giles_lean

<blockquote>

<a href="http://flashblock.mozdev.org/">http://flashblock.mozdev.org/

</a>

</blockquote>

<p>

Ads are obnoxious, in general but are tolerable if they are not "active". I know only one site that uses Flash for real content; almost always it is intrusive advertising. So I block it by default.

</p>

<p>

Similarly, animated gifs are usually advertising:

</p>

<blockquote>

<a href="http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2006/02/disable-animated-gifs.html">http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2006/02/disable-animated-gifs.html</a>

</blockquote>

<p>

The resulting experience is much nicer.

</p>

<p>

To anyone (including photo.net) who has advertising on their site: insist that it be static. Not all users will manage to disable non-static content, but they will come to associate your advertisers and your site with snake oil, telemarketers, and similar undesirables. So treat your viewers like guests, not like TV advertising victims. OK?

</p>

<p>

Cheers,

</p>

<p>

Giles

</p>

The aperture controls the depth of field. Manually focussing does not change depth of field, since it does not change the aperture. Focus and aperture are independent, and thus automatic v. manual focus is irrelevant.

Giles

<p>There are no guarantees, but I'd try photorescue:</p>

<blockquote>

<a href="http://www.datarescue.com/photorescue/index.htm">http://www.datarescue.com/photorescue/index.htm</a>

</blockquote>

<p>

Giles

</p>

Correct about the 18-55mm.

Canon lenses tend to hold their value(*); this isn't dependent on the camera(s) they've been used with. :)

(*) At least L lenses and similar; for consumer grade lenses you'll have to do some research (E-Bay et al) to decide.

Giles

You're trying to fill a 20mm gap? I wouldn't bother. Perhaps upgrade the kit lens if you want one, sure ... presuming that you already have a good quality tripod. If not, that's where I recommend you spend your $.

Cheers,

Giles

<p>A good starting point would be to read this discussion:</p>

<blockquote>

<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml">Understanding RAW Files Explained</a>

</blockquote>

<p>Giles</p>

Quoting the OpenRAW FAQ:

"Archival storage of digital files includes maintaining methods to read them and periodic recopying to newer storage formats. Digital files can and do outlive particular storage technologies."

This may be more work than carefully storing slides. On the other hand, multiple copies can be stored in different locations to help protect from fire, flood, theft, etc.

Giles

The question appears to be do you use the 80-200mm for landscape? If so, think about bringing it along. If not ... not!

Giles

<p>

Melbourne prices are high compared to the online retailers, even after you take GST, customs fees, and shipping into account. For selling, maybe that's an advantage.

</p>

<p>

A year ago <a href="http://www.cameraexchange.com.au/">The Camera Exchange</a> was recommended to me, and I bought a 300D kit there. As the name implies they have quite a secondhand business too.

</p>

<p>

<a href="http://michaels.com.au/">http://michaels.com.au/</a> usually have secondhand Canon lenses in stock, albeit at higher than online new prices.

</p>

<p>

Re the actual lenses that you propose to sell ... well, you'll know what you use. I'd be tempted to keep at least the 50/1.8 just to have one fast lens, myself. If it's the mark I 50/1.8 it's worth more than a new mark II 50/1.8 if you sell online, too.

</p>

<p>

Giles

</p>

<p>

The Jessops guy is right.

</p>

<p>

Further, for the 10D the Canon 10-22mm lens mentioned in an earlier response is not an option; the 10-22mm lens has an EF-S mount which is only supported by the 300D, 20D, and 350D. See here for more information:

</p>

<blockquote>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/wideangle-dslr.html">http://www.photo.net/equipment/wideangle-dslr.html</a>

</blockquote>

<p>

Giles

</p>

Norman Perkel Photo.net Patron, aug 06, 2005; 03:18 p.m. wrote:

<blockquote>

The last time I looked, the 300's were mostly plastic and will not

accept an optional battery grip which I find very important when

shooting with long primes.

</blockquote>

Plastic body is true. Battery grips are available for the 300D and

350D. I don't know where you looked ...

<br>

Giles

The 300D can take EF-S lenses too. If by "changing exposure" you mean ISO setting, then yes, you'll need to look away from the viewfinder to do that. Changing aperture and/or shutter speed can be done without reference to the LCD.

Obviously the 20D is the nicest of the cameras you're contemplating, but I think a 350D or 300D would also be usable.

The range of operating systems that the SDK and vendor software (bought or free) run on is limited now, and backward compatibility for software over 10, 20, and more years is highly dubious.

Documented RAW formats free of patent encumbrances are very desirable from the point of view of photographers.

