emwalker
-
Posts
387 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by emwalker
-
-
The 30D has a higher continuous frame rate. The sensor is updated in the XTi, but I'm not sure what the real difference in quality and s/n will be between them, if any. Otherwise, the 30D has a metal alloy body where the rebel is plastic, and the 30D also has spot metering, higher maximum flash sync speed, and the practically useless 'high ISO' speed 3200. I have not shot with the XTi yet, but it does incorporate the new dust avoidance system and the proximity sensor for the LCD. It seems to me that at this point, if you don't need the higher frame rate or the more robust build of the 30D then the XTi would be a wise choice, considering the cost difference. As far as I know, the image quality was very similar among the 20D/30D and the XT, and I imagine that the XTi will hold its own.
The best thing for you to do is go to a store that sells both cameras and hold them in your hands. I bought a 20D because I wanted the heftier build and higher frame rate, and after holding the XT in my hands I was sold because the XT just felt dinky to me. Maybe not the best way to decide to spend an extra $350, but it makes me happy...
-
yes, you should keep your film camera.
-
70-200 f/2.8L ~$1100, 70-200 f/2.8L IS ~$1650
As you can see, there's a heavy premium on speed and IS...
and I don't know (and have no need to know) what the 135 f/2L costs, but I'm sure you could buy a whole lot of lesser lenses for the premium : )
-
hmmmm. people with waaaaaaaaay too much time on their hands who need to justify for their inner peace why they spent waaaaaaaay too much money on their cameras...
-
*ahem* as I was saying, and Giampi typed before I knew it, people will be happy to suggest what they want or like or use, but Giampi would also have you spending several grand on glass. : )
70-200 f/4L ~$550
50mm f/1.8 ~$70; 50mm f/1.4 ~$350; 50mm f/1.2L ~$1600
-
Too many variables! How much are you willing to shell out? I'd start with the $70 50mm f/1.8 'plastic fantastic' and go from there. I have a Tamron zoom- 28-75 f/2.8- very well made and usable, which I enjoy, available for about $300-400. You can spend thousands or hundreds on lenses, depending on what you expect you'll need. Outdoors, you can get away with 'slow'er lenses most times (f/4 or more), so you'll find some savings there. If you're loaded I'd go for a set of L series primes; if you're not you should read up on what's out there and decide what you think will meet your performance needs that falls within your price range. Zooms are great for convenience, but not the quality of primes in general terms... here, read some reviews here: <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/">Fred Miranda Reviews</a><br><br>There are user-reviewed products in most categories, quite helpful to hear what others have to say. The site also gives average pricing and user 'ratings' for each product. Also, with the 20D, remember that your 24mm lens is going to look more like something closer to 40mm due to the 'crop factor', so if you want wide angles you'll need to factor that in. This leaves the question of EF vs EF-s lenses as well, depending on what your future plans for upgrading are. The kit lens (18-55) is about equivalent to a 28mm standard lens... I just pulled mine out today for some indoor shots where my 28-75 was reaching a little too far; I had thought of selling it a while back, but I don't like being confined to telephoto lengths and i can't afford a more satisfying wide angle at the moment. Whew. Anyway, your question is vast, and while a lot of people could tell you what they would like to buy, it'll really all depend on what you can spend and what features you are willing to sacrifice for the sake of price. <br><br>So, faster (smaller f/ number)=heavier and more expensive, but better suited for dimmer conditions<br>IS (image stabilization)=buttloads of money and it won't help you not blur hyperactive children<br>zoom=more expensive than prime, but a range of focal lengths in one package at cost of a little sharpness a/c/t primes<br>L=luxury (no joke!), and you pay for it<br><br>as far asI know, probably the best values out there are the Canon 50mm f/1.8mkII and the Canon 70-200mm f/4L for bang-for-your-buck. As for wide angles, well, it seemsto me that you can buy a disappointing lens or a really really expensive lens, and I have not found much middle ground, though it's not in my budget to even buy a cheapie WA so I haven't been looking lately. But, for about the cost of the 50mm 1.8 you get the 18-55 kit lens with the 20D, so it's probably well worth the add-on. If you shoot at 24mm a lot, you'll miss the width on the 20D if you don't get something wider.<br>hope this is somewhat helpful, or at least giving you something to do<br>good luck<br>-e-
-
check out <a href="http://strobist.blogspot.com/?"> the Strobist</a> and read through his lighting 101 and 'on assignment' sections. sure, there's some PS work to do, but from what I saw most of hoyle's 'look' appears to me to be the result of very well-thought-out and precise use of supplemental lighting. Start with perfect light and you only need photoshop for the finishing touches; start with a crappy image and you're lucky if photoshop can help. :o)
-
Oh, and judging by dave's 'glow' it looks like the leica alternative for the rest of the market is being produced by lensbabies :o)
-
funny to see the leicaphiles get all mushy about lens flare and bokeh... kinda like a new mom gets when her kid first vomits on her shoulder... i don't care how much you spent on your camera- wouldn't you guys be more entertained out shooting instead of gushing over how pretty the lens flare is?
