hung_james_wasson

Jim,

<p>

You are aware that any 35mm negative frame can be printed

in "panoramic" format? Just specify your desire to the photofinisher,

and the center horizontal 1/3rd of the frame will be printed. The

trick is then to make sure that you shoot your subjects so they fall

in that area. You could design your own framing guides with some

trial and error. Alternately, I've seen commercially sold framing

mats that are placed in the camera back to mask off the negative --

but frankly the idea of puting my fingers so close to the shutter

blades scare me. ;)

<p>

If you are wanting to have a body compatible with EOS lenses, why

don't you just pick up an EOS IX or IX Lite? Then you could just swap

bodies depending on the type of shooting you want to do? Sorry, I

don't have any recollection of a Canon 35mm panoramic EOS.

Linda,

<p>

Your shop should be able to give you a decent estimate on cost of

repair. Carefully consider whether it's worth nursing along, or if

it's time to look for a new (or used) EOS body. I think a Rebel 2000

body goes for about $250 US these days.

I've not heard any reliablity issues with this lens. The worst

complaints I've heard are flaking fo the EX finish, and some

photographers feel the optics are too warm in color.

Another design goal of DO lenses is shorter & lighter, as well as

less expensive. All this by reducing the amount of glass necessary to

get a sharp picture. Has anyone heard about susceptiblity to flare,

etc.?

Pascal,

<p>

While your suggestions may be true with some cameras, it is not valid

for the F65. All non-DX coded film cartridges are defaulted to ISO

100.

<p>

This excerpt: Film speed setting· Automatically set to ISO film speed

of DX-coded film in use (manual not selectable) · Film speed range:

DX: ISO 25-5000, automatically set to ISO 100 with non-DX-coded film

<p>

from this official Nikon website:

http://www.nikon.ca/cameras/products/cameras/f65/specs.asp

<p>

So if you ever wish to push or pull film emultions, then the F65 is

not for you. A minor point against a great entry level camera.

<p>

Also, has anyone compared viewfinder brightness between the two

cameras? A glass pentaprism doesn't necessarily automatically make

for a brigher finder. Size & quality of the prism, focusing screen

design, percentage of light being deflected by the reflex mirror all

play a part too. I note a big difference in brightness between the

Rebel 2000 and its bigger (& more expensive) brother, the Elan7/7E.

Floren,

<p>

I accept your passionate response, and agree with your main points

while still disagreeing with your original premise. Quality gear does

not automatically make poorer photographers. It is succumbing to

laziness that may do so. Yes, it is too easy to leave everything

on "full auto," -- the answer is not stripping features off the

equipement, but training the monkey behind the viewfinder. Modern

equipment has made possible areas of photography that were in the

past simply impossible. The Adams, Westons, Cartier-Bressons are all

rightfully renowned photographers, but their very subject matter was

determined by the equipment they used (or is it the other way

around?) Adams used large format with glass plates � and he mixed the

emultions and prepared the plates himself. Breathtaking landscapes.

Weston photographed portraits, with strangely posed figures.

Intriguing perspective on human form. Cartier-Bresson photographed

street life. Fascinating images of the human condition. All of these

are wonderful subjects for photography, and will always be. However,

are you positing that they are the only worthwhile and �artistic�

forms of photography? Have you never seen a photograph capturing the

more dynamic moments in life that you appreciated? I would suggest

that the photographic fields of nature, athletics, and journalism

have benefited greatly from modern camera equipment. You may not

consider them art � but then, I�ve got an oil painter friend that

doesn�t believe anything involving a lens could possibly be art. It's

all a matter of perspective.

<p>

It isn�t the whiz-bang toys that stifle people�s development in

photography. It�s most people�s misinformed or uneducated belief that

pictures will take themselves if you have fancier equipment. That�s

where people like you, and places like this forum come in. It�s an

opportunity to open people�s eyes about how to be a photographer and

not just a shutterbug. I think that it�s complete bullshit that your

friends HAD to give up their equipment in order for them to learn to

take better photographs. I don�t believe that you could not have

taught them composition, lighting & perspective on ANY camera that

they had access to � from a disposable to a digital. You seem

obsessed with hating modern tools, rather than properly despising

modern ignorance � the bane of all good things.

