etan_lightstone

Paul. its an excertise in futility waiting around for the next thing.

 

The fact is you don't have a DSLR right now, and you are probably missing some interesting photographic opportunities right now.

 

You can spend the next decade not taking photos waiting for the next best thing.. or you can go out now... get yourself an "old world" DSLR that'll still produce decent prints (even as large as 13x19" if you are very careful, and use a good lens).

 

Forget about waiting for the next camera unless you know for a fact that there is a particular feature or shortcoming that requires you to wait for a specific model that you KNOW is about to come out.

 

Digital cameras Are NOT computers... faster computers keep coming out to compensate for slower and bigger programs that are developed.

 

Digital cameras people purchased 4 years ago are still producing wonderful prints that are 8x10 (my 300D rebel has given me quite a few sharp looking 12x18 sized prints!).

 

If its between the 350D and the 20d/30d.. that's easy. Is the slightly higher build quality and better buffer/speed of the 20d worth the extra 500bucks? Can you even afford it? If not.. the 350D is practically the same camera.. and a wonderful alternative.

 

Now go buy it.. and stop wondering what's going to come out next month, next year, next decade.

Honestly.. I just don't get it.

 

Or is operah music and some random images and Voodooo-zen mastery one-liners all this site is about?

Oh it seems it does. Definitely go with that lens.

But does the 17-40 have internal focus? does it extend when you zoom?

It'll always be a waiting game for the next best thing.... if you are prevented from taking good pictures now.. get the camera now. There is always going to be a new camera out next month... that's life.

 

If you are going to bother upgrading, while you can still salvage your old rebel for a decent amount of coin.... you may even want to think about what kind of financial hit you might be willing to take to jump all the way to the 20d. There are probably quite a few on ebay now.

 

If speed and buffers is your big concern, seems logical no?

 

You should be able to at least sell you rebel for 500 if not 550.

 

I see a buy it now NEW rebel XT body (With a 1gig card) for 692.97.

 

So that's only 150 you'd have to spend to upgrade.

 

I see a buy it now NEW 20D for around 1,000 even. Now that's a bit more than 300 but not that much more, and it'll get you a more rugged, better featured faster camera than the XT.

 

Just about everyone I talk to says its not really worth upgrading a Rebel for a Rebel XT. Sure its only 150 bucks... but why bother, I mean do you weep at night cursing the gods that your camera is 1fps slower than the next model that just came out?

Well the obvious question is do you already own nikon lenses? If so than the choice is easy... I'll just assume you don't :) Also, why haven't you included the Canon XT? A little too expensive? Well I'm going to include it as a possibility for you:

 

Ok so: D50 kit 649.95 (gives you 27-82mm equiv focal range) 27 will do, but not really the best landscape lens.. good for mid-range zoom.

 

e-300: 649.95 (gives you 28mm-90mm) still not ideal for landscapes.. but even better as a mid-range zoom than the d50.

 

Canon Rebel XT: 779.95 (28.8-88mm.. same deal)

 

the e-300

 

-is more lightweight

-uses a special vibration feature to kee p the sensor clean of dust (and speaking from a regular DSLR user... is actually important).

-reasonable but not amazing burst speed

-has more megapixels

-has slightly worse noise performance (smaller sensor is why) than the d50/d70/rebel xt ... but you'd probably not notice on an 8x11 print after using "neatimage" or "noiseninja" anyways.

 

Well on the surface.. the e-300 line seems like an excellent choice, and I would seriously consider it... HOWEVER you must take one thing into account. How much are lenses going to cost you in the future? You may think all you need is the kit lens now... but if that was true than you wouldn't be getting an SLR (and if it really is true.. I strongly recommend avoiding SLRs completely). But since you probably are going to get lenses.. you HAVE to consider this.

 

Unfortunately for Olympus... Canon and Nikon have a HUGE HUGE arsenal of lenses available. Ranging from unimaginably cheap consumer lenses to the ultra delux masterbation fodder lenses that only the PRO's buy... and retired rich people who don't know any better (ok I admit that's a little harsh :) ).

