melissa_eiselein

Yes, I know. My Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite FS-2900 is ancient. So ancient, that it only hooks to a SCSI card. I

want to use this machine to scan some old negatives but I no longer have my old computer and the SCSI card won't

fit in my laptop. Any ideas what I need in order to make this old film scanner work on a USB drive ... on the cheap?

Yes, I know. It's not exactly a Canon lens, but I couldn't find a Sigma forum.

A friend has been having trouble with the lens lock on her Sigma 50-500 (also

known as the Bigma). Now, the lock has jammed completely.

The lens is no longer under warranty. She thinks it will be easy to fix herself.

"Just two screws," she said.

The problem is finding a replacement part. My first instinct would be to call

Sigma. Anyone know of another place where she might order this little goodie?

Photographers where I work (I'm not one of them) carry two (work-issued) Canon 1D Mark II bodies, one equipped with a Canon 16-35 f/2.8 and one with a 70-200 f/2.8IS. These two lenses, in my opinion, are a must for the day-to-day photojournalist. They allow you to get the wide-angle action (or big-group grip and grins if that's what your paper is looking for) as well as tight detail shots and great candid portraits.

For starting out, I think a single Canon 40D would be ideal. With the 16-35 and 70-200 lenses, it should leave you just enough for a couple extra batteries and a couple CF cards.

I shoot with a Canon 10D because I can't afford to upgrade. It's a nice camera, but the time between shots is longer than I'd like and the buffer only holds 9 shots. That means I shoot nine shots and it has to write to the card before I can shoot again. But it's my understanding that the 40D is MUCH better in that regard.

I have seen the Canon 5D and I really like the large LCD screen and small size. The down side is the price.

For most sports, you'll need a much more telephoto lens. One that cost more than you have for a startup kit. But, depending on where you work/freelance, they may have one that you can use.

I'm glad for all the suggestions here. It looks like Canon is still the overall P&S winner. When I go out to do my Christmas shopping I'll have to spend a little more time looking at the camera models available to me in my area.

Sorry for the AV / autofocus confusion. My gripe with my former camera was that setting the camera for a shallow depth of field was useless if I couldn't tell the camera where I wanted it to focus. It tended to focus wherever it wanted. So, if I can't pick the focus point, I didn't see any need in paying extra to set the shutter speed or aperture.

Then again, as I said before, most of my P&S shots are snaps just to capture a moment in time and put in the scrapbook. They aren't meant to be art.

Rob, mostly I used NiMH rechargables. But if I was out and about and they ran out I'd use alkalines. Saving $ on batteries would be nice, but mostly I was hoping for something a tad lighter and a bit more compact. (Cheap, excellent photos, compact, big LCD ... I don't ask for much, do I? LOL)

I used to own a Canon A95 -- until I lost it at Disneyland. :-(

What I liked about the A95:

The swivel viewscreen that was easy to see from any angle; easy to find AA

batteries; smaller and lighter than my DSLR; Macro setting; adjustable flash,

ISO and more.

What I didn't like the A95:

An AV setting was useless because it focused where it thought it should, not

where I wanted it to focus; Shutter delay way too long; Video limited to 15 (or

30?) seconds per clip; Viewfinder was too small for these old eyes; a little

bulky for a p&s; used four batteries.

For my new camera:

I've asked around and I've been told that selective focus points aren't

something I'll find in a point and shoot. If that's the case, then AV and TV

settings aren't something I want to pay extra for. Mostly, I want my new camera

for snapshots...but I want it to shoot clear, crips snapshots. Something that

focuses well in lower light conditions and gives clear shots at ISO 400 would be

nice. Using two (not four) AA batteries is a must; Minimal shutter delay would

be awesome. And I would love for it to have a largish viewscreen. Bonus points

if it swivels, but the swivel won't be a deal breaker.

After setting down my last camera and walking away from it, I'm a little

hesitant to pay a lot of money. I'm looking for something in the $200 range -- a

tiny bit more if the features are right, something less would be even better.

