icephoto

South Coast of Iceland, late January/Early February. We (Wife, 3 Kids, and I) were staying in a cabin for the weekend trying to unwind a little bit. We had chased the kids inside and we were both enjoying a very healthy 7 & 7 in a 105ﾺF hot pot. As we looked up we saw the Aurora Borealis start to fire up. The lights were beautiful, there wasn't a bit of light pollution anywhere but from inside our cabin, and the moment with my wife was worth more than any image I could have shot.

<i>I am basically a beginner who plans on taking mostly outdoor pics, with more emphasis on landscape than animals.

</i><br><br>

No brainer--go wide. For landscapes you'll appreciate the extra room that the 17mm side of things will give you and the 85mm (with the crop factor) is equivalent to 2.5x the focal length of the lens a good deal of us old-timers learned on.<br><br>

The only concern I would have (and this is where my old-school roots may be showing) is that if you learn on the IS lens you may develop habits that will be hard to break when you have to use a lens that doesn't have IS on it.

For every person you talk to you're going to get a different answer.

 

Please, I'm not trying to be obnoxious or rude. I speak from experience. In 3-4 years, whether you shot L/F or L/N, you're going to be upset that you didn't shoot RAW along with it because now you can see or think you can see the .jpg compression. When in doubt, go big. Shoot L/F w/RAW. If you need to buy an extra card or two, buy them. Because eventually, especially as these cameras continue to increase in MP, you're going to wish you did.

 

I know--$100 I didn't spend in 1998 lead to many expletives being spoken today about images might have been much better and perhaps even usable today. Buy the extra cards, spend a little extra time backing up the images. You'll be happy you did.

I am very partial to the EOS system so my normal answer will be the 20D.

 

But, consider all of the alternatives that are out there. That includes the Nikon D200 (though it may be a hair out of your price range by the time you buy a lens), and the Rebel XT. Physically hold them and figure out what feels good to you. The 20D is bigger than the D70s, but the Rebel XT is smaller than either of the other two. My wife prefers the feel of the Rebel XT and finds that the 20D is just too big for her hands, where I think the 20D feels wonderful and the XT feels like a toy. You mileage will vary.

 

All the neat gee-whiz features are useless if you don't like the feel of the camera. Hold them, compare features and cost, and then buy the best lenses you can with the money you have left.

While all of the things you mentioned certainly are factors, keeping that much glass in motion is certainly going to take a toll.

 

On my 300mm f4L, the battery usage is significantly quicker. I haven't tested it, but I haven't been that interested. I like Craig will generally run out of CFs card long before I run out of battery life--4 1-Gig cards (shooting Raw) vs 2 batteries, the cards are going to be full before the batteries are going to be empty.

The only reason that I went with the 17-40L instead of the EF-S 17-85 IS is that I shoot a 10D and can't take advantage of the -S series lenses and I needed something wider than my 24mm. To echo the sentiment of the crowd, unless you're going full frame anytime soon (5D or whatever Canon releases/announces in Feb), there's no reason to go to the 17-40L. However, when full frame becomes more of a reality at a lower price, the -S lenses will lose a significant amount of their resale value.

<i>Okay, this lens buying thing is getting out of control.. It's like crack.</i><br>

And just like crack, the first hit is for free...<br><br>

The 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM is not a bad lens. It is pretty soft at the 300mm side, but it treated me well for the three years that I owned it. For under $200 it is one sturdy lens--I dropped my in a lava field (just barely cushioned by my foot) and it survived with only a little cosmetic damage.<br><br>

Now having said that, mine is packaged and ready to send to my dad because I replaced it with the 70-300mm USM IS. I did it because I made the "mistake" of receiving at 300mm f4L IS as a college graduation gift from my wife and if you think buying lenses is like crack, IS lenses are like heroin.<br><br>

The 75-300mm III will be a quick fix, but likely eventually you'll want to have the image stabilization. Your call, but you won't be sorry either way.

Doubtful that you've been looking at it for too long, as it was only released in October. Likely you were looking at it's older brother (75-300mm USM IS released 10 years earlier). I have been very pleased in the few weeks I've been shooting with this lens and I'm sure you will, too. Can't wait for spring and summer to really give it a workout.

