scott_milso

The thing is, Canon wants to hold onto the "prosumer" crop market or else they would have never came out with a thousand dollar EF-S mount lens a few months ago. Therefore I believe the upgrade to the 30D will also be a 1.6 crop camera. Right now canon has all three market covered (Amateur 350D/400D, Semi pro 20/30D and Pro 1-series) why would they loose a market sector? The 5D hits somewhere in the middle as a higher end semi-pro or prosumer. They need to sell the high dollar EF_S lenses to someone and it isn't the full frame crowd and it isn't the Rebel crowd. I know some Rebel owners buy the more expensive ef-s mounts, but most of them don't there is a higher percentage of those sales going to the 20D/30D crowd.

I don't know the 17-40 sounds nice, especially since you plan an upgrade to FF. Is your wife into photography? Or does she only use the green box on the dial? If she's not into photography (and it's her honeymoon also) I'd suggest buying an S3 IS, wrapping it up and giving it to her for the honeymoon and just use that camera. My wife would have been pissed if I turned our honeymoon into a photo shoot, there will be time for that latter or before.

example<div></div>

Might be a hoax, but here's what I found

 

--> http://hem.bredband.net/content/canon/400d/

maybe the 10-22 or the Tokina 12-24 f/4 would be a better compliment to your 24-105. Just a thought.

Great answers, made me laugh, I knew that was comming. Are you sure it's not 12:32 Feb 16?

Seriously, I realize that when a new one is announced it doesn't make the old one worse. Just in my situation, I have one that I can borrow and use pretty much whenever I want, so I can afford to wait a little bit for a better price or model, yet I want my own, so I'll wait a little if there is value in doing so, if there is no changes until next summer, that's a different story, then I will just buy now.

I'm getting along quite well with a borrowed XT, if they announce a new xt soon

(Rumor has it it will be an XTi, released in Jan) then the price will drop on

the xt and maybe on the 20d and 30d. I'd hate to buy now and find I could have

gotten a 20d for the same money a month latter.

Sorry, don't mean to start rumors.

A 2X extender wil make your lens a f/11 lens and will not autofocus.

I'm not sure, but I think the Canon extenders are only compatable with Canon L lenses. I think Sigma and Kenko make 2x converters which will work, but you;ll still loose autofocus, and I'd imagine the photos would be fairly soft.

FWIW, I shoot a little bit of everything from HS football, to landscape to family snaps and portraits of my kids. Right now I have an Elan 7 (but plan on getting a 20d soon) a 28-105 3.5/4.5, a 50 1.8 and a Sigma 70-300.

I was just about to start stashing away my $1200 for the new 24-105L

when I realized a better use of $1200 for f/4 would be to get the

17-40 AND the 70-200, sure I'd loose the IS but I'd be covered with L

glass from 17-200. I have the 50mm 1.8 to fill the gap.

Really if you didn't already have some L glass wouldn't the 17-200 set

up make more sense for the same money?

Why not just choose ONE of the NINE focusing points, choose the correct focusing point and then you do not need to recompose.

If you have a 50mm 2.8 on film then switch to a 1.6x DSLAR, then you will still have the same DOF as the 50 on film, but now you will have an effective 80mm lens with a 50mm dof.

I would set it Av and select the widest ap. this will give the fastest possible shutter speed for your lens, if you use shutter priority it will underexpose if the lens can't meet the ap that would be required for that shutter speed.

If the al servo focusing is fast enough then go with it.

The IS won't stop motion blur by the object only camera shake by you, still though if you need to handhold 300mm at 1/100 shutter then it would help.

Lastly, for sports, I'd imagine the 70-200mm or the 100-400 would be better than the 28-300.

If you needed all the reach you could get, which would produce a

better photo the 18-55 at 55mm f/5.6 OR the 17-40L at 40 then cropped

to equal the 55's reach at same f stop?

I understand there's a difference between crop and focal length in

terms of perspective.

I found a great web site with some cool street photos by a

woman named Nitsa, check it out ->

http://www.thestreetsarealive.com/

Thanks,

Still up in the air on this one. Now maybe I'm leaning towards 70-200 2.8, with the 2.8 and long focal length I could use it to isolate subjects and for football and other sports.

As for the macro, I don't "need" one, but this year when the students got their class rings I was thinking "Damn, I whish I had a good macro lens to get a class ring shot" Who knows, it seems to come up every now and then, and the 100 macro could be used as a portrait lens, although the "portraits" are done by a pro in a studio.

Here's the situation. I own an Elan 7 and an A70, and I'm the

yearbook advisor for the school I teach at. I just talked the boss

into ordering me a Rebel XT w/ kit lens, a 420 EX and a 1gb cf.

I think I can can get him to go for 1 more lens. Currently I

personally own 50mm 1.8, 28-105 3.5, Sigma 70-300, 35-80 (old rebel

kit). I don't mind using my personal lenses for the yearbook, but

limited to adult supervision. Of the following which would you

choose (1.6 crop), considering photo journalism, sports, people,

some portrait and whatever else comes up

17-40 L, or

24-70 (this is where I'm leaning), or

70-200 2.8 (no IS that would be pushing it $$ ), or

100 macro 2.8 (portrait and it would be nice to have macro), or

85 1.8 (I've always wanted this, I love fast primes and shallow dof)

Thanx

yeah that's al true, but the question is, Which one will produce a

better enlargement.

it's simple take the same photo with each camera, using the

same lens, IGNORE the difference in crop and composition due

to crop factor and determine which one is sharper and less pix.

go to image size and tell us what the dimensions are in your

print size at 72dpi, now compare that to the print size of your 10d

files, I'll bet the 10d file makes a MUCH smaller print at 180 than

the 20d does at 72. If you change the print size you will notice

that the 72 number will change. Right now it's prolly telling you

that the print size is 32 by 40 inches or sonmetung crazy., when

you lower the print size, the print resolution will obviously

increase.

Ha, check this one out --> http://www.smilinggoat.com/crackers.html

Jim,

If I hired a wedding photog and he showed up with a Rebel I would be very uncomfortable, and so would alot of other people.

You gotta go EOS, there's no question about that, Nikon's are junk - just kiddin' but really he already has some Canon lenses and knows the EOS controls, etc

I'd get the 20d and use the lenses I already have while saving for some better glass.

Me personally I may get the new Rebel XT, but I know I'll miss the dial, being an Elan 7 user.

The 18-55 ef-s does not work on the Elan so WTF?

I use ethanol or methanol and so far, after a couple years it has not affected the coatings on my filters. Isopropyl might damage the coatings though I don't know. Just read the bottles at the drug store and buy either the meth or the eth.

Larry, The Hoya MC filters ARE a bitch to clean, but so are the B+W's. What I do is carry a silk tie and some alcohol, a very little dab of alcohol applied to the silk then lightly rub the filter in a circular motion.