b.j._porter

I've done some stringing over the last year or so for a similar situation - a couple of hometown newspapers owned by one company, albeit with larger circulation.

It's per picture price with them - $15 for the first picture used in an article, and $10/picture after that...so a three picture article you get $35.00.

I'm doing this for the experience and the learning, not the money, so the small amounts don't bother me.

I find the enormous grip adds to the "My what a large camera you have" comments I get by about 20%. Makes it look like a bigger more scary professional camera, the layman doesn't know it's just batteries after all...just like they don't know that the Big White Lens actually has a shorter focal length than their $160 Quantarray 75-300mm and I can't actually photograph craters on the moon with it.

I've got big hands, I like the feel of it although it is a bit harder to fit into the space I had in my bag for the body alone.

The only thing I don't like is that the AA frame feels so flimsy that I never bring it with me for fear of crushing it, unless I am carrying my rather heavy complete gear bag along.

You know the concept of a "Holdout Gun" - the little gun in an ankle

holster so you're never unarmed?

Well - anyone have any ideas a good "Holdout Camera" that wouldn't

drive a 20D user with some nice glass nuts to use in an extreme case

of no real camera handy and a great photo op? I've been doing some

freelance PJ work for some local papers, that sort of stuff.

Something sharp with decent enough optics that is small enough and

light enough to carry in your pockets everywhere (guy pockets, no

purse), so you are never without.

A cruddy one would probably make getting the shot worse than missing

it, because you'd always be reminded of what you could have gotten.

This is not strictly an EOS question, but EOS is my comfort zone, and

as such it is the capability level against with which any digicam

would be measured.

It's noit just ergnomics, there are some noticeable performance differences too which would make a difference in some applications.

For a few things 20D has...

- a higher frame rate/faster buffer. (5fps vs. 3fps, 5-6 RAW or 20+ JPEG vs. 10 JPEG & 3-4 RAW)

- Higher flash sync speed (1/250)

- Higher max shutter speed (1/8000)

- 2 more AF points

- Higher max ISO (3200)

- allegedly less noise at higher ISO

However, the XT can use a cheap IR remote and you have to spend a pile of money to have a wireless remote on the 20D. That is really stupid IMHO.

When I was buying my 20D last February, B&H offered me a whopping $250 for my 300D. I sold it witht he kite lens for $600 in a private sale instead.

Love 'em for buying new stuff, but I was seriously underwhelmed by their used equipment offers.

No...I used all my good spousal karma upgrading from the 300D to the 20D one year after I got it.

It needs to be

1) Cheaper

2) Able improve the quality of the images I am taking.

I was running against some limits with the 300D - buffer rate on some action shots, metering issues, and focus modes mostly; the 20D definitely helped some of those.

Since I am nowhere near good enough to get the most out of my 20D, I have a ways to go before I'll get anything out of the 5D I can't get from the 20D. I would have to start running into some limitations of the 20D before I would be helped by anything on the 5D - at this point the limnitations in my photograph are all me.

Definitely the 70-200 for candids. Kids get very camera sensitive when day is constantly clicking away. My daughter's smile is lovely, but the grin she puts on when she knows I am shooting her is starting to be a bit much. Far better to get candids of her when she's not so aware of it.

Yes, the Big Whtie Lens is really obvious, but you you can shoot far enough back so it is not in too many people's faces.

Recently I have started doing some stringing for a local paper. I am

using my own gear, so I am not especially concerned for myself here,

however the editor and sports guys were aksing me some questions.

Currently they send their sports writer to events with a Digital Rebel

and a Quantarray F/4.0-5.6 75-300mm telephoto. They seem to do O.K.

with the outside day games, but they have struggled with the night

shots and the indoor photos. Shooting at ISO 1600, they are still

having a lot of clarity issues...

I made a number of operational suggestions to the reporter (he's not

an experienced photographer at all and very fuzzy on some of the

technical end) whic hopefully will help him, but I think he is also up

against the limit of his hardware. He is not currently using a tripod

either.

