robert_davis7

Thanks to all for the comments. Some responses to questions in comments:

 

* Canon has shunned film? Well, they certainly won't stop supporting their current film-based bodies, but I'd really be surprised if they came out with a new film body. They've invested so much in their digital technology (which is fabulous!), but I think what used to be top-of-the-line cameras, such as the EOS 1V and EOS 3 are merely state-of-the-art dinosaurs.

 

* Have I considered an SLR body with primes? Yes, I use three primes on my EOS now - a 20mm, a 50mm and a 400mm. What I'm looking for is, for the most part, a different style body. I used to have an old Petri 7S rangefinder, and I loved it. It was so small, and so QUIET. When I fire off my EOS 3, it sounds like a machine gun. This is not what I want. It's also very large and therefore very noticeable. While that feeling of being a "professional photographer" with the enormous camera was cool for awhile, and it certainly allowed me better access at concerts and such, I'd rather not draw any attention to myself.

 

I love Canon glass, and, from what I've been told, Leica glass is also superior to most everything else (please don't start debating "L-glass" and Leica glass!! :) I want soemthing that is small, diseet, reliable and impeccably made.

 

Thanks again for the advice. Now, can you recommend a good place to shop? I use KEH.com for most of my used purchases. Any other good places? eBay is OK, but it seems like every other ad is a scam.

I'm considering ditching my EOS 3 and lenses in favor of a Leica

setup. I moved from the photo desk to the copy desk at my newspaper,

and I no longer really need a big EOS 3 w/ booster and a heavy 70-

200mm f/2.8 lens. Although I'll no longer be handling a camera for

pay each day, I can never see myself parting from photography. This

new job will actually be better - I can shoot what I want, when I

want... and I can concentrate on my passion: street photography.

Being discreet is difficult when you're using a 6-pound camera; it's

like a sniper using a tank for assasination!

 

So, the Leica is to be my new instrument. I'm familiar with the

various models, but only their specs. I don't know much about the

real-world handling of certain used models. So instead of

asking "which model is better," I'll ask this:

 

If you had roughly $2,000 to start a Leica kit from nothing, how

would you spend it to get the most out of your budget?

 

(I'll probably have a little more, even though the bottom has

dropped out on the used film-based EOS camera market now that Canon

has shunned film)

 

THANKS in advance!!

 

-R

I shot this at my very first rodeo in Arizona. EOS 3, Sigma 70-200mm

f/2.8 @ f/5.6, Kodak Supra 100. Should I crop out some of the space

at the bottom? I don't like to crop, but I will if I'm convinced it

will significantly imrprove the photo. Thanks!

 

-R<div></div>

If they're discontinuing the 50mm f/1.0, will they discontinue the

85mm f/1.2? The lenses are almost identical (including the

sucky focus).

 

When AF is not an issue, the 85mm, however, is one of my

favorite lenses. Very sharp, great color and the ability to wonders

with DOF.

 

Too bad the 200mm has been discontinued... I would have loved

to own one. I guess there's always the used market. : )

Hi, I recently inherited a Petri 7S rangefinder camera. It has a 45mm

f/1.8 lens. The meter seems to work, although not too well in

low-light. All the shutter speeds *sound* correct (when I double check

them with my EOS 3). It seems to work, now I have to try it in the

real world.

 

Is anyone familiar with this camera? What are it's pros and cons? Is

the lens any good? General thoughts and opinions would be very much

appreciated. Thanks!

I've noticed dust on the inside of the prism of my EOS 3. I'd like to

clean it, but I'm not sure how to go about doing so. Can I just remove

the focusing screen and clean up in there? (I've never removed the

screen)

 

...Or is this a job better done by a qualified camera shop or Canon?

Before I purschased the 70-200mm f/2.8 and 2x TC, I was using the 100-300mm USM. Now to answer your question, which was "which 300mm zoom?" I would recommend the 100-300mm USM. The focusing is very fast, thanks to the ring USM. Sure, it isn't great at 300mm, but that's only wide open. If you are afforeded the opportunity to stop down to, say f/8 or f/11, you'll notice a change in the quality. Sure, you'll get better results with the 70-200 f/f and 1.4x TC, but it's much more expensive - and that wasn't your original question, right?

