eschrad

<p>I am not much of a hiker myself (particularly with 20 lbs of camera gear) and I was

also

trying to see a lot of the area in a short amount of time. At Wahkeena and Horsetail, you

can see the falls from your car practically. Multnomah is neat to see, but very hyped and

the presence of a restaurant and gift shop there make it very busy. And being that your

widest angle is 28mm, you probably aren't going to get much with that... at least not

enough to do the falls justice. But it's easy to park and go see it anyway. Latourell is also

very easy to get to. Compared to these, Bridal Veil is a hike. To get to

Bridal Veil, you hike a ways down, across and then back up. It's pretty, but wasn't actually

my favorite of all the falls. I really liked Wahkeena personally.</p>

<p><a href="http://homepage.mac.com/eschrad/.Pictures/Photo%20Album%20Pictures/

2003-01-09%2011.42.46%20-0800/ImageWahkeena_Falls.jpg">Wahkeena Falls</a></

p>

<p><a href="http://home.comcast.net/~egschrad/Horsetail-Falls-sm.JPG">Horsetail

Falls</a></p>

<p>Have a great trip!</p>

I am a 2002 graduate of the Summer Intensive program. I have also attended 2 other

workshops with RMSP.

First of all, bear in mind that you will end up spending much more than $10,000!

Depending on how much equipment you already own and where you live, your expenses

for the 2 programs could add another $5000 or more. (I didn't have any equipment, so I

had to buy everything on the supply list.) There's living expenses, travel, processing...

And then during the course of SI there are more ways to spend more money: visits from

equipment reps with opportunities to buy things at discounted prices, extra workshops,

etc. And if you are at all an equipment junkie, well SI is like a crack den for

photographers! Every class you go through makes you think you need something else. I

came very close to buying a couple different MF cameras, a 4x5 camera, a digital SLR,

strobes, and numerous other things! (I did buy a macro lens, a film scanner and an Epson

1280.)

But to answer your question... SI was an experience I will never forget. I learned a lot, but

it's the people I met and the opportunity to focus on nothing but photography for 3

months that had the greatest impact. I had taken 3 photography courses in college, so I

was familiar with a manual camera and exposure and DOF and things like that. I was

already working at an intermediate level in the darkroom, and being a graphic designer, I

was also already quite familiar with Photoshop. SI draws people with all levels of

experience in photography. Some people had already made money with their photography

and others were taking their cameras out of the box on the first day. I think I fell

somewhere in the middle of the pack.

For me, since I had more than a basic understanding of photography, I felt the more

introductory/basic parts of SI went on too long. And the stuff that I was really looking

forward to learning more about didn't go on long enough (learning about MF & LF, for

example, were just a few lectures... there was no opportunity to actually shoot in those

formats unless you already owned those cameras). Also, some "courses" are really just

maybe one lecture (History of Photography, for example). But this is not to say that I

didn't learn a lot... I did. I knew nothing about working with strobes and in a studio until

SI. I learned a lot about the digital darkroom as well (I knew PS, but was inexperienced at

printing my photos). The business lectures were also very informative. And I was

introduced to a variety of photography specialties, helping me to identify what types of

photography I was interested in.

There are several parts of SI that are "optional". If you do SI, do NOT, I repeat... do NOT,

miss anything. Some of the optional lectures were the most informative, and choosing not

to go to them is just a waste of your time (and money) out there. Don't miss any

opportunity. Also, a lot of SI is spending time on your own practicing the things you learn

in lecture or class on your own time. The people that did these things got the most out of

their experience.

The teachers are great... visiting lecturers include big names (David Middleton, Nevada

Weir)... Missoula is a great town... and you will never again find yourself in such an

inspiring and supportive environment. I wish I could go back every year!

I am happy to answer any additional questions you may have about SI or RMSP... just send

me an email!

-Erin

I have taken a field workshop with RMSP, gone through the Summer Intensive program,

and taken a professional studies program (Architectural Photography). I think RMSP is a

great school and they have top-notch instructors.

You are looking at two different types of workshops. The one with Lynn in Yosemite is a

"Field Workshop". Field workshops are geared toward everybody... those with a working

knowledge of photography as well as those without. For those that know what they are

doing with their cameras, the field workshops offer the chance to go and photograph a

beautiful place and interact with other photographers. The instruction is basic... aperture/

DoF relationships, equivalent exposures, filters, composition principles, differences

between films, etc. For some, this is new information, for others... a nice refresher.

