20D or 5D

wrote in message
...
In message iRMOe.8479$Us5.3882@fed1read02,
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:

No typo.
1/200 it is.
That doesn't mean you can't use flash effectively beyond that, though!
The benefit will diminish as you go up, but you can continue to use flash
all the way up to the highest shutter speed by simply putting your
external
flash into H mode.

There's no comparison. High-speed flash sync is a totally different
thing than normal sync-flash. With the 550EX, the flash intensity at
1/200 would be 4x as strong and down to about 1/12 the duration of the
high-speed-sync at 1/250. High-speed sync flash is like a strobing
ambient light during the period of exposure.

I learned the hard way that enabling high-speed-sync and going 1/3
faster on the shutter speed can mean a loss of sharpness with telephoto
and flash. Think of it as supplementary light; not flash.

That's a better way to word it, and I frankly am not completely clear on how
it works out.
You're right that it quickly becomes unable to provide a main light.
I was afraid that some people might have assumed the poster meant you
somehow couldn't use flash above 1/200th, which of course isn't true.

I like the way you explained it.

wrote in message
...
In message cyMOe.8473$Us5.7942@fed1read02,
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:

"Brian Baird" wrote in message
...
In article TOLOe.8469$Us5.2297@fed1read02, "Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest
even number says...
I'll be interested to see some side-by-side identical frames using each
of
100 and 50 ISO images.

Well, you can take your 10D, shoot RAW one stop over at ISO 100 and then
set the exposure compensation in ACR to -1. That's basically what the
1D series and the 5D do/will do.

What source describes this?
Do you have a link, by chance?

It's called "logic".

Of course it is logical.
But I would like to know if the presence of the 50 ISO also goes with
perhaps a sensor with improved basic sensitivity. If the sensor is NOT more
sensitive, then it would logically have to work as described. But if
they've managed to actually increase sensitivity in the sensor, there could
be other reasons for "hiding" the 50 setting.

I don't say it isn't as he said...I just want to know if the sensor itself
differs at all in this regard.

In message bb8Pe.8606$Us5.5577@fed1read02,
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:

wrote in message
.. .

I learned the hard way that enabling high-speed-sync and going 1/3
faster on the shutter speed can mean a loss of sharpness with telephoto
and flash. Think of it as supplementary light; not flash.

That's a better way to word it, and I frankly am not completely clear on how
it works out.
You're right that it quickly becomes unable to provide a main light.
I was afraid that some people might have assumed the poster meant you
somehow couldn't use flash above 1/200th, which of course isn't true.

I like the way you explained it.

Me too, but that "1/12" figure is wrong; I must have pulled that from
another context. It should be "1/40", i.e., ~1/10000 vs 1/250; and of
course that 1/250 doesn't occur all at once, either.
--


John P Sheehy

In message mf8Pe.8609$Us5.7168@fed1read02,
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:

Of course it is logical.
But I would like to know if the presence of the 50 ISO also goes with
perhaps a sensor with improved basic sensitivity. If the sensor is NOT more
sensitive, then it would logically have to work as described. But if
they've managed to actually increase sensitivity in the sensor, there could
be other reasons for "hiding" the 50 setting.

I don't say it isn't as he said...I just want to know if the sensor itself
differs at all in this regard.

Well, the bottom line is that you can always expect to be able to do
something like that; the cost is a stop of highlights. There is no
issue of sensitivity; to the degree that a camera can do ISO 100; it can
do lower ISOs better in all other ways, at the cost of decreasing
highlight headroom. There is absolutely nothing "fake" or "negative"
about this other than the loss of headroom. In fact, if your image
doesn't need the headroom that is lost, pulling ISO 100 to 50 gives a
better quality ISO 50 than if the camera itself had an ISO 50 setting
with the same highlight headroom as the other ISOs. This is generally,
with all ISOs except the one or two highest on most cameras. ISO 1600
with +2 EC, when used on a low contrast scene, has less noise and more
accurate color and luminance than ISO 400 exposed "normally". The image
is digitized at ISO as it would if ISO 400 were 14-bit instead of 12-bit
RAW data.
--


John P Sheehy

In message ,
wrote:

The image
is digitized at ISO

That should have been "at ISO 1600"

as it would if ISO 400 were 14-bit instead of 12-bit
RAW data.

Pulling 100 to 50 is like having a 13-bit 50.
--


John P Sheehy

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:k7UOe.8537$Us5.3523@fed1read02...

