janusz_mrozek

Sorry about the lack of wrapping. Let's try again.

 

Longer than 55: check

 

Limited budget: check (I think)

 

Macro: check (well, near macro, 1:2.3, but hey it's an all around lens!)

 

Improved quality over kit lens: CHECK (huge improvement in sharpness!)

I am a bit surprised by the fact that no one has mentioned the lens I am about to mention. But that's the way it is sometimes, or maybe my suggestion is not as good as I think it is. :)

 

Longer than 55: check

Limited budget: check (I think)

Macro: check (well, near macro, 1:2.3, but hey it's an all around lens!)

Improved quality over kit lens: CHECK (huge improvement in sharpness!)

 

Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5, at Amazon $370

 

J

John, there is in fact a major improvement in AF, as the 400D has taken the AF system from the 20d/30d.

 

Ben, remember that whichever camera you own during the next 6 months, 350d or 400d, it will decline in value. The question you are trying to ask in part, then, is which one will plummet more, and by how much. Say the 400d comes out at $800 and ends up at $750 after a half year. Maybe the 350d will lose more than 50 during that time, maybe less. Doesn't seem like that much to worry about. I'd decide based on whether the additional features of the 400d will add value to your shooting.

 

Kate, I'm sorry to say your decision is not an easy one, and there is no obvious answer when it comes to trading off money for features. And your question is extremely general - you shoot everywhere and you need a camera and lenses and you are totally lost - no problem, but so hard to address. I'd do some more research on the new camera, then post whatever question you subsequently formulate into a new thread instead of appending to this one, which is considerably more narrowly focused. And I'd suggest being more specific. Or go to a camera store (not a big box store) and get assistance. I'm not being negative, it's just that your question cannot be answered with any sort of accuracy, it is so value. One suggestion, though, get a camera (maybe even used, craiglist?) and use it for a while, then decide what you need to change, if anything.

M Barbu, where have you seen that the XT MSRP is $599? The XTi article at Rob Galbraith says the street price for the XTi is to be $799 (body) and the XT $699 body. B&H sells the XT for $649; it is unusual to sell a camera above MSRP.

 

Omar, "surreptitious" because there was no press release about DIGIC III; rather, it appeared, in passing, in a press release about Canon's digicam market performance. Probably "inadvertent" is the better word.

Where is the best forum to sell a Pentax manual focus lens? By that I

mean not the highest price for the seller, but simply a place most

likely to be frequented by someone who might be interested in the

older stuff. Is there a specialized forum for such people, or do I go

with the standard photo.net/fred miranda/ebay forums? Any

list-servers, for example, or user groups of some sort?

Regarding eBay, is PayPal the standard means of payment? Can people overseas (I'm in the US) use PayPal? What are the alternatives?

 

Thanks for the answers given.

I am interested in selling some used equipment (basic 35mm stuff) and

would like to hear about the relative merits of photo.net, ebay,

fredmiranda, and any other relevant outlet for such sales. I am not

interested in KEH or other dealers as I would like to sell direct.

It's a minor point, I guess, but since I have been thinking about these issues of late, I shall make it. :) Even if it is too late and no one reads it.

 

David's second "kit" is 35/85/135. This is in 35mm terms. On a 1.6x camera like your 20D, to get this kit, you need 22/53/84. So having a 50 and 85 would not be "atypical," it would be ideal. As for a 35mm/ff body, I'm happy with the 50 1.8 and the 85 and my Elan II. Preferences vary.

I wanted to fix mine as well, but when I put the two pieces together and then put the lens on the camera (facing the ceiling so as to stay in place), it appeared to be inoperable. Any hints on what is supposed to match up to get the electricals to work?

An EOS 55 (Japan) is the same as an EOS 50/Elan II but with a panorama option. I found one used here in the US and love it, with several panorama shots on my office wall.

 

I found these:

http://eosdoc.com/manuals/body/ElanII/

http://graphics.stanford.edu/~niloy/miscDocs/elanIIe.pdf

 

J

Regarding Edward's comment, what is so sneaky about it? It certainly was clear to me when I was shopping, ultimately buying PSE3. As far as I am concerned, I am able to get much of PS CS power for well under $100. I can even get some more of that power by getting Hidden Power for a few more $$.

 

Similar product combinations are done all the time. Canon dRebel vs 10D. Any number of digicam lineups. Printers... So its not a sneaky way of making money, it is a well understood way of making money. I for one value having the option of the less expensive, less fully featured alternative - it makes things affordable! I could never justify the $$ on PS CS.

