Caedes

Photography

Discussion Board -> Photography -> Custom Camera Help

Custom Camera Help

::stuffnstuff
08/31/04 6:25 PM GMT
I have read a few of the other comments, where people ask if digital is nice, what megapixels should be considered minimum, and asking what cameras are recommended in general, but I guess my needs are more specific; I would prefer a personal answer, not a webpage. I would love to get a digital camera with more than average megapixels to work with, but the key is exchangeable lenses. I don't require a full set, but at least a macro and non would be nice to swap between. I am the type that would prefer to save longer to get something that more fits my needs than a cheap makeshift job, but price should be within reason. Would one of the Canon's mentioned, 1D-10D, fit? Any advice would be much appreciated.

Edit: I have come a long way since then. :-D
0∈ [?]
-to live between the stones and walk in His dust, this is my task-

Comments

Post a Comment  -  Subscribe to this discussion

Overflow mode, hiding 49 messages. [View]

brphoto
10/25/04 1:36 AM GMT
Yeah, if it was 18mm on the camera, then the lens would technically have to be around 11mm before the 1.6 crop factor. 14mm is pretty much as wide as it gets, as it boasts a 114 degree field of view.
0∈ [?]
"If I could tell the story in words, I wouldn't need to lug around a camera."
::stuffnstuff
10/31/04 8:49 PM GMT
I went through my first role of film yesterday! Wow, did it disgust me; only 26 shots! I went to see George Bush speak in a local hockey arena (yes, he came to Minneapolis on the 30th), and I thought it would be mroe productive to use my mom's ancient Minolta with telephoto than some pathetic low quality digital. I used semi-slow film and was able to zoom in close enough to have his entire height cover maybe half of the viewer (taken landscape style). I am ordering computer prints on a disk, what are the chances of an effective crop turning into a really good photo? I know nothing about the resolution of film, so a ballpark would be helpful if possible.
0∈ [?]
-those who hit rock bottom are too concerned with self pity to realize that they are lying on an anvil- Psalm 66:10, Job 10:8
brphoto
11/01/04 4:26 AM GMT
Cropping is not that big of a problem, and can turn some pretty bad shots into good ones. Of course, the more heavily you crop, the poorer the quality of the final image. Almost all images need a little bit of cropping, but I would avoid completely relying on it. Buy pro films, they come 36 exp. to the roll, as opposed to 24. Plus, I would have used a real fast film, like an ISO 800 or 1600, most indoor venues like that are too dark for 400 and slower films, unless you use a flash (an external one, not the built in ones, they are usually way to weak and don’t do a good job with fill flash.) Film is rumored to be anywhere from 16-24MP (35mm Fujichrome Velvia 50). The scans won’t be very high res. unless they are scanned by a professional printing/scanning place on a drum scanner (upwards of $50 per scan, but virtually unlimited resolution). I would expect somewhere around 1024 x 1536 from most 1-hour places.
0∈ [?]
"If I could tell the story in words, I wouldn't need to lug around a camera."
d_spin_9
11/01/04 6:03 AM GMT
wow $50 dollar scans would sure pay off a 1DS (where you do get a 16MP shot every time) or something similar quickly, not to mention all the other benefits you get by shooting digital
0∈ [?]
The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of His hands.
::stuffnstuff
11/01/04 6:03 PM GMT
I heard that faster film carried less detail and more imperfections, so I opted for the slower. It was in a well lit convention center far too far away for the flash to be effective, and I only used film because of the better zoom with a telephoto than a point and shoot (not always the case, that Minolta Z2 equiped with the 2x is amazing, just not mine...). Do you really think i will only get 1536 by 1024? That is the worst news I have heard all day. :-)
0∈ [?]
-those who hit rock bottom are too concerned with self pity to realize that they are lying on an anvil- Psalm 66:10, Job 10:8
+mayne
11/01/04 6:16 PM GMT
London Drugs gives you a choice of resolutions. Not sure of the resoution values but they are higher than that mentioned above. You will pay more for better resolution;-)
0∈ [?]
Darryl
brphoto
11/01/04 7:35 PM GMT
Fast film does loose detail, but indoors (even in a well light place), anything under 400 is not fast enough. A flash can be used still, this past weekend I was shooting volleyball and was in a huge gym with an elevated running track (roughly 2- 3 stories up, so it was a fair distance from the court) and I used a single 550EX flashgun. It worked fine and provided enough light to boost my shutter speed and made the colors pop out a bit more.
0∈ [?]
"If I could tell the story in words, I wouldn't need to lug around a camera."
::stuffnstuff
11/01/04 9:33 PM GMT
I suppose so. I am no where near an expert on digital, and what does that say about film? I don't exactly live within walking distance of any London Drugs as far as I know, sorry. ;-) I would assume with all the spots pointed at the president that there would be enough light even indoors, but who knows? I was a good few hundred feet away, and probably thirty above (sorry for my awkward language, just divide by 3.75 for the metric version), so I would assume that might be beyond the small built-in flash on the Minolta. Thanks again, I will keep in mind your suggestions on the rare occasion of me getting within three feet of a film camera again. ;-)

My school yearbook teacher loves her new camera, the Z2, and lots of extras, like lens attachments and filters, are a new game for her that she doesn't mind playing.

On the other hand, I know a guy that does quite a bit of rugged hiking, and he would like to purchase one with mediocre optical zoom with about 3 to 4 MP and a rather rugged frame. Suggestions? (Preferably under $400)
0∈ [?]
-those who hit rock bottom are too concerned with self pity to realize that they are lying on an anvil- Psalm 66:10, Job 10:8
::stuffnstuff
11/01/04 9:37 PM GMT
Continued (for some reason, I am having link trouble):

Tracy was nice enough to give me a link to a site hosting a lovely Minolta. It appears to be a rather nice camera for its price range. Also, it seems to be of my mom's style and preference. For reference if she decides to purchase, could any owner of one let me know more about it?

As usual, thanks for anyone who takes the time to reply to the endless pestering of one less knowledgeable. :-)
0∈ [?]
-those who hit rock bottom are too concerned with self pity to realize that they are lying on an anvil- Psalm 66:10, Job 10:8
=xentrik
11/01/04 10:06 PM GMT
You do know that Konica-Minolta is about to release a DSLR, right? The Maxxum 7D. It's probably going to be rather expensive, but if you have the "Minolta A-type bayonet mount" (from press release) lenses, that's something you won't need to buy.

From what I recall, Tracy has that very camera you mention (the Dimage 7Hi) so you may want to ask him directly. Pierre (ppigeon) has a Minolta A2 if I'm not mistaken, which is similar.

For the rugged hiker, I believe some of the Canon SD-series camera have metal bodies, and are extremely small. The Olympus Stylus cameras are also small and metal, but with a hard "clamshell" lens cover and weatherproof seals, which decreases concerns about water (hiking in rain/snow/mist/etc). My friend has had a digital stylus for about a year, has taken it on many hikes (NY's 'Dacks), and it still works well after he submerged it in the ocean (trying to get a close-up of a wave... oops).
0∈ [?]
::stuffnstuff
11/01/04 10:13 PM GMT
Thanks for the advice. I currently have my heart set on a Canon, probably 10D or 20D, but that certainly isn't final (a lot can change in the time it takes to earn such money). As for the hiker, he leads trips to Israel and they do all day mountain climbs. He dropped his last one in a bad way and has been wanting a new one for a while. I shall inform him of the SD series (I believe what we looked at on ebay earlier today) and the Stylus.
0∈ [?]
-those who hit rock bottom are too concerned with self pity to realize that they are lying on an anvil- Psalm 66:10, Job 10:8
d_spin_9
11/02/04 12:33 AM GMT
just wondering if there is any difference between the 300D sensor and the 10D. i know they are both touted as the same sensor, and they are the same MP, but is there any difference in actual image quality between the two cameras? did they tweak the rebels sensor a little because its newer than the 10D, or do they perform the same? i've got about 2000$ for a camera, and i'm thinking either the rebel or the 10D (if i can find a good used one) will be better with 1 or two good lenses than the 20D with 1 cheapo lens?
0∈ [?]
The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of His hands.
brphoto
11/02/04 4:56 AM GMT
I know for sure that the physical chip is the same, except for the fact that the D. Rebel’s ones are produced in far larger numbers than those of the 10D. I have heard many different things about the image processing though, one is that they are identical image processing algorithms; I have also heard that the 10D’s are different, geared more toward the pro shooter, who wants more control over things like sharpening. On Canon Europe’s site there used to be a comparison between the two, which pointed out that there is a clear difference in the image processing parameters, while Canon USA claims they are the same…so your guess is as good as mine. To me, the two’s images look different when put side by side, so I buy into what Canon Europe touts. They claim that the D. Rebels sharpening is stronger than the 10D’s, for instance, if they are both set to +3 amount of sharpening, the D. Rebel’s images will be more like a consumer point and shoot’s images and will be more noticeably sharpened, whereas the 10D will behave more like the 1D and produce smoother, more film like shots (which allow the photographer to sharpen in Photoshop, select just the right amount, and produce a better looking image). Plus, build quality is better, the D. Rebel has a plastic body; the 10D’s is magnesium alloy, similar to that of the 1D.

