Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.
Sylvain: Thanks so much for the link. This looks pretty impressive. From your link I found this link <http://www.dpreview.com/articles/nikond70/> where you can see a side-by-side comparrison of the Nikon D70, the Nikon D100, and the Canon EOS-300D. I’ve got a lump in my throat and my heart just skipped a beat. 🙂
The latest Shutterbug magazine stated that Nikon is going to come out with an 8 MP, 8x Prosumer model 8700 in the near future to compete with the Sony F828. It will probably be in the $1000 range as is the F828. I bought an F828 on Jan 2nd and have taken approx. 200 pix with it and i love it. I can crop out a small portion of the JPEG file and enlarge it to 8×10 without loss of detail – like having a 600mm telephoto lens. If Nikon is your favorite, be patient, it won’t be long.
The 8700 lacks interchangeable lenses, so don’t bother drooling too much. It may well be the best of the non-removable lens digicams, however: <http://www.nikoncoolpix.com/main.html>
————————————– My apologies for referring to animated Nikon websites. IMO way more than 90% of such animated sites are LAME – folks go to such sites for information, not to watch cartoons.
I have shot more than 20k images with a Nikon D100 and find noise to be a minimal issue with properly lit shots. All digicams (with Nikon not being substantially better or worse than others), however, will suffer from noise to varying extents with grossly underlit and/or very slow exposure pix. Nikon does have a selectable noise filter for such pix, but I never select it. When I do have an underlit shot I fix it with duplicate screen layers and then spot out the noise using the clone tool, which is pretty easy.
You guys don’t know how to read in Manual it is 1/8000 to 1/30 and in several of the auto Modes it is 1/4000 to 8 Secs and in a couple of the Auto Modes it is 1/4000 to 30 Secs and these same modes have a Bulb/Time Setting of up to 10 minutes.
That’s true and I was very impressed with the quality. I love my own Nikon and I guess that’s why I want another one. But still, I am open to suggestions and will research all my options before making a purchase.
The SLRs in the current crop of Nikon/Canon/Fuji SLR digicams are indeed awesome. Which is "best" is very individual and based on needs, except that at the compete-with-medium-format end the Canon 1Ds rules – until Nikon comes out with the D2x…
The 1Ds plus Canon Tilt/Shift lenses are almost enough to make me switch to Canon. However, decades of abusing Nikons from the tropics to snow country have created almost total brand loyalty in me. I will wait to see how good the D2x is, and unless Nikon really screws up (not likely unless they overprice it) I will buy one.
OK I was just at the Fuji site you get a 12 megapixel image because you have 2 sets of sensors.
APS size 12 megapixel (S-pixel: 6.45 million, R-pixel: 6.45 million) Super CCD SR sensor technology for high image quality with wide dynamic range Produces 12.1 Million (4256 x 2848) recorded pixels or choice of (3024 x 2016), (2304 x 1536) and (1440x 960) pixels
The S3 will probably be a very good option for many users with great colours and a useful dynamic range. The only negative I can see in this upgrade is that while it is still effectively a 6MP camera the new Raw files are going to be really big from what I have heard reported, so flash cards are going to fill up after very few images when you shoot RAW. I was surprised to see all the bashing on the Fuji forum over at dpreview though because I have always thought that Fuji are producing great cameras for the money.
The new Canon 1D II will be all the camera that many pro photographers need, while being fast and tough as well. With a good 8MP sensor showing super low noise it will no doubt be successful, but I still think that unless speed is paramount and when quality is important the 1Ds is still the best all round solution on the market.
I am really happy that Kodak finally seems to have solved the quality issues with the 14n and its looking like being the camera that it should have been when it was first introduced 1 year ago. This will hopefully force Canon to be more reasonable on the price front and also means that Fuji won’t be able to charge too much for the S3 while pressure will mount for Nikon to introduce something spectacular.
The only problem is that from recent history, Canon always seems to be about 2 years ahead of the other makers with R & D and I suspect that when Nikon finally introduces something comparable to the 1Ds, Canon will immediately announce the update to the 1Ds which will be so good any improvements made thereafter will be purely academic.
Well even with the S2, Bringing it into PSCS camera RAW, the upsample in the render is mindbogling. I’m thrilled at the detail and sharpness that is held. So thanks Chris and the rest of the crew. photoshop combined with the new generation of digital cameras is truly awsome.
The statement "Canon always seems to be about 2 years ahead of the other makers with R & D" is IMO not exactly true. Yes Canon owns the high end at the moment with the 1Ds, but cameras like the D1, D100, D2h, D70 have all been basically state-of-the-art at their price points when introduced; not 2 years behind. Canon and Nikon are playing leapfrog at the high end of DSLR photography, with awesome products from both firms.
Some of the "forward R&D" items Canon has introduced are things I personally prefer not to complicate a camera system with. But that is just my 0.02 based on negligible Canon experience.
hmm it took Nikon 2 years to produce a camera that could compare to the Canon 1D. The D2h was introduced a couple of months back with basically comparable performance to the old 1D, however, Canon have immediately replied with the 1D mark II which is faster, has the option to shoot twice as many megapixels and none of the noise issues associated with Nikon’s LBCAST sensor. The fact that the 1D mark II is now an 8MP camera opens up numerous other markets to Canon that Nikon just cannot touch with the D2h or D1X.
Nikon still has nothing to compare to the 1Ds that has already been available for about 15 months and there was no mention of an update at the PMA either, so we can be fairly sure that there will be another 6 months at least to wait and there is already much talk about a new update to the 1Ds later this year.
What I think we are seeing in terms of market change is that Canon has the technological edge but at a higher price. When Nikon does introduce a competing camera it costs less as witnessed by the D2h and D70, however, its also true that until Nikon introduces competing products Canon has little motive to lower it prices in a market place where demand is exploding. The Canon 10D also must have made Nikon’s task a real headache when it was introduced 1 year ago because it cost a lot less than the Nikon D100 initially.
I have some experience with Nikon cameras having owned 3 in the past, but that was all pre-digital era. The real problem for the Nikon user as I see it is that while the cameras may be great to handle, ultimate image quality is definitely a long way behind Canon at the high end although they are now competing hard at the low end with the D70 that looks like a great camera. In a time when countless pros are making the switch to digital I hear of many Nikon owners making the move to Canon but rarely the other way around.
In 3 to 4 years I think quality differences will be purely academic, however, Canon has created an impression of momentum that is hard for Nikon or any other manufacturer to match, so while the quality of digital capture is still rising Canon look like the clear winners to me. Just for the record, I am not a Canon zealot and would be happy to shoot with anything that does the job. I would really like to see far more competition between the manufacturers at the high end because it would force all of them to produce better products at lower prices and with fewer defects.
The advantage that both Nikon and Canon have over Fuji at present is their prestigious legacy if you like as makers of 35mm SLR cameras.
Fuji’s problem as it moves from film to digital is its need to tap into a market of lens owners who will be willing to use their cameras and I suspect that if they were given a chance, the S3 would be marketed with either the Canon or Nikon mount, but Canon won’t play ball nowadays as its aim is total market domination. Nikon are happy to sell camera bodies to 3rd party manufacturers because this increases their revenue while giving consumers more reason to stay with the Nikon lens range, however, they won’t supply top quality bodies like the D1X to Fuji or Kodak because at that point it would seriously undermine their own brand sales especially as Fuji are clearly very good as far as sensor technology is concerned.
What will the situation be in 5 years time? your guess is as good as mine but I can foresee a sort of merger between Nikon and Fuji as a lifeline for both. For Fuji to start marketing its own bodies and lenses with a quality comparable to Nikon and then build up a loyal client base would take many years, while Nikon would clearly benefit from having the expertise and not to mention money from one of the worlds leading image makers.
Judging by everything I have read, the real battle here is not actually about selling digital cameras at all but in creating a base of future lens buyers because that is where the real money lies. Once you have a few lenses with any given system it becomes almost impossible to justify selling everything and switching to a competing product. Digital capture demands very good lenses to deliver the best results and future state of the art lenses capable of doing justice to future generations of sensors will be very expensive indeed.
As for Fuji in the short term, I think a great deal will depend on their price position within the market. They don’t have access to tough professional bodies like the new Canon 1D II with fast auto focus, so no matter how good their sensor technology is they will have difficulty in pricing their products too high if they want to remain attractive to consumers. Assuming that Fuji can enter the market at the right price point with the S3 and I am guessing that this may even be lower than the Canon 10D, I believe they can continue to carve out a useful cut of the market as a discerning choice for owners of Nikon lenses or new DSLR buyers that don’t need a tank like construction or super fast performance, but want all the advantages of excellent image quality at a reasonable price and this could include many advanced amateurs as well as pros.
