jmoody

Thank you all so much. I can see that my learning curve has just come up an a rather steep grade, but this should at least keep me out of trouble and out of the local gangs for a while :-)

 

I seriously appreciate all the info and the absence of being flamed with the typical "read the manual" (which I will do more of, of course). Wish me luck

Jeff

so far so good (was nervous about having to recalibrate my 24-105). So, since there are "no dumb questions" (here we go :-) why would anyone prefer to use all 9 points at once? On my drebel, I found no issue with using all points at once, focusing with a half press and then recomposing.

With this current camera, I've only tried the center point while following a moving subject (and servo), but I'll start trying it out more often on stationary (landscape for example) subjects to guarantee my focus.

Thought I was becoming quite the advanced amateur hotshot photog only to

realize that I am still very much of a newbie (sometimes even feels like I'm

going backwards).

 

Anyway, here's the deal. Recently upgraded from drebel to the 40d and I'm

having what "feels" like a focusing issue (sorry, no samples at the moment). On

my rebel, I would use "all af points" at once unless trying to pseudo-spot

meter a scene and then I'd choose a single point.

 

On this camera, I'm finding that tripod shots at f11 or so using all the

points, often seem to be choosing some random part of the scene (usually front

left) to focus on (will test with other lenses soon).

 

Question is... if I choose a center-point (or some other single point) to be

sure of my focus with, am I also effectively spot metering for exposure at that

point as well? In other words, if I leave the camera on "evaluative metering",

and use a single af point for a darker area of the scene, will I over expose

the rest of the scene as opposed to using all 9 points?

 

My drebel did not have evaluative/partial/spot metering, so I always just

assumed that the af points more or less were responsible for metering as well.

 

The camera's still pretty new (duh), and obviously a big jump from the drebel,

so I'm hoping this is largely user-error and not some other dastardly failure

in my lens or camera

thanks in advance and please be gentle

i'm in a similar boat. By no means a "pro", but possibly moving somewhere where I'll have to really scrap for a means of income (add that to some journalistic contacts in the area where we might go & I've thought maybe I could go "prepared" and shoot the occasional soccer game or concert or whatever as a freelance. Pipe dream? We'll see, but would hate to kick myself in hindsight).

 

Anyway, my two choices are the obvious ones that we all seem to get stuck with at some point (70-200 f2.8IS or f4IS) andI'm mainly down to the $$ factor as the main decider (2.8 ain't cheap). Unless you're in a super hurry, my recommendation is to rent a few times until you're sure. Rentglass.com cost me about $120 or something for a 2 week insured rental on each (easy and very trouble-free).

 

The 2.8IS wasn't nearly as big and heavy as I'd expected (though definitely more so than the 4), and though I didn't try the non IS versions of either, I simply get the feeling that IS is a life-saver in 90% of the situations that I'd be in (the only caveat being if you're a monopod guy or have bionic arms or something). Shot both from the stands of a semi-pro baseball game and though both ended up with "some" motion blur (was trying to stay around 800 ISO), I was at least not blurring things with my shaky-old self.

 

Bottom line... my feeling is that you'd do fine with the f4 since you'll rarely shoot in the "dark", but I would definitely go with the IS if money's not an issue.

Thanks for all the wonderful answers (and the gratuitous compliments ain't bad either! :-)

 

The 5d was mainly my thought as it's the most camera I could afford right now. Ideally, I'd love to see a 30d body with a 400d sensor (more than likely what the "40d" will be) but I'm afraid that won't happen before I leave (was hoping to buy first).

 

I don't need (or even really like) the idea of a full frame, and have yet to need or use much in the way of low-light photography (in fact, I'm often looking for ways to slow things down in order to blur water etc..)

 

However, as part of my push to get better at photography etc... I've always got my fingers crossed that I might get offered asignments to shoot, and I'd hate to have to say "no" to someone who wants a night soccer game shot, or a concert, (ie: low light) or a larger than poster-sized print for advert (ie: sensor size). In short, I feel that the 5d would give me that flexibility...though i'd be low on funds to compliment it with better lenses and all if I did.

