brent chadwell

<i>A 5D with 24mm f:1.4, 35 f:1.4, 50mm f:1.4, 85mm f:1.8 and 135mm f:2 will set you back about $7,000.</i><br><br>

 

Peter - First of all, the 5D has more megapixels and it's full frame. You're saying that for just the price of the M8, you could not only have a better camera body, but also 5 top quality primes to go with it. Hmm, which would I rather have...?

First of all, I would take the 10D. You will need the wide angle, and you will be taking lots of pics. For some great color photographs, take the red L down to China town. Also, the field museum is a must. Sue (the T-rex) is breathtaking. As a previous poster mentioned, Navy Pier is another great place to photograph, especially at night. One word of advice, if you are anywhere south of New Comiskey (aka US Cellular Field), watch your gear. At Old Comiskey, the parking lots had 15 foot fences with barbed wire for a reason lol. Also, the pizza and hot dogs in Chi town are a must! Oh, and another piece of advice, please don't ask a local where Sears tower is. I have had so many people ask me that question it isn't even funny. How hard is it to find the tallest building in the midwest?

Just a quick question; if you're shooting something at night, why on earth would you use ISO 50 film and stop down to f/11? Even during daylight you often can't use f/11 with ISO 50 film. You're going to need at least 800, I would get a few rolls of 1600 also. Furthermore, you need to shoot at something like f/4 or 5.6. After that, you just need to fine tune your technique. Challenging things to photograph, but worth it if you get a great shot.

First of all, I've never liked super zooms because they sacrifice too much image quality for what you get. I would rather just carry 2 lenses. Second of all, this lens has a push/pull zoom design, which gets dust on the sensor and is a general pain in the a$$. The lens also has severe barrel distortion at 28mm, and pincusion distortion at 300mm. IMO, f/5.6 at 300mm is too slow for my needs. Not to mention this lens is heavy and expensive. I would get a 70-200 IS and a 50mm f/1.4. That will cover most of your needs and give you better image quality for cheaper than the 28-300.

Jon and Dan - Thank you for your kind words.

Iori - I'm not impatient, I was just suggesting using the search function because this question comes up about every 2 days. As for not contributing monetarily, I am in the Navy and I'm frequently gone. I do spec ops, and I'm shipping out again in about 3 weeks. I don't know when (or if) I'll be back to use the forum again, so why pay for a subscription. If you would like to go get shot at in my place, then I will pay my dues and stay here to post on Pnet.

This question is fighting for the crown of "most asked question on Pnet." It now has a slight lead over "which telephoto lens should I get" and "which camera bag should I get." People, please use the search function first. It even tells you that before you post. This question has been asked a hundred times, and answered 1,000 different ways. SEARCH first.

Thank you Dan Lovell. People who look at photodo tests as a lens bible don't look at the amount of sample variation, build quality, contrast, or colors. The 1.8 is inferior in all of these respects. Sure, even L lenses have sample variation (early samples of the 400mm DO, or the 24-105 IS for example) but surely a $70 lens has more sample variation than a $250+ lens. It also doesn't take into account a brighter viewfinder image which allows easier manual focus. I personally use the Leica summicron-r 50mm f/2. According to Photodo, it is only slightly sharper than the $70 Canon f/1.8. However, if you looked at comparison pictures, you don't even have to pixel peep to see that the Leica runs circles around the Canon. Just one more reason not to use photodo or MTF charts as your only deciding factor.

The 1n has some important features that make it more of a pro camera than the 3. It has 100% vf coverage compared to 97%. It also doesn't fog IR film. IMO it's built slightly better. I'll put it this way, if somebody broke into my house, I could use the 1n as a club to knock them unconscious, then use it to take a picture for evidence. I wouldn't get the 3 just because of E-TTL. E-TTL doesn't make up for a higher price and less features.

I already have a desktop PC for this purpose, but I will be traveling a lot and

need a laptop. I would prefer something around $1,500, because the primary

editing will be done on the desktop PC. The laptop will mainly be used to dump

images, see which ones I like, and delete the crap so I can re-format my cf

cards. However, when I am gone for several weeks, I would like to have decent

image editing capabilities. I already have a 100GB external HD and plenty of

DVD's, so a ton of internal memory isn't necessary. I was thinking of going

with a mac, but that would present problems when buying image editing software.

I don't want to have to purchase both a PC and a mac version of everything.

Therefore, I am stuck with PC's. A 17" would be nice, but money would be better

spent on more processing power than a bigger screen. Can anybody steer me in

the right direction? Thanks for your help.

The 70-200 is sharper, faster at 200mm, has better bokeh, is built more sturdily, and has less flare and CA problems. Not to mention the problems with the 70-300 in portrait orientation. In my opinion, IS isn't necessary at 200mm very often, especially with the high ISO performance of Canon DSLRs. Go with the 70-200 f/4, you won't regret it.

<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/eos-1n.shtml"> Luminous Landscape Review </a><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/eos1n">Philip Greenspun's Review</a><br>

<a href="http://photonotes.org/reviews/1-1N-3-1V/">Chart comparing the Eos 1, 1n, 3, and 1v</a><br>

<a href="http://www.chem.helsinki.fi/~toomas/photo/canon-intro.html#1">Short description of Eos 1n and 1nRS</a><br><br>

Google is your friend.

