adam3

I know people often get frustrated when members don't search, but I assure I did as many places as best as I knew how (I didn't come up with the word "orb", but searching for variations of "spots" or "discs" or "circles" didn't come up with anything for me).

 

I guess having a flash fired answers my last question then. I didn't know it was fired because I don't know how to view exif info. I'll have to look that one up.

Thanks, that makes me a little more relieved that I don't have to send my camera in, however annoying it is. I can deal with it. I'm still a bit puzzled as to how example #5 shows up with ghosts...

 

I'll try to use my 300D as much as possible. It's weird, I never realized how many little (and sometimes big) differences there are between digicams (at least mine) and dslrs aside from image quality. I appreciate my 300D more than I ever realized (my 300D was my first digital camera and I was surprised at first to find it wasn't tack-sharp).

 

I really appreciate all of your help!

Thanks all for your help. My pictures at home don't usually show it as much for some reason, just maybe a couple small circles off to the side. Interestingly, though I couldn't see it earlier, I just now notice it in my first photos too w/ the camera. I've only had the camera since late this summer. I mostly use the flash, so it is hard to tell whether it only occurs with the flash, but I may have found a photo w/ no flash and the circles. <br /><br />

 

A couple more shots if you realllly wanted them. These two are interesting since the circles are clumped together:<br />

<a href="http://www.aerofive.com/examples/3.jpg">Example 3</a><br />

<a href="http://www.aerofive.com/examples/4.jpg">Example 4</a><br /><br />

 

But more importantly, the shot that doesn't look like I used a flash (circles on the edge of the left drawer under the bottom bed).<br />

<a href="http://www.aerofive.com/examples/5.jpg">Example 5 w/o flash</a><br /><br />

 

And yes this is my dorm, I'm a freshman at Grove City College...

Maybe I should send the camera in? I don't know how to tell if it is dust, but the front element doesn't look dirty.

Well, I have a Casio EX-S100 in addition to my 300D for easy, family

shots. Recently it's been showing funny circle things--and they don't

just look like dead pixels or whatever, it almost looks like flare,

but it isn't... here are two pictures with the thing. They actually

show up to a certain extent in all my pictures, and you can even see

them in the preview screen. What is it? Can someone help?<br /><br />

 

Examples:<br />

<a href="http://www.aerofive.com/examples/1.jpg">Example 1</a><br />

<a href="http://www.aerofive.com/examples/2.jpg">Example 2</a><br /><br />

 

Those are images straight from the camera, so it may take a bit to

load.<br /><br />

 

Thanks,<br /><br />

 

Adam

I mentioned KEH, but yes ebay is actually probably where I'd buy from next. My most recent purchase was a 28mm f/2.8 lens for under $100, in great condition. It works perfect. KEH price? Around $150 for one in the same condition.

 

Sounds like you are on the right track to me.

I have the 7e. I started off with the 50mm 1.8. I thought I'd love ECF, and at first I did. Then I realized with the buttons on the back of the camera body it was actually faster for me just to use those and more reliable. Then I realized that I only use the center focus point and I don't even care. So obviously I don't use ECF. But some people do. I had to get it, if I didn't I'd always be wondering if I would have liked it. Besides, it just sounds cool ;) It makes quite an impression on the uninformed (read: most people).

 

In all seriousness though, sounds like a good deal. Plus with the 50 you'll get a better idea what lenses to buy next and may decide you would rather purchase different lenses than the ones you have figured out. For instance, I was sure I'd buy a good telephoto, but now I know that wide angle is for me. I could survive with just a 28mm lens.

 

If you really wanted to save money though, you could consider buying a used 7 (not 7n) from KEH or somewhere for about $235. To be honest, if my 7e was stolen, I'd buy a used 7 and skip the 7n or ECF.

 

Have fun,

 

Adam

Yes, if you shop right you should be able to get a 28mm f/2.8 for $100, easy. Look on ebay, especially, if you are willing to buy there, places such as KEH seem to sell these for much more.

I would go the prime route. I decided to go that way. First I got the 50mm 1.8. Then I purchased a year later the 70-210 3.5-4.5 USM. I decided I don't like consumer zooms. Too much zoom creep, not worth the little zoom. A prime is lighter and faster, more useful IMO, and cheaper filters. Plus with those three primes they all are cheap and use the same filter size. I will sell the 70-210 and buy the 135 2.8 instead.

