Captive Wildlife - Canon D30 & 300mm f/2.8L IS

If anyone is contemplating the purchase of the new Canon D30 SLR or

the Canon 300mm f/2.8L IS lens you might be interesting in my recent

photo essay consisting of animal portraits taken at the Toronto zoo.

Several images were taken with the 1.4X Canon extender for a total

effective focal length of 720mm.

 

I'll be pleased to answer any question here about the D30 as I've

been using it now for about 3 weeks with great success.

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/captive_wildlife.htm

 

Michael

www.luminous-landscape.com<div></div>

Well, I've got a question for you after reading all the info.

 

Do you miss not being able to set the ISO lower than 100? "Traditional" landscape work is, many times, done using slow film so you can use long exposures (w/o having to mess with ND filters). You know, the typical flowing water kinda pic. Have you come across this and, if so, how did you deal with it?

I never use film slower than ISO 100 so it isn't an issue. If I need to use slower speeds I simply put on a polarizer or even two. This way, by crossing the two polarizer's polarization angles you can go as slow as you'd ever want.

 

Michael

Crossing polarizers will often give you a color caste (typically blue), so ND filters are a better idea if you want long exposures with faster film.

Mike, the shots look great on the web, but I remain skeptical that a D-30 is capable of producing a decent-looking 13"x19" print, as you have said in your review. Aren't we talking about something like 3MP for this camera? Do you run Genuine Fractals to increase the image size before you print?

Well, I appreciate your scepticism. If I hadn't been the person behind the camera I would be sceptical too. But I can tell you that 13X19" prints are as incredable as the online images. Maybe more so!

 

There has been a lot of controversial discussion about the D30's CMOS imaging chip on other online forums. In brief, it appears to defy the laws of physics :-) It's a 3.3 megpixel chip, but because of its large sensor (more than 8 times larger than the 3.3MP sensors on current point-and-shoots), it produces some of the sharpest most accurate colour images I've ever seen, and I've been doing this professionally for more than 30 years.

 

You simply have to see the output from this camera to appreciate the sea change that's taking place in the industry right now.

 

I have no ineterst in fanning any flames of controversy. I'm simply excited by the potential of this particular camera and the technology that's sure to will follow it. We really are in the golden age of photography, as far as I'm concerned.

 

Michael

 

Ps: Yes, Genuine Fractals was used.

 

Pps: Some of these frames will be displayed at a printing trade show in Toronto this weekend. One will be a 4' X 6' print made on an Epson 9000. See my site's Home Page for details.

"so ND filters are a better idea if you want long exposures with faster film"

 

Not necessarily...not all ND filters are "neutral" either. Any slight color cast can be corrected with imaging software anyway (these are digital images we're talking about, right?).

 

An impressive image, Michael. I'd love to see that 4' by 6' print.

ND filters, while not always neutral, are a LOT more neutral than most cross polarized polarizinf filters, which often turn DEEP blue or purple at maximum extinction. If you don't believe me, try it. I just did and when two Tiffen polarizers are crossed, the result is a DEEP blue filter!

Heres a starter for ten, perhaps ought to be a discussion query in its own right, The trend to go digital is going to have an adverse knock on effect for people who give lectures. The standard format for presentation is 35mm slides. Whilst digital "Litepro" type projectors are getting better, few will knock out a resolution greater than 1024 x "xxx". Ok for small room talks but hopeless for big auditoriums. I am thinking of natural history clubs/societies which usually have a winter programme of evening talks.

 

If any of you are doing this type of work, how are you going to overcome the problem if you go digital??

Mike,

 

This is a very real issue. A number of photographers I know face this problem.

 

One whom I know who works extensively in 6X6cm makes scans from these, which are then converted back to film using a film recorder. This produces very nice quality but is a bit expensive and time consuming. It looks like the most viable solution to the problem though.

 

Michael

Would photographing a well made A3 size (13*17" ?) print on slide film

be a bad idea (compared to film recorders). I have never even tried but at least the contrast and colors might cause some problems?

VP

Michael - great shots!

Copying prints to slides - I seem to recall being advised that you cannot do this successfully, there is always a colour caste,(yellow I think?). Is it not the same problem as slide duplication - I should think the lighting has to be spot on to get the correct colour temperature etc.

 

Secondly you are also losing the advantage that 35mm slide is a first generation image. If you are photographing a print you are losing detail all the time.

