neild

BTW, I never seem to get flare with UV filters, even when shooting a full Moon with a mirror lens + UV...

Like Larry, I also avoid slim filters. If you are concerned about corner-darkening, buy a larger filter and a step-up ring to attach it, and you'll be able to get a proper lens cap to fit on the filter as well. However, this might not be so useful for someone who shoots mostly with no filter on, as the larger filters will cost more (naturally). I am one who mostly keeps on a UV filter.

An idea might be to buy non-working ones for cheap on ebay and transplant the screens from those.

Forget about the ideas of investment or depreciation. If these were important issues then you wouldn't be buying any modern camera gear at all! Buy the one which you will use the most out of the two - that is the one which will be of most value to you.

In M mode, the meter indicator is merely a *recommendation* of what the camera would prefer to do if you let it (in one of the auto modes). If the auto modes were fool-proof you wouldn't need M mode... but this won't happen until the camera can read your thoughts (this feature is not yet available).

 

I agree with the above: buy a book. I'd say get an old book which discusses the old manual-only film SLRs - this way, you won't get side-tracked when it switches between auto and manual mode discussions. This type of book should be very cheap at a 2nd hand book shop. I learnt on an Olympus OM-1 - it only has manual exposure so it was easy to learn with as there was no auto temptation available. IMHO it is not so easy to learn M mode if you have a modern (or digital) camera because it is just too easy to give up and go back to Av/Tv, or worse P mode, or even worse the green box! Perhaps you can glue the dial to M? (joke!)

 

Basically, if you really want to learn about M mode, put your camera in M mode and never switch back from it. You will get many dud photos, but after a while you'll be an expert. Question is, do you have the patience/stamina for this kind of "in the deep end" technique? If you get demoralised and switch back to auto before you've reached enlightenment then you'll likely never use M mode ever again!

The 50mm f/1.8 must be the cheapest lens available for your camera... but don't let that fool you: optically, it is as good as anything else. Not sure on the reason, but the "normal" focal length seems to be the easiest for the lens makers to make with minimal optical problems. (Of course, you may have a bad copy: test it, and see for yourself!).

 

By the way, I too have a 10D and I agree with you about the bulk of it, but I use my Olympus lenses on my 10D with the use of an adapter. This way, at least the lenses are small. You need to focus manually though, which can be challenging with the small viewfinder. Just letting you know your options...

I use Av mode first off, but find it easier (for me personally) to switch to M if Av doesn't cut it, rather than using exposure compensation. Each to their own...

The angle of view a lens sees is not linear with respect to the focal length. An 8mm difference in focal length at around the 200mm mark is insignificant, but at the wide end it is huge. On a 20D, a 28mm will approximate a "normal" lens (ie, a 50mm lens on FF) whereas a 20mm will be like a moderate wide angle (ie, it will look about the same as a 28mm on FF). Try them out at the shop and see for yourself, and then you can decide if it is worth it for you.

Nothing makes it better. In fact, the best one depends on what your needs are. If you like telephoto lenses and want to save $$$ then without a doubt the 30D is the best of the two. (Choosing different factors would make the 5D better instead, and only you can know which factors are important for you.)

Before, when I didn't shoot raw because I couldn't afford a decent-sized card, I would have said "Raw? Rubbish!" (silly me, huh?) but now I've started to use it I find I swear by it... so I would also say to use raw! You don't need to bother with settings at all then.

You might try metering off the "middle grey" tones in your scene, eg. green grass. I've found grass to be useful: if my subject is in the shade then I meter off green grass in the shade - if my subject's in the sunlight then I meter off green grass in the sunlight. This technique worked well enough for me when I shot film...

A filter is a filter. Any brand will work if it has the right diameter as the pitch of the threads is standard. Just try it - carefully at first, so as not to strip the threads if you are wrong... but I'm sure it will work fine!

<i>"... you either need a different roll of film or you need to use flash."</i>

<p>

Not if you want to <i>push</i> the film... which was what the O.P. was asking about.

Disclaimer: I do not have this lens...

 

But any lens can be made to shoot macro. For this lens, you will likely need an extention tube or two. As to the quality of macro images it would then produce, I cannot say (not that the lens is a bad one - just that you would be using it well outside of its design parameters).

If the effect you speak of had any bearing, it would only be on FF sensors. The crop sensors are getting the more perpendicular part of the light from the lens anyway.

I've never had to use the cutomers service departments of any photo company to date (touch wood!). Go with the camera which suits you best, and worry about customer service when/if you need it later.

Sorry Lindy, I think I mis-read your post. The answer to the quesation you do ask is yes.<div></div>

For the item you refer us to: you still need the lenses for the 4x5 camera you'd be attaching it to - I presume they are large format lenses in this case. At the minimum you need medium format lenses so as to get an image circle that is bigger than the 35mm frame. (Perhaps normal 35mm-format lenses could be used on crop sensor cameras for tilt/shift.) All this thing does is let you use the large format camera and it's swings and tilts for your 35mm camera or dSLR. Normal EOS lenses won't work with it. This would perhaps be useful for someone who already owns a 4x5 camera, or for someone who wants to buy into large format anyway.

 

The Canon T/S lenses, and similar ones for other 35mm cameras, have this larger image circle that they project back - you can't just convert a normal lens to do this else you'll get large amounts of vignetting visible.

I'm surprised that your brain's "white balance" algorithm hasn't kicked in by now and made both eyes *seem* the same to you (even though they are not).

I may have a bad copy of this lens, but mine is quite soft even when stopped down, especially at the long end. I've found no way to set the hyperfocal focus besides guesswork (and your guess is as good as mine!). I bought this lens for one reason only, and that was to get precise focus when using wide apertures at distances closer than hyperfocal (because I find wide angles hard to focus by eye exactly).

 

If I wanted quality landscape photos, I'd switch to a prime manual-focus wide angle lens (where setting the hyperfocal focus is easy). Just my personal opinion, naturally.

On the original question, I feel quite certain that she left it on the beach (I remember admiring her personal wealth when she did this during the movie!).

For situations where you are holding the camera above your head, I recommend using a digital P&S with the option of a digital preview...

<i>"I thought the adapter was because the mount was different."</i>

<p>

You are right, but it also takes lens-to-film/sensor distance into account - why not do both jobs at once?

Todd, I too think FF sensors are worth the extra cost. There are many people around who cannot see the point of FF sensors - this is fine. I only have a problem with those people when they try to impose their subjective point of view as an objective one.

I bought from them while I was living in Sydney. It was a while ago, but I think I paid by credit card. The item was posted to me via courier.