etan_lightstone

Oops.. I'm seeing other articles claiming the eye can do 10-14 stops.. even 17.

 

But these are taking into account that your pupil will change size as you scan a scene with your eyes, so I don't think that's totally fair.

 

I'm sticking by my 6.5 stop estimate :)

For one... the human eye can only detect a 6 1/2 stop range. More than that, and you image will look totally unrealistic.

 

I see a lot of complaints of people saying HDR looks like crap, or looks too fake.

 

If you just supply HDR with a bunch of exposures.. let it auto merge, and walk away. Then you really aren't using it properly.

 

HDR produces a VERY VERY neutral and uninteresting image. It takes me a long time to tweak that to look like something decent.

 

Of course too much "tweaking" and your image is going to look like a cartoon...

 

this was my most recent attempt at using HDR:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/5002055&size=lg

 

once HDR was done.. I still had to do a lot of layer masking and contrast adjustment. Unfortunately it introduces quite a bit of noise... so if you can accomplish the same thing with a ND grad.. I suggest you use it instead.

 

However, this scene was too complex for the ND grad (note the reflection of the moon/sky) in the window.

 

I've attached the image as well.<div></div>

I just had the same decision to make, and in the end it simply came down to saving the extra money and getting the 400d for me.

 

I tried them both, and the 30D obviously is bulkier, heavier, more durable, has a pro body feel to it, and is a bit faster.

 

Technically speaking it doesn't have any features that I need over the 400D, so I chose to save the extra cash. If somebody simply picked the 30D because of its "better build" I suppose I wouldn't hold it against them.

Ok here is my REALLY quick 400D review:

 

http://www.burnimage.com/ig_articles/index.shtml#canon

I'm leaning towards the 400D, the added cost doesn't equate to the extra features over the 400D imo. 400D also has more resolution.

It is the seconday mirror. And I attempted to fix the pin myself by following these instructions:

 

http://www.abo.fi/~jskata/300Drepair/

 

Word of advice... do NOT attempt this :)

 

I was never even able to get close to the pin inside the camera, dismantling the plastic covers of the case proved to be extremely difficult and I ended up doing more damage.

 

For starters the plastic cracks easily while being removed forcibly even after all the screws are out, second is the pin is much too close to the flash capacitors which hold a tremendous amount of energy. I fried the camera by touching it.

 

Now I need to consider purchasing a 400D versus a 30D sometime down the road :)

Esentially I was taking pictures.. everything was going fin... I didn't drop it,

I didn't do anything.. all of a sudden the camera shots start appearing half black.

 

I peered inside and it seems when flipping the mirror up for the shutter, the

back part of the mirror is still kind of hanging down and doesn't retract up

into the view-box area.

 

Anyone seen this problem before? My camera is only 2 years old (purchased Oct

2004), how long is the warranty normally on a 300d? I have taken about 20,000

exposures with this thing.

 

How much would repairing this cost typically? Where would I go in the Montreal area?

 

<sigh>

We have an old Leitz Focomat 1A enlarger that hasn't been used in

ages. I plugged it in and it still seems to work just fine.

 

Any ideas on how much it might sell for? I'm thinking of ebaying it,

it is taking up room and I have no use for it.

My creative Zen mp3 player can be configured as a portable storage

device (like a usb hard-disk).

 

Can I simply plug this right into the usb interface of my Canon 300D ?

Will the Canon be able to initiate a file transfer? Or are both

devices "dumb" and do nothing?

I use a regular tiffen uv filter on my sigma 10-20 and I notice no vignetting.

 

If you were to use a polarizer on top of that, then you'll start to run into problems.

 

I probably should replace it with a multi-coated hoya one of these days... at the time tiffen was what they had

since it wont affect your final image at all... I wouldn't worry about it.

 

unless it really interferes with your ability to frame and focus a shot

He also comes across as pretty self serving... sometimes I wonder if his website is just a excercise in ego masturbation.

Might I recommend you take ken rockwell articles with a grain of salt.. a large grain of salt.

 

He has a lot of odd seemingly amateur opinionated drivel that he writes off as "his own experience" while completely disregarding other perspectives.

 

Also his obsession with brands is a little tiresome, and pollutes much of his otherwise semi-decent articles.

Why would a backlight cause banding?

 

It's radio interference from the lens

it depends if you want to cover average wide (28mm) or ultra wide (around 15mm).

 

For ultra wide.. the Nikon 12-24 is very highly regarded.

Cheaper alternative are the Tokina 12-24 f4 , and the Sigma 10-20mm.