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
Mark² wrote:


"Stacey" wrote in message

Or is it that you can only use one flash or the other on a canon?

No, you can use any currently produced (and even a few no longer
produced)
on any of Canon's DSLRs or recently (10 years or more) produced film
cameras. Not an issue.

So you can use the built in flash and an external flash, both in TTL auto
mode at the same time with a Canon? That was the question.

Ah. Then no. I don't know of any. Maybe someone will correct me?

??
Oh... I got it. You're disappointed because I actually had a reason,
and
that I had a reason spoiled your fun in assuming I was just blowing
"professional sounding" smoke by calling built-in flashes "pesky."
Sorry to disappoint you.

I feel many people just want it gone because "pro" camera models don't
have
a built in flash.

I have no doubt that there are people who have silly reasons like that.
For me, I just find the built-in very sub to what you get with the shoe
mount to the point that it's not worth the loss. On the other hand, I
think the built-ins on the Canons do surprisingly well for their size.

I find many times these come in handy for a little fill
ect when I'm not carrying around a huge bag with all my gear, YMMV

When I had my D30, I did occasionally stick a 28-105 on, remove the grip,
and carry no flash...but that was maybe twice, and it was only for quickie
snapshots at the fair, etc. OTOH, my dad happily uses his 10D (He's 70)
with the built-in, and has managed some excellent shots with flash.
So... Laik bilong yu...

Another thing that becomes a deterent for me is that with many larger
lenses--especially if you use a hood (and I almost always do) is that the
lens/hood partially blocks the built-in. I understand now that the 20D
and the Digital Rebels have a much longer flash-lift, so it sits higher.
This may help to fix that problem... I'd just as soon not have it,
though.
If I do end up with a 5D, maybe I'll leave my 10D with no grip and a
smallish lens. That way I could use it for it's small size on
non-critical stuff, and just let the teeny built-in do it's thing.
...Mark

I never used the pop up on my A2, and only used the one on my D30 a couple
of times. I used the one on my 20D for the first time a week or so ago, and
found that the 24-70 f2.8L casts a shadow. But, then, who'd expect somebody
with that lens to use the pop up? ( I left my flash at home,
inadvertently...)

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

wrote in message
...
In message mfuOe.8248$Us5.3068@fed1read02,
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:

What you need to do is really try and define your needs, and how those
needs
stack up against the abilities of the two bodies. The 5D isn't
universally
ahead of the 20D. For example, the 20D can shoot 5 frames per second in
jpeg mode, while the 5D is limited to 3 frames (any mode).

The 1/200 flash sync is also a downer.


I was wondering about that 1/200 flash synch. Defeatured to distance it
from the 1 series?

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

In article , says...
The
corners are going to be a little mushy on the 17-40 f/4L at 17mm - it's
a $650 superwide!


Go look at the reviews for the 16-35 f2.8. The ones I've read say this F4
lens is at least as sharp if not sharper in the center of the frame and the
corners ARE sharper.

But Stacey, you've never used the lens, how can you say?

Next excuse?

Yeah, what is your next excuse? Stop looking at me, I'm not going to
make up your excuses for you.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
Mark² wrote:



I've posted this elsewhere, but I agree that they kinda goofed by
releasing that shot.



I don't think it's a "goof", I think it's just how it is with the present
wide canon lenses used on a FF digital camera body. You don't think anyone
at Canon noticed this?

If they "fix" this corner mush with a good zoom starting at 18-20mm (one
that is designed for digital use) that -IS- sharp to the corners, I might
be tempted to add one of these cameras to my bag. I'm not sure it can be
done with the present size lens mount and there is no way Canon would make
yet another lens mount change!

--

Stacey

Heck, Stacey, the center doesn't look to hot, either...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"Bill Hilton" wrote in message
oups.com...


Alaska and San Diego (remember the January rains Mark M? ... I was
there ... I would never try this with the consumer bodies.

Sadly, yes.
We lost our property's two best pine trees at teh tail end of that
storm...with totally saturated ground.
They were both about 60-70 feet tall (or more), and gave our back yard full
privacy. They are no both gone, leaving our back yard to look like a stage
before the world.

We haven't gotten over it, and waiting another 30 years for them to grow
back is a black thought.

(Whine whine...)
But ya, that was quite a rain--espacially for these parts.

Where I was born, in Colombia, we had over 140 inches of rain a
year...sometimes a LOT more.
But that area is ready for it. San Diego isn't.

-Mark