kari v

<p>Looks like memory card corruption or faulty usb/card reader connection.<br>

Try with another card / reader.<br>

If you don't have a reader I really suggest you buy one, dirt cheap and very fast compared to camera transfer. It also enables you to recover deleted images from the card should you have a need for that sometime.</p>

<p>Camera software is not important, you can download the package from Canon, but you don't need it and it's not the problem here.</p>

<p>500/8 sounds like a mirror tele lens. They're a cheap way to get something in 500-1000mm range but quality will be so-so and using them for sports will be Very difficult. And is the model even autofocus..?<br>

I really suggest you forget about monster teles for now. Have you tried something like 55-250 IS? Cheap quality product and easy to handhold. 250mm goes far and you can crop a bit in post to "get closer". Basically a crop from 250mm image may be on par or better than full image from 500mm mirror tele...</p>

<p>You should ask the agency what they need. Billboards are not printed or viewed in the same way as normal prints and you really don't need as much resolution as you may think. 12Mp is good for most anything when you nail everything else like light and post work.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've seen some reviews about 5d and they all show it's a noisy camera in high ISOs even comparing to Nikon D90.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>5D noisy? :D<br>

Could you provide a link to a review that shows this? I mean, seriously, have you seen actual 5D images?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I mean the 1Ds II or 5d II. The problem I am hearing about the 5D is lack of weather sealing when shooting in places like the artic. I heard of stories of Canon 5's dying in the artic</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Most cameras take normal (around here) -5 to -30C winter ok, plastic Rebels included. Arctic can be a bit more harsh but are you really going there? Cold isn't that big a problem with cameras really but if you need a good sealing against dust and rain too then take 1Ds II.</p>

<p>Memory card reader unless you already have one. Transferring directly from the camera is slower and just a way to consume your battery. Also, if you ever need to recover accidentally deleted images from your cards you need the reader. Price: $10 or so.</p>

<p>More than one memory card. If one gets lost or corrupted...</p>

<p>Do you *need* a telephoto? 55-250 IS is a good way to start but if it's not really necessary start with the kit zoom and 50/1.8, along with the 430EX II those go far.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The slow shutter indicates a tripod or improvised support. The f/2.8 lens is faster than most point-n-shoot cameras.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>LX3 is a great little camera with a stabilized 24-60 f2-2.8 lens. Support is always nice but 24mm and stabilization at 1/15 works fine handheld too. (Actually this shot is doable even without the stabilizer but keeper rate will be rather low.)</p>

<p>Zenitar 16/2.8 is ok and cheap. It'll cover whole 35mm frame.</p>

<p>Samyang 8/3.5 is actually pretty fantastic for the price and it works on 35mm as a *circular* FE though it's advertised as crop sensor full coverage lens.<br>

Peleng 8mm is a classic choice but current prices tend to be a bit high compared to much better quality Samyang.</p>

<p>James, speaking of inches may be a bit confusing.<br>

1:1 simply means that the subject will be live size on the film/sensor no matter what size the sensor is. No need to think about crops or anything.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It not easy or cheap to jump ship after a commitment to one company so see which one will satisfy you for all the years to come and stick with it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True. But it's a bit difficult to judge systems and future needs in the beginning and it's rather cheap to switch from entry level models and couple of lenses.<br>

No need to worry really.</p>

<p>Do you have any friends or relatives shooting Nikon or Canon? You could try their cameras and later share equipment.<br /> If not and you end up choosing between 1000D and D3000 then walk into a store, handle both and pick the one that feels nicer. You can't lose. Both are entry level. Nikon has better autofocus module but otherwise they're quite similar.</p>

<p>Better models<br>

Canon 450D (lot of small tweaks over 1000D, shouldn't be much more expensive)<br>

Nikon D5000 (newer sensor that is better in low light than D3000, video, articulating screen)<br /> Pentax K-x (even better in low light, fast frame rate, video, lot of camera for a reasonable sum)</p>

<p>Be careful with Canon and Nikon kits when it comes to the kit zooms. It should be IS or VR (stabilized) version. Especially Canon's old 18-55 non-IS is pretty bad.<br /> Pentax has in-body stablization so whatever you mount on to it becomes stabilized so no need to worry about that.</p>