<p>

I�m also willing to bet that you have partaken of more modern tools

than you may have realized. Do you ever use an in-camera light meter,

or do you swear by an antique no-battery germanium actuated incident

light meter? Do you shoot only in black & white, or have you taken

advantage of those new fangled COLOR emulsions? Can you see

absolutely NO APPLICATION for autofocus lenses? What could Cartier-

Bresson have done with one? Or a compact zoom for that matter? How

many pictures did he forgo because the moment changed too quickly for

him to compose, meter & shoot? His magic was in capturing the moment,

and telling the human condition � not in capturing the precise

exposure or angle.

<p>

You forget that Adams, Weston, & Cartier-Bresson are all unique

paragons of their field, and for all of the masses who strive, very

few will reach their level. It�s the striving that�s important, and

the willingness to learn technique & apply it � and continually grow.

I strongly disagree with your main premise, that technology is crap

and only leads to crappy pictures. The equipment has almost NOTHING

to do with your main complaint � that a higher percentage of photos

taken are crappier now than ever before. What has changed is the

number of people involved in the field, and how truly few of them

have had ANY training whatsoever.

<p>

You can have the most expensive or best equipment in the world, and

never take a decent photograph. You can have the cheapest pin-hole

camera ever devised and win acclaim, fame & a slap on the back. Ergo,

equipment is the TOOL. What makes ART, is learning, dedication &

talent. Get the picture? :-)

I believe the new budget G series lenses lack an aperature ring, yes?

If so, you would have to adjust exposure by varying shutter speed.

Mark, I also agree with your comments. I think your recommendations

are right on! Have you seen the newest Minolta body? What a great

user interface!

<p>

Floren, Canon users are hardly the only ones enamored with

technology. Why has Nikon started releasing AF-S & VR? Because they

saw the market need to do so. Gosh, even real live pros use whiz-bang

technology�and their photos sell. Of course many Canon users espouse

their equipment. Nikon users espouse their equipment, Minolta users

espouse their equipment. Hasselblad users look down their noses at

everybody (just kidding). The vast majority just use their stuff, and

don�t hang out on web forums talking about it � there�s a place for

everyone.

<p>

It�s no surprise that the percentage of �snap-shooters� vs pros &

serious artists using high end equipement has increased dramatically

over the years. This is only a natural extension of the modern

manufacturing process bringing good quality down to the consumer

level. This is by no means the demise of the �art� of photography �

which is still very vibrant, alive, and kicking.

<p>

The reason you see a higher percentage of quality pictures from

medium & large formats vs 35mm is the outrageous investment that must

be made � a serious step up from consumer entry 35mm offerings! The

media is more expensive, as are the bodies and lenses. An amateur

must make a serious decision to move up and fork out a lot of money.

AND then they lose all those gee-whiz features they had gotten used

to in 35mm photography. People with medium format & larger cameras

tend (and I do mean �tend�) to be more serious about the art, or are

making a living from it. People�s skills have not decreased � those

of us who have gained some skill have not lost them simply because

our camera can focus for us or choose the exposure for us.

Composition, lighting control, & perspective are skills that do not

depend on whiz-bang. There are just more people who have never even

cracked open a book � let alone taken a class � taking pictures these

days. The moment Hasselblad makes a 2 ¼ x 2 ¼ body & lens kit for

$500, let me know. I�m sure you�ll see a dramatic decrease in the

percentage of good photo�s being taken in medium format. :-)

