geddert

<i>I plan on taking photography to the pro-level.</i>

<p>

You are buying a SYSTEM not a single camera. Canon is a safer bet because there are WAY more lenses available for it, but it is by all means possible that minolta will satisfy your needs lens wise, it just depends on what you want to shoot. The safer bet is Canon since you can do everything 35mm has to offer with that system, and Canon has great digital SLRs -if you do in fact become a pro, unless you have very specific clients, the cost of digital vs film will make digital cameras the only cost effective way to go. If you just mean, i have a hole buring in my pocket and i want to spend a lot of money on "pro level" equipment this is pretty irrelevant because you will change your mind on what you want within 2 years anyways so it doesn't matter what you go with.

<p>

If you want to know if the EOS 3 meters "correctly" through "other" lenses you'll need to say, specifically, what lenses you are talking about. At times EOS cameras have problems with Autofocus with 3rd party lenses, but bad metering is a problem i haven't heard about or encountered (though i only buy canon lenses, so that may mean i don't pay attention to those issues).

both should work fine. the eos system as a whole focuses faster than the nikon one (due to USM in almost all lenses), but those nikon ones with AFS and VR are the same good. So, if you are only considering high end Nikon and Canon lenses (such as those you mentioned) then there is little difference. If you are considering getting "cheaper" lenses - not necessarily bad ones - like the 50/1.4 or what not, then the canon may be a better choice. I can operate an EOS camera way faster than a Nikon - but that's me and others are different. A riot isn't all that demanding. Shooting cars moving at 150 miles and hour is, or fast moving macro subjects. But with a 28-70 your depth of field can be pretty large and either system will do fine. Choose the ones that feels better ergonomically and fits your way of thinking more accurately... and this will likely make up the difference in theoretical ability since you personally will react more quickly.

i always thought digital photos were a "little on the soft side" until i learned to use USM (unsharp mask) correctly. Are you sure this is the only problem? I.E. are some shot in daylight with infinity focus good enough and you are just being picky about trickier stuff (which even with film isn't as sharp), or are you absolutely certain that you are doing everything you can to help the camera out?

 

I've found that part of the problem with digital cameras is that people expect wonders... and "only" get roughly film equivalency. (this isn't really an "only" but some people expect more). You should be comparing your digital photos to high quality scans of your slide/print film... to give it the same "medium" - don't compare stuff on a 72dpi computer monitor to a slide on a light table... you are incablable of creating an accurate comparision with those two very different ways of looking at things. You could also try comparing prints if your monitor isn't all that great... since that is what most people view as the final product - and they should be rougly equivalent in quality.

what type of subjects are you shooting - i.e. do you need fast focus for single frames or good predictive autofocus for things like moving cars/animals/people, etc.

That should be "without a doubt your recommendation

for Sanford to take a good picture of this rare beauty <u>is a good one</u>."

Tito, i know for a fact is a Royal in the Auto & Technik Musuem in Sinsheim (Germany). I saw it last december, and as far as i could tell it seemed like a regular part of their exhibit... so one of the 4 you thought were in the US is in Germany... just a minor correction, and without a doubt your recommendation for Sanford to take a good picture of this rare beauty. And the reason Ettore Bugatti did it is simple, "because he could". Ettore Bugatti was no business man, he was an artist that happened to make (often semi-functional at getting from A to B) car sculptures.

Kodak has the 14n that's already out and about half the price of the Canon... though the reviews i have read say that the image quality isn't as good as canons.

<a href="http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/CDocZ.aspx?o=&DT=ALB&E=2TYRYDYJQF1M&Pass=&Total=109&Pic=90&SubE=2S5RYDAF97N">This is my favorite photo from the series</a>, it is such a great way to capture warmth on a dreary winter day.

You are forgetting one important point. Leica's have become a "cult" camera. Thus the more leica charges for a camera or lens the more desireable it becomes.

the difference between 35 and 28 is significant... and then again, so is the difference between a 28 and a 24. are you happy with using an external viewfinder on your 21? if so the 24 is a fantastic lens, its the best wide angle i have ever used, and i wouldn't define it as "extreme" though everybody views these things differently. It has been reported that the 28/2 is an even better lens - though i haven't used it. I personally HATE the external viewfinder and sold my 24 because of it. thus my vote would be for a 28cron - which as a bonus gives you an extra stop. If you don't mind the external viewfinder you can't go wrong either way.

I'm still waiting for a M body that has 24mm framelines and a 24/1.4 ASPH to go with it. Problem is that neither will ever happen...