Suggestions?

Thanks for the great ideas everyone. It will come in handy. I do have a little folding hand truck with big wheels. I'll be sure to pack it. And I have a lens or two between my 'wide' and 'telephoto'.

I did quite a bit of research and planned my trip around 1) the full moon; 2) waterfalls; 3) hopefully beating the big crowds by a week or so. Maybe we should plan on three full days (four nights) instead of just two (three nights).

We figure we'll not make it to the east side that time of year. That's OK, though. I was in Lee Vining/Bodie area two years ago in October. That's a trip I'd like to do again in a couple year. The altitude there (about 8,000 feet) got to me a bit the first two days but by go-home time I was doing fine. (Isn't that how it always works?)

I am going to Yosemite with a friend next May. We'll be staying just outside the

park in an area that is less than 30 minutes from the valley floor. We'll have

two, hopefully three full days that we can devote to photography in Yosemite.

Unfortunately, I am neither young nor fit. Ideally, I'd like to drive as much as

possible (Toyota Camry) and carry my camera, lenses and tripod as little as

possible. Walking up even a moderate incline with my camera and tripod would be

a challenge, especially since Yosemite is a much higher elevation than I'm used to.

I don't need to shoot the unique, rarely traveled wilderness. I just want to try

my hand at shooting a few nice, but easy to reach, pics. I'm quite the amateur.

Any itinerary ideas or equipment suggestions would be greatly appreciate.

FYI: I have a 16-35 and 70-200. Will I need something wider or with more reach?

(I'm sure either would be handy, but is one or other a must in Yosemite?)

How much you spend will depend on how fast a lens you'll need. I use a 16-35 2.8, which is an expensive lens even when bought used.

If you can get by with an f/4 aperture, you should consider the 17-40. It's about $680 new at BH Photo. I've not used one, but from what I've read it takes really nice pictures.

If you want to go really wide, the Tokina 12-24 f/4 is getting some good reviews. I would like to pick up this lens myself, but it takes awhile to save up an extra $500.

As for teleconverters most people say the Canon 1.4x gives a much sharper photo than the Canon 2x teleconverter. But I have a feeling that either one on the 70-300 would degrade the image.

It seems that going wider than 28mm and longer than 200mm gives us very limited choices and can start getting very expensive.

"Despite what most people say around here (who prefer to talk about equipment than how to make good photos) really great photos are largley the product of photogpraphic technique."

Sad, but true. I am indeed the poster child for having great lenses and no photos to go with them. <sigh>

Tim, everyone else has given their suggestion. I'm going to give you mine. Sell the 70-300 IS, which isn't a bad starter lens, but isn't a good one either.

Take the money you get from it (about $250?) and add that to your $600. Now, buy the 70-200 f/4 (USA version is $580 at B&H in addition, there's currently a $25 rebate) and the 50 1.8 ($70 for the import version). The 50 1.8 can be a very nice portrait lens on the 20D if you aren't up in your subject's face. It's very sharp and is considered by many to be Canon's best buy for the money. It will also allow you to shoot in low light conditions.

Then, take the leftover cash (about $175 after tax and shipping?) and put it in your savings account. Add to it a little at a time each and every payday. While you are saving, shoot with the wide kit, f/4 telephoto and fast 50mm. Pay special attention to what is going right and what is going wrong. Doing so will help you think about what you need next. Maybe it will be a better wide angle lens such as the $680 17-40 f/4? Or maybe a macro, such as the $470 100 f/2.8? Or perhaps you'll be needing something else altogether such as another fast prime?

For wide shots, I use a 16-35 f/2.8. It's my most used lens. I want to do more landscape shots, but since I shoot mostly people, I've learned that I do need the faster aperture.

Before you move up, I would suggest you ask yourself one question:

"What is it about the kit lens that I don't like?"

If you can answer that question, you'll have a better idea of what you need to do. If the problem is the lack of lack, then you'll need to decide if f/4 will be fast enough.

