lhg

If weather sealing is a factor (surf photography sounds like a lot of salty water splashes, and sand) and your budget doesn't strech to a 1D, then that should point to the 1v.

 

Note that it looks that weather sealing is getting less and less exclusive with other brands (Pentax, Nikon). Maybe Canon should revise their policiy, both for bodies and lenses.

<<

Yes, /your/ needs might be that of a 20D/30D or D200, but to claim that other people shouldn't be allowed a choice of sizes for DSLRs is mind-bogglingly absurd.

Weight and size are legitimate concerns for photographers. Your attempt to equate camera size to credibility is rather immature

>>

 

People don't have a choice in the sense that the range of a manufacturer like Canon is supposed to be complete and that there is a huge price gap between the XT and the 30D. What Canon says is essentially that if you want a cheap DSLR, it's going to be this one, and the fact is it is very small. Now I DO have a choice in the sense that I can go over to Nikon, but I'm not sure that's what the marketing people at Canon had in mind.

 

And I don't equate the size (or metalness) of the camera with "credibility" (?), it's just a fact that tiny weeny bodies like the XT and the *iST-D are not very fun when you have a grown man's hands.

 

I'm not bashing Canon, I just don't care that much. If I had $10000 worth of glass obviously I would not be looking. I also have other arguments in favor of stayign with Canon. While I prefer Nikon's body feature/pricepoint lineup, I prefer Canon's when it comes to lenses. Nikon sorely lacks equivalents to the 17-85 IS or to the 24-105/4L. I was just looking for some constructive comments from experimented people who could point out benefits to sticking to Canon that I might have overlooked. I'll be very happy with a 30D, it's just more money that's all.

I'm probably going to buy my first DSLR in the next few months. I

currently have two compact digital cameras (1.4 and 4 MP) and a

Rebelt Ti.

 

I want to spend only a limited amount of money on this and the

problem is that I deeply dislike the XT for its being so tiny. I

don't know why DSLR manufacturers want to make small cameras :

people who want a small camera would get one of these credit card-

sized gizmos with a 3" screen and no viewfinder anyway, people who

get DSLRs know it's going to be bulky and might as well be a good

handle. Also I want _two_ control wheels, I've been missing that on

the Ti. I want a camera that handles well and doesn't have all the

little annoying things that marketing guys always put at the

cheapest point of a range so that people get frustrated and want to

upgrade. I even have thought for a while I would escape the digital

mania and get an EOS3.

 

So the XT is out for me. The logical plan then would have to get a

20D/30D. I currently have a 50/1.8, a 28-105 USM II and a 70-

200/4L. I would then have kept this last one, replaced the 28-105

by the corresponding "all-around" EF-S 17-85 IS, kept the 50/1.8 for

portraits and maybe got some 28/2.8 to have a normal prime.

 

I can afford that, but then I checked out what Nikon had in the

D70s. The price point is a good $400 cheaper than the 20D. I went

to a store and tried it, tried an XT too, it's definitely much

better. They have this 18-200 stabilized digital lens if I can get

my hands on one, that I would complement with 28 and 50 primes, sell

the 70-200/4L which would bring the changeover cost to maybe half

what it would take to stick with Canon. And I really don't care

that Canon has two more MPs. Also I like the lack of uncertainty as

to the sensor format which is the same on the whole range.

 

So at that point I really don't know what arguments I have to stick

with Canon. Is the XT not that bad to handle ? would I miss ISO100

and 3200 too much ? would I miss my one L lens too much ? Is the

year-old D70s going to be obsolete in less than a year ?

 

As a general observation you have to admit that Nikon's price point

are much better set than Canon. Their entry level D50 is cheaper

than the XT, the next step cheaper than the 30D, the D200 is way

cheaper than a 5D etc.

The space that the file take up to store is not an issue, since storage price density has always and will continue to increase much faster than file size.

 

Also you can compress more aggressively. Ever-more powerful in-camera image processors (or RAW importers) can use more photosites to build JPEGs that don't necessarily include more information, but include more appropriate information in terms of crisper edges, better textures and more accurate colors.

