charlie_vigue

I have the EOS-10D, and one thing that I suspect you'll get with that 17% more pixels is the ability to crop a little more and still print large. Also, there are a few types of high-frequency subjects that just are really tough to shoot and print large at 6mp. Not many, but it's happened a few times.

 

Most of the time it comes down to good lenses, good light and good technique, just like it always has.

In my very cold shooting the shutter times were on the order of minutes, so that's probably why the ambient temperature made a visible difference.

The battle of the ultra wides article does seem a bit flawed. The comment about the mis-focus of some of the shots is most interesting. Also, what looks like vignetting could also be user shadow - on close inspection this appears to be the case. Decide for yourself.

Beware condensation. I've shot some (on a telescope, in the Oregon High Desert) in very cold conditions and it did seem to reduce noise. Also made my toes cold. I was doing astrophotography in winter, temp was between -10 and 0 F, no wind.

 

Bringing it back indoors will generally make it form condensation until it equalizes again.

For portraits the EF-85mm f1.8 is less intimidating and might be a worthy addition for a fairly low cost. The idea of a digital wallet is a very good one as well, particularly if you shoot far from home much, or ever really.

Well, 3:2 fits on my 13x19 paper pretty well .....

In my opinion the genesis of the 4:3 system is mostly a marketing justification for Oly to dump their good as dead film SLR systems and start a new design. As to why pick 4:3, who knows. Hassy like s 1:1, 645 is viable. I have no problem with any of them. I don't think 3:2 is broken any more than I think Hasselblad is stupid. There dosn't have to be one right answer. If anything the euro concept of paper sizes is the closest I've seen to a really logical stab at a similar problem, but I'm not sure a solution to an office supplies issue is widely applicable to the art of photography.

 

It's still an elegant idea though. :-)

Turn the flash off.

"I find that 2.8 in bright sunlight can be too fast"

 

Um, shutter speed adjustment. Low ISO, fast shutter.

On my EOS-10D I use the 28-135 IS and the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 APO EX HSM. If anything the Sigma focuses faster, so no worries on that score. Other than that I agree with everyone else. To me, if you're just shooting outdoors, and considering the great high ISO performance of the new 20D the Canon 70-200 f4L might be great for you, and it's a real bargain.

 

I went with the 2.8 so I could more easily use a 1.4 TC, but the next telephoto lens I get will be the Canon 300mm f4L IS prime. Results with 1.4 TC are optically OK, but at that length you really need a monopod or IS.

I'm starting to see it actually offered for sale, I hope it drops in price a little soon, once the new wears off.

It would be interesting to know what it takes to burn a CCD, and how that compares with standards in place for human safety. I would be surprised if something safe for the retina was able to damage a CCD, but as I said, I'm open to proof otherwise.

 

As for illegal use of high powered lasers, well that would be illegal, dangerous and foolish, but that hasn't stopped people in the past!

I fyou shoot RAW you can see what WB was from the RAW data. Heck, it might even be in the JPEG EXIF data ....

Well, where I live asking for minimal proof for a doubtful claim isn't ill-mannered any more than calling someone closed minded is. I did the requested experiment, where's yours?

Well, I tried it with much less exotic equipment. A common Pentax Optio S and a laser pointer. No problems, as expected. Of course lasers exist that would be capable of harming all sorts of materials, including CCDs. However, I strongly suspect those sorts of lasers will never be legally aimed at non-combatants.

 

The human retina isn't famous for being the most robust structure in the universe, rather, most reports I hear classify it as pretty delicate. With that in mind, I also strongly suspect the damage to a CCD in a case like this would be the least of worries.

 

I also suspect you're full of crap, although that last one may be wrong. But you made a claim, can you back it up? I've shown that my normal (legal) laser didn't damage a CCD, and I'll be happy to post the video to the free upload site of your choice.

 

If anyone has a place I can upload the AVI I created showing the 'killer laser' shooting into the undefended CCD I'll be happy to do so, but I only have image hosting.

On the 10D you can select the info display as the default post-shot display as well. I'm reasonably sure Canon wouldn't get rid of that feature.

Actually, SpongeBob is cropped.

"Frank only asked about compatibility with manufacturers' OWN lens lines"

 

"Compatibility" is such an interesting concept. Is a lens 'compatible" if it forms an image on the focal plane? Or is it only compatible if both the camera and lens are able to exercise 100% functionality, including all AF, metering and lens functions. If the former, maker doesn't matter, if the latter, probably still Canon because most other makers 'backward compatibility' is better defined as "It fits on the body and is somewhat functional. It will focus light on the focal plane."

 

I think the question is a little broken, personally.

Someone elsewhere said purple aliens came down and ate the CCD out of his digital camera, and that the alien expressed a dislike for CMOS. I'll believe both when I see some evidence.

"although it does not reach back quite so far into history as the Nikon line does."

 

Actually, I think Canon works with all or most Nikon glass and Pentax too, with the right adapter. Plus it can (IIRC) mount some or most Zeiss and others like Contax I think. The irony is that Canons own FD glass won't work properly, but that's still a wider list than any of the others I think.

 

Anyone have a link to a definitive list?

"I've melted tiny craters in CMOS sensors myself with lasers "

 

How did you do it? How big was the resulting crater?

If you don't HAVE old lenses, what are you worried about? If you do, only you can decide if you want to continue using them, and/or what that option is worth to you. In the really big picture I think Canon is compatible with the widest array of lenses simply due to the geometry of their mount, but that's sort of a silly way to pick a system IMO.

How does the laser compare to the brilliance of the sun? People shoot into the sun all the time, no worries.

"He doesn't go to Wal-mart, though. He 'saves money' by printing them himself"

 

The point being, he uses a computer, unless he is actually printing direct from the camera or media card. If he's using a computer, he has the camera, then he has the software that came with it. He has eveything he needs to make his double exposures. If I could buy a EOS Elan 7 and it came with a complete color darkroom setup I'd be willing to figure out a way to make use of it.

"If you had that info you wouldn't be talking"

 

Everyone has that info - it was stated publicly, by Canon Executives, that the 1.3 crop is gone after the 1D2, and the the next 1 series digital (Mark 3, I suppose) would be a unified full frame high speed body. Look in the photo.net press releases, Bob quoted it. Makes complete sense too, now that Canon has folded and is embracing APS-C as a long term solution.

 

And I suspect that with more competition, from Kodak, Nikon (high resolution, but still 1.5) as well as medium format players the price is going to drop. I'd be shocked to see $2000 in the near future though. Maybe more like $5000 is reasonable in the next 2-5 years I bet.