If you are not in a hurry, I might be selling my 10D, with two 1D Mark II's my 10D doesn’t see much action anymore. It's in perfect shape (only one small scratch) and was recently cleaned and tested by Canon CPS. It's got the BG-ED3 grip / battery pack, all the CDs, box, manuals, two batteries, original neck strap and the charger. I am still trying to decide whether or not I am ready to part with it (it’s served me incredibly well); if I am, I can let you know.
0∈ [?]
"If I could tell the story in words, I wouldn't need to lug around a camera."
d_spin_9
11/02/04 6:27 AM GMT
that would be incrediblyidibly awesome, also i dont have any other canon lenses, so if you have any that are kicking around, or filters that you never use, or any other stuff i might want i would definitely love to pick them up used. it would be nice buying from someone i trust, as opposed to ebay, or some huge retail markup.

so the actual sensor is the same, the camera just has some different algorithems, but if you were to just set all the settings to '0' the product would be the same then. i definitelylike the metal body, even though it weighs a bit more. do you have extra batteries that you're selling with the 10D possibly, or are they interchangeable with the 1D mark II so that you want to keep them?
0∈ [?]
The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of His hands.
brphoto
11/02/04 7:10 AM GMT
I only have 2 10D batts. The grip takes both, or if you don’t have the grip attached, the camera only takes one at a time. The 10D batteries are small, only about the size of a camcorder battery, and they don’t work in the 1D. (The 1D Mark II, 1D, 1Ds, and 1Ds MKII all use the same battery, it's huge and they haven’t updated the battery technology, they are sill Nickel-Metal Hydride as opposed to the 10D's Lithium Ion batteries.)

One is a BP-511 and the other is a BP-511A, so one is dark brown and the other is grey. You get 1000+ shots per charge (with the two in the grip) so you don’t really need extra batteries, at least I never did. As for extras, I could throw in a 512MB CF card; I have a few slower ones sitting around.

Don’t have too much in the way of extra lenses, the only ones I have are the 16-35mm f/2.8L, 24-70mm f/2.8L, 50mm f/1.4, 70-200mm f/2.8L, 300mm f/2.8L IS, and 400mm f/2.8L, and I use them all. I used to have a 500mm f/4L IS, but got rid of it and bought the 400. A good starter lens is the 50mm f/1.8, or the 50mm f/1.4 (the latter of the two being 3 times as expensive). If you are on a tight budget, a few inexpensive primes are going to produce better results than a cheap zoom. The only zooms that are as good as the primes are the L-series ones. I still may hang on to the 10D, but I will know by the end of the month, as I am going to evaluate how much I really use it, and if its not practical to keep it, it’s gone.


With regard to the sharpness settings, even at 0, the digital rebel still sharpens more than the 10D, as the target market for the D. Rebel is the "Advanced Amateur" as opposed to professionals. Your every day, average amateur photographer might not want to do the post processing all the time, so if you are just printing from the camera directly, the camera has to do more of the post processing tasks at the time of shooting.
0∈ [?]
"If I could tell the story in words, I wouldn't need to lug around a camera."
d_spin_9
11/02/04 3:14 PM GMT
wow those are some nice lenses you got there. right now for lenses i was kinda thinking i'd get a 24-85 zoom. i know its small, and probably not amazing optically, but i like the range, and dont think i could afford the 24-70 /2.8L (how much is one by the way) then after that i think i could probably cough up for a 70-200/4L or 200/2.8L but i cant really decide which one i'd prefer, although i'm leaning towards the prime. i think i can wait about a month for you to decide if you're selling it.
0∈ [?]
The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of His hands.
brphoto
11/02/04 7:11 PM GMT
Well, primes are good; they can be a little hard to get used to, especially at the longer lengths (300+), since you can't zoom. The 70-200 f/4L is said to be as sharp as the 70-200 f/2.8L version (I have the 2.8, and can attest to it's prime-like sharpness.) 200 is a very universal length, it can be used for a lot, with my 70-200, I mostly shoot at the 200 end. The 70 end is nice for portraits though, and for stuff like news/press conference photography. Canon used to make a 200mm f/1.8L, it was their sharpest, absolutely best lens ever made. Sadly, they stopped production in 2001, and now they are pretty hard to find for a reasonable price. I often rent it from Canon, as it's just amazing for indoor, low light, fairly close stuff. The 70-200 f/4L has some pretty neat features, that the 200 f/2.8 doesn’t, namely a Flourite element, and the constant aperture zoom. The 200 2.8 is good too though, it’s fast, so you will be able to shoot in darker locations with a faster shutter speed.

The 24-80 you mentioned looks like a pretty good lens. It employs USM focusing and an aspherical element. (Aspherical elements are usually only found in the L-series wide angle zooms.)

The 24-70mm f/2.8L was around $2,000. I believe they have dropped in price, to around 1,800 or so.
0∈ [?]
"If I could tell the story in words, I wouldn't need to lug around a camera."
::stuffnstuff
11/02/04 10:43 PM GMT
Ouch, I can't afford that! I suppose that is why I am looking at Sigma's stuff. No definite conlcusions yet, but I am saving. And Carl, if you decide not to get Will's 10D? Do me a favor and let me know... :-)
0∈ [?]
-those who hit rock bottom are too concerned with self pity to realize that they are lying on an anvil- Psalm 66:10, Job 10:8
d_spin_9
11/02/04 11:04 PM GMT
haha, ok, although it would work great for me to get it cuz we both live in calgary so it would be very easy for me to just go pick the stuff up. you've convinced me those lenses are both pretty nice will, the 24-85/3.5-4.5, and the 70-200/4 i believe they both use the same filter size too so that will be nice. the only downside is they are both fairly slow lenses, so i will not be able to shoot sports terribly easy (not that i do that very much) or get a really short depth of field. thats ok for now tho, i think i'll go with those two which will be around 900$ or so for both of them right? then i'll browse bargain finders etc later looking for some sort of portaiture, or fast prime that i can use for a bit more creative shots.

also one review i read for the 70-200/4 said that on the 10D it blurred horribly on the left side of the image at the long end. it said it only happened on his 10D but not on a full sensor. do you think theres any reason to that review, or was it just a lemon?
0∈ [?]
The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of His hands.
brphoto
11/02/04 11:54 PM GMT
It must have been a lemon, I know my 70-200 f/2.8L on the 10D is razor sharp, and with the 2.8 having a shallower DOF, any focus errors would be easily visible. I have not heard any bad reviews about the f/4, other than its slow speed. For instance, you would not be able to shoot in a gym, with shutter speeds fast enough to freeze motion. F/4 still has a pretty shallow DOF, not as shallow as the 2.8 though. (It will still blur the background very well, for closer objects.) It’s also unusual that you have problems with the L-Series lenses, as they are Canon's flagship lenses. The only ones I would avoid are the push-pull ones.( the 35-350mm L and 100-400mm L, they are optically on par with a consumer zoom, and are targeted more at rich amateurs than working pros, I have yet to see a fellow professional photographer using one, only soccer dads so far!) I think the 70-200 f/4 is around 800 alone, I am not sure what the price of the 24-85, but I assume around 400. (Lenses are outrageously expensive!) On a positive note, you won't be disappointed with a 70-200, both the f/4 and f/2.8 versions are built like a tank (they are rather heavy though, at the 2.8 is) and are optically on par with primes.

