jason_galloway

The 40D is going to have a much better AF system due to having all 4 AF points using cross sensor. This makes a HUGE difference compared to the lone center cross sensor, all my film bodies were configured that way and my 40D puts them to SHAME. The camera is considerably more rugged, albeit at the cost of weight. The XSi's interface is hardly "professional", it's controls are more along the lines of a P&S with it's menu-driven settings, whereas the 40D is MUCH more convienent with the quick control dial on the back, and the ability to change essentially any setting with the press of one button near the shutter release and a turn of the QCD and the control wheel. You can change all the exposure functions without dropping the camera from your eye. The extra megapixels aren't going to give it really any advantage in the IQ department.

I forgot to mention, the DOF on a 1.8 is amazing, you can do some really nice things (not to mention focus in almost no light if you're aiming at something reasonable)... It's still very sharp (I'm no pro, but at 1.8 it's still very sharp IMO), plus the DOF can be measured in inches; for instance, my 3 y/o son has a mohawk. If I shoot a profile of him with his mohawk spiked up, at 1.8, focused on his ear, his hair will not be in focus.

I use mine constantly... I have a 28-105mm and a 70-210mm, both f/3.5-4.5, also a 35mm f/2. Unless I'm just essentially taking snap shots of my kid or need some serious reach (210mm on a 40D has some reach), I'm always alternating between my 50mm and my 35mm. Honestly I think the primes are more convienient, once you learn to "think" at a certain focal length, you just aim and shoot instead of adding the extra step with getting the right FOV, which is probably the longest part of me taking a photograph with a zoom. Whether or not I use the 35mm or the 50mm just depends on what I'm doing, other than build quality (35mm is alot better, but it did cost more so it better) and focal length, they're essentially identical.

The 50mm is sharp enough to be unflattering to people. I have no issues with focusing, in fact, on a 40D when you hit 2.8 or faster you get the super duper ultimate extreme focus mode, within 2 or 3 seconds of getting it to my eye, it'll lock down and have banged off 6 or 7 shots. I dropped my old one a few weeks back and almost cried, it locked up the front element and when I tried to "unlock" it, it exploded in my hands. Within a week I had to have another one, from a photography standpoint that was one of the longest weeks of my life (of course, every time I picked up the camera, it seemed like the exact lens I needed would have been my 50).

I honestly never really used primes until fairly recently. Now that I started, I already know that I'm going to have to expand my arsenal, I honestly rarely use my zooms anymore (alot of the time if I'm carrying light I won't even take the 28-105).

Another benefit of the BG-E2 thats often overlooked and that I forgot to mention is, IMO, an improvement to the center of gravity. Moving the battery below the lens mount with the additional weight of another battery seems to make holding a longer lens steady a bit easier. Maybe it's just me, but moving the body's center of gravity lower makes it easier to handle.

I added the BG-E2 to my 40D and actually was surprised how little weight it added. Maybe it's because I switched from an A2E with the VG-10 and an EOS-30 with whatever-the-hell the grip is for that thing is; the 40D was WAY heavier than both of those, so I had to adjust to the weight anyway (my 40D seems like a cinder block compared to both of those), so the addition of the grip really didn't make that much of a change. The grip itself is not really all that heavy, the extra weight comes from the extra battery (which is also an excellent opportunity to move up to a battery that has more capacity, pretty much any non-Canon battery has a higher capacity), but for me twice the shooting capacity is worth the weight, not to mention the ability to switch to 6 AA's if necessary. It does however add a good amount of girth, it's about an inch taller than my 30+grip and about an 1/2 inch taller than the A2+VG10, it certainly is a pretty intimidating lookin' machine.

I don't even really have good cards, just some off-brands, a 4GB and a 1GB, and both work fine; I figure if a 40D was gonna have an issue with cards, it'd be with my cheapo-supremos (I do want to move up to a bigger one, I only get 300ish shots on my 4GB shooting high quality RAW).

 

The 40D was well worth it to me. Much easier to use in the "creative" modes; the user interface, at least in my opinon, is so much better, I like knobs and buttons compared to menus. Haven't had mine long, but I absolutely love it and have no regrets what-so-ever about the purchase. Since you are considering both, buy the 40D. If you buy the Rebel, you'll be questioning if you SHOULD have gone for the 40D, you won't buy the 40D and think "should I have bought the Rebel?". Just IMHO.

I'd say this is a very personal question, you may want to take you lens to a camera shop and mount it up to a couple bodies and see what you prefer.

