mr.g

Photo Emporium is no longer.

 

Central, Helix, and Calumet are the big players in Chicago but all are pretty dry on EOS anything. I believe Central may be your best bet. But phone first.

 

Gone are the days of stores like Oak Park Camera {Helix now owns it} where we had a used treasure chest.

 

Welcome to the electronic age and Ebay :{

 

Hope this helps

John

Your Nikon friend is wrong.

 

The EOS 3 is better sealed at the top of the body. Sideways rain would be a problem. That said I've been soaked several times in rain storms without any troubles. I desperatly try to avoid this but when it does happen I try to keep the camera as dry as possible. {cover with my shirt, wipe off as much as possible}

 

Hope this helps

John

I used to use Nikon equipment for almost 10 years about a year ago I switched to Canon and will probably never go back. Nikon has some excellent lenses however Canon has more. Digital- compare the Canon 1D to the Nikon D1H and the Canon 1DS to the Nikon D1X, Canon wins. Comparing a F5 to a 1V is like comparing a Corvette to a Porche. You just have to take it for a test drive to believe the difference. Try renting both and find out what YOU like the most.

 

Hope this helps

John

Some people say that the difference between EF 28-70/2.8 L and EF 28-135 IS is noticeable.

 

Well people say allot of things not always facts.

 

What are you using film or digital. Printing wet or inkjet prints? Yes the 28-70 is sharper on the edges for film {at some points} but on digital IMHO not worth the disadvantages like weight or size. If you are printing to an inkjet printer it is near next to impossible to tell the difference.

 

Best advice play with them both and find which works best for you.

Remember that the 28-135 is a consumer lens and has nowhere near the same build quality as the 28-70.

F2.8 is very very nice.

IS is very very nice.

28-70 is dated and a new lens should be announced at photokina. It might be worth the wait you might get the best of both worlds.

 

After owning both personally I perfer the 28-135 even though I miss the depth of field of the 2.8 for reference though I'm using a D30 and pinting with an epson up to 13X19. With my EOS 3 8X10 traditional prints are not a problem with the 28-135. If I were to go large I might wisk out my 50 1.4 for film.

 

For the ultimate quality you want to stick to primes or switch to medium format. To compare a 28-135 to a 28-70 it's like red apples and yellow apples yea they are both different but your choice is mostly guided by taste and I guess if you are baking pies.

 

Hope this helps

 

John

Well off I go to sell blood. Does anyone know where I can sell an arm and a leg?

"autofocus to swear by" Sorry none. Fast, yes. Accuate, yes. Always what you want, sorry no. Using the sensors effectivly is a skill that many have forgoten. It is sort of like when the batteries go out on your TV remote - What I have to get up to change the channel?

 

F4 - AF is terrible

F100 or F5 - AF is excellent is the F5 worth the extra $1k IMHO no but play with both and you decide

"F5 is the best tracking camera" sorry not true Canon has the most advanced... well everything.

All cameras have trouble focusing a subject comming tword you.

 

Best advice since you are a Nikon owner stick with Nikon. An F5 or F100 would be a great choice. F5s are more durrable but at $2k very pricey. An F100 with a MB-15 grip is going to be almost as fast as an F5 but 1/2 the price. Both cameras will focus faster than you can in most cases. Try playing with both before you buy.

 

Hopes this helps

John

Watch out the vultures are circling waiting for another Canon user to die.

 

I can't begin to tell you how sad it is when a good photographer gets obsessed with Zeiss. It's like smoking once your hooked they could charge $20.00 a pack and you would still pay. If you were thinking of the old MF fixed focal length lenses I could see the reasoning. It might be worth picking up a cheap body and an lens or two without dumping the Canon stuff. The contrast {in some lenses} is the only difference you will find, not sharpness. The AF system is completely different and it is poo poo. {keeping it somewhat clean} The N1 body is not inspired just reworked old technology. The lens selection quite limited and IMHO not the greatest quality. The adapter to use 645 lenses - why? Contax digital is a very bad joke.

 

My advice don't get sucked into the Zeiss legacy crap. It's like being abducted by some sort of cult. Seriously! You already have one of the most solid cameras out there and the L glass is top notch. If you would like to play try a cheap medium format, a 35mm rangefinder, maybe digital, or maybe a class in something new.

 

Hope this helps

John

Try the source 800-242-2424.