 

If you think that your "cheap" camera having more pixels is a disadvantage, that's because you have a 1DsMkII to fall back on. Good for you, but not everybody have this luxury.

For some reason Canon doesn't seem to list on its website a cable

release among available accessories for the 300V/Rebel Ti. I think

I remember there was one at the time when I bought the thing. Does

anybody know its reference and where to find it ?

From Leon's itemized observations:

 

1 - One general rule in understanding trends in digital technologies, is that storage often can be assumed to be free and infinitely expandable. When I first bought a digital camera, a 64MB memory card was fancy. Now at least 1GB, which is 16 times bigger, is common. Given that MP growth is bound to be capped eventually, and that storage density and in-camera processing power will continue expanding exponentially, there's no problem here.

 

2 - Who says that full-frame means more MPs ? You can perfectly imagine full-frame sensors with low pixel count and a stellar dynamic range and low noise at very high ISO, bringing photography in a territory that film technology was never allowed to explore. Related to point 1 above : the total amount of information recorded per frame is bound to stop increasing exponentially with the pixel count, and maybe grow a little bit linearly (meaningful bits per pixel), so storage won't be a problem.

 

3 - I don't know what you mean here.

 

For me the real frustrating thing with cropped sensor is how most people use these cameras and then pay for -- and haul around the weight of -- glass that was design to yield a full-frame image. You could have imagined that Canon would eventually switch to a full EF-S lens catalog like they did back when they introduced the EF lenses, including professional-rated lenses, but we know they won't do that, because they have explicitely chosen to make all their higher-end DSLRs full frame.

Yesterday I picked up three rolls of processed NPZ-800 with no

prints and was surprised to get horrible results in my scanner.

Taking a closer look at the negs, it appeared clearly that the

development had been mishandled : the whole thing was veiled,

looking like a blend of a negative and a non processed film like the

leaders that stick out of the rolls before you load them.

 

The difference is very obvious when comparing side-by-side the non

exposed parts of these negs and other negs from my archives.

 

I immidiately went back to the shop, where they merely admitted that

it was "slightly underdeveloped", sounding like it was just a slight

variation in the results within acceptable limits. They told me

that prints could still be made of it and made four 4x6s in front of

me that had no contrast or color saturation whatsoever, and told me

yeah, you see, just push the contrast in PS and everything is swell.

 

Taken aback by their apparent lack of concern I told them I would

try and tweak my scanner settings and went away. Trying again to

work on it yesterday night all I could realize is the extent of the

damages. The cruel thing is that I still can see that I had

spectacular pics of an airshow on these films.

 

Does anybody have any advice of what should be my next moves if

any ? Should I expect any form of compensation ?

It is already easy to imagine the hundreds of forum discussions on the topic "Should I get a 1DMkIIN or a 5D ?".

 

Which would be missing out on the REAL interesting question which is "Who the heck comes up with model designations at Canon ? Why isn't it the 1DMkIII ? Why did they call the 5D the same name as a contemporary Konica-Minolta DSLR ?"

yes yes 70-200/4L. Typo. Sorry.

Adorama currently lists a 70-400/4L as "refurbished by Canon USA"

that is $80 cheaper than their price for the regular, new one with

USA warranty. What are these refurbished lenses ? Are they lemons

that were returned by discriminating buyers ?

I assume that when you compute the DOF with a lens + teleconverter

setting, you use the effective focal length (your nominal focal

length multiplied by the converter ratio), but as the aperture you

use the actual aperture that the lens is set to, rather that the

effective aperture after the teleconverter ?

 

For example I am about to go to an air show, and was thinking of

puting a 2x converter behind a Tamron 70-300 zoom, to be as close to

the planes as possible, shooting 35mm film, hence full frame.

 

Thinking about it in advance, the Tamron 2x converter slows the lens

by two stops, hence "sunny f/16" becomes "sunny f/8", and with

ISO400 film that makes 1/350 at f/8, or 1/750 at f/5.6, at which I

can hope to hand-held the camera at 600mm equivalent.