Critiques in the field workshops are... positive. As a rule, the instructors are not overly

critical because they know many are beginners. They do offer tips on what you could do

to improve your shot, but they aren't overly picky. They tend to be more about

encouraging you than picking your work apart. However, if you indicate you would like a

more candid critique, they will be happy to go into more depth and give a more critical

analysis. The field workshop I did was led by Lynn Hoffman... she is very nice and helpful.

She does a lot with Polaroid image and emulsion transfers and SX-70 manipulations with

her own work. In the field, RMSP instructors are happy to give you as much or as little

hands on help as you need. The instructors don't take their equipment with them on the

shooting outings (except for maybe on the all-day shoot) because they are there to help,

not shoot for themselves. At the end of the week, you should feel refreshed and

inspired... rejuvenated by your photo vacation.

The workshop led by David is one of the Advanced Professional Studies courses. These

courses expect you to have a greater understanding of photography as they are designed

to give you a cash course in being a working photographer in that field. There is no basic

photography refresher... you better know what you are doing. In-class discussion focuses

on the business side of photography... marketing, pricing, contracts, release forms, etc.,

selling stock photography, copyrighting images, what makes a sellable image, etc.

Critiques are less candy-coated than they are in the field workshops. Now I attended a

different prof. studies class, so I can't speak for the prof. nature class, but this was much

more of a working workshop. Architectural Photography with Craig Tanner was an up

before dawn, heavy-lifting, shoot all day, go to bed late class. He put us in real-life

shooting situations... and we learned a lot in a short amount of time. But you had to know

exposure, and you had to have worked with lights and strobes to be able to get anything

out of the course. As for David Middleton, he's a great instructor... he is a successful

working nature photographer. He is funny (likes to call himself David "Middle-tone"), but

also very straight-forward... he tells it like it is. He is very candid with his critiques and

will talk about an image in terms of what the market is for it (calendars, notecards, books,

stock, etc.). David also has no secrets... he will tell you anything. He doesn't pretend that

some great shot of a coyote he got was out in the wild... he will tell you it was shot in a

game farm and how. He will give you his email address and tell you he is happy to answer

any questions or give any advice as long as the question is specific. (For example, "Can

you give me some advice/tips on shooting around Woodstock, VT in the 2nd week of

October?" as opposed to, "I'm planning a photo trip to VT, where should I go?" He is too

busy for the non-specific, open-ended questions.)

Not sure what your goal is with taking a workshop... if you are just looking for an

opportunity to go some place and take some nice pictures, or if you are looking for

direction in beginning a career... but that will determine which workshop is more suitable.

I did my field workshop after graduating from college and it was a great way to "celebrate".

I had taken photography in college, but it was mostly black-and-white work. So while I

knew what I was doing with my camera, working in color was new to me so part of the

instruction was refresher and some was new information. I took a lot of pictures... had

some success... and had a great time. It introduced me to Polaroid transfers and

manipulations, and got me so fired about photography that I HAD to attend Summer

Intensive the next year (a life-changing experience).

The professional workshop I did was a wonderful learning experience, but was not about

doing a lot of shooting by me personally. (We worked in groups to set up shots and would

be lucky to get one shot done in an hour! It was large format... I guess that probably

wouldn't be the case with a nature photography workshop, though.) It was also not about

"travel" or visiting someplace unique, which the field workshop was (we took Jeep rides

deep into the mountains and got to places I wouldn't have seen otherwise).

I have no experience with the other workshop you mention, but all of these instructors are

very experienced and very knowledgable.

Hope that helps!

-Erin

<p>Well, I am not a portraiture expert, but on occasion I am asked to do some portrait

shooting. (And, reluctantly, I agree.) You just have to get creative.</p>

<p>Recently I had to do some headshots on location at the company's workplace. The

day I was scheduled to go, it was raining, so shooting outside was ruled out. We ended up

finding a partition wall in the office with a mottled, neutral-colored background. I just

bounced my flash off the white ceiling. It worked pretty well for the end result we were

trying to get (photos for use with press releases and in the newspaper).</p>

<p>Here's an example: <a href="http://home.comcast.net/~egschrad/

headshot.JPG">http://home.comcast.net/~egschrad/headshot.JPG</a></p>

<p>Most of the time I lobby for shooting outside. I think people are actually more at ease

outside than in a studio setting, provided that they aren't subject to a bunch of onlookers!