<p>

I�m sure that if you had taken up your friends EOS cameras & L series

lenses, you could have taken some pretty decent pictures as well --

that is, if you could get over your revulsion for cutting-edge

gadgets (heh, heh, just poking fun). As you say, it comes down to the

photographer, not the equipment. But come on, you�ve got to admit

that a good photographer with good equipment can take better pictures

than a good photographer with poorer equipment! Lens sharpness &

contrast are nice no matter who you are. Spot metering modes have

their advantages in scene exposure over center-weighted, etc. As to

your friends taking better pictures because you convinced them to

sell all their EOS gear and go with old gear � I�ve got to say I

think that�s a load of BS! I�d say that their pictures improved

because you opened their eyes to the fact that pictures don�t take

themselves, no matter how many gadgets you have. They�re just paying

more attention to composition, etc. now that they�ve seen a pro like

you at work. Despite all the buttons on my camera, when I look

through the viewfinder I pay attention to what I see, and go for the

effect that I'm trying to envision --not which program mode to choose

or how cool my lens is.

<p>

If collecting expensive toys doesn�t make you a better photographer,

neither does being a ludite. I�ve seen many rotten pics

from �serious� manual-everything wanna-be�s � so your corollary that

simple equipment makes the better photographer is ridiculous! If only

consumers and not pros see the need for more technology in their

equipment, why have advances come (albeit slowly) to the medium

format world? Auto-winders instead of cranks � what, arm power isn�t

enough? Eye level finders instead of waist level finders, built in

light metering (wow, what a concept!). Program mode exposures.

Autofocus. Why add these things if the people �who really know how to

take pictures� don�t want them?

<p>

Don�t be a ludite. Technology has its place � it just doesn�t take

the place of classical training and talent.

Jim,

<p>

It's true that there shouldn't be any design difficulties in simply

mirror reversing an SLR body. For the small percentage of the world

shutterbug population that are "Extreme" left-handers, most camera

companies simply don't have the incentive to re-tool assembly lines.

As you say, lefties learn to adapt themselves to the cold, cruel

righty world! :)

<p>

If you want to stay in the 35mm world, you'll need to find bodies

with very high eyepoint relief (so you can keep your face further

from the body), viewfinder extender accessories, or jury rig your

camera as I suggested earlier. Your just not going to see lefty

bodies from Canon/Nikon/Minolta/Pentax/etc.!

<p>

You could also abandon the 35mm universe. Canon's D30 digital is a

very fine camera (& I'm sure the upcoming 6 mega-pixel pro body will

be as well) that accepts all of the EOS EF lenses. You could use the

LCD display to compose your shots. Bronica (I believe) has a couple

of medium format bodies specifically designed for lefties -- and

you've always wanted to move up to those big negatives, right? ;-)

<p>

Your choices:

<p>

1. Live with it. Make whatever adaptations you must to have a

workable "work-around." Favorite quote from 'Silverado': "The world

is what you make of it my friend -- if it doesn't fit, make

alterations!" :-)

<p>

2. Go digital. Digital technology is getting better & better -- and

you can take your images directly into the digital darkroom for

enhancement/correction. :-o

<p>

3. Move up medium format. Select manufacturers (for whatever reason)

have seen the need to cater to lefties and made bodies just to fit. ;-

)

<p>

4. Become the CEO of a major 35mm maker, the head of

manufacturing/design/etc. -- or found your own company, who's mission

is to make only left-handed oriented bodies of exceeding desirability

and then refuse to make bodies for righties. Perhaps you could

license use of the various lens mounts (EOS, F-mount, etc.) from the

major makers in order to gain access to those wonderful optics! Heh,

heh...you design the bodies to accept all lens mounts via adapters on

the body -- and then lefties are the only ones who can choose to use

Nikkor optics & Canon L series IS optics on the same body!

Jennifer,

<p>

It looks like everyone has taken care of most of your questions

regarding lenses & filters. Of lower quality & cost telephoto zooms

with macro than the Sigma -- Tamron has a 75-300mm LD Macro which is

being bundled with a (cheap) 1.4x teleconverter, selling for about

$230 US.

