@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:HcmLogHeqp1DFwO5@kennedym.demon.co.uk...
>
>>
>>
>> You shoot a lot with 2000mm lenses, do you?
>> --
>> Kennedy
>> Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
>> A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
>> Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when
>> replying)
>------------------------
>Doesn't everyone?
>
>You can't consistently hand-hold a 5D without bracing yourself against a
>rigid object and get clear pictures at less than 1/125 with any lens over
>100 mm.
>The shock of the mirror slapping up is as much a part of the problem as the
>rebound shudder from the shutter itself.
>
>We can all show a picture taken at 1/60th, hand-held but none of us can
>reproduce them sharply on demand because like most of the problems with any
>camera that makes it's own movement at the point of capture, the only
>solution is to up the shutter speed. Do this and you have to up the ISO in
>low light. Do that and you get problems of image quality and shadow noise.
>
Well, whilst my 5D is certainly a lot worse than the OM cameras I am
used to in this respect, it isn't as bad as yours appears to be. I have
a couple of shots that were hand held at much less that 1/60th without
any problems. My general rule of thumb is that I can safely hand hold
at a shutter speed equal to the focal length - and IS lowers it by 3
stops. I have achieved better than that with the 5D, but consistency
requires adherence to the rule of thumb.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) >> Stay informed about: [K-M - Sony] Damn! Now let's move on... |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 8
|
(Msg. 73) Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:50 am
Post subject: Re: [K-M - Sony] Damn! Now let's move on... [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"no one noteworthy" <only.DeleteThis@the.group> wrote in message
news:6yABf.226281$V7.211629@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> You can't consistently hand-hold a 5D without bracing yourself against a
> rigid object and get clear pictures at less than 1/125 with any lens over
> 100 mm.
> The shock of the mirror slapping up is as much a part of the problem as
> the rebound shudder from the shutter itself.
I truly doubt the mirror slap and shutter have more an effect (hand held)
than normal human shaking. Heck, if you have a heartbeat, you have camera
shake. >> Stay informed about: [K-M - Sony] Damn! Now let's move on... |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 26, 2005
Posts: 1149
|
(Msg. 74) Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:09 am
Post subject: Re: Damn! Now let's move on... [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: rec>photo>equipment>35mm, others (more info?)
|
|
|
"rafe b" <rafebATspeakeasy.net> wrote:
>
> All I know is that the finder has *no* manual focusing
> aids, and is considerably "smaller" in feel than any
> 35 mm SLR I've ever used.
>
> A split-screen or microprism would have been nice.
I suspect that there are third parties who will change the screen for you.
Or just save your pennies and get a 5D + 3rd party screen.
> It also pisses me off that the electronic focusing aids
> are useless with any "legacy" lens. I bought a
> Novoflex adapter with the 10D, hoping to use my
> old Nikon AIS lenses, and the electronic focus
> indicators simply don't work in that configuration.
Yep. Irritating, since the AF system will report focus with AF lenses
switched to MF mode.
I suspect that what's happening is that the AF system needs to be told that
the focus was changed.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan >> Stay informed about: [K-M - Sony] Damn! Now let's move on... |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 10, 2005
Posts: 129
|
(Msg. 75) Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:46 am
Post subject: Re: Damn! Now let's move on... [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <dr6j4v$dpl$1@nnrp.gol.com>,
David J. Littleboy <davidjl.TakeThisOut@gol.com> wrote:
>"rafe b" <rafebATspeakeasy.net> wrote:
>> It also pisses me off that the electronic focusing aids
>> are useless with any "legacy" lens. I bought a
>> Novoflex adapter with the 10D, hoping to use my
>> old Nikon AIS lenses, and the electronic focus
>> indicators simply don't work in that configuration.
>
>Yep. Irritating, since the AF system will report focus with AF lenses
>switched to MF mode.
Is that true in general for Canon cameras? I think Nikon cameras always
report focus information, independent of the kind of lens that is attached.
--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >> Stay informed about: [K-M - Sony] Damn! Now let's move on... |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