Michael -

Very nice shots, as well as reviews. The D30 seems to be a very impressive camera and a definite sign of more to come. What amazes me is I am ooohing and ahhing over a handheld shot at 720 mm with a 3MP camera! You are right, it does seem to defy physics, but the real truth is in the prints and what we see here.

 

Mark

What's your connection with Canon Canada and Vistek in Toronto?

In a word - none. I've never met or spoken with anyone from Canon Canada, or Canon anywhere else for that matter. As for Vistek, my relation with them is simply that of a long-time customer.

 

My posture at the Luminous Landscape and in my various magazine reviews is to only test and report on products which I have purchased with my own money and which I use for my own work. Guest reviewers are covered by similar rules. My site is completely non-commercial and I accept no advertising or any other consideration from any manufacturer, supplier or retailer. Never have, never will.

 

Michael

Michael, I am a regular visitor to your site and have gained some good insights from its content, thank you.

 

Your experience with the D30 raises some interesting questions re. the role of film-based photography in the (very) near future, particularly for those for whom the end product is a fine print rather than reproduction in a magazine.

 

Like you, I recently invested $1800 USD in a new film camera, under the assumption that film would remain king of the hill for at least another 5 years or so. Reading your review of the D30 was a bit of an epiphany. It made me realize that in my own situation (where more and more of my workflow has become digital) shooting film may become an anachronism sooner rather than later.

 

So, my question: after the forthcoming EOS-D1 (or whatever the heck they call it) comes out, how big of a role for film do you see in your own future? Do you think the new technology is going to push aside film-based photography altoghether for you own work? What about your larger format work? I'd be interested in hearing your perspective...

BTW, for those who are comtemplating the D30 for photojournalism or sports, there is an interesting discussion on http://www.robgalbraith.com re. this camera's focus-tracking ability. Some news photographers are experiencing problems, although it's not clear yet whether this is an early manufacturing issue or something inherent in the camera design...

Gary,

 

Given my experience of the past 3 weeks I'm prepared to use the D30 for most of my 35mm work in preference to the EOS-1V. (It's not the camera that the 1V is, but the image quality is so impressive that I'm happy working within its limitations).

 

I'm pretty confident that once the 6MP Canon SLR is available next year my 1V will go up for sale. As it is I'm being conservative on my 35mm film purchases :-) The XPan is going to see most of it.

 

But, I shoot medium format most of the time and so film will still form part of my worksflow for a while yet. None of the MF digital backs are really designed for field work. Kodak's DCS Proback, shown at Photokina in September points the way though. A completely self contained 16MP back, once the price comes within reason (probably another 2 years) I expect to make the switch there as well.

 

http://www.kodak.com/cgi-bin/webCatalog.pl?product=KODAK+PROFESSIONAL+DCS+Pro+Back&cc=US&lc=en

 

Michael

This will probably be a very dumb question. When shooting with the digital camera I understand the reason that it gives an effective focal length of 1.6 x the lens in use, but does it alter the effective aperture?? I would think it wouldn't as the a 300f2.8 will always be that, but does that mean you get an effective 480mmf2.8 with the D30??(my 600 f4 becomes a 960mmf4!) It must be great for blurring out backgrounds if that is the case.

A lens is a lens is a lens. A 600/4 is a 600/4. What a digital back (or an APS back) does is simply crop the image to the size of the sensor array (or film format). Whatever "optical" effects you get from a digital or APS back you can get by simply cropping a 35mm image to the same size.

Michael,

 

You have made a believer out of me!

 

Nice work.

Dick,

 

The revival meeting is at my place this evening :-)

 

Thanks,

 

Michael

 

Ps: I'm heading for a 5-day shoot in northern and central Arizona in a week. I'm planning on taking the D30 as my primary camera. Should be interesting to see how it works out in that role. (I'll have the 1V along as back-up though).

I dont get it, how can you get a focal length of 720 from a 300mm 2.8 and a 1.4 converter is there something I am missing. Is this something to do with the camera or because it is digital ? CONFUSSED.

 

Bill Morgan

What's missing in the equation is that the D30 has an imaging chip that is smaller than full-frame 35mm. Thus you have to use a factor of 1.6X to get the same effective focal length.

 

So, a 300mm lens become effectively a 480mm and with a 1.4X extender a 672mm. (What you also were missing is that I made a math error :-), though not a significant one.

 

What needs to be kept in mind is that there's no free lunch. The extra focal length is really just the equivalent of cropping.

 

Michael