 

PERSONALLY, I prefer a heavier body, especially with a large lens. I've always found that, for me at least, it's easier to keep things steady with the heavy body. I'm not sure if it applies to all lenses or just some, but mine feel like most of the weight is in the rear; couple that weight with the weight of a large body and it's easier for me to keep the front of lens from wobbling since the rear is so much heavier and my right hand supports it. It seems to negate alot of the weight of the front element. I'm sure people feel differently than I do, but it just seems much, much easier for me with a heavy body, leading to me liking bigger-bodied cameras (A1, A2, and my new 40D, all with vertical grips/battery packs to further add some weight).

A couple corrections, the distance markings on the lens represent the distance to the in-focus POINT, and with my old film camera, in DOF mode, you push the shutter button after you put the focus point of one extreme of your desired DOF.

The apeture of the lens controls the depth of field, the distance markings on the lens represent the distance to the in-focus, for lack of a better term. To increase depth of field, stop the lens down to something like f/11. Another way to do it is, depending on what make/model camera you have, use the DOF mode. At least with my Canon EOS-30, you put the center focus point on one extreme of the the range you want in focus and then do the other extreme, then take the picture, the camera will set the apeture so that, if possible, the range you selected will all be in focus. The distance markings, like Lester said, are essentially not very practical to use because there isn't really a fine adjustment. However, with manual focus lens, they have a silky smooth focus ring and have a wide range of rotation so you can be very precise.

I have a 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II and am very pleased with it. I don't think I could have done better in the budget bracket it falls in. It gets a maybe LITTLE soft wide open but not so much that I hesitate to use it in that range.

 

I like to use my 50mm f/1.8 ALOT, but if I leave the house with only one lens, it's my 28-105, it is a very handy range (I learned with an A-1, my favorite lens was the 30-105, a very similar lens that I LOVED, again the best walk-around zoom I had). I like having a little longer on the telephoto end, even if you don't use it much, it's nice to have; the way I shoot, the extra telephoto is much more valuable than the little extra wide. I've been completely happy with it, as long as I keep my expectations reasonable; the only thing that I occasionally find myself wishing for is that it was faster to better blur the background, but of course then it wouldn't be so affordable. I don't know about the 24-85, but the 28-105 doesn't go past the f/4.0 barrier until about 75mm. All in all one of my a great lens for the price, very very handy, I use my 50mm around the house, but if I leave thats the lens I go with.

 

[Note, everything I said was in reference to a film body, so it should translate well to your 5D. I just bought a 40D and am interested to see how I like the "new" focal length of 45-168, it's an oddball range but I kind of think I may like it]

Thanks alot for the clarifications guys, I was a little confused about the whole FF vs. APS-C vs. EF vs. EF-S situation... I only knew enough to be comfortable ordering my 40D (CAN'T WAIT!).

 

Given the responses, in my situation I feel it's best if I try to avoid the EF-S lens line. I don't want to have to rule out FF bodies just to use all my lenses, plus the occasional event I shoot, I will have to use a film camera as a backup, so the interchangeablity is valuable to me (and Henry Ford!). I don't THINK I use the wide side of my 28-105 very often (I don't really stop to see what my focal length is though when I'm shooting) and my 50mm 1.8 is my favorite lens by far; I think I'll like it as an "80mm" and I've bought a 35mm f/2.0 to replace my "standard" prime lens spot.

 

Thanks alot everyone!

<i>The focal length is the length that is labeled, whether the lens is EF or EFS - so apply the 1.6x crop factor.

 

If you want wider than 17mm (the angle of view equivalent of about 27mm on your film SLR) look into lenses like the EFS 10-22.

 

</i><BR><BR>

OK, thats what I was lookin' for... So, honestly, what's the point of EF-S lenses? If a 100mm EF-S provides the same FOV as a 100mm EF on a crop sensor, why would I buy the EF-S and limit myself to 1.6x sensor cameras in the future? Is it just a cost thing?

<i>Unless you were thinking that the EF-S lens is labeled with the crop factor figured in meaning the EF-S 17-85mm would be the same field of view as a EF 17-85mm(if they made it) on your film camera. </i><BR><BR>

Let me rephrase as I'm starting to confuse myself at this point. Let's take a 100mm prime, it's nice and easy. I know a 100mm <b>EF</b> on a APS-C sensor provides the same field of view as a 160mm lens on a FF. What I'm wondering is if a 100mm <b>EF-S</b> on an APS-C sensor provides the field of view of 100mm <b>EF</b> on a FF sensor, or if it would still provide the 160mm FOV.