<p>Check out Tamron 18-270 VC. Quality seems to be up to the competition in the better do-it-all zooms and you get wide angle and stabilization. Not the cheapest lens but it's hard to say what you consider too expensive.<br /> I don't really see a point buying a lens that starts from 28mm when there are plenty of options starting from 18mm.</p>

<p>Sigma 18-200, $300<br /> Tamron 18-200, $300<br /> Sigma 18-200 OS, $400<br /> Tamron 18-270 VC, $600<br /> Nikon 18-200 VR, $750</p>

<p>That is, when you want a one lens solution for your trip.<br /> If you're going to bring more glass then Nikon 55-200 VR seems like an obvious low cost, low weight, good quality choise for $220.</p>

<p>Also consider <a href="http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=160">Samyang 8mm</a> .<br>

Price around $300 new and it draws very nicely corner to corner at f5.6 and smaller.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am now looking to buy a circular fisheye, but cant seem to choose between a Sigma 4.5mm F2.8 and a Sigma 8mm F3.5.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's easy because only 4.5/2.8 is circular on aps-c.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm relatively new to photography so have no idea of the difference between DG and DC lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>DC = aps-c<br>

DG = 35mm<br>

Are you sure you absolutely need circular FE? 8mm Sigma would be seriously fishy on aps-c and circular on 35mm.<br>

(You can mount that 4.5mm FE on 35mm camera but its image circle will be rather small.)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Ok I just talked to someone at the school and they said a 40D might be a little much right now for someone starting out and lower models offer enough quality to put together a good portfolio and have submissions accepted in newspapers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I disagree. Actually I find 40D *easier* to operate. I think you should handle the cameras in a store to see how they're different. If you can't find a used 40D locally you can try your hands on a 50D, it's similar enough.<br /> XSi is somewhat upgraded compared to XTi/XS but for sports I'd still go with the 40D. For everything else XSi is totally fine but shooting fast action with a responsive, high fps and fast focusing camera is much nicer. The difference can't be really read from a specs sheet...</p>

<p>As said in the other thread that 50D kit is a total overkill and 70-300 IS zoom is not that great for fast indoor sports. Outside it should be fine.<br>

If you can afford $1900 you could get something 40D + 70-200/2.8 for that money which would really help you with (indoor) sports unlike the two lenses in the kit.</p>

<p>I don't see that much benefit, sRaw2 just seems to have more aggressive color noise reduction. It looks cleaner at first but tones have changed and grain is about the same.</p>

<p>But then again clean and small straight from the camera files are sometimes really nice to work with and shooting at ISO 6400 doesn't retain 21Mp worth of information anyway so sRAW, why not.</p>

<p>I agree, 15-85 IS looks very promising if you don't need large aperture. Absolutely wonderful range and image quality seems to be very good.</p>

<p>Do you really need L-build and EF? Going to upgrade to 35mm sensor soon or to somewhat weather sealed 7D?</p>

<p>Scanner software. I'd leave grain reduction and sharpening off, V500 class scanners just tend to mess up your image with those, IMO. But other auto settings are ok. It may be that disabling auto exposure / auto tone correction the software reverted to that very low contrast look. As said, the files should be a bit low contrast but too much can give you artifacts and messy grain that are very difficult to work with.</p>

<p>If you want more manual control try Vuescan and locking base exposure from empty film area. Best software for silver b&w scanning I've seen. It takes a while to tweak the process but for me reducing recommended dev times a bit and using Vuescan gives files that need surprisingly few edits. Just check levels (histogram) and sharpen to taste. (A bit flatter negs work well with my condenser enlarger too.)<br>

Photoshop's Smart Sharpen works great with film scans.<br>

I wouldn't go over 2400dpi (~7,5Mp) scan resolution, that's about the max your scanner is really capable of and 3200/4800 gives you Large files of interpolated mush that are difficult to edit.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I want higher contrast, but properly exposed photos, I should underexpose a bit and overdevelop?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. I think many people tend to underexpose film (and digital for that matter) even when they don't mean to / need to and overdevelop. Proper exposure and development is good, go for the contrast afterwards.</p>