Then I just use fill flash.</p>

<p>An outside example:<a href="http://home.comcast.net/~egschrad/

PMH_photo.JPG">http://home.comcast.net/~egschrad/PMH_photo.JPG</a></p>

<p>Anyway, like I said, I am no expert, but it can be done!<br><br>-Erin</p>

<p>Cathy,</p>

<p>Like you, I was recently looking for information about the 70-200 2.8L+2xII extender

as a

viable 400mm alternative. And, like most of the responses you have received already, I

also found the consensus to be that the 70-200 +1.4x showed very little loss of

quality compared to 70-200 alone. But that the 70-200 + 2x showed a significant loss of

quality unless stopped down to f/11.</p>

<p>Since then, I have taken my 70-200 and 10D to 2 UVa football games where I shot

from

the stands. The first game, I shot with only the 70-200... it gave me good images, for the

action that wasn't too far away, but I really felt the need for more reach. I found myself

cropping quite a bit of my images to focus in on the action, which left me with just

enough information to print 4x6s. But I could tell that there wasn't a lot of information

there... the images were, understandably, lacking in detail.</p>

<p>I figured using a 2x couldn't give me any worse results than I had, so I promptly

ordered a

1.4x TC (knowing it would be handy no matter what) and also a 2x TC. At the second

game, I shot the whole time with the 2x on the 70-200. (Yes, the viewfinder was

noticeably darker, but I got used to it. And I can't really comment on AF performance

since I was, after all, shooting from the stands, again. The amount of obstacles in my way

at any given time was tremendous... fans in front of me, people on the sidelines, etc all

made focusing a challenge.) My conclusion? Shooting with the 2x gave me better end

results that shooting without. A full-size image shot with the 2x had much better detail,

and left me with more pixels, than an image shot without the 2x and cropped to a similar

FOV.</p>

<p>Now, it depends on what you are shooting, but for shooting sports, I found the 2x

quite

helpful and capable of producing more than acceptable results. (Better than the results I

got using my old 75-300.) I know it's not the same as a 400mm lens or even the 100

-400, but for the price and the versatility, I am happy.</p>

<p>Anyway, just thought you could use another perspective.</p>

<p><i><b>Sample from the UVA vs. UNC game:</b></i><br><img src="http://

home.comcast.net/

~egschrad/Phillips_70-200_2x.jpg"><br><i>Canon 10D, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS + 2xII TC

(400mm, f/

5.6, 1/1000 sec.)<br>Only PS was USM 20%, 60, 0 (to 'defog') & USM 100%, .6, 0 (to

compensate for no in-camera sharpening)</i></p>

<p>Hope that helps...<br>

-Erin</p>

Ah! Okay... sorry about that Kyle. Saw baseball and immediately thought something else.

I am curious to see your results on this... It has got me thinking about trying it myself!

Part of me wants to say that IS will work like you want it to, but I am inclined to think it

won't. A tripod is the only surefire way to make sure the background stays the same

between exposures. IS's job is just to produce one sharp frame... despite camera

movement... not to produce multiple frames that are unchanged in composition/framing.

I am sure IS will give you 4 camera-shake free exposures, but I am not sure it will give you

4 images that will line up/register perfectly with each other.

Good luck!

David, yes I was using the wrong terminology. I was just picking up on what the original

poster had said. I should have said continuous shooting as opposed to "multiple

exposure."

However, it didn't occur to me that the original poster meant that he was actually making

multiple exposures on the same piece of film since he was talking about shooting

baseball. I just figured he was talking about shooting a pitching sequence. (This is

probably also a reflection of the fact that I haven't picked up my film camera since "going

digital" 9 months ago! There is no "multiple exposure" setting on my 10D!)

Well, the reverse is true... that multiple exposures help with IS. Nevada Weir (National

Geographic photographer) relies on IS a lot and she said that she always uses multiple

exposure because the 2nd and 3rd exposures are actually sharper than the first. It seems

IS behaves a little like AI Servo... it works better after it has a little practice!

