ejchem101

<p>If you are looking in the 55-200 range I would suggest the 70-200 F4. If you find a decent used copy it isn't all that much more expensive than the 55-250 would be new, and I love the IQ and build of mine. Have used it on many senior photo shoots and sporting events.</p>

<p>What aperture / shutter / iso are you shooting at?</p>

 

<p>We also have to remember... what is "reality". Our eyes see things differently than a dogs eyes. Our ears hear different things, as well as our sense of smell is very different. I'm sure that reality to a dog is very different than our reality.</p>

<p>Also I believe that 2 people do not see the same way. I would imagine we perceive colors ever so slightly different, and obviously our perspectives are very different.</p>

<p>Just my thoughts.</p>

<p>Richard, you make a good point. If I were to buy a SBE II (awesome duck gun) for $1500 I wouldn't think twice about dropping it in the water, or having it in the rain. Along with scratching and banging up my truck...</p>

<p>I agree that it is just time to get past worrying about gear and have fun with it.</p>

<p>One More</p><div></div>

<p>Shotgun most of the time. I would also like to get some action shots in some ducks last moments of life. I feel that this would be a unique photo topic.</p>

<p>Here are some previous examples (taken with a canon D60 a few years ago).</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Chris, Thank you so much for pointing me towards gary's website. Absolutely perfect for what I'm looking at.</p>

<p>For all of you suggesting a pelican case, also thank you. I think a pelican case, along with a dry-bag is what I need. If I can keep the pelican case in the boat, and take a drybag out to the blind with me, the most dangerous parts have been covered (travelling to the blind, and walking in the water).</p>

<p>I think my needs were very well said by gary in his FAQ when he says<br>

"The 35mm SLR and dSLR are so versatile nothing else holds up comparatively. The digital point-and-shoots don't have the picture quality or focal length range, and continue to be plagued by shutter lag. My dSLR system has a focal length range from 17mm to 700mm, no shutter lag, and the ability to shoot at far higher ISO’s and produce sharp, noise-free images."</p>

<p>While I don't have a range up to 700mm yet, the reason I have a DSLR is for the quality of photo that it produces, the ability to control DoF, and no shutter lag is huge!</p>

<p>I think from this post what I am getting is either:</p>

<p>Do everything you can to keep the camera dry, get insurance, and have fun.</p>

<p>or else get a waterproof PnS.</p>

<p>Wow franklin, I guess this is why we have these forums! DUH why not just protect the camera and take it along. The ones from DiCAPac do look pretty promising. Anyone have experience using them? Like I said I wouldn't plan on using it for underwater photos, but for a just incase type of thing, I think that would probably do the trick.</p>

<p>You never know when you might take a plunge yourself (has happened to me a few times out there) so having a camera along has been pretty risky.</p>

<p>If the camera were to take the plunge it would probably be for <10seconds, I would hope a cheap housing would at least last for that long.</p>

<p>So here's the question,</p>

<p>I have a canon 5D, and love it to death. The problem is, for many of the places I want to shoot I might love it too much. Meaning:</p>

<p>There are places that I shoot that would be very "dangerous" for the camera, however, by leaving it behind, I feel like I am really missing out on some great pictures. For example:</p>

<p>Duck hunting is one of the things I love to do. However, that means constantly being surrounded by water (not in a boat, standing in water just above my knee). I am not sure it is worth the risk of having a $1k and a $500 lens taking the plunge into the water (as this is for recreation).</p>

<p>I've thought of a couple of options:</p>

<p>#1 take my film EOS A2 and a 50 1.8 (in which case I miss out on the benefits of digital, but still get great photos and not so much of a risk to equipment)<br>

#2 Sell my 5D and go backwards to something I wouldn't mind dunking in the water so much (like a 1DII that might be able to handle a quick dunk without too much dmg)<br>

#3 Take the 5D and just take the risks of dunking it in the water.</p>

<p>Part of me wants to say what use is a camera if I'm not willing to take it with me? While another part says I should use the 5D when I can, and realize that this is just something I'm not willing to take it on.</p>

<p>Confused.</p>

<p>Don't forget pentax also produces a waterproof camera</p>

 

<p>Hey JR. I think getting back into touch with our rebel will be very good. These "old" cameras are very capable of taking good photos. I would recommend learning how to get the photos you are looking for with the rebel, and if you find it isn't able to do what you want... after you have exhausted everything it is possible to do for you, then find what camera body would be best.</p>