Buko to ask how the Fuji S2 and S3 compare to Nikon and Canon will depend very much on your needs. My main reason for choosing Canon was that I already owned 5 lenses or I would have seriously considered going down the Fuji route.
We don’t yet really know enough about the Fuji S3 either from a price or quality standpoint. My bet is that it will produce very good colours and generally pleasing images that are more than usable for many applications. Perhaps not a complete revolution compared to the S2, but nevertheless a useful upgrade. With that said, it’s unlikely that it will be comparable to the 1Ds for resolution which will be a limitation for some and its obvious weak point is the body construction and slow operation compared to cameras from other makers offering comparable image quality, so it will have to remain reasonably priced.
If you really require tank like construction and a durable shutter etc the Fuji is probably not a great idea but I think the whole concept of only using camera bodies built like the old Nikon F for use in the tropics is overstated, so if you don’t intend on going to war they are simply unnecessary for may users including pros. Taking two amateur camera bodies on a shoot is probably a lot safer than one pro body.
I have the S2. I liked what I saw image wise over the Nikon D100 at the time. I also have Nikon lenses, an old F2 F3 F4 user. Other than the S2 being a bit slow, after 7 shots because it has to write to disk, I really like the S2 and it has served me well so far. I was hoping that the S3 would be some awsome upgrade from the S2.
Many users of the S2 have been disappointed by the announced changes in the S3 but I think it is premature to be so pessimistic before some sample images and a price have been released.
The main complaints were about maintaining the old body and not seeing an increase in megapixels, however, megapixels are far from being the only component in making a good image and the S3 may yet surprise us. I agree that the S2 produces better images than the D100, so with the S3 promising greater dynamic range with more detail in both the shadows and highlights it could set a standard in overall image quality for others to aspire to or at least high quality images at a price point other manufacturers cannot match. Let’s wait and see.
Well if the S3 images are the same quality as the S2 images with greater highlight detail, that’s pertty darn cool. I’ve be playing with enlarging the RAW files with camera RAW in CS. even at the largest setting the interpolation is impressive.
maybe the S2 price will drop and I can get one for cheap.
I’ve been doing a little research Buko and although its nothing official, the common consensus is that the S3 will cost just under $3000 in the US when released. Fuji obviously thinks that the new sensor technology is something pretty special if they intend to demand that sort of money and most people felt it should cost around half that price to remain attractive to potential buyers.
Besides photo-journalists do you really need a digital camera that’s build like a tank. In the old days you bought a camera that would last you for the rest of your live and would provide you with the same image quality as long as you owned the camera.
Now camera’s that are designed like the Canon D1 are "absolute" for most pro’s after one or two years, just because a better one comes out with a better quality sensor. So what’s the point of buying and paying a premium price for a camera that most likely is going to be replaced as soon as a better one comes out?! The only reasons I can come up with is tax deduction, a good show for the client and it feels better in your hands.
In the case of a camera like the new 1D, it has incredible auto focus and fast handling that most cheaper bodied cameras cannot match. The 10D offers a really nice compromise on build quality without having to spend too much and while the auto focus is acceptably fast for most people it isn’t nearly as precise as the 1D. In practice it means you are more likely to get a fast moving subject in critical focus at F2.8 and exactly where you want with a 1D, while with a 10D you may need to go to F4 and just hope the main subject is in focus.
As far as the question of body construction alone goes however I agree with you totally.
That’s a valid point, I guess for $3000 or more you can expect more then only a stronger body. I think the buffer and how fast you can shoot again are one of the most important things you have to look at when buying a pro digital camera.
Just as a matter of interest, how many of us really care about the 101 features in all these digital cameras? For years I did nearly 100% of my work with a Hasselblad 500CM and later a 501CM which were both totally mechanical with no inbuilt light-meter and manual focus, but the irony is that I was able to work remarkably quickly and precisely shooting models as they ran on a beach or moved around in the studio. On the few times I picked up the Eos 1, I found it so simple, it felt like I was flying.
From my perspective, all I am looking for from a digital camera is a reliable body with good ergonomics and reasonable speed coupled to an outstanding sensor. All the rest is just smoke getting in the way of taking good pictures and I am concerned at the tendency of manufacturers to put too many useless buttons on the modern digital cameras although Nikon are much better in this respect than Canon. It seems that with every update we are offered more features and options when all we really need in a professional or semi-professional camera is ease of use to avoid making mistakes or missing the shot while shuffling through menus.
It’s just like cell phones; I asked a sales clerk at Best Buy if It was possible to make phone calls with a particular cell phone I was looking at, they where advertising only the gadgets. He didn’t understand my joke……
And most menus are not really written with the creative mind in mind.
I printed a couple of the other shots after uprezzing to 20×30 inches at 300dpi and they looked pretty good and roughly equal to medium format film quality. the 1D is an improvement on the 10D in every sense but not enough in terms of resolution to make me want to buy one at that price. The 1Ds still seems to be the only camera out there with enough quality to do any job I could ever throw at it.
Its worth mentioning that Canon have said other sample images will be released in about a month or so using final production cameras and not a pre-release model as in this case, so we may see some further improvement. Rumours about the update to the 1Ds include a 15MP Fovean type sensor in which case any arguments for continuing to use film will be forgotten very quickly.
It was the inconsistancy between the left and right sides of the frame that concerned me most, it could have just been that particular zoom lens or sensor misalignment or something else completely. The lower right image quality of the night time shot (7) was poor.
I see what you are saying about image 7. It could be an issue with a pre-release camera in which case they would have been better not to have shown it or maybe it was a weakness in the quality of the lens. Perhaps the biggest current limitation in the quality of digital capture is not the sensors but the lenses which were originally designed for film and just don’t cut it anymore.
Wide angle lenses in particular seem to suffer badly at the edges where a good sensor shows up any weakness in resolving detail. With my own camera I have noticed that I can shoot at F2.8 using the super sharp 100mm macro and the image will show good detail straight out of the camera, whereas with the 28mm lens everything appears pretty soft unless I close down a couple of stops and its not just a question of depth of field. Many lenses have trouble providing sufficient resolution to allow digital capture to really shine.
There’s almost too much information for me to digest here. I’m so dense with cameras anyway… really need to take a class. I think I’ll watch the reviews and make my decision based on that.
Zeb: I guess I want just the basics that will help me determine which new digital is best. I get conflicting reports from my friends. The digital I currently own is the Nikon 990 and I pretty much use the automatic settings for most everything. I want to buy a newer digital with the best quality, highest resolution, and ease of use possible for around $1,000.00.
I like the Nikon and wanted to buy another one… but I’ve been getting advice against it. I’ve seen some of the Canon’s shots and am very impressed. I also have been told that the Canon is cheaper and the lenses are better.
Yet… I was impressed with Bonnie’s Nikon D100 when she brought it to PSWorld last summer.
It would help if I understood all the terminology, etc. but have a full plate for learning new stuff right now.
Linda, that camera is probably a very good camera if you want a fixed lens meaning you cannot buy lenses for this camera. It might not be a bad idea for you since you like automatic settings etc. Just be aware that if you ever want more of a zoom for this camera you cannot change it.
Please bear with me and what might appear to be foolishness.
How far would this lens reach in lay terms… Say I wanted to zoom in on the stork that visited our pond last week. I’d say he was 200 feet away. Would I be able to get a good closeup shot of him with this lens?
Nope, 300mm is about a 6x in binocular terms. You would need a super telehoto lens on an SLR but they are serious money. Check out the 1200mm f5.6L Canon lens ~$60 000.
Linda I don’t think you will be happy without the ability to add a zoom lens. The one I used at the zoo was a 75-300mm. I would like more and have that option.
If I were you I would go to a camera store and have them set you up with a camera and a 75-300 mm zoom. Then go out of the store and have a look at some signs or something so you can see for yourself just how much of a zoom you get. You don’t have to buy it and I am sure they would be more than happy to help you out.
I do have a 28-135mm zoom which is what I keep on the camera most of the time so the lens that which that camera Zeb suggested is a really good range so it just depends on what you want. The built in lens is also equivalent to Canons "L" glass which is really good glass.
I just checked to see what my Nikon 990 Zoom is and I believe it is 8-24mm. If this Canon is 28-200 mm, that’s quite a difference. It might be all I really need.
To be fair you didn’t include bird photography in your requirements. That camera is not really suited to long range bird photography, but you could set up a small ‘hide’ and use remote control. Amazingly it has a 3cm (just over one inch) close focus so if you could get close enough you should have a pretty detailed photo. Your 990 was a 38-115mm equivalent so the Canon is nearly twice that plus it has over twice the number of pixels so you should see a dramatic increase in picture quality.