<p>

Your other questions:

<p>

1. The Rebel X -- No disadvantages other than it is part of Canon's

entry level SLR line, the most recent of which is the Rebel 2000. As

a low cost "consumer" SLR body, it doesn't have the high shutter

speeds, high frame advance speeds, light metering options, and is

considerably noisy (I probably wouldn't use it to take wedding

photos, especially when winding a new roll onto the takeup spool)

when compared to it's more advanced & more expensive cousins (the

Elans, A20, EOS-1/1n/1v, EOS-3). Like all Rebels, it has a mirror box

rather than a glass pentaprism to bring the image up to the eye-

piece � which means that the viewfinder is not quite as bright. On

the plus side, it has built in flash, it �pre-winds� the film when

you put it in � and as you take pictures they go into the film

canister (so if you accidentally open the camera back you don�t ruin

the pictures you�ve taken). It has full manual exposure control, as

well as aperature priority, shutter priority, and a number of fully

automatic modes. It accepts the full range of Canon�s largely

excellent EOS auto-focus lenses (so if you ever move up to a more

expensive body, you won�t lose your investment in lenses). There are

other minor advantages & disadvantages, but I think I�ve gone on too

long as it is. :)

<p>

2. Best prices for new lenses & accessories can generally be had from

one of the reputable mail order houses such as CameraWorld.com or B&H

Photo (http://www.bhphotovideo.com) -- though you must factor in

shipping costs. B&H and some others also offer �gray-market� Canon

lenses for less. These are lenses shipped in from over-seas without

going through the CanonUSA distributor. Quality should be just as

good, but you may have issues with warranty repairs. Lower cost

accessories are probably better gotten locally to avoid shipping. A

retail camera store provides you with the advantage of actually

seeing & handling the items you�re interested in before purchasing,

and many (though not all) have knowledgeable staff to assist you with

your questions.

<p>

3. CHEAP lens � did your camera not come with a lens? Most people

these days start with a general purpose zoom of the wide angle to

short telephoto variety (28-80mm, 28-105, 28-135), though the purists

will tell you to get a good new or used 50mm �standard� prime lens

(prime lenses are ones that have just focal length � they don�t

zoom). If you go that route look for a used Canon 50mm f/1.8 Mk I

(you won�t be able to afford the f/1.4, even used)! For the kind of

photography that you seem to enjoy, you may want to skip straight to

the telephoto zooms that most people would buy as their second lens.

This would be the 70-200mm, 100-300mm, 75-300mm variety. Again, if

CHEAP is your prime concern, look at the Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 LD

1:2 Macro (Photozone & other sites rated it as average, which is

actually good for such an inexpensive lens � it falls below the Canon

100-300 L in optical quality, but far above other Tamrons and no-name

brands in the same category. Look for that specific lens, as other

Tamrons took a beating in the reviews. Also, Isaac seems to be

willing to part with his used Sigma 70-300 APO. ;-)

<p>

4. Filters & filter holders � size is solely dependent on the lens

(es) that you have. Different lenses have different filter sizes

(expressed in millimeters, i.e. 58mm � on the front bezel of the lens

you may see a number like 58 with a circle with a line through it).

If you plan to own several lenses of different filter sizes, you can

reduce your total cost by going with the Cokin filter system and

buying step-down rings to fit each particular lens. Lee Filters is

the �pro� maker of such a modular system concept, and most likely way

out of your price range. The advantage of such a system is lower

total cost (only one circular polarizer, special effect filter, etc. �

rather than buying one for each lens). Disadvantages are problems

with light scatter & flare � you can�t really use a lens hood with

the setups, and possible vignetting (darkening of the edges of the

picture caused by the filter holder or filter rings � tends to occur

with wide angle lenses, not telephotos). The filters that fit into

the holders tend to be plastic, which may scratch easier than glass

circular filters. Regardless of whether you choose to go with a

modular filter system or circular filters, I strongly recommend that

you purchase a UV glass circular filter to permanently mount on the

front of each lens that you own. Just �put it on & forget it� Not

only will it cut down on ultraviolet light scatter (causes haze) in

landscape and distance shots, but it will protect your lens from

damage by impact, grit, salt, etc.

