corey_gardner1

I use mostly primes but also have the 28-135 IS lens. I've never had any problem with the image quality. Not up to prime standards but certainly usable when you need the flexibility of a zoom and the IS works great. The 17-40L would probably be better but it doesn't go out to 135 and doesn't have IS so it just depends on how you're going to use it. Do not get the 28-200. Absolutely keep your fixed lenses though. The 100 macro is a very fun lens.

I take pictures of kids all the time so here's what I've found useful. There are alot of combinations and options you could use so this is just what I use.

 

100 2.8 Macro - shooting outdoors in natural light this lens is very nice and not too long if you're looking for nice intimate portraits. Also great for getting in close and taking very tight shots of babies. Focusing is a little slow compared to something like an 85 1.8 or non-macro lens.

 

85 1.8 - very sharp and fast focusing. I use it at 1.8-2.8 all the time with great results. Only downside is it doesn't focus close so you'll want to add something else if that's what you want. And you will.

 

Those are the two I grab most of the time. Indoors in tight quarters then a 50 would be great. An 80-200 zoom would also be very nice and especially useful when you want to take candid shots of children playing...and with some children that's all you'll get as they won't pose for you.

 

Hope this helps.

I use primes for almost everything so it's not stupid, but you have to go into a situation knowing the kind of shots you want and which lens will get them. Changing back and forth constantly would not be any fun. Since you already have it, take the 70-200 with you. Nothing lost. If you don't use it on that trip then you'll know you don't need it at all so sell it.

85 1.8. Gives you a little extra working distance for weddings as well.

Peter - which Adaptec controller do you recommend? There are several and the price is all over the board.

You already have a fair amount of gear so the question is what kind of shots are you trying to get that you can't get with what you have? If you don't know the answer to that then you shouldn't be shooting weddings. You absolutely have to have an idea of the kind of shot you are trying to get to be able to pick out a lens.

If you want zooms then the 28-135 IS and 70-200 F4 would be a nice combination if you don't need wide angle. There are better lenses than the 28-135 but for the price it's good. You could probably get both of them for right at $1,000.

Maybe also consider a 200 2.8L. Since you're shooting sports you would probably use the zooms at the maximum focal lengths all the time anyway. You could then add a 1.4 teleconverter for extra length.

Depends on what you mean by "portrait" as you can really take portraits with any lens. Full body, head and shoulders, head, part of the head. It is a probably a little long, as others have stated, for indoor portraits if you mean including alot of the body or don't have alot of room between you and the subject. However, the macro feature is very useful and you can get interesting shots that you can't get with other lenses such as very close shots of the face (very useful for taking portraits of babies or children where you might want a tight head shot, close pictures of feet/hands, etc.). I also use an 85 1.8 and the focal length difference is not significant. The 85 doesn't focus very close though so keep that in mind. Since you mentioned macro I would definately choose between the 100 or 60 macro.

If you don't need a zoom (would use it at 200 all the time) the Canon 200 2.8L prime might be a good option for speed without the weight. It weights the same as the 70-200 4.0L lens. I have no experience with this lens...just a thought.

The smaller prosumer cameras are great for alot of purposes and you can get excellent results from them, within their capabilities. People go to a dslr simply because what they want to do a prosumer camera can't handle (higher iso settings, better responsiveness, faster lenses, control over depth of field being a few common reasons). When the 3200 doesn't do something you want to do photographically you'll know you need something else. Until then, don't worry about. Have fun taking pictures.

I agree adding the ability to use the faster lenses (85 1.8, etc) is critical. You will also need to shoot at higher ISO settings than any non-slr camera will allow. Any entry level slr with an 85 1.8 would be great. Maybe add a macro lens down the road to allow you to get really close (the canon 85 1.8 doesn't focus very close).

I have the A95 and have used the FZ 20. If you are shooting action then your only choice is the FZ20. The A95 has enough shutter lag to prevent you from getting any action shots. Also, for the kind of action shots you listed you will need a more powerful zoom range than the A95 has so the FZ20 wins there too. As far as noise goes you don't really get good noise performance above ISO 100 until you jump to a DSLR. You might think about waiting until the new Rebel comes out and see if that drives the prices of the old Rebel down more into your range. Otherwise, get the FZ20.

Great camera bag...lousy backpack, especially if you're tall. I have one and use it as a camera bag and it works great. However, if you load it down you'll find the straps have very little support and it tends to dig into your shoulders. I'm tall, though, so it might fit you differently. I would try and find one in a store and load all of your gear into it..see if you like how it fits.

I think when digital cameras do what you want them to do and the benefits outweigh the costs then it might be time to consider "jumping in". Where the cost/benefits cross is going to be up to you. For a professional it could be rather quickly because of the sheer volume of film and processing. For an amateur you have to look at the costs of both over time versus the benefits and see which one works better for you. If you can find a digital camera that gives you everything you want then there's no reason why it wouldn't still be doing that years from now. You don't have to chase the technology.

