affen_kot

April 2, 2006

"shooting many photojournalistic assignments..."

just my opinion: i wouldn't go with a wide angle lens that has such a short reach like the 16-35 (or only F4 max ap like the 17-40). the 17-55 will be able to go from decently wide to short tele, whereas the other two are just decently wide to normal.

it would be more optimal to have a 16-35 and a 70-200 IS, but if you can have only one lens, and it's between the three you mentioned, the 17-55 IS is more versatile. F4 just doesn't cut the mustard in many low light situations, and the 16-35 hasn't too much reach. YMMV.

March 23, 2006

hi tyler. a lot of claims were thrown out in this thread, many of them being

incorrect; in the effort to provide you with correct information, i've contrasted

them with the those of one of p.net's well-known canon gurus, bob atkins - as

expressed in his reviews and writings (<a href="http://bobatkins.photo.net/photography" target="_blank">bobatkins.com</a>).

all "bob" quotes were taken from bob atkins' <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/eos_digital_rebel_xt_review.html" target="_blank">review

of the 350D</a>, <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/eos20d.html" target="_blank">review

of the 20D</a>, and page <a href="http://bobatkins.photo.net/photography/digital/eos_digital_rebel_xt_vs_20d.html" target="_blank">Canon

EOS Digital Rebel XT (350D) vs. EOS 20D - A Comparison</a> ...

1a. richard: "...picture quality wise on ISO 100-400

are simliar to the 20D, but anyting above the 20D is clearly better at noise

in shadow areas..."

bob: "My conclusion is that both cameras produce images

of essentially the same quality, both at ISO100 and at ISO 1600. Color and noise

levels were very similar indeed. Without doing scientific tests, they look identical,

even at 200% enlargement. Any fears about higher noise or lower sharpness than

the EOS 20D seem totally unfounded...If there are differences, they're too small

to matter."

1b. richard: "...I also prefer the 20D because the layout

makes it much easier to change aperture, ISO, WB and all those other settings

at a quick flick of the dial, whereas with the XT you have to hold down a button

and then turn the switch to change aperture..."

bob (or moreso a graphic of the 350D on his site): the 350D

has hot keys for ISO, WB, AF, etc. - as well as Av mode, which allows one to

change aperture at a flick of the front dial.

2. dan: "...and the (350D's) buffer holds fewer shots..."

bob: "Both have buffer which holds 6 RAW files"

3. ben: "The one thing I like a lot about the 20D is

the much quieter and shorter shutter/mirror noise. It's hard to be clandestine

with the XT unless you're in a noisy environment."

bob: "(about the 20D...) A faster shooting rate means

the mirror also has to move faster, and a faster mirror carries more energy

so it makes a louder noise when it stops! The difference in shutter

noise is quite noticeable to someone used to the 10D." bob also has<a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/eos_digital_rebel_xt_review.html" target="_blank">

audio samples of the 350D and 20D shutters activating</a> (1/4 down the page),

which show the 20D shutter to be noticeably louder. "...Quite a few people

have commented on the difference in shutter sound of the Digital Rebel XT and

EOS 20D..."

4. ryan: "...and no flash compensation (on the 350D)..."

bob: "...Here are some of the main features of the Canon

EOS Digital Rebel XT...flash exposure compensation..."

good luck in your quest, tyler.

March 22, 2006

i have an XT, and it has been a wonderful, surprisingly full featured first

DSLR for me. everything that is said about 20D image quality is true of the

XT. put some good glass on it and it will create stunning images limited only

by your technique and ability to post process. sometimes the good glass isn't

even a requirement if your vision is interesting enough; but i digress.