 

Try the 100-300mm USM zoom. You'll most likely be very happy.

550EX hands down. I don't think the D60 is A-TTL (540EZ) compatible, so it could only be used manually. With the 550EX you can use E-TTL, FP flash, wireless flash, etc. It's a miracle flash!

Yes, the more I think about it, I should take it all. When I went to Tokyo last year, I could've killed for a 70-200mm zoom. I don't want to be stuck in the same situation again. Although this is a vacation and not an assignemnt, I'm already planning the trip like one - it's so engrained in my thinking, I might as well give in!

 

Thanks all for the suggestions, particulalry the site recommendations. Like I said, it's been 12 years since I've been to D.C. and I was only a pre-teen. I can barely remember the city, so it will be like discovering it all again - for the first time. (heh - that sentence is grammatically flawed, but it honestly describes my feeling best. Funny how that works sometimes.)

 

Thanks again all!!

Try putting the flash in FP mode. Once this is activated, you can sync up to 1/4,000, but with a less-powerful GN unfortunately.

yeah, i thought about night pics, too. But i figured if I bring my tripod, why not bring all the other gear?

 

Maybe I'll just bring my Leica table-top tripod and use it as best as I can. "Remember," I'm telling myself, "this is vacation, not work - stop thinking of this trip as an assignment! You won't have any editors to appease on this trip." : )

I'll be traveling to Washington D.C. next week on vacation and, of

course I'm bringing my camera. Well that's just it actually... that's

all I know for sure to bring - the camera! I keep asking myself, what

lenses do I want to take??

 

<p>Here's what I'm taking so far:

EOS 3, minus PB-E2;

Tri-X, T-MAX 3200 and TCN400 (i'm just trying it... any good?)

 

<p>Here's what I have available:

19-35mm f/3.5-4.5; 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5; 50mm f/1.8; 70-200mm f/2.8; 2x

TC; 420EX

 

<p>I'm thinking of traveling light, and I want to do some street

photography, so I'm thinking the 50mm and the wide zoom. But what

about the others, especially the 70-200 (i wish it weren't so big and

heavy)?

 

<p>I'm not asking you to tell me what I should take, but I'm more

interested in seeing what YOU would choose to take (given the choices)

and why.

 

<p>(Maybe I should just take my ancient Nikon F2 and 50mm f/1.4??)

I owned an Elan II (not IIe) for years before I got an EOS 3, and I really enjoyed the camera. It was light, quiet and it had E-TTL. One of the things I miss about the EOS 3 is the lack of an infrared focus-assist lamp. Of course, you can add a speedlite or an ST-E2, but it was very nice to have one right on the camera. The Elan 7 uses the very annoying whitelight focus assist.

 

The AF can be moved via CF-4. It's very handy.

 

Yes, you can engage multiple focus points and they will both light up if they are both in focus.

 

The Elan II has the option of a DOF preview, but it's annoying. Via a CF, you can link the AE-lock with DOF preview. While you get a DOF preview, unfortunately, your AE is locked. If you want to change it, you have to eitehr wait for it to clear or quickly switch modes to reset it. Not as convenient as teh Elan 7's DOF preview button.

 

While the Elan II is a lovely camera, I think you'd be selling yourself short by not getting a 7. The prices in film-based cameras are dropping and will continue to drop, and i think you'll gain far more in terms of focusing points, frames-per-second, quietness and ergonomics than you'll save in price.

 

I don't know if the A2e should be considered an option. While it's a great camera, it is older technology. If you wanted a better body, consider the Elan 7 or the EOS 3.

Too much sky? Should I crop a little?

 

The story behind the photo:

The woman is a sailor on the USS Kennedy, which returned in August

2002 after 119 days at sea. She disembarked from the boat and finally

found her husband in a sea of people and they kissed the most

passionate kiss I've ever seen... I love to look at this photo, just

because it makes me feel happy to be alive.