-
-
Yes, and probably not. The zoom optics are much more complex than the 50mm, and there are thus more points of distortion. Most good primes (and the cheap-o 50/1.8 is one of the best) are going to outperform most good zooms most of the time. If it's too soft with your zoom, you might consider sending it to canon; however, if your zoom is as sharp at f/4 as the 50mm, then it's probably as good as it gets.
-
I think using gaussian blur and layer masking and opacity changes you can probably duplicate this effect, depending on how much time you want to spend with it. you can create just about anything in photoshop if you've got the gumption(whatever that means) :o)
-e-
-
What the heck is leica 'glow'?
-
sounds like a lawsuit in the making... keep us updated :)
-
We're inundated already, and I doubt that people will stop hoping against hope that new users will take their own initiative in doing their 'homework' on buying a new camera. given the number of iterations of *every* question under the sun regarding the camera/lens/memory/flash/monitor/processor/tripod/software/little screen thingy/cleaning brush/bullet/gun/coffin they should buy already archived in these forums, I think it is probably a good thing that new members are occasionally gently encouraged to use the search feature. And whaddya mean the kit lens won't turn me into Ansel Adams? I'll be nice. Bring 'em on!
-
Are you using the scanner's exposure/color correction when you scan? The scan looks a lot more contrasty than the original print. Try turning the image correction features in the scanner software off and scanning again.
-
tell them to reschedule for 'golden light.'
-
telephoto=longer than 'standard', used to be 50 in 35mm but with 'crop factor' with many non-premium digital slr platforms (big sellers), 50mm is closer to 80mm equivalence. (hmmm...)<ohh..>(aha)(ahem)
-
yes. slave.
-
the 'picture styles' features of the 20D allow automatic adjustments in-camera(if shooting JPG) or will 'tag' your raw files with automatic settings which DPP can use. The images are dull because the world, in general, is pretty dull. Most point and shoot cameras add a lot of processing and enhancement, as do the mini labs and others who process and print your film. They have found that most people are not happy with the unenhanced pictures. With the 20D you have the opportunity to take shots of the world as seen by your sensor (raw files) and manually enhance them. If you like the 'auto-correct' option, it will save you a lot of time at the sacrifice of control over the nuance in your shots, but ultimately I find that my results are much more satisfying when I start with the unaltered shot and tweak it to enhance its individual qualities- I detest the 'autocorrect' feature as it invariably gives less-than-optimal results compared to hand correction.
-
I think the shots are ok overall, with a few soft ones here and there, and some minor lighting glitches... but good overall. What made me not want to look was the imposing splash screen with your name in the beginning and the pop-up 'about me' box after i took longer than i like to getting 'in' the site in the first place. I think that you could include a bio section that people could choose to look at or not, but i think you should let the images you present speak for themselves to generate that interest.
-e-
-
how about only showing the top half of the shot until it's rated? like a surprise, a suspenseful one-liner? then you could really test your judgement to see if you're giving valid rates or not...
-
Check out this guy, and read his 'lighting 101' and 'on assignment' tutorials. If that doesn't satisfy your sense of imagination, you're not thinking hard enough.
<br><br>
-
What i got:
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /fashion/flair0603_fantasia/images/fanspread5.jpg on this server.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache/1.3.34 Server at demarchelier.net Port 80
Sorry : )
Raw thumbnails in Photoshop CS2
in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing
Posted