edlark

Just wanted to let everyone who provided so much help know that I have placed an order with KEH for an A1, 24mm f/2.8 SSC, 50mm f/1.8 SC, and 100mm f/2.8 SSC. The equipment arrives Monday, and I am really looking forward to putting it though it's paces.

 

Thanks again for all the input.

Thanks for the input, Richard.

 

I don't shoot sports at all, and only shoot wildlife if you consider my two cats and the neighborhood dogs "wild." (Sometimes my cats qualify. ;) I do occasionally shoot "news" shots - protests, rallies, marches, etc. - and may miss autofocus here somewhat. But my shooting style isn't highy dependent upon it, and I often work with my lenses switched to manual focus anyway. (An old habit that remains from shooting with low-end EOS bodies with crappy, slow-focusing zooms stuck on the front.) Most of my shooting is static subjects, urban landscapes, a limited amount of nature stuff, and "street" photography. I don't see a big disadvantage in switching to manual from autofocus for what, and how, I shoot.

 

While I don't currently have any manual gear, I've used several different manual setups in the past. I had a neat little Canonet QL-17 for awhile that took very nice pictures, but that I eventually sold off when I decided that the rangefinder format didn't really work as well as SLRs for me. My first photographic experience came behind my mother's Argus C3 and Pentax K1000. I'm comfortable with the theory and practice of exposure, without considering myself as an expert on the subject. And, having worked with older equipment in the past, I know that I get a certain satisfaction from working with equipment that many would feel "limiting."

 

One little aside in regard to the "photojournalism" stuff that I shoot: I've notices that in the last six months my EOS gear has been a detriment rather than an advantage in shooting protests, rallies, and marches - right-leaning as well as left-leaning. While my gear is "amateur" compared to the working pros that I'm generally working next to at these avents, it is high-end enough to be considered pro gear by the people I'm photographing. This is a disadvantage because of the intense mistrust, and downright hostility that seems to have arisen toward anyone perceived as being part of "the media." The couple of times that I have left my SLRs and big zooms at home, I've actually been able to get better shots - and feel more safe and secure getting them. In these situations looking "less professional" actually ends up being an advantage. Perhaps and older kit will help in this regard.

First, thank you to everyone for responding. Your advice and experience regarding this decision is priceless.

 

Second, I must extend an apology to Paul Frank in regard to his above post and my reply. I wasn't looking for a Nikon vs. Canon debate, but my heated response back to him was over the top, and had much more to do with an unpleasant encounter with an obnoxious client at work than with anything he said. Sorry, Paul.

 

I will add that I agree with him that if I was looking on purchasing a system that would grow with me over the next decade or two and would allow me to tap into the new stuff coming down the pike in the market, going with an FD system would certainly have it's drawbacks. However, that's not what I'm looking for. My thinking toward making this move came from two fronts: 1) having a small, but somewhat pricey (for me) EOS system that I didn't see myself getting a decent enough return on investment for it to be mostly idle for the next 5+ years, and 2) realizing that there was only one or two pieces out of that system that, if I were to build my "perfect" kit, I would want to hang on to. I've assembled my EOS kit piecemeal over the last several years and wish I knew then what I know now about my photographic preferences and needs. If staying with EOS means essentially rebuilding my kit anyway, then the financial incentive to "keep what you got" is reduced or eliminated.

 

Moving to an FD system does two things.

 

It allows me to sell off my EOS gear and gain a little money to offset my upcoming moving and education expenses. While the cameras I have will take a depreciation hit - and I will end up keeping one of my two digicams as suggested above - the glass will bring a healthy chunk.

 

The pricey nature of EOS glass is another reason, as a film shooter to move to FD and brings me to the second thing a "downshift" will do. I can assemble a "dream" FD system (for my needs) for less than it would cost for most of the single lenses that I would like in the EOS line. The fact that FD equipment is considered "obsolete and incompatible" means that there is tons of great, and once very pricey, photographic equipment out there that now can be had for pennies on the dollar. As someone who knows they will be on a very tight budget for the foreseeable future - and even after graduate school there comes the "paying off of the massive loan debt" portion of life. Going FD will give me access to cheap, great equipment and take me out of the "envy factor" game. If I'm shooting FD and some great, new, cool toy comes out - aka the EOS D10 - I can simply say, "Hey that's neat," and get on with my life.

