jimmy_jin

I've heard good things about the Sigma EF 500 DG Super (what a mouthful). It's fully compatible with Canon's flash system and I think it works with their ST-E2 Transmitter. I've heard that it's basically a Canon 550EX except for a lot cheaper. It's even got more power and recycles faster--check it out!

It sells for exactly $200:

http://www.adorama.com/SG500EOSDG.html

Thanks Tom,

Yes, I have heard great things about the 20D. I can't believe that picture was taken at 1600... amazing.

If I had the money I'd grab one. :P However, my DReb isn't well-suited to sports photography anyway--the AF is too crappy (no mode selection), and the high ISO noise is unbearable. I AM focusing on portrait photography, however, so with the new strobes I'll be getting I hope to be able to strobe some indoor games and use my f/4. I'm also looking at that 50 1.8 as well since it's cheap. Anyway, it looks like outdoor sports and flash-lit indoors only for the moment.

Thanks alot!

-Jimmy

Thanks again for all the responses, guys. My christmas present was going to be a loan from my parents to buy this stuff, but I ruined it with an extremely stupid decision... it's a long story. However, they've still agreed to help finance the purchase in the summer (I tried explaining that the sales usually happen around now... they still want me to wait...).

I've been thinking about what I'd do with my camera since then, and in order to break even on my loan faster, I've decided to focus on portrait photography, as I had interned with some pros over this summer and learned a bunch about studio lighting, albeit of the video variety. Without the killer rebate in the summer as well, I've pretty much decided to go for a better body anyway--I've heard horror stories about the DReb's focus and build quality from a friend in Seattle...

I've been notoriously bad when it comes to having my mind set on something for all the wrong reasons, so I guess 5 months to think about it won't hurt. :P

-Jimmy Jin

Doesn't the DRebel have AI-Servo with the firmware hack? The 20D is probably faster in all respects with less high ISO noise, but how necessary is that? :P

-Jimmy Jin

Hi Dave,

I went to Paris last summer, and if there is one thing I can recommend to you, it's this:

Don't go up the Eiffel Tower.

Not only is the view mediocre at best, but when I went (In the summer, could be different now) there were pickpockets everywhere at the base and the lines were so long it took about 4 hours to get up, then back down. Or longer. Waste of time. Take shots from the river if you want something to remember this great piece of architecture with. Also every night or so (I can't remember clearly) the Eiffel was lit up with strobes on the tower for about 20 minutes or something. If you have a tripod and set up at the Trocadero around that time (ask a local or something) you can take a cool-looking long-exposure of the tower with this lighting.

I second visiting Marais. It is simply beautiful.

I also agree with taking the metro. People who say the metro is slow or annoying probably haven't ridden on any other subway system in the world. Paris is by far the most efficient and quickest, and systems like New York and London aren't even close. You will not wait more than 5 minutes for a train, unless it is late at night and the trains are being taken off. During peak hours and regular daytime operation the trains are in perfect sync and never far behind each other. There are zillions of stops all across town and there is always a station nearby. Definetly take the metro and get a map.

The views from the Notre Dame and the scenes around the Ile de la Cite are pretty neat. I also took one of those river tours there as well and if you catch one during the evening at around sunset you can get really nice shots of the Eiffel, bridges, and other buildings around the river. Don't go to the Bastille because it doesn't exist anymore, check out the Arc de Triomphe for views of the main avenue, and:

Always wear your camera or bag around your neck. Never just sling it on one shoulder. My dad's camera was nearly stolen when these three young men came strolling up the street. They seemed to be walking and dancing up the street in a formation with all sorts of tourist items around their neck and waist. One came right up to my dad and lifted the camera right off his shoulder. Luckily my dad was staring right at him and grabbed it back in time. Paris is a nice city, but it's not nice to the point where these pickpockets and other people don't exist. Exercise caution with your equipment!

Otherwise, I hope you have fun and be sure to enjoy yourself!

-Jimmy Jin

Thanks for all your answers. That's not what I hoped to hear but I was denial anyway. :P

Although the 70-200 f/2.8 Non-IS zoom from Canon is ruled out (price...), I still have hope for the Sigma version. It looks well-built and has positive reviews from a number of photog's on the web.

Thanks again!

