jeff_bubis

<p>My first was a little 126. My first real camera was a a Nikon N60.</p>

<p>Yes, but AF won't work.</p>

<p>I've had my 40D since January 2008 and have shot thousands of pictures. I love the camera. Never got the error. That being said, if you're that hooked on upgrading, I'd go FF.</p>

<p>I would recommend the Invisible Shield. It's easy to apply (no bubbles), adds little weight (as opposed to a glass screen) and relatively inexpensive at about $12 (available from Zagg and also on Amazon). I've got them on my iPhone, 40D, and LX-3. These days I order them at the same time I order a new toy!</p>

<p>I agree with Richard Martin and mat g... The 17-55/2.8 is a far better lens for a crop body camera than the 24-105. If you're intent on spending the money, I'd go this route. Give it some time and the 50D will come down in price (or refurbs will be available). The lens will hold its value.</p>

<p>I believe the case was released stateside. I've been looking for one myself - and have no problems finding it listed on the sites from major stores (Adorama, B&H, etc.). The problem is, that as with every other LX-3 accessory (and the camera itself) - they're just backordered.</p>

<p>After you have it repaired, you might want to consider an InvisiShield by Zagg. It offers great protection for the LCDS - have one on all my cameras, including my LX-3.</p>

<p>If you've got the money, you can't beat the 17-55/2.8. It stays on my camera at least 80% of the time - probably a lot more than that. I've also got the 50/1.8 ("nifty-fifty"). The only use I've found for the 50 mm is low light photography on a tripod. Adorama has some good deals on refurbished 50 mm's, which is where I got mine. The problem is that I've found 50 mm to be a bit long on crop body lenses. 35 mm might be better. You get both, though, in the 17-55.</p>

<p>For me it's not even a question. The IS seals the deal. I considered this vs some of the L lenses, thinking the L might be better if/when I go FF. The problem is, there is no equivalent lens in the Canon line. This is a great lens. It stays on my camera 80% of the time, at least, and is my main walk-around lens. The build quality is good (not quite up to L standards), it's durable, and has been working flawlessly. The only problem with the lens is that I can no longer use it as an excuse for bad shots!</p>

<p>I think that for film and FF, it's probably ok.  For crop sensor digital, it's a good lens, but I think my EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 is every bit as good with the IS turned on and gives more flexibility.  The one aspect of it that can't be beat is the size/weight.  For that price, you might as well get it.  Adorama has some great deals on refurbs, as well.</p>

<p>The question is - is the IS worth the extra cost. For me, it was. I agree, though, that the Tamron is a very compelling lens for the price.</p>

<p>I agree with Gerald Wallace and Michael Polfer. I tend to go to Colonial - they have a great selection - to look at things. Their prices tend to be very high, though, relative to the reputable online retailers.</p>

<p>The Olympus' are nice, but not very practical as the water gets deeper. The beauty of the Canon P&S line is that they make a housing for just about every camera that is waterproof to at least 40 meters... I use an SD900 with one and have gotten great shots. I would strongly consider a G10 with one of the cases if you can afford it.</p>

<p>For me, this a no brainer. I've got the 17-55 and a 70-200/2.8 on a 40D. The 17-55 is on the camera 90% of the time, though. There is one - and only one - advantage to the 24-105 IMHO. That is - if you're thinking about FF at some point in the future. I like the 17-55 enough to keep a crop body forever, though, just so that I can use it. I think the 17-55 is a nearly perfect lens. Certainly, you're right a little more reach would be great, and so would L-quality construction (it's near L, but still with plastic and a lack of sealing). Those are my only gripes. I agonized before buying it - questioning of it was worth the steep price, but if I had to do it all over again, I would in a second.</p>

<p>I you want to use an OS that came out in 2001 and can't use the full capabilities of a modern machine and doesn't possess the capabilities of a modern OS - buy a PC and use XP. If you want a modern, well designed, stable OS, get a Mac. If you want crap, use Vista. It's that simple. I think others have addressed most of the other issues at hand. The only thing I would add is that if you add the cost of software included with your Mac to the cost of a PC, it will significantly increase the price. Every unbiased analysis I've ever seen of total cost of ownership generally shows that the machines cost about the same. On a final note, should you get a Mac, I would argue against AppleCare if you have a qualifying AMEX card. Most (not all) of their cards double the manufacturer's warranty for up to a year - which means that you're paying $120-$150 for only one year of coverage (the third). I'm not sure if that is worth it to you (it wouldn't be for me). </p>