<p>You will improve your photography much more from learning than you will through equipment in my opinion.</p>

<p>Philip, he's using a 7n, no histogram for those nice film cameras :)</p>

<p>Paul, even back then the cameras are pretty smart. I'm guessing you had the wrong film speed set. Maybe it was set for 200 when it was really a 400 or 800 speed film? Otherwise, it should have done a pretty good job of figuring out the exposure.</p>

<p>Joel, Good point about the macro. I don't currently have a 1/1 macro that will allow me to do those type of shots. Something else I have to throw into the mixing pot.</p>

<p>Nathan, I currently use the original 5D. While it does help with the bokeh on my 70-200 f4, and while I dont consider myself a bokeh freak, there are times when I wish the background was much more out of focus.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>well it sounds to me you need some value for money Prime additions like: 24/2.8; 35/2; 85/1.8 and 135/2.8 . . .<br>

WW</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think you hit the nail on the head, I am in need of some value primes, I guess this would give me a chance to try them out. Most of the time for a "walk around" lens I find myself wanting a little wider view than the 50. Maybe the 35/2 is the way to go there. </p>

<p>While shooting some portraits I have found my 70-200 F4 to not be getting me enough of a blurred background (even with moving the subject away from the background). So maybe the 85 1.8 will solve my bokeh problem.</p>

<p>Sooooo...</p>

<p>I've gone out, an purchased some nice used zoom lenses, because they were convenient and fairly affordable. They work. I've got the 17-40L and the 70-200 F4 L. I've been using them for a couple of years. However I find that I LOVE my 50 1.8 because of it's smaller size and is so less noticeable, and I don't mind zooming with my feet.</p>

<p>However, I've been reluctant to pick up other prime lenses because I feel like they are covered by my zooms. I guess I am probably most tempted by the 85 1.8, I do senior portraits for fun, and it sounds like it would be a great lens for it. But can I really justify using the 85 1.8 when I have the 70-200 F4? At some points I've thought of ditching the zooms all together to help fund a couple of primes in their place.</p>

<p>Opinions?</p>

 

<p>I completely agree here Kari. As an amateur photographer, the 5D just wows me. I know you were hoping this isn't a "I just can't afford a MK2 rant", however... I can't, my wife would literally kill me, and ... I have not once been let down by my MK1.</p>

<p>The thing I found since getting the 5D... is I take a LOT of pictures now!</p>

<p>ISO and noise is very well handled by the new software. Another example to add to yours.</p><div></div>

<p>Super-Late... but I happened to be at this concert on Thurs. :)</p>

<p>Canon 5D, 17-40, F4, ISO 1250, 1/25th Hand Held</p><div></div>

<p>Mike, I second that notion. we have had a few film cameras donated to the school (including an Olympus OM) and the kids love using it with the standard 50mm. Hard part is making sure I take the film in to have it processed.</p>

<p>I can understand what you are saying bobby, the fact that, as Matt says, a professional has a lot on his plate, with copyrights, invoices, insurance... all of that can detract from the true pursuit and spirit of photography.</p>

<p>However, I don't think you can lump ALL amateurs and ALL professionals into one camp. There are plenty of amateur "photographers" who could care less about the pursuit of photography.</p>

<p>I use a 430 EX II and find that it does everything I need it to. Powerful enough to bounce, and to balance out bright sunlit scenes so I dont have a blown out background.</p>

<p>Make sure you dont make the mistake of only thinking of flashes as being used in the dark, they are very helpful even in well lit scenes.</p>

<p>I think a lens in the range you are looking for that would work is a 28-135 canon I think it is 4-5.6 and has USM. Usually can find them very reasonable used<br>

Also, if you dont have a 50 1.8 I would recommend picking one up. They are $100 new, they feel like a plastic toy, but allow you to take great low-light photos, and I use my as my most common walk-around lens.</p>

<p>GL with your search.</p>

<p>You need to control your rage a little better next time.... bad tempers get expensive!</p>

<p>Another vote for the 17-40 L. I own the lens and love it.</p>

<p>depending on how long you are willing to wait, I would not go through the hassle of getting a lens to use. Save up $500 and get a used 70-200 F4 L, otherwise you'll have to worry about selling lenses that not many people want.</p>

<p>I guess I have to be a little more clear, I'm fine with gaps, it just freaked me out that I loaned out my 50 1.8, and then realized, it's one of my favorite walk around lenses!</p>

<p>But, I also guess it would be a good excuse to upgrade to the 1.4? :P</p>