<p>

4b. Glass filters are more expensive, but clearer and scratch

resistant. Gel filters are inexpensive, and are easily scratched, but

can be cut up for special effects, can be stacked more readily for

changing hues, etc. The two most commonly purchased glass filters are

UV (or Skylight 1b � which has a slight pink tinge to �warm up�

pictures) and polarizers. Effective use of polarizers allow you to

have dramatically blue skies with contrasty clouds, or allow reducing

or eliminating reflections from glass or water surfaces. They cut

down dramatically on the amount of light entering the camera, and so

are only used for bright outdoor pictures (generally).

<p>

Well, I�ve just written a book, and likely annoyed or bored the

regular visitors of this forum! :) If you have additional questions,

please feel free to contact me directly. I hope that most of your

questions were answered.

Isaac,

<p>

I have shot photos with both the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM & the

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO HSM (with Canon EOS mountj). Sadly, I've

not had the pleasure of experiencing any of the Nikon Silent Wave

motor lenses (or their Vibration Reduction lenses for that matter) --

so I can not give you an impression of Canon vs. Nikon. Please, no

flame wars! I like both brands for their respective strengths. :)

<p>

Here are my observations:

<p>

1. The Sigma Hyper-Sonic Motor mechanism is almost as silent as

Canon's ring-type Ultra-Sonic Motor, though there is a distinct very

soft click as the HSM motor engages -- probably something to do with

how the focus clutch is designed.

2. Both lenses give you Full Time Manual autofocus override & feature

internal focusing so the front element doesn't turn.

3. The HSM did not focus as fast as the USM -- but still far faster

than micro-motor lenses. This likely has more to do with the other

design aspects of the Sigma lens (i.e. the helical gearing, lens

arrangements, etc.)

4. The HSM definately experienced more focus "hunting" than the USM

lens. This was experienced on several occasions, and with both a

Rebel 2000 and an Elan 7E body. It was not enough to be frustrating,

but was definately noticeable when comparing the lenses side by side.

I'm not sure what causes this difference -- if the AF circuitry &

algorithms are that different, the focus gearing, or perhaps that the

Canon optics were definately more contrasty. The Sigma optics were

noticeably warmer -- I definately would put a UV rather than a

Skylight 1b filter on it!

<p>

As to teleconverter compatibility, the Sigma has matched 1.4x & 2x EX

series TC's, as Canon has their matched TC's for the f/2.8L (same

problem of being only for a dedicated set of lenses) -- and I've

heard that they're pretty good. The Sigma comes with a dedicated

tulip shaped hood & a nylon case (the new Canon f/2.8L IS is supposed

to come with hood & pouch as well). I've heard rumors that the EX

finish doesn't hold up to abuse -- but I wouldn't care as long as the

lens mechanics & optics were rugged (and they certainly seem to be).

<p>

I had just settled on purchasing the Sigma (at half the cost of the

Canon), when the long rumored IS version was officially announced by

Canon. Reviews & optical testing had put it very close to the Canon

considering its much lower price point. Now that the 70-200mm f/2.8L

IS is announced, I'll happily hold off and scrape together some more

pennies! :)

<p>

Improved weather seals throughout, closer focusing distance, 3-stop

IS with panning (& auto-tripod sensing), even FASTER auto-focus with

high end bodies (1v, 3 -- I wonder if the 7E will show any

improvement?), faster gyro stabilizer warm up time (.5 sec vs. 1

sec.) make it the dream lens to get! Hopefully, it will live up to

expectations and real world results. I can't give you a side by side

comparison, because I haven't found a human being who has actually

SEEN one yet -- let alone myself! Ship dates to stores are supposedly

some time in September -- but none of the suppliers I've contacted

were even aware of the lens yet, let alone have a ship date for it!

<p>

In conclusion: Even though Canon's ring-type USM is "old" technology -

- Canon nailed it right the first time. Years later, other companies

are still left trying to play catch up!

Dave,

<p>

You can hardly expect to come to the Canon EOS forum and ask for a

balanced discussion on which camera system to go with! :)

<p>

I've got to say that Jim did a pretty good job, though! Kudo's to Jim.