"L" glass is Canons best. I personally cannot afford the "L" glass in this stage of the game and I get pretty fair photos. I wouldn’t get the "L" lenses until I started making serious money with my camera.
Zeb: I can generally get within 60 feet of most of the birds on our property. Whereas birds are not my primary interest I would love to be able to capture them.
Another subject I have shot before and may be asked to shoot again is horse shows. I wonder how this camera would do with jumping horses. Actually I did pretty good with my 990 but had to click in advance to finally catch the horse as it was going over the jump.
BTW, thanks for the glossary link. I’ll hang onto it.
Well even at 60′ you won’t get much detail on a small bird, a stork would be bigger but it’s not meant for that. As far as I’m aware the camera is not on sale yet and the shutter lag is not mentioned in the specifications but it will be much faster than the 990, and could be used for horse shows.
It does sound like a great camera. Like I said, it just depends on what you want. You may be very happy with a point and shoot but I personally want to be able to expand. That is why I got the cheaper body. I can invest in lenses and upgrade the body in a year or two and still get great photos.
Cindy: You are much more of a photograher than I am. I want to be able to "cheat" (for lack of a better word) enough to produce high quality images for my clients (and my own pleasure) in the most efficient and cost effective way possible.
Canon is said to be releasing dozens of new cameras this year, mostly compacts, as Cindy said depends on what you want, every camera is a compromise of some sort.
Zeb: I think this is the one that John V. showed me. It looks pretty exciting too. I take it the Canon is considered Professional but this one not? Also the Canon L lens is better?
I think the term professional is a marketing term. Both would both give exceptional image quality. Canon ‘L’ means they either have special glass or design in their lenses. Wait until they become available and try them, sometimes how they feel in your hands is a big deciding factor and how easy they are to use. A digital SLR is another option but a decent lens will take you beyond your stated budget.
That’s a good idea. I will wait and try them Zeb. I’m not quite ready financially but hope to be after I finish a job I’ve been working on.
I feel I can justify the $1,000.00 since I recently braced myself to pay around that much to have my printer repaired. After I fixed it myself I decided I would use the money I saved for a much anticipated new digital. 🙂
I just checked to see what my Nikon 990 Zoom is and I believe it is 8-24mm. If this Canon is 28-200 mm, that’s quite a difference. It might be all I really need.
Apples and oranges. The effective field of view and the resulting zoom effect vary according to the size of the sensor, just like an 85mm lens is by no means a telephoto on a medium format camera. Each digital camera has a certain "magnification" factor to let you know what the approximate equivalent is in terms of 35mm photography.
The lens of the Canon PowerShot Pro1, according to dpreview, is indeed the equivalent of a 28-200mm zoom lens in terms of 35mm photography.
Your Nikon Coolpix 990 is rated by dpreview as a 38mm to 115mm equivalent in terms of 35mm photography, even though its actual focal lengths go from 8mm to 24mm.
Therefore, the effective maximum focal length (again compared to 35mm) of the Canon PowerShot Pro1, would be less than twice the maximum focal length of your Nikon Coolpix 990. It is in fact, less than 75% more "powerful" (200 divided by 115 = 1.739130435).
As a matter of fact, all other things being equal, a 38-115 lens (3.03 zoom ratio) would tend to be better in quality (chromatic aberration, pincushion and/or barrel distortion, etc) than a 28-200 (7.14 zoom ratio).
As long time foe of zoom lenses in general, personally I wouldn’t touch a camera that had a non-interchangeable lens with a 7.14 zoom ratio (28-200) like that Canon with a ten-foot pole. That’s just my personal preference.
In light of this information the Nikon is weighing in a little heavier.
The COOLPIX 8700 comes loaded with all the essential accessories: a battery and charger, an A/V cable, a USB cable and the comprehensive Nikon View software package. The camera is also compatible with a host of optional accessories, including wideangle, telephoto and fisheye converters. It can also be fitted with a Lens Hood that uses lens filters. In addition, the COOLPIX 8700’s accessory shoe accommodates a number of Nikon’s external Speedlights.
The larger the zoom ratio, the more compromises the lens designer has to make in terms of quality (as I said before: chromatic aberration, pincushion and/or barrel distortion).
Just look at the better zoom lenses for SLRs. You’ll find they come in such focal lengths as 28-80mm (2.85 zoom ratio), 85-200mm (2.35 zoom ratio), etc.
On the other hand, look at dirt-cheap lenses like Samyang (a company that only sells noodles in its native Korea), or the Samyang lenses sold here also under the Phoenix brand: those cheapo lenses will have high zoom ratios.
Is there a reason you’re not considering the Digital Rebel (Canon EOS-300D)? It is well within your price range and it is a true digital SLR, with interchangeable lenses. Several of the reputable mail order stores (like B&H Photo) have an offer for the camera plus one lens for just under $1,000. Memory cards are a different matter, but you need those for any digital camera.
At least it’s a camera around which you can build a collection of lenses
you can use until you are ready to buy more lenses…
Absolutely!
Just think about it, Linda, every time you fix your printer you’ll be able to afford a couple of very fine lenses! If that sucker breaks down every six months or so, in less than a couple of years you’ll have a fine array of lenses.
Thats what I did and couldnt be happier. I almost got the 10D but with that $500 I saved I was able to put that towards a lens. If a better camera comes out in a year or so I will have a few lenses to use.
Ramon: In response to the Canon EOS-300D question, I guess because it’s 6 mp’s. The others have 8 mp’s.
I was under the impression that the Nikon is expandable by way of lenses… but then again, I guess the lenses are not as good… hm… maybe I should wait for the next replacement for the EOS-300D?
I’m getting dizzy with this circular motion… but I think it’s getting better.
Never knew my printer could prove to be such a good reason to spend money. 🙂
Cindy: Good rationalle… and I must say your camera is serving you well. You should post a link to your new web site. It’s impressive!
I was under the impression that the Nikon is expandable by way of lenses…
Only by screwing adapters onto the filter thread of the non-interchangeable lens. Sort of like screwing in a magnifying glass instead of a filter (turning it into a pseudo telephoto) or a bubble lens to make it a fish-eye or wide-angle lens. Mickey Mouse comes to mind.
So there are better ways to attaching lenses than having to screw them on.
What that particular Nikon camera wants you to do is to screw and adapter on top of the non-interchangeable lens in order to change its apparent focal length. In this situation you are not changing lenses at all, you’re just using the filter thread on the camera lens to attach a "magnifying glass" (for a telephoto effect) or a bubble lens (for a wide-angle or fish eye effect).
Therefore, it’s not a question of attaching a lens to the camera, but a Mickey Mouse gadget to the front of your one and only lens.
With a true SLR (digital or film) you actually change the lenses, take one off, put another one on your camera body. Most SLRs, if not all, nowadays have bayonet mounts, although you can use a bayonet-to-thread adapter to attach an M-42 ("Universal") mount to the Pentax D*ist digital SLR in fully manual mode.
After having seen the results folks are obtaining from the Digital Rebel (Canon EOS 300-D), if I were looking for a digital camera in this price range, I would not hesitate to buy one myself, without waiting for another model with a couple of more megapixels.
At US$1000, consider SLR. Currently the the Nikon D70 is the best SLR digicam at that price range with the Canon Rebel second. You should read the reviews.
SLR cameras are a huge step up from non-SLR cameras: bigger and heavier with bigger and heavier lenses, meaning designers made less compromises in materials and design to make things small and light. And of course interchangeable lenses.
Both Nikon and Canon make **excellent** lenses in a wide range of quality and price; the best of either brand is beyond most folks needs. One of those two brands is not "better" than the other, even though individual lens comparisons will vary. I do recommend that you stick with the brand of camera body you buy (Nikon lenses for Nikon, Canon for Canon; avoid third party unless you are a *very* competent lens/camera quality researcher).
I agree with almost everything Allen writes, with the one exception of the D70 being in the same price range as the Rebel. The Nikon D70 is $1,600 at B&H v. $900 for the Canon Digital Rebel.
I am reading the D70 has a few features missing from the Digital Rebel but the image quality is not as good. That is the bottom line. The "features" it is missing will not be missed by most. I believe it is FEC which can easily be fixed with a good external flash. Something you should have anyway.
The Digital Rebel has exactly the same sensor as the Canon D10.
Ramón, If you put the new Kayocera on the end of a ten foot pole, you can take pictures of an eagle landing in it’s nest to feed the little ones. (wings wide spread and all : )
The Kyocera is many times faster than all other digital cameras. (I can fit that in a special project.)
I’m not recommending it to Linda.
Oh,.. and another thing! Contax makes the second best 35mm film cameras (after Rollei).