The bargain finder is a great place to look for gear, right now there's even a brand new 1D Mark II listed. (Not much of a deal though, I can get one new myself for 200 more from a reputable dealer...)
0∈ [?]
"If I could tell the story in words, I wouldn't need to lug around a camera."
d_spin_9
11/03/04 3:44 AM GMT
you know, i just recieved a really good comendation for the nikon D70. is it true that it is quicker, (i know it has better performance at higher iso's), turns on faster, and other stuff better than the 10D or the rebel. i kinda want to stick with canon, but my dad has an old nikon with a nikkor 50mm/1.8 which would be one less lens to buy, as well, it is not much more expensive than the 10D. if you know some stuff about the nikon, good or bad (especially bad) because from what i see and have heard it is a superior camera. i know nikon/nikkor doesnt have such a good telephoto selection as canon, but i'm not really huge into that anyways, i know a 200 would be the longest lens i'd use because of size, what i shoot, weight, and i'm definitely not always using a monopod. but ya, any complaints about the nikon d70?
0∈ [?]
The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of His hands.
brphoto
11/03/04 3:50 AM GMT
Well, I used to shoot Nikon before going digital, and I am not sorry I switched. I prefer the Canon's images; they are cleaner and have better color rendition, in my opinion. I think the D70 might turn on faster, but that’s about it. Canon makes their own image sensors, whereas Nikon buys from a supplier, I am not sure if that makes a difference though. Plus, the D70 uses a CCD; Canon uses CMOS sensors (they use a lot less power than CCDs, so you get longer battery life). I had a lot of quality control issues with Nikon, towards the end. I bought a second F5 (their flagship film camera at the time) and it spent more time in the shop than out shooting with me.
0∈ [?]
"If I could tell the story in words, I wouldn't need to lug around a camera."
d_spin_9
11/03/04 5:04 AM GMT
hmmm, well from looking at the reviews of the d70 i think it looks much better for me, the only things i dont like are the moire, and the lack of an iso100. overall though i'd say they are very similar (the battery life doesnt really bother me) but i guess i'll have to see what kind of deals i can get on the d70 compared to the 10D. what ballpark price would you be looking for for your 10D with the portrait thingee, 2 batts, and whatever old CF cards you dont use?
0∈ [?]
The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of His hands.
brphoto
11/03/04 6:13 AM GMT
The portrait thingy? Oh, the grip...well probably around $1500, since the grip alone was over $300. The card is a newer one; it’s just not a real fast one, its 512MB. By all means if the D70 is better for you, then go for it! Some claim (Ken Rockwell is one) that the D70 is superior since its shutter speeds are timed with the sensor, as opposed to the actual shutter. Canon used to do this on the original 1D (it had a flash sync of 1/500), they stopped using this technique on the Mark II (Only has a sync of 1/250), there's some reason they stopped, since the 1D has always used the best technology available at the time. But you should choose what’s right for you, as that’s who will be using it!
0∈ [?]
"If I could tell the story in words, I wouldn't need to lug around a camera."
d_spin_9
11/04/04 6:09 AM GMT
ok, i got the D70 thing out of me, but i've been seeing some really good deals on ebay. batts are cheap as dirt, cf is reasonable, and right now there is a 10D with a 28-70/2.8 L that i could get for around 1700 i think. not a bad deal methinks for a body worth around 1000 and a lens easily worth over 1000. the item # is 3850328460 if you want to check it out and tell me if you think its worth it that would be appreciated. i think i would really enjoy having an L lens, so this looks like a good place to get one.
0∈ [?]
The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of His hands.
brphoto
11/04/04 6:14 AM GMT
Looks like a great deal! L glass is not cheap, so if you could get both the body and lens for less than 2000, go for it! The 28-70 is a terrific lens; it has now been replaced by the 24-70, but still, a terrific piece of glass. I wonder if it will go for a reasonable price, or go up to 3 times as much, after everyone bids at the last minute.
0∈ [?]
"If I could tell the story in words, I wouldn't need to lug around a camera."
::stuffnstuff
11/04/04 10:37 PM GMT
Now that you gave him a bit of advice, can you comment on a set for me??? ;-) "Item number: 3850421545" looks particularily nice to my uninformed eye. A few questions I should probably ask would be: Is this accurately priced? Are the filters good quality? Are they worth it? Is the tripod an acceptable one? Is the memory card of reputable brand? Is it fast enough? Does speed make a huge difference? Are the lenses of a good range? Would either macro be partially effective? Is it a terrible buy considering that I am 16 and currently use a fossil of a poor Olympus? If you were in my situation, would you buy Sigma or save for a better glass? Or should I drop this and take up cardboard box folding? Any anser to these questions from anyone would be appreciated. Thanks!
0∈ [?]
-those who hit rock bottom are too concerned with self pity to realize that they are lying on an anvil- Psalm 66:10, Job 10:8
brphoto
11/06/04 10:32 AM GMT
Well, it looks kind of gimmicky...the lenses are probably not the greatest, the filters are absolute crap! Filters are really not necessary, I don’t use any, except to protect the front element, and I use Rodenstock 77mm Skylight 1A filters to do that (Around $85 each). (Filters should be of the highest quality, as anything between the subject and lens can reduce the image quality.) The only other filter I have is a polarizer, which I rarely use.

As for the card, it's a decent one, SanDisk makes some extraordinary flashcards, and I use only the SanDisk Extreme and Lexar Pro 80x ones in all of my cameras. The one provided is pretty slow though, so write times won't be lightning fast, but it is nice and big (2GB).

I would always save and get better glass! The difference in image quality between Canon's consumer glass and the L glass is like night and day, the difference between Sigma's consumer glass and Canon's consumer glass will be less evident. I give Sigma credit though, for a sneaky marketing ploy, putting a red ring around the end of the lens, just like Canon does with their L glass…

It always makes me a little nervous to see sellers like this include a “Cleaning Kit”…they must be aware that some naive person will eventually try to clean the image sensor with the provided swabs and fluid, and will end up damaging it. As a side tip, NEVER touch the sensor, blow on it, spray canned air (or anything else) on it, or use anything to try and clean it! While it can be done yourself with specialized products, it’s best to get Canon to clean it for you, and they usually do it for free, in less than 20 minutes. If the sensor ever gets scratched (even microscopically) it will render the camera useless and the repair will cost more than you paid for the camera. I say this since when you take off the lens, behind the mirror and shutter curtains is the sensor, and there’s a cleaning function that flips the mirror up and opens the shutter to allow you to clean it. I don’t even clean my own sensors; always have the service place do it! That said, you will notice little dark specks in your photos if the lens’s aperture is stopped down to around f/11 or smaller. Sensor dust is a fact of life with a DSLR, and it happens to everyones cameras. Sensor dust is something to be lived with!

I would question why the seller is including all of this other stuff; these package deals usually mean poor products, in my opinion.

I wouldn’t hit the box plant quite yet, if you are patient, you will find exactly what you are looking for! (Sorry it took me so long to respond, I was neck-deep in work!)
0∈ [?]
"If I could tell the story in words, I wouldn't need to lug around a camera."
::stuffnstuff
11/07/04 4:37 AM GMT
Don't worry about the timing, life can get very busy. Well, I must say I am dismayed to read what you said, as I thought the package looked great, but I also know i don't want to discover all that stuff out the hard way (especially the sensor cleaning!). The L glass sounds like a lot more cash than I could conjure up in any reasonable amount of time, and if consumer Canon and Sigma are very similar, I will probably go the cheaper route. Filters hadn't been a priority for me, but I thought if they came with it, why not? Obviously I don't have an eye for these "deals", so I may keep you in mind before making any miniscule decision. As always, thanks! :-)
0∈ [?]
-those who hit rock bottom are too concerned with self pity to realize that they are lying on an anvil- Psalm 66:10, Job 10:8
stuffnstuff
11/30/04 2:31 AM GMT
More questions! (Yes, Will, I can tell you are just thrilled...) I have been scoutin' out the 20D a bit more in depth. I know you tried to convince me to buy a 10D being sold off for cheap now that the 20D is out, but the extra speed and multishot burst are attractive (not to mention the extrapixels, about 500 by 300, which means a bigger card...). ;-)

The quicker power-up sounds useful, but now to the queries. What ii the difference between a 7 and 9 point auto-focus? Would it be useful? (a.k.a. does manual focus make that much of a difference?) Is a smaller mirror better? Is the 10D not compatible with the "Digital lenses"? What does ISO stand for and what does it mean? What is the X-sync shutter speed? What differences does the DIGIC II processor make? Under what circumstances would the USB be useful?

I really do appreciate the help, but I have one final question, which I would consider the most important of all of them? Tracy showed me this site. What do you think of the lenses below, mainly the left one? Are the macro features acceptable on either?

Assuming the best "pure" macro lens I could buy now would be made by Quantary (no vulgar words please), would one of these suffice untill I could afford a Canon?

