tom_swanson

Graininess? What exactly am I looking for?

Any reason the 50 f1.8 didn't make your list?

I have both a 20D and an Xti. I use the Xti. Just as fast and smaller. The viewfinder is smaller, too. So that could be an issue. Otherwise I would take an Xti over a 20D.

 

Have you considered the 55-200 USM II? Reasonably priced and decent quality. It will not match the 70-200f4L but it is certainly decent.

 

This reminds me. I should really either use my 70-200f4L or sell it. Nice lens but I use the 70-300 IS instead.

My Xti is at least equal to the 20D through ISO 400. ISO 800 it falls down a bit. 1600 isn't as usable as the 20D's 3200.

 

But do keep in mind that the metering seems to be set differently between the two cameras. The Xti tends to underexpose compared to the 20D. This can have detrimental effects on noise.

I'd try to get hold of sigma. They should know and they should be able to tell you if they can "re-chip" it. Usually free depending on where you live.

 

Colin - My understanding of the 350d is that its controls were more like the 300Ds. They redid the control layout for the 400D it is much improved. After some initial reservations about its size I find it is very easy to hold and operate. I rarely use my 20D these days. I DO, however, sometimes inadvertently switch AF modes. That is due to the size. My thumb just hits the AF button while normally holding the camera.

Post a picture. Otherwise we're just guessing.

Because the 24-105 is traditionally an odd focal length range on a crop camera.

 

The tamron 17-50 f2.8 is an awesome lens. By all accounts the canon is better. You can't go wrong with either lens.

 

I've both the 70-200 and the 70-300 IS. If I was only getting one I'd get the 70-300 because of the IS and between 70 and 200 they are very similar.

 

If I knew that I was going to be in low light working within the 17-55 range most of the time I'd get the 17-55 IS and a canon 55-200 USM II (the II is very important. the first one sucked bad.) to cover the gap.

The 400D has one main drawback. It has a very small viewfinder. But if you are used to the 300D this shouldn't be a problem.

 

For the most part it is hard to tell the difference between the 8mp and 10mp of my 20D and my 400D. But it can show up in landscape photography. (With very good glass.) The fine detail in grass and tree leaves can make use of the extra resolution.

 

I can't compare controls. The 400D is different than my 20D but for everything that is worse there is something better. So it is a wash. Both crush the 300D. I don't know about the 5D/30D. I like the size of the 400D.

 

I bought my 400D as a stop gap. I'd broken my 20D and was looking for something to tide me over to the mythical 40D. Since then I got my 20D fixed. After a while I find that I prefer to use the 400D. It probably comes down to the 2 extra megapixels for landscapes and the smaller size beating out the better viewfinder.

 

Image wise I think the 20D is better at ISO 800 and up.

The HP has gotten wonderful reviews. (Actually, most of the 30" monitors are very nice.) I believe you need a dual dvi video card.

If you don't need the workflow features or the new raw converter (which is more or less available in cs3) there really isn't any reason.

The only limitation I've seen is that Red River is unwilling or unable to provide B9180 profiles for their papers. Inkjet art, however, has no such problems.

 

I bought the B9180. It is a great printer. As is the 2400. I'd get the 9180. It's cheaper.

What he said. My fav paper.

Either way you'd be throwing out everything but the 50. Either the lenses wouldn't work right on the Xti or the 5D would show every flaw in them.

 

Anywho, the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 is very well regarded on the Canon EOS 5D. (I like it on my 20D but the focal length isn't very useful on that camera.) Inexpensive but optically one of the all timers.

 

If you wanted to go Xti instead you have some options. If you wanted to go really wide with a Rebel XTi the Tokina 12-24 is not all that expensive and a very nice lens. Even then you'd probably still want a new normal lens. The 17-85 IS is optically very nice. (Weaker around 17 but extremely sharp from 24 up.) Matched with a 70-300 IS you'd have a excellent system for less than the cost of the 5D. (Provided you could get used to the viewfinder.)

 

To answer your first question. No one knows. The 5D was on rebate for about $2100 depending on where you shopped. It isn't now. There were rumors of a 5D replacement at PMA but that looks unlikely.

Just some suggestions....

 

17-55 f2.8 IS.

50mm f1.4

70-200 f4L or if you want cheaper and lighter the 55-200 USM II (<- the II is important) is very well regarded.

Try whcc.com

 

Printing an 8 1/2x11 on my hpb9180 is under $3 even if I use crane museo silver rag paper. (Which costs about $2 a sheet.) That's probably your worst case printing yourself.

Do take a look at the new convert to B+W thing in CS3. It might save you $100 on convert to B+W Pro. (And cost you a lot more to buy CS3.)

 

The cool part of it is the ability to click on part of the image and move the mouse left or right to lighten or darken that color. Way cool.

Convert to B+W pro is very nice. Right now I like the convert to B+W option in photoshop CS3. If you have CS2 you should try the CS3 beta.

sRGB. CS3 might (might) convert them to sRGB when using save to web but previous versions do not.

I think you'll have to warp space and time to achieve your ends. If your images are not in the same ratio of height to width as your paper you'll have to crop.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/

Vincent over at Photo-i declared inkjet prints as good as traditional prints a while ago. Now he is looking at features.

 

Some good pigment printers are the Epson R1800 (not so much if you want to do B+W), the Epson 2400, the Epson 3800 and the HP B9180. If they still have a rebate on the Canon iPF5000 you might want to look at that. (Although it is over the top of the cost of the 3800 which may be over the top of your budget.)

 

The HP is rated to 200 years by Wilhelm. That should be the top longevity but the others are also in the same ball park.

 

If you want to play with claria ink (Epson's new dye ink printer) the Epson 1400 is _supposed_ to be nice. Vincent will be reviewing one starting next week. I think the claria inks are a wee bit of an unknown at this point and I'm pretty sure they are hideously expensive. The printer is reasonably priced, however.

Which printer? If you have a B9180 there is a yahoo! group devoted to it with all kinds of profiles and whatnot.

Luminous landscape has a tutorial download for $12 (only the 1st of 8-10 parts is online) that will end up being about 4.5 hours. Michael Reichmann and Jeff Schewe explain the software and workflow. It certainly seems worth $12 so far.

 

BTW, if you have a RSP license you get a copy of lightroom for free.

Giclee is a real word for prints, btw. It is silly in a lot of ways but more than a few photographers use it. (I have a Jim Brandenburg print on my wall that claims to be such a thing. I've no idea if he labeled it as such or if the gallery did.)

Try a program like filezilla and drag and drop?