<p>

realistically i would like a re-designed 50/1.4 APO-ASPH-Whatever that would be noticably sharper and more contrasty than the previous one.

i also recommend taking a point and shoot along no matter what. it will serve as a backup if your primary camera fails. plus there will likely be days where you're primary focus won't be photography and you'll just want to have something along "just in case." point and shoots are also helpful if you want to have somebody else take a picture of you (and your travel companions??)... since everybody knows how to operate one.

if you intend to do animal photography in national parks you will not be happy with a Leica M... i have a leica M and am so glad i brought an EOS with a 400mm lens instead when i visited there... if you are doing people photography i the same rules apply as they would whereever you currently live. I.e. some like a 24/35/90 some like a 28/50/90 some like 21/35/50, etc. it all really depends on your personal preferences.<div></div>

that should be "across the bay"

I lived in Berkeley for 4 years up until 2001. I doubt much has changed since then. I lived just 100 meters from telegraph avenue (which many people visit and think is a den of thieves). I am a pretty big guy, so that may have an impact, I was also a local and thus probably didn't act like I was asking to get ripped off. BUT, I never, not once, never felt my photo gear was in jeopardy of being stolen either in Berkeley or across the pay in San Francisco - which i visited at least every other weekend.

 

I used an EOS 1v and 70-200/2.8 plus I also had a Leica M6 with a 50 cron and I rarely used a tripod during the day but sometimes did... i.e. I had the same gear as you... As you say, people don't know what a Leica is and they mostly think it is just some "older camera"... I wouldn't be worried in the Bay Area, I haven't lived in New York so I can't comment on that city. One thing I do recommend in SF and Berkeley is that you consider walking around with only your Leica around your neck and a few rolls of film in your pockets. If you aren't used to it you will get tired walking up and down steep hills all day. Even if you are in decent shape, if you walk up and down hills frequently it might hurt (it works different muscles then those used running on flat ground).<div></div>

a Mack warranty is not worth much - do a search here and on google and you'll see that it is hard to get them to pay for something. If canon had it, i would buy it, their service is excellent. Another option you might consider is a personal article floater with your insurance company. I have $5k worth of camera gear insured by state farm for $65 per year. This insurance covers anything that happens - accidental damage, loss, theft, any breakage, etc. Its a bargain really. And Since it lets you not worry about the equipment you tend to experiment more which helps your photographic abilities. I have only had to make one claim since i got their coverage. i lost a cokin split natural density filter (it was about $110). I called them up and said i didn't know what happened to it and couldn't find it, and that i hadn't seen it in 2 months ( i had figured it might just show up as so many lost things do ). After 5 minutes on the phone a check for $110 was in the mail... great service!

 

Since they don't make much (if any) money on this, it seems like you need to get it with your home and/or car insurance agent... they are more likely do cover you then (as mine does) because its a perk that keeps me coming back to pay for things like car insurance (which is where they make their money).

This is an exact scan of my slide and not digitally manipulated.<div></div>

if you intend to scan the negatives for digital manipulations you are almost certainly better going with a C41 or E6 based film - since they will allow you to use ICE and Fare to reduce dust... and this will save you LOTS of time. If you are scanning i really don't see why to shoot B&W film since i can be made to black and white with photoshop incredibly easily.

 

That said, if you intend to use traditional chemical processes then i personally go for Ilford Delta 400, it can be pushed to 1600 reasonably well if you have to and it looks great! Where to not it is "easy to go to a general lab" will depend on your general lab. Where i live its just as easy to get B&W developed.... but there are many places where its easier to go with C41.

make sure it is well sealed when you stick it in the freezer so as little moisture as possible is in your tuperware/ziplock/whatever containter and that doesn't blotch your film with watermarks before you bring it in for processing.

this should answer your questions: <A href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/35mm/building-an-slr-system">http://www.photo.net/equipment/35mm/building-an-slr-system</a>... and until you know you are seriously into photography i don't recommend spending $2000 on a digital camera and memory cards. plus if that time comes you can always sell the F80.

i think it was a leica M6 with 50cron at about f8 or f11...<div></div>

ricoh gr1 with leica large ball and socket and tabletop tripod.<div></div>

As i said <i> i can accept that you "don't want to pay" </i> - i'm just saying that we shouldn't hide behind false justfications. All i ask for is the truth - but as a great movie once said "the truth, the truth, you can't handle the truth."

Kenny, i looked at your other postings. you said you drive a <i> '01 Passat (V6, 4motion, Tiptronic)</i> and you seem to have 4 M lenses, either you have huge amounts of debt and horrible financial skills, or you are lying, or you can afford the $25. i can accept that you "don't want to pay" but don't tell me somebody is intimidating you evnen though you can't afford it (unless of course you are already living way beyond your means).

Kenny, if you use leicas (i'm assuming that's why you are lurking on this forum) you can afford to support photo.net... you are choosing not to. $25 a year is one trip out for a normal sit down dinner for two, without alcohol, PER YEAR - almost everybody with a computer and internet access is able to afford this. I'm not going to stop encouraging people to support photo.net (either by my posts or via having the icon)... i want people like you and others to feel like they are freeloading (which they/you are). Its not like anybody is holding a gun to your head, but it doesn't mane we can encourage support. You've been around since 1997, are you telling me you haven't gotten $25 worth of "free services" here at photo.net in all that time?