ben_lanterman1

I used a Nikon 8800 for about a year or so (maybe less - don't remember as I sit here) and

while it produced good images and had a nice lens I was disappointed with the electronic

viewfinder and shutter lag.

I sold it and bought a Canon 350. For a walk around lens with this camera I use a Tamron

28-300 but the lower 17-200 might be more to what you want. The size is small and the

camera rated high in the Popular Potography click-off shown on their web site.

The Tamron while not being the equivalent of a $2000 lens isn't all that bad and gives a

lot of capability for the weight. I have a reasonable amount of Canon lenses and still feel

fairly comfortable when the Tamron is the only lens I might be carrying. The price isn't

bad either.

The only thing missing is the waist level finder. I personally wouldn't let that be a deal

breaker but then again I don't hike to the point you do - bad knees:-) I had rather have a

full length tripod and a real view finder to look through than the camera back LCD even on

a swivel as the 8800.

Good hiking,

Ben

I will discuss it with the doctor, it would be good to have oxygen just as a precaution.

38 years ago we went west and visited the Grand Canyon and Pikes Peak and a few other

places in a whirlwind adventure. I remember the car really chugging at the top of Pikes

Peak and the obvious effects of the thin air on us. I also have a vivid image of a teenager

that didn't pay attention to the altitudes effects and had apparently tried to show off by

running and was suffering from altitude sickness, headaches and all that. We walked very

slowly.

I will look at Pikes Peak from the bottom this time!

As I look into the trip more I am amazed at the tremendous natural wonders that await. I

would encourage all that can still do the hiking to do it while able. My heart attack was

when I was 57 and several years before I had planned to retire and to do the hiking trips.

The one good thing about the scooter is that I can load the two baskets full of camera

stuff, snacks, drinks, kitchen sink, etc. and don't have to worry about packing it around on

a backpack.

Hi Sergy, Yes my visit will be in the late spring or early summer. I can imagine the great

photos recovered from my camera just after the scooter slides off the trail on the ice and

as the Canon 1DMkII faithfully captures 8 fps of the canyon's walls as the scooter and I

not-so-gracefully fall to the canyon bottom:-) The camera can pick up my screams of

terror also, isn't tech great!

I had considered the mule rides offered at several places. However I was watching a show

on the travel channel about the rides and how they trained the mules and I got a really bad

case of vertigo just watching. With my luck I would get a mule in the process of having a

really bad day also.

I am really looking forward to seeing the west again. I did a short vacation 40 years ago to

the Grand Canyon but there is so much more in the area.

Again I appreciate all of the helpful comments.

Ben

I have it in front of me, not memorized!

"A range switch lets you select a focusing range of either 1/8m/5.9ft. to infinity or 6.5m/

21.3ft to infinity, depending on shooting conditions. This setting can reduce the actual

autofocusing time."

So if you plan on shooting something 50 ft away there is no use in the lens cycling

through the close up focus range so you set it for the 21ft lower range. Then it cycles

from 21ft to infinity in the search for focus.

It is just a time saving device when a lot of focus changes are anticipated and you might

know that range before hand. It is a nice lens and works well.

Good luck,

Ben

I have found it useful in a variety of conditions when I didn't have the choice of hauling

several lenses.

Of course the greater the zoom range the greater the compromise in image quality for the

most part. But it just isn't that bad for normal "stuff" and perfectly adequate for most

lighting conditions. The ability to go from wide angle to 300 tele is awfully conveinment at

times.

I appreciate the answers and I will check the altitude. I live near St. Louis, MO which is pretty

low I think.

Thanks again, I am looking forward to the view.

Ben

I would like to visit/photograph/enjoy Bryce Canyon National Park this summer. I can take

all of my equipment, don't have a photo equipment related question and I ltotally enjoy

nature and photographing nature. Bryce just looks so beautiful in the photos that I would

love to see it in person.