 

Recently I acquired the 28mm 2.8. I love this lens! I very very rarely use the 50 or the 70-210 now, the 28 seems perfect for every single use I have!!! I should have bought the 28 first, but the 50 makes sense to buy first still.

I have a Hoya polarizer, and I always thought that polarizers were supposed to remove a sort of blue color cast. However, when I rotated it it only seemed to add a blue color cast to the images, and had kinda an anti-warming filter effect. I thought they were supposed to do kinda the opposite?

That sounds useful, and I prefer fast primes even though I am a beginner. That gives me a reason to upgrade to a 3. Too bad I have no money, and I want a wide angle prime first.

Could someone please shed some light on what a split screen is? And can you still use AF just as well with one? Cause if so then why aren't they on all models?

I don't understand why people say there is a big price difference between the Tamron 90mm and Canon 100mm macros... on B&H they are just a few dollars apart?

Thanks, I am impressed by quality of responses here and appreciate everyone's time to answer my question. I know I am the only one to make the final decision, and I think I've been convinced to use slides. It also makes sense seeing as I can directly view the image from the slide because I can't buy an enlarger or afford a scanner at this time, so while waiting for a scanner I figure I can buy a sub $100 light table and when I can afford something like the Canon FS4000US or I'll buy it and eventually buy a good printer that I can print black and white or color prints (hopefully which will produce quality 8x10s, I guess I have to look into this).

Thank you for your answers!

 

OK, let me reinforce that I do not want to shoot color print film, I am trying to eliminate outside labs. If I did B&W, I would shoot probably Tri-X and develop it myself. If I did slides, I would send it to costco and hope it came back without scratches.

 

Now let me add that although I do not have a scanner, loupe, or light table, within the next couple of years I do plan on getting a scanner and a printer. I'm thinking then that slides could be a good idea for two reasons, even though I love black and white and love its uniqueness.

 

First, I have no way of scanning/printing my black and white negatives, so for now slide film would seem most useful unless I splurge on a scanner much sooner than I thought. Slides should be easier to scan because I can use Digital ICE or whatever.

 

Second, once I do buy a scanner I can always make it black and white.

 

I still don't care for the idea of sending it to a lab and waiting, but that may have to do until or unless I go digital, which wouldn't be for quite some time.

 

 

Can I print it with the same quality on an 8x10 as something from a conventional black and white enlarger would produce?

 

Thanks again,

Adam

Please bear with me and read my post before dismissing it and asking

me to search the archives.

 

Well, it seems like the general consensus is that slide film is good.

Before you dismiss this as a retired topic, I'll let you know that

I've done my fair share of research. In fact, that is all I ever do

on the computer any more. But I keep fluctuating between B&W and

slide.

 

I like the idea of slide film in that I would have more control over

my film (less lab work). I have never shot slide film before, and I

really don't know why I should. Everyone seems to love it, but I am

having a hard time figuring out why. The colors are better? I don't

see the point of having better colors in something so small that you

can't share.

 

So what I'm really wondering is, those of you who love slides, do you

just love them even though they are so small and you think the

wonderful colors are enough to sit over with a loupe and a light

table all day, or do you just use them because magazines prefer them?

But I obviously will be selling to no magazines, so I am thinking of

going the Tri-X route. I see people post that if you want prints

ultimately, shoot print film. I want prints. But you guys can live

without them, so maybe I will change my mind, and am wondering why

you guys can live without them.

 

Only problem is, I can't get an enlarger, yet at least for black and

white, so I MAY be making prints off the computer anyway. Is that why

some of you shoot slides then? Because you'll be making prints off

the computer anyway? Although the preference was still slides BEFORE

people started printing off their computers in their homes. But I

like having the option. I do NOT want to shoot color print film

because I do not want to rely on labs, and good labs cost far too

much money.

 

I don't have a quality scanner though, so either the Tri-X way OR the

Provia/Velvia way will not make it to my computer at least right away.

 

I suppose I'll shot a roll just to see how much I like it, but can I

really evaluate how much I like it on my first roll, especially

without a loupe/light table?

 

I know the decision is ultimately up to me, and I expect half the

answers to my question to be "search the archives" or "only you can

answer", but I'd really like to see your guys' arguments for slide

film. I have not found any answers that satisfy my question.