If you could find a 360mm tele arton f5.5 I would highly recomend it. Excellent image quality. The {last?} verson with the compur 3, 95mm filter size, is coated. Sorry this is so lacking it has been a while since I owned it but Bob could probably fill in the specifics.

"Is there such a difference in quality to justify its higher price"

 

Yes

 

For a hobbyist. ??????

In most cases it might not be worth the difference if you get 4X6 prints and the occasional 8X10.

Croping, large prints, looking for the ultimate resolution/detail, or need that extra 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 stops? Different story.

 

Hope this helps

 

John

I have to put another vote in for the 70-200 f2.8

 

Optically close to or the same as primes in that range.

Excellent performance {AF & image quality} with a 1.4X

EOS 3 and 1V cross sensors still work with the 70-200 + 1.4X combo

70-200 with a 2X will focus {as slow as} about the same as a 100-400

I personally have this combo and have had no regrets dumping a 300 f4 for a 1.4X teleconverter.

 

If you were set on only the 200mm (not the 70-200} I would still say go for the TC combo. Yes you loose a little with TCs but quality vs a 100-400 would still be better than the 100-400. Tele converters are nice, pocket sized little friends that will work on many other lenses.

 

Hope this helps

 

John

First 20mm harder to use? Every lens has it's own characteristics and quirks and it's up to the photographer to learn them. As for effectivness {not being snobish} I have seen the "wrong" lens used or the "right" lens used in the "wrong" way quite often.

 

As for 20 vs 24 I wouldn't base my purchase on hearsay. Maybe try renting a 20mm if it is too wide go for the 24. Honestly you might be better off with both or with a 16,17,or 20mm to 35mm zoom.

 

It all depends on what YOU need. Think of lenses like tools or paint brushes and use the needed tool for the job. Sometimes you can spred your focal lengths out in areas that are not normally used. In the areas that are most common you would not want to limit your options.

 

Hope this helps

 

John

It kinda well it is up to you and what you are going to do.

 

As a Nikon F series body owner {F5} switching to Canon I did not see the point of spending $2K on a body when I could spend the $1000 I saved on a lens. I made this mistake with Nikon "upgrading" an F4 to a F100 {great idea} then F100 to F5 {just plain dumb} and was not going to make it again. I rented both the V and 3 then bought the 3 and have not been let down yet. I use it for freelance on the weekend. Little kid sports. Dusty baseball fields, very hot summers (esp. this year}, caught in a downpour twice, hit with a football, and very cold hockey arenas no problems. If it breaks I'll get it fixed if it is beyond economical repair I'm out $1000 not $2000. I do not baby it like my D30 but I keep an eye on it, test it regularly, and keep the exterior clean. OK I admit I'm a little anal with all of my equipment but the EOS 3 is paying bills not creating them.

 

The V is a little faster, more durrable, better weather proofing, 100% veiwfinder, and has something like 1 billion custom functions, it is well, an extreem camera built for extreem conditions. If you are into extreem photography, wars, pro sports, tropical rain forests, and so on I would say go for it. OTOH the EOS 3 will hold up in most extreem cases note that I said most. Value is the key issue IMHO. At $2K that is one V or two 3s. If you are a "pro" there is no shame in shooting with a 3 in fact with digital taking over in the photojournalism world {newspapers,pro sports,ect} why not put the $ saved into digital or more importantly into lenses. If you are leaning tword the fine art world both cameras will capture the same image but maybe medium format would be a better idea with it's larger film size.

 

So in order to wrap up a lot of rambeling it really depends on you. Are you always on the edge and actually need a camera that keep up. {V} Do you want to stay flexable and have a camera that will serve well in most cases {3}. Check to see which tools other's are using in that specific field. Remember lenses should be a priority and that digital might be another factor in {wanted or not} your decision.

 

Hope this helps John

To answer your question...NOPE. Brand A pixel does not equal brand B pixel no way no how not even close. Size does matter {pixel & chip}, propritary interpolation software, pixel shape, noise reduction methods, and a whole bunch of other tech mumbo jumbo. Check out the review on www.dpreview.com it shines a little light on the differences and what to expect. The reviews are pretty neutral without the system loyalty bias.

 

I switched from Nikon to Canon for several of my own reasons. Both systems have +s and -s and you should buy the one thats suits you best. Maybe try renting them for a weekend. It may be pricey but so is a $4k - $5k mistake.