 

As to the macro range, you should definitely consider the Canon 50mm f2.5 Macro. I have been reasonably pleased with the performance on my 10D and until I bought my 17-40mmL it was my normal walking around lens.<div></div>

For the time being, the extra 4/6.4mm that you will gain from the 24-85 will be lost in the extra zoom at the top and the IS. I have tried both the 28-135 and the 24-85 on my 10D, and that extra 4mm just isn't a lot when compared to what you're losing. To be honest, I just didn't see a lot of difference at the bottom end.

 

Instead of buying one of those two lenses, I bought the 17-40mm and I am now carrying the 17-40, 50mm 2.5 Macro, and the 70-300mm IS. The 17mm carries me to 28mm equivalent which makes me much happier than with my 24mm prime. I lose between 40-50mm and 50-70mm, but in most cases my legs can carry me closer/further away to make up for those situations.

<i>Did it make his pictures any better?</i><br><br>

Make his pictures better? What does quality of picture have to do with photography and photographic equipment? ;)<br><br>

Without putting much thought to it, I can think of certain applications where having GPS would be extraordinarily useful (Lee and Ken's examples are good, forensic investigations when the "where" is important in a crime scene/accident situation). I would love to have it if only so when I was on a long road trip I could tell exactly where I was shooting so that someday I might be able to try it again once I acquired some more skill. But indeed, for most of us this would be a neat toy but not worth raising the cost factor by more than a few dollars.

I made the jump from the Elan 7e/CoolScan IV to the 10D for many of the same reasons that you want to make the jump. Most of my work ends up in electronic format anyway and the price of developing where I'm at is cost prohibitive. Some answers to your questions...

 

Image Size: If you're currently scanning at 4000 dpi, you're going to see a significant difference in the size of the image when you go digital. Can't imagine too many uses for a full 4000 dpi image that can't be handled with the 6Mp, but it depends on how you're using them.

 

Lenses: I would not worry too much about the 70-200. Focus issues in specific places can be fixed by selecting a focus area. What you will find with the 28-105 is that you will instinctively want to turn the zoom past the 28 because what you see in the viewfinder is not nearly as wide as you are used to on the 7. A wider angle lens (17-40 as an example) will probably be in your future.

 

Shutter Release: No inexpensive answer. The 7/7e release was a wonderful bargain that you will not find on the 10D.

 

Dust: You're still going to have issues with dust. Unfortunately the 10D seems to be a manget for it. Almost any used 10D you're going to find will probably all ready be breeding the stuff inside the chamber. Would strongly recommend getting the VisibleDust brushes.

 

Size/Weight: 10D is heavier and less comfortable in the hand.

 

10D v D60: Oh heck yes go with the 10D. I tried a D60 after using the 10D for about three months and I found the D60 to be slower and less capable. Figure that the newest D60 is significantly older than the oldest 10D. I would also add that, as an example, one of the better retailers keeping used equipment as a 10D used around $650, where they have a D30 at around $420. About $230 difference. I'd guess that the price difference is going to be closer to $150-200.

 

Button Layout: Shutter is where you expect it. Doing things like bracketing are on the LCD screen as opposed to up top. The transition will not be a difficult one.

 

Focus Speed: Significantly faster, less hunting.

 

Viewfinder: In my opinion it is not as good, but others will argue with me.

 

Overall: I did not find the move to be a huge learning curve. The 10D is like shooting slide film when it comes to exposure, so bracketing is probably more important. The biggest thing is that I found that I spent more time shooting and less time scanning. I was doing only basic scans and it was taking me 1-1.5 hours per roll of film. Now it takes me a couple of minutes to empty a 1Gb card containing the equivalent of 4 rolls of film (144 shots or so).

For once, my timing was outstanding...

 

Two weeks ago I sold my Kodak 8500 Dye Sub. Beautiful printer that

worked great for me and I never had a single problem in almost 2

years of use. But I'm headed for Europe for a few years and power

wise it's just not going to work. So I sold it at a loss to a

fellow 10D toting friend.