 

I think what I've decided to do is either buy or borrow an A1 and a 50mm lens and run a dozen or so rolls through the camera. If I feel somehow severly limited, or find myself wishing I had my Elan 7, then I'll stick with the EOS gear selling off everything except a couple of basic primes. If I end up liking FD, then the whole EOS shebang gets put up on the block and I buy the rest of the FD gear that I want.

 

Thanks again to everyone.

<p>This may not be what you want to hear, but basically, it just amounts to personal preference. I asked for some advice on choosing a Canon FD system, not on choosing between a Canon system and a Nikon system.

 

<p>I have nothing against Nikon gear, but I simply don't have much knowledge or experience with it and I have lots of positive experience with Canon. I also have friends and relatives that are the original owners of older Canon SLRs that are still very happy with their cameras and that take, IMO, great photos with them. (As a couple of these people are getting a little long in the tooth and not as active, photographically, as they have been in previous years, having an A1 of my own will perhaps reap me the benefit of some of their equipment coming my way if they end up retiring their old kits.)

 

<p>As for buying a manual kit that will be "obsolete" and incompatible down the line: Seems like I'll be losing a lot less money by buying $500 worth of good manual equipment that will be worth pretty close to the same amount (or even half that) in 5 years than I would be by buying $1,500-$2,500 worth of DSLR equipment (Canon, Nikon, or whatever) that will be worth a fraction of that after the same period.

 

<p>Second, I don't ever see myself going completely digital, so I'm don't think a solid investment in some good manual gear now, that I can continue to use for B&W film work to augment any digital stuff I obtain in the future, is necessarily a "throw-away" expense.

 

<p>Lastly, if I was a betting man and had to lay my money down on either the Canon or Nikon horse in the digital race, I'd say Canon holds the much better odds of being the frontrunner even 5+ years down the line. Anything can happen, and all can change, but that's certainly the way it appears in the current climate. If I was making equipment choices based on what I might be using digitally 5 years from now, you can be sure that keeping the Canon EOS stuff would be my first choice.

 

<p>In 5 years an SLR/DSLR may not even be what I consider the best choice for the photography I'll end up doing then. So, instead of buying (or keeping in a closet, in the case of my EOS stuff) a bunch of equipment for what I <i>might want to do with it in the future</i>, I'll buy (or keep) what makes sense for me, and the level of photography I'll be doing, <i>now</i>.

Thanks for the great feedback, everyone. Since the driving impetus behind the switch is to generate a little cash for moving/tuition expenses, I don't really think I can justify looking into the L series lenses, zooms or primes. However, I don't want "cheap" as in "crappy" glass. I have some nice glass now and don't want to compromise to much in the switch - I want to be happy with what ends up coming back from the lab.

 

Does anyone have any experience/comments with the 75-200mm f4.5 MACRO FD? Would this serve as a decent non-macro lens? It is pretty cheap at KEH and, coupled with the 50mm f1.4 and the 24mm f2.8 would keep a standard filter size of 52mm.

 

Also, how is the 28mm f2.8 FD? The 24mm would be a little more dramatic, and I've heard really good things about it's optical quality, but the 28mm can be had for about half the price - really that much of an optical/build difference to justify the doubled expense?

 

An A1, 28mm f2.8 FD, 50mm f1.4 FD, and the 75-200mm f4.5 MACRO would make a nice, portable kit, essentially mirror my current EOS main working kit, and come in just shy of $400(!).

 

(I'm starting to think I can't afford NOT to make the switch.)

<p>Hello all,

 

<p>I am about to head off for 4-5 years of law and graduate studies

and expect to have very little time for photography during this

period. In order to help finance this little higher-ed excursion,

and because it seems a waste to have my equipment gathering dust all

that time, I'm thinking of selling off my current equipment which is

primarily all Canon EOS (Elan IIe, Elan 7e, and a handful of primes

and mid-level zooms) as well as a couple of digital p&s bodies.

 

<p>However, I don't want to be left high and dry without a decent

camera!

