ajweiss

I use the <a href="http://lowepro.com/Products/Camera_Pouches/designed_digital/

Rezo_10.aspx" target="_blank">LowePro Reso 10</a> for my SD300. It is just about as

small as possible for this camera. It has a padded compartment for the camera and a little

pocket for a memory card and battery (though I don't use the camera enough to need a

second battery in there). Both are covered and secured by the velcro flap. It can be worn

on a belt or over your shoulder. I use the velcro belt-loop to attach it to a backpack strap

or to my belt.

<p>The <a href="http://lowepro.com/Products/Camera_Pouches/designed_digital/

Rezo_15.aspx" target="_blank">Reso 15</a> may fit as well (I'm actually not

sure which I have, as it is not marked on the case).

I will put in another big endorsement for their products. I have one on my iPod and

another on the screen of my GPS receiver. These films are nearly indestructible. It makes

people cringe to see me do it, but I can now drag a key across the soft plastic of my iPod

without making a mark on the device or the cover.

Better yet, they will replace the covers if you ever do manage to scratch them. These are

not normal screen protectors. I read somewhere that they are a special 3M product called

ScotchCal, designed to protect paint on motorcycles and cars from chipping when hit with

rocks. It is apparently also used on the blades of military helicopters. Anything that can

withstand a sand particle impacting at faster than the speed of sound should stand up to a

belt buckle (or even Puppy Face's teeth!).

If you are looking for a redder picture, try adjusting the white balance in your raw converter

along with the other changes you tried.

I never liked straps with quick-release buckles. When you remove the strap, you still have the

stubby ends to deal with, and clipping them together wasn't a solution I liked.

What do I do? Some people here may gasp at this, but I went to the hardware store and

bought two split-ring mini-keychains and looped them through the lugs on the camera. I

also picked up a pair of small stainless-steel clips. I threaded the strap through the clips and

attached them to the split-rings. Now, I can remove the whole strap and leave only two little

rings attached to the body.

If you take the same picture with the same lens from the same spot with a 20D and a 1Ds

II, any given part of the scene will be more detailed in the 20D shot. The pixels in the 20D

are smaller, but the angle of view on the 1D II is larger, so you get a higher-resolution

image with the 20D.

Now, we don't tend to take the same the same picture with the same lens from the same

spot with a 20D and a 1Ds II very often. We use wider-angle lenses on 1.6 bodies to get

the same view as a full frame body with a longer lens. If you treat a 300mm lens as a

~500mm lens when on a 20D in terms of camera shake, and compare accordingly, you will

get different results. At that point, it is all about resolution, and a full-frame camera with a

500mm lens will resolve the effects of shaking better than a 20D with a 300mm lens, but

only because it is higher resolution.

If you follow this idea to the end, the ultimate "camera shake resolver" is the Nikon D2X at

12.8 MP and a 1.5x field-of-view crop.

There are Canon digital cameras you can use your lenses on, but they are not called

"Powershot," Look for an EOS Digital Rebel XT.

Adam

First of all, there is no 30D. The Rebel XT is the 350D, and there is a many-year-old D30

as well. Using the right designations will help you avoid confusion.

<p>There are many places to find <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/

compare_post.asp?

method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_eos20d%2Ccanon_eos350d%2Csony_dscw7&show=a

ll" target="_blank">direct comparisons<a> (that link includes the DSC-W7), so I will not

go into that directly. Do a search on this site for many many similar questions with

answers.

<p>As for quality, in many cases you will not be able to see a difference in quality

between pictures with your Sony and picture with a Canon DSLR. However, when you start

to use your camera in more extreme situations, like low light or high-contrast, you will see

a huge difference, and the DSLR will win every time.

<p>Quite simply, there are pictures you <b>can't</b> take with a pocket camera that

will look great with a DSLR.

Ben,

Minolta is the company with sensor-based IS. Olympus uses a high-frequency vibration at

camera startup that purports to knock dust off of the sensor.

Jeff,

Does this happen at random, or in the last few shots of a card? I've seen something a little

like this a couple of times with my 20D when I didn't let the buffer empty all of the way

before opening the card door (a stupid mistake that's too easy to make when you are in a

hurry). What I had were partial pictures, but I shoot only in RAW, so doubling could happen

during the in-camera processing. Are these RAW or JPEG files?

In my case, I was using Sandisk Ultra II's that are regularly formatted in the camera. A card

problem is possible but not necessary.

Donna,

What we really need is more information and a 100% view of parts of the photo. Part of Ken's

frustration is probably because you didn't provide enough information for anyone to properly

answer your question.

"Not wide enough" is a relative thing.

I use a 24-70 lens as my all around lens, and I am happy with it. Maybe only once out of

1000 shots do I wish it were wider. I personally don't like the look of most truly wide-

angle shots, so 38mm is wide enough for me most of the time. On the rare occasion that I

want a wider view, I have the 18-55mm zoom that came with the camera.

Think about how wide you need to go. 24mm might be just fine for you.