 

 

Thanks a lot,

Adam

Update: My mom is extremely confident that her camera rolled after 27 or so shots. It was a 36-exposure roll. I am now blaming it on improper loading OR the camera's fault. Any ideas as to which? I can't imagine how either would cause light leaks, if that is what those marks really are.

Alright, thanks a lot for your answers guys!

I already replied to this, I wonder where it went...

 

Anyway, I assumed it wasn't exposed to light because the marks were patterns and were colored green and purple. you could also see some of the original negative beneath the colors. Probably not improper loading, as it took a few pictures ok, then went bad, then went back to normal.

 

Just looked back, apparently my mom got the number 27 from the number of prints she got back, because the roll WAS a 36-exposure, Costco just, obviously, did not develop the bad prints and thus my mom thought it wasn't a 36 exposure.

 

The MAX 400 is for my mom because I wanted to get her something cheap to where she'd notice a price difference, and she does not notice anything about quality. I personally use NPH / HP5+.

Well, I was telling my mom how cheap you could get the same film off

B&H, so I bought her a roll of cheap Kodak MAX 400 film, grey market.

She took some pictures of my (indoor) swim meet and of her class. It

was a 36 exposure roll, but only gave her about 27ish pictures, only

about 6 picture were affected, these were the first of the roll.

There are marks on it, you can see in the attachment. It was also

processed at Costco, they have messed up my film before. She also has

a cheap camera.

So I really don't know which ruined these negatives. What happened?

X-rays?

 

Also is it just me, or is the film upside-down?

 

Thanks,

Adam<div></div>

I was wondering this myself. Well, kind of. I didn't know if I had a more severe case. I also bought a used 70-210 about a month ago, and indeed, when you hold it straight vertical it jolts down. When anywhere even close to vertical it will creep several mm. When pointed even 45 degrees or more downward it is even worse, even the slightest movement or no movement will cause it to keep creeping until it hits 210.

 

This lens, though excellent, has made me decide to get primes instead. Largely because, when I went on a hike and had this around my neck, it just kept creeping out and when out it was far too long and was in my way. Also, it was just too slow.

I have the 7e, and I thought I'd use ECF more than I do. Actually, I rarely use it. But I like having the option. If I didn't buy it I'd wish I had. It could be kind of "cool", most people are impressed when you tell them about it.

 

I prefer to set the af point manually using the arrows in the back. I can do that just as quickly and I can look anywhere in the screen and focus and not worry about where it is focusing.

 

Would I buy the 7n or 7ne if I could start over again? Probably the 7ne. It DOES work, and I don't like not having the option to use it. I do use it sometimes anyway.

<i>Linhof Universal Ballhead I, with Independent Panning Lock (49mm Base/42mm Top) - Supports 7.70 lb (3.49 kg). Sells for $130 now, although I got mine at B&H for $90. Smooth as silk, sturdy with no slippage with lenses tested up to 300mm, even with the body held vertically.</i><br /><br />

 

I did not try that model, but I tried others such as the Giotto(s) and the sub $150-level Bogen ball heads, and every single one was jerky. That was with just the Elan 7e and a 50 1.8 lens. If I can find the one you recommended I'll try that out, as I'd really like a cheap, semi-light, smooth ball head. But I guess that's a somewhat off topic.

A useful link someone once posted:

 

http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm

I live in the same area.

 

The 3001 is much much lighter than the 3021. I was set on getting the 3001, but after a quick trip to the camera store, I decided otherwise. There is a much bigger difference than I thought, and, though I am only 5'11", I found the 3001 WAY to short, and the 3021 is just barely too short for me. I decided to break my shoulders carrying it instead of break my back bending over it. It really isn't incredibly heavy. I combined my 3021 PRO with a really light 3437 3d head, if you like it you could shave a pound off of the 3030 and it'd be at least somewhat closer in weight to a 3001+3030 combo.

 

On a general note to any other people with this question, I've never used any ball heads before, but I found the sub $150 ball heads WAY to jerky to use. I actually couldn't get it into the position I wanted at the store because it kept jerking past it, and the 3d head actually ended up being faster. Of course, it may have just been a bad sample.

Indeed, after more research at photo.net I have found that perhaps a meter reading + filter factor could be just as good or possibly more reliable than metering with the filter (though still not necessarily accurate). what a great resource!

 

This means I'll keep the Elan 7e and get something cheap, like a soligor.