<p>

I think the Nikon G lenses are very much like the ultra-low end Canon

kit lenses. 'Nough said! ;)

Legnum,

<p>

I don't think Canon has stopped producing their APS EOS SLR bodies,

have they? The EOS X & X Lite or some such. They accept all or most

of the EOS lenses, and give you 3 different shooting formats

(including panoramic) to choose from -- and you can switch as often

as you want on the roll! Carry one of those bodies with you, and you

can use the same lenses between the two bodies!

<p>

Did you know that you can have any 35mm negative printed

in "panoramic" format at just about any lab? The machine will simply

print what's in the middle 1/3rd horizontal segment of whichever

negative frame you want -- what you are missing are the frame guides

in the viewfinder to help you compose that shot.

Sandra,

<p>

Thanks for the feed-back! I'd been wondering whether or not going

with one of the top end third party vendors would satisfy me -- I'd

heard that the Canon TC's simply shut down AF when the converted f-

stop rating is higher than Canon's recommendations, and that since

other TC's lied the AF would try to continue funcioning. However, I'd

rather have reliable exposures than a little more AF functionality!

I'll save up for the Canon's. :)

Bob,

<p>

Thanks for the answer! I assumed that it all had to fall back onto

the days of manual metering, and then just sticking with it because

that's just they way it's always been done -- but it's nice to get

confirmation from someone as learned as yourself! :)

Rich,

<p>

The optics & performance of Sigma lenses (& anyone else for that

matter) have to be taken on a per lens basis. I've heard that the

Sigma 17-35mm lens is actually slightly superior to Canon's similar

offering (optically speaking -- I beleive the mechanics still go to

Canon with their innovations). I've also heard that Sigma's 70-200mm

f/2.8 EX HSM is pretty nice for the price. Tamron & Tokina definately

have some nice lenses -- but they've definately had some flops (as

has Canon).

<p>

NK Guy & Oliver Schrinner have made excellent points. The issue with

the 28-300mm is that it is a "superzoom," and technical trade-off's

HAD to be made in it's design (same as any superzoom). You could say

the formula is: focal length range x image quality = convenience x

cost (the greater the focal length range the greater the convenience,

but image quality will suffer to keep costs down).

<p>

You have to admit that coupling a $400 lens with a $2000 body seems

somewhat imbalanced. My assumption is that OFir can't afford to

upgrade lenses if he's pay new price on the 1v, but that he will

eventually get lenses that match the performance characteristics of

the body. Why get a pro body (top of the line, at that) if you only

plan to use consumer grade lenses? The whole point of those armored

beasties is that they can take abuse, and having a consumer lens on

the lens mount pretty much negates that advantage. I'm in the same

camp as the above posts -- I'd rather spend that $2000 on L series

lenses & TC's and slap them onto a Rebel 2000 until I could afford to

upgrade the body!

<p>

My question to you OFir, is whether the 1v is right for your needs.

Only you can answer that. An Elan 7/7E is a very sophisticated camera

that is far less expensive (but it doesn't have all the armor &

weather seals, and has poorer EV rating for low light work). What

draws you to the 1v? Ruggedness? Highest shutter speeds/frame advance

speeds? All those custom functions? Etc.

Of course, you could always working on increasing your stock of f/2.8

lenses -- and still get a "do all" superzoom for when convenience is

simply more important than optical quality. You might consider the

3rd party makers, which might offer such lenses at less expense. I've

heard that Sigma makes a 50-500mm EX HSM lens, and others may make

something more similar to Canon's 35-350mm. Heck, while we're

dreaming, you can get both of your Canon lens choices (but get the 70-

200mm IS first, [in another year or so, you might see an IS version

of the 35-350mm -- it'd certainly make sense] heh, heh)!

