steve torelli

Uuuuuhhhh.....I keep my stuff in a Lowepro bag in a closet. That way my grandson and my dog can't get close enough to admire it.

" Use a card reader" should be on the opening page right after "Welcome to Photo net."

You can get noise in the shadows at any ISO if you under-expose, even 100. Why are you letting the camera make your choices for you outside on a sunny day ? Or anywhere for that matter ?

Here's another one : http://www.the-digital-picture.com/

 

The 24-105 is a great lens. I've had the 28-70L and the 24-70L and the 24-105 I have now is at least their equal. I've gotten some amazing shots at some very slow shutter speeds with it. Sharp as all get out too. But, like anything else in this endeavor, it'll only kick butt if you know how to make it kick butt. It won't do it for you. Good luck.

At that distance, obscuring the background isn't a problem, getting enough of the subject in focus is though. Most macro photography is done at much narrower apertures, f/11 and smaller. I've used a few different macro lenses over the years but found that extension tubes get close enough for what I do. I've never found focusing to be any more or less difficult while using tubes. There are no real macro zooms, they're labeled as such but are more accurately "close focus" lenses. You may have been a little too close to the point of being out of the lens' range.

Yes, all EF lenses will fit, EF-S lenses will not.

Wildlife photography benefits from the smaller sensor, get the 40 for the extra reach unless you can afford 1DMK III. I believe they have the same pixel count.

Of course, for less than the price of the 1DIII, you can get both the 5 and the 40. The 40 for your wildlife shots and the 5 for every thing else. Good luck.

I've never really liked the results with the extender on any zoom I've used it on, both the 70-200 f/4IS and the 2.8IS version. On my 300 f/4 non-IS though is another story. I have to look long and hard to see a difference if I stop down a little. Bottom line is that the TC just works better with primes than it does with zooms. The results on zooms I've used it with weren't bad, just not as good as with the primes. Good luck

I currently own the 70-200 f/4IS and have previously owned the 2.8IS version and also the 200 2.8 at one time or another. A couple of months ago I would have said that if you want the best IQ of the bunch, get the 200 prime. But after living with the f/4IS I'm not so sure, it's at least as sharp as the prime IMO and better than the 2.8 IS. I would get the f/4IS, it's smaller and lighter than the 2.8 zoom, which is a real load to carry around,and IQ, I think, is the best of the bunch. If you really need the faster aperture, the 70-200 2.8 certainly isn't anything to sneeze at. If you just want it for sports, you don't even need the IS, if you want more of an all around lens in that FL, the IS is mighty nice. But, if you can afford both lenses, my choice would be the 70-200 f/4IS and the 200 prime. Good luck.

Get an entry level Canon or Nikon and the kit lens. You need to learn basic photography before before becoming involved with a specific kind of photography. Go to the library, read books on photographic principles of proper exposure, composition and technique. Peruse the internet ( Google is your friend ) for similar articles. The Learning Tab at the top of this page is a good place to start. The necessary software will be included with the purchase of the camera. There's more involved in this than you're probably aware of. Without educating yourself to the subject, you'll get very frustrated. Remember, buying a camera doesn't make you a photographer anymore than buying a set of paints and brushes make you an artist. Good luck.

They're both Jewish owned and observe the Jewish holidays. Though I don't know what the current holiday is, B&H has had a popup on their sight for several days about being closed for a while. I don't know about Adorama. Try Canoga Camera, 17th St. Photo or Calumet.

"Film cameras are a lot nicer than digital cameras." ?

The suggestion of an EOS3 is a good one. A 35mm film body with auto modes?

Hmmm.......the current Rebel film bodies have full auto, but why not just get a digi P&S if you want small and light and full auto?

Why are you worried about what the the majority of people do ? If you prefer film, shoot film. What difference does it make what anybody else does ? As someone "new to photography" you certainly make some provocative statements. Do you feel oppressed by the digital majority ? I've never understood why some feel the need to denigrate others to make themselves feel more secure. Or maybe I've just answered my own question.

You think KEH has a limited inventory ? There are very few Canon or Nikon model s that they don't have at least one or two copies of in varying conditions. Right now they list list fifteen 300-400mm Canon lenses. most of them used. What kind of inventory are you looking for ?

 

I've never thought their prices were really good, but there selection is and their condition ratings are very conservative, I've never hesitated to deal with them.

