ejchem101

<blockquote>

<p>Drink a couple cold ones and none of this BS will matter.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I like your way of thinking... that did the trick, now i'm good to go, the rest of you guys can just ignore the post and my stupid rambling :)</p>

<p>Gear Acquisition Syndrome is setting in. This time because I have a lot going on this summer.<br>

-Heading to Utah for 10days (Landscape and Wildlife Photos)<br>

-Mother-in-Law's Wedding (don't ask)<br>

-Hockey Shoot<br>

-Senior Portraits</p>

<p>My problem is in my head...I love my gear, and I love shooting with it, but with this many things coming up this summer (a lot for me anyway, I know you pros have a lot more on your plate) I am considering upgrading my body - My camera body that is, i'm content with my other.</p>

<p>I'm also not even thinking about lenses, i'm very happy with my setup of 17-40 F4, 50 1.4, 100 F2 and 200 2.8</p>

<p>My current bodies are A2, 1D II, 20D</p>

<p>I recently traded my 5D for a 1D II (I do a lot of sports (hockey, baseball, football, baseball) and wildlife)<br>

I am very happy with the 1D II, but keep thinking... for another $1k I can grab a 1D III, which for a summer might be worth it! I mainly use the 1D for Wildlife, sports and portraits. OR I could pick up a 5D for $1k for Landscape and Portraits (but that 1D III is just so tempting and I do like my film for some landscapes).</p>

<p>So... tell me I don't need any more cameras because my body is fine.?</p>

<p>I think for the weight, the 70-200 F4 is always a good lens to have around. Compared to some other lenses it is very light and manageable. Will you miss the 106-200mm length, that is something only you can really answer. I personally can't live without my 200mm length for things such as very narrow landscapes (castles etc). While going wide is the popular choice for landscape photography, many places have annoying details that get in the way when you go wide (telephone and electric lines for example).</p>

<p>John, I think that you have the right Idea. I love using film along with my digital cameras. </p>

<p>However, as many have already said, stay away from the FD system if you already have some EF lenses. This way you can use your current lenses on your "new" film camera. Personally I have the A2, and just picked up a few rolls of FF sensor material :)</p>

<p>So I use Film for my FF experience, a 1d mark II for 1.3x and a 20d for 1.6x I've got all the formats covered! (except MF and Large Format) </p>

<p>*warning- A film camera may take a nostalgic hold on your brain, this is perfectly normal, accept it and enjoy a roll or two.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Another thing that may be happening: Maybe the focus was just "a hair" off with the original 5D but because of the smaller file size you didn't notice it?</p>

<p>One argument I have heard for buying refurbished is that THAT lens has been specifically checked out to make sure it will be good enough for them to call it refurbished, it may have even been "tweaked" to make sure it's perfect. Where as new... hopefully the QC guys took their time but it might have to be sent back to be calibrated etc.</p>

<p>Personally I dont have experience with either though, I just buy used.</p>

<p>Will also brings up a good point, if the water has not been filtered, you may want to at least run it through a coffee filter if you see "stuff" floating around in it. Really: there is only one way to find out- let us know how it goes!</p>

<p>As a chemist: I would suspect that it would be fine, after all it is basically the same as distilled water. One disclaimer- it would depend on the water quality in the air around your house as well as the cleanliness of your holding tank. Might want to check the pH just to be sure it's ok.</p>

<p>Alan, Amazing Velvia photos. It has gotten me excited to get that box and start shooting! I've decided that instead of spending money on a FF sensor I would break out my film camera (a canon A2) and use that for my wide-angle landscapes.</p>

<p>I think bracketing will probably be a safe bet with my first roll of slide film. Since I don't personally own a slide-projector, I will most likely plan on scanning the slide film.</p>

<p>I personally traded my 70-200 for a 100 F2 and 200 2.8, I enjoy having the lighter lenses with amazing IQ on my camera :)</p>

<p>Hi Guys, I've been shooting with film for a long time, but I have always been just a "cheap" shooter. Meaning, that as I was growing up shooting film (80s and 90s) all I or my parents ever bought was the cheapest color print film. I still shoot a few rolls a year, and this year I ordered a few higher-end films. I have shot with Ektar 100 print color film and loved the difference in IQ. I ordered another roll.</p>

<p>I have also ordered my first roll of Velvia 50. I love taking landscapes, sunsets etc. I'm wondering if you have some tips to get the most out of my first roll of slide film. Also, when I take these to the lab, what am I looking for in terms of differences with processing?</p>

<p>I also ordered some Portra NC 160 for some portraits on film (which I haven't done in quite a while). Looking forward to using some film again. Thanks!</p>

<p>From the wing spectrum the left two are at least part mallard, and the right two are both part (if not completely) black ducks. A Black duck wing spectrum is dark purple, with black both above and below, while the mallard spectrum has white stripes above and below. However, the heads and beaks of the left two make me think they are crossed with something.</p>

<p>Henri,<br>

In the hiking that I have done with my camera (a few overnight trips) my wife has been along. Usually our trips don't require us to have more than one rucksack. we are able to fit our camping gear + Food in there. That allows one of us (usually my wife) to carry the camera bag, which also allows me to be able to quick grab the camera if wildlife jumps out in front of us.</p>

<p>I would hate having my camera gear packed deep in with all of the other gear, and when an opportunity presented itself I don't have it available. Just my opinion.</p>

<p>You know... I think this post has gotten to a very interesting question: </p>

<p>Dan did say:<br>

<strong>You are unlikely to exceed its abilities unless you are an extremely demanding photographer who works very skillfully and with great care and regularly makes very large prints.</strong></p>