<p>You can underexpose and overdevelop on a dull overcast day when there are no shadows etc. But this is not really needed, unless you want minimum possible post work.<br>

Interestingly you can do the opposite in bright harsh light. Overexpose and reduce development to open up shadows yet retain highlights. This is sometimes needed even if you don't mind post work as blocked shadows can't be helped that well after the fact.<br>

One stop to one way or another is fine. More than that and you really should know what you're doing and smaller increments are not really worth it. Half stop is about within the inconsistencies of your metering and developing and third of a stop is just silly.</p>

<p>Are you familiar with Curves? It's like Levels but offers more room for careful adjustments. Highly recommended after you've sorted out the histogram and basic Levels. Even slight tweaks can enhance tonality a great degree.</p>

<p>I agree, Superia 400 for color and XP2 or 400CN for b&w. Hassle free, easy to shoot even with a slower zoom, scans easily.<br>

If you're not sure where to meter, err on the side of overexposure, it'll look better.</p>

<p>After a few rolls and prints/scans try slower films like Ektar 100 or Fuji Reala 100 and a good quality prime lens like basic 50/1.8 or 50/1.4. I'm sure you'll like what that old AE1 can do with modern films and good glass. :)</p>

<p>40D can be a steal nowadays. Sturdy body, responsive, fast frame rate, good buffer, bigger real prism viewfinder, good autofocus. Simply nothing wrong with it and it'll be better for sports than the smaller Canons.</p>

<p>a) Submit to the local Newspapers and magazines<br /> - No problem.</p>

<p>b) Photograph some local high school football games and sell prints from my website<br /> - You need a long lens for this one.</p>

<p>c) Be able to handle private modeling..etc<br>

- You need models, makeup, clothes, lights, backdrops, photoshop skills... camera body doesn't matter that much. (40D has PC socket if you happen to need it.)</p>

<p>d) Not be too totally confusing me as it will be a learn as I go type of venture and I would like to have started on my portfolio before I start school.<br /> - All dslrs are pretty similar, it's no use trying to choose an "easy" camera. Start from the basics and it'll be fine.</p>

<p>Tamron makes a great portrait lens but if that's not a consideration then any macro lens will do a good job. Choose a suitable focal length and then buy the cheapest.</p>

<p>I haven't used the Tamron but judging from real world samples it's very nice wide open and stopped down to f2.8 as sharp as any other macro.</p>

<p>If you can stick to ISO 100-400 then D80 is great and Cheap.<br>

If you need higher ISO the decision is a no brainer, D90 wins. It also has much improved back screen and other not totally necessary but nice candy.</p>

<p>It's no use debating ccd vs cmos technicalities when most dslrs use cmos and it works better than older ccds.</p>

<p>Music and sound. Acoustic and electric guitar, bass if I have to, singing, samples and fx (for a small theatre), programming, mixing.<br>

Also, poetry and short stories.<br>

Cooking... hmm... I really enjoy cooking to people and making things from a scratch so I guess it counts.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would pass on that ... A while ago I bought some Opteka cheapest-finest lens (from the same ebay store). Don't let those sample photos mislead you, they are resized. The photos taken lack sharpness even in the center, and at the edges you will notice severe color fringing and an overall out-of-focus blurry mess.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hmm... are we talking about the same lens here? Seriously, non-resized 5D(!) raws we're sharp corner to corner at f8 and f5.6 was totally fine. Wide open it was a bit soft but nothing drastic.</p>

<p>Samyang 8mm looks like a very good lens judging from the samples I've seen from both aps-c and 35mm cameras. I'm not only saying very good lens for the money, it's simply a fine fisheye.<br>

5D raw files that I edited we're as sharp as from any lens, as Oscar says. Proper sharpening brings out much more detail than in the samples that Dennis posted and even those aren't bad.</p>

<p>And believe us, no one needs autofocus with a fisheye. Rebel Xs viewfinder is bad but it doesn't matter.</p>