ryan_jackson

I've got a Digital Rebel and I have thought of going traveling with

it in the future. But I also realize that with the travel I plan to

do (backpacking), I will not always have access to a power outlet I

can charge my BP-511s at. As AA batteries are easily attainable in

most areas of the world, I figure that would be a good solution if I

find myself without a way to recharge. Does anyone know of an AA

battery grip that might exist for the 300D? How about an external AA

battery pack?

 

I will also be looking at hard drive based storage devices with the

same power concern.

Well, after a lot of thought over the past couple years, I have

decided that I am going to at least make a very determined attempt at

living the 'travel photographer' lifestyle. I think I am getting

pretty good with my photography, and I can write as well. I have a

passion for the natural world and an obsessive need to learn about

the world. I know the caveats... everyone says the market is

saturated and that it's near impossible to do, I'll never make lots

of money, I'll spend a lot of time living in conditions most people

would run screaming from, etc. But if I fail I've got a career in

graphic design to fall back on.

 

With that, my question is relating to getting my foot in the door.

I've heard often that freelance/stock photographers got their start

and built their portfolio by being sent out on assignment by

magazines, often adventure-related publications. So, I am wondering

just how people build up to that point? I assume that it is a big

investment to send someone out on a big trip like that, and so you

probably need a respectable photo & journalism portfolio even to get

into that, right? Or is it all a matter of knowing the right people?

I am considering service a 2-year term in the Peace Corps after I

finish college, and I know that would give me some good opportunities

to build on my experience (as well as many, many other opportunities

for personal enrichment unrelated to photography).

 

Anyway, this post is more or less a poll. To those living that dream

job that every photographer wants but few are driven enough to

pursue...how did you get started down the path to doing it

successfully? It's an unconventonal lifestyle, so the people that are

out there doing it are really my only resource. Hopefully some of

them pop by these forums sometimes.

Well, I shoot digitally with a rebel, but I wouldn't think of it so much as using a machine gun as being a sniper in a country where murder is legal. I still stop and spend a while on each shot, contemplating and fine tuning composition. Without worrying about wasting film, I stop to shoot more often, and though I can usually get the exposure right, sometimes the camera meter is wrong and it help to know that right then so I can make an adjustment and shoot it again (instead of either not getting the shot or bracketing and using tons of film).

 

If you think that digital is making you a bad photographer, it could be a signal that you weren't that great in the first place.

Bahh. Everyone is treating like I am ignorant and not answering the question. I understand how depth of field works.

 

Here is a rephrasing of it: If I misfocus slightly with my 70-200 f/4, it is usually just an annoyance. I was just wondering if when you use a 70-200 f/2.8 lens at max. aperture, does a very slight mis-focus totally blow the shot?

I understand how it works, it's just that I was wondering if anyone is able to actually use the aperture of f/2.8. If the DOF at f/4 is as thin as I've observed, it seems like at f/2.8 you may only have a 1" deep plane that can stay in focus (approximation). To me, that would mess up a lot of shots (ie, you focus on someone's nose and their eyes are blurry). But I know a lot of people shoot at 2.8 because they need the light, so they must be getting around this dilemma somehow.

I've had a digital rebel and a 70-200 f4 for a few weeks now, and

I've noticed the depth of field at f/4 is really thin (thinner than

I'd expected). If I accidentally focus on someone's shirt, Their face

will be slightly fuzzed because their face is very slightly closer to

me than the shirt.

 

So, if you have an f/2.8 lens, does it throw the rest of someone's

face out of focus if you focus on the tip of their nose? It would

seem like you would end up with a lot not-so-usable images that way.

 

Of course, I guess one solution is to buy a 1D or 1V that autofocuses

a lot better. I don't trust the rebel to pick the right focus point,

and so I keep it at the center. I guess I just have to pay closer

attention to where that point is when I focus, since close doesn't

count when you're wide open.

I am thinking of remommending the puchase of something like this:

http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?op=details&sid=10643766031901477&sku=NT63V4003C

Hello, I have just been contacted by my girlfriend's rich mom. For my

girlfriend's 21st birthday, her mom wants to get her either a) a

digital rebel, or b) a light kit.

 

I think my girlfriend would be happier with the light kit for the

kind of photography she does. She currently has a canon rebel 2000.

 

Anyway, I shoot outdoors usually and I don't know a lot about

lighting equipment (other than prohibitively expensive speedotron

gear i have worked with when I have done assisting). So, I am asking

you: What is a good lighting system for about $1000? Don't try to

encourage me to spend more because I am not the one buying. I think

what we are looking for is a couple stands, heads, and a small pack,

all in one nice little package. Preferably strobes.

I have been saving to buy a digital rebel, and have one reservation:

Does that one-wheel thing stay annoying, or do you get used to it?

 

I know from my shooting experience that I stay in P, Av, & Tv modes

most of the time. But every once in a while I need to switch to

manual. My previous camera experience includes a manual minolta SRT

and a canon powershot G1, and it seems like the manual control on the

rebel is a little more clunky than either of these.

 

After a little while, does the act of pushing the little button while

you turn the wheel become more or less natural?