<p>Which makes me wonder when camera companies will stop with the never-ending MP battle and start to reproduce the cameras that are already producing stunning results... when will that ceiling be hit?</p>

<p>(rhetorical question as I know that no one could actually know that at this point)</p>

<p>an easy way to check is to go and look at completed listings on ebay.</p>

<p>I'm not against duplicating lens focal lengths but it seems that you are staying pretty close to the lenses that you already have. If you are looking for a nice lightweight walk around for your 60D I would pick up the 35 /2 as stated above. The reason being, I find the 50 to be too long as a walk around lens personally.</p>

<p>Otherwise, if you have the 85mm, I wouldn't personally look at a 100mm macro unless you want it ONLY for the macro, the focal lengths aren't that much different. If you were to go longer, I would go with at least the 135, and personally I went with the 200 2.8</p>

<p>But, as many have said, only you can best determine your needs. The best suggestion I can make is that if you are looking for something longer, get a zoom, and then decide if you like the ability to zoom, or if you stick at certain focal lengths at which time you could sell the zoom and pick up a nice prime in that range.</p>

<p>My Current linup is : 17-40 zoom (walkaround lens) 50 1.4, 100 F/2, 200 2.8 The 85 and the 100 F/2 are basically twins in size and IQ. So far I am very happy with all of them. I found that most of the time when I was using my zoom, I am not really zooming, but instead staying at 200, or staying right around 100, so I made the switch and have been very happy that I did ever since. I now have a cheaper setup than a 70-200 2.8 and the only thing I am missing is the versatility of the zoom. I do not miss the white status symbol.</p>

<p>I can't help a whole lot on the D50 Vs D7000 debate as I am primarily a Canon user, however, when it comes to technology and cameras, I have to say that the newest may be amazing, but for the price of old and out of date bodies, they can take amazing photos with the right lenses / Technique. </p>

<p>I even downgraded from the Canon 5D when I was slightly disappointed with it's sports performance (even though the low ISO was amazing). I Sold it, and bought a Canon 1D II for $400 less, and put that money towards a new lens.</p>

<p>In the 6 Months since selling the 5D the only thing I have missed is the "Cropability" from the large MP sensor of the 5D. I would suspect if you aren't disappointed with the IQ of your D50, there is no true reason to upgrade other than to have the newest technology.</p>

<p>Adrian, maybe I am an odd duck here but I really do not like to buy new equipment straight from the stores. If you take your time and you are very cautious you can find some amazing gear used (either from ebay or other websites where cameras are sold). </p>

<p>If you dont want to go through the effort of looking for used equipment, then you are looking at probably a Canon Xsi as about the cheapest entry level dslr (for Canon anyway). Then don't forget you are going to need lenses, memory cards, extra batteries etc.</p>

<p>I am just now experiencing the 1D series bodies (a 1D MkII) and I have to say I am very pleased with it for sports work. I'm sure some day I will move up the line to some of the newer models but even the "old" Mk II has great AF and shutter speeds. So I would imagine that while the 7D is a great camera for sporting events, the MkIV would be arguably the "Best".</p>

<p>I had a grip on my 5D and loved it for specific purposes. The nice thing about a grip is it can be removed. It also helped me to decide that I wouldn't mind moving to a 1D series, but I am a pretty big guy so the extra weight and size really doesn't bother me.</p>

<p>I find the grip most handy for Portraits and for sports. Anyway, about the canon vs generic. I go with the Canon brand grips only for one reason, the electronics. In my opinion, the money saved on a generic brand is not enough to justify something going wrong because the electronics were slightly different, or even possibly there being something just slightly wrong with the voltage being supplied.</p>

<p>I'm sure there are a lot of people that like the generic ones, I personally just buy everything used and save my money that way.</p>

<p>Many people also consider their current lens line-up when making this decision. Often if people have lenses they have grown up with on 35mm cameras, they may not like the same lens on an APS-C sensor. This was my dilemma with my 17-40, I loved it on my film cameras at the wide end, but it wasn't wide enough for me on the APS-C and I didn't feel like spending more money on a 10-22 or whatever EFS lens. So I spent my money on a used 5D instead.</p>

<p>I loved the 5D and have since tried out the 1D Series (1.3x format) I have found the 1.3x to be a nice compromise for the type and style of shooting that I do. In a few months I may be back in the FF boat, only time will tell!</p>

<p>To Summarize... Whether to FF or not is a very personal question and a matter of how you like to use your lenses. While there are some ISO improvements, the 5D, and 5D II have a slow burst and not as good of AF as the 1D series... everything depends on what you are truly looking for.</p>

<p>You could even try posting that you would like to buy such a hood on several different forums around the web that work with buying / selling camera gear. However, as Bob said, they are going to be crazy expensive. Cheapest I have seen them sold for is around $200.</p>

<p>I lived with the exact same setup for a long time. 17-40, 50 1.4 and 70-200 F4.</p>

<p>It is a great general purpose lens kit, I found that my 70-200 wasn't getting enough use except as a portrait lens, so I changed to some primes in that range (100 F/2 and 200 2.8). So now my kit is the 17-40, 50 1.4, 100 f2 and 200 2.8. If that says anything, the 17-40 stands up well with the primes, and I would have to say there are many times when I go to the 17-40, especially for landscapes.</p>

<p>I like carrying a normal prime lens with me in parks for the most part. Largely due to them being small and easy to carry. If you are spending all day in the park with the kids, larger zoom lenses will usually weigh you down.</p>

<p>With an Xti I would look at a 35mm prime or possibly the 50, but for park stuff I have found the 50 would to be a little narrow, and wouldn't allow for much background information so I usually go with something slightly wider.</p>

<p>Take this with a grain of salt as I have been a fairly recent prime convert.</p>