Michael is right on it with his recommendation of extension tubes. A 25mm tube works very well on my 70-200, like you, I don't need a 1:1 macro, I just like to get closer for flower pics. The tube gets you pretty close for flowers and butterflies and such, close enough to fill up the frame most of the time. After a couple of macro lenses, actually more than a couple including the 180 L, I realized I didn't need them for what I do. I use the Kenko tubes as they're cheaper than Canon and do exactly the same thing. Even if you go with a dedicated macro lens later, a 25mm tube, your 24-105 will only take a 12mm, is a cheap way to find out if you really need a lens for your macro work or not. Good luck.

Look at the price difference between the Nikon and Canon 24-70 2.8s, several hundred dollars. The Canon super teles are a lot less than the Nikon equivalents.There are a few Nikon lenses the same price or slightly lower, but by and large, Nikon is more expensive for glass. I've always thought that Canon being the industry leader for the last couple of decades or so could afford to sell them for less. Maybe not, but I've never understood Nikon's price points either, maybe someone could enlighten us.

A landscape at 4X6 isn't much more than a postcard. But, if that's your plan, I agree that your choice of camera and lens isn't very critical. The cheapest route would be a P&S, what with it's DOF, but I doubt you'll find one that goes that wide.

Like Tommy said, just get a camera and one, basic walk around lens for now. As a newbie, you can't be sure what type of photography will interest you the most, that's what should determine your choice of lenses and accessories. Why run out and buy glass that you might not need or want later ? The suggestion of a mid focal length zoom is a good one along with a flash. Use the kit to take pictures and learn what you're doing (it'll take longer than you're thinking it will). Don't just buy a lot of gear in the beginning, the gear won't take your pictures for you, you need to learn to control the camera to make it do what you want. Keep things simple at first and have fun while you learn. Good luck.

No camera and lens combination will give you "perfect sharpness every time". You have to do your part. You have inadvertently brought up a problem many people suffer from today i.e., they think their equipment takes their pictures for them.

 

There are simply too many variables in your situation to give a useful answer.

You should post some examples.

All this depends on what kind of results you want. If you want professional looking pictures, you're not gonna get them from a P&S. You'll have trouble getting very close to take pictures of small items and no matter what, you'll have to deal with the digital noise they produce which is fierce even on the expensive ones. The cheap ones don't have external flash capabilities so lighting can be problem without enough natural light, which you won't have indoors.

 

If you're willing to settle for snapshot pictures for your own reference, and quality isn't a priority, just get a cheap P&S and blaze away. But, if the results are to be sold or used for archival purposes, or posted on your web site, you don't say what your ultimate goal here is, your kidding yourself if you think it can be done cheaply by an amateur that has no clue. Sounds to me like your going to be spending more time and money trying to do this yourself with no knowledge than if it was done right the first time. If you were at least an amateur with some experience it would be OK. But you're going to end up very frustrated when you find out that the other guy's job, in this case a photographer, isn't as easy as you think it is. Good luck.

Some people have unbridled confidence in the inevitable advancement of technology. But, like Bob said, every given technology matures and slows down. Like DSLRs today. I think it will be a long time before the current crop are considered "paper weights".

 

Nobody can predict the future, but just because you can imagine it doesn't mean it will be commercially or artistically feasible. They promised us flying cars back in the Fifties, it's the 21st Century and there's a Saturn with wheels in my driveway. I suspect that everyone here sees something similar when they look at their driveway.

Not for a while, maybe never ( although never say never ). Canon makes some fine glass for that format, the 17-55 2.8IS and the 10-22, they seem committed to it, at least for the foreseeable future. And the smaller sensor cameras will always be cheaper than the FF.

The Canon TCs are designed to work with the super teles and a few primes, the 135 f/2, as mentioned. I've never been happy with the results on the 70-200 zooms I've owned while using them, even with the 1.4. I've never tried the 2X. I've had a couple of them and always end up selling them. Optically, you're better off with a longer lens rather than a shorter one with a TC attached, but, if you need 280mm and you don't have a lens off that native length, the 1.4 will get you there. It's not bad on your lens, but it was never good enough for me and I ended up getting a 300 f/4. YMMV. Good luck.

AFA photo gear, Fred Miranda's Buy and Sell forum is the way to go. I've never sold any where else and with a decent, not cheap, just reasonable price, I've sold stuff literally within minutes. I've never failed to sell my gear in less than a day. It's a highly active forum. You pay an annual fee for use, to tell the truth, I forget how much. But if you sell gear more than once a year, it's worth it. I just never have trusted E-bay, too many scams and scammers. Good luck.