dayton_p._strickland

After spending a few hours lugging around a lot of heavy

equipment, I, as a fellow news photographer, understand why

you would want to look into a small, Leica-like, high end point

and shoot camera. Here's my two-cents worth:

I have been shooting with the Canon G-2 since April with

surprisingly very good results. The technical quality of the

photographs rivals anything in newspaper print that I can do with

film. The depth of field you get with these cameras is amazing,

especially at lower ASA settings which is unheard of in

hand-held available light photography on film. The G-2 is being

replaced with the G-3 which remedies many of the G-2's

problems such as autofocus shutter lag. If you prefocus the G-2,

shutter lag is minimal, but in our business you don't get much of

a chance to prefocus. The Nikon 5000 offers a built in

28-85mm-equivalent lens whereas the G-2 is 34-104 and the G3

will be 35 to 140. The Canon lens is much faster also, but only

goes to 400 ASA whereas the Nikon goes to 800 ASA. I use a

Canon 550EX flash and off-camera cord for a lot of my

photography and also shoot a lot of available light when I can

(even in dimly lit places where the lighting is pretty straight

forward � no mix of different artificial light sources). My biggest

regret in using the Canon G-2 is I have gotten a bit lazy and don't

pull out the long lenses when I really should, nor do I switch to a

very wide angle lens when I should. I have missed a few good

shots because of shutter lag and I have screwed up a few by not

paying attention to the low shutter speed. Good luck in whatever

you buy. P.S. Those little cameras are great for putting people at

ease. My big EOS system with the white lenses intimidates

people.

Andy, the EOS-3 is not very weather proof, so if that is a

consideration you might be better off with the IV. The

eye-focusing feature doesn't work well with sports or fast moving

subjects and if I had known that I probably would have never

bothered buying the camera. It works OK with still subjects and

beats the heck out of focusing and reframing every shot but you

must spend a lot of time calibrating the darn thing. I switched

from Nikon to Canon last year because of Nikon reliability

problems (bodies, lenses, flashes, the works). I unloaded an

F-5, two N-90Ss and a ton of lenses. If I had to do it all over again

I am not so sure I would although the Canons have worked

flawlessly. I don't find the IS lenses to be that great. In fact if you

read reviews closely you will find that they aren't as sharp as

their non-IS counterparts. The 550EX flash has also been a

disappointment. I would think long and hard about switching.

Gulley,

Before most print photojournalists went digital the overwhelming

choice of film for them was Fuji Press 400. I still use it almost

exclusively today along with Fuji Press 800. If you do choose to

go with Kodak be darn sure you use Kodak chemicals for

processing. Also, you might find that when this film is scanned

and converted to black and white images you might find yourself

only shooting with one kind of film for everything.

Lutz, when I worked for the Army and Air Force Exchange Service

Headquarters in Perlacher Forest from 1987 to 1991 I used to

buy all my photographic supplies from Sauter. I was just in

Wiesbaden and Mainz about three weeks ago and was sad to

find there were no good camera stores there. I went to five

different so-called Leica retailers and none of them had the

SF-20 flash, diopters or even lens back caps. I loved Munich and

would return there in a New York Minute if I could.

I recently traveled to Frankfurt, Germany, where I took 10 rolls of

Fuji Press 400 and Press 800 film (5 each) with me. I exposed 8

of those rolls and had them developed back here in the States

without any trace of X-Ray damage. I must have been through 10

check points of some kind that used the X-Ray machines (we

had to make many change-overs because we bought the ticket

at the last minute). I was truly surprised the film didn't get

damaged because the security people refused to hand-check

the film which had me worried so maybe someone does know

what they are talking about.

I have had excellent results with both the EF 1.4XII and EF 2XII on

my 70-200/2.8L and 300/4 IS L lenses. I had the 100-400 zoom

lens for about a week (also bought it at Wolf) and took it back. I

didn't find it that good wide open and I have never liked

one-touch zooms anyway. I am glad you are having good results

with yours.

Thanks Ellis for the tip.

John G. Morris' 'Get the Picture.' a personal history of

photojournalism, is a must read. It is published by Random

House (1998).

I met Mr. Morris at a book signing in Atlanta a few years ago and

he is truely a gracious person. He and his wife live in Paris. He

not only autographed my book but gave me his business card

which really caught me off guard. He told me to look him up if I

was ever in Paris.

Be prepared to be pulled through 307 pages of great

photojournalism stories.

Colin, I had the 20-35 zoom and found it to be very disappointing

so I purchased a 24/2.8 instead. I tired the Sigma 24-70/2.8 and

found the optical quality to be outstanding, but the feel of the lens

was lousy with the extension of the lens and the rough feel of the

zoom. I have also used a Sigma 170-500 zoom and again found

the optics to be outstanding the overall feel and zoom of the lens

to be inferior. I would image that would be the case with the

15-30 zoom. In fact, the lens has gotten very good reviews

optically, but most of the reviewers never talk about the feel or

function of the lenses in the field. I think Sigma puts all their

money into the glass and nothing into the function or feel of the

lens.

Trevor �

BUY IT!

You will b stunned at the quality of the pics.

If smooth operation isn't a consideration for you, then the

24-70/2.8 is a great inexpensive choice. It is a very sharp lens.

However, I found that the sample I had was very rough in

zooming and the zooming in and out of the barrel bugged me

into trading it in for a fixed 24/2.8 Canon lens.

As a professional, getting great images is not a luxury but a

necessity. When I started using a Leica M-6 after years of

absence (I had an M-3 DS for about 10 years, 15 years ago) my

editors and co-workers noticed the difference in the available

light images immediately (contrast and color correctness) and I

wasn't using any slouch cameras before (Nikon F-5 and mostly

2.8 glass and later the Canon EOS-3 and 2.8L lenses).