 

I got a call tonight from her tonight. She had a paper jam. She

cleared the jam, but now it will print only yellow, and then stops

saying that printer is not responding.

 

Have any of you run into this problem?

The IS will more than compensate for the extra weight. The IS mechanism will easily allow dropping down the speed as you described and it will be as sharp, if not sharper in the IS lens than the non-IS lens.

 

I own the 300mm f4L IS and I have found that 1/90 is very comfortable, and 1/60 is not out of the question the right set of circumstances. If you use the standard 1/ ratio, 1/350 should be the slowest you would consider shooting handheld. Other factors come into play (wind is a killer), but I can't put into words how happy I've been with the lens.

 

Case in point, I was shooting an image of a foal with the 300IS this past summer. Vital stats: f5.6, 1/90, handheld. When I got the image home I thought I saw some dust near the horse. I uttered a couple of expletives because it was early in the trip and I feared that all of my shots were hosed. I looked closer at the image, hoping to salvage it when I realized it wasn't dust... it was a group of four flies. The foal only took up about 1/2 of the frame, and yet sure enough you could see enough of the fly to make out the body and the wings.

 

No, I think IS is worth it.

PC User...ymmv

 

My directories are not nearly as virgin as yours, but my process is similar. I group my images into directories of 100's (0001-0100, 0101-200, etc), and leave them on a 200gb drive on my file server that I have devoted to raw images. At about the 100 mark I burn to CD. At the 600 mark I burn to DVD as well (what a tangled web we weave when in back-ups we don't believe).

 

The only downside of having 100 images in a directory is that CS tends to be slow during browses. Otherwise, it works for me.

You're not missing anything. Filenames are a matter of personal preference and no two people are going to work exactly alike. IMHO, whatever you do pick a method and stay consistent with it.

 

Personally I don't bother with changing filenames at all on my digital shots. I rely on metadata in Photoshop CS as well as my own homegrown database. Eventually when I get a second body I will resolve the dual filename issue by going into DOS (remember DOS, anyone, anyone, Bueller...) and do a mass rename each time I download images.

 

For my film work my filenames have always reflected a 4 digit roll number followed by the frame number (i.e. 0201_34). Then in my homegrown database I would go frame by frame and document subject, categories, etc. So when the need came up for me to find a strip of film for a job I could do it reasonably quickly. Like the calendar that I put together for an organization that we sat down in front of the computer, the database, and as we hit subjects we were looking for we just keyworded and looked at the CD's with the most likely subjects. Two hours later we had 12 images suitable for the project.

 

BUT, this works to the way that I think. Others need filename reminders. Others keep filenames but sort pictures by directory/disk. The key is to find what works for *you* and/or your clients (as applicable).

The Coolscan V has been on the market since Oct 2003 so it would be a little early for a replacement. I'm not sure about the Canon product.

 

I've not used the Konica or Minolta products, but I've been very pleased with my Coolscan IV and it's been very reliable over the years. If I were in the position to replace mine (which I'm not), I'd wait for the V to come back into stock.

Concur with the optical quality of the 35mm. Have only had the lens for a couple of weeks but, wow, I'm very impressed. I saw a little bit of distortion of the 24mm f2.8, but I think overall for your purposes it would probably work.

As a now former 7e user who also wears glasses, I found that the eye control was nearly useless until I purchased the Eyecup ED-E. Once I installed the eyecup then the ECF hit about 90-95%.

 

Even after getting it to work, it wasn't all that I thought it would be. There were situations where it was useful, but certainly it wasn't all that and a bag of chips. Of course, if I hadn't bought it, then I would have yelled at myself for not getting it. I've since moved on to a 10D.

 

As far as being a good beginner's camera, I'm honestly not sure. It is important to (a) stick with the lettered side of the control and understand how speed and aperture affects the final product and (b) shoot lots of pictures and take good notes. If you do (a) and (b) and learn from the mistakes you make, then it's a good starter camera. Otherwise I'd recommend a used AE-1 or similar more manual controlled camera. My $.02

Concur with the bad battery scenario. Per the manual, it should take approximately 90 minutes to get a full charge. If it's kicking off after 20, chances are that the battery has gone through the charger too many times and it has (for lack of a better technical term) built up a resistance to charging. Would be curious to find out what happens when you try a new battery.

