nello

The problem with point&shoot digicams is that the cameras have a built in sharpening program. These in-camera automatic sharpening programs generally do a worse job than you can do with Adobe photoshop. On the other hand, DSLRs are designed to put out untouched "virgin" images to give one complete control over the image.

The draw back of plan #2 is that you can't control the focus of the 420 slave. It

will always focus for 24mm when it fires. This boils down to a lack of fine

lighting adjustment with the 420 as a slave (as opposed to 550/580 where

you can dial in focus on the control panel e.g. 17mm -105mm) . This may not

really matter to you, however, depending on your style of shooting. But can

you take awesome pictures with a 420 slave? Of course.

-A cheaper way is to get the off camera shoe cord.

 

-A fourth way is to forget about the ST-E2 and buy two 550s. The ST-E2 is

overpriced anyway, is useless without a 580/550/420 and there's less than a

one hundred dollar difference between it and a 550. If you think about it,

doens't it seem odd that the ST-E2 costs so much compared to a 550/420 yet

it doesn't even have a flash mechanism to justify its price? Why does it cost

so much? Also, as I understand it, the ST-E2 can only do A vs B ratio.

However, 580/550 allows a C group in addition to an A vs B group. I may be

wrong, but you should look into it.

Why use bigger sensors?

 

1) Larger sensor = Less noise. (full frame Canon Dslrs aren't just for kicks.

You should read info on the 1Ds MII and on medium format digital for that

matter. Larger sensors pay off in the image department big time.)

2) View finders on cropped Dslrs just plain suck.

3) Cropped dslrs (as per above) are essentially crippled in wide angle.

Optics are excellent and up to par with canon primes (24 f2.8; 35 f2; and 50 f

1.8). In fact, I prefer its color tone to all three. Off hand I'd say my sample is a

bit sharper than my 50 1.8. Its definitely a good performer, but its damn huge.

Why is it that the 135L f2 costs more than the 200L 2.8? Like hundreds of

dollars more? I would think they'd at least be close in price? (I find this

question actually applies to lots of lens comparisons...) How does Canon

price its lenses? Is it purely based on materials, or is there some weird

marketing strategy at work here? The pricing doesn't quite seem obvious....

I'm talking exclusively about the D30, D60, 10D, and 20D which are all

considered to be replacement models of and within the same segment/class.

I can't comment on the 1D's or such pro cams which get replaced more

infrequently.

Yeah, and then after they shift people from digicams to dslrs, they can milk

money from the lens sales.

Speculation:

 

If you consider the D30, D60, 10D and 20D cameras (and not the Drebel/

300D) , you can extrapolate a trend of time between their release dates.

Using the "marketing dates" from the "canon camera museum" website, you'll

note that:

 

1) No new model has been released earlier than 1 year from the previous

model.

2) No new model has been released later than about 1.5 years from the

previous model.

 

Thus you could theoretically predict a new model within 1-1.5 years from any

previous model. Accordingly, it is too early for canon to release a 20D

replacement this close to its release date. However, this "prediction" does not

take into account the Drebel/300D. It could well be replaced...

Andrew,

 

I am under the impression that 10D has better image quality than D60 despite

(some) similarities in hardware. Particularly, I've heard that the D60 has

worse high iso performance. I don't believe the two cameras are equal in this

respect.

Well, there's only so much juice you can squeeze from an orange. Rather, a

lot of folks just can't afford to buy a new DSLR every year.

 

Also, now that most new 10D are finally out of stock (B&H just recently sold

out) the 20D price decrements seem poised to reach more customers.

 

Anyway, as a D60 owner myself, I would like to emphasize that this thread is

meant to compare image quality between D60 and 20D. If anyone has

experience to share about these two cameras in particular, I'd love to hear it.

(And may good karma fall upon he who can compare skin tone performance)

 

 

Thanks.

Do a search through Adorama. They have something called a Strobo-sock(?)

or rather. It works like a Sto-fen but:

1) They're much cheaper.

2) One sock (they're made out of fabric) can easily fit on any kind of flash (580,

550, 420, metz...) ,

3) They fit in your camerabag without taking up as much space (sounds like a

minor detail, but I've often cussed out my stofen's when they won't fit in the

bag. I've often had to choose between sto-fens or an extra-lens.)

 

That being said, I do love my sto-fens, but they are over-priced pieces of

plastic. I own at least three, (thats around $65 dollars worth) but will turn to

cheaper avenues if I ever need any more. You can definitely get equivalent

results without shelling out so much cash.

 

You can check out my sto-fens at work at:

www.TheAcrobatsSociety.com

Look in the "Chromosome" section. The link will be on the left side of the

screen.

Those prices are UK POUNDS, and not US dollar. If you look at the website you can see this clearly. My conversion scales are off, but the prices seem close to US prices.

With a flash you can definitely break (bend) the standard 1/focal length rule (AND get decent background/subject exposure). You still want to be respectful of the rule to a degree, but with flash you have a little more leeway. Just put your camera on 2nd curtain sync and experiment. And get some good glass if you can, as it will go a long way. (wouldn't want to be stuck at F4 etc...)