 

Well.. there are very good performing moderatly prices lenses too... but with Olympus.. your going to have to pay ALOT.

 

Lets say you want to buy a decent lanscape lens.

 

on 35mm you'd want something in the 16-20mm range at the widest.

 

So for Canon/Nikon this would be (if you do your cost/performance research):

 

Tokina 12-24mm lens ($499)

or

Sigma 10-20mm lens ($499 as well)

 

For the e-300 your option is this:

 

The cheapest is Olympus 11-22mm f/2.8-3.5 which is only a 22-44mm lens, not quite as wide as what the canon lenses offer you on that size sensor... but it costs $799! bleh...

 

The only other option is: Olympus Zuiko 7-14 aha! this gives you a very nice 14mm-28mm range perfect for landscapes.. but it'll set you back a mind boggling $1,799.95 .

 

If you do some more hunting you'll find the prices are still pretty high for long lenses...except for the really dirt cheap few that sigma provides.

 

Anyhow with Canon/Nikon you future lens purchases are limitless and there is waaay more of a price range for you to consider.

 

If you're hoping to get something really wide range with the e-300... you're going to have problems. And don't even think of using wide-angle adapter lenses that screw onto regular lenses... they are aweful... like seriously bad :)

 

My honest advice.. spend the extra money and get the Canon XT... its got the megapixel advantage over the d50. Otherwise its pretty much just as good.

Well I was talking 35mmm....trust me I'm aware of the resolution advantage of medium and large format film.. And if I was making a 24"+ enlargement... I would leave the digicam at home :)

Scott above makes an interesting point.

 

Assuming the individual light sensing pixels on a CMOS/CCD are about the same size/density.

 

Why not just get a 1ds m2 full frame camera which is roughly 16 megapixels.... it'll work well for your wide angles.

 

And if you desire a 1.6x crop factor with your 200mm lens, just crop away %40 of the image in photoshop.. this will give you the effective 320mm, and you'll stil be left with a 6.4megapixel image! (a bit more than a 10d or 300d).

 

Now the 5D is a little cheaper and only sports a 12mp sensor I beleive. Probably to save cost they spread out the individual "photocytes?"... so after the same crop you are only left with a 4.8 megapixel image... hell maybe that's still good enough for you?

 

Or.. save a few thousand dollars.. get the 1.6x camera, and use 500 bucks to buy a decent 10-20mm lens. Have a nice day.

John Wire,

 

Geez.. you seem to be taking this personally. This is only photography :)

 

Perhaps you like this statement better:

 

Regardless of whatever scientific studies which have been done, I've done enlargements of "good" C41 color negatives, and I've done enlargements of RAW images from my 300D 6 megapixel camera... and I prefer the result from the 300D.

 

Perhaps I see grain that isn't there... maybe its a medical psychiatric condition.

 

And beleive me... even if I was a "pro digital propoganda sales man", it really wouldn't make a difference... the decline of the film market speaks for itself, no need to pollute message boards with my evil capitalism :)

1) Canon doesn't give bluish skin. It's a matter of the lens and whitebalance and the ambient light. With my setup my canon tends to favor more red.

 

You shouldn't blindly change the CMYK colors just because someone tells you... just look at the skin... if too blue adjust for warmth... if too warm... adjust to cool it down.

 

If skin tones are such a huge concern then maybe you should stick to raw... easier to adjust whitebalance.

 

I personally don't enjoy playing with RAW files.. but only shoot large jpegs, using "medium res jpegs" in your camera is a huge mistake. What if someone wants to enlarge a shot? memory cards are pretty cheap these days anyways.

 

I leave my camera in srgb, and work in AdobeRGB once inside photoshop. You might notice a slight improvement in color tones if you can set adobergb inside the camera... it has more colors than srgb.