However I do have mobility problems. Due to heart damage from a heart attack a few

years back If I walk near a 1/4 mile on level ground I start gasping for air so I have started

using a mobility scooter for longer travel. It has been a welcome addition to the family

and has worked well at air shows and similar venues.

I know that hiking to the really neat places is totally out but could someone give me an

idea of how much of the canyon can be seen from the trails that are handicapped

accessable. (I realize that as I ask that that even the worse peek through bushes at Bryce

is better than the best view in my subdivision:-)

I have looked over the internet and searched photo.net but haven't found anything so far

that gives me a good "feel" for what to expect.

Any help would be appreciated a lot.

Thanks,

Ben Lanterman

I have Canon 1Ds and 1DMkII series cameras and L lenses and don't find

them too much weight for most things - my heart doc tells me to exercise with

hand weights which weigh more than the cameras and it's supposed to be

good for me!

However I get tired too and so bought a Nikon 8800 P&S. I would have

bought a Canon version but they don't make one as good. It has good

resolution and a great lens, ~35-350, and weighs nothing. At reasonable

print sizes (8x10) it is a good compromise that actually doesn't compromise

much. The only down side is the very low ISO range and lack of

responsiveness compared to a SLR.

I have found having the two ranges of cameras to be very useful, there are

times when the big camera is simply too much - bulk and attention getting -

and the Nikon is the way to go.

It is capable of making some very nice photos.

I have the Tamron 28-200, Canon 28-300 L IS and had a Canon 35-350 L. I

have found that you need to keep in mind that with every tool you use there

are limits - you don't try to harpoon a whale with a bow and arrow.

If you are looking for conveinence and print 4x6 and don't expect wedding

quality huge prints then the Tamron is fine. Will it print to 8x10 and larger?

Yes, I just printed two 8.5x11 shots for a friend (for the same question as this

forum - it was timely) both from a Canon 1Ds with the 28-300 Canon at 200

and the 28-200 Tamron at 200. Could I pick out the Canon - Yes it was

sharper. Was the Tamron left in the dust looking crappy - no. Was there

almost $2000 difference in the photos, I am seriously wondering myself :-(

Of course image stabilization and build is worth something and the big

machine is sharper.

If I were limited in money or required the zoom range (I am handicapped and

can't always let the feet zoom - a lot of folks are that way you know.

Sometimes there might be a cliff in the way) I wouldn't feel all that bad about

using the Tamron. It makes a good photo and a great photographer will make

a great photo with it.

Would I use it for a many dollared wedding shoot, no, too scared about

messing up and a little concerned about someone seeing me with a cheap

Tamron! Ego is a bad taskmaster. But my own very very inexpensive

wedding years ago was shot with much worse equipment and my wife and I

still love those photos. Some folks need to drive exotic sports cars and

sedans to feel good, some can't afford more than a used Ford Focus. That

doesn't make the Ford bad, it is rated quite good in its class, just those exotic

cars are so much better.

The Tamron is an OK workable lens that will bring a lot of fun. It is a fine lens

for the price. That a better lens will do a better job isn't in question, The

question is what about the Tamron, will it do a workmanlike useful job well

enough to warrent buying one?

And the answer is yes. Decide what your friend is going to do and what he

expects to do with the result and see if it fits. Be sure you can return it if it is

disappointing. Always throw in a 50mm f1.8 for the times when the real sharp

photo is needed.

the push pull is natural, it is a fine lens and will work as you wish. The range

is excellent and other than the cost and weight there is nothing that is bad

about it.

Ask your doctor, he will say to exercise with arm weights. Then tell your wife

this was bought on your doctors orders! It might work........

I have the 28-300 L IS and think it is fine. I sold the 35-350 it replaced but

only after making careful comparisons. Optically it was equal or better than

the 35-350 at the same conditions.

It isn't capable of equalling my 300mm f2.8 L IS or course but gee - who would

expect it to. I also kept the 100-400 because of shooting needs with two

cameras when doing airshows.

I just printed two 8.5x11 full page prints that are beautifully sharp and I have

no compllaints about it. I am using it on a 1DMKII and 1Ds.