 

<p>So, to replace my EOS gear I have been contemplating buying a used

Canon FD model - probably an A1 or AE1 and four or five primes to

cover the range I usually work in. I've heard very good things about

the A1 and enjoy working with older equipment, so that doesn't

concern me, but I'm pretty clueless as to which used lenses are the

good deals quality- and price-wise. If I go this route I will likely

buy everything from either this site or KEH as I have had very good

results from them so far. Browsing the KEH site the other night I

put together this combination that seemed like it would fit my

shooting style and needs:

 

<p>Canon A1 - 24mm f2.8 FD - 50mm f1.4 FD - 100mm f2.8 FD - 135mm

f2.8 FD

 

<p>This setup would fall a little short of the 200mm which is the

usual end-limit of where I work, but would cover probably 90% of the

range that I generally use and would have the advantage of having a

common 52mm filter ring size on all lenses. I also looked at the

200mm f2.8 FD, but don't think I would pick this up right away, if at

all.

 

<p>I could probably pick up this entire rig for less than $600.

(I've paid more than that for a single EOS lens!)

 

<p>My questions are:

 

<p>1) Are the lenses chosen of a good optical quality? (And, if not,

what alternates would you suggest.)

 

<p>2) What quirks/frustrations might I expect from a body and lenses

of this age?

 

<p>3) I know the A1 is a "heavy" camera, but will this kind of rig be

decently sized for street shooting (generally at 24mm, 50mm, or

100mm). Also, how loud is the shutter on the A1, I've gotten very

used to my quiet Elan 7.

 

<p>4) Is my instinct to stay away from zooms in this age group

correct? I still mostly use zooms for long work, but have found

myself using primes more and more for stuff in the mid to lower mm

range with my current setup. If there are any good FD telephoto

zooms out there that I should know about, I'd love to hear your

suggestions.

 

<p>5) Does this kind of decision make any sense at all? I like my

EOS equipment, but it just seems like an excess that I can't justify

during the next transitional period of my life. I'm guessing that in

five to six years, when I'm on the other side and ready to start

building up a camera system again that I'll be looking at DSLRs.

Canon may still be the leader in that category, but it seems a little

silly to hang on to a depreciating capital asset (my EOS gear) in the

meantime when I could use it to offset current expenses.

 

<p>Thanks so much in advance for any comments and suggestions. I'm

not completely set on this plan yet, but it does have a certain charm

in today's "all wiz-bang, all the time" photography market.

FJ, have you thought of building the multiple exposure on the backend, rather than up front - that is, compositing in an image editor? The multiple exposure stuff, for me, was just too much of a pain and far to hit-or-miss to be very satisfying. I'd rather take 2 (or 3,4,5, etc.) well exposed single images and combine them in photoshop to get the effect I want. I think even the lower-end image editors would allow you to do this kind of work. True, you burn more film, but perhaps lose some frustration.

<p><i>I agree that the rating system is important, but would like to see a feature that allowed you to search for the top rated photographs of a certain time period, say "1998" or "March 1998". That would allow those photographic diamonds to surface once more.</i>

 

<p>This is the best idea in regard to ratings that I have heard in a long time, and wouldn't seem to involve to much time or resources by the elves to implement. As a recent member, less than a year, I would love to be able to browse back in this manner. The recent changes that let me see top rated per member have helped me find photographers that I probably would have missed, but it still remains an overly daunting task to try and "mine" the archives for hidden gems.

Brian and Bob -

 

It is a little disappointing that this little software loophole basically allows someone to "hit and run" in the ratings game. I don't generally pay that much attention to ratings - especially on the "political" stuff, for the reasons Bob mentioned. I wouldn't even have noticed the 1/1 if I hadn't checked the ratings in response to the other comment listed. I get a notice of responses posted for pictures, but not for ratings.

 

C'est la guerre. Thanks for the response.

Max,

 

If you must buy new, then get the 1.4mm - the difference in image quality isn't that great, but the difference in build quality between the two lenses is night and day. I originally had the 1.8 (version II) and loved the pictures could get with it. However, the lense fell apart within the first six months of owning it. After a brief wrestle with my checkbook over the possiblity of buying the 1.4, I instead replaced my version II 1.8, with a used version I 1.8. I actually paid more for the used version than I did for the new version, but it is totally worth it. The old version has a metal mount and is much, much more solid. The version I lens is not USM, but still quite fast, quiet, and wicked sharp. Save yourself the $200 and put it toward film or a wide end prime. Cheers!