Hello,

I just ordered a 40D yesterday, my first DSLR replacement of my film EOS's. I

already have a few EF lens and understand the focal length multiplier, my

question is, how are the EF-S lens focal lengths referenced? I know this is

sort of a simple question that could probably be Googled, but I've actually had

a hard time finding an answer. Say you buy an 17-85 EF-S lens and mount it on

a 40D. Is the focal length ACTUALLY 17-85 or do you also apply the

multiplication factor to the EF-S lenses? Eventually I figure I'm going to

have to get something with a little bit on the wide end (certainly not now

though, something tells me I'd be pressing my luck after spending $1000 on a

camera to spend at least another $300 on a decent wider-angle zoom), the only

EF lens I had with any wide-angle capabilities was a 28-105 f/3.5-4.5, so I

have NOTHING on the wide-end now (although my 50mm f/1.8 hardly ever came off

my main film body, I figure I'll just adjust to it being an 80mm).

I still use my film cameras exclusively (haven't gone to digital for a variety of reasons, but as of right now I don't plan on it as all of the digital offerings would leave me saying "well, I really like it, but I wish..."). I use an EOS-30 (Elan 7e) almost exclusively now. I had to decide between that and the EOS-3, and went with the Elan.

 

The Elan was more advanced or reliable concerning the features that were important to me: The ECF is faster and more accurate (the Elan recieved the latest, to this date, ECF system... It IS very fast and dead reliable), the evaluative metering has a finer resolution, the Elan is EXTREMELY quiet (I put it on high speed rewind just to tell when I'm done with a roll), in normal light the Elan's AF is quicker (the 3 does do much better in low light, however, and with a fast lens it is also quicker, there's a specific f-stop that this occurs at), and lastly I just liked the ergonomics and fit in my hands better (I have the BP300 vertical grip, but it's a very tight little package).

 

I'm not bashing the 3, far from it, I considered it too. It was just a matter of the things that the 3 did better weren't of as great of a concern to me. The 3 has a spot meter, with the booster is a machine gun speedwise (and volumewise), is weatherproof (If it's like my A2's, it works well, I dropped my A2E in a pool and it still works just fine), is better at low light AF, FEB, a noticable brighter viewfinder that shows more of the frame.

 

When it came down to it, the things that the Elan 7e excelled at were more important to my style of shooting than the postives of the EOS-3. It was a very tough decision though, and you may find that the EOS-3 better suits your needs. Another cool thing about the Elan is the battery grip allows you to use either the regular batteries or switch to standard AA.

 

Now, I also own 2 A2s (an A2 and an A2E)... Since I bought my EOS-30 they are essentially both dust collectors. They do have a few things over the 30; faster fps, spot meter, built-in AF assist light (the -3 doesn't have one at all and the -30 uses the crappy built in flash pulsing, I just use the one on my Speedlite, although with lens hoods the light on the A2s is about worthless), and their viewfinders are more like the -3 (not a big deal to me though). Other than those few things, everything the A2 does, the Elan (and for that matter, the EOS-3) does better... Better AF, better flash system, better evaluative metering, WAY better ECF with 7 points compared to 5 (the A2 can not use ECF when vertical), and the command dial on the A2's SUCKS! Both mine broke and I was careful, when they get junk in them over the years no matter how careful you are, it will break eventually. Honestly they ONLY reason I still use the A2s is when I need a spot meter, which is a REALLY rare occurance (hell, I almost never switch from evaluative)... I'm sure I may catch hell for this one, but I really think that the Elan 7 is a much better constructed camera. Maybe not as weatherproof, but it feels like it has much better fit and finish; my A2's seem sort of cheap and plastiky in comparison (but they are water tight!).

 

So, I'd say consider both the EOS-3 and the Elan 7(-e if you want it, I hardily endorse the ECF); consider their pluses and minus and pick the one that seems like it's better for you. I plan on going digital eventually, but not until Canon builds a full frame, eye controlled focus model, sorta like direct copies of the EOS-3 and Elan-7e to digital would be PERFECT in my opinion!