Thanks again to anyone who could answer any one of these questions. :-)
0∈ [?]
-those who hit rock bottom are too concerned with self pity to realize that they are lying on an anvil- Psalm 66:10, Job 10:8
d_spin_9
11/30/04 4:34 AM GMT
i'm going to give you my very biased opinions about the differences between the 10D and 20D. dont think the 2 extra autofocus points are really a big deal, although people say autofocus is generally better on the 20D, but that depends mostly on the quality/speed of your lens, so i think go with the 10D, and use the extra money to buy a great, fast lens that you'll love, and be able to use in 10 years. i think the mirrors are similar, although 20D is compatible with EF-S lenses, so if you want to shoot alot of wide angle stuff, those are a good option. ISO is the "speed" of film you are using, so if its higher it allows you to use smaller apperatures and higher shutter speeds for the same amount of light. for macro, go with a prime macro with a true 1:1 ratio. a cheap prime macro will be longer (which is nice for just about everything small) and will be better optically than a zoom. USB 2.0 is usefull if you care that a 1GB card takes 5 minutes as opposed to 15 minutes to download, although your CF card speed will greatly affect that speed also to a point. X-sync is the maximum shutter speed the flash will work at to expose the whole sensor properly (ie have the whole shutter open at the same time *surprising isnt it*) so you'll need that if you want to flash fill in bright conditions, although personally i think 1/200-1/250 isnt a big difference. the 17-85 lens you're talking about on the left would be an awesome lens, my only complaint over why a L, or something similar (even third party zoom with a constant 2.8 apperature) would be better is that the apperature lets you have another stop of light which compensates at least a bit for IS, but gives you a brighter viewfinder, better (if USM) autofocus, and more depth of field control. but if you really want the wide end, definitely go with that 17-85. sorry for being so random..... ummm the DIGIC II processor is basicly an upgraded processor, so it uses less battery, and runs faster, allowing the desireable 5fps continuous.

i think the 8.1 MP sensor is mainly a megapixel myth. its better, but i dont know how much that is really worth to you. it definitely is better noise wise at high iso's (ie 800, 1600, 3200) so if you do alot of indoor shooting without flash that might be a difference worth the price.

My unfounded opinion about third party lenses is > buy a good canon lens for your basic lens that you'll use most of the time then get third parties after that if you're human and dont have enless resources. primes are probably pretty good from third parties because they really arent that complicated, so optically, no matter what they'll be close, or above the resolving power of your sensor, and build wise, heck you could buy 2-3 third parties for the price of most canon similar offerings, so who cares if you break one? buy another one, and you'll be even, or better yet, get 2 third parties and be all the merrier.

hope i've helped if you can follow that. Will would probably do a better job, but w/e
0∈ [?]
The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of His hands.
brphoto
11/30/04 7:26 AM GMT
Carl explained it all perfectly.

The 10D's 7 autofocus points are laid out in a plus (+) pattern, and light-up red when selected. The 20D's are arranged in a diamond pattern (<>), so there is slightly better coverage, but the center point is the most used...so it's not really a big deal. The 20D's AF is, however, considerably faster than the 10D's, but not as fast or good as the 45 point system on the 1D.

As for DIGIC, the original 1D has DIGIC I and the Mark II has DIGIC II, I haven't noticed a huge performance difference, so it's negligible in my opinion.

The mirror size makes no difference, other than allowing the use of EF-S lenses, none of Canon's professional bodies accept the EF-S mount (except for the 20D, which is an entry level pro body). It's unfortunate as the range the EF-S lenses cover would be great, I am not sure about their optical or build quality though.
0∈ [?]
"If I could tell the story in words, I wouldn't need to lug around a camera."
d_spin_9
11/30/04 3:43 PM GMT
mirrors are the same on 10D and 20D i think, i read an article somewhere about a guy talking about shaving off the extra bit on the EF-S mount, then putting an 18-55 on his 10D. dont quite know what the point is as it isnt much of a lens, but i guess if you have one that you dont need, its *only* a 150 dollar lens. (i hate stupid extravagent lens prices) but you get what you pay for i guess
0∈ [?]
The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of His hands.
brphoto
11/30/04 5:40 PM GMT
If he actually converted an EF-S lens then he will (or may already have) ruined his camera.

The 10D's mirror is a few MM longer and since the EF-S lens protrudes into the mirror box a fair amount, the mirror will whack the back of the lens with considerable speed and force, throwing the mirror and half-mirror (A tiny mirror that folds out of the back of the main mirror, which is used for AF) out of alignment, rendering the AF inaccurate or unusable.

It's for this reason Canon made the mounts different!
0∈ [?]
"If I could tell the story in words, I wouldn't need to lug around a camera."
stuffnstuff
11/30/04 9:47 PM GMT
Confusing! Thanks for the help, both of you. I am amazed at how one camera can brag about 9-points being superior and another quietly uses 45.

A few things I don't understand at all:

1) Different lenses have different speed?

2) Flashes don't work past a shutter rate of 1/2(00/50)th of a second? Wouldn't the long
exposure time at that speed ruin the image?

3) Is the aperature that "f" in the description of the lens?

I didn't know I had a designated "shooting style", but I suppose I like macro shots, both indoors and out doors, and I like basic nature shots (often from an odd perspective featuring a small object near the lens). In my mind, telephoto is nice to look at stuff, and I can see the need for macro, but I don't exacty shoot fisheye all the time. In my opinion, landscapes are hard to artisticly capture, so I tend to focus on objects. Because I understand so little about lenses, what would you suggest?
0∈ [?]
-those who hit rock bottom are too concerned with self pity to realize that they are lying on an anvil- Psalm 66:10, Job 10:8
d_spin_9
11/30/04 11:01 PM GMT
basicly you'll get what you pay for in terms of speed, quality optically, and build quality. probably starting you'll want a zoom cuz thats what everyones used to. so just get focal lengths that you'll use, then spend what you're willing to, and try not to drool too much over more expensive stuff.
0∈ [?]
The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of His hands.
stuffnstuff
12/01/04 12:55 AM GMT
I hate to ask, but any specific ideas?
0∈ [?]
-those who hit rock bottom are too concerned with self pity to realize that they are lying on an anvil- Psalm 66:10, Job 10:8
brphoto
12/01/04 12:59 AM GMT
Yes, the speed of a lens refers to its maximum aperture, so a 200mm f/1.8 is a lot faster than a 70-200mm f/4 or 200mm f/2.8.

Correct, past 1/200th (on the 10D) and 1/250 (20D, 1D MKII) the flash will not properly expose the shot, as the second shutter curtain that’s closing will get in the way. Therefore, the camera will only allow you to shoot at or under 1/200 or 1/250, unless you have a FP Sync flash. The camera calculates the correct amount of flash necessary and compares that to the ambient light, and properly exposes the shot. The flash exposure could ruin the image, but that’s what separates these cameras from point and shoots, the photographer is in control and must know / understand what settings to use, etc.

Yes, the "f" in a lens description is the maximum aperture or speed of the lens.

Here are some links to diagrams of the different autofocus point layouts:
10D (7 Points)
20D (9 Points)
1D / 1D Mk II (45 Points)
0∈ [?]
"If I could tell the story in words, I wouldn't need to lug around a camera."
stuffnstuff
12/01/04 1:04 AM GMT
So, in my understanding, lens speed isn't based on how fast it works, but how fast it can let in enough light. Sorry for my ignorance, but is this correct?
0∈ [?]
-those who hit rock bottom are too concerned with self pity to realize that they are lying on an anvil- Psalm 66:10, Job 10:8
brphoto
12/01/04 1:07 AM GMT
Well, not how fast it can let light in, it's how much it can let in. It's just called speed, but really has no correlation to any actual speed.
0∈ [?]
"If I could tell the story in words, I wouldn't need to lug around a camera."
d_spin_9
12/01/04 1:54 AM GMT
although the bigger aperature (ie smaller f/#) will alow more light in, allowing the camera to autofocus faster. but watch out larger aperature lenses will be bigger, and maybe slower to carry around. i dont have a link, but check out Wills 200 f/1.8, its a true beast
0∈ [?]
The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of His hands.
stuffnstuff
12/01/04 2:03 AM GMT
I hate to ask, but would any loving and serving soul be able to provide me with specific examples of lenses approproate for the photography style I have described?
0∈ [?]
-those who hit rock bottom are too concerned with self pity to realize that they are lying on an anvil- Psalm 66:10, Job 10:8
d_spin_9
12/01/04 2:28 AM GMT
wow, cant say i'm experienced at all, but remind me what your 'style' is, and how much you'll have for lenses after buying whatever DSLR you go for.
0∈ [?]
The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of His hands.
brphoto
12/01/04 4:40 AM GMT
Here are links to both the 200mm f/1.8L that Carl mentioned (also my all time favorite lens) and 200mm f/2.8L, so you can see how big of a size and weight difference there is between the two, keeping in mind that they are both the exact same focal length, so the image will look identical from both lenses (except for depth of field). The only difference is the speed.

