chuck_c_charlottenc_

Tim,

According to the specifications of the Pelican 1500, the Rebel XT with your configuration will fit.

Here's how came up with this.

Case #1 - The "Inside" dimension of the case "thickness" is 6 inches. The width of a Rebel XT is 5 inches (from side to side). And attaching the grip does not change the width of the camera... so the camera will fit lying it on it's side with grip and lens attached.

Case #2 - Again, the "Inside" dimension of the case "thickness" is 6 inches. The camera is less than 4 (3.8 in.) inches high... and the grip would extend the height of the camera less than 2 additional inches. So, the camera with the grip attached from top of the camera to bottom of the grip is less than 6 inches. This would allow you to lie the camera on it's bottom with the grip and lens attached.

So, either way, it should easily fit in the case with the grip and lens attached.

//Chuck

I don't know Rob... this information could be "Very" important to the psyche of the "conformist" and "nonconformist".

There are people who want to be "In" with the crowd and those who can't stand having something "everyone else" has.

We need to care.

Steve,

Another vote for the Canon 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM lens.

Excellent Image Quality for the price.

//Chuck

It's very likely that they caused the zoom problem. But you have no way to prove it. You can file a formal complaint and it may get you some relief, but, in my opinion, you'll only be "sucked in" further.

Hind sight says that when your A80 broke, it was then time to buy a new camera. You already have $92 spent and another $134 to go... and you will still not be sure that it'll be fixed after another $134.

If I were you, I'd forget about the A80 and the $92 and buy a new camera. The Canon A630 is very much like the quality of the A80 was back in 2003... but of course with all the new technology. It's a wonderful camera and it will feel the same to you as the A80.

And it's only $230.

Here's a link to B&H Photo of the Canon A630.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=8612&A=details&Q=&sku=457550&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

I hope this helps.

//Chuck

Rick,

I agree with Frank.

I'd get the Canon 300mm f4.0L IS and then add the Canon 1.4x Tele when needed... which will be often.

Great Combo.

//Chuck

Chris,

My experience is that once you've tried a Canon IS lens, you become hooked.

Keep reading within this forum on how an IS lens provides you 3 extra stops.

And in the case of sports photography, 3 extra stops of shutter speed is "priceless".

What's great is that you can hand hold the Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS in your sports situations instead of finding yourself having to use a monopod or trying to hand hold a non-IS lens ending up with many shots allocated to the 'trash can'. And the IS feature doesn't prevent you from also using a monopod to maybe even gain another stop or two.

I'm not sorry spending the extra money for the IS lens... and in fact I'm delighted with my decision to buy the IS lens.

Again, I hope this helps. Keep reading.

//Chuck

Chris,

Well Chris, you mentioned taking photos of sports (football and basketball), and you mentioned the Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS and the Canon 50 f1.8 as candidate lenses. Those two lens will provide you much of what you need to get excellent results in taking sports photos.

Now the body. Either the Canon XTi or the Canon 30D will also provide you an excellent camera.

The cost of this setup is much more than your desired $2000.

But, if you could swing such a setup, it'll be a great base to expand from. There's probably no better lens than the Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS for sports. Everyone that has ever bought one has only praise for it's perforance.

I hope this helps.

//Chuck

Maybe the Rebate Service Processing Center that Canon uses has hired a bunch of the people that used to process OfficeMax Rebates.

It's sometimes difficult to kick the "Reject Rebates At All Costs" habit.

//Chuck

An Ophthalmologist is a "qualified" person... he's a doctor that went to college for at least 8 years, and received a doctorate degree, that specializes in the doctoring of the human eye.

So, he definitely knows whether a flash will hurt a baby's eyes.

The flash will not hurt your infants eyes.

This question has been asked a number of times on this forum with various answers, so I decided to ask my ophthalmologist a few months ago and he told me the flash will not hurt a babies eyes... and he's also a photographer.

//Chuck

Gary,

I just bought another SanDisk 2GB Ultra II card at CompUSA for $45 last week, and no rebate.

//Chuck

Rick,

I have found that the flexibility of quality lenses with larger apertures (f2.8, F2.0, f1.8, f1.4) are well worth the extra money.

I'd recommend the Canon 16-35mm f2.8L and the Canon 24-70mm f2.8L.

I know that this pair of lenses are more than what you're currently considering, but it's my opinion that you won't be kicking yourself later because the f4.0 lenses are too slow. Don't underestimate the desirability of an extra stop or more. Keep reading and take you time.

The other thing I noticed in your question was that you mentioned that you owned the Canon 60mm f2.8 Macro lens. I assume that this is the Canon EF-S 60mm f2.8 Macro lens. If you're concerned about being able to use this macro lens on an XTi and a 5D, then you need to also sell this lens... since it won't fit the 5D. I'd recommend buying the Canon 50mm f2.5 Macro or the Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro to replace it. Both are less money than the EF-S 60mm.

I hope this helps.

//Chuck

I'm seriously considering the Canon 70-200mm f2.8L IS lens and the Specials

Area of B&H Photo (PSNOV) is currently selling the lens for $1599... $100 less

than from their 'regular' product list.

What I am wondering is whether the equipment that they sell from this PSNOV

specials area is new equipment (ie - never been sent to someone and returned).

I know it's never been registered, but how do I know someone was already not

happy with it and returned it.