It is my understanding that to rate a photograph with a 1 or 2 a

comment must be left. So how is it that the person who left me a 1/1

on this photo (http://www.photo.net/photo/1421829)

didn't have to comment? If he thinks it's crap (and he obviouly

does), that's fine, I would just like to know why he thinks it's crap.

"...<b>will</b> like it..." that is.

To FJ:

 

I bought my 7e refurbished and couldn't tell the difference between it and a new one, except for the price of course. I like to think of refurbished as "better-than-new" because what you get is an essentially brand new camera at a lower price that has had any potential factory kinks identified and repaired. The 7e is a great camera and I know you and Randy like it.

Renee,

 

Do your own homework.

I use Hoya SHMC filters on my better zoom lenses and have

been very happy with the quality. Granted, I'm not printing above

8x10", but my amateur's eye can't discern any loss in optical

quality at this level.

 

They aren't the cheapest filters out there, but they are a far cry

more affordable than their more blue-blooded cousins. These

filters are more than adequate for my mid-level glass, and still

allow me to afford film.

I use Hoya SHMC filters on my 28-135 IS and have never had a problem - these filters seem to be very good and produce no noticable resolution deterioration (to my eye at least). Even with a UV and a polarizer stacked together there is very little vignetting, and it is only visible at 28mm.

Hi FJ,

 

I do think you are being a little impulsive - how long have you had

that Ti? - but knowing how enthusiastic you are about your

shooting, I would say that an upgrade from the Ti to the Elan 7

would probably be a good thing for you.

 

I used to shoot with a Rebel 2000, and while I know that there

are many improvements on the Ti - the asthetics NOT being one

of them, IMVHO - I felt like the Elan 7 was a huge step up. I kept

my Rebel thinking to use it as a backup body, but found that

once I had shot with the Elan for awhile I simply could not abide

the less well designed ergonomics of the R2K - I sold the R2K

and purchased a used Elan II, which I think nicely compliments

the Elan 7 and is a good, economical way to get a backup body if

you need it.

 

Two features on the Elan I could absolutely not live without and

one that I just really like: 1) the rear control wheel - this is a very

good design and makes working with the camera, especially in

manual, AV, or TV modes incredibly easy and fast. 2) Custom

Function 4 - this may be available on the Ti, but I don't think so - it

allows you to move the autofocus from the shutter to the AE lock

button (the "*" button"). So you use your thumb to activate the

autofocus and then pressing the shutter half-way down locks the

exposure. This means you can lock the focus on a subject and

only refocus if the subject moves. Some people don't like this,

and it does take some unlearning of previous habits, but I find it

so much more intuitive - and it eliminates the focus/reframe

dance when you are taking a series of shots of an off-center,

unmoving subject. Finally, 3) the quiet shutter operation. Again,

not having used the Ti, I don't really know how loud the shutter is,

but the difference between my old R2K and even the Elan IIe is

quite significant. The Elan 7 is very, very quiet - okay, not Leica

quiet, but close.

 

I have the 7e and the IIe, and both have the eye-control. I like this

feature, but honestly wouldn't miss this that much if I didn't.

 

Don't expect a lot more eye relief with the Elan. It's a little better,

but still not very good. I generally wear contacts when I go out

shooting.

 

If you can, I always advocate renting equipment before you buy it

so that you can get a real feel for what it will operate like. The

extra bit of money that you spend for a weekend or two of rentals

will more than be made up for by being sure of your purchase.

 

But FJ, seriously, once you upgrade the body concentrate on

shooting, not equipment. One of the best photography

investments you could make would be a couple bricks of film.

Good luck.

Dan,

 

That's a useful bit of information. I don't generally need anything

longer than 200mm, but it would be nice to have the option. I

know that the newer version of the Canon 200mm 2.8 prime

accepts teleconverters, is this true for the original version with

the built-in hood?

I purchased my Elan 7e from these guys awhile back and haven't had anything to complain about. They shipped out fast and provided exactly what the auction described.

I have been thinking of purchasing a better set of zooms for doing

photojournalism-style work. I currently use two bodies (Elan 7e and

Elan IIe) with some combination of the following lenses: Canon 28-

135mm IS (accounts for about 70% of exposed frames), Tamron 19-35mm,

Canon 200mm L 2.8, and/or the occasional wide Canon prime (24mm or

20mm).