Shop around – as B&H has grown they have lost their low pricing in many instances. Actually the Nikon D70 body is available for US$999 as opposed to US$899 for the Canon Digital Rebel body. IMO the D70 looks to be more than US$100 better. However, the D70 is out just this month, so it makes sense to wait a month for prices to stabilize and for all the pro reviewers to get their $0.02 commentary made on production versions of the camera.
VERY IMPORTANT: always handle the camera you may buy. Different folks have different ergonomic preferences that can be HUGE.
I am almost tempted to hold out for a 10 megapixel model.
If you do decide that you need medium-format equivalency like the 1Ds, wait until Nikon comes out with its competition to the Canon 1Ds (probably the D2x) later this year and then decide. Prices will be lower as alternatives in the genre exist.
<< Then by all means go with the 11-megapixel Canon 1Ds, only $8,000. Nothing else can touch it. If the price is a little steep, just repair your printer yourself every month and you can afford the 1Ds by October. >> You’re funny Ramon! 🙂
At US$999 for the body you could buy a D70 now and have months of use before going the US$5000+ for medium format equivalency. By then you will be so enamored with SLR digicams you will want to keep the D70 as a backup…
Linda>John V: Are you looking to buy a new camera? If you are, which one would you be inclined to go with?
Didn’t realize I was invited back to the party!
I’m looking for a "35mm" digital camera system for myself and searching for a point and shoot camera for one of my clients who doesn’t want to carry around his 35mm Nikon or Fuji S2 all the time. Right now he has a Canon G2 – a 4 meg camera. The quality is really nice for such a small camera but he prints images too large – 11×14 – and the images fall apart – unfortunately he doesn’t see the image degrade until I point it out to him. When I ask why he doesn’t use the Fuji S2 – at times it’s in the same camera bag – he says "I felt like shooting with the G2"…not a very clear answer but I have to be a psychologist with him at times. He is a fine art photographer represented by a very well known gallery in NYC and the gallery is reluctantly willing to sell digital prints. I’m trying to keep the image and print quality top notch as not to scare the gallery. He’s been selling traditional silver prints at the gallery but he would like to move to a total digital workflow.
Anyway regarding point and shoot cameras, both the Nikon and Canon 8 Meg cameras are available – Nikon Coolpix 8700 and Canon Pro1. For me and my client the bottom line will be image quality first and features and ergonomics a close second. I’m basically going to wait to see reviews for both cameras. But it seems from the mini reviews around the web both are comparable – handling wise at least. In general Canon has shown they have the better imaging chip but will keep an open mind about this general statement – who knows Nikon might surprise us. Both will be in the $1000. range. I have the Nikon 995 and it’s a real nice camera and was THE prosumer camera to get at one time but times change quickly. I have all the additional lenses from Fisheye to Tele and it’s a comprise to screw the lenses on and set camera to use the specific lenses and image quality suffers also. So basically going with a point and shoot camera even with screw-on lenses is not a setup that you can grow with over the long term and once again image quality is degraded with the screw-on lenses – even if the lenses are Nikon.
So Linda…since you fixed your laser printer and saved $1000. Which way should you go? If I only had a $1000. to spend on a camera system I’d go with the Canon 300 with the zoom to get started. Don’t worry about losing the extra two megs of image data with the new point shoot cameras as in a couple of years their will be 10+ meg cameras for $1000 and you’ll have interchangeable lens ready to place on the new camera. My Apple Store in NJ has the Canon 300 to play with. Yours might carry it also…play with it you’ll love the superfast and quite auto focus…also the camera is light. Also check out the NAPP price at PC/MacMall.
Nikon has the D70 so you could wait for the reviews. In general it seems Nikon’s flash system is better than Canon’s. As mentioned handling is important also so play once the camera is out. But I still feel the Canon 300 will have better image quality…just an educated guess!
I’ve been a Nikon user for 25 years but have no problem switching over to Canon as I’ve worked with both Nikon D100 and Canon 300/10D images and the Canon images are noise free and sharper when compared to the Nikon D100. Fuji’s S2 Images are very close in quality to the Canon 300/10D. I was hoping Fuji would surprise us with the S3 but was very underwhelmed with their announcement.
Also the following people use Canon: Chris Cox, Thomas Knoll (right there that should tell us something!) and if not…Andre Rodney, Bruce Fraser and Jeff Shewe also shoot with Canons.
I’ve been a Nikon user for 25 years but have no problem switching over to Canon as I’ve worked with both Nikon D100 and Canon 300/10D images and the Canon images are noise free and sharper when compared to the Nikon D100.
Here’s what you do. You buy a Flash card (you will use it later anyway) and a card reader (you can get them for $20). Walk into a camera store, ask the sales person if you could take some test shots. They generally will be more than happy to help you. If not, go to another camera store.
Plug in your flash in camera 1, go outside, take some shots. Plug in your flash to camera 2, take the same shots. Be sure you have the ISO and other settings as close to the same as you can get them.
Go home and look at your shots in Photoshop. Buy the one you like.
When making camera comparisons, compare the Rebel against the D70 and the Canon D10 against the Nikon D100.
The Rebel and the D10 take identical pictures. There are a few features missing in the Rebel and the construction is not quite as good but the D10 is heavy compared.
What a wealth of information you added (I knew you would)… thanks very much! I am swinging toward the Canon. It looks like the Canon 300 has come down in price about $600… still I can’t help but think there will be a replacement soon.
Unless I really jump forward with photography and I start making enough money to warrant another upgrade, I will be hanging onto the same camera for a few years… so replacing it in a year or two might not work in my decision making process.
I have some pictures I downloaded a while back that were taken with a Canon Rebel. They were unbelievable! Maybe I can get a link or permission to post so I can show you.
***
Cindy:
Taking my own flash cards to a dealer is a wonderful idea! I have three flash cards for my Nikon 990. I assume they still work with the newer setups.
***
This is another one of those keeper threads. Very Exciting!
Cindy’s m.o. makes sense IF you also test some shots with the latest add-on strobes from Nikon/Canon on their respective digital bodies (shoot the Nikon with and without the flash softening hood on the strobe).
The difference in modern strobe/lens/camera combinations is HUGE, hard to believe unless you use the hardware. Nikon’s SB-800 (and presumably the even newer 600) strobe is much, much better than anything I have previously used, and previously I used just one generation back. My preconceptions regarding strobes and how they behave has changed with the SB-800 used on a modern Nikon.
Note that the modern digital camera/lens/strobe all work in synch to a degree that older setups can not do; these are very much strobe/camera/lens systems. If you will ever use the strobe (and you should use one often for fill) you should consider the modern strobe/lens/camera combination when you make purchase decisions.
Personally IMO the D100 is not really a good choice at this point. It is actually old technology to the D70.
Also check out the issue of wireless etc. images uploading choices, as well as wireless strobe synching. Nikon’s latest is pretty slick.
Thanks Allen. I know very little about strobes. I’m photographically quite ignorant… but learning from you all. A class in photography is on my To-Do List but not until after I upgrade.
It will be interesting to see where this thread takes us… and how many of us make a purchase based on it. I am slowing down and waiting to see what’s coming.
The last time I gave photo advice, after spending many many hours explaining every little detail, went and bought the first thing the sales clerk offered. I try not to proffer any advice after that.
I’ve appreciated all the advice you’ve offered here and other places… I plan to sort through this thread at some point, start a Word document, organize it, print it and go with the best choice that works for me. I usually shop this way.
If I’m not mistaken I believe you were part of the thread I started for my scanner two or three years ago. 🙂
It wasn’t directed at you, the person involved has long since passed away. It’s interesting how people choose what they buy especially when there is so much to choose from. Last week I had this discussion with someone else about choosing a new computer and he said always ask before you give advice whether the other person will take it. Four years ago, I thought I would never buy another Mac but then the Cube came out and I couldn’t resist.
You may not want to waste time on a photo class unless it is taught as a digital SLR class. There are many things – even the teaching techniques themselves – that are way more modern with SLR digicams than with film. Most of the film-only teachers do NOT get the fact that it really is a new photo world. Instead, buy an SLR digicam and start taking photos – unlike with film, pix are free!
Buy a few photo texts and read about depth of field and the like, find a photog or two to discuss photography with, and… take lots of pix! THOUSANDS! FREE! Shoot, review in camera/laptop, reshoot, think outside the box, shoot-shoot-shoot. Fool with all the camera control alternatives, and shoot-shoot-shoot.
The ability to shoot thousands of images and review every one instantly is a totally new learning process. Go for it – don’t wait! Waiting three months equates to 5000 photos/learning you missed out on.
I would go along with that suggestion. I think that shooting digital speeds up the learning process simply because of the amount of photos you can experiment with and delete if you want. The same rules apply.