That solar suggestion is really interesting...can those things REALLY power a laptop? I thought solar cells were usually pretty weak and that you had to have a pretty big sheet of them to do anything.

 

I'm assuming those things could power a bp-511 charger, right? I wonder how long a charge would take. I suppose I would need a cheap laptop as well since I don't plan on buying a pocketful of 1 gb CF cards.

 

Oh, and as a side note: one term of service in the peace corps is 2 years.

I am planing to get a Digital Rebel kit and 70-200 f4L in the near

future. I sort of hope to get it used but I'd also like to buy it in

person, and I've noticed that you don't see to many used ones around.

I've seen it for $579 on Adorama, and I've decided that's the most I

will pay.

 

Now the issue: How do I get it for that price locally? I am in

Portland, OR and the cheapest I can find it is $620. Do I have to buy

online to get it for less?

For anyone that takes extended trips into natural areas not well-

endowed (or without) electricity: Would you typically consider a

digital camera useless in this situation? I am assuming one would

have to carry a bag full of batteries to be able to shoot with any

frequency.

 

Another way to put it: if Galen Rowell was still around and had gone

totally digital, would he leave the digital at home and take only

film bodies with him to the himalayas?

 

I ask because I am curious, but also because I am considering joining

the peace corps after graduating college in a few years. In the

meantime, I'm buying a digital Rebel. If I ended up going to some

village somewhere without electricity and running water, I am

assuming I would either a) take my manual minolta system with the 4

primes I have for it (24/2.8, 50/1.7, 135/3.5, 300/5.6), or 2)...Buy

a canon Elan 7 and a wide lens to go with the 70-200 f4L I am going

to buy for my D-Rebel (getting the kit lens for wide angle for now,

but this would be useless on a film body).

I think the only cameras I have seen with actual plastic lenses have been Dianas and Holgas.

 

And as for spending a few more hundred dollars, as has been suggested...truly, I am already spending more than I should. If I spend another couple hundred, I think it would be better put toward another 256 mb card, another battery, and perhaps a 50/1.8.

 

I think I've probably made my desicion...I'm going to go looking for a used 70-200 f4. With the 1.6x crop of the rebel, that gives me 320 mm at the long end, and I do not really need anything more than that. Plus I get the benefits of USM, more sharpness, and a slightly closer focusing distance with the 70-200 over the 75-300.

 

Anyone in the Portland, OR area that wants to sell me a 70-200 f4L?

That reminds me...there was another resevation I had on the 75-300. I tried a 75-300 in the store (non IS). I zoomed it all the way in and pointed it around the store, only to find that the AF wouldn't lock onto anything. Does the 70-200 focus faster/better?

This is sort of a double question...part of it I have already asked

about. I'm within a few weeks of affording a digital rebel kit, and

then I've budgeted out $500 for a telephoto. I'm waffling between the

75-300 IS and the 70-200 f4L. One has a shorter range (112-320 with

the 1.6 crop, which is still good), and is known for superior optical

quality. The gives image stabilizaion and an enormous zoom (120-

480mm, with the 1.6x crop), but everyone says that it is soft in the

long end. The reason I am buying the lens is for the longer focal

lengths, so it doesn't matter whether it is sharp in the short end as

everyone says it is. It's the long end that matters.

 

While I would be content with the range of the 70-200 while I have a

camera that is not full-frame, it's tempting to go for the novelty of

having almost 500mm at my disposal. So here is an interesting

question: I know that lens sharpness and contrast is important with

film, but digital is definitely a different beast. So, based on

results that people have gotten from the 75-300 IS, do you think that

any softness and lack of contrast could be sufficiently made up for

with Curves and Unsharp Masking? Does anyone have a full-res shot

with this lens I could see?

 

I know this is going to open a big can of worms with all of the L-

nazis, but I figured it was worth asking.

Well, I'm saving up and should have a good $1500 to put toward my

Dslr purchase within a couple months. Note: This is not my body

budget, it's my approximate maximum budget for a body + lenses that

will give me a range from 28-300mm). I am, of course, going to go for

the Rebel and the kit lens. So, I am asking myself the question of

which telephoto to get.

 

Originally I was sold on the idea of the 75-300 IS, because shooting

that long at 5.6 drives me crazy. So that lens is approximately $500.

 

But I have just recently noticed that used 70-200/f4L and 80-

200/f2.8L lenses seem to go for around $600. Is this right? I looked

on ebay and keh, and that seems to about the price they are going for

(though I could only find one example of the 80-200). If I could get

it for less than $600, I don't know that I could turn down an 80-200.

Sure, there is no ftm, but I was going to get that 75-300, and that

doesn't have ftm either. And holy hell, I could have an f2.8

telephoto. With a camera that can pull off a good iso 400 and a

useable 800, who the hell needs IS with that?

 

I sort of feel silly putting a big L zoom on a rebel, but

substituting a 10D+17-40L for the rebel kit would take me way out of

my budget. Though I COULD feasibly afford it if I saved a few more

additional months (meaning no camera until mid 2004)...but I am a

graphic designer and I could really stand to be saving for a mac. And

I want to start shooting again (I no longer have my canon G1).