 

My only other intelligent (i hope) choice would be the rebel xti I guess. I really don't see that many more features in the 30d to justify the 4-500 bucks more I'd spend on it, (though I do like the look and feel better). Then, as a compliment to the xti, ad some really good glass in the form of a good all around zoom like the 70-200 f4 IS, maybe a faster prime like the 135/2 or the 85/1.8 etc...

 

Was just thinking that maybe if I can afford the 5d and maybe the zoom... it's high ISO capabilities would make up for not having a 2.8

Thanks Norman, one of the better, nice thought-out and informative answers I've gotten here at p.net.

 

Here's my dilemna... I don't "need" to upgrade, but would REALLLY like to :-)

 

I like the way the 30d looks and feels, but feel like I'd be short changing myself a little on the mp's etc...(I'm no "pro", but occasionally show in galleries and coffee houses and would like to look into stock, or other "paying" possibilities) Don't really care that much about going full-frame, but wouldn't mind getting the extra umph out of the 24mm on my current lens when needed

 

So, do I wait for the elusive 40d to appear? Would like to, but will possibly be moving to Europe by November or so & will then have no more money coming in for a while, nor nearly as many options of where to purchase :-(

 

So, the idea is to get the best camera out there that I can while still on US soil without breaking the bank... maybe add one more lens (again without breaking the bank), and be set for a hopefully a long while without having the upgrade bug jump up and bite me again.

 

What I really want to avoid is getting the 30d and seeing that it's next incarnation is only a couple hundred bucks more, but comes with all the bells and whistles that a replacement should

Don't mean to break up a good fight :-) , but that's largely the question. I can only count on maybe one hand the times I've gone up from ISO 100 on my 300d. Chances are, I would usually do the same on a 5d. However, since this is largely a break-the-bank purchase for me (with the idea that I'll wait at least as long or longer to "upgrade" (had the drebel for over 3 years)) I don't want to handicap myself lens-wise for those odd possible situations where I might get to shoot a theater event or a concert, or a night sporting event.

In other words, I feel that the 2.8 version of 70-200 is more money than I want to spend, and heavier and bigger etc..., but that I could compromise with the f4 model, and maybe make up for the difference with the higher ISO vs. Noise of the 5d

Rented the 200L 2.8 for my last european vacation and found that I only used it maybe twice. Granted, it was effectively a 320mm prime on my 300d, but I think I'd probably be happier with a zoom that gets me a few more mm's on the long end and doesn't cost much more as an IS, or a decent amount less without. Any experience with higher ISO's?

oops. that's supposed to read "70-200 2.8" :-)

Little bit of a pipe dream, I must admit, but I'm starting to lean towards a 5D

as the replacement for my well-used digital rebel...

 

A tad spendy yes, but to double my mega pixels, larger LCD, similar sized body

(ergonomics/batteries etc..), and what sounds like great high ISO performance...

 

So, the question is the following: Is having a "fast" lens really that

important if the camera itself is "fast" like this one seems to be?

 

I currently have the 24-105 f4 which is not terribly fast, but if I can shoot

ISO 1600 with no fear... am I missing something here or doesn't that make up a

little for the stop or two that a faster lens might give me?

 

Whether or not I go for the 5D, I'll probably want a longer lens to help me get

over the delirium tremens of no longer having my precious 1.6 crop factor. 20-

200 2.8 would be great, but 70-200 f4 would be more realistic I'd say.

 

thanks

Sorry, no answers, just my take on them. Was VERY interested in trying them for the dust jacket thingy, but then noticed that the book size is only 8x10 (meaning the photos are pretty darn small unless full-page is an option).

 

I'm hoping MPIX will finally get their book option up and running as the only other choices I've seen so far are the OFOTO and Snapfish variety (nothing wrong with them, they just all look the same).

thought i'd erased this one, but her's an example from a 105mm sigma macro lens and my digital rebel (1.6 crop factor). the pic is not cropped at all, and I think I might've been about 2-3 feet away (didn't wanna get stung)

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3828993

i'm no good with all the math (any math for that matter), but basically it means that you won't be able to focus clearly manual/automatic on anything that is closer to your lens that 11.4 inches. I don't know what the crop factor on your camera is, but assuming it's at least 1.4, you should have no problem making little bitty bugs look big. Also keep in mind that getting closer than a foot to most bugs will mean that they'll be scared to death, and sure to not stick around long enough for your shot. Sounds like your set up will do fine. Does the lens have a 1:1 ratio?