-Jimmy Jin

Hi all,

This is another lens question, but I'll try to make it more

specific--skip the next two paragraphs if you don't want to read bg

info. :)<br><br>

Given the current Canon rebate situation, I've decided to take the

dive and buy a DRebel with some lenses--one of which that will cover a

range up to 200mm. (Just FYI: I have had past experience with SLRs, my

school has a bunch and I was introduced to them a long while ago by a

friend of mine... big photo guy... I digress)<br><br>

Also given that I'm in High School with a "limited" budget (I guess

$1600 isn't limited to a lot of people... make that most), I have

decided on the 70-200 f/4 ($500+) over the 70-200 f/2.8 ($1000+).<br><br>

My question is this: How well is the f/4 suited for sports

photography? I've heard EVERYWHERE that f/4 just doesn't cut it for

crappy lighting (e.g. night football, indoor basketball, etc) but that

it is OK for day shots and the like. How many of you employ this lens

for sports and what do you shoot? <br><br>

MUCH Thanks,<br>

Jimmy Jin<br><br><br>

PS: Just for the curious, the kit I'm planning to get includes the

DRebel, 17-40 f/4, 70-200 f/4, and 50 f/1.8. I don't want to get

involved in an equipment addiction, so my plan is to just get some

quality glass at the get-go and not worry about what could be better

later on. I figure the lenses to last me a while if I treat them well,

which I will. (I am a freak when it comes to that...) <br><br>

I will be making money off this gear shooting portraits (I learned

advanced lighting and other cinematography from video professionals

over the summer) and sports shots for local K-12 sports teams mostly,

so I am somewhat concerned about quality, hence the pricey stuff.

I agree with Rob above in that you should stick with Canon because you are familiar with it. I have a G3, (very similar to G2) and have played with the A95 because I am buying one for my relatives in China (when I go back this winter).

The controls are very similar in both cameras and I really like having the Aperture priority and Shutter priority modes on the Canons which the Sony lacks.

You should also consider portability, with the Canon being about 120g heavier than the Sony and a few cm larger... it may not make a difference depending on what you're looking for. No matter what camera you choose though, you can count on it being a whole lot lighter than the G2.

I think you'll miss the G2's functionality and features the most--such as having the ability to shoot RAW, having a powerful flash, and above all the fast lens which stops down to f/2 at wide and f/3 at telephoto. (It is f/2.8 to f/5ish on the A95 and W1) However, you may not mind these things. I can live without them certainly, but they are nice little features to have around.

-Jimmy Jin

I haven't done many landscapes around here, and because I'm a relative amateur I hesitate to recommend any shooting spots. I have been to a lot of parks and stuff around the place just for walks and the like, though. They may not be best for shooting... but feel free to e-mail me. It makes me feel special. :)

Watershed park has some cool scenery--it's pretty much a trail inside a big basin-type thing. Trees are everywhere. It's got streams, weird looking logs, clearings, little viewpoints, etc. It's pretty popular for walks around here, at least. I'll head down there maybe tomorrow to get some shots for you so you can see what it looks like--I live right next to it. :P

Tumwater falls is also a popular place, as far as nature inside the city goes. As the name implies, it's a series of waterfalls along the Deschutes river with another trail (with bridge!) that is built running along it. There's numerous little sidepaths that people have made that let you get down right next to the water and the like. If you go down to the bottom you are practically right under I-5 and next to Capital Lake. There's another little trail around there that is popular for shots as well.

Burfoot and Priest Point park are located north of downtown a little bit. They're sort of like watershed park except next to Budd Bay. Not sure if they're good for photos, though.

As always there is the Nisqually wildlife refuge and the accompanying Nisqually River etcetera. I haven't been there since I was maybe 8, so I would take this advice with a grain of salt. (Take all my advice with a grain of salt!) But check it out online--there's probably stuff about it all over the place.

Tolmie state park is OK. It's a beachfront park that is popular during the summer a little bit outside of the city. You can probably get some good shots of the puget sound from there, but I can't remember clearly again... blah.

Hmm... I can't think of anything much besides that at the moment, mainly because I have a pounding headache, but PLEASE e-mail me. I live in Olympia and I've been here for most of my short, 16-year life. I don't bite! :)

-Jimmy Jin