 

Enough babbling. The question is: Can I realistically hope to get an

80-200 2.8L for $600 or less? If not, how about that 70-200/4L?

hmm..well, that's not too comforting. One of the big reasons I want the digital rebel is that the image quality would allow significant enlargements. My canon G1 was able to get me pretty good 8x10's, but I'd like the capacity for more than that.

 

And in other news, I went and tried out that sigma 15-30...that is a definite no. Something that focuses that slowly can not be worth $500.

You know, Yakim...I personally think that standing around for a

year or more and not taking photos while I wait to accumulate

enough money for a high-end slr system is a "photographically

silly move." I've already been mostly deprived from the art for 6

months or so, because my G1 broke and I couldn't afford to get it

fixed. I don't have it anymore (gave it to mom, who paid for

repairs). Anyway, I have missed some really incredible

photographic opportunities, and since a digital slr is finally

affordable to me, I intend to start shooting again.

 

Sure, I will probably sell off a lens later, but lenses retain most of

their value and having a lens now means I am shooting now, as

opposed to next year.

I suppose I could afford to skip the kit lens and get a sigma 15-30mm and the canon 55-200. But I know the lack of IS would drive me crazy...especially with the maximum apertures at 4.5-5.6. Though I would find the 15-30 very interesting/useful on a 35mm body.

 

Decisions, decisions.

 

Now, if only canon could attach the image stabilizer to the sensor instead of the lens like minolta did...I would just squeal for joy.

I have been a G1 user for a while and I am almost sold on the idea of

buying a digital rebel. I've just got one issue...

 

I have a manual 35mm film camera and I have become increasingly fond

of my 24mm lens. So...if I want to have 24mm or less on a digital

camera, the options seem to be thus:

�buy a 1Ds

�buy a smaller sensor slr and plunk down $1000+ on a 14mm lens.

 

Both of these options are, well, not options for me. My plan is to

get the digital rebel with the 18-55 and a 75-300 IS. That's already

more than I really want to spend, but it covers almost all the focal

lengths I want...except for that elusive wide angle. But I guess I

have no choice but to decide whether the 18-55 meets all of my wide

angle needs, eh?

 

My employer, a commercial photographer, keeps saying that people

should wait because all digital slrs will go full frame soon. But I

am a little skeptical on that one.

Hello

 

I have been playing around with painting and collage recently, and an

idea occurred to me...

 

Does anyone know if liquid emulsion is compatable with acrylics? If I

wanted to blend liquid light or luminos into areas of a painting and

then shoot something onto it, would the chemistry (developer, fixer)

eat the paints? Might it be possible to mix liquid emulsion into

acrylic mediums?

 

I would just experiment, but I do not have a darkroom right now, and

liquid emulsion is expensive to play with anyway. For now I am having

fun sticking inkjet-printed photos into my paintings.

I've only got a Mustek flatbed scanner, but I want slide scans. So I

tried an interesting idea.

 

I put a slide on the bed, then turned on my lightbox and put it face-

down on top of it. the scanner has a "positive" setting, which I used

(as opposed to reflective or negative).

 

I must say, the color is very nice. The sharpness leaves a little to

be desired, but the only thing that really stands out are these

horizontal scan lines in the images. I'm not really sure what causes

those, and I don't know if I could get rid of them. Any ideas?

 

I with I could afford a real slide scanner.

Another option I have is to wait a while on my own system...instead of blowing something like $800 right now, I could just buy a 24 or 28 mm f/2.8 Minolta MD lens on ebay for under $100. That would solve my short term worry...I've been hired to shoot properties for Apartment Guide and I want a wide angle, especially for occasional interior shoots. Having my own autofocus slr can probably wait a little bit.

My basic story is this: I am poor and I like high quality equipment.

I am also an aspiring professional, picking up a couple little

freelance jobs here & there.

 

Anyway, I have a manual Minolta with a 50/1.7 and 135/3.5. I don't

really want to sink money into more lenses for this system (it used

to be my dad's). I would like a system of my own.

 

If I had plenty of money, I would probably pick up an Eos-3 or 1v, a

24-70/f2.8L and a 70-200/2.8L. But that is not the case. I refuse to

buy a Rebel because I want a 2-wheel camera, so I guess the Elan 7 is

my choice. BUt then again, I've heard that it doen't have spot

metering, which I really want.

 

My main quandry is about lenses. The general attitude of the forum

seems to be that anything not in the L series is a cheap "toy." As

someone that can't afford L lenses, that worries me and makes me

wonder if I should even bother until I have a wad of cash. The primes

I have with the minolta are fine for personal art things, but I'm

doing some freelance things (photojournalism type stuff and

photography for an apartment magazine), and I'd like/need more focal

length options, particularly in the wide end. I'm leaning toward

getting one fairly nice lens, maybe the like the 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS.

I'd rather not get kit lenses...I can't stand the feel of them.

 

Any opinions?

I was just wondering if contact lenses have adverse effects on eye-

control focus in Canon cameras. Any horror stories?