I know that when buying a piece of new equipment there's always a chance that

you may receive a bad copy of the product... but if B&H places returned items

in their PSXXX specials, then my thinking is that I might have a very good

chance of receiving a bad copy of a returned lens. And I don't think it's

worth saving $100 for this potential hassle.

If anyone has first hand knowledge of what's actually being sold out this

PSXXX area, I'd sure like to hear from you.

I know that all of the equipment that they sell out of the PSXXX area can't be

all returned items... but what's the chance a Canon 70-200mm f2.8L IS lens is

a returned item.

And, does anyone know what B&H and most other reputable companies do with

their returned items?

I'm just trying to decide whether it's worth saving $100.

Thanks for you comments.

//Chuck

Rick,

I'm sure you'd be very happy with the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS lens. If Canon would designate any of their EF-S lenses with the "L" label, this lens would have an "L" in it's name.

The other candidate that I'd consider is the Canon 16-35mm f2.8 L lens... although the 16-35 is more money.

One thing going for the 17-55 is that it's an "IS" lens. Though, the one negative of the 17-55 is that it's an EF-S lens and it can only be used with such cameras as the XT, XT-i 20D, and the 30D.

If you intend to keep your XT-i, then I'd buy the 17-55.

I hope this helps.

//Chuck

I consistently take excellent photos with the Canon 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS lens at 300mm and speeds as low as 1/30 sec.

And at 1/15 sec. at 300mm, I'd estimate that I have about a 20-25% fallout rate (ie. 1 in 4 or 5 photos is unacceptable).

I don't know if this provides any good information to you... but I know that I'm impressed with the lens.

//Chuck

Mus,

Yakim's response is complete and accurate.

First, read the manual and if you don't understand the implications of the various C.Fn setting, don't worry about it until you wonder why the 350D doesn't do exactly what you'd like. Then, you can start investigating the various Custom Functions.

//Chuck

Ditto what Peter said...

PhotoShop with a RAW image can emulate any film of Old and...

You can now change the equivilent of film speed by just pushing a button and turning a dial.

Your idea is "cost prohibitive".

//Chuck

Jason,

I surely wouldn't give up the 24-70mm f2.8L. I would think that this would be your 'workhorse' lens for weddings.

If the 10-22mm is too wide, then I would sell it and the 70-200mm f4L and buy the 16-35mm f2.8... not the 17-40mm f4L.

Then I'd consider filling the longer end with one or more of the following ... 85mm f1.8, 100mm f2.8, 135mm f2.0L, or 200 f2.8L.

I've also come to the conclusion that lenses with apertures of f2.8 or larger (2.0, 1.8, etc.) produce better quality photos, overall, because they're also usually the better quality lenses. But, you'll pay for them, too.

//Chuck

The Canon A710 has a 6x optical zoom vs a 3.5x of the Nikon p4.

You'll miss the extra 60+% of zoom capability if you buy the Nikon.

//Chuck

Matthew,

<< This is for remote different lighting situations. >>

If you can't explain what in the world this means, you won't get any more meaningful help.

//Chuck

Matthew,

I take many portraits outdoors, like at a park, of mostly children (including my grandchildren) and have found that my favorite lens is the Canon 135mm f2.0L.

It allows me the 'reach' of a longer telephoto on my 20D so I can capture impromptu / unrehearsed photos of the children. Anytime a person, especially children, know that you're taking their picture, the reality, impromptu-ness, of the moment is usually always lost. And this lens provides excellent clarity at the larger apertures (f/2.0, f/2.8), and the wonderful color, contrast, and bokeh, that no other lens, that I know, provides. The overall quality is unmatched, in my opinion.

Posed portrait photos do very little for me.

I like to capture the 'real' person.

So, it just depends where you're taking these portraits. Like Jeff said, it also depends how far you're away from the subject... and in his work he's usually close-up at the boxing ring.

I hope this helps.

//Chuck

Christian,

As many others have said, it's their bset lens... and I agree.

There is nothing negative that I can say about the Canon 135mm f2.0L.

Andy, above, mentioned that it's "Heavy though"... compared to the Canon 70-200mm f4.0L. Well, I had to check the specifications... the 135mm is 1.64lbs and the 70-200 is 1.58 lbs. I have a hard time believing that .08 lbs (about an ounce), less than 5% more weight, is noticable.

$900 is a lot of money, but it's really difficult to take a bad photo with this lens. It's worth $900 in my opinion.

I hope this helps.

//Chuck

Rose,

Your question:

"Could someone tell me the best Digital SLR to use for professional use ( mainly fashion )"...

Can only be answered with "The Best Digital SLR" being made today.

Below is a link to B&H Photo who sells this camera at a fair price.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=354004&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

This is "body only" so you will need some excellent Canon L lenses so as not to waste the performance of the Canon 1Ds Mark II.

I hope this helps.

//Chuck

Hector,

I don't have your proposed camera and lens.

But, I can tell you that you have no chance of taking indoor photos without a flash with that camera and lens.

There are two problems... the lens is not nearly fast enough and the camera at any ISO above 400 is too noisy to produce quality photos.

You would need an f1.8 or faster lens to have a chance of taking indoor photos without a flash... and even then it depends on the amount of available light.

Sorry, but you're out of luck with that setup.

//Chuck