I was--still am--a rank amateur when I made the switch to digital. And I'm sooo happy I did! Some people think photographers should use film until they have a good understanding of photography. I disagree. Switching to digital helped me to play with my settings and get instant feedback.

As far as your equipment goes, you need to ask yourself an important question:

Was I happy with the quality of shots my current lenses provided?

If yes, then keep the lenses until you find a reason not to be happy with them.

If not, what about the lens made you unhappy with it? Too short? (it might not be too short on the 1.6x crop digital.) Too long? (Then it's going to be way too long on the 20D.) Not fast enough? (If so, then you might want to consider primes or a costly L lens.)

Also, keep your film camera. Even if you don't take a film class now, you may want to later. Or you may want to shoot b&w or infrared.

Another vote for the 420ex. Here's why...

I started with a used 380ex. Nice flash when used in the horizontal position, but when I went to shoot verticle it wouldn't allow me to bounce off the ceiling--only the wall.

BTW...B&H Photo has the 420ex for $180, plus there's a $15 mail-in rebate that's good through July 15.

Some shots are great. Others are just plain sad.

Not necessarily someone I'd choose to hang out with...although it does look like she could use a friend.

I figured that since Thunder Mountain was just a baby as far as roller coasters go, that my 10D would be safe tucked between myself and my son. I was wrong.

The camera flung around in front of my face and smacked on the outside of the car. I was lucky. It only cracked the LCD cover, which I was able to replace for less than $20. And the camera still works perfectly.

I would recommend a small lightweight case...something that's lightweight and comfortable to hold (or wear). I have a waist pack (two actually) that I really like because it allows me to keep my hands free.

At Disneyland, there are lockers outside and just inside the park. If I recall, the larger ones were $7, which would hold a small ice chest. The medium was $6 and the small ones, plenty big enough for your camera and a lens, was $5. You could open and close the locker as many times as you'd like in the course of the day. If in doubt about a ride, stick the camera in the locker, even if you have to go without it for an hour or two.

Oh...and I do consider my camera to be one heck of an investment. I don't expect to make money on it by reselling it or otherwise, but I do expect it to provide me with a lot of pleasure and a few good photos.

Thanks, Robert.

It's not a problem if they do mount them. I have a film scanner with a slide adapter. I was just trying to get my film (the first roll at least) developed as cheaply as possible. My intention was to go out and shoot off a quick roll, develop it and make sure this expired film is good. $5 isn't that bad. I was thinking it would be $10 a pop.

My turn! I love to spend other people's money. :-)

If I were going to blow more than $4,500 on camera equipment all at once and I wanted the most flexible use (low light, landscape, portrait, wedding, etc.) I would first add three items to your list:

16-35 f/2.8L ($1,400--wide shots of the bride and groom dancing while others site at surrounding tables; room shots; etc.)

70-200 f/2.8LIS ($1,700--zoomedin, hand-holdable in low light with a very nice background blur; those who have it love it.)

550ex ($310--You've got to have a decent flash that will bounce off the ceiling and allow you to adjust the flash strength)

Next, consider the lighting you'll want. How about a light, portable, setup in your bag? (check out B&H's 2-550ex plus ST-E2 wireless transmitter $800...and then you won't need the $310 single flash) or maybe you'll want to stick with the 550ex single flash and get a studio style setup? (a couple of Alien Bees AB400s or AB800s plus stands, umbrellas and a softbox can get rather costly but could be a good investment if you want to do studio style portraits)

Then, with the change that was left over, I'd buy a cheapie 50 f/1.8 for a fast lens to fill the gap between 35 and 70.

One last thought...

Instead of trying to get the most items for the money, I'd get a few of the most expensive items that you know you'll eventually want/need. Why? Well, as you said, this may be a once in a lifetime chance. You'll probably have a good opportunity to buy the less expensive stuff a piece at a time later on but you may never have the money for a big purchase again.

E-6...I'll remember that. I did get myself a couple of mailers...but didn't want to waste them on test rolls.