<i>When I shot film, I didn't use any filters for the reception. White balance was usually handled well by the lab in printing. However, if you know the reception is heavily fluorescent, you might consider Fuji film, which has that extra magenta layer, and also consider 800 ISO film. That or deliberately not dragging the shutter as much to help cut out the fluorescent. As for filters for a mid day outdoor wedding, assuming bright sun, you'd need an ND filter (or filterS) for more manageable f stops, particularly for the portrait or closer shots, as opposed to the group shots. Your EOS 30 (Elan 7) syncs at 1/125th. High speed sync would be good on the closer shots, but won't help you on the group shots if dealing with bright sun. I would review your guide number for high speed sync settings so you know just how far away you can get from your subjects without the flash being too weak. Polarizers can help if the environment is highly reflective, such as near the ocean, but normally, I wouldn't think a polarizer would be necessary. The ND filter would be more useful to me. Sometimes the polarizer can produce somewhat unrealistic, dead-surfaced images (just my opinion). </i>

<BR><BR>

I will take a look into the Fuji film, I've been in this hall and it has horrible flourscent lighting (hopefully they won't use many of them) any suggestions on a good line to use? I do like the idea of 800 ISO for the reception, especially considering how slow my lenses are. For the groups I'm not so worried about the high-speed sync as I can pick a location that will suit my lighting and DOF needs; plus if my 430EX can't get the job done I can go back to my 540EZ (I used it on my EOS-30 until just now), my main reason for the high-speed sync is fill for the ceremony where I'm at the mercy of everything else. I really would like to use my hoods, so a CPL would be a pain (unless someone has a really good way of using them in conjunction), so I might just go with the ND.

<i>hi jason - I'm left-eyed as well, and I'm not sure how that makes a difference in what kind of camera you use. can you explain? </i>

<BR><BR>

Honestly it's probably due to bad practice (who knows, it may also be part of the reason ECF works so well for me); I tend to mush my nose up against the back of my body pretty badly. Since I use my left eye, most of the controls are in front or on the left side of my nose, with my thumb of course on the right. I'm really terrible at using the controls because of this, I have to essentially take the camera out of my shooting poisition to make adjustments then bring it back, adding alot of time. And of course, even though I went straight from manual focus to ECF, I won't give up my ECF... I just really really like it alot and it gets me alot of pictures that I otherwise wouldn't be able to get because I'm clumsy with manual focus point selection.

<BR><BR>

<i>As far as changing filters, I've used the COkin system...</i>

<BR><BR>

Funny you should mention it (and that I didn't), I do have some Cokin's. I kind of forgot about them because they're in with my FD stuff. I shot mainly B&W with my FD so all the filters I have, other than a few artistic ones, are B&W color correction. I did take a gander at EBay though and it looks like you can get alot of them for next to nothing. The only thing that worries me is that I'd have to ditch my lens hoods to use them. I'm pretty nervous about glare considering it will be very early afternoon when the sun is overhead or close to it, and I could potentially get some very nasty glares.

<BR><BR>

<i>When I shot film I used two bodies, one with 100 speed the other with 400...</i>

<BR><BR>

That's a good idea, I didn't think about it. I actually have an A2 that will be tossed in the car just in case (I hardly ever use it because of my whole ECF complex... I bought it for an ex- and when she left I kept it, not much use to her as there was NO WAY she was getting any of my lenses) so that wouldn't be much of a problem.

<BR><BR>

I am thinking I will probably get a CPL, maybe the ND that you suggested (especially for the A2E, since it can only flash sync to, if memory serves, 1/200th), and also the 80a suggested, even if I don't use the 80a I have the compact flourscent bulbs in my home and most of those have really high temperatures, in excess of 3000K.

HOWEVER, this got me to thinking... CPL+lens hood seems like it could potentially be quite the time-hogging pain. Does anyone have any ideas or methods to overcome this? I thought about maybe the universal-style hoods that screw into the filter mount, then I could just use the hood itself to rotate the CPL, but they seem kind of hokey compared to the Canon hoods. If I ditch the hoods all together though, I'd probably adapt my Cokin setup for my EOS lenses (I think I only have 52mm adapters and whatever adapter the old 35-105 f/3.5-4.5 used, maybe 77mm?) and pick up some filters on the cheap, since they are so convenient to use.

Hello, this will be my forth wedding (I'm not a pro, but when a job comes my

way I'll snag it up, I got talked out of a professional career in high school

and really regret it now), however it will be my first outdoor ceremony and is

the most "serious/professional" job I've done to this point thus far. I'm

trying to optimize my equipment to really use everything to the the full extent

of it's capabilities, and am considering what filter selection I should have on

hand to allow for the best compositions possible. This ceremony will be in

June, mid-day, in a wooded park area. I haven't seen the exact location yet so

I don't know what the shade situation will be, but I intend to visit the area

and attend the rehersal to see where my best spots will be, probably pop off a

few test rolls and get them 1 hour developed to get an idea of what kind of

exposure settings work and what don't.

