keith_lubow

Oh, yeah...not 'nuff said: That is WITH a 50mm 1.4 lens.

With that much budget, you could get a near-mint condition pro-model Nikon F. "Nuff said.

Are you serious, Norman. Less trouble than just getting it right in the darkroom and having a real silver print? I think not.

Develop-bleach-wash-reexpose to room light, then process as normal.

While he is at it Giampi, he could also explain how a Rebel is less conspicuous than a 10/20/30/40/5D. I would love to see this one tested scientifically.

Wrap the XSi in foil, Geoff.

 

You want an SLR with a prism finder? That is a stretch.

"I'm annoyed with being expected to put up with large, conspicuous and heavy bodies for decent features."

 

First of all, the 40D-type bodies are not much larger. Second of all, it's the glass that really makes a camera heavy or light. Third of all, if 1.5 fps is crippling you, then you just need to learn to shoot more selectively. Fourth of all, just buy another XTi if you love it so much! You are being a Drama King over nothing.

 

"And yes, I know I'm picky and whiny"

 

At least you get some credit for knowing.

 

Go shoot, and quit your whining. If the best pix ever were taken on Barnacks, Rolleis, Graflexes, and Nikon Fs, you are sitting in the lap of luxury with your XTi and should be able to get a Pullitzer with it.

Go to a grocery store and get one of those round rubber thingies used to get a grip on overtightened lids on glass jars. Then you will have something for your stuck jars as well!

Matthew, get real. You need to shoot faster than 1.5 fps, yet think that a Rebel body is the tool of choice? 1.5 frames per minute is enough for most people.

I hope this means that they are making the shift to a low and midline product lineup that is more like Nikon's; one that I like a whole lot better: Two low-end models with slightly different features (D40 and D60), one mid-range model (D80), one "almost pro" model (D300).

 

I would much rather have a true D300 competitor than a 5D replacement. An approx. $2000, basically pro-bodied camera with the APS-C sensor. This means AF that competes with D300!

 

The 5D is the odd man out in the Canon and Nikon lineups. A consumer-bodied full frame camera.

 

I am hoping that in the future, they structure as Nikon did, and add another offering between the 40D and 1D. I might stay with Canon if that happens before year's end.

 

As for the 5D-style camera, who knows. Just keep it as a separate model, I guess, at the approx. $3,000 price point. Seven digital bodies might sound like too many, but I think it would make a good lineup to battle Nikon's current model structure.

For that amount of money, and on full frame, I would lean toward 135mm f/2 and 85mm 1.8 myself.

Put a sharp lens on the camera then compare. IMO the 24-105 is not a stellar performer. Should be fine in a small print, however.

 

As for all the technical suggestions and edits that everyone has made, they are all subjective and don't have anything to do with the lack of "wow" you are experiencing. I am sure some love the super saturated one above, but I would call it horrid. It is all just a matter of opinion. The word "correct" should be avoided. The purpose of these cameras is to give you full control to make as many artistic decisions as possible, not to give you pictures with "wow". You would be best served learning how to manipulate the camera to serve your intentions, rather than learning to make "correct" exposures. I would start with a class at the local city college and go from there.

I hope APS-C stays around, as I like the smaller format for several reasons...but they need a D300-type camera; a "mini" APS camera that is almost as good as the pro model. D300 seemed worth way more than its price when I used it, and 40D seems overpriced. I will be going to Nikon shortly, and largely because I like the way they separate their models better (main reason is because of the backwards-compatible lens mount that will let me use AI glass). I might have thought otherwise if Canon had a better mid-level "almost pro" selection of bodies.

 

Either way, I would avoid as much EFs glass as possible. I despise the 10-22 for its image quality and the fact that it is way too wide for me, and don't see much use in any of the other EFs lenses, except for the 17-55, and that is only because of the IS. Not much use to me, though, since I have a 10D and 1.3 bodies.

It's a shame you spent so much on a new camera when your D70 was fine. Can you still return it?