For weddings, you will need 2 cameras. If you miss a shot, are you going to tell the bride "Sorry, I was changing lenses."? Also, what kind of flash system will you be working with? Do you also have a 24-70 2.8L, or a fast prime in this range? Sorry to be asking so many questions, its just that I have never heard of a person shooting a wedding with one beginner film camera as their main equipment. Good luck.

If you don't have a really large budget, I would suggest not wasting your time researching a 1D mkII and 70-200 f/2.8. The camera will be about $3,700, and the lens will be about $1,200 for non-IS, or $1,600 for IS. IS means image stabilized, which lets you shoot about 3 stops slower than you could without IS. It's a lifesaver in certain situations when a tripod isn't practical. However, a much cheaper option would be a Canon Eos 1n or 1v with a power booster and a 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS used. The film cameras can be had for great prices on the used market. You're looking at maybe $2,200-$2,500 for a 1v and 70-200 f/2.8 if you buy used. 200mm should be long enough, and 2.8 is fast enough for that situation. As a previous poster suggested, ISO 800 or 1600 film is vital.

The short answer: Nikon is far superior regarding flash, and Canon can't catch up because of patent laws. If you rely heavily on flash, go with Nikon. If you rely on long lenses, wide-angle digital photography, weather sealing, or image stabilization, go with Canon.

I posted a speculation regarding this about a month ago on the digital camera forum. I said that simple economics would dictate a rise in the price of film and chemicals. Less demand means higher price. I was basically laughed at by most of the people who replied to my post. I was also made fun of for saying that in 5 to 10 years, Leica will most likely be the only manufacturer making new film bodies. Guess who's laughing now. :-)

Roisin - Sorry if I upset the tree huggers on this forum. I own 3 pet snakes. Also, I was simply recommending the company, not that particular strap. The company also makes leather straps. I said the select python was my personal favorite. You missed the forest for the tree...

I'm the same way, the 20D's strap is awful. It gets tangled, it's too stiff, and I hate the rubber stuff because it makes your neck sweat. After 4 hours of carrying around a 20D with a 300 IS and using that strap, I had enough. <a href="http://www.actioncustomstraps.com/Custom_Camera_Straps/custom_camera_straps.html">Action Custom Straps </a> has a great selection of premium leather and snake skin straps. The premium python is my favorite. These things are really comfortable. They don't have swivels, but they have quick release clips, and aren't prone to getting tangled or twisted.

I would go with the 300. Many people rave about the 100-400's image quality, but those people obviously don't own primes in this range. The 300mm f/4 IS, the 400mm f/4 DO IS, and even the 400mm f/5.6 have better image quality. The zoom is a flexible lens, but a bit soft at the long end. Also, it's too slow. To round out the kit, I would suggest the 70-200mm lens. Any of the varieties is fast enough, and very sharp. The best is the f/2.8 IS version, but it costs $500 more than the 300 IS. To fill the gap between 40 and 70mm, I would go with a 50mm f/1.4. The 50mm f/1.8 is almost as sharp and cheaper, at the cost of worse color and contrast, slower autofocus, cheap build quality, and a poorer manual focus ring. Hope this helps.

Since you are new to the forum, here's a few tips. First of all, if you're asking about lenses, you need to specify what you shoot most of the time. If it's rhinos in a zoo, you will probably want something like a 70-200 IS. If it's birds, you will be looking at a 500mm or 600mm IS lens. Second, what is your budget? There are telephotos for around $600 (70-200 f/4) or you can spend over $6,000 (400 f/2.8, 500 + 600 f/4). Third, are you looking for the best image quality (primes), the most flexibility (28-300 L, 100-400 L), or the best value (70-200 L or Sigma 70-200)? Be as specific as possible so that we can help answer your questions. Good luck.

1. some sort of mineral

2. the head of a meat tenderizer

A couple modifications to things mentioned in previous posts. If you traded your D-rebel for the 30D, it's probably a good idea to rent another 30D. If not, the d-reb will suffice for a backup camera. Also, get lots of CF cards. Luckily those are getting pretty cheap. Type psmar in the B&H search box and you can get 2GB lexar 133x cards for $98. Those are the fastest card I've used, and I would recommend at least several. The 24-70 and 16-35 are great lenses, and I would also rent an 85mm f/1.2L. This is the best portrait lens in Canon's lineup, and you will find it invaluable at a wedding. I don't have a lot of wedding experience, but 2 of my close friends primarily shoot weddings, so if you have any other specific questions, I would be happy to pass them on. Good luck.

Guy - Some people here might think I'm crazy, but after shooting with my share of L glass and Leica glass, I can't tell the difference between color/contrast of Leica lenses and Canon L lenses. Micro detail might be slightly better with Leica, but how much of that shows up in an 8x10? My main argument was that the slight advantage in Leica glass is lost when you have to manually focus and use stop-down metering.

What I would like to know is why people pay all that money for Leica lenses to use on Canon DSLR's. Canon's L primes can already out-resolve the sensor of the 1Ds mk II. Unless you are shooting film, and enlarging to 16x20, you won't be able to tell the difference between a Canon L prime and a Leica lens. Not to mention having to use stop down metering and manual focus.

Nice shot. Gotta love those eyes. Here's one I took a couple weeks ago.<div></div>