I would reccomend the EOS 3, hands down. Sure, the 1V is terrific, too but you probably will not be seeing any rainforest-type conditions or street-riots at a wedding (unless the two families are feuding!). This is primarily, in my opinion, where the 1V trumps the 3 - build quality. Notice, I did not mention AF because the two systems are so similiar you would not notice much of a difference in your line of work to justify the $500+ price difference. Here's what you will notice, however:

<p>

<p>* Better AF, especially with that gem of a lens you call the 70-200mm f/2.8L. The EOS 3 has seven cross sensors that will utilize the f/2.8 lens. I believe the EOS 5 only has one.

<p>* ECF that is far superior in its operation and reliability. All 45 points can be used in either landscape or portrait orientation (I personally use CF-13 to limit the AF points to 11 because it works better for me).

<p>* Multi-spot metering. Although the Evaluative metering is great on the 3, there are some times when I want to nail the exposure with the M-SM. Although primarily an ally of E-6 shooters, it still might save you and your C-41 exposure.

<p>* E-TTL and (more importantly) wireless E-TTL. I use a 420EX and a Sigma EF 500 (550EX imitator) and I can barely remember what my life was like before wireless E-TTL. It's so much fun!

<p>

<p>I'm not sure I would recommend a 10D for you, considering the bulk of your work is in B&W film.

<p>

<p>Overall, I believe the EOS 3 would be the best choice IF you decide to upgrade. The EOS 5 is fine, fine camera, but it is 11 years old in design. Perhaps you should try renting or borrowing an EOS 3 for awhile and see how you like it! Best of luck.

OK, OK, I heard the collective groan when you read the first six words

in the subject line. This isn't a question concerning the neverending

debate, but rather a question regarding the history of said debate.

<p>

<p>I'll admit it - I'm a child of the autofocus generation. My first

camera was an EOS Rebel XS, not an AE-1. Although I do have a lovely

Nikon F2 (ironic, huh?) and a few MF lenses, the majority of my

shooting is done with autofocus bodies and lenses. With that said, you

can understand my perspective: I've never known a time in which the

Canon vs. Nikon debate was not raging. So what I'm curious to know is

has it always been this way? And how come this "is x better than y"

debate is limited to Canon and Nikon? I never hear people pitting

Contax and Leica against one another... but then again, maybe I'm not

listening hard enough.

<p>

<p>Some friends have told me that Canon couldn't compare to Nikon (in

both popularity and quality) during the pre-EOS days. Is there some

truth to this? If so, then I believe Canon is probably one of the most

amazing success stories of recent years, culminating in their obvious

domination of the digital SLR.

<p>

<p>OK, so my history question might be as equally futile as the one

that justifies its existence, but being a history nut, I like to put

things in perspective and I love to care about subjects that mean very

little to most people. : )

<p>

<p>Any input would be both interesting and fun. Thanks!

Never caused a "problem" for me, except for when I notice that I find myself playing with it while walking. Maybe I should keep the camera to my eye more?? : )

 

I've read that the EOS 1V circumvents this problem by using a small magnet. Couldn't an EOS 3 user do the same thing?

I've seen some spectacular bargains on Series E lenses. I have to ask

- why are the prices so low? They seem like they would be good lenses.

I know the "E" stands for economical (right?), so is this the reason

why they're so cheap?

<p>

<p>Some prices seem to be dictated by snob factor, i.e. if it doesn't

say "Nikkor" it can't compare. Perhaps Nikon should add an "L" to the

name of the lenses... at least Canon doesn't hide the snob factor in

their fantastic (and extremely expensive) pro lenses!! =)

Sheesh... I'll buy it from you! :)

I had this same question when I upgraded from an Elan II to the higher echelon of EOS cameras. I tried both the 1V and the 3 and I honestly didn't see any difference in the AF system to tip the scale one way or the other. The price difference did... and I now own an EOS 3, with which I am extremely happy.