 

As far as investment goes, film cameras aren't a good "investment" today either. The market on them has shrunk so much that they lose their value very quickly.

The USM version (newer version) focuses internally so there are no changes to the front of the lens.

Depends on how you're going to use it. I have the macro and it is great for portraits and anything where you want to get close, such as close ups of babies hands, feet, etc. It is a beautifully sharp lens and you can get shots you can't get with any other lens. The downside is the focus is a little slow and tends to hunt a bit in low light so probably not great for concert photography. Also, when you use it for portraits and want to use manual focus, most of the focus range is reserved for macro. This means that small turns of the focus ring result in large changes in the area of focus. I use it for portraits all the time so you can work around it but it's something to think about. It is also a large, bulky lens. I added the 85 1.8 recently because of this. It boils down to whether or not you really want the macro feature. If you don't think you would use it much, get the 100 f/2.

If you want some sample images try going to photosig.com. You can search the photos by camera type. Some decent outdoor examples in there. I have one and as long as you keep the ISO settings at 50 or 100 the images are fine, for a compact anyway.

Never used the A80 but I have the A95. I've taken maybe 500 shots with it so far and have yet to notice any purple fringing. If it's there I would have to look really hard to find it. I think the image quality is great at 50 and 100. 400 is pretty noisy. As far as red eye, you will get that with any compact camera. I never even considered it when looking at compacts. Everything else considered, I would probably wait until your A80 dies and then go to an A95.

It all depends on the type of photography you do and the results you want. If a digicam gives you everything you want or need then, no, there isn't any reason to get a dslr. The reason photographers (rather than yuppies) go to a dslr is because the digicams do NOT allow them to get the results they want. This has been said many, many times before but a camera is simply a tool and nothing more. You look at how you're going to use it, what kind of images you want to make and under what conditions and pick the best tool. Without defining that it is pointless to discuss the differences between DSLRs and digicams.

 

I don't think anyone would say that a digicam is useless or not capable of good results. They just aren't the best tool for EVERY situation. In the film world, I take pictures of my kids using fast fixed lenses shot wide open with fine grain 400 speed film (NPH). They generally play in areas where the lighting isn't great so this is the only way to get good results. The only way I can match these results is with a DSLR.

 

Bottom line..use whatever you want.

Think of the Mini Trekker as a great camera bag with straps, but a lousy backpack. It has no suspension, virtually no padding on the shoulder straps and the waist belt is useless as it also has no padding and won't ride on your waist (bag is too short). I love mine, but I was only looking for a camera bag that was carry on size for the airlines. If you are looking for a good backpack, look at one of the bigger ones. Buying a backpack is like buying shoes, so the only way you're going to be able to tell if it's comfortable or not is to take all of your stuff to a camera store, load it up and walk around. Some are good for people with short frames but lousy for others.

I have both and think the 3021 is significantly better, much more stable. The only advantage the 3001 has is weight so unless you are looking for a very lightweight tripod, get the 3021. With the BPro version, you can remove the center column which will save some weight when you need to. Overall an excellent tripod.

If you are interested in macro then get the 100 macro lens. It will perform wonderfully as a portrait lens as well, which is how I use mine usually. The difference between 85 and 100 is all a matter of preference, not really one better than the other, and it depends on the kind of portraits you are interested in taking. The 100 will allow you to get slightly closer so it is better for very tight head shots or close ups of, say, a baby's foot or hand. The 85 is probably a little better for small rooms as it has a little wider perspective. Either are fine, but in your case since you want the macro, I would get the 100 macro.

 

A few other differences in these lenses is size and manual focusing. The 100 macro is heavier and bulkier than the other two lenses. Also, manual focusing on macro lenses outside of the macro range can be a little tricky. Not impossible, but any turning of the ring changes the focus quite a bit. Still usable though.

 

1:1 means that the lens can render small subjects the same size on film as they are in real life. For instance, if you take a picture of a bug and it measures 2cm in real life, then it will measure 2cm on film. Non-macro lenses can't do this as they can't focus close enough so that 2cm bug will be maybe 1cm or smaller on film.

 

Hope this helps and good luck.

Bogen 3021PRO is not too expensive but very nice ($150). You can remove the center column entirely for ground level shots or just to save weight. You can also mount it horizontally for shots straight down which might be useful at times in macro work. I would get this and spend the rest on a good head.

A tough one to answer because it really depends on the situation you are in and what kind of results you like (personal preference). Since you have the zoom, take a roll of film out and shoot exclusively at the wide and long ends and see which you tend to like better or use more often. Then, buy a lens in that range. Most likely you will eventually end up with both. For travel, alot of people tend to lean towards the wider end of the scale to take in all the scenery so if you really can't make a decision, start with the 24 and add a medium telephoto when you can afford it down the road.