Javier,

<p>

Your English is better than mine! :) Thank you for the clarification

of your lens delima! Although the desire for an ultimate "do all"

lens is very understandable, and the Canon 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6L comes

closer than most to that goal -- I think the general consensus that

you will get is that you will get the very best quality from the

f/2.8 series of pro zoom lenses. You won't get that extreme focal

range, but you gain in lower distortion/sharper/more contrasty

precision optics, fast focusing AF, brighter viewscreen image, more

depth of field choice & greater versatility (when coupled with high

quality TC's).

<p>

Imagine being able to handhold a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM with 1.4x or

2x teleconverter and still be able to get sharp pictures of SU-27's

or F-14's doing high speed low level flybys at the next airshow! Of

course, the very best optics still belong to the prime lens crowd (by

a rather slight margin) -- but I can't see you running fast enough or

switching prime lenses fast enough to recompose a picture of an

airplane in flight! ;)

Does anyone know why cutting edge innovator Canon (along with every other 35mm camera maker) chose 1.4x for teleconverter factor instead of 1.5x? A 50% increase in focal length would be a lot easier & more convenient to calculate than a 40% increase!

<p>

I'm guessing it has something to do with trying to keep to a 1 stop aperature loss rather than a fraction, but that's just a wild guess. Any learned answers? :)

Jim,

<p>

I'm right handed/eyed, and use the BP-200 for verticle shots. I will

get the BP-300 when I get my Elan 7E. I find it very comfortable for

horizontal & vertical shots, not to mention the savings in battery

costs. However, when using shoe mounted speedlites, I frequently wish

that there were shutter release bottons on both sides (to control

placement of hightlights & shadows)! Unfortunately, not one camera

maker out there makes a multibutton grip.

<p>

Here is my solution for you. 1. Purchase the $30 remote release

cable, 2. attach it to the left side of your camera with velcro. You

can then hold the body in your left hand, and zoom/focus with your

right. I believe the release is two stage, to allow autofocus with a

light press & shutter release with full press. If you should then

spend $50 on the BP-200, add another piece of velcro to attach the

remote release to when doing vertical shots. The upside of this is

that you also have a great off camera release when doing tripod work!

<p>

For a much higher cost solution to your left hand/eye needs, there

are a couple of medium format cameras out there with left hand

models. :)

While I completely agree with answering questions, I must say that I

think that Oliver was trying to interject some humor into the forum --

and succeeded. I got quite a chuckle out of Cfn "destruct mode"!

<p>

Besides, you did a very fine job with your followup. That's one of

the great things I've found with this forum -- so many people are

willing to share their knowledge & experiences.

I was brought up in the school of always carrying a film leader

retriever in my camera kit. It may be somewhat of a lost art, but

consider it the low cost "manual" version of what the upper end

cameras can do for you automatically. $5.00 for a film retriever vs

$500 for a new body...it all depends on how much loose cash you have

lying around. :)

<p>

There's a knack for getting the film leader out every time, but with

a little practice on a cheap throw away roll of film -- you will get

the hang of it. I also carry a fine point permanent marker in my bag,

to mark the film cartridge with how many exposures have been taken.

When I reload the film, I always line up the film leader the same way

on the take up spool, to prevent mis-registered frames when going

through the automatic film processors.

<p>

With this technique, you can easily swap out B&W, high & low speed,

color print & slide films as needed.

Sandra,

<p>

Did you try Oliver's suggestion, and if so, what did you find out?

Louis,

<p>

Out of curiosity, what kind of shooting do you do? Low light shots

with no flash and with 3200 film sounds mightily intriguing! AND you

need faster autofocusing? Let me guess...night time motorcross racing

& a flash would blind the racers & get your press pass torn up? :)

<p>

In any case, I just wanted to point out that the body is only part of

the answer. What lenses are you using? A truly fast lens such as a

50mm f/1.4 USM, 85mm f/1.2 USM or 200mm f/1.8L USM would give you

significant wide open aperture gains, plus the ring-type USM motors

are very fast focusing & give you full time manual focus override

(the 50mm f/1.4 apparently isn't ring-type yet somehow still allows

FTM). If you've truly got money to burn, the 50mm f/1.0L USM is the

fastest EOS lens around. ;-)