Now, when shooting baseball, I imagine you are using shutter speeds above the

handholdable limit, so IS really has no use because the shutter speed is shorter than any

noticeable camera shake. If you move the camera, you move the camera... I am not sure IS

can help you there.

Which IS lens you are you using? A consumer lens or an L series lens? Which generation IS

is it? Which IS mode are you using?

I was just in San Diego about a month ago and we did kind of a whirlwind tour of the

place. If you want to check out some of the photos I took, you can see them on my

website: <a href="http://homepage.mac.com/eschrad/PhotoAlbum38.html">http://

homepage.mac.com/eschrad/PhotoAlbum38.html</a>

<br><br>

Definitely go to Balboa Park... there are a lot of small museums there, but it is nice

to just walk the grounds and see the gardens and fountains and the architecture. It is a

BIG park... quiet too. There is a photography museum and an artisans market.

<br><br>

San Diego Zoo... an old zoo, but world-renowed. Best to go in the morning when the

animals are active, although we were there in the afternoon until closing, but that was

because of our schedule. The Zoo is right there next to Balboa Park (or you might say "in"

the Park).

<br><br>

Cabrillo Point... monument, lighthouse, great view of ocean, San Diego, and the Bay. Ships

and sailboats go in and out of the bay. Take the road down to the Tide Pools to get down

by the ocean... it was high tide when we were there though so we didn't get to see the Tide

Pools. It is a National Monument, so you can get in for free with a National Parks Pass,

otherwise it is like $7 or something.

<br><br>

Coronado Island... Hotel del Coronado is famous. Has a fabulous Sunday champagne

brunch (should be at $50/person!). The Hotel itself is fascinating and is one of the few

places to find a sandy beach. Beautiful woodwork inside. They filmed Some Like It Hot

there. Coronado Island itself is also neat too... nice shops, nice houses.

<br><br>

La Jolla is pretty... nice houses, some beaches, nice shops. Torrey Pines Golf Course is

there. Further north is Del Mar which is an interesting little town... a lot of the architecture

is Tudor-style. Town feels like it is trying to do a Stratford-upon-Avon thing or

something... never did figure out why it was like that. More shops and things... quiet.

<br><br>

Old Town San Diego... there is a Mexican Bazaar there with shops and performances and

restaurants. Old Town has interesting historical buildings and more shops.

<br><br>

Gaslamp District... lots of restaurants, but not photo-friendly. Busy and it is hard to find a

parking spot.

<br><br>

From downtown, a lot of people take the red train to Tijuana... we thought about going,

but never made it and on our last afternoon opted for the zoo instead.

<br><br>

Sea World was great... I didn't take my camera in, although I wish I had. Even though it

was nice not to have to carry it for a change!

<br><br>

DO NOT go to the Mission Beach area, except for going to Sea World. It's trashy... nothing

of photographic interest... at least nothing that I know of because I didn't want to get out

of my car!

<br><br>

Have a great time!

Mine was not installed... purchased from Outpost. Everything was wrapped in plastic...

manuals, software, time battery, etc.

Well, I am at about 2,050... but I have only had mine for 3 months! All I can say is

that is many more pictures than I would have taken with just my film camera. I have

shot more sports (and sold my first bunch of little league football pics!) and lots more

family photos with digital. As soon as I shoot the family candids, they go up on my

.mac homepage to share with family across the country that wouldn't otherwise get to

share in birthdays and Christmas with us.

I was worried about spending almost $1500 on a camera, but it was the best

investment I ever made. :-)

We regularly will turn the lights off during an exposure. Say, if the exposure is 15-16

seconds, then we would often turn off the lights after 5-8 seconds (1/3 - 1/2 of the

total exposure). We were shooting LF, so we could check it on the Polaroids before we

shot the final film. But with 35, you could try turning the lights off for different

lengths of time over several frames of film.

For however long you turn the lights off, it all depends on how bright the lights are, if

there are lampshades or recessed lighting OR if bare bulbs are visible, and if they are

the only source of light in the room OR if there is sunlight or hot lights or strobes, but

it usually seems to fall in the 1/3 - 1/2 of the exposure range. And it depends on

what kind of mood you want to get from the lights... dim and moody or brighter.

It's really hard to give you an exact formula or method. Hate to sound negative, but

architectural photography is one of the hardest types of photography out there

(although digital is making it easier) and there is a reason that the standard practice is

to shoot polaroid or digital polaroid before shooting final to LF film. LF film is

expensive... you have to be able to check your exposure and composition first. Now

since you are shooting 35mm, you can afford to bracket, so you just have to expect to

have to do a lot of bracketing.