I have taken close to 7000 photos since last October and I know those who have taken many more than that. I would be out more often if weather and time permitted. I just love it.
The images on the link posted by LRK are astonishing.
As for long-exposure shots of waterfalls, thanks but no thanks. I know some people like to see water looking like cotton or milk, but I can’t stand it.
I too am really enjoying this thread. But it is so painful…I have to wait 2-3 weeks to get my new camera and in the meantime have to make do with my old bomber. I was trying not to look TOO much at new cameras online, but Linda had to get this started! 🙂
Do NOT believe the "it’s no contest" BS from some unknown individual in a chat room. Wait until you get multiple real reviews by competent reviewers of production versions; anything else is nonsense. And even then, touch it, work the camera. The small details one person finds offensive work great for someone else.
A small technical difference in image quality often is, in real world usage, way overshadowed by an ergonomic difference that lets that one individual photog "get the shot." If you don’t "get the shot," 97 megapixels and perfect color are MEANINGLESS. Otherwise one brand would own the space, which definitely is not the case, despite some of the comments on this thread.
Note too that prototype preproduction cameras normally test less well than production versions. Preproduction reviews are of interest regarding features and technology, but for image quality evaluation only cameras well into the production cycle are reviewable in any meaningful way. And of course the lenses used in testing are hugely relevant: is it X brand’s cheapest lens, or its best?
P.S. "Get the shot" refers to the fact that almost every photo environment is time based one way or another. Light changes, models sweat and change expression, subjects move, etc. Even totally static studio product photography requires time based production. The camera/lens/strobe that works best in *your* hands to facilitate releasing the shutter with good composition, proper exposure and minimal camera movement at the correct instant is the one to have.
Linda, I really wouldn’t worry too much about which camera you get in the short term. It is an absolute certainty that both Nikon and Canon will come out with newer better cameras and it will be sooner rather than later in the current climate. The problem with procrastinating forever is that you will end up always waiting for a better camera just like I find myself doing with the computer as I continue to crawl along with my old G4.
At this stage, I would say its of greater importance to look at which system you feel happiest about investing in with a view to what it will do for you over the next ten years and then buy a camera from that range because you will then end up buying another one in just a year or two at most.
Within 3 years I think any practical differences between the Nikon and Canon range will be down to personal taste just like before the digital revolution began. With digital technology the lenses are much more important than they were with film, so go for the best lenses you can afford and concentrate on developing a good technique. For the first few months of shooting digital I think my film experience almost held me back, because there are real differences in the way of working and you have to put away ideas of better or worse and just work at learning how to get the best out of the digital medium.
Another point is not to go too crazy over the megapixel issue. Just because a camera has more megapixels does not mean it will produce better quality images. Its all about getting a balance between the number of pixels and the size of the sensor. If you cram 8MP onto a small sensor you get noisy images, whereas some of the old leaf digital backs which were only 6MP backs, but had a large sensor were capable of some pretty amazing results. Basically you should look at the way the files print and not the size of the files.
I would also be a little sceptical about manufacturers sample images since you have no idea of what tricks may have been used to create a particular effect. Many years ago I struggled to understand why my Pentax ME Super just wouldn’t give me results like the images in the brochure. A couple of years later I discovered the shots had been taken with a Hasselblad. When I was a photo assistant, the photographer I worked for shot some Fuji film advertising campaigns with Kodak film. Fuji complained so he shot it on both Fuji and Kodak film. When Fuji were presented with the two samples they published the Kodak results as their own. Try to get some samples that you know are reliable!
I just got through pasting the past two days of this thread into a Word document, reading it over again while highlighting the main points. You all are so helpful!!!
Responses to some of the threads since I last posted:
No fair…that’s shot with a Hassy!
Youre right John. I saw that too after I posted. Oh well 🙂
***
Colorfulbird:
I was trying not to look TOO much at new cameras online, but Linda had to get this started!
Whoops, sorry! 🙂
***
Wade:
I just want to clear up some of the terminology for Linda (aka LRK) first of all the round thing is the lens!
Wade: I knew you were going to say something but expected much worse. Im actually relieved. :\
***
Ashley:
Another point is not to go too crazy over the megapixel issue. Just because a camera has more megapixels does not mean it will produce better quality images. Its all about getting a balance between the number of pixels and the size of the sensor. If you cram 8MP onto a small sensor you get noisy images, whereas some of the old leaf digital backs which were only 6MP backs, but had a large sensor were capable of some pretty amazing results. Basically you should look at the way the files print and not the size of the files.
B & H Photo <http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?> has very useful specs on their camera equipment. I too get annoyed with the flash sites the manufacturers seem to be fond of. I just want da facts!
They will probably have something for you this year in the way of a replacement for your camera.
I don’t know it they have it in the libraries but there is a book put out by Lieca called appropriate enough the Lieca Manual or at least I know it as the Lieca Manual.
If you can get a hold of the book it will explain the history of the 35mm camera and many things about photography that still hold true even in this digital age. You migt want to read it. You get it when you buy a Lieca or at least you use to.
I wish Lieca would consider making a serious entry in the professional digital market, but I guess like me they have serious reservations about the technology as well and only have a amateur model.
Oh yes Linda Lieca invented the 35mm camera and make incredibly sharp lenses or at least the use to. Canon and Nikon lenses don’t come close.
[Post #123] Shop around – as B&H has grown they have lost their low pricing in many instances.
I just thoroughly researched the price of the Canon Digital Rebel, and no one among the reputable sellers has a materially better price than B&H. Really sleazy outfits like Gazma Inc. and RoyalCamera.com do post a price that is $100 less, but they will more than make up for the difference with outrageous shipping and handling charges, mandatory accessories and gray-market merchandise.
I’m still amazed at the quality of pictures I squeeze out of my Leica IIc rangefinder camera, which by now is something like 64 years old. I use it about three times a year, just to keep it in good working condition.
The Leica Manual is a classic. I have several of the original German editions (as I’m much more comfortable with German than with English) and one in English, but I’m afraid Linda would just be overwhelmed by them. Actually, Kodak puts out some excellent basic books along these lines. I got their latest edition of "35mm photography" as a stocking stuffer for one of my daughters last Xmas and I was very impressed by its quality. All my three children are independent adults by now and so far they haven’t been bitten by the photography bug as badly as I have since I was about nine. My two-year old grandson may be doomed, though; his other (maternal) grandfather is a pro. Between both our genes, the kid is prime material to get addicted to our vice.
Canon EOS-1Ds, 11.1 Megapixel, Interchangeable Lens, Professional, SLR, Digital Camera
Yes, that looks sweet for sure. The price tag is another story.
***
Cindy: You are so bad, lol! 🙂
***
Wade:
I’ll look for the book. I remember trying to learn from a book when I bought my Nikon. I gave up for different reasons. I’ll check the library first and then Barnes & Noble.
I also have a journalist friend works out of the country. When she returns again I might see if she will help me learn more about cameras in general. I allow her to use my scanner when she’s here so I don’t think she would mind helping me a little with some photography.
Another important tip to remember whether shooting digital or film if you don’t see anything in the view/range finder or the LCD screen chances are the lens cap is still on the lens!
Yeah, like that’s not happen to any of you! Hey what"s going on here!
The Lieca is very interesting but it does limit the use of the PC lens which I don’t think they make any more. They use to have a 24mm but with a focal length factor of 1.37 that makes the lens a 33mm which is not acceptable if the make it full frame or better then they really have something.
My dis of B&H was as regards your observation (post #118) of a US$1600 price for a D70, which is far above market price. I always check them when I buy things, but internet pricing and buyer ratings have now given them lots of quality competition in the mail order selling space. I still only buy film from B&H, however, because film is such a fragile/perishable product and B&H has proven for decades that they add minimal deterioration to that self-destructing product.
———————————————————— –
Linda-
Fortunately I buy very little film now that quality SLR digicams exist. Note that for the cost of film & processing of the 7000 shots Cindy has taken since October a person could buy THREE great quality SLR digicams like the Nikon D70!
Also note that my Nikon D100, one of the early ones, cost me more than US$3000 for the body only from B&H and I was (and still am) THRILLED – because it promptly paid for itself in two months. And it brought me into a new level of learning about photography now that I had instant feedback to what happens as each variable changes in SLR photography; way cool! I had 30 years of Nikon film SLRs and 4 generations of Nikon Coolpix digicams (900, 950, 990, 5000) prior to owning the D100, but the digicam SLR was a major new learning tool.
That’s why I appear to be such an SLR digicam evangelist. I love to see learning facilitated, whether it is in myself or someone else. I actually got hooked on digicams with the first (awful) webcam I bought before under US$10000 digicams existed. For the first time any newbie could see, in real time, the huge color changes to the digital image that resulted from small lighting variations. I was hooked.