It is fine - too heavy - but fine and after using a push-pull zoom for three years

now I hate the other kind. It is so obviously natural to reach out for something

far away I am surprised it wasn't used on all other lenses. No danger of

grabbing the wrong ring when in a hurry. You can manually focus and zoom

at the same time.

What more do you want :-) Generally folks who don't like it have never tried

it.

It's a new just out 8 megpix sensor with good lens and images. It has a wide

range zoom lens and looks to be a ball to use.

I used a Minolta Maxxum 7 from the time they came out until about 3 years

ago when I gave up on waiting for Minolta to make a digital SLR. I sold the

whole lot of cameras and lenses and went with Canon.

The Canon G1 was my first digital. It made nice photos but was slow in all

respects. One used to the great handling of the Max 7 you will find most

anything under $1000 to be slow and clunky handling. The Canon Pro1 is

much closer to handling like a SLR.

As someone mentioned look at dpreview.com for a truly comprehensive

listing and tests of cameras. Their reviews are very accurate and make

comparisons very easy to make.

Take care though, the instant gratification of digital can really spoil you. When

I bought my first Canon 1D I also bought a Canon EOS3 for film use. I have

put exactly 2 rolls of film through it in a year and a half. It works fine but digital

is so much more fun.

One last thing, the Canon EOS 300D is a cheap digital SLR that will be a lot

better than most any point and shoot variety even the Canon Pro1.

I use my Canon 1Ds this way most of the time anyway. I have gone for days

just turning it on and pushing the shutter release. Most of the other buttons

can be safely ignored if desired.

If you haven't yet, look at dpreview.com for information of a lot of digital

cameras that have been tested. Something in the 4 to 5 megpixel range

made by any of the fine major manufacturers will deliver a fine image capable

of being printed 8x10 with good results.

It depends a great deal of what they want to take photos of. Most user

friendly comsumer cameras will not have great properties in speed of focus or

shutter release times. Just be sure and test the camera out in person to see

how it handles/feels. Render it down to 3 or 4 finalists and then see what an

8x10 of a test scene looks like from each. Pick the best one and you will be

happy (most likely).

I still have the Canon G1 I bought about 4 years ago and it is fine. I don't

believe it has ever been off of the P setting other than experimenting. The

real shots were all in P mode.

The cameras with a switch showing people, trees, mountains, and the like are

good for the totally unfamiliar beginner.

Dust on the sensor when improperly removed leaves scratches and can lead

to the replacement of a 500 to 1000 dollar sensor (Canon 1Ds estimate.

Dust on the glass of the 1X converter when improperly removed leaves

scratches and can lead to the replacement of a $100 part.

Dust on the sensor is a hard dark speck.

Dust on the 1X converter is not visible on the image.

I do think there is a great amount of difference between the two, don't you?

Why can't Canon (I use a 1Ds) make a 1.000x (or 1.01, etc) teleconverter to

put on the camera to effectively seal out the dust on the sensor. It would be a

permanent part of the camera basically and never be removed. I will accept

the loss of light and live with it to just get rid of the dust problem. Certainly a

1.01 teleconverter would have minimal effect on the image quality.

The other question is why didn't Canon build something like this in the

camera to start with. I would have paid many hundreds of dollars more to

have a dust free sensor area.

Usually pessimists like you haven't had a lot of contact with a high end

camera :-) No meanness or disrespect intended Gary.

Certainly a Point&Shoot of 3 megpix capability leaves some to be desired but

the modern high end camera from any manufacturer is a different machine.

I have been using a Canon 1Ds for the last few months. I no longer can get

out and chase the bison but I believe the camera is equal to what ever you

would request of it. The resolution is reportedly (on various internet forums -

example is dpreview.com) equal to or better than MF. To be even considered

for a statement like that indicates the quality is ifne. I use mine with the Canon

300mm f2.8 L IS with Canon teleconverters and the results are stunning. Of

course the EOS3 with Velvia and the same lens makes stunning images also!