In the past, all architecture was shot on slide film and you had to get everything right

on film. Now with digital, many architectural photographers are shooting negative

film, scanning it and pumping up saturation and fixing lights and correcting color in

Photoshop. Some are even shooting with cameras like the Canon 1Ds because it

produces such a large file, and they can preview their work right there.

Why not try ofoto or Shutterfly? They print photo cards.

<br><br>

<a href="http://www.shutterfly.com/gifts/index.jsp">Shutterfly</a> offers both

greeting cards (5"x7") and note cards (3.5"x5") and a variety of other options.

<br><br>

<a href="http://www.ofoto.com/CardStoreLanding.jsp?

&c=c_r_cardstore_cpclearn_text">Ofoto also offers 5"x7" size greeting cards</a> and

other photo cards.

<br><br>

Another option:<a href="http://www.cardstore.com">CardStore.com</a><br><br>

If you are just looking for prints to put in card sleeves, all of these sites will make

prints for you.

Well, not sure if this will be what you are looking for or not... but Avery makes

something called Clean Edge business cards - 10 cards per page, 2"x3.5". They come

in matte white, matte ivory, matte white corduroy finish, matte white linen finish, and

glossy white. We use the matte white for our business cards.

<br><br>

The early versions of this paper had a paper backing that you pulled the cards off of

(to get the clean edge). I believe with the latest version, the paper backing is gone...

you merely have to bend the paper to snap the cards apart. I have never tried printing

on both sides with these cards, but I don't see why it couldn't be done. The paper is

no different on the back side.

<br><br>

The tricky part... lining things up perfectly with the clean edge perforations and color

profiling. It takes some tweaking to figure out the right combination of printer

settings.

<br>

<a href="http://www.avery.com/products/select_prod_style.jsp?

prod_type_code=10174634&catalog_code=WEB01&slted=Ink+Jet+Clean+Edge+Card

s&pname=Cards&purl=select_category.jsp%3Fcat_code%3D2%26catalog_code%3DWEB

01&pname=Business+Cards&purl=select_prod_type.jsp%3Fitemcat_code%3D1017410

2%26catalog_code%3DWEB01">Link to the Clean Edge business cards</a><br><br>

P.S. In getting the link to the business cards, I found that Avery is apparently

marketing a new line of photo paper with the clean edge perforations. They offer a

wallet size paper with 9 photos per page... they might be 2.5"x3.5". The paper comes

in a variety of sizes and finishes.<br>

<a href="http://www.avery.com/promotions/snaptour/products.html">Link to the

photo paper products</a>

I'll put in my vote for the PowerShot G3. The G2 is too old for something you want to

last at least 10 years (which I still think is a bit of a stretch). As for choosing one of

the G2/G3 models over the others... I liked how it gave SLR like options for people like

me �- the ability to shoot in manual, Av and Tv; to add a flash to the hot shoe if I

needed more flash power; a nice 4x optical zoom (I find digital zoom not worth it

unless I am shooting macro... then it works pretty well); nice white balance controls;

the ability to choose vivid color, sepia tone, b&w, neutral color, etc; acceptable shutter

lag with pre-focusing; high-speed multiple shot mode; and more. And it was good

for my point-and-shoot friends and family members... I could put in on Auto and they

were good to go!

Some people like the even smaller size of cameras like the S45 and S50, but I

preferred the size of the G3/G2... it is tons smaller than my 10D, but still easy to

hold, especially for men who have larger hands.

If you would like to see some shots that I took with the G3, visit these pages:

http://homepage.mac.com/eschrad/PhotoAlbum6.html

http://homepage.mac.com/eschrad/Family/PhotoAlbum7.html

http://homepage.mac.com/eschrad/PhotoAlbum10.html

http://homepage.mac.com/eschrad/Family/PhotoAlbum9.html

The G3 is the digital camera we have for work, so I still use it on occasion, but what it

proved to me was how much I wanted a DSLR (for sports, and true macro work, and

other things). But the G3 is great to use for more candid photography when I don't

want to carry around the big camera. And it will still meet most of my other

photography needs when I don't have the 10D.