 

"customer can't really say the image has a bad skin color unless he is a photographer" ?? sounds like BS to me. Show a bride her uber red face, and she'll complain. Doesn't matter if she is a photographer or not. In-fact.. its best to assume she'll be extrememly picky, its a wedding! she's a bride!

 

Who is giving you this advice? Stop listening to them :)

how much?

its not good or bad. It simply is.

 

just means you have to buy wider lenses to get wider shots than a 35mm, and less long lenses.

 

The only thing I would think is annoying is if you regularly use your 35mm EF camera, and your DSLR EF camera. Then you get the worst of all worlds :)

The green screen software approach is absolutely hideous. I'd like to see one photo that does a good job of this, because everything I've seen so far is absolute garbage.

 

Go buy some material and experiment! Hell... I've even used a tablecloth as a background once.. just hung it.

 

Have a look at this one with the tablecloth:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/4051751&size=lg

 

granted the pattern of this one isn't that ideal.. but I'm sure there are better tablecloths out there.

Lilly I agree... its not really an issue of complexity when comparing SLR to M (rangefinder). I suppose its an issue of "bulk".

 

I do notice however (just tried it), that I can take slightly sharper photos in low-light hand-held with the Leica.

Gil, I can't help but point out... most of the "ease of use" you described is just your take on FILM vs Digital, not Leica versus SLR.

 

Yes film means less for you to do after the shot.. unless you do your own developing, in which case its even more time consuming than photoshoping.

 

And, if its the post-processing that repells you... just create a basic photoshop "action" to do the usuals (little bit of contrast/saturation.. little bit of sharpening is all you need most of the time). Then to a batch process on an entire set of digital captures.

Thanks for sharing with me guys. And indeed my intention was not the usual antagonistic approach... but more the positive approach.

 

I almost feel guilty for not taking advantage of my Leica outfit.

 

I think an interesting idea is to force certain creative juices by restricting myself to the leica box, and one 35mm lens (its tiny!).

 

It can be my walk around lens in case I see anything interesting on the street i wan't to document. When I do this with my DSLR I end up lugging a whole backpack full of heavy zooms. I could use a small prime with my DSLR... but for casual shootings I can see the attraction of the even smaller leica and primes.

 

My last statement regarding the incredible cost of leica gear was a bit more antagonistic. From the perspective of someone who was just given the gear.... its very difficult to interpret the value. After-all its just a box with a lens on the end :)

 

In all likely hood Leica prices their items the way they do.. because the niche market expects it. Like the diamond industry that infaltes diamond prices.

Ron.. I think I'll have to correct your correction :)

 

Because those little leica M lenses sit soooo close to the film plane compared to traditional SLR distances (half the distance actually), there is by nature less light fall-off edge to edge, less chromatic abboration, etc.. also less internal relections in the camera cavity in general.

 

Anyhow its a mute point... perhaps you're right, there is no doubt that leica takes great care in manufacturing/designing these lenses.

 

Nonetheless, I'd still be curious what people think about my statements / questions above.

Simply put my question is when do you choose to use which?

 

You see I have a Canon 300D + a bunch of good lenses.

 

I actually came into the Leica world by accident when I inherited an

old Leica M5 and a few good lenses (35mm two 50mm and a 135mm ..).

 

When I first tried the rangefinder I enjoyed the simplicity of it, was

slightly frustrated by the lack of close-focus, enjoyed its small size

compared to an SLR, and was relatively impressed by the sharpness and

contrast of the images after development.

 

Since then its been in my closet, and I've continued to use my 300D

ever since.

 

I yearn to use the Leica because I have it and its fun to use.. but:

 

a) I get more resolution out of my DSLR than regular C41 color negatives.

 

b) its expensive to use film... my 300D is free to use :)

 

So my question is two... when do you choose to use your Leica versus

your DSLR? and why?

 

 

My final question... is how are these cameras + lenses marketed (and

purchased) at such an insanely inflated price?

