steve_strawn

Let's see... I bought my DCS 560 for $32,000... my D30 for $3,500, and now

a Rebel for $900. Technology sure is sweet!

This has to be one of the wierder questions I have ever seen. In spite of how you feel, to 99.95% of photographers format is not irrelevant. Why is it a 'Blad or Leica that has no autoexposure or autofocus is thousands of dollars? Certainly a Canon Rebel with its modern electronics should be more.

 

Anyway, to answer your question the 1v (not IV) is the fastest followed by the 3 and then the 10D.

<i>With shoting Velvia I get nice slide which has as I have read somewhere about 60-80MP.</i><p>

BWAHAHAHAHAHAH! Oh, man. Thanks for that. I've got a microscope at work that will read that sucker at about 5,000 MP. You could do billboards at 300 dpi. It would be fantastic.

Everyone repeat after me: Canon 10D.

 

I think a big part of the 10D's popularity is that it will use lenses built by Canon, Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, Phoenix, Quantarray, Vivitar, and on and on.

 

If you have the Sigma SD-9, you use Sigma lenses. Some folks like them, some don't, but with the SD-9, they're the best you're ever going to get.

 

Oh, and the 10D is one hell of a good camera.

Lawers? You gotta be f-in kidding me.

Absolutely.

 

Now if I could only SEE anyone's portfolio (something's broken today).

<i>I don't give a damn because it's free webspace.</i><p><p>

I think this is a perfect example of why we need to restrict

non-subscribers to fewer images.

I had 2 Sigma EF 500 Supers, and I sold them because I found them to be fairly inconsistent. Especially when a very low-powered flash burst was required, in situations either close up, or wide aperture/high iso situations they would often overexpose.

 

I got myself a 420 EX and found it to be much more consisten, and it pretty much behaves itself and acts how I would expect it to act.

Thanks for the tip on Roscolux, Lee. I didn't realize there was such a variety out there. The ones I have right now are the standard set of primary colors.

 

Emre, thanks for the ideas. I've got some of the vision, but not all of it. I'm working on it, though.

 

Oh, and the film is 135 TMax 100, or at least it used to be.

In a studio setting, I'm looking to create a slightly colored effect

(somewhat like what Rene Asmussen or Lasse Hoile do), and I'm

wondering what the best way to go about this is. Gel the lights,

filter the lens, or just do it in Photoshop.

 

I'm goign to assume there are advantages and disadvantages to each,

but for the life of me, I don't know what they would be. Photoshop

would be easiest, but I'm worried about things looking "fake" and

colors running out of gamut all over the place. Gels sometimes give

much too strong a color and are difficult to put over softboxes, and

filters are expensive.

 

Anyone who can help will receive rolls of T-Max that were fixed then

developed (courtousy of a horrendous darkroom mixup).

PBS and NPR regularly have "pledge drive" weeks to drum up subscribers. Unfortunately, if I donate money to NPR, I still have to listen to the pledge drives (although they are remarkably good at guiting me into giving them money).

 

Photo.net might think about instituting something of the sort, where you open the front page and a window pops up guilting you into becoming a subscriber ("you have spent XXX minutes on photo.net. If you were a subscriber, that would amount to XX cents a minute. Think of all the valuable insights you have gained in your XX months on photo.net. Isn't today a good day to subscribe") or something like that. If you subscribe, you don't get the guilt trip.

 

I see this as not being terribly invasive, or interrupting the continuity of the site.

 

Unfortunately, I have NO idea how to implement this seeing as I am but a lowly photographer.

Fantastic, Bob. And you got away without saying RTFM once! You didn't mention what we should do if our wallets are full of $1's and $5's.

 

I've seen the debate raging across the web (particularly dpreview) on this camera, and it's sort of amusing. The thing is very quick and focusses accurately just about every time. I shot a small wedding with it last weekend and of about 500 shots, maybe 5 weren't in tack-sharp focus that couldn't be attributed to user error. There were also a couple metering goofs, but that was because of some arcane reason folks take possibly the most photographed event of their lives and wear colors that camera meters hate (mostly black and white). The next wedding I shoot everyone is wearing 18% grey, no exceptions.

 

The color is better than the D30 or D60, but I'm thinking that folks just don't like accurate color.

 

Unlike my recently sold D30, I never had to wait for the camera to do anything. It was always just ready to shoot. I like it.

Thanks Jay for that useless tidbit.

 

I second the linear processing possibility. Are you shooting RAW or JPEG? If you have the linear processing box checked in the RAW converter, this is exactly what will happen.

I wanna know what this D10 is everyone keeps talking about.

 

One thing to think about, digital prices are falling like stones. If you consider all of Canon's prosumer digital SLR's are esentially digital Elan's (kind of a strech), then the D30 was roughly 6x the price of the film version, the D60 4x, and the 10D is 3x. If you consider a 1v with a power booster is about $2000, then you are getting the 1D for 1.75x. It is also interesting if you look at it that way, the 10D is the first camera that is CHEAPER than a film camera in the same lineup.

 

I don't know about you folks, but this is a really exciting time to be in the thick of this.

I think one thing that a lot of newbies do is freak out when they see a speck of dust anywhere on their camera. Really, if you can't see it, you just don't worry about it. If one takes this to its logical extreme, you won't change the lenses ever, and if you do it will be in a sterile biosafety cabinet. Dust inside your (film) camera won't affect your images.

<i>I do know there were several times when an "unfortunate" image appeared in that position</i><p>

I assume you are talking about kittens and babies? Thanks for the response... I guess it makes some sense when you think about it.

Egads! Where have I been? Ugh, I gotta cut back on the Bactine...

...on the front page. Where did they go?

The D60's field of view is 62% of your Elan 7. That means that less light is hitting the main mirror, of wich an even smaller chunck is hitting your AF sensors. The D60 has less area and less light to work with than your Elan, so even if the focussing modules were the same, the D60 would still be worse. Of course it doesn't help that the AF unit is off the shelf from an EOS IX APS camera (or so I hear). If you want super AF speed in a Canon digital SLR, you are going to have to get a 1D or a 1Ds.

I emailed the guy, and he took everything down. Case closed.

Someone appears to have pulled a bunch of photo.net stuff and put it

up on his site, including mine.

 

http://god.csie.ncku.edu.tw/~wnlee/

 

http://god.csie.ncku.edu.tw/~wnlee/photo/photo.net/page_01.htm

 

There's no indication he's taking credit for any of it, but all the

photos are actually on his server, and no credit is given to any of

the actual photographers.

THIS is what I meant:<p>

<img src="http://www.splutphoto.com/CanVSigma.jpg"><P>

<i>f/4.0, ISO 400</i>

Get the Canon. The Sigmas work, but they're a little quirky and don't fire in E-TTL as low power as the Canons (which means in low light, fast film, wide aperture situations they will sometimes overexpose). Here's what I mean:

When you click on the link to rate a photo, it says:<p><i>

Note: You will not be to add a rating lower than 5 if you have not

already commented. Others will be able to see your rating in order to

foster discussion. (If you notice any abuse of the rating system or

comments on the photo please email abuse@photo.net. </i><p>

 

Shouldn't it be: <p>

 

Note: You will not be ABLE to add a rating lower than 5....<p>

 

Oh, and close the parenthesis.<p>

 

Feel free to delete this post when it's fixed. <p>

Ignore what I said about the images not coming up. The problem was on my side. Ooops.