My dis of B&H was as regards your observation (post #118) of a US$1600 price for a D70,
Fair enough; that was my mistake. The $1,600 price is what B&H quotes for a Nikon D70 with a 18-70MM DX Nikkor zoom lens and a 1GB flash card. B&H price for the D70 is indeed "under" &1,000.
Actually evaluating the fully equipped price makes sense. That lens & the GB card are very appropriate, but I would prefer one or better still two cheaper 512 MB CF cards if the package price would allow it. I use two 512 MB cards and it works just fine. One card can be uploading to the computer while you keep shooting with the other. Of course if someone can afford the fastest and largest capacity CF cards they could always buy multiple 4 GB cards…
I always use the 512MB CF cards because that way you can fit the entire contents from a series of Raw files onto 1 CD without having to split the contents as you would with a 1 gig card. As soon as the files have been copied to the computer, I make a CD back up which can be done while I am shooting and then I feel safe to wipe the contents from the CF card so that it can be used again.
Your enthusiasm is contagious. I can hardly wait to take the next step. It’s nice to be surrounded by such positive and knowledgeable people. I’m taking it all in.
SLR digicam — Something I need to research more fully.
Depending on what kind of a relationship you have with your favorite local camera store, you may be able to get them to lend or rent you different demo models to try one after the other before you buy. This will be a lot more fun and productive than researching stuff on the net and/or magazines and books.
In case anyone is unfamiliar with the jargon, digicam is just jargon for any digital camera. SLR means Single Lens Reflex, basically like all those full size 35 mm cameras you have always seen. A modern SLR has [A] readily and fully interchangeable true lenses (not just screw on additions to some built-in standard lens) and [B] a through-the-lens viewfinder, meaning that you see exactly what the film or digital sensor sees.
The engineering to effect SLR functionality makes for heavier and larger sized cameras than almost all non-SLR cameras. However, they are much, much more technologically capable of "getting the shot" (see post #168). Many extremely useful technical features typically only exist in SLRs, partially because the size and weight of an SLR allows such features to be engineered in at reasonable cost.
The sellers of cameras have moved the high end of non-SLR cameras (often called "point-and-shoot") up to where pricewise and megapixel wise they overlap with SLRs. However, they are NOT similar. SLRs intrinsically are 3x as competent (if I can use that word to describe cameras) as point-and-shoot cameras. Note that I said more competent, I did not say better. A lighter, smaller Nikon Coolpix 5700 could well be "better" for some folks’ purposes than a full size Nikon D70 or Canon 10d.
That’s true, but 5 gigs is far too much data to lose if you have a system crash or your hard disk dies. At least while I am on a shoot, I would prefer to cut that risk into smaller amounts and be backing up more often. Then at a later date the total data can be burned to a DVD and the CD’s can be trashed if you like. All of this is only relevant to work obviously and if your just out taking pictures for fun at the weekend I guess you can do as you like.
Modern Nikon/Canon zoom lenses allow optimizing compositon and image data, and can produce very good image quality. The 18-70 mm Nikon digicam wide angle to telephoto lens you referenced in post #194, for instance, is ideal for the new owner of an SLR digicam.
Fixed focus lenses today are best for fairly specialized usage, meaning those times when you have time to be changing lenses and/or you have the luxury of knowing what the precise shot will be well ahead of time (e.g. a landscape). And of course when one can afford the luxury of multiple lenses.
Wide angle 20 mm and 60 mm macro lenses are my favorites, but 24-85 zoom is what lives on the camera and gets most of the work. Of course since I am mostly shooting digitally now, 24-85 is 36-127.
Just to elaborate a little, I got my early start with box view cameras and TLRs, those with the upside down image in the viewfinder. That taught me about patience, about making every shot count and about visualizing composition ahead of time. The add-on turret viewfinder slipped into the accessory shoe of the Leica and the Contax was also a fantastic teacher.
Sure, I carry a bunch of gear around, but then I adhere to the school that believes that if it’s not within 300 feet of the car, it ain’t photogenic :), so I don’t mind. Yes, I’ve accumulated a bunch of lenses over the decades. Lenses are the least burdensome of my gear; my favorite tripod is a Manfrotto/Bogen 3258 that weighs well over 17 lbs without a head. What difference can a couple of extra lenses possibly make?
I suppose if I was photographing team sports I would most likely appreciate having a zoom lens, but I’ve only been inside a baseball stadium once (when I went to see the inside of the Houston Astrodome in the 1960’s), once inside a basketball arena (to see a rodeo at the ARCO arena, actually) and never in a football stadium. Last time I was in a soccer stadium was in the 1950’s. Sports photography means zilch to me.
"…box view cameras and TLRs, those with the upside down image in the viewfinder. That taught me about patience, about making every shot count…"
Digicam photography is exactly the opposite! Instead of patience, it is shoot ’em all, try not to miss any opportunity: shoot review reshoot review reshoot, all in real time. No need to make every shot count, instead just experiment, think outside the box. But most of all, shoot!
Obviously it is still necessary to be there for the best light, the best expression, etc., but now you shoot while you wait, tweaking exposure, composition, etc. And shooting many (free!) shots as the light/expression changes, then picking the best later.
P.S. In wildlife photography patience is still most essential. I do a lot of underwater photography (film, because u/w housings are camera-specific and quite expensive) and I believe that even using a digicam patience would be of the utmost importance.
P.P.S. To me the really cool thing about upside-down images is how quickly our brains adapt.
Ramón, Relax! Change doesn’t have to be painful. I don’t care much about the work of the Impressionists, but love Turner’s paintings. Compare that to the work of the photo-realists and you’ll get the idea : )
Change for the sake of change itself is not thrilling, necessary or wise. A great deal of excitement, pleasure and enrichment can be had by growing instead of changing.
I’ve been doing a lot of experimenting with digital with a variety of very good and even excellent digital cameras lately, actually since the Nikon D100 first came out. Most likely, I will continue to do so; but even working digitally I don’t see myself mindlessly shooting picture after picture just because it’s possible.
As I said, I’m to old to change the way I do things because, right or wrong, this is what I perceive to be the best of what I’ve distilled after over half a century of making photographs just the way I want them. I have no particular talent, nor do I make a living off photography (I’d certainly starve to death), but at least I get away from the things I don’t care for, like oversaturated colors (Velvia look), running water that looks like milk or cotton candy (long exposure shots of waterfalls and brooks), orange-skinned people (film or digital), radish-skinned people (very common with a lot of uncorrected digital images).
I was gone most of the day yesterday and last night. When I finally began reading this thread I couldn’t post a response… So during the few short minutes I have this morning I’ll try to squeeze in a quick review of what I’m learning.
First of all thank you for explaining more fully about the SLR, Single Lens Reflex. I understand better now that they are 1) Like a 35mm, 2) Have fully interchangeable lens, & 3) You see what you get while shooting. They are also usually bigger and heavier because of the mechanical engineering but worth it because of the trade off. Oh, I think you also said they are faster.
I also appreciated your comments on the zoom lens and the what you prefer to use most of the time. I’ll go back and review your specs again when I have more time.
Thanks for all this education (everyone)… and in a way that even I can understand. 🙂
Maybe we got sidetracked here. I am actively experimenting with digital. My rants, if you can call them such, were against zoom lenses (on film or digital cameras) in general, and against the notion that I would change the way I’ve been approaching my shots for over half a century and turn into a mindless one-after-the-other, delete, delete, shoot, shoot type of digital photographer.
John: Oh yes, do I ever remember that link and love those shots. I’m so glad you posted it again as I had misplaced it. It’s enough to make me want to go to Africa.
I can’t help but think there will be a replacement for the Canon EOS-10D pretty soon. The review <http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos10d/> by Phil Askey was back in March 2003.
Oh…I thought you were on a budget and didn’t want to spend more than $1000. That’s why I recommended the 300D. Actually I’m waiting for the 10D’s replacement – I’m guessing an 8 meg camera. I’m still shooting film mostly and can borrow a Fuji S2 when needed – so I can wait a little longer. I just got an email from Calumet that mentioned they are getting in a truck load of 10D cameras and order soon as the cameras go quickly. My guess is that it either means Canon is still producing them or this is the last of the 10Ds!
After interacting with you all I realize how important this purchase is to me. I want something I will be happy with for the next 3-5 years at least. It would be nice to learn enough about photography to take it to another level. I might be willing to spend a little more. 🙂
I never really cared about photography until I bought my Nikon 990. If and when I buy a new digicam I might have to make friends with others who enjoy photography, lest I drive my current friends crazy. Also it would be nice to spend the summer out doors taking pictures instead of sitting behind a monitor so much. What I’d really like to do is plan all day outings with my bicycle and camera.