 

First, the equipment I will be using. I will be shooting using 35mm... I would

love to go digital, and have probably the single STUPIDEST reason for not doing

so; I'm left-eyed, so I have a hard time using the controls on the back of the

body, I use CF's to minimize what I have to do back there. I've used ECF on

every EOS body I've used and absolutely LOVE LOVE LOVE it, to the point that I

just can not give it up. It really works flawless for me and I feel that it

really helps nailing where I want the focal point to be very very quickly,

especially since I have the meter linked to the focus point. I've tried to

ween myself off ECF, but on my EOS-30 that ECF switch right next to the shutter

is just TOO tempting and it always seems to be back on when I put the camera

down. I plan on using Portra 160NC for the ceremony and Portra 400NC for the

reception, in your standard issue big reception hall.

 

My main body will be a EOS-30+430EX, a A2E+540EZ as my backup, and also will

have my FD gear on hand due to the nice selection of primes I have for it, and

it's dead-on reliability as a last resort. My lens are OK (not great), a 50

f/1.8, 28-105 f/3.5-4.5, and a 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 (like I said, I may use my A-1

a bit because I have quite a few primes for it). I just picked up the 430EX so

I can make the most of the 35 zone metering, high speed sync, and E-TTL my EOS-

30 allows for; I hope that after some extensive practice I can really improve

my fill-flash results (the high speed sync is a big plus too so I can use fast

shutter speeds and get background blur when I want it).

 

I am interested to hear other's opinions on what they feel are valuable filters

to have on hand at an outdoor ceremony. I have hoods for all my lenses. I

already have UV filters on all of them, but am trying to pick what else would

be handy. A polarizer and/or ND for the ceremony and a FLD for the reception,

assuming some of the lights are left on? I always liked the look of polarizer

shots, but the low contrast film and the increased contrast in the sky seems

kind of odd to me and I wonder what the results would look like. What has

everyone found useful to carry? I'm equipping for the worst, a full sun day,

which is pretty likely in WV in June.

 

Thanks everyone, I look forward to hearing opinions!

<i>Fungus rarely gets on lenses that are used on a regular basis; its more of a collector, worry wart; ebay/used camera stored in an old dresser drawer thing.:)</i><BR><BR>

 

This particular lens was an EBay thing... OOPS! I've decided to go ahead and make it an EBay thing again, I'm sure there is someone out there that will overpay for a lens with fungus so I hope to get fairly close to what I paid for it out and chalk the rest up as a learning experience. A Photo.net member emailed me with one for sale at a very reasonable price in nice condition so I've decided to go ahead and buy a better quality version of the same lens (I'm no pro, as much as I want a 70-200L I just can't justify it, the little 70-210 will suit my needs just fine).

I'll give it a shot, I only paid $150 for this second-hand so it certainly isn't worth having it repaired. The fungus is only very minor on the edge, it doesn't effect the exposure and hasn't caused any damage to the lens, I'm just trying to stop it from getting worse. I keep my gear in a dehumidifed room, this is my only lens that I have this problem with (it was there when I bought it), so if I can get it stopped I'm hoping I won't have many, if any, further issues with it. Thanks everyone!

Hello,

I have a lens that has the very beginnings of fungus at the edge. I've Googled

it, and seen several mentions of using UV light to kill and stop the spread of

the fungus, typically by leaving the lens in the sun for a while. I was

wondering about this method, but using a different approach; I have a tanning

bed in my basement of my house and was considering placing the lens in it for a

bit to accomplish the same thing. I don't see any reason that this wouldn't

accomplish the same goal plus having the additional benefit of not getting the

lens really really hot and drying out rubber and plastic, but god knows there's

enough UV, those things will give you a sunburn in just a few minutes (I don't

ever use it, just get to pay the electric bill on it). Is anyone aware of any

problems with doing this that would cause harm to the lens? Will the UV method

even work on the Canon EF lenses (its not an L, just a standard 70-210mm f/3.5-

4.5) or are they coated in such a way that would prevent this (I don't figure

there is, if they blocked all UV light already there wouldn't be much a market

for UV filters)? Thanks!