 

IMHO the Canon 1D is the camera to get based on specs. It is a true pro camera built like a brick ... ... faster than anything out there {except the EOS 1V the 1D's film twin} yes even faster than an F5. The "high speen" Nikon D1H is left in the EOS 1D's dust and the EOS 1D's image quality rivals or in some anal test situations beats the Nikon D1X. The 1.3X multiplication factor is a little easier to deal with than the 1.5X. The X factor doesn't sound like alot untill you do the math 16-35mm X 1.3 = 21-46mm vs. 17-35mm X 1.5 = 26-53mm to get a 21mm on a Nikon you must buy a $2k+ 14mm. In my world there are a whole bunch more benefits but like I said before the camera has to fit your needs.

 

Hope this helps.

 

John

By no way is this answer based on 100% tested fact. Mostly observation.

 

A planar is a planar so the optical design whold be the same as a hasselblad lens of the same time period or at least close {same design different format}

 

I had excellent results with a single coated version. Sharp images around f8-11. At f3.5 it produced some interesting images, good bokeh very dramatic depth of field. If I remember correctly on a Linhof Tech V very limited front movement {if any} but no problem with back movement. Keep in mind this is a field camera not a view camera.

 

I believe and have heard others say that the zeiss lenses even though they are 40+ years old are just as good as a modern lens. Modern lenses MIGHT be better optically and ARE better when it comes to dealing with flare {multicoating}

 

Honestly I thing the draw to the zeiss lenses is the "legend of zeiss"

Are zeiss lens the best lens ever - probably not.

Way cool to have - YES!

Will you regret getting one ????? - Are you looking for a legend or are you looking for a useful tool?

1D I'm not familiar with but it would work the same as a D30/60. The 15mm fisheye is 15mm X 1.3 so you end up with a 19.5mm fisheye. On my D30 it is a 24mm fisheye. Straight lines as well as horizions still bend. The fisheye effect seems to be less dramatic {depending on subject distance} because of the crop. Fun lens but limited to {specialty?} use.

 

Hope this helps

John

It kinda well it is up to you and what you are going to do.

 

As a Nikon F series body owner {F5} switching to Canon I did not see the point of spending $2K on a body when I could spend the $1000 I saved on a lens. I made this mistake with Nikon "upgrading" an F4 to a F100 {great idea} then F100 to F5 {just plain dumb} and was not going to make it again. I rented both the V and 3 then bought the 3 and have not been let down yet. I use it for freelance on the weekend. Little kid sports. Dusty baseball fields, very hot summers (esp. this year}, caught in a downpour twice, hit with a football, and very cold hockey arenas no problems. If it breaks I'll get it fixed if it is beyond economical repair I'm out $1000 not $2000. I do not baby it like my D30 but I keep an eye on it, test it regularly, and keep the exterior clean. OK I admit I'm a little anal with all of my equipment but the EOS 3 is paying bills not creating them.

 

The V is a little faster, more durrable, better weather proofing, and has something like 1 billion custom functions, it is well, an extreem camera built for extreem conditions. If you are into extreem photography, wars, pro sports, tropical rain forests, and so on I would say go for it. OTOH the EOS 3 will hold up in most extreem cases note that I said most. Value is the key issue IMHO. At $2K that is one V or two 3s. If you are a "pro" there is no shame in shooting with a 3 in fact with digital taking over in the photojournalism world {newspapers,pro sports,ect} why not put the $ saved into digital or more importantly into lenses. If you are leaning tword the fine art world both cameras will capture the same image but maybe medium format would be a better idea with it's larger film size.

 

So in order to wrap up a lot of rambeling it really depends on you. Are you always on the edge and actually need a camera that keep up. {V} Do you want to stay flexable and have a camera that will serve well in most cases {3}. Check to see which tools other's are using in that specific field. Remember lenses should be a priority and that digital might be another factor in {wanted or not} your decision.

 

Hope this helps

John

Yes it is basically is an F5 with a Kodak digital back bolted on it. The back is NOT removable.

When specificly uploading to photonet and using the soft proof

feature what setting do you use? I normally use the Windows monitor

setting with pretty good results. At home my monitor is color

calibrated. At work my monitor is well mom always said if you can't

say something nice......... and the image usually looks the same {or

close to it} on both monitors. Up to now. Any sugestions?