<p>I've used both Windows and Macs - but the former only because I was forced to. I'm all about the Mac. Currently, I use a Mac Pro with a 30" Cinema Display (admittedly, the entire setup is overkill) and a Mac Book Pro. I've had a Dell and a HP laptop in the past - thankfully I didn't pay for them (they were from work). I've also had a PowerBook G4, MacBook, iMac (3 of them) and a few others going back to my first Mac, an SE. Literally, if someone gave me a PC for free, I wouldn't know what to do with it. The reasons for going Mac are too numerous to enumerate in this post, but suffice it to say that they are more stable, have a lower total cost of ownership, and are more elegant in both software and hardware design. Furthermore, Apple consistently outranks other manufacturers in customer satisfaction and reliability ratings. I would recommend that you go to an Apple Store and use one before making a decision to switch operating systems (not that you really have to - the Mac will run Windows better than most PCs.. Why you would want to do that, though, is another issue entirely...). If you're not comfortable with it and don't see its potential for you, don't make the switch. I also agree with those who posted above me - definitely consider an iMac - you will probably be surprised by how likely it is to meet your needs. I could go on, but I'll spare you...</p>

<p>I just purchased an LX-3 and love it. I also use a Mac - and therin lies the issue. Yes - SilkyPix does run on a Mac. However, it is, perhaps, the single worst piece of imaging software I've ever used. The interface is lacking. It is slow. The quality of the RAW conversion is abhorent. Usually, I use Aperture, but it is not currently compatible. So... What I'm doing is saving the original RAW files on a discrete area of my HD. I downloaded the trial of LightRoom and I'm trying that, but would prefer not to buy it as it seems foolish to have bother LR and Aperture (and I prefer Aperture mostly due to the comfort I've developed over the years). I'm sure the problem will be rectified in future software updates, though. I can't recommend the LX-3 enough - especially for wide angle shots (a wide angle converter is also available). Get one while you can - the cameras are on backorder and prices are climbing. Enjoy!</p>

<p>Just as an aside - for people that may face this decision in the future, I purchase the Invisible Shield from Zagg.com for all of my toys - including my 40D. They are cheap, tough, and don't add weight or bulk. As an added bonus, it also comes with a protector for the top-mounted screen. </p>

<p>I highly recommend the Canon refurbs from Adorama... That's where I bought mine. Save some change, get great service. I can't tell the difference between a new lens and my lens (except for the box it came in).</p>

<p>The only other thing I would mention is the frame rate - the 50D is about 6.5 fps and the 5DMII (if I remember correctly) is in about 3.9 fps... In my experience this generally doesn't make a difference - unless your subject is flying at the speed of sound. :-)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I've had a similar dilemma in the past. I can't say enough about the 17-55 - and there really is no equivalent on the FF EF lenses if you want IS (which is very important to me). While I agree with some of the prior posts that it may be early to consider investing in such an expensive lens, I can't say enough about this one. The build quality is excellent (though not quite "L"), as is the IQ. It is my standard walk-around lens and stays on the camera at least 80-90% of the time. Because of how great it is, I'm not sure that the 50 mm prime (especially on a crop body) is all that it's cracked up to be. ONTH, the 50/1.8 is so cheap used that you might get both. Personally, I continue to question the benefit of the prime in this setting as the IS should compensate for low light and the bokeh on this lens can be quite harsh (see the dpreview review from last week). I think if the prime is that important, I would either spring for the 1.4 or go to a 35 mm - one of which is what I will do if I ever decide to take the plunge on a prime.</p>

<p>A pop-up flash for fill flash on a FF body would be nice, too.</p>

<p>I've heard good things about the Opteka. I purchased the Adorama branded one. Works great - and $200 less than the Canon version. Plus, it doesn't sit on the hot shoe, so you can use a flash if you need to.</p>

<p>I just bought an LX-3 and am looking for a good case for it. Currently, I'm considering the DMW-CLX3. Here's the question - like everything else related to the LX-3 these days, the prices are through the roof ($100-$150). My major concern about springing for this case is that it will be useless if I decide to add a filter (correct me if I'm wrong) as you can't close it with the filter adapter and filter on it... I'd like to hear people's thoughts on this, using the filter adapter or wide angle adapter in general (i.e. should I just leave it as it is and use my DSLR when I feel that those are necessary), and if there might be a better case for accommodating the camera. The reason i bought it in the first place was for when I wanted to travel light... Perhaps the real answer is that I just need to break myself of the habit of carrying around a lot of gear. I appreciate your thoughts.</p>

<p>j</p>

<p>Currently, I'm using a Kata Reflex-E, which I love. I also have a penchant for old Nishika straps. I would never use one when I've got a heavy lens (which is why I switched to the Kata), but they are very comfortable.</p>