200mm f/1.8L (Fastest 200mm in the world)
200mm f/2.8L (Fast 200mm, but a little slower)

As for lens recommendations, I definitely support Carl's statement that you should save up for Canon glass...a trend I have noticed is that at the extreme tele (200mm+) or wide (28mm and wider) ends, the quality of consumer lenses is not great, however the mid range lenses (anywhere from 28-130 say) seem to be not bad at all. As for zooms, the only ones that are on par with primes are the L-series ones, so if those are out of your budget, I would go for primes. Possibly a 50mm f/1.8 (on the 10 and 20D cameras it becomes an 80mm f/1.8) and it's pretty inexpensive. Good macros are not cheap though, the Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM (which is not even an L-series lens) runs about $1000. If you have your mind set on a zoom, a decent mid range one is the 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM. It features Canon's Ultrasonic autofocus motor (which is amazingly fast and silent), Full-time manual focus, and inner focusing so the front of the lens won't rotate or extend during focusing. I am not sure what it costs though.
0∈ [?]
"If I could tell the story in words, I wouldn't need to lug around a camera."
stuffnstuff
12/01/04 10:21 PM GMT
For Carl:

"I didn't know I had a designated "shooting style", but I suppose I like macro shots, both indoors and out doors, and I like basic nature shots (often from an odd perspective featuring a small object near the lens). In my mind, telephoto is nice to look at stuff, and I can see the need for macro, but I don't exacty shoot fisheye all the time. In my opinion, landscapes are hard to artisticly capture, so I tend to focus on objects. Because I understand so little about lenses, what would you suggest?"

For Will:

I appreciate your last comment a lot; finding where the difference between consumer and Canon lenses is very helpful. The one aspect you didn't answer is where macro fits. Is there a large gap in quality between consumer and Canon like there is for wide and telephoto?
0∈ [?]
-those who hit rock bottom are too concerned with self pity to realize that they are lying on an anvil- Psalm 66:10, Job 10:8
d_spin_9
12/01/04 11:07 PM GMT
umm, something i'm looking at is the sigma Telephoto 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro. i dont know about quality, although it is the EX series and has a 4 year warranty, so it should be quite nice, its a prime, so it'll probably max out a digital sensor anyways, its got true 1:1 macro, and an awesome f/45 maximum f-stop so you can get pretty neat depth of field, but also show all your sensor dust, and lose some quality due to aperature defraction, but i think i'd use it some anyways, especially for long exposures.

you can look at it at b&h photo and it runs for not too bad of a price. unless i can find an L series zoom, or telephoto for cheap, thats probably the next lens i'll get.
0∈ [?]
The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of His hands.
brphoto
12/02/04 2:34 AM GMT
I meant that with Canon's consumer lenses there is a gap at either extreme, as optically a lens must become far more complex to render ultra high quality images at both the telephoto and wide ends, hence why L-series wides and tele's are so good. The sharpest Canon lens is actually a telephoto, so no loss in quality just because it's a tele or a wide, per se.

Luke: As for macro, unless you get a dedicated macro, don't expect stellar results. Most normal lenses that claim to have a macro function just have a close minimum focus distance. For proper macro one needs a fairly high magnification lens.
0∈ [?]
"If I could tell the story in words, I wouldn't need to lug around a camera."
brphoto
12/02/04 5:33 AM GMT
As for the Sigma 105mm f/2.8, they make some pretty good glass, in fact I'd go as far as to say they are the best of the third party lens bunch. I have never used their products, so I can't offer any advice from experience, but they have a good reputation.

You would be surprised at how the sensor, even with its limited resolution, can show the flaws of lenses...with my EF 50mm f/1.4 I can tell when a shot is taken at 1.4 as opposed to 2.8. It's such a sharp lens that the difference between wide open and stopped down is minimal, but still detectable.
0∈ [?]
"If I could tell the story in words, I wouldn't need to lug around a camera."
stuffnstuff
12/02/04 9:46 PM GMT
I am refering to dedicated macro lenses, although I had mixed "consumer" whith "third party", so that is probably the source of the miscommunication. On a different subject, I have heard that the 20D is slightly more dust-resistant, but I wouldn't know from experience. Back to the first subject :-), I am assuming the $1,000 macro Canon is consumer, so their lowest priced macro lens. How big is the Gap between dedicated 3rd party macro lenses and macro options? Is the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 a dedicated macro or does it just ahev the macro option?
0∈ [?]
-those who hit rock bottom are too concerned with self pity to realize that they are lying on an anvil- Psalm 66:10, Job 10:8
d_spin_9
12/02/04 10:56 PM GMT
the sigma 105, 50, and 180 primes are all true macros. most people say that the sigma 105 has better optics than the canon 100 macro, although the ergonomics of the sigma arent all that great without a USM (full time manual) slower noisier focus, and a front element that extends quite a bit when focusing close for macro work whereas the canon always stays the same length.
0∈ [?]
The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of His hands.
stuffnstuff
12/03/04 2:56 AM GMT
From a breif overview, all three look nice. Vocab check: Prime - a number that can't be divided by any other number besides itself, Element - ...something to do with that clothing brand that everybody else wears..., and Ergonomics - a fancy "e" word to use when you want to sound intelligent. Help. :-) So is autofocus bad for macro? Will Will have my head if I buy a non-Canon? ;-)

(I think I should eventually pay you guys...it is like I have a personal help hotline!)
0∈ [?]
-those who hit rock bottom are too concerned with self pity to realize that they are lying on an anvil- Psalm 66:10, Job 10:8
+Samatar
12/03/04 4:23 AM GMT
I think the biggest problem with autofocus is that generally, it will focus on the object that takes up most of the shot. So if, for example, you are trying to shoot a tiny flower, the camera will tend to focus on the background, and the object you are actually trying to capture will be completely out of focus. The only way I found to get around this was to place something behind the object like your had or a peice of paper, but of course that tends to spoil the shot.
0∈ [?]
-Everyone is entitled to my opinion-
brphoto
12/03/04 8:27 AM GMT
If you line up the selected AF point (on a Digital SLR) with the object that you want in focus (providing the camera is in One Shot or Single Servo AF), the camera will focus on that particular spot, however small.

The only way I could see such a focus inaccuracy is if the camera is allowed to pick the AF points automatically or it's in AI Servo or Continuous Servo AF (used to track moving objects, so the camera is constantly re-focusing as opposed to locking focus).

I suppose autofocus is fine for macro work, but manual focus allows the most control over DOF, etc.
0∈ [?]
"If I could tell the story in words, I wouldn't need to lug around a camera."
+Samatar
12/03/04 9:14 AM GMT
Sorry I should clarify, I was talking about an automatic compact camera rather than an SLR...
0∈ [?]
-Everyone is entitled to my opinion-
d_spin_9
12/03/04 3:34 PM GMT
haha, ya i dont know if placing something behind what you want to focus on would do any good. when shooting a true 1:1 macro your depth of field would be less than half a centimeter, so manual focus is best, or even focusing then moving the camera to the right distance to bring it into focus. looking around all the prime (not zooms for ya luke) macros they all look really nice. i dont think i'd go for a 50mm one, but all the 100+mm ones look awesome, although the 180's are too expensive. or you could go extreme macro and get the 65mm 1-5x macro haha dont think i ever would, its fun just looking as a matter of curiosity
0∈ [?]
The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of His hands.
stuffnstuff
12/03/04 9:23 PM GMT
Thanks, Sam, I find your observation very helpful for current photography (which is off the subject, but a WHOLE lot more realistic).

I do understand when manual focus is a must, but if it has AF as well, that would suffice for most of the time (precision shots or stubborn targets being the exception) quite well. So does prime refer to only macro lenses? You mentioned the 50, 105 and the 180; are those mm or just model numbers? What would be the difference between a 50 and a 180 when shooting macro?

I heard about an interesting series of lenses from a source of questionable reliability (new guy at the local Ritz store who knew less about lenses that me!). Brandon said that Nikon's ED (???) series were better than the Canon L series, and a lot cheaper too, but they are only made for Nikon's cameras. Am I remembering the name right? Is there any significant quality over Canon's L glass? If so, could it really be as cheap as he implied?
0∈ [?]
-those who hit rock bottom are too concerned with self pity to realize that they are lying on an anvil- Psalm 66:10, Job 10:8
d_spin_9
12/03/04 9:42 PM GMT
dont know really anything about nikon, but yes the 50, 100/105, and 180's are the mm lengths of the different lenses. the shorter ones are cheaper, but the long ones allow you to get further away from your subject (which is nice when you're working withing cm of a subject). but primes are simply refering to all non-zooms. however all good macro will fall into the prime category because its just about imposible to make a zoom that will focus that close.
0∈ [?]
The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of His hands.
brphoto
12/04/04 12:08 AM GMT
The whole Nikon vs. Canon vs. Something else debate is long and often fought to the death; both sides are equally as willing to sling the mud.

I wonder in what way the Ritz guy means better, mechanically, optically? Almost all of Canon's lenses (both consumer and pro) employ the USM motors, whereas only a handful of Nikon's pro ones (over $1000) use this technology. The same goes for IS and their version of it, called VR, only select lenses have it, whereas most of Canon's telephotos have Image Stabilizer. Optically, Nikon makes some excellent lenses but they always seem to drop the ball with their "new" products and often their technological advances come way too late.