The editor was wondering about a good lens for shooting these sorts of

things - indoor basketball, outdoor football at night, etc. In

another discussion he seemed...distressed...at the idea of purchasing

a $1200 lens. So I think telling him to get the guy a Canon 300mm

F2.8L is not going to fly...

So what are some sub-$1,000 ideas for lenses that could get it done

for them? The end quality is newsprint, not magazines, so a certain

amount of grain and lack of sharpness might be tolerable.

I had thought of the following possibilities:

Canon 200mm F2.8L, maybe with a TC

Sigma Zoom Telephoto 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO HSM

Tokina Zoom Telephoto AF 80-200mm f/2.8 AT-X 828AF

Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 EF IS Image Stabilizer

Of course, I've never used any of these combinations so I am loath to

recommend them.

Any thoughts or comments?

Had an...interesting assignment today.

It involved photographing a drill where a local fire department suited

up the City Council into full fire fighting gear and sent them into a

fire training building in drill conditions. Low to no light, smoke

(artificial non toxic), etc.

The inside of the building was dark, and they had an artificial smoke

generator going to simulate the really smokey conditions in a real

fire. Except for the smell of it and the lack poisonous fumes it was

pretty eerie and realistic. Following a veteran fireman around the

basement looking for a place with enough dim light to shoot HE got

disoriented.

Anyway, I was trying to get pictures inside. I set up near the

doorway where there was SOME light and much less smoke, you could see

dimly. My intent was to try and get hazy dimly lit figures as they

emerged through the somke with flashlights, etc. Using a 20D set on

ISO 3200 with a 50mm F1.8 lens on a tripod.

I didn't want to try any flash shots, because I figured they with the

smoke and haze I would get lots of nice pictures of polar bears in

blizzards.

The problem was that with the low light and the smoke, autofocus

didn't work at all, and my eyes couldn't focus all that well

either...and I was not able to determine throug the viewfinder if the

door I had pre-focused on either.

So, there WAS sufficient light to get pictures especially when people

had flashlights and so forth, but as I am finding now while reviewing

the shots I have major focus issues.

Any thoughts on how, going forward in a situation like this you can

have a ghost of a chance on getting an in focus image? I couldn;t

read the focus marks on the lens too well by flashlight either...

Of course, my issues were exacerbated by the annoying TV camera guys

coming through with their lights from time to time...

Yes.

Yakim is also right. By getting your first L lens, you are setting yourself up for a long and expesive addiction, because you start to quickly dislike all the other lenses in your bag, and shudder at spending a nickel on anythinbg less than what you are now used to.

Except the 50mm F/1.8, because who can hate something that sharp and cheap.

I do have to sort of chuckle at mentioning "Zooming with your feet" and showing a picture taken through an aquarium glass.

Question - when the front of your lens is up against the glass, and you want to zoom closer on the subject, how do you do it without getting wet?

I've been using the Tamrac 519 Pro Zoom Pak Holster bag (sometimes in combination with a vest) for various combinations of gear. I pick out what I want from the monster bag and take it with me in the lighter holster.

By itself, the holster bag can carry your 20D with a mid sized lens attached, and a second lens; or one big zoom. It also has spaces for a filter or two, some CF cards, depending on what you put inside, a flash.

I can fit the 20D with the 24-70L mounted and the hood reversed, either a 50mm 1.8 or the EF-S 18-55 kit lens, a 580EX, a 77mm circular polarizer, and couple of spare batteries. It will also take the 20D with the 70-200 2.8L IS mounted, although it is tough to get a flash in if you have the lens hood on it. I will sometimes take this lens, and stick the 50mm prime in a pocket.

The 580EX feels exposed though; the outside pocket doesn't have a lot of padding on it. If I think I may want some flash, but likely not, I carry a 380EX instead, otherwise it's a spare battery.

It's got a loop to go through your belt, a shoulder strap to distribute the weight, and a handle on the top. An optional chest harness is available to strap it to you more tightly. Several sizes were available, the 519 is the largest.