 

One way to interpret this is that Adobe is gouging for PS, another that they are offering up an inexpensive subset of PS for those of us who are less serious about our photography (and getting more sales and profits for themselves). What is your argument that the price of PS is too high (as opposed to higher than you would like to pay, which is a different concept altogether)?

Yes, I had the wrong layer active. Thanks.

 

a) what I fully want to do is to change the color of the sky including those parts intermingled with tree branches. So I want to

i) choose the sky with Lasso, so my later Magic Wand doesn't pick up similar colors in non-sky parts of the pic

ii) within the Lasso-ed zone, apply Magic Wand

iii) fill the chosen area with a different color, just some unsaturated light blue for starters, later trying a gradient fill, later trying a piece of blue sky from another pic on the same day that I have extracted

 

So how many layers do I end up with? Base layer (original image), Lasso selection layer, MWand selection layer, color or other fill layer? Are there more layers? Do I need to duplicate the base layer - it didn't seem to work right just now with only one base layer.

 

b) choosing the correct active layer is such a simple concept, but isnt in my PSE book (by Aaland), at least in the section I was consulting, and I don't think in most such books, at least those I have browsed in the bookstore. Are there any books that would have more of a "principles" orientation instead of a "follow the steps" orientation? Hidden Power for Elements by Lynch?

 

thanks

I should add that I have once over the last hours actually succeeded in doing the deletion, but no longer recall the exact command. That enabled me to go on and do the fill in the non-deleted part and get a taste for how all of this is supposed to work.

I am in need of the lowest level help, apologies but I just can't find

the answer to the simplest possible question...

 

I am sitting here with PS Elements and a PSE book. I have many years

of computer experience but a few hours worth of PSE. I have created a

new layer, selected an area with a Lasso, and inverted. I now wish to

do what to me is the actual selection, namely, get rid of the stuff

that I have selected. The book says, in another context (because

magic eraser, not lasso?), press delete. I do so, nothing happens. I

group layers, ungroup, nothing. I have tried using Erase on the

selection. I am tired of guessing.

 

My larger tasks: 1) select part of the image 2) within that

selection, apply Magig Wand to pick out similar colored areas 3) recolor

 

My results: 1) failure 2) I've had no problems with this tool 3) I

have have decent success with filling but it is due to luck and

exploration and not understanding. I have wasted a number of hours.

 

So a) please tell me that tiny little tidbit of into that I just don't

currently have, and b) moderator, feel free to dump this thread at the

earliest convenience. :)

Look at Hidden Power for Elements 2 (www.hiddenelements.com).

 

Note: I have no personal experience with this product but it seems to have an excellent reputation as an extention to PSE.

I think I have this right, but please check...

 

"One thing to remember-- please don't fall to the common trap that a 50/1.8 lens on the 20D is equal to the 85/1.8 on the 1Ds. Perspective is ONLY determined by the distance to your subject, and not by focal length. This is important when you shoot portraits, since the closer you are (50mm) the more distorted the face would be."

 

But the point is that, for the 20D, you will have to stand at the same distance to the subject with a 50 that you would with an 85 on a full frame camera! So the perspective in practice - taking the same head/shoulders shot, say - is the same between the alternatives, because you have to step back with the 20D+50mm in comparison to where you would stand with an ElanII+50mm. You end up standing at about the same spot as you would with an ElanII+85mm. If you don't step back, the 50mm captures the entire head/shoulders, but part of the image falls outside the bounds of the chip on the 20D.

Somewhere in the distant past, I learned that the true dimensions were 23.5mm x 35.3mm. But I can not find a good source for this now; the best source I can find is:

 

http://www.imagingspectrum.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.exe/filmscanners.html?E+scstore

 

Look in the specs for the first scanner.

 

Any idea as to where these dimensions came from, for what equipment they are valid, etc.?

I have made 2000+ shorts on an A80 (my first digicam) in 4 months, many of those of my son. Personally, I find the red eye problem horrible, and I simply assume that any picture I take with eyes facing the camera will require correction with software. So I wouldn't discount the A95 on that behalf, as at least in my case I would expect the same amount of correction effort. Maybe you have more success with your A80.

I've just received Elements 3.0. I had read somewhere that the

manual was not as good as for PSE2, but what one gets is more like a

pamphlet, not a manual! It tells about various things one can do,

but gives little instruction on how to do.

 

So, I would like a book. Suggestions? I know that people generally

will not have seen PSE3 books, but any favorites among those for

2.0?

 

Needed level: experienced computer user, beginner image editor

(experienced with various simple freeware and one month with the PSE2

demo software), interested in photo improvement as opposed to

artistic or playful effects. Interested in deeper understanding as

well as just knowing what all the menu options do.

 

Down the road I will pick up Hidden Power (new version available

December) but I want something to learn with now. If the answer is

just to play around, and consult the web for hints, I can do that

too, been doing that already.