What I did was buy 20 rolls of outdated Velvia to get a "cheap" feel for it's properties. They are in my freezer and I've got my fingers crossed that they are still usable. Since Velvia requires special processing, it looks like I'm not going to get off as cheap as I had hoped.

I can hear the gasps now...."How dare she even consider processing

Velvia at a drugstore!" Forgive me while I explain.

I bought a small bulk of cheap outdated Velvia so I could practice a

bit before buying the good stuff to take on vacation.

Can I take this slide film to the local drug store and have it cheaply

processed "negatives only" as I used to do with my Fuji Superia? Or

does slide film require specialized processing or chemicals?

Johan, my list of lenses went something like this:

<P><b>Canon 28-300</b>

<br><b>Pros:</b> It had a wonderful focal range; It was just fine for my beginner snapshots at the time, but then, I didn't know any better.

<br><b>Cons:</b> It made me a lazy photographer; It didn't produce very good results; It's a slow lens (ie: not f/1.8, f/2.8)

<P><b>Canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5</b> (not the newer f/4-f/5.6)

<br><b>Pros:</b> It was much sharper and had better contrast than the 28-300; It was bargain priced

<br><b>Cons:</b> It had less zoom than the 28-300 (by this time, I was spoiled for zooms...not a good thing); It's still a slow lens

<p><b>Canon 28-135 IS</b>

<br><b>Pros:</b> It has more reach than the 28-105; It has the fabulous Canon Image Stablization that really does work!

<br><b>Cons</b>: A slow lens; It's heavier than the 28-105; It costs quite a bit more than the 28-105.(but I think it's worth it)

<p>Next, I progressed into the L-series lenses. I needed the faster apertures for my shooting. They are fabulously sharp. Unfortunately, the f/2.8 models carry a HUGE price tag. You'll shell out close to (or more than) $1,000 if you buy them new.

<p>My recommendation for a beginner who wants to shoot mainly with zoom and not primes: Spend the extra money and get a <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=149629&is=USA">28-135 IS</a> (you won't be sorry) and get a $75<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=12142&is=USA"> 50 f/1.8</a> lens for portraits (great background blur) and low-light conditions. These two lenses should suit many of your needs for the first year or so. After that, you'll learn whether your shooting style dictates faster, longer or wider lenses. You may even find that you'll shoot nothing but landscape where you can get by with primes (single focal length 24mm, 28mm, 50mm, 85mm, etc; usually cheaper and sharper than most zooms)

<p>If you are shopping online, be sure to shop from a reputable dealer such as B&H photo or Adorama. (Check out the front page of Photo.net for a link to these stores. If you click through that link when you place your order, Photo.net gets a tiny bit of the profit...which helps keep this site free to newbies like yourself.)

<p>Also, if you are brand new to SLR photography, you might want to check out this site to get a better understanding of how shutter speed and aperture size works: <a href="http://www.webslr.com">www.webslr.com</a>

OK, now for the dumb question of the thread...

If I did get stereo wire (two wires? two wires and a ground?) how do I know which wire to attach to what part of the connectors.

I love the blue color. "They" (whoever they are) say that blue is supposed to be a soothing color. Let's hope so. :-)

I haven't made my way around the rest of the site yet, but I'm sure it will be nice, too. Kudos, Brian!

John is right about hospitals being very protective of their patients, especially since HIPAA. Some people will give you an absolute no to photographing their patients and won't even try to work with you. Others will.

You need to talk to your nurse and have her talk to her supervisor. Tell them how important it is and why. With the proper proceedures followed--whatever the rules are for the hospital--you can take a patients photograph. I don't know the exact proceedure, but I do know that it entails someone from the hospital asking a patient if it would be OK. It probably includes some sort of paperwork on their end as well. This might be especially difficult in an emergency room.

Now, if you tell them you are "fed up" they might just tell you to pack up your camera and go home. Remember, when you walk into a hospital, you are a guest in their world and in the ER they have more important things to worry about than you get the shot you want.