My recommendation to "shoot review reshoot review reshoot, all in real time" does not entail "mindless" as you state. Rather I meant to suggest learning as you go, but in seconds instead of days like with film.
Whether your image is focused on to film or on to a digital sensor, you make all the same decisions, same settings, same thought processes to set up a shot. The digicam difference is that you can take more pix and get immediate feedback. There is nothing intrinsically good about a photo workflow that requires days of time to elapse before you see the results of your pic setup choices; quite the contrary.
And "…excitement, pleasure and enrichment can be had by growing instead of changing" does not make sense to me, because IMO growth is change, by definition. I suspect we are thinking similarly, separated only by semantics (an expertise of yours, I believe 🙂 ).
It so happens that I also believe we’re on the same page. The misunderstanding may stem from two misinterpretations: 1) your construing my remarks to be anti digital, when in truth and in fact I was only expressing a very strong dislike for zoom lenses in general, regardless of whether they are used on film or digital cameras.
In the past I had commented in a reply to a post of yours in another thread that I also see a huge advantage in the immediate feedback you get when shooting digitally.
2) my misconstruing Todie’s remark to the effect that "change doesn’t have to be painful" as suggesting that I would find it easy to abandon my way of making pictures in favor of a shoot-delete-shoot-delete technique. When I wrote that "Change doesn’t have to happen either" and you retorted by saying that sounds boring we were clearly talking past each other.
I continue to experiment with digital cameras, including a project to shoot a series of digital images in all-manual mode by using a dozen or so prime lenses on the Pentax *ist-D, which can accommodate all my Universal (M-42) lenses albeit by foregoing all metering and auto focusing capabilities. Strictly for the fun of it.
A client of mine just bought a new SONY and he really likes it a great deal. It has a 8 megapixel capture and he can outfit it I think he said with a 1 or 2 GB storage capacity.
Linda keep in mind that photography is expensive and time consuming. There is no way out of it.
Even though they are a major digicam manufacturer at the consumer level, Sony is not on my personal list of recommended brands of digital still camera. Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Olympus, and others are all IMO preferable.
That’s true, but not nearly as expensive as it used to be… or still is for you. 🙂
Unless something happens to change my mind, it’s just a matter of time now… I can hardly wait.
Last year I turned most of my income over to my husband to help us get caught up. This year I get to use some of it for some of the things I would like to invest in.
Allen I understand that the SONY uses a four color sensor and not a three color CCD and though it is not what one considers a camera company the company that makes the lenses is considered tops, that is Carl Ziess.
Just keep in mind that Canon and Nikon and Fuji and Olympus make fine lenses they are not Carl Ziess quality.
Hey lots of people including myself would never use a Minolta as they are expressly designed for the amateur market but they use Lietz technology to create and manufacturer their lenses and they are sharper than the pro lenses of Canon and Nikon and Fuji and Olympus like it or not.
This is what I find wrong with these discussions, it is filled with prejudices and reaction rather than real objective discussions and it makes it difficult for someone like Linda to make a rational decision as to what to buy.
You should know Linda that although I am not recommending you buy a SONY and you like the Nikon brand, I do myself, that SONY is the leader in Digital Capture Technology although it is in the field of Video and Digital Cinema. SONY is the company developing the cameras, unless this has changed, for George Lucas.
So if I were you I would not go by what is written in these threads by anyone, including myself, as to what you should buy you should read enter other forums talk to several camera dealers and of course the most important factor of all is to hold the model in your hand to see how it feels.
If it does not feel right to you then all this discussion it won’t mean a thing.
Thanks Wade. I will do everything I can (within reason & budget) to make a wise purchase. I have already learned a lot from this thread and I’m very grateful for all who’ve taken the time to share their knowledge.
Wade I do not agree (surprise) with the statement "Canon and Nikon and Fuji and Olympus make fine lenses they are not Carl Ziess [sic] quality." This is 2004, and Zeiss and other firms each produce lenses in a range of quality. To suggest that all Zeiss glass is better than all Nikon glass does not make sense.
Even if Zeiss is the world’s premier lens maker, a relatively inexpensive consumer grade Sony point-and-shoot with Zeiss’s cheapest lens on it is still just that: an inexpensive point-and-shoot. Many of the lenses Nikon (or Canon, or whomever) makes costs more than the whole Sony camera, with lens!
Also in my experience directing a buyer to "talk to several camera dealers" rather than peruse threads like this one is bad advice. Camera dealers are very often motivated to "make a sale" rather than necessarily to provide the best advice. If they make more markup on brand z or get better support from the brand z rep they are likely to lead you there rather than to brand x. Professionals on this forum, yourself included, are giving freely of their experience with no financial motive. Linda can choose the commentary that makes sense.
Allan are you sure of that you could I guess say that about Minolta but their lenses are consistent the same for Lietz. I haven’t used a SONY still camera myself but as I understand it the optics will rival anything market professional or otherwise.
This is from amateur and professionals alike who have compared. Now you may in fact be correct in this case as I have not tried either. But if I go by the way you have come to conclusions about things and they way these individuals have told me of their experience and also from some results that I have seen I would have to go with their opinions and observations before I could trust what you say!
For instance your observation above is based on an assumptions that could or could not have meaning. I based what I wrote on what I know about the company and it’s history and my experience using their lenses with professional and amateur cameras.
They have been supplying lenses for both professional and amateur cameras since day one and have always been consistent I have not heard anything different to date have you?
Linda, way back in the early part of this thread I told you I had a Sony F828 and i love it. Now both Nikon and Canon have come out with 8 MP Prosumer cameras and i will bet both of them are fantastic. The F828 is my 6th digicam. I prefer the prosumer models over the SLRs because they are light and handy and you do not need to buy or carry a lot of extra equipment and lenses. Ramon is right about zoom lenses, but they are not really all that bad, unless you are a pro and need to enlarge to poster sizes. I have been taking pictures since 1947; started with a TLR, went to SLR, but am enjoying my digicams immensely. With a good computer, a good printer, and PS you have control of the picture from start to finish and you will surprise yourself with some of the wondrous pix you will take and process to your and others satisfaction. All of these new good cameras are $1000 or less and with the prosumer models you do not have to buy extra lenses, just filters and an auxiliary flash unit, which you will need anyway.
I prefer the prosumer models over the SLRs because they are light and handy and you do not need to buy or carry a lot of extra equipment and lenses.
The light and handy part does appeal to me, especially since I like to take outings to pretty places on my bike.
Ramon is right about zoom lenses, but they are not really all that bad, unless you are a pro and need to enlarge to poster sizes.
Good point. One client’s wife has often mentioned to me that she would like to see me use my photos to create posters to sell through their Web site. This was a year ago though and not sure she still feels that way. If so it points me back to the SLR.
All of these new good cameras are $1000 or less and with the prosumer models you do not have to buy extra lenses, just filters and an auxiliary flash unit, which you will need anyway.
BTW, I did research some Sony’s over the weekend and the model I was looking at did not get the highest ratings from all users. Many complained of a purple halo in the shadows as well as noise… if I remember right. Not sure where I found that review but I think this is the model I was looking at.
Don’t do it Linda DON"T don’t go over to the darkside film is the true art form of photography don’t go to the Darkside I beg you stay well actually what do I care go ahead buy another digital camera the SLR might professional might be more fun!
I’ve just tried the Nikon D70 and was pretty good for the price. It handled better than the Kodak Pro SLR/n which is incidently priced much lower than the model it replaced. There was a show deal with over £1000 ($1800) off the Canon 1Ds, (still £4450 ~ouch!) so I wonder if that is getting updated soon.
Wade should stay with film. Digital SLRs aren’t great for wide-angle shooting. (he’s developing at the lab I work for, and it’s fun to say "hi!" when I see him there: )
Linda, Most likely you’ll buy an SLR and a zoom lens : )
When in doubt, shoot a bit wide, at a lower f-stop
Hope Linda doesn’t misconstrue that. Smaller aperture (and the resulting greater depth of field) is not to be confused with a lower f-stop number, which would mean a larger aperture and less depth of field.
As for wide, Todie probably means at a shorter focal length (zoom out rather than in if using a zoom lens).
The Nikon CP 990 is a fine point and shoot and macro digicam for up to 5×7 prints. The 990’s major limitations are speed of operation, maximum image size and the tiny little built-in lens. An SLR digicam as the next step is particularly logical for you, because you can continue to use the 990 for those times when an SLR is too large to carry. I use the CP5000 for that purpose.