When we did Sea World last March, we spent two days there. Day one was "Photo Day" where I schlepped 30 lbs of gear in the holster and the vest and filled 3GB worth of cards. Day two, I brought the body and the 70-200 in the holster specifically for taking pictures of the kids feeding the dolphins. After that, I shelled out the $2.00 in quarters for a locker and stowed the camera and a change of clothes, and spent the rest of the day getting soaked with the kids.

Here's one at full 400 mm, f/8.

LAB color lightness unsharp masking and color correction only.

From a moving tour train through the San Diego Wildlife Park.<div></div>

If you shoot it at 400mm wide open, it is soft.

Cut it back to not quite full zoom & f/8 and smaller, it's not too bad.

I have a 2X, but I don't use it much for the softness. I am looking to get a 1.4X soon to hopefully solve that issue.<div></div>

Recently I upgraded from a 300D to a 20D. Love the 20D.

However, there is some different software with the 20D, and I have

made one other change that affects my workflow sometimes as well.

With the 300D, I used ZoomBrowserEX to transfer my files. There were

things I didn't like about the software, but what I LOVED about it was

it's ability to sort the files from the card by either transfer date,

or exposure date. It would take all the files stored in the ever

multiplying subdirectories on your CD cards and dump them somewhere

organized.

ZoomBrowser does not seem to recognize CR2 files. It does a lovely

job moving the JPG's associated with them, but seems to ignore the RAW

files now. There does not seem to be a 20D compatible function

anywhere that does this - sorts and moves the pictures from card

subdirectories in a logical and automatic batch fashion.

Complicating this, I have added a CompactDrive PDX7 digital storage

device into the mix. ZoomBrowser seems to have no clue how to deal

with this at all.

What are people using to handle the automated moving, organizing and

sorting these files with the 20D?

I just got back from ten days in San Diego, I loaded about 10GB of

pictures from CF cards onto the PDX in that time, and now I am rooting

around in the subdirectory structure I copied to my PC from the PDX7

with File Manager, and it is driving me insane.

There has to be a way to push a button and make all these things pop

into a folder with exposure date, so the SeaWorld pictures end up one

place and the Wildlife Park day another, etc. etc.

I got a quote from one of them on my 300D before I sold it privately. It was somewhere around $250. I figured I could get a lot more than that for it...

Use EBay, you'll get much more for your stuff.

>>Just don't post this on the Leica forum or you'll get stoned (and not in a good way...) for your blasphemy.<<

Yeah, but can it do Glow? :)

I am guessing you have an identical or very similar lens to what I had: Quantarray Tech 10 70-300mm f 4-5.6 LDO Macro Zoom, circa 1997. I had the exact same behavior - it would work intermittendtly and sporadically, then choke the camera.

I got $42.02 for mine on E-Bay last December - I got more for the crappy EF Kit Lens that came with my Elan II; must be the brand name, but I wouldn't expect to get a lot for it.

I somehow convinced my wife that a 70-200 2.8L IS was a suitable replacement for it ("Honey, the Yugo broke down today and can't be fixed, so I need to go out and buy a new Porsche, OK?")...I take lots of pictures of the kids with it and love it. With the 1.6 factor your field fiew is like a 300mm. However, that does cost around the same as the 20D; the F/4 L version @ $580 might be more in reach if $$$ are tight.

For a little less you can get the 75-300 IS, but everything I've read about it says the optical clarity is obviouslnre near the L lenses, but at least you have the IS for climbing around and chasing the kids with.

I've been using it since last Wednesday with no ill effects...

I did notice that for some reason the IS seems a bit louder when attached to the 20D than on my old 300D.

Could be perception, but I notice it a lot more.

>>Think of it this way - you could just sit on your thumbs when the weather gets bad, or take a bit of risk and keep shooting. You can always buy more gear, but moments are fleeting and can't be purchased for any price.<<

That's a great sentiment, but I doubt my wife would go for it if I had to explain the destruction of a camera to her...

I ordered a 20D from B&H around midnight last Sunday, UPS 3 day ground shipping. It came Tuesday.

Anything that cheap has to be a scam - go B&H or Adorama if you want less epensive (as opposed to "cheap") and good service.