 

If you are a pro doing magazine shoots, journalism etc. you own an

SLR. If you must an expensive one... But a leica rangefinder as

"magical" as it, just doesn't get the job done. It's simply not versatile.

 

With that in mind... I can't possibly fathom spending $3,000+ on a

camera like this. It certainly isn't going towards the astounding

research and development going into these cameras.. because they are

probably the simplest camera to design.. and the technology pretty

much hasn't changed in years. The coveted Leica lenses are sharp...

but its not particularly difficult or expensive to design a sharp lens

the size and complexity of one for the leica M mount.

 

So someone with deep pockets who loves the gimmick buys it? I just

don't follow...

Really good in terms of versatility yes, 18-200 is an amazing focal range.

 

in terms of quality/sharpness not so much. It can be soft.

 

As long as you are using it outdoors during the daytime, and a little stopped down ( like F8 ).. it look fine on big enough prints.

 

People will likely kick and screem about edge sharpness and chromatic abboration, blah blah. But its good enough for prints that are 8.5x11, maybe even a bit bigger.

 

The above poster is correct though... the Nikon 18-200 is lightyears better from what I've heard, and of course is double the price.

I've never made prints that large... but I'm sure you already (since you already read all the web specs) that the D200 is slightly higher resultion.

 

So if your main concern is getting the most amount of detail then the d200 is your guy. The Canon 5D of course will be way ahead, if you can spring for the extra cash.

 

And I suppose I might as well give you the standard warning of "Regardless of your camera body... your lens will likely be the bottleneck in quality.. so make sure its a very sharp lens"

Oh.. and hopefully I don't have to tell you not to leave a 1000watt halogen on while unattended... they are known to start fires.

 

Don't put yourself at risk :)

Halogens ARE known to explode if there is a slight weakness in the bulb, or they were touched by skin at somepoint... the oil on the surface of the glass in one spot heats up faster than the rest of the glass.. causes some kind of instability.. then boom.

 

This is why ALL halogen lamps have a large protective glass plate infront of the bulb, There is always a risk of it bursting... also halogens are known to give off more UV than regular tungsten lightbulbs.. and the glass plate serves are a uv protector.

 

Never use your halogen lamp again without a glass plate infront.

Even though Michael's claim is probably true.. I wouldn't recommend skiing with the camera loose under your jacket (and around your neck).

 

One nasty fall and your camera is broken for sure. Second, the constant change in temperature and humitidy between the inside of your jacket and the outside is bad.

 

I've skiid with an slr.. and I have it in a small backpack tightly strapped to my back while skiing. its imporant to have a pack with the extra strap around your waist, and another pulling the two armstraps across your chest for extra stability (you can often see this in hiking packs.. some small ones have it too). It keeps the bag from bouncing while I do some agressive skiing.

 

I stop and take it off my back when I take shots.. and I always keep the battery in my warm pocket while the camera is in the bag and not in use.

 

Obviously.. just take the bag off your back when getting on the chair-lift..... its a no brainer.

 

I took a moderately hard fall face first... and after brushing myself off.. was glad the camera was on my back :)

 

btw.. the Lowerpro slingshot 200AW is excellent... but I haven't tried that one skiing. I'd be worried that the ONE over the sholder strap isn't enough to keep the bag steady while skiing. Unless you are a gentle skier. (I am not :) )

Rich I have a pretty powerful vivitar flash, and it works great through an umbrella. I can get good exposures at iso100 and f16 with it on full power.

 

Obviously if the flash is not in full manual mode.. it will interpret the light bouncing on the inside of the umbrella and be weak.

 

Second, if you want some nice soft light... move that umbrella close enough to the subject (assuming you want just a head/shoulders shot) so that it almost TOUCHES their face... as long as you can get the brella just out of the frame of your shot... you'll get nice "wrap-around" light...

 

I've said too much already!! arrhhh they are comingsldf ......

 

*beep*

Oh.. and smarter photographers apprentice with a pro on a wedding before they risk botching one for the first time on their own.