A great example of this is the Nikon D2H (introduced early 2004) professional digital body, it only has around 4MP and 8 fps, Canon's 2001 EOS-1D has 4.1MP and 8.5fps. The EOS-1D Mark II came out around the same time as the D2H, meaning a lot of people were lured by the sweet taste of 8 Megapixels at 8.5 frames per second.

Before I went digital I used to shoot Nikon, most people (myself included) though that the F5 was the best film body on the planet, that was until I started looking into digital and checked out Canon's lineup.

"ED" stands for is "Extra-low Dispersion", it's very similar to Canon's UD (Ultra-Low Dispersion) glass. Their lenses are just as expensive, and now they are trying some interesting marketing twists, they offer white versions of their longer lenses. It’s not the same distinctive Canon white/gray but it’s pretty close!

Out of all the other photographers that I know, only one shoots Nikon still.

The ratio of professional photographers using Canon vs. Nikon is like 5 to 1, so not too many people shooting Nikon these days.
0∈ [?]
"If I could tell the story in words, I wouldn't need to lug around a camera."
d_spin_9
12/04/04 1:47 AM GMT
that means you only know 5 photographers, and i thought you were a pro!!
0∈ [?]
The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of His hands.
brphoto
12/04/04 1:54 AM GMT
Haha, I know alot more than 5, thats just the average ratio that I have observed. The one Nikon shooter I know and the ratio of N to C are two seperate, unrelated statements.
0∈ [?]
"If I could tell the story in words, I wouldn't need to lug around a camera."
stuffnstuff
12/04/04 3:50 AM GMT
Hmm. I think he was misinformed (because he certianly didn't know a ton of other stuff either), but he was raving about a couple of below $200 lenses by most interesting brand names. He may have been talking about the optical quality of the ED series, but I think he was confused with some other Nikon lenses. Who knows???

I am dismayed at the results returned form my first roll of film. I photographed at a convention just a couple days before Bush got re-elected with my mom's old semi old Minolta. All but maybe 2 pictures have a terrible stagger effect, almost like someone had gone into to photoshop and used the effect. Only two came out clear, and one was an uninteresting shot of the crowd, and another of some pipes on a building next to the parking ramp.

I am not sure whatt he exact cause, but I have a few ideas: I did use manual focus for most the shots, but i was VERY precise, often setting up shots a minute or two before I took them, trying to be as accurate as possible. I had forgotten to check rhe "special features", but at a later date my mom noticed that the portrait mode was on, and neither of us know how long, or if the camera was used between then and the convention. Also, the flash wasn't on, and she thinks that knowing the flash was off could have blurred it considerably. Motion is also a possibility, but for every single one???

This is really rather drepressing for me. The green pipes on that building turned out okay, but they aren't quite spectacular looking, and one of the shots of the president shaking hands looks like a serious manipulation with a few glitches, and I would be proud to post that if it hadn't been an accident. Are there any other possibilities of things I may have overlooked?
0∈ [?]
-those who hit rock bottom are too concerned with self pity to realize that they are lying on an anvil- Psalm 66:10, Job 10:8
stuffnstuff
12/06/04 3:29 AM GMT
Example. (Sorry it took me so long...)
0∈ [?]
-those who hit rock bottom are too concerned with self pity to realize that they are lying on an anvil- Psalm 66:10, Job 10:8
brphoto
12/06/04 5:25 AM GMT
The cause of the image problems you mentioned is simply motion blur. A high enough shutter speed was not used to capture the image clearly, most likely due to the use of a fairly slow film.

Also for those types of shots (press conferences, public appearances, speeches, etc) one must crop tightly, either in-camera with a longer lens, or later during post processing. There is too much extra info in the shot, if the main focus is the President, keep the shot nice and tight.
0∈ [?]
"If I could tell the story in words, I wouldn't need to lug around a camera."
stuffnstuff
12/06/04 9:11 PM GMT
I tried to get as close as I could, but the scans were low resolution. I didn't crop much. The picture would be missing a lot if only the president was visible. Was my bloth appreciable?
0∈ [?]
-those who hit rock bottom are too concerned with self pity to realize that they are lying on an anvil- Psalm 66:10, Job 10:8
brphoto
12/06/04 10:07 PM GMT
If you look at the newspaper or news magazines when they run photos like that, they're always pretty tight shots, so from a photojournalistic perspective, the less the better. (Also applies to sports shots where less clutter and cleaner images are best.)

Good try though; I would just recommend using a fairly high speed film and keep those shutter speeds fast!
0∈ [?]
"If I could tell the story in words, I wouldn't need to lug around a camera."
stuffnstuff
12/06/04 11:34 PM GMT
Thanks for the suggestion. I am not a photojournalist or a sports photographer, and if I knew how to change what I did I would have, but oh well. Maybe I have one or two shots worth keeping...sorta... :-) Try again. But this time digital!
0∈ [?]
-those who hit rock bottom are too concerned with self pity to realize that they are lying on an anvil- Psalm 66:10, Job 10:8
stuffnstuff
06/23/05 5:14 AM GMT
Hey there, Will. Bad news. I have a new (and probably quite long) string of questions for you. My first one probably won't be too tough. I was eyeing the Canon lens 50mm f1.8 and discovered that I could buy it for $90-$100. My question is, whether or not you decide to research that lens in particular, is it really cheap to make a prime lens have a low "f" rating (I still need to learn the official name for it) or is this lens not fit for the Canon name?
0∈ [?]
-those who hit rock bottom are too concerned with self pity to realize that they are lying on an anvil- Psalm 66:10, Job 10:8
brphoto
06/23/05 7:11 AM GMT
Well, usually the faster a lens (the lower the "f number") the more costly it is to produce. For example, the 200mm 2.8 lens costs around $1,500...but the 200mm 1.8 (now out of production) cost around $5,500. The 50mm 1.8 is $100; the 50mm 1.4 is $500. The faster, the better (usually).

The 50 1.8 isn't too bad, it's nice and sharp once you stop it down to around 2.8 or 4...the build quality is not stellar, but for $100 it's a good deal. It doesn’t make use of an Ultrasonic motor though, so focusing is a bit loud. Hope this helps, if you have any other questions feel free to ask!
0∈ [?]
"If I could tell the story in words, I wouldn't need to lug around a camera."
stuffnstuff
06/23/05 5:25 PM GMT
What do you mean by "stop it down"?

As far as I understand, the lens is good if you don't mind some noise. Assuming I don't, would this be a good lens to purchase with the 20D? It sounds like (from the stats) it would be very good for basic operation (not for undercover work or city scapes). I imagine using it as an all-around lens with great quality to keep on the camera with a telephoto and wideangle in the pack. Would the clarity be as exceptional as one with a modest budget could get?
0∈ [?]
-those who hit rock bottom are too concerned with self pity to realize that they are lying on an anvil- Psalm 66:10, Job 10:8
d_spin_9
06/23/05 9:13 PM GMT
for the 20D, not that i've used it outside of a store, i thought the 17-85 IS kit lens was fantastic. i doubt you'll ever need more than 17mm on the wide end, and if you do, a 2 picture panorama would go wider than any non-fisheye lens out there. also, its your basic range, so you could use it for just about anything besides some sports, and most wildlife outside zoos. IS would be wonderful, and more than makes up for the relatively small max apperature on the zoom lens. from there you'd probably want a tele, or a macro, or maybe one of your fast primes, but once you have IS, i think you'll decide its not really worth changing your lenses that much for the speed. dust is annoying, so you dont want to change lenses more than you have to
0∈ [?]
The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of His hands.
stuffnstuff
06/24/05 4:54 AM GMT
Good to hear from you, Carl.

I am not huge into wide angle anyways, I just thought that if the lens is good for its limitation (brought to a new definition), I would take advantage of it. It has far better speed than the 17-85mm and it is less than a 1/5 of the price. I thought that taking advantage of such a deal would be a worthy investment. I have heard good and bad things about the 18-55mm and am still undecided over it.

A few questions I have:

1) I know this is sad, but what makes the IS so wonderful?

2) Do you still recommend that Sigma 105mm f2.8 macro? I still have my eye on it...

3) Did you ever buy either the 70-200mm f4 or the 200mm f2.8? Both of them have me curious as well, even though I haven't check prices yet.