 

However at 600/5.6 if I set the focus at infinity the picture will

be sharp only from around two kilometers, further than where the

planes should be. A 15 meter long plane at two kilometers, 600mm

focal length is only 5mm big on the film so let's hope so.

 

With the teleconverter I lose the AF and I don't picture myself

keeping a fighter jet in focus by hand.

 

Am I right to worry

Perspective compression solely depends on the camera-subject distance. If you want to frame the exact same thing with the same lens with a 1.6x crop factor camera, you'll have to stand farther away from your subject and hence will introduce more perspective compression. If you instead take the picture from the same spot, but with a 1.6x smaller focal length, you will have the same perspective.

To Troy: The article you refer to on Luminous Landscape has a very good single sentence that pretty much captures what I meant in my post : "If photography had started out as digital, film would still have been invented". Everything else being a given, and admitting that every good image is destined to go through photoshop at one point or the other, film appears to be a damn good, convenient and cheap sensor doesn't it ?

I would also point out again that I'm talking from a strictly hobbyist perspective, and how to make the most out of a limited budget on which you don't expect any return. Is it by buying the latest DSLR, where the camera maker admit they make their fattest margins ? As much as I'd be pleased to financially contribute to Canon's future R&D, I'd rather do it by buying their stock.

To Craig : in many places you can develop film with no prints for $2 to $3. I assume that if the intent is to scan and have a 100% digital backend, then it's okay to use a relatively basic color neg, no need for fancy "color fidelity" or "velvia look" since you'll play with the curves anyway. Which comes to about $2 a 36 frames roll. As an amateur with not many opportunities for interesting pictures I keep a modest digital P/S for basic stuff and only shoot about 50 rolls a year. At $5 film purchase + development, that comes to about $250 of film expense a year. How much do back-up batteries for the camera, RAW-sized CFs and archival quality DVD-Rs cost ?

In the Canon range, a 350D/Rebel XT is virtually a 300X/Rebel Ti

with a digital sensor instead of film. The same for a 20D to an

Elan 7N, or both of the 1D(s) Mk II to a 1V. A Rebel XT costs about

the same as a Rebel Ti plus a Coolscan V ED film scanner.

But "digitalizing" an Elan 7N to a 20D costs about $1000, and the 1D

and 1Ds are respectively $2200 and $6400 more expensive than their

film counterpart. An amateur can thus with film afford to use a body

one or two leagues up from what she could in digital, or have

multiple bodies as backup, to share picture-taking with a spouse or

children, or avoid changing lenses (or for the film-specific

constraint of loading different types of film).

 

I would like to gather your experiences and thoughts about the

concept of doing digital photography, but still using a film at

the "information gathering" stage, that is strictly as a picture

grabbing device, for an amateur.

 

This being a digital camera forum, I assume that many of you have

been there, converted to full digital and sworn never to look back.

I guess I'll later post the same question in an other forum to

compare POVs.

I also think that the Japanese have a black finish Kiss Digital, that is, a black Digital Rebel. For those who want to save and not by a Rebel XT, this is a way to avoid the silver finish.

I'm looking at expanding my modest kit, currently a 50/1.8 and a 28-

105/3.5-4.5 USM, shooting film.

 

I was about to settle on a "portrait" prime, probably the canon

85/1.8 USM, hoping to get a noticeable improvement in picture

quality over the longer end of my zoom, as well as the convenience

of a faster lens.

 

However, I wonder if I should rather get a Tamron 90/2.8 macro.

Then maybe I would get the same increase in quality for headshots,

etc, and as a bonus I would add a macro capability to my kit.

 

I don't have any specific "need" or priority, I just want to augment

my kit's capability step by step. If I don't get a mcro lens now,

maybe I will later, but then maybe I will find the two redundant for

non-macro shots.

 

I was wondering if anybody has any thoughts on that. Would the

85/1.8 be so much better than the Tamron on non-macro that it would

be worth it forfeiting the macro capability ? Or would the Tamron

be so average wide open that it would not really improve over my

zoom ?