 

The prices on the 3 have dropped substantially, while the 1V still remains relatively high (in my opinion). There are certain things you should consider when deciding between the two:

 

<p>* Weather sealing. While the 3 is no slouch, the 1V is superior. This is only an issue (in my opinion) if you're constantly in incliment weather.

<p>* FPS. The EOS 1V can shoot 10fps with the PB-E2 and the EOS 3 can "only" shoot 7fps. But there's a catch - you can reach these speeds only if you buy the uber-expensive NiMH pack and charger. If you shoot standard alkalines or lithium AA's both cameras will perform identially with the booster. But there is also another thing to consider. WITHOUT the booster, the 1V will shoot only 2.5 fps (can you say Elan II?) while the 3 will shoot up to 4.3fps. I sometimes remove the booster when I travel (to reduce weight) and it's nice to know that I can have a decent fps speed if i need it.

<p>* Ergonomics. The 1V is better in some aspects of handling, but to me it wasn't enough to justify the $$$. Think of it this way - the 1V is like an innovated 3, in every sense except...

<p>* ECF. It works for some, not for others. I think I had to calibrate my eye like 50 times before I could really count on it. My friend, on the other hand, did it only a few times. If it works, it's very cool.

 

So go ahead, make the plunge and get a better EOS camera. then you'll see what that 70-200mm f/2.8L can REALLY do in terms of focusing.

 

Cheers!

Perhaps it's the little hamster that runs on the wheel... you know, to power the camera and the imaging system! Is it true you have to force food in through the CF card reader? Does that get messy?

 

[sorry, just feeling silly this morning. ]

I like the Sigma, for the most part. It seems to expose well on my EOS 3 and the wireless flash capabilities are fantastic. There are a couple of things I don't like, however:

 

* The build quality is lacking. Even the 420EX seems more solid

* The manual is somewhat cryptic on certain aspects of the flash. I had to learn them through experimentation.

* Silly controls, like the fact that you have to control SC sync on the flash rather than the camera, and you have to push the FP button each time your shutter speed goes above max sync speed. I like the 420EX because you can switch it to FP and be covered on all bases.

 

Other than that, I like the Sigma. It's powerful, versatile and the price is right.

I use a Stofen omni bounce on both of my flashes (420EX and Sigma 500 Super). I really enjoy the results, even though it completely decimates the GN on your flash. But this isn't a big deal - you buy these things to make your portraits look nice, not light up a high school football player at 100 ft. during a night game.

 

Before I bought the Sigma, which has a wide-angle adapter to allow use of a 17mm lens, I would use the Omni bounce with my 19mm lens at close range and it would evenly distribute the light. Stofen recommends tilting the flash head at a 45-degree angle to properly make use of the diffusion. I would suggest you follow their advice.

 

Best of luck with the product!

ACK!!!!! That's the problem!!!! I loaded the film incorrectly. The small circle was a result of light leaking through the little peep hole on the film back.

 

I guess it would make sense to load the film with the photo sensitive side facing the lens, huh?

 

Thanks for the help. I will go bask in my ignorance elsewhere. : )

Upfront apology - I bought a Hasselblad 500CM and older A-style

120 back recently. No instruction manual. All knowledge of the

operation of the camera has come from reading through the

archives here (you guys and gals are great!!!). Sorry for the

potential stupidity of this question:

 

I recently shot my first roll of film (C41) in my new (old)

Hasselblad. When I picked up the prints, every single one looked

like I was shooting the moon - a bright, white circle of light

against a black background. The photos should be of my lovely

girlfriend.

 

Any explanation as to why this happened? Every photo on my roll

looks like this and I have to try to explain to my girlfriend why her

photos look like this!! : )

 

I'm guessing my film was loaded correctly, otherwise there

would be no exposure. So that leads me to believe that either the

lens and/or shutter has malfunctioned. Meter readings were

taken with a Pentax 1-degree spot meter, whose performance is

stellar. In other words, i don't think my exposure was off.

 

I hope there is an obvious answer here. Thanks to all those who

attempt to help me dissect the problem.

 

I wish my Hasselblad would operate with as much ease as my

beloved Canon EOS 3!! ; )