The only downside now is price. The new Canon 1DII at $4K and 8megpix is

a really fine camera. I would think it would be ideal for nature work. At 8+

frames per second for 40 frames you should be able to get even the Giant

Awk in landing mode!

Ben

http://www.dpreview.com/

is the one I had in mind.

I have the 1D and 1Ds. In making test prints to orient my brain cells to what I

can expect, I was really surprised to see how hard it was to see the difference

until I got close to and above the 11x17 size. It doesn't make any difference in

pixel count if you can't see it. Perhaps I need new glasses :-)

An interesting exercise is taking the images from

http://www.wacom.com/promo/pro_gallery.cfm

and resizing them, blowing up, etc. Since he uses the same setups for his

comparisons it is a great learning experience.

Sure a 6mp camera is going to have a better likelihood of a more precision

photo that a 4 mp (everything else being the same) but the state of the art

seems to be 4 mp and 8fps. If they want to play with Canon then they have to

make an equal to or greater than camera compared to the 1D.

It would seem that equal to with great handling qualities was what they could

achieve. It puts the difficulty of achieving a higher mp at high rates into

perspective. It is not a trivial task.

I had a Kenko (now on auction on ebay) that I wanted to use with a Canon

1Ds and a 100-400 L lens. It is the 300 pro version. I had used it with a film

camera and 4x6 prints OK. When used on the digital all it did was induce

distortion. I got better results by just enlarging the digital image in Photoshop

rather than optically enlarging the image with the teleconverter. I do plan on

trying a Canon version in the near future. I would like to get the extra reach at

times and can't afford a 500 or 600 lens after buying the 1Ds!

I understand that Minolta is supposed to come out with a digital SLR early

next year. It would let him use whatever lenses he currently has. See the

note at this site. I gave up two years ago waiting for Minolta to make a SLR

and went Canon but there is hope at the end of the tunnel.

http://www.popphoto.com/article.asp?article_id=766&section_id=5&

page_number=5

I understand from other forums that the Canon 1Ds would stand up fairly well

to a comparison with film in most all areas.

I enjoyed photography and film at the time but didn't like the inability to easily

manipulate the image and I hated to spend money for enlargements and not

getting what I wanted.

So I decided to do digital. I bought a Canon G1 loved it. Bought a Olympus

E-20 and loved and hated it. Too slow.

Canon came out with the 1D in a SLR format with the promise of extreme

performance. I was hooked, I sold everything and bought the 1D and some L

lenses and loved it. I recently bought a 1Ds slower but really nice.

Since I do this for the fun of it, it is still fun. Manipulating images on a bright

Apple 20 inch lcd screen is a joy. I am probably more a graphics artist than

photographer but luckily I am a techno geek so a digital camera really

appeals to me.

When I went digital I sold a Minolta 7 (a nice camera, why didn't they make a

digital version of it??) system with lenses so to have a film camera I bought a

Canon EOS 3 so I could use the same lenses all around. I had no idea how

little I would use it. One roll of film to be sure it worked and that is all.

I had a Minolta Maxxum 7 and a lot of lenses and thought the world of it. It fit

the way I thought I guess. But I kept waiting for them to make it into a digital

version, and waited and waited and waited.

I sold all of the Minolta equipment and bought a Canon 1D and EOS3 and a

number of L lenses. The camera buttons are in the same places, the cameras

work fine and the IS lenses are useful at times.

The lack of a digital body was the final reason for switching.

I messed around with several inexpensive zoom lenses at various ranges

over the last two years and have found myself less than happy with them. I

sold them at a loss (naturally) and bought better quality.

My final set of lenses are the 16-35, 24-70, 35-350, 100-400 and a 50mm1.4.

Unless I am going to an airplane show the lens that lives on my 1D is the 24-

70. The other lenses are fine products and have definite uses (otherwise why

buy them :-) but the 24-70 is great.

Due to physical handicap restrictions the use of primes is not the best option

for myself but should be really considered as a better choice. There is less

compromise to sharpness.