Sucks that nobody will respond. I was dying to see the responses as I own the same 24-105 and have the same dilemna, and clicked 'notify me' and zilch! Guess we;ll never know. I'll make you a deal though, I'll write you if I ever hear anything & you do the same :-)

I think the "problem's" always been there. I remember often hearing in the largely pre-digital era... "Is that (effect) from a filter?" or "What filter did you use?" as if everything beyond a snapshot had to have some sort of witchcraft behind it.

 

I get the same thing now from those who either know nothing about photography and/or from those who "think" they know something (usually regarding something impossible to do in photoshop like slowed down wave action in coastal shots to get blurred water and misty looks).

 

I would guess that there was only one real "sweet spot" as far as valuing photography (in the really early days it wasn't considered an "art" vs. painting etc... and lately it's an anyone-can-do-it mentality, so somewhere in the middle maybe) Tough question overall. Just know your abilities and defend your work and ability. If they still don't go for it, ask to see their stuff :-)

ofoto (kodak somethingorother now) does pretty good too... (in fact, I like their quality a bit better but snapfish has a larger format and the option of putting your photo right on the cover)

 

Might want to look into "blurb". Doesn't appear to be a lot more $$ and gives you the option of a dust jacket

much ado about nothing...

 

The guy still hasn't e-mailed me back and the add no longer appears where I first saw it so... looks like either it was already snapped up, or he changed his mind (my luck, he's a p.net member & realized he had room to raise the price after reading this post! Oh well, thanks to all for your help. As I mentioned, I'm mainly a 'zoom' guy, but if I see this again at or near this price, I'll probably jump on it.)

well, whatever it is, hope it works well on my plastic maggot :-)

by the way... anyone know why it's called the "magic drainpipe"? (not a nickname that inspires much confidence, that's for sure :-)

I like the idea Aaron, but have only seen them locally for closer to $700 (?) (going off memory). Also, though I like the idea of black color vs. white color, would probably lean more towards the newer 70-200 f4 for the $$'s . 2.8 is not a "must" for me as I don't shoot weddings or anything, but I like the idea of having it for when/if needed. Thanks for the thoughtt though, I'll check around for $$ on that one

Thanks Bob. That largely puts my mind at ease (all brown nosing aside, can't think of a better source for a response to my doubts!). Will have to see the actual unit and go from there I guess. Anything else to watch for? (have sold used lenses, but never purchased any, and even at "brand new", have heard horror stories about "bad copies" and the like)

As with every other Canon user, I'm tragically stuck in the "what lens should I

get that won't put my marriage at risk, but will give me some extra reach, at

least 200mm?"

 

Have been stuck mostly between the 70-200 (f4 IS or non IS), and the 70-300 IS

(though "quality" has me nervous). I'd largely ignored the 200 2.8L, as I'm a

BIG zoom fan, but just saw one advertised for a little under $400 used (duh).

 

So, the question is... what should I be wary of? The lens would more than

likely be upwards of 15 years old (1991 productions?)... would it be "sealed"?

Does that exclude fungus as a deal-breaker for the most part? Should I be

worried about the USM motor going south (I've read about similar probs. with

the 80-200 having a discontinued motor ie: not serviceable). Does the price

sound about right?

 

I like the idea of the 2.8. I like the price (I think). And, I like that it's

compatible with the telextenders... Would love to get the 70-200 4 IS, but

with that kind of a $$ difference? Just nervous as this would be a person-to-

person transaction & I probably wouldn't get much of a chance to REALLY test it

out for probs until it's way too late.

Thnx in advance

don't know if it's what you're looking for exactly, but maybe try framedestination.com . It's been a while since I've bought anything from them, but was happy with what I did.

Don't know about their shipping, but have been fairly happy with ofoto & snapfish (mainly for my own use in showing friends and family... used them to get booked for an exhibit too, so quality I would say is decent).

 

The above have a bit of an amateur look to them though, & I'm dying to try out Blurb.com as they offer the option of a dustcover (haven't seen any real life examples, but love the idea & what they show on their website)

I agree... doesn't snow = adjust "up"?