Steve,

<p>I just got one in a closeout from Amazon of all places. It cost me $279. <a

href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00009R6WK/

qid=1126923714/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl23/104-1521618-5206323?

v=glance&s=electronics&n=507846" target="_blank">it costs more now</a>, but is still

under $300 at $299.

<p>i don't know of any specific reason why it got more expensive. It is not a new version.

Dan,

That looks great! I wish it had more places listed and a better search feature, but it does

seem to be pretty close to what I was looking for. Does anyone else have any suggestions?

Steve,

I appreciate your concern, but I am aware of the risks of relying solely on GPS for

navigation (and, consequently, I don't plan on doing so). Also, because I live in a major

city, I am aware of the limits of GPS when it comes to obstructions such as canyon walls or

financial-district buildings. Maps are essential as far as navigation is concerned.

I have, however, never seen a constantly-updated map of "favorite out-of-the-way spots"

that accepts contributions from photographers or other individuals. That is what I am

looking for. It doesn't have to be GPS-based; I just thought that would be a good fit for

this use.

So, I guess my question could be expanded to include any other repositories of such

knowledge, GPS-enabled or not.

Rick,

This is actually an ulterior motive for getting the GPS. My site is smugmug-powered as

well, and I thought it would be cool to put the photos on a map after a long trip. It's nice

to see another example of the interface in use, though. Thanks!

I just bought a GPS receiver for hiking and car travel, and I have been looking into other

uses for it. For the most part, I find the thought of <a href="http://www.geocaching.com"

target="_blank">geocaching</a> rather silly. However, I did discover that some of the

so-called "caches" are really interesting locations (<a href="http://www.geocaching.com/

seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=8b15f3e5-8bb1-4a0d-af4c-e46ec1dff019"

target="_blank">example</a>) instead of lunchboxes full of army men

and string. Unfortunately, these are a small minority of the total number.

<p>Does anyone know if there are other places that list interesting spots (not necessarily

photography-related lists)? I would love to find a place that can tell me of hidden

waterfalls, for example. I have been marking my own spots to re-visit, but I would love to

have hints when I explore new places.

<p>I was inspired to ask this question by <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-

a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DXfo" target="_blank">this thread</a>, which seems to overlap

my question somewhat but is not specifically asking how to find such places...

Your camera is compressing the pictures before storage. Certain types of images

compress better than others. As stated above, the camera makes a close to worst-case

guess at how many pictures you can store in the remaining pace on the card.

As an example, a highly detailed shot where most of the frame is in focus will not

compress as easily as a high-key portrait with a large out of focus area.

During a blizzard, I once fit about 450 shots on a card that the camera thought would hold

190. White scenes full of snow compress very easily!

What an interesting question! As a photographer and a physicist, I am very intrigued.

<p>I don't know what algorithms are used to process the color information in a raw

converter, but my guess is that they assume a blackbody radiator of a certain temperature.

Blackbodies are theoretical objects that emit radiation at all wavelengths with a smooth

intensity curve peaking at different points depending on temperature.

<p>What this means is that they change what they think white is and adjust the other

colors to match that white point. I highly doubt that they take the spectra of different

kinds of lighting into account. When I process RAW images, I only have control over

temperature and tint, not effective gain at specific wavelengths. I assume the camera does

the same.

<p>It would be possible to do so (though I know of no software that does it), but you

would definitely increase noise at certain wavelengths. Some common kinds of lights emit

almost nothing at some visible wavelengths. Sunlught isn't a smooth curve either, so what

would we be correcting to? Sunlight? Tungsten? A Blackbody?

<p><IMG SRC="http://mis15.ncarts.edu/film/282/images/spectrum.gif">

<br>Source: <a href="http://mis15.ncarts.edu/film/282/fluorescent_lighting.html"

target="_blank">NCSA School of Film</a>

What is your price range? Most answers to this question will have four-digit price tags.

How close to the action can you get? If you are right on the sidelines you need different

lenses than you do way up in the stands.

Without more information, I will recommend one of the 70-200 2.8L's.

Yes, if you have a small camera, take that. ESPECIALLY if it is a fast-aperture film camera like

the epic (most pocket digital cameras are atrocious in less-than-ideal light). If the choice is

between two similarly-bulky cameras, take the better one.

I would take the 20D for low-light performance alone, but I'm not you. Why were you

considering the Sony?

Again, it depends on what else you are going to put in it. For <i><b>just</b></i> the

10D, a woolen sock would be great!

<p>More seriously, check out Calumet's line of bags. They have a number of quality bags

in different sizes and at very low prices. Everyone I know who has one loves it (and one

just survived a trip to Africa with only a cleaning needed).

<p>Their largest bag (good for two bodies and 5 or more lenses) is only about $60. They

all include rainflys and more dividers that you need, plus plenty of pockets and a sleeve

for carrying on a suitcase handle.

Are you using the green "auto" mode? If so, it will increase the ISO in low-light situations.

This will result in larger files.

Alternatively, you could be taking far more detailed pictures. This would account for larger

files, but not for the reduced counter on the camera, as it doesn't know what you will be

shooting in advance (and assumes the worst anyway).