 

J

Thanks, all. I'll start making a reformat part of my routine instead of an erase.

I have read various threads about CFs and formatting but the

following situation is not quite addressed. I have a Canon A80 and I

download all pix through the USB port using the automatic process in

WinXP. (I do not own a card reader. For me, doesn't seem to be a

point. Battery life is not an issue, I just recharge when needed.)

I then delete all pix using the camera's erase function, after

unplugging from the computer. I never access the camera's files

through Windows in any other way, and I do not enable the feature

that automatically deletes the pix from my camera after they are

successfully transfered to the computer.

 

Do I ever need to reformat the card, or can I simply continue to

follow this cycle forever? What advantage is gained by reformatting,

when I never remove the card from the camera?

 

thanks

Thanks for the responses. Rob, you say "Of course, I most often use my flash to fill in the shadows, not as the primary light source. " How do you do this? What are the settings? (Or just refer me to the appropriate pages of my manual.) I wasn't aware that the A80 does fill flash (in the sense that it tries to get the background exposed properly and modulates the flash intensity for the foreground).

 

Mark, you are correct, I went and reread the A85 announcement (I had been aware that it was replacing the A70, as I wrote before). I confused the 1.8" LCD with a 1/1.8" chip - the actual chip is 1/2.7", but with more MP than the A70. This is one of the reasons why I went for the A80 over the A70. Wow, the area per pixel in the A85 is way, way smaller than the A80!

A few comments on the Canon A80

 

First, I just got one, and my biggest complaint so far is vignetting

of the flash at wide angle - darker corners. I understood from my

(ridiculously extensive) review of comparative specs that the A80

flash is weaker than flashes in comparable models, but the result was

still disappointing (in that the subject was not particularly distant

from the camera). Is my experience normal?

 

Second, red eye reduction seems quite ineffective. Of course, the

comparison is to the ElanIIE/420EX flash combo I have been using, but

still, I expected better. I can fix it on the computer, but still.

 

Finally, in response to a comment on the A80 review page (it wasn't

clear to me that posting to that page would result in the individual

seeing the response) by Wim Woittiez:

 

"I bought a Powershot A60 about a year ago and returned it to the

store. Everything was great about it - except its extremely limited

dynamic range. It was impossible to get decent outdoor shots, except

with the sun directly behind me... Is it safe to say the A80 no

longer suffers from this problem? I saw the A75 has a much larger CCD

(2.7'' vs 1.8'' for the A80), so probably a much better dynamic range

too. "

 

The sensors are actually 1/2.7" and 1/1.8", so the A80 has a larger

sensor. It is easier to consider this in metric, as dpreview gives

the sensor sizes that way, A80 is 7.18x5.32mm (as is the new A85

replacing the A70), while the A75 is 5.27x3.96. So the chip and also

the area per pixel are bigger on the A80.

 

Can someone explain to me what 1/1.8" means, anyway? I tried

dividing 1 by 1.8, getting 0.555, treating this as 0.555 inches, and

converting to metric, but I get 14.1mm, which has no connection to

7.18x5.32 as far as I can tell.

 

Janusz

I would like to politely suggest that you are focusing on the wrong information.

 

It appears to me that you are paying too much attention, in my view, to brand names. Nikon=photographic quality HP=computers and such=IT

 

For example, I have no idea of what you mean when you refer to the "IT quality" of the HP. Does it have more features than the Nikon? I've not heard anyone say that HP cameras are universally superior to Nikon in the area of electronic circuits or embedded sofware/firmware. I have seen good reviews of cameras made by both firms. I don't see evidence that Nikon has an advantage in, say, lens construction, in the tiny sizes of these lens, sufficient to overcome a 2 vs. 3mp difference. There may be worlds of difference in terms of features between those cameras, and image quality as well, but I don't think the brand names can tell you that.

 

I suggest you do more research. I am currently looking as well. Some websites I am currently looking at include dpreview.com and steves-digicams.com. Happy researching and shopping!

I understand that the Canon Powershot A75 and A80 have an

optional "lens thread adapter" that allows them to accept 52mm

accessories. This is the size my old Olympus IS-10 takes. Any idea

whether these cameras can make use of my Olympus 1.7x tele-extender,

which screws on to the 52mm threads? (The IS-10 is a 35mm camera

with a non-interchangeable 28-110 zoom.)

 

I guess the issues might involve whether the combination will be able

to focus at infinity, whether there will be any vignetting, etc.

Experience, thoughts, speculations welcome.

 

It would be a real plus for me, a factor in my purchase decision, if

they did take the extender!

 

Janusz