Giles

Since you say the 17-85mm lens is too expensive, I suggest you get the 18-55mm kit lens and use it for a while. While it is cheap, plasticky and a bit noisy it does get you a wide angle lens more cheaply than you can get one otherwise. Keep the rest of your money toward a future purchase.

After using the 18-55mm lens for a while you will have a better idea of what you would like to use.

Please be aware that there are tradeoffs between quality, price, and having "lots of zoom"! That 17-40mm lens might not have much "zoom" but it's much better built and nicer to use than the 18-55mm zoom, and takes better quality pictures. It's also, as you note, more expensive.

Whatever you choose, take pictures and have fun. A camera and lens you have with you is better than any camera&lens that you left at home or haven't bought yet!

Giles

<p>

From Crumpler's stylish but inconvenient web site, Brian's Hot Tub is 35 x 55 x 25cm, which probably means it's OK for carryon.

</p>

<p>

I have the slightly smaller Shrinkle bag at 35 x 50 x 22cm, and it's supposed to be OK as one of two bags on some airlines (e.g. Qantas domestic). It has passed without argument or fuss and has fitted overhead on United international and USA domestic flights. Just don't leave "tools" (e.g. tripod allen key or spanner!) in it for the security idiots to fuss over at X-Ray ...

</p>

<p>

You really need to check the regulations of the airline that you plan to fly with. Probably any photographer's bag is more at risk re weight limits than size though. :-(

</p>

<p>

<a href="http://www.qantas.com.au/info/flying/beforeYouTravel/baggageCarryOn">Qantas Carry On Baggage</a>

</p>

<p>

My choices:

</p>

<ul>

<li>10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 EF-S

<li>35mm f/2

<li>50mm f/1.8

<li>70-200 f/2.8 IS (plus 1.4x extender)

</ul>

<p>

Yeah, that's four lenses, but you're not going to hold the 50mm f/1.8 against me, right? :-)

</p>

<p>

I can't tell you if the IS for the 70-200mm is worth the extra money or not. It depends what you plan to photograph and how painful the extra cost is. My non-IS preference would be for the f/4 lens, as it's cheaper *and* lighter. But then it's slower. Too many choices!

</p>

Note that in some modes (the green square everything-automatic mode, at least) RAW is not available and the camera shoots jpegs. In other more useful modes (program, Av, Tv, manual) the RAW option is available.

Giles

<p>

Only you can decide which is more useful for the photography that you want to do. This question comes up often enough that Art Morris put it in his FAQ:

</p>

<a href="http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_4f56or3is.html">http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_4f56or3is.html</a>

I'm using Photoshop CS, and had the same problem. (Using a Mac, if that makes any difference.)

What I did in the end was:

1. have my glasses prescription checked (didn't help!)

2. use a second monitor for the palettes, which can be set to a lower resolution

3. lower the resolution on my main monitor from 1600x1200

I was reluctant to do #3, but realistically even with a 21" monitor here are only so many dots of phosphor. The real resolution of my monitor is not as high as 1600x1200, and it looks /much/ better with a sightly lower resolution.

I agree that there should be an easy way to change the font size anyway. :-) (Maybe there is and I just didn't find it.)

Good luck!

Giles

<blockquote>

<i>... I don't seem able to get the crystal clear definition...</i>

</blockquote>

<p>

At the risk of asking a silly question, are you using a tripod? If you aren't, that's what I'd suggest you experiment with before changing lenses. Just for starters, it's <em>much</em> easier to stop down

(improving the performance of the 18-55mm kit lens) if you

have a tripod and can use longer exposure times than you can

afford hand held.

</p>

<p>

Perhaps too you could post some images?

</p>

<p>

Michael Reichmann has done some comparisons you might find interesting:

</p>

<blockquote>

<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/DXO-Tests/dxo-canon-400mm.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/DXO-Tests/dxo-canon-400mm.shtml</a>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

"Recently I started testing some of my existing cameras and lenses with DxO Analyzer. Based on e-mails that I receive and the numerous questions that I see on various equipment Forums around the Net, one of the most common questions concerns what is the best moderately priced 400mm solution for Canon lens owners? This test is intended to partially answer that question, at least with regard to measurable optical performance."

</blockquote>

<p>

That article links to others on his site, including a comparison between the 100-400mm zoom and the 70-200mm+2x extender.

</p>

<p>

Not directly on point, but you might also be interested in Arthur Morris' FAQ answer re 300/4+1.4x v. 400/5.6:

</p>

<blockquote>

<a href="http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_4f56or3is.html">http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_4f56or3is.html</a>

</blockquote>