A rangefinder, and most manual cameras, force you to stop and

think about what you are doing. The point and shoot of

autofocus, auto-everything cameras get you out of that mode.

Granted, for photojournalism, which is what I do, autofocus and

auto-everything has it's place when the action gets fast and

furious, but for feature and art work the Leica is a jewel of a

camera and I am a better photographer because of it.

And no, my editors and co-workers had never heard of a Leica,

but the folks I took pictures of did like it better than looking down

the barrel of an SLR with a big putty-white colored lens on it.

Thanks everyone for your input. I'm going to try a couple of your

tips and hope that helps as I am tired of spending money on

something that might not exist. ECF is great except for action, it

just seems to respond too slowly, but I'll try the 13-2 and 17-2

custom settings and see if that helps. The last resort of course

is to use the center single AF sensor even though I am shooting

all 2.8 glass except for my 300/4 IS lens. Now, if the 550EX flash

would just not poop out on me after shooting only a couple of

frames that would be great also. My former Nikon SB-28 seemed

to keep up much better and didn't have hot spots (one frame real

hot, the next not, without a lighting change) like the 550EX does.

My old 300TL with my T90 seemed to have been better also.

Maybe I have a defective 550EX? Now if I could just get the

EOS-3 to lock-on to a subject and not get disrupted by movement

between camera and subject I would be happy.

Has anyone out there had extensive use of the Canon

EOS-1n/RS camera for shooting sports and action? I presently

am using an EOS-3 and have been quite dissatisfied with its

performance in low light (gyms) and with flash. The ECF is slow

for action although you would have thought that is why they

designed that feature in the first place. Anyway, the RS is

available at a very attractice price at B&H and I want to gobble

one up unless it is a stupid move to do so.

Yes, it is.

And it gives me something to do while I'm (or rather, my

Wing-Lynch processor is) souping film.

With digital, the computer is tied up downloading images and

such.

Kirk, thanks for your information. Your excellent review of the M6 a

few months back put me over the edge. I'm going to attach an untouched

image I shot today with the Canon G2 for those folks on the fence. I

used a Canon 550EX flash with Omnibounce straight on for this sh<div>[ATTACH=full]252[/ATTACH]</div>

I am thinking about switching from my Canon EOS-based autofocus system

to a manual focus SLR system and have been looking at Leica (of

course, being an M-system user throughout the years). I have found a

couple of really clean R7s on the market at pretty good prices, but

don't know a thing about them. How does it stack up against the R6.2

and R8? And has anyone ever put any really long non-Leica glass on one

such as a Tamron 300/2.8 with adapter? Thanks.

DAYTON P. STRICKLAND

Allen, also try the Canon G2. I'm a picky SOB and I really like this

camera. The shutter lag is tolerable if you understand it's the

autofocus locking on that is really the delay. The images are truly

wonderful and the depth of field you get even nearly wide open is

hard to understand and explain, but it sure makes my editor

happy, so maybe it will make your wife happy too. Another picky

rangefinder friend of mine just bought one too and he is in awe.

Gabe, for $449 you can get the excellent CanoScan 2720 (USB). I use it

daily and the results are the best I have ever seen for everyday,

short of billboard size, work. I have found it to be extremely

reliable and very easy to use. Forget flatbed scanners for doing negs.

<p>

------------

Talk to me.

That's all I expect a great photo to do is talk to me.

I have been one of many judges at several photo contests, which, by

the way, happen very quickly without much discussion on merits of all

the things we think are important in photography, and if the photo

doesn't talk to the judge or grab his attention it goes in the "other"

pile.

DAYTON

------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob, there are some very good suggestions here, but can I ask a

question?

Why shoot black and white and color, why not just color print film?

Modern color print film is incredible and can give you a lot more than

black and white in my opinion. That way you can have the right lens on

each camera to make your work/fun more fun.

If you don't already have one, get yourself a good negative scanner, a

very good printer and make your own prints, both black and white and

color at home on a computer. Most scanners and printers come with a

version of Photoshop that is perfect for this.

My two cents.

DAYTON

--------------------------------------

Andy, as a guy who shoots a lot of action sports, I must say that I am

blown away. I would have never thought of pulling out my M-6 for those

kinds of shots, but maybe now I will for the shear challenge of it and

heavens knows challenge is what keeps us on our toes.

And Jason, try a Canon EOS-3 of EOS-1V if you find shutter lag a

problem. In my experience there aren't any quicker shutter releases

out there than those two.

DAYTON

Dr. Knapp is right on; no second opinions needed from this doctor. The

B+W is worth the extra money, easily.

---------------------------------------

I was always taught to hold it at an angle. If you shoot it straight

on you will overexposure by about 1 to 1 1/2 stops. I also use my

well-tanned hand, medium colored grasses and faded asphalt with

surprisingly good results. My 18 percent gray card doesn't show near

the wear it should because I am too lazy to dig it out.

<p>

.........

Kristian makes a very good point. Unfortuantely, on a daily basis, I

have to make snap decisions on which is the best frame to scan and

give to an editor. I am much better at this than when I started in

this business, but I still find that about 25 percent of the time I

find a better frame the next day long after the paper is lining

someone's bird cage. You will get better at taking the keepers and

skipping the sleepers, but it takes lots of film and practice, and

lots of film doesn't necessarily mean burning it all up at once. The

great thing about Leica M or non-automated photography is it makes you

slow down and think. So-o-o-o, think and shoot.

<p>

----------