4) Just for kicks sometime, I would like to shoot with one of those dirt-cheap, off-brand superzoom kits. It would be fun to play around with 1,000mm and extreme depth of field. This isn't my top priority, but renting one 2 or 3 times seems about the same price as buying one. Does anyone ever harbour these sick fancies?
0∈ [?]
-those who hit rock bottom are too concerned with self pity to realize that they are lying on an anvil- Psalm 66:10, Job 10:8
stuffnstuff
06/24/05 4:54 AM GMT
Oops, a repeat was found here.
0∈ [?]
-those who hit rock bottom are too concerned with self pity to realize that they are lying on an anvil- Psalm 66:10, Job 10:8
stuffnstuff
06/24/05 4:55 AM GMT
What happened to that one minute rule?
0∈ [?]
-those who hit rock bottom are too concerned with self pity to realize that they are lying on an anvil- Psalm 66:10, Job 10:8
d_spin_9
06/24/05 5:18 AM GMT
about your not thinking you shoot much wide angle....thats what i thought too....but now i realize i do about a third of my shooting at 18mm on my 18-70, very little on the rest of that lens, about a third at 200mm on my 80-200 f/2.8 and most of the last third somewhere between 80-195mm.

if i were to buy another lens i think i'd go for either the nikon, or sigma 100mm macros, or one of the new dx 12-24mm lenses (either nikon, or sigma). i dont know if i'd venture too far into the tele range, lenses get very big, and slower, and zoomed in so that unless you're in bright sunlight you wont be able to take a good handheld picture, and usually the stuff you use a tele lens for doesnt stand still and wait for you to set up a tripod.

IS is wonderful because it lets you shoot in 8 times (3 stops) less light than you normally would and still get clear pictures. thats the difference between the 5.6 apperature on a zoom lens and a 2.0 apperature on a prime. while the 5.6 will be sharper, although you do lose ability to create very short depth of field
0∈ [?]
The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of His hands.
stuffnstuff
06/24/05 5:45 AM GMT
To be honest, I would enjoy a good, long depth of field once in a while. The current one has no control. It always will make sure there is enough light present (funny little chip), but last time I viewed an image at actual pixel size from it, I went into convulsions. Anyways...

So that is what stops refers to? I still am rather cluless. Something tells me it has something to do with squaring stuff, because I learned in my math class that 2 cubed is 8. I will take your word for the lens preference stuff. Actually being able to choose gives one an experience that I don't have. If you think that I wouldn't use a 50mm prime much, you are probably right. It just seemed like a good buy because of the f1.8 and still might be. What are some lenses that you would recommend if you were to do it all over again?

So you did end up going Nikon I take it? That 80-200mm sounds expensive. Are you glad that you didn't get a prime 200? It seems that in my budget a prime telephoto would be a good idea (as you said, "usually the stuff you use a tele lens for doesnt stand still and wait for you to set up a tripod"), but that means it would have to be a dedicated lens (if I wanted zoom, and I am pretty sure it would be nice, it means I would need to buy yet another lens).
0∈ [?]
-those who hit rock bottom are too concerned with self pity to realize that they are lying on an anvil- Psalm 66:10, Job 10:8
d_spin_9
06/24/05 6:20 AM GMT
the zoom is definitely nice cuz usually i frame at 80mm knowing what 200 will look like, then just zoom into that and shoot, so i can make a better choise of what to use. i think looking back, i'd say go with zooms as much as you can. lens speed (ie big apperature) isnt very important in wide angle lenses because shake is minimal, and you usually stop down over f/8 anyways, whereas speed is quite important for longer lenses, where you do want a small dof especially in portraits. if i were to do it again....i think i might go for the kit lens with a macro right away. macro will be a bit longer and faster (big apperature) for some tele kind of stuff, and would also be alot of fun, and make photography possible in unlikely circumstances. and w/a is a necessity
0∈ [?]
The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of His hands.
stuffnstuff
06/24/05 6:28 AM GMT
I am not sure what that all meant. Currently, I have my heart set on that 105mm macro. I need a normal lens too, which is up for deciding, but I figured I could wait on the telephoto for a while. When you say kit lens, do you mean the 18-55 or the 17-85?

I just realized that I am not exactly into people photography, and the few shots which I do take are usually candid for the purpose of giving character to the environment. Would a portrait lens still be applicable?
0∈ [?]
-those who hit rock bottom are too concerned with self pity to realize that they are lying on an anvil- Psalm 66:10, Job 10:8
d_spin_9
06/24/05 4:42 PM GMT
i think you still want to cover most of the range with your lenses. if you can afford it, i'd say go with the 17-85 kit lens cuz its about 100times better than the 18-55 in every way, then get the 105 macro. make sure with the macro you get a tripod that you can do some 'stunts' with. i know i've looked at some which the legs can go out at 30, 60, or 90 degrees, and you can also take the centrepost out, and put it in upside down to get close to things on the ground. if you go to the cost of getting a good macro lens, you should get a good tripod that will let you take advantage of all the qualities of the lens.

i think you'll find you go through stages of what kind of stuff you're interested in taking pictures of, so with having 17-85, and 105 would give you a pretty good range to do everything.
0∈ [?]
The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of His hands.
stuffnstuff
06/24/05 9:25 PM GMT
That sounds good to me. I would like to know more about why the 17-85mm is 100x better, but I don't want to pester you too much. You give very good advice, and I appreciate it. When you refer to a tripod that can do stunts, would that be a full-sized one or a table-top? My only concern about this would be having such a slow speed on my main lens. Would it be a good idea to toss in the extra $90 for that 50mm prime? Eventually it would be nice to get some more serious telephoto, but I am not sure I could afford even a prime telephoto that has good speed.

I definitely appreciate your help, Carl, but I don't think it would be smart to solidly make up my mind without more than one person's opinion. Could WIll and possibly a few others approve or dissapprove of a 20D coupled with the 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS, 50mm f/1.8, and Sigma 105mm f/2.8 macro?
0∈ [?]
-those who hit rock bottom are too concerned with self pity to realize that they are lying on an anvil- Psalm 66:10, Job 10:8
brphoto
06/25/05 8:51 AM GMT
The setup you have outlined seems to be good. I'm not too familiar with the consumer lens line-up, so I'm the wrong person to ask about the 17-85...the 20D is really good, however the Rebel XT impressed me quite a bit. It's fit and finish is more akin to the 20D, but at a significantly lower price.

The 17-85 certainly gives you a good range, however the lenses slow speed will make indoor or low-light shooting quite a bit more difficult (although this is where the IS is a real help).

The 50mm becomes redundant, as the 50mm (actually 80mm with the 1.6x crop factor) is already covered by the 17-85 (27-136mm with the 1.6x factor). Unless you want it for low-light work, skip it.

I don't know a whole lot about the Sigma macro, as I almost never shoot with a macro lens (the 400 and 70-200 are my most used lenses). When I do use one, I normally use the Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro.
0∈ [?]
"If I could tell the story in words, I wouldn't need to lug around a camera."
stuffnstuff
06/26/05 9:24 PM GMT
Thanks for the advice. I checked out the stats of the Rebel XT with more consideration, but even so I am not sure.

Part of it is that the shutter lag is in the ballpark of double that of the 20D, its burst shot is much mroe limiting, jpeg and RAW differences can add up, extra AF speed is nice, and who knows in what ways the tougher body can be useful.

The next part is harder to explain, but there is something about the 20D that caught me and still continues to hold me. Think about Han Solo and the first time he saw the Millenium Falcon (cheesy, I know, but bear with me). It seems not just more professional and capable but more adaptable and ownable.

Because of these two factors, earning an extra $350 won't be a problem, just a little bit more time. Carl has given me the scoop about the 17-85 and Bill filled me in on the rest today when I handed in my application at Ritz. I didn't know what the IS stood for, but now it sounds like a killer deal. Its versatility and features make it a good buy if you have the cash. The slow aperature is what has been bothering me, even considering the IS, but that explains the 50mm prime. I think that its speed would make it a nice addition, but if the IS on the 17-85 reduces the difference, maybe it isn't worth it.

I am just frusterated that these three lenses all have different filter sizes. Also, I think somebody needs to invent some type of dust-free lens barrel-loader. Spinning a lens into place without dust would be nice, but wow that would be awkward looking and heavy. :-)
0∈ [?]
-those who hit rock bottom are too concerned with self pity to realize that they are lying on an anvil- Psalm 66:10, Job 10:8
d_spin_9
06/26/05 11:20 PM GMT
i'd say unless you get a killer deal for buying a bunch...just buy the kit lens to start off with. from there, you'll figgure out what you really want the most. there are primes, teles, ultrawides, and macros that would all let you do something that the kit cant, but you also cant have all of them, so the kit is a good place to start. and dont worry about the dust, if you get over your paranoia about it you wont mind it, and i find i just clone it out on the good pictures, because its easy, because dust only really shows up when its on a uniform surface where cloning is easy.

have fun with the 20D
0∈ [?]
The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of His hands.
brphoto
06/27/05 12:21 AM GMT
I'll second Carl on the kit lens idea. First give it a try and then build your lens selection as you go along. You may find out that you truly need an 85 1.8 rather than the 50 1.8.