that said, i came from nikon film bodies, all of which had grips on them; this

made the size of the XT's grip seem awkwardly small to me, and i subsequently

bought the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007WK8LC/002-7964564-8384031?v=glance&n=502394" target="_blank">BG-E3

battery grip</a> for it (which is a useful piece of portraiture kit and very

well built. if only the XT could have been so sturdily built). problem solved,

but if i had known that i would have been springing for a BG-E3, i would have

possibly just saved a little more and gone with the 20D. if you can save a couple

hundred more dollars and get a <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002XQI2E/sr=1-2/qid=1143065283/ref=pd_bbs_2/002-7964564-8384031?%5Fencoding=UTF8&s=photo" target="_blank">new

20D</a> before they're all snapped up, that would offer you much better ergonomics,

as well as a longer lasting shutter (among other things that aren't as important

to me...i do fine art - the fine part is subjective - not sports).

i have nothing against the XT. at the time of purchase (march 2005), it was

the best bang for the buck dslr in my estimation. now, that title might belong

to the 20D while it can still be found new. cheers

March 22, 2006

remember that indoors in italy will be often unforgiving on an F4 lens. you won't get very sharp pictures in the vatican, where the ambient lighting is downright terrible in most rooms. the F4 just won't cut the mustard unless you jack up your ISO, at which point you have to start dealing with annoying noise. i'd go with versatility and IS (17-85) rather than the small increase in resolution (17-40). cheers.

March 22, 2006

geoff, the 17-40 allows (along with the other budget L's) the everyman the ability to sport an L lens. brilliant marketing by canon.

March 16, 2006

exactly jim. companies are charging a turbo premium for convenience and somewhat

decent build quality, not performance. one could get a studio of alien bees

for what a canon multi-flash system costs. but try taking your alien bees on

vacation with you, and the turbo premium will quickly start to make more sense.

you guys have a good one.

March 15, 2006

sorry, i think i meant to post that in another thread.

as to your question. canon flashguns are so expensive because they're so convenient. we have to buy them to get their level of compatibility and feature set. canon knows this and charges a turbo premium for their flashes. sigma has a line of "DG" and "super" flashes that mimic the 420ex/550ex, but their build quality is somewhat lacking to many, and they seem to be hit or miss at times with exposure consistency (some would say the same about the canons, though).

March 15, 2006

for about the price of a 430ex, you can still get a new 550ex (this is true

over here in europe, so YMMV), which is a more full featured flash, with a considerable

amount of extra power. <a href="http://www.unet.univie.ac.at/%7Ea0202519/small_serious_skin.jpg" target="_blank">here's</a>

a link to a shot in which i used a 550ex to overpower the sun. stupid

sun. you can also use it to control other flashes in a wireless multi-flash

setup (like an st-e2 unit can, but with a stronger IR control beam, and the

550ex can control 3 groups of flashes, not just 2 as with the st-e2). the 430ex

has no master control.

the 550ex was the predecessor to the 580ex, and is still used by tons of working

pros - so it's more than enough for us enthusiasts. just a <a href="http://www.dg28.com" target="_blank">couple

of examples</a> from <a href="http://www.filmlessphotos.ca" target="_blank">experts

in the area of flash photography</a>.

have a good one.

March 11, 2006

The extent of the reduction since the launch of the 5D is a testament to

increasing sensor yields...

canon doesn't drop prices unless they have to. an increase in wafer yields

may make it cheaper for canon to produce cameras, but it doesn't necessarily

mean that canon will pass the savings on to us out of the goodness of their

hearts. the price reduction was most likely needed to spur on the sales of a

niche camera that was juuuuust beyond the reach of most enthusiasts.

February 21, 2006

whatever you do, don't get an EF-S lens. they're quite stupid and dumb. allow me to present a few supporting points:

1. everyone on dpreview.com says EF-S lenses are all made of sub-standard plastic that will break after light use. 50,000 elvis fans can't be wrong.

2. the optical quality of EF-S lenses is pretty bad, too. i've never used any of them, and based on this, neither should you.

3. ...and what happens if, in 2015, when full frame dslr's are priced to move at around 1500 bucks, you want to upgrade? you're screwed.

in summary, EF-S bad. no EF-S. new 17-55 2.8 IS EF-S poo poo ca ca.