 

In a perfect and just world, I would buy a new 24-70L and 70-200L

2.8, but that is just not financially realistic since my photography

is a hobby and I'm not independantly wealthy. I have been renting or

borrowing the 200mm lenses for events where I think I will need the

reach beyond 135, been very pleased with the results, and was

planning on picking up a used model for my very own thinking this was

a pretty good compromise. However, as I was pricing the 200mm I

noticed that there are some very good deals out there for the older

zooms.

 

From what I read the quality should still be very good, and since I

don't care to advertise my L glass by wrapping it in an off-white

package, the black finish on the 80-200mm actually seems like a plus

to me. I rarely need the extra mm that the Tamron provides for this

kind of shooting, and being able to just carry the two bodies with

the lenses attached (with maybe my 24mm prime in a pocket) would be a

definte advantage.

 

Unfortunately, the rental shop I deal with doesn't have any of these

older model lenses still around.

 

Even if the 24-80L/80-200L is not up to the standards of the current

L series, they surely are a step above what I'm currently shooting

with, right? Are there any problems with these lenses I should know

about, or particular nits to look out for when purchasing? What

about the quality difference at 200mm between the prime and the zoom?

 

Thanks in advance for everyone's input.

Sorry, I know this is the Canon forum, and I love my Elans (IIe and 7e), but if I had my druthers:

 

A Leica M7 with a nice set of 28mm, 50mm, and 90mm lenses for everyday shooting. A Hasselblad 501CM with good standard lens for the sunsets and wide open vistas that one runs across now and then. A Nikon LS-4000 scanner with the roll film adapter. A good flat bed scanner with transparency capability to take care of the Hasse shots. An Epson 2200, or whatever happens to have replaced it at the time. The new 12 inch Powerbook G4 for the road, and a top of the line Power Mac G4 for the home office. A black Honda Magna, outfitted with custom saddles to hold the equipment and a couple changes of clothes. And most important: A year (or two) to travel all the little backroads of the U.S. and another year to sort out the thousands of rolls of film I will have taken along the way.

 

Damn... now back to work.

<div></div>

There are a lot of problems with this shot. I've tried since to recreate it with a smaller apeture/longer exposure, using better film/better lenses/better technique, but for some reason it has still not worked better than this one which was somewhat of a "grab" shot to finish off a roll of more traditional night landscapes - I looked up and said, "huh, what if I did this..." I'm still trying, however, and I'm still hopefull.

 

Why I think it is at least one of my bests - I alternate between it and this one here: http://www.photo.net/photo/1252477&size=lg - is a combination of the compositon, color, and abstraction. The structure of the bridge was only dimly lit from a set of street lamps and office building windows off to one side but shows up as if with an internal glow. I thought there was no light left in the sky, but the long exposure combined with the reflection of the city lights brought out the deep, rich midnight blue. The implications of the image toward religious architecture just seemed to jump off the screen.<div></div>

Hey FJ,

 

Told you this would happen.

 

If you have only shot ~5 rolls of film with the one you have you don't really know (repectfully) whether the problems you are having are inherent to the lens or the result of less than perfect technique, film, exposure, etc. How disappointed would you be to buy that new lens and not see any noticable difference in your pictures?

 

(Then, of course, the thinking will go: "Well I should have bought the 28-135, or perhaps I could pick up a used 28-70 L, or maybe I should just spring the whole way for a 24-70 L since that really is the best quality and I will eventually... THIS WAY LIES MADNESS!)

 

My advice, like many of the above would be to stick with the lenses you have currently and get some more rolls of film under your belt. Once you've shot, say, 50 rolls of film through your lens then let yourself revisit the question of whether, and what, to change.

 

If you MUST buy a new lens now, go with the cheapest option that will also bring you the greatest increase in quality = the 28mm prime. Actually, if you can afford it, I would say buy the prime and keep your current zoom. This will let you get a feel for what you prefer, i.e., which one do you reach for to make sure you get those "important" shots. Also, a good set of primes is something that, I think, every photographer needs even if they do most of their shooting with zooms. If you buy that 28-105mm you will, probably sooner than later, feel the need to replace it with something better. The 28mm, however, will serve you quite well for a long time.

I forgot to mention. If you have a good camera shop near you, you should be able to rent anything fancy that you might need. This is great, I have done it a number of times and is a great way to try out equipment before you buy it or have access to expensive equipment that you will only need from time to time, but that would break the bank to purchase.