 

It's the lighting and general photography concepts (such as exposure and contrast) that you need practice with, not a new camera. First of all, I'd return or sell that D300. It is an unnecessary expense for what you are doing with it. Even a D40 would do the job fine. Then I would do a search at your local library for BASIC lighting books. Read about the light itself and don't get too caught up in the equipment. You need very minimal equipment for shooting these shots. Just learn about the qualities of light and you can fake it with almost anything; especially if using continuous lights. Remember: all you are doing is faking the sun. All you need is hard work and practice and you will get better. Read a lot and practice a lot.

 

 

 

Keith

It's entirely normal. I have not used a zoom that I consider to be *tack* sharp...EVER. 24-70L, 70-200L, 16-35L (the worst of the three by far), etc. All are great tools, but not if *true* sharpness is your number one priority.

What loss, Michael? A camera is a tool, not an investment. Use it until it drops dead, and call it good. I am sure you made $5,000 with it in your first month or two of ownership, right? If not, then you probably didn't need it in the first place.

 

Keith

You are shooting in a contrasty situation. Pushing will only create more contrast, which is much harder to print than too little contrast. Assuming you can get enough exposure from the shadows to get them onto a zone II (texture without detail), you should probably develop normally or pull.

 

But, in my opinion, shadow detail is overrated. Why do you want to see the shadows so much? I don't look at an event photo to see detail in the shadows.

 

I don't understand Mark's comments, as you would not need to use a high-speed film if you can use flash. In that case, a medium-speed film would be fine. FP4, Plus-X, etc. Nor would the ambient light level have anything to do with how you develop your film when using flash.

 

Delta 3200 is an ISO 1000 film, period, according to the Ilford data sheet for the film. Any higher rating is a "push". It is an extremely LOW contrast film. (I don't know why people always say it is a high-contrast film...probably because they are underexposing and overdeveloping it.) It is therefore the best film for pulling shadow and highlight detail from an extremely contrasty situation. The drawback is grain, although it is a very neat pattern of grain. If you are shooting grip and grins, where people probably won't want to see grainy-ass faces, I would say use flash and FP4 or HP5, halfrate the film, and underdevelop 25%. If no-light action shots, then the Delta 3200.

Don't worry about. I am not, and I am sure no one else is being personal here.

Well, you certainly hacked the spelling of my name when it's right in front of you. Maybe it is this same lack of attention to detail that requires you to shoot at 10 fps. ;)

 

Keith

"That pretty much sums it up!"

 

...all was stated "in opinion", of course.

The fact that they "make money on every one they sell" is not only a ridiculous, argumet against, but is also untrue. They only make money on the ones they sell that never have a claim made. Of course they make money...that's what they do. Insurance simply would not work if the insurance company didn't make money. As someone succinctly put above, they are designed to sell insurance, not pay claims.

 

Like all insurance, most will never make a claim.

 

I would do it if you trust their warranty service and are of the belief that they will actually pay any claims you make. You will have to do your research to decide this for yourself.

 

Keith

Bottom line: companies use both mark IIIs to make millions upon millions of dollars, without looking back to the Mark IIs. I happen to know a lot of professional journalists. Not one of them has openly wished for their Mk. II back (though quite a few have expressed relief that Nikon now has a competitive camera). It is standard Internet BS, hyped up to ridiculous levels by people who will never under any circumstances need these cameras for their work anyhow. Any problems are due simply to a learning curve combined with expecting too much from your camera. The only people who shoot at 10 fps and AI servo mode are hacks anyhow, and ANY good sports shooter will tell you that...and any good sports editor despises shooters who shoot like that. The biggest issue is whether you even need/can afford the camera, not the AF.

John,

 

That is exactly why I am of the opinion that the D40, D40x, etc.are the best cameras for 90% of consumer shooters. NAI glass is my favorite, and always will be.

 

Keith

John,

 

As usual, Sinar is THE company that actually got it right ("it" being professional digital cameras). The M is like something I have wanted all along from Canon or Nikon in the digital age. It is aggravating that they do not have a fully modular system by now, with how fast technology advances. We don't need to replace shutters, bodies, and other basic electronic components just because they com up with a better sensor or some odd feature. But dumbass "upgrades" to the ENTIRE camera every six months must sell better than a sensible, modular camera system that will be viable and upgradeable for decades.

 

Keith

Filling out all the necessary online and paper forms is not worth $50.