February 16, 2006

hey, i've got an idea. let's argue positions we can't prove.

January 31, 2006

This site is here for people with questions and real answers. Not people

that have nothing better to do than make them selves feel better by poking fun

at others.

...but you're missing the purpose of a general gear forum, simon.

online, one is as important and clever as one wants to imagine himself.

January 20, 2006

You have data that QC has gone down, or are you simply making a WAG (wild-ass

guess)?

if everyone here were held to producing valid sources when stating their opinions,

then the canon forum's wannabe rhetoric professors would have their hands full

policing out the uneducated.

or are only posters with opinions that conflict with yours subject to evidence

based posting?

January 16, 2006

hey kassim.technology is progressing rather quickly; so quickly, in fact, that we might even see a �1500 full frame DSLR by 2010. cheers.

December 16, 2005

whoa, $370 was for the 50 1.8 and the 85 1.8 together.

the 35 and 85 combined would be something more like $530.

December 16, 2005

35mm 2.0 for groups/candids, and 85mm 1.8 for portraits; $370 together.

December 16, 2005

in addition to the lens recommendations, you might look into photoshop elements for post processing (a full photoshop version might be overkill if you just want baby portraits); and some books on portrait photography and general technique to help you achieve effective lighting and correct exposure.

making a correctly exposed digital negative (.cr2 file) is extremely important and allows you to "remix" new versions of old raw files later, as the years progress and your jedi PS skills improve. read fast; kids grow like bamboo shoots. cheers.

December 15, 2005

"...then you need to afford us at least the respect

of capitalizing your posting."

"...you should respect the site and its contributors

more."

"...You could also afford us the respect to..."

i find a repetitive writing style much more annoying than capitalization errors...

December 15, 2005

save it for lenses or books.

December 13, 2005

...or these wish lists help them decide what not to come out with - we'd become content with our gear and stop buying :(

December 13, 2005

i could go for an updated set of primes as well; particularly a 35mm 2.0 with

ring usm and a build quality equal to that of the 60mm

2.8 macro. it might be too much to ask that they give it a circular diaphragm

as well.

December 12, 2005

unfortunately, i wouldn't hold out too much hope that mr. watson will email, felice. if albert watson is indeed a true legend, i would severely doubt that he hangs around at online general gear forums.

(no offense to the scores of unappreciated living legends that we have here at photo.net, of course ;)

December 6, 2005

i would recommend that you do a little bit of research and decide for yourself

which lenses are the sharpest, because any advice that you get on general gear

forums is usually just that...general and unqualified (mine included).

and people tend to just vote for the lenses that they themselves own, e.g.,"my

85 1.8 is the sharpest lens in the canon lineup."

a good place to start (just to get acquainted with the terms and names) would

be to look at <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon_lenses.shtml" target="_blank">michael

reichmann's lens collection</a>. a good majority of his lenses are top shelf

canon glass.

then you might peruse the <a href="http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=111" target="_blank">mtf

charts at canon.com</a>.

or you could look through the reviews at <a href="http://www.photozone.de" target="_blank">photozone.de</a>,

the <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com" target="_blank">digital picture.com</a>,

or <a href="http://www.photodo.com" target="_blank">photodo.com</a>.

December 5, 2005

it's neither here nor there which brand you use.

i use both the b+w pro f and hoya hmc super filters, and in real life i can't tell a difference in image quality. cheers.

December 2, 2005

good question, robert. this dilemma isn't as cut and dried as that of, say, whether

to buy the €240 35mm 2.0 or the €1200 1.4 version.

i would suggest... if you have the money and it won't tax your finances, get

the 1.4. it's marginally better in a few areas; but better is still better.

on the other hand, if you are going to stretch your budget at all or

spend more money than you feel comfortable spending, then stick with the 1.8

version. the difference in the two lenses' resolving power - as far as prints

are concerned - is more than easily overshadowed by user error/user ability.

cheers.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by affen_kot