Hmm... I would say buy both your first two choices simultaneously. (50/1.4 and 85/1.8) , especially if you have enough cheese for L-glass. Its an economical combo (well under 2G), comparitively. And for portraiture, your lenses don't have to be L-sharp. For giggles, you could even throw in the 135/2.8 and you'd only be at about 1G. This would be a "practical" direction.

 

My "hedonistic" advice would be to go for the 85L or 135L -both of which have legendary reputations.

 

I personally don't really like the 35mm focal length as the pictures aren't that unique per se (even with the DSLR crop factor etc). My mom's camera can turn out 35mm. Everybody has seen 35mm shots. It can be a bit ho-hum. But 135mm.... That's kicking it up a notch...

I've never had a problem and I advance always to the EXACT number that the film had previously been. Only when I use the film in a Different camera body (i.e. putting the film in my A2e) do I advance an extra frame.

 

This is the whole point for the Elan using a laser to count frames. Sure, the laser is a nuissance for anyone using IR film, but the benefit is that you shouldn't have to waste film. I understand safety and all, but I wouldn't advance the film over 1 frame.

It's a good thing to go if you have an old or used camera as they will check it to make sure your shutter speed etc. is accurate. They also clean mirrors, and will clean one lens (nothing serious. Just wiping off the front element. i.e. Not taking anything apart.) I went to one of these at B&H in NYC a few years back.

Chiswick, you probably had a bad 24. Design Advances in consumer zooms have improved their quality, but not so much as to be able to compete with prime equivalents. My experience with the 24 has been great and the reputation of the 24 prime is outstanding.

 

On another note, I prefer my "Sigma ex 24 f1.8" over my dads "canon 24 f2.8". However, they are both worlds sharper than my 28-105. Primes always win except for particular L-series zooms.

Hello!

 

I have a model interested in bondage themed nudes -and I was

wondering... are there any special concerns or precautions when

taking the film to the photo lab? Do I have to worry that the labs

will think that I'm Dr. Evil, call police, etc.? How do I go about

getting them developed?

 

-thanks

I have the sigma 24/1.8 and lots of canon primes. I can say that the sigma holds up with my canon primes and is one of my favorite lenses. I'd say its noticeably sharper with sweeter color reproduction than canon's 20mm prime. It holds its own agasint canon's 35mm prime. The only zooms I have are the 100-300 5.6L and the 28-105 3.5-4.5 -these are apples and oranges comparisons of course, but the prime is good.

 

Build quality is good but I prefer the build of canon's USM type lenses. Yet build quality rivals some of my other non-USM canon lenses. I did break the sigma once after my camera slipped out of my bag and bounced across a hard cobblestone road in France. Sigma fixed the lens promptly and mailed it back to me good as new.

 

I love the sigma lens, and do not regret buying it at all. Its a great lens.

Excellent shots. Admirable work.

Well, since the new Elan 7N uses the 10D autofocus system, I wonder if it'd be fair to say that the new Elan 7N will focus better in the dark?

There's also Flatiron photo in Chelsea, which is good. They've got a fuji frontier system, do dip and dunk etc.

If I were you, I'd take the 100 macro over the 85.

I have both and would not have it any other way, but like my man puppy face said, the 85 will not focus very close at all -which can be frustrating at times. The 85 certainly works as a stellar portrait lens and it saves my life (indoors) when the 100 is too long or slow for the job.

 

I think your list is fine otherwise. 3 lens, the Elan, and the tripod is the minimum that I'd carry, personally.

 

Possible solutions:

 

1) Switch out your normal 50 and get a macro 50. ( The good: its cheap. The bad: You loose f stop. The ugly: 50 is an awkward distance for macro.)

 

2) "70-200/2.8L IS" at half the size, weight, and cost... get the 70-200/f4 (and invest in quality high speed film if you're worried about lighting. There's really good film out there these days).

 

3) 24mm wide angle prime + your Konica Hexar. That 20-35 is going to bend your horizon and your buildings will be curved. So will the 28-135. Use the Hexar if you find yourself in dire need of a 35 and cut down on your equipment that way.

 

Happy shooting

Fuji's NPZ 800 is hands down a better film! And NPZ does remarkably well under mixed lighting situations plus its got grain like a 400 speed film! I think its the best 800 on the market. NPZ will also do fine at the zoo.

 

BUT, if you really want to shine, why don't you change films after you're done at the aquarium? The 7E has a custum feature that lets you rewind film yet leaves the leader out so that you can reload it. Its completely safe and easy as long as you remember to write down which frame you stopped at. (As I understand it that's why there's a laser based counter in the 7E. And unfortunately that's why the 7E fogs up some infrared films.) Check the photo.net archives before you try though. With that custum function enabled you could switch to reala, or supra 100 or whatever once you got to the Zoo.

 

I have the 7E and used to live in New Orleans and I can tell you that you're likely to run into problems there. The 7E will try to use the main flash for an autofocus light and you'll blind all the fish and people at the damn aquarium. (Low light situations are the achilles heel of the 7E) When it gets too dark you'll need to manually focus or buy a speed-lite with a capable IR beam in it. ...or maybe you could splunge on a used A2 as a second 'boby.' It has its own IR beam built in and can lock focus in any lighting situation you throw at it. Plus its got a true spot meter that can work wonders in crazy lighting situations like the New Orleans aquarium.

 

happy hunting.