Both of those third pary lenses are excellent.

 

I've enjoyed my Sigma 10-20 for months now.

 

For average wide the Nikon 18-70 digital lens is supposed to be quite decent, the 18-55 alternative isn't bad either.

 

The Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.5 lens is an interesting alternative that was just released. I would seriously consider this lens if you are leaning towards the Nikon 18-70. ( I would suspect the Nikon has slightly faster focusing).

 

In comes the swarms of people babbling about the horrors of third party lenses. The trick is goto the store, try the lens.. make sure its sharp... if it is.. buy it!

 

There... you just saved yourself hundreds of dollars on Quality Assurance, by assuring a third party lens yourself :)

problem with extension tubes is you lose ability to focus to infinity.

 

the great thing about consumer macros (that do 1:1) is they can be used as a regular lens too (portraits etc).

 

If I remember correctly... the MP-E can't focus to infinity either.

So what are you doing on the forums Keith? :)

a 28-70 isn't terribly useful for indoor weddings on a 1.6x camera (assuming that's what you have). It's a bizarre range. I use that range for studio portraits only.

 

Everyone I've talked to, and every review I have read claims the 70-200 2.8 Sigma is an excellent lens. It's optical quality easily competes with Canon's L equiv.

 

I certainly would rather have that lens, than miss tons of shots fumbling around with 3 or 4 different prime lenses. Most pro's I know use good quality zooms.

 

The only reason I can think of the F4L having an advantage is portability... that's about it.

 

When you think about it.. all you need is two lenses: a 17-40 (or 17-70 sigma or 17-85 canon) and a 70-200 2.8

 

I enjoy using my 10-20mm also for those wide ambience shots. The slow f-stop 4.5-5.6 range isn't that much of an issue with super wide angle.

I don't get it.

 

The Wein Peanut just triggers the flash. Why would it change the intensity reading of your flashes?

wedding biz aside.

 

The Tamron 28-75 is quite good, actually very good.. I've been using mine for a year and its extremely sharp.

 

The sigma 28-70 2.8 looks good on paper, but I've heard people have had problems with that lens.

 

Second.. to really cut costs, couldn't you just get a Vivitar 285HV instead of an SB800 or 600? The vivitar is very powerful, can bounce, and the built-in light "auto" light sensor actually works just as well as TTL from my experience... I actually know a wedding photographer who uses one.

 

Spending $400 on a flash is just retarted if you ask me :) I'd rather strap an Alien Bee strobe (with battery) to a helmet and use that instead, anyone try that? Of course they probably wouldn't let you into the wedding.

A wonderful set of photos, with a moving story.

Its more than just sharpness, but the quick answer is no.. we don't need Zeiss.

 

BUT.. you can tell the difference. I certainly can see the difference in sharpness/resolution between some of my cheap zooms and my more expensive ones on a measly 6.3mp 300D sensor!

 

Sharpness of course isn't the only thing a good lens can have.. handling flare is a big plus, reducing purple fringing is another, as well as controlling optical distortion on wide angle lenses which I hear some of the 20/21mm Zeiss lenses do VERY well.

 

Would you notice most of this on an 8x10 print? no. 18x20? maybe if you look close.

 

Of course when it comes to shooting fast moving subjects or generally covering an event.. I'd gladly leave the Zeiss and any primes at home for a lens that has autofocus, and zoom capability.

 

I'd rather slightly softer shots, than missed shots on a completely manual prime lens.

 

Check out what most photojournalists are using... I doub't you'll see any running around with zeiss manual lenses stuck on their DSLRs... why? because Autofocus ensures you miss less shots.

 

(and please don't give me some sob story about the journalist who refuses to let go of his leica.. and takes it off to war, if heard it all before.. and its mostly just sentimental garbage.)

And just for the record.. I have taken my Canon 300D on many flights, and taken plenty of pictures in the air.. with no probs.

Well its possible I suppose if the mount of the lens you used has a bit of loseness. The cabin pressure might drop a little compared to what the pressure was inside the camera body.

 

Therefore, the air inside the camera would attempt to escape... and put a slight amount of pressure on the lens... maybe if it hand't been mounted properly on the body.. it would be enough to push it off the electrical contacts.. I bet if you were to take the lens off and stick it back on again while in flight it would be fine again.

Marc, you don't find you're missing opportunities running around with a 135 prime lens? A zoom I would think is essential for getting those "moments", when you don't have time (or ability) to run up.. or run back from what your shooting.