Absolutely... but in an unconscious way. I don't go out with the idea in my head to

make a photograph that looks like a Rothko painting, but I have come to realize that I

have an artistic predisposition to make images that, when I look at them later, remind

me of my favorite artists. So yes, I am inspired by impressionists such as Monet, by

post-impressionist Van Gogh and his vibrant colors, by Seurat's pointillism, and by

the abstract expressionists - mainly Mark Rothko, Helen Frankenthaler, and Georgia

O'Keefe.

What draws me to these artists and their works is their strong emphasis on color as a

subject and their study of light. Monet made numerous paintings simply to study how

light changed throughout the day and how the change in light changed his subject --

what is more important to us as photographers than the changing quality of light?

Seurat's pointillist paintings are like an early form of inkjet prints. (Ever look at your

Epson printed photograph through a loop or magnifier?) And the way Van Gogh and

the abstract expressionists chose to depict their world with such vibrant, strong

colors... well, we do the same everytime we load Velvia in our cameras.

I find it interesting that for so long, painters attempted to make images look as

realistic as possible (just like a photograph, before photography had been

discovered). Then photography caught on and became the primary means for making

portraits of people... so painting turned the other direction, becoming more

impressionistic and abstract. Now there seems to be a trend in photography for it to

become abstract and impressionistic so as to make fine art photography differ from

snapshot-ography. What's next?

The other responses about <i>pica</i> were correct. This is simply related to the

size of the image. They could have said it in inches, centimeters, points, pixels,

whatever. But this information does seem to indicate they want a digital file, not a

print they have to scan and format themselves.

As for file format... typically for photos that will be used in print publications, the file

format should be a TIFF and the dpi should be 300 dpi at the given dimensions (in

this case, 8x10 picas, or 1.33 x 1.66 inches). A good profile to use for the image is

<i>Adobe RGB (1998)</i> as this is a standard in the design world.

You might want to check the message board over at http://www.sportsshooter.com .

I think you'll find some comments from people who have used the 10D for sports.

Granted, most of these folks are pro- or semi-pro sports photographers. I am not

sure what level of performance you will be demanding, but it may be less critical than

that of people who make their living at sports photography. Regardless, there seem

to be as many posts praising the 10D as there are ones that complain about it.

I second the suggestion of uploading them to an online photo service and allowing

people to order (and pay for!) their own prints. Ofoto.com (Kodak), Shutterfly.com,

and Snapfish.com are the big ones. Printroom.com is also another good option for

creating a site where people can come and order prints (without you having to give

them your login to get to the photos in your albums). If you expect to to do this kind

of thing often, Printroom may be your best bet.

Hard to tell from such a small pic, but I would guess three small softboxes in front of

and slightly above the subject. The one in the middle being higher than the two on

the sides.

My grandmother gave me her old AE-1 a while back and it too has the same problem.

I inquired at the local pro camera shop and found out it would cost over $100 to fix...

decided it wasn't worth it.

I tried all the same methods of fixing it myself (battery, etc), but to no avail. I have

no idea what causes the problem and I tried everything I could to force it down... I

figured I couldn't break it any more than it already was, after all! Nothing worked. It

sits in a drawer.

Do yourself a favor... buy an EOS! Hee, hee!

I don't believe these lenses are available yet. Adorama lists the item in their online

catalog with their price being $800. B&H has it in their catalog as well but no price is

listed.

Just curious if there is a deadline or if this is a rolling submissions thing.

I agree... this revision sounds much more appealing.

Ditto on the RGB suggestion. As a photographer and a graphic designer, it would be

much better to have people submit as RGB and for the people putting the book

together to convert to CMYK and do the separations. Plus you will have the RGB file

(which you know the photographer has color-corrected to be exactly as they want) to

compare the print proofs to for color accuracy.

Edwin,

It's very east to figure out the price of a lens. Just go to www.bhphoto.com,

www.adorama.com, or www.keh.com and look through their online catalog.

They have everything you are looking into and more at the best prices you

can find. If you find a dramatically lower price, I would question the source as

these companies find ways to make up for it in other areas.

As for the 1Ds, everything you read on it will make you want to buy it... It is an

amazing camera. But seeing as you need lenses too AND this is your first

digital SLR, I would think the 1Ds is more camera than you will know what to

do with. The 10D is going to be a much better fit.