Okay, here's as close as I can come to an answer. Canon has a guarantee on the shutter mechanism on the 1D at approximately 150,000 shots. They also say that this is most likely the first mechanism to go (reference: Digital Photography Review interview with Canon http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1d/page3.asp).

 

That's saying that the CMOS probably will last longer than that. But as an electronics tech you also know that Murphy worked on the 20D (as he has worked on every electronic and mechanical device over the last 2 millenia... ymmv).

 

But moving back to the concept of buying a new camera every 5-10 years... I look at digital cameras as an expendable rather than an investment. Why?

 

For every 36 images I shoot with the dSLR I've just saved $35-$60USD on film, processing, and prints and about 90 minutes of my time to do the film scans. I'm being conservative and say that my time is worth about $20 an hour, and in the worst case scenario if I need prints the following day, a roll of 36 with single prints and 24 hour developing will set me back about $30USD on the Icelandic economy. For those of you who bitch and moan when you get a few rolls done at your local pro lab and have to pull out your plastic, stop bitching.

 

At the best case scenario of $35 per roll, in about 1183 shots (about 33 rolls of 36) my 10D will have paid for itself. Now if I could be honest with myself I would dump $35 into a savings account each time I shot 36 images after it paid for itself then I would have a fund to buy the new one.

 

I don't believe in buying cameras just to buy cameras. I expect that my Elan 7e will last me another 10-15 years (or until film is discontinued) and that my 10D will last me equally as long. But I also see the reality of digital and when the 10D dies, I will replace it and will have very few tears.

 

If you want a rant, get me started on people who don't archive their digital images...

 

Shoot'em if you've got'em - jim

Good images, good comparison.<br><br>

What was left out was:<br>

24mm f2.8: <b>$290</b><br>

17-40mm f4.0 L: <b>$690</b><br><br>

 

Is there $400 difference between the lenses? Maybe to a professional. <i>Maybe</i>. I'll keep the $400 difference and spend it on other toys.<br><br>

 

Shoot'em if you've got'em... tfj

Buy the most important piece of camera equipment there is: A Good Tripod. I used to laugh at people who suggested it, but the cheapest piece of equipment in your bag (short of that 50mm f1.8) may be the key to taking the best pictures.

 

A bigger/another memory card would be high on the list as well, assuming that you are shooting enough to fill what you have while your out. If you're not, IMHO you are putting the concept of equipment before the concepts of making good images. Get out and shoot.

<p>Indeed, same problem here.</p>

<p>I have an image of a <a href="http://www151.pair.com/icephoto/icel092.htm" target="_blank">stone church</a> that has the same type of issues. I had not tried flipping the image over, but for the next set of prints I will have to try it.</p>

<p>Other than this, I have had nothing but good things to say about the printer. I have burned through my first set of paper and ribbon and after getting through a calibration issue or two between monitor and printer the results are generally outstanding.</p>

<p>I used my 50mm f1.8 all the time for people and candid shots. The small stature of the lens makes it really good for candid shots. I took it mounted to my 7e instead of my longer lenses when I went to a mouse-based theme park and found that for candid things it worked very well.</p>

<p>For serious portraiture I would recommend something a little longer (85, 100, or maybe even 135). I used the 50mm at a wedding and got some nice set-up shots, but I found that too much was in focus, in spite of my best efforts to knock down the DoF (lack of experience/intelligence on my part plus too much light).</p>

<p>However, the caveat is that I do mostly landscape and nature stuff, so portrait work is not something that I concentrate on (unless it's a bird or an animal, but that's a different beast all together...). If I'm shooting at a wedding or something similar, it's usually because I'm related to the bride or groom...</p>

<p>I'll echo the comments of above. For under $70 it's the best deal in photography. Period.</p>

Whatever they replace it with (hopefully announced in Vegas), let's hope that:<br><br>

 

a) they produce a heck of a lot more than they did of the D60<br>

b) there's more than 3 AF points<br>

c) that I can convince my wife that I need one<br>