 

Thanks

John

I have the same problem with State Farm. I was told that if you use the equipment for work then you are SOL. They will not cover it at all. No Way, No How, period! They really stuck it to me since I use one body and one lens for freelance and the rest of my equipment {85% of value} is personal equipment normally covered under home owners or rental insurance. My wife has insurance through NPPA but the company insures members only no spouses. Alstate use to insure but their rates were way out of line. I use to have General Casualty before State Farm and they would cover equipment but in my case multiplied my auto insurance by 2. GC seems to want all of your business or none at all and their price quotes usually will reflect this. Finally you have the standard or sub-standard companies that either do not pay or drag their feet until you sue. Then they completely come to a stand still and you end up spending more on lawyers than the equipment you lost is worth. You might check the A & Best rating web site and call companies for quotes. I gave up with other things to worry about but in most cases companies do not cover "pros" or want all or nothing.

You might want to check out the Mamia 645AFD. I work for a major retailer and almost every digital system is sold with this camera. Lenses are excellent and alot less expensive than the Contax lenses. More lens choices. National rental program {if you need it and no one has it Mamiya will rent it}. Activates an AF illuminator when using flash. And the Contax camera is a battery hog. OTOH the Contax does have a nice feel with the vertical grip. Most people I have talked to have been waiting for the second version of the Contax since the original was introduced. Unfortunately an updated model has never been released. Image quality and camera build quality {hmn} you really can't go wrong either way. It's the little things that make the difference.

 

As for the back, woohoo! Huge files, excellent image quality, poster size prints, and truely portable like a 35mm SLR. And unlke a 35mm SLR if digital isn't working out, or the batteries go dead, or you would like to use film you just switch the backs. The roll film back is included with the camera kit so no need for another pricey body. On the negative side $$$$$. Ouch! but if you can swing it you get incredible digital files and the advantages of MF film for traditional photography.

 

Hope this helps.

John

I would say that taking pictures at a wedding should not be a problem. I would say act on the photographers reaction tword you. If hes says something reply. If he doesn't let it go. If the photographer gives you a hard time just remind him/her that you are a guest not competition. If they want to continue giving you a hard time just remind them again that you are a guest. You should not have any troubles but if you do I wouldn't bring it up at the wedding, it might be a stressfull time for the wedding party and the hired help.

 

Speaking of stressfull times I have to share my wedding story.

 

On my wedding day we hired a photographer/videographer{?}. When they arrived to photograph my wife getting ready they noticed her two F5s all set to go. The photographers {I guess} looked a little uncomfortabe so my wife let them now that she was a photographer and that there was going to be several of our photographer friends at the wedding. She let them know what type of photos we were looking for and they seemed relieved. Until they arrived at the ceremony. My father-in-law and sister-in-law were using my wife's F5s. My mother was using my F100. One of the bride's maids and one of the groom's men both had F5s. At one point I remember looking out at the 35 guests and every one of them except my 80s+ year old grandmother was taking a picture. To top it off at the end of the ceremony the deacon performing the services {also a good friend} pulled a EOS 1n with a 300mm f4 out from underneath his gown. When all was done the "pros" did a pretty good job but I do think they might not have put 100% into it.

Sorry here is a little more detail. I used to like the speed but with

a D30 I can easily compensate for 100-400 asa between shots. The 28-

70 was my numero uno for everything when I used film and Nikon. Now

the length is somewhat lacking plus walking around with this huge

lens {plus hood} adds to the problem. And optical quality is

important of course but most work would be 8X10 or 11X14 inkjets. For

speed a 50 1.4 and a 28 1.8 are in the near future. A 16-35 f2.8 and

a 70-200 f2.8 sit on either end. So just looking to do some adjusting.

I currently have a 28-70 but keep eyeballing the 28-135. It will be mostly used on a D30 or some other digital in the future. Would anyone sugest getting rid of the 28-70 for the 28-135. Future purchases include a 28 f1.8 and a 50 1.4 no matter which lens I keep. I think alot of the trouble is luging around the heavier 28-70. Any advice or experience would be appriciated. Thanks in advance

 

<p>

 

John

From experience the shows attract many shady dealers. Remember only a

Canon dealer can sell a product with a waranty. So that used piece

that comes with the waranty card is really just a used piece with a

piece of useless scratch paper. Ebay might be the place to find

everything but after years of buying and selling I had 3 bad

transactions in a row. I almost lost $100.00 on a purchase and Ebay

wouldn't offer any help. Buyer beware was there advice. Mine too.

Remember you usually get what you pay for. Even if you shop with a

reputable dealer just knowing about photography is not enough. There

are signs that most used equipment show about their use and even

though you might know what to look for it can still be risky. Maybe

think of camera shows as when the wolves invite the sheep over for

dinner.

Hope this helps.