The filter-size issue is addressed with the professional lenses, the 70-200, 24-70, 16-35, etc. all accept a 77mm filter.

And don't be paranoid about dust. It happens...accept it and take pictures! Seriously though, it really isn't a problem and can be cloned out in the unlikely event it actually is clearly visible.

As for the 20D, the frame-rate is a little bit of an overstatement. I never experienced anything over about 3.5fps on the 20D I tested out, while it was focus tracking with a 400 2.8 IS. Also the AF is pretty similar to the XT’s (IMHO), but I understand what you mean…it’s not unlike the difference between shooting with a 20D and a 1-series body. Functionally and ergonomically, the 20D is much better than the XT. The controls are much more thoughtfully laid out, etc.
0∈ [?]
"If I could tell the story in words, I wouldn't need to lug around a camera."
stuffnstuff
06/27/05 5:33 PM GMT
Thanks for the advice, you are right about the kit. I should let the rest wait for a while. Also, this way I won't have to save up for quite so long before buying.

The extras matter, though. Standard CF cards are 1.2-1.8 Mb/s, nice ones are 3.6 Mb/s, but I plan on buying either a 512Mb or a 1Gb at 12Mb/s. I read a review about a guy having one of those and he said that there was no maximum of 23 shots anymore. He said He stopped his camera at 70 shots not knowing where it would end. Quick cards seem important to me, but I find it funny how the 2Gb cards are over twice the price as the 1Gb. It will be a bit of a shock working with those though; even though her camera is only 4.1 megapixel, my mom's largest card is a 128Mb and her second is a 64Mb.

When you saw I may realize that I need an 85mm prime instead of a 50mm, do you mean by a different lens? Keep in mind that the 50mm is actually 80mm (or instead think that 31.25 is as the eye sees). I could understand going for the Canon 85mm, but not right away, for it is 4x the price (but I will feel more strongly about it if the filter size lines up with either the 17-85 or the 105 macro).

You both talk a lot about cloning, but keep in mind that I do not have Photoshop. Gimp might have something, but my safest bet is in Digital Image Pro. It is usually good for that kind of stuff, but its sharpening is terrible! Tough to find a good program...speaking of which, is there a good RAW prosessing program out there that I should downlaod or purchase?

What does "ergonomially" mean? :-)
0∈ [?]
-those who hit rock bottom are too concerned with self pity to realize that they are lying on an anvil- Psalm 66:10, Job 10:8
d_spin_9
06/27/05 6:02 PM GMT
ergonomically refers to how it feels, how it fits your hard, how easy it is to access. talk to will about software...hes the canon guy.

0∈ [?]
The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of His hands.
stuffnstuff
06/27/05 7:11 PM GMT
Ok, Will. Give me the hard facts. :-D

Just out of curiosity, what do you think of the 50mm f/1.0 prime? ;-)
0∈ [?]
-those who hit rock bottom are too concerned with self pity to realize that they are lying on an anvil- Psalm 66:10, Job 10:8
d_spin_9
06/27/05 7:28 PM GMT
humorous? i havent seen one in real life, but it sounds funny.
0∈ [?]
The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of His hands.
stuffnstuff
06/27/05 7:34 PM GMT
Oh, it is real. Just expensive. I believe it is part if the L series (it has a red stripe), but I know it is Canon. Only 2 lenses have such an aperature speed; this and another one that isn't Nikon (although they come close). I saw something about an f/0.85, but I couldn't find any cold facts.
0∈ [?]
-those who hit rock bottom are too concerned with self pity to realize that they are lying on an anvil- Psalm 66:10, Job 10:8
d_spin_9
06/27/05 8:30 PM GMT
i dont know when you'd ever need that anyways. i think with many of the digital cameras you'd get better pictures turning the iso up 2 stops than using a monster f/1.0 lens that wont be super sharp
0∈ [?]
The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of His hands.
stuffnstuff
06/27/05 10:11 PM GMT
I would frame it and mount it on my wall instead of using it. Now, suppose I had a monster 400mm L-series by Canon...
0∈ [?]
-those who hit rock bottom are too concerned with self pity to realize that they are lying on an anvil- Psalm 66:10, Job 10:8
d_spin_9
06/27/05 10:12 PM GMT
you could kill somebody with that
0∈ [?]
The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of His hands.
MiLo_Anderson
06/27/05 10:19 PM GMT
Carl would know ;)
0∈ [?]
"A piece of toast with butter always lands butter side down, and a cat always lands on its feet. What happens if a piece of toast is tied butter side down to the back of a cat? Does it perpetually hover above the ground in indecision when dropped?"
stuffnstuff
06/27/05 11:20 PM GMT
I was just saying that for Will's sake. Didn't his cost him $14,000.00?
0∈ [?]
-those who hit rock bottom are too concerned with self pity to realize that they are lying on an anvil- Psalm 66:10, Job 10:8
brphoto
06/28/05 3:52 AM GMT
Haha, not quite, my old 400 2.8 was around $6,000 when I bought it (bought it used), but I recently upgraded to the IS version, which is around $9,300 (Canadian dollars, that is).

That’s a drop in the bucket compared to the 1200mm 5.6…there’s only about 10 of them in the world, and they cost as much as a small house.
0∈ [?]
"If I could tell the story in words, I wouldn't need to lug around a camera."
MiLo_Anderson
06/28/05 4:23 AM GMT
wow
0∈ [?]
"A piece of toast with butter always lands butter side down, and a cat always lands on its feet. What happens if a piece of toast is tied butter side down to the back of falling cat? Does it hover above the ground in perpetual indecision?"
stuffnstuff
06/28/05 6:12 PM GMT
I used to shoot with one of those, but I wasn't happy with the speed. Now I only use Quantary...
0∈ [?]
-those who hit rock bottom are too concerned with self pity to realize that they are lying on an anvil- Psalm 66:10, Job 10:8
stuffnstuff
06/30/05 5:29 PM GMT
Between those 3 lenses, am I missing anything? I know I won't have any serious telephoto, but will there be any "Doh!"s after I purchase them?
0∈ [?]
-those who hit rock bottom are too concerned with self pity to realize that they are lying on an anvil- Psalm 66:10, Job 10:8
::stuffnstuff
09/09/05 2:12 AM GMT
I am getting closer financially speaking (...as the .1D comes out boasting a 240 MP sensor and a 5 nanosecond lag time...).

Edit: But seriously! I am over $1,000 (with a little extra to be certain). I think that is pretty good for a 16-year-old (notice, I posted this edit on the night of Sept. 13th. I did not lie).
0∈ [?]
-those who hit rock bottom are too concerned with self pity to realize that they are lying on an anvil- Psalm 66:10, Job 10:8
::stuffnstuff
11/11/05 3:07 AM GMT
Hey, guys. I really to drudge up a thread most of you would pay me to never see again, but some things just don't settle...

I have had my eye on the EF 135mm f/2.8 Softfocus. I have heard that for not beling USM, it focuses rather speedily, and that it takes the most L-like pictures without actually being one. The drawbacks are pretty obvious for paying so little for it (~$270), mostly being build quality, but what does the committee think? Does anybody own this lens?

Did I mention that I have sat in the airplane seat "20D" twice while flying? Maybe there is a God...
0∈ [?]
You know that the outhouse is in the right place if it seems too close in summer and too far in winter.
::stuffnstuff
04/04/06 2:38 AM GMT
A week ago, I ordered the Canon EOS 30D with the EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro as my "kit lens". They charged my bank on a Wednesday, the lens arrived Friday, and the camera followed close behind on the following Monday (today!). Thank goodness it didn't take the 4-6 weeks estimated time. :-) I ordered a Hoya UV filter, multi-coated, of course, and a spare battery from B&H, and my own memory cards and bag will be close behind. A zoom lens would be nice at some point, but the next lens I will probably purchase is the EF 50mm 1.4 USM, likely followed by the EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM. Canon's new EF-S 17-55 sounds intruiging, but I need more information on it before I will consider it.

I haven't used it a whole lot yet, just time for 377 pictures, but I like it quite a bit. The camera is as speedy as ever and the lens can focus where I need it to, although the combination does seem to be quite prone to motion blur. I just need to get used to not using an IS lens for the time being. The setup is heavy in comparison to mommy's Rebel XT, but weight isn't a big deal to me.

I will do my best to get some pictures up shortly, but I want to thank those who educated me. Sure, working at Ritz Camera and pouring over Canon product manuals helped, but here is where I learned most of what I do.I have come a long way in technical and qualitative knowledge; hopefully my images have come a long way too. Thanks Will and Carl, especially.
0∈ [?]
Words are cheap. The biggest thing you can say is "elephant". - Charlie Chaplin

Leave a comment (registration required):

Subject: