sjg

<p>I use a 70-200 2.8IS with a monopod quite a bit, though I hand-hold it more often than not.<br>

At soccer games I usually end up tossing the monopod (quick release plate on the lens foot) - when the action gets close. While I use f4 in bright sunshine, I use f3.2 and wider more often - as the light level drops, so would second the suggestion to hold out for the bigger lens - though it is heavy to hand-hold ;-)</p>

 

I have the 28/1.8 50/1.4 and 85/1.8, I like them all (they all take the same size filters btw)

If I had to pick one, it would be a toss-up b/w the 50 and 28.

Just for the record, _lots_ of folk who contribute to free OS's also have real jobs in the IT industry (I'm one of them). I don't use Linux, but I've used most UNIX and BSD variants for nearly 20 years.

 

If you want to shoot RAW, or love manipulating your images to make everything perfect, then you probably want to use Photoshop, which means you have to use a desktop that supports it.

 

Personally, I shoot digital like slides. I just take the CF out of the camera, plug it into a reader and kick off a job which drops them into my pics collection - renamed by date and stored in appropriate YYYY/mm folders, extract EXIF summary, generate suitably rotated and scaled and sharpened images for the web, plus generate suitable HTML to present/navigate them etc - While I go do something else.

 

On the rare occasion that I want to remove a blemish I find GIMP fine because a/ I only shoot jpeg, b/ its once in a blue moon.

 

Wether Linux (which I can't actually speak for) or another UNIX like desktop will work for you, depends on your needs. If you use your computers primarily for programming/debugging and/or system/network management or providing network services, then reliability/stability may well be more important to you than the average joe. In which case UNIX might be for you, my systems get rebooted to add/replace hardware and sometimes upgrade the OS, otherwise they are up 24x7 for months at a time (eg up 343 days).

 

If you turn your computer off each day (and you can stand the user interface) then Windows might be fine for you.

The only disadvantage of the 2.8 IS, is cost and the weight (compared to the f/4). If you can't hold it, the IS isn't going to help (a 20D plus 70-200 2.8 is about 2Kg), but if you can heft it and can afford it, it is hard to beat.

The manual for my 70-200 IS, says that the IS module will detect when

it is on a tripod, and do "nothing", but since it will still draw current from the battery, they recommmend turning it off. The difference is supposed to be about 20% of the battery which is significant.

 

The IS on the 70-200 kicks in very quickly (you can feel it), and the viewfinder often jumps as a result. I often use it even at high shutter speeds since it makes framing easier. The 24-105 isn't as heavy so may not be such a big deal.

 

--sjg

I use a 70-200/2.8 IS with 20D for taking pics of my kids activities.

Skating rink: ISO 1600 f/2.8 and 125/s (if I'm lucky),

Undercover riding arena: ISO 1600 f/3.5 500/s works very well.

 

Arguably you don't need IS at 500/s but it still helps steady your hand for framing. I use a mono-pod when I can, but more often than not, it is hand held.

EF-S lenses are not <em>crazy</em> on a 20D.

I currently have 17-85 IS, 50/1.4 and 70-200/2.8 IS and am very happy

with all of them.<p>

 

If I was into super wide I would consider the 10-22, but I think

a 28/1.8 is next on my list.

The 17-85 is the lens that is on my camera most of the time btw.

While f4 is rarely fast enough for indoor shots, with IS I can

get good/useful shots at 1/2s.<p>

 

If I ever buy a FF DSLR the 17-85 could simply remain on the 20D,

and if I were selling the 20D the 17-85 could go with it - but I

think I'd keep the 20D - especially for use with the 70-200 ;-)<p>

 

If/when I add a FF to my kit choosing b/w the 24-70/2.8 and 24-105/4 IS will be tricky...<p>

One downside of the XT as backup for the 20D, is that the batteries

are not compatible. Of course you could buy a lot of batteries for

what you'd save on the XT, but it means you have extra items to check, carry etc.

Get hold of the source to a converter - like dcraw, and save the _source_ along with your .cr2 files. Computer h/w comes and goes as

do proprietary file formats and applications - but source is forever ;-)

 

Same goes for your OS too of course ;-)

 

Note dcraw may not be the ideal choice for use today - converts .cr2's to .png's (I think) which are huge, but as a safety net its a good option. Same holds for your OS - use windows or whatever if that

helps your productivity - but like .cr2 it may not last (who run's dos 2.x apps on NT?), have a backup plan.

The manual for my 70-200 IS, indicates that IS hits battery life by about 20%. It also indicates that while the IS system (on this lens)

detects being on a tripod and thus does nothing - it still consumes

battery - so I turn IS off when I don't need it.

There's quite a difference just in the specs - check dpreview.<br>

D70: .75, 95% approx (I'd guess that means < 95% ;-), 18mm<br>

20D: .90, 95%, 20mm<p>

 

The higher eye point, better magnification for at least the same coverage plus a prism rather than mirror, all suggest the 20D

should be noticably better.<p>

 

I've a 20D, and the viewfinder isn't as big/bright as my OM2, but

its ok, and while I've only briefly looked through a D70, the difference was quite noticable.<p>

 

Is it worth the price difference? Only you can say.

The vf on the 350D has pretty much the same specs as 20D except for

the prism, so might be a good cheaper alternative.<p>

The 20D is better in many respects, but if all you care about is the image quality, then the XT should be fine.

Does the in-body AS do as good a job stabilizing a 600mm lens as it

does a 50mm ? I got the impression from dpreview that the answer was

"no", which is a pitty since the 600mm lens needs it more.

I find CF4=1 very handy, especially for zone focusing and the like.

It doesn't just let you swap the thumb for finger, it allows you to decouple focusing and metering completely.

Ie. press '*' when you want to auto focus, and then you can freely use

the shutter button to meter and hold while you shoot.

FWIW, I have the 2.8 IS version and more than 50% of the pics I've taken with it are wider than f/4 (40% at f/2.8) and many already

at ISO 800 or ISO 1600. Usually hand held btw.

I use the 50/1.4 on my 20D a lot - indoors. It is very good.

It is occasionally a bit long, but for a stationary target like a baby

it should be easy to find room to step back. I do plan to get a 28/1.8

to compliment it fwiw.

I avoid flash when I can, but I'm quite happy with the 580EX on my 20D.

I typically use Tv mode (1/125s) and an omnibounce on the 580 pointed at

the ceiling. The results are generally very good.

I also use partial metering mode and try to select a mid-tone to meter,

which may be why FEC etc isn't needed.

It's more to do with lens to flash distance. My daughters have

brown eyes, and with a P&S (coolpix 9xx), red-eye was a major problem.

I've not seen a single instance of red-eye however with the pop-up

flash on the 20D though. (I'd guess the D70's is also sufficiently above the lens).

Ok, this is a crummy pic, but it is so typical of my little one,

as soon as she saw the camera she bolted, and I had no time to set

anything, so this nothing like what I'd had in mind, I just snaped as

she ran past.<div></div>

On one of the CSI's (Miami?) I saw an Olympus E1 used early on,

then Nikon, then name blanked out, and now back to Nikon.

High frame rate DSLRs make just as much noise as film, and some (20D for example) can include signature data to allow later verification that the image has not been tampered with - just what you want for

evidence.

I think it would be very handy to have an ISO 'program mode', where you set an Av and Tv as well as the max ISO. The camera can then allow the ISO to fall lower to adjust exposure. A custom function could let you chose which of Av and Tv take priority when you hit the limit of the ISO range you specified.<p>

For example, I may want f/4 for depth of field, and 1/125s to cope with a bit of subject movement, and I don't mind the noise at up to ISO 400, but that does not mean I want to shoot everything at ISO 400, if the light is varying rapidly I might prefer the ISO auto adjust between 100-400 before hitting my Tv (or Av).

FWIW, I found with a QR plate attached to the tripod collar, that the lens was quite comfortable sitting on my palm - rather the way you support a rifle. I would certainly expect that position to be maintainable longer than with a pistol grip.

 

The QR plate is for attaching a monopod btw, but I find the lens quite usable without.

The fact that the 300D uses the same battery as 20D, and the 350D uses something else may be a factor for some.

Ditto, the 20D draws so little currnet when asleep, that there's no

point in wearing out the on/off switch. I just leave it on all the time.

 

By contrast, my Canon miniDV camera sucks batteries dry even when turned off.

 

--sjg

Since you mention that you use 50-100 a lot, the 17-40 might not

suit you. It is certainly an exellent lens, both in terms of build and optics, but if you rarely use that range...<p>

The suggestion to get the 18-55 and 28-135 is a good one - provided you can handle the toy-like build of the 18-55 (I couldn't).<p>

I opted for the 17-85, the range is very good (I use 40-85 more than the wide end), IS works and at f/8 it's hard to tell the difference between most lenses. I've not seen any data to suggest that the 17-85 isn't a good comparison to the 28-135.

I borrowed a 17-40 briefly to compare, wide open up to 24mm I thought the 17-40 was clearly better, but beyond that I had difficulty telling the difference and its the wide open performance you pay for with 'L's. Note that this wasn't a rigorous test, just a quick comparison to see if I'd made a horrible misstake with the 17-85, I concluded I hadn't and I still find it useful.