Linda, you’re brave. I can’t imagine loaning out one of my cameras. I’m pretty easy with most other stuff, but I’d just die of anxiety if I lent out any camera equipment, horses or my children and grandson.
The 990 is a tough little digicam, plus today its value is pretty low. I used mine all the time with kids learning camera skills, minimally supervised. Then sold it to a friend for her (very responsible) kids, and it is still working fine.
Ramon: You’re right, it was brave of me. This is the first time I’ve loaned it to anyone other than my own husband… even then I asked him to treat it with TLC. I was supposed to get it back the day after I loaned it… but it obviously didn’t happen. I guess I’m a little more daring since I have my sights on a new one. I bought one of the first 990s to come out and paid around $850 I think. Things have changed a lot since then.
I can see it now Linda, affectionately nickname "The Lens" pedaling along on her supped up Lindamobile fully stocked and equipped with digital cameras of all sizes and descriptions memory sticks with mind boggling capacities motorized tripods with micro adjustments and remote capabilities built-in dashboard console controls for satellite transmission sun angle calculation color depth controls remote firing and focus satellite dish and of course a min ipod.
LOL… That’s funny Wade… and sounds a little like me… I probably would if I could! 🙂
You should see my new bike. I’ve already installed a flexible mirror, compass, bell, and speedometer on the handlebars. Attached to the seat is a pouch that holds my Nikon 990, but I guess I’ll need something bigger for the new one.
Well, I do think of the tripod as the most valuable piece of external hardware (external to the eye and the brain, that is), but photography with just a pinhole camera would be pretty confining, especially at my age.
Really Ramon? That’s okay. You’ve been busy taking beautiful pictures.
I must say, I have truly enjoyed the Nikon 990 and it was worth the money ten times over, even though I used it primarily as a point and shoot. I hope to make a great deal of progress with my next setup though.
The best way to learn photography is to buy an old twin lens Rolleiflex or Yashica and a separate light meter. You will understand the craft better and most important you will learn to see. The flimsy view finders in most digital cameras are not sufficient to make a good composition, they are designed for snap shots!
The new Lindamobile is perfectly designed for tripod transportation. That’s what the cross-bar is for of course. I am just a little surprised that the necessary Velcro straps were omitted from the package when you bought the bike.
I always wanted a Nikon and they just came out with the F2. I had to have one. Built in light meter and all. I bought the Yashica used, the F2 was new. my first new camera. and none of the parallax problems.
you could use that one as a hammer to bang a nail in the wall.
that brings back memories.
I wasn’t pounding nails in walls but while in the mosh pit trying to photograph I have used my F3 and F4 to clobber idoits in the back of the head. The Fuji S2 just doesn’t have the bulk of the Nikon F series. To clobber Idiots with the S2 you need to have a pointy tripod mount attached to the camera.
To clobber Idiots with the S2 you need to have a pointy tripod mount attached to the camera.
My favorite tripod doesn’t need any pointyness. It weighs over 17lbs by itself, without a head. On the other hand they wouldn’t let me in to the mosh pit wit it, I suppose.
My plan is to get a D70 and shoot with it for a while until such time as I can save up for an SLR/n (or the vapor-camera known as D2X, should it ever materialize).
Regarding the "MP isn’t everything" comments Ramon was making, I agree in principle, but the SLR/n is really a different breed of camera from other DSLRs. For starters it’s full frame, for another no interpolation is required to reach 13.5 MP images, and most importantly, this camera is really designed around the RAW workflow. It’s not designed (like other DSLRs) to "massage" the images by default. So comparing SLR/n images "right out of the camera" to other DSLRs is sort of missing the point (unless you plan to enforce a "zero photoshop retouching" policy to your workflows.
You will have to make sure to run SLR/n shots through ACR to correct for moire (since it has no anti-alias filter like all the other DSLRs) and you may have to watch for noise on the 13MP shots but with a little bit of effort I don’t think it’s very difficult to produce images that definitely stand apart from most other DSLRs. From what I can see it is clearly a better camera than the 14/n. The Dynamic Range is superb….
🙂
Also, someone was talking about the Sony 828… I cannot speak first-hand but it has received quite a lot of negative commentary from users and testers regarding color casts and the like. The Nikon 8700 also uses the 828 sensor if I am not mistaken. I might consider the 5700 if I were in the market for an all-in-one, especially if the prices might drop a bit. I seriously doubt any PAS zoom lens will have enough resolving power to make good on a true 8MP sensor anyway.
Thanks to Polaroid’s back, you can now instantly enjoy the serendipity of oh. hell to the chase It is the Holga’s inherent "problems," its lack of sharp focus, lens distortion and light leaks that make it such a unique camera. there are two aperture settings One for full sun, f11, and another for over overcast cloudy situations. F8. with built in flash.
And all for $109.00 shipping and tax not included.
All DSLRs can shoot in RAW, but what I’m saying is, the RAW output from an SLR/n is going to be of a higher quality in many cases than that from existing cameras (again, save the 1Ds Mk II maybe). This has both to do with the dynamic range and lack of anti-aliasing filtration on the sensor, and the fact that you do not have to "invent" color data in order to achieve very large print sizes.
Not saying the SLR/n is perfect or for everyone, just that until something unseats it, it appears to have taken the lead in the DLSR performance category (that’s not just "great specs" but "great output"). I agree MP for MP’s sake is kind of silly if you don’t have the other necessary performance components of a professional camera.
Work is picking up again so I will have to store up some of this info to study in my spare moments. I’m learning… and my thinking keeps changing. My latest mindset is to stick with the $1K range, or maybe a little more… but go with something expandable, learn as much as I can and see where it takes me. If it goes somewhere and I feel the need, I can then upgrade again.
OK, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. The predecessor to Kodak’s slr/n, the 14n, was a dismal failure. I’ll have to see more of the Kodak slur/n before I decide.
Ramon: yes, there were definitely some issues with the 14n’s sensor and subsequently its output quality in certain shooting conditions. Hence the upgrade program where you can send your 14n in, and for $1500, have the sensor and firmware replaced, effectively bringing you up to SLR/n standards. This is another thing Kodak has done right that other manufacturers are loathe to do… give people a true upgrade path without having to buy a new camera.
It is not IMO particularly appropriate to compare last generation high end digicams against newer versions unless you are actually considering purchase of the old version for some reason. Kodak was on the bleeding edge of technology with the 14n, and they no doubt learned a LOT developing that camera. Today’s cameras are what get purchased and those new today cameras are what buyers should specifically evaluate. Firms like Kodak, Nikon, and Canon get extra points for having "been there" in the development process.
there were definitely some issues with the 14n’s sensor and subsequently its output quality in certain shooting conditions.
That’s the understatement of the week.
I was given free use of the 14n for a week. After three days it was replaced by a new specimen, which was just as bad. I would rate the image quality as either miserable or lousy; taking into account its price, I’d say it fell into the unconscionable category.
Just as a criminal gets punished for the first offense he committed and not for his prior exemplary conduct, a camera doesn’t get evaluated because of its manufacturer’s pioneering role in bringing it to market. The Kodak 14n, in my estimation, was an unmitigated piece of garbage because of its performance and because of its price/value ratio. It wasn’t that long ago that it came out either, at a time when there were already some pretty decent digital cameras out there.
When a company, even a former giant in the history of photography, makes a blunder like this, it is inevitable that its subsequent products in the same line are going to be viewed with a healthy and large dose of skepticism and subjected to greater scrutiny.
As I said, I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt for the time being, but I’m not about to waste my time with the new model until I hear a loot of nice things being said about it by people whose judgment I can trust implicitly.
Don’t get me started on "upgrades". The sensor fix, as Buko points out, should be absolutely free, maybe with a free flash card thrown in as a way of apology and compensation for the inconvenience. I’m fortunate to have a good relationship with a retail photographic equipment store that rents or lends me cameras for brief periods of time. I would have been mighty upset if I had paid good money for the Kodak 14n. There’s no doubt in my mind that under the doctrine of implied merchantability I would have been entitled to a full refund if I had bought it.
Have had my Sony F828 since Jan 2nd and have taken approx 300 pix with it. No problems with chromatic aberrations (purple fringe) even though some of my sunrise shots had flares in them. I take quite a few bird pix, so it is important to have enough resolution so that the original can be cropped – a golden crowned sparrow is not very big in the original, no matter how close you got! A tripod or a monopod is ESSENTIAL and if i take my camera I take my tripod or monopod and i take my camera almost everywhere I go. That is why I have the prosumer model digicam – it is a lot less cumbersome than the SLR. The main thing is: HAVE FUN!!!!
I won’t start the "sensor for free" argument. Suffice it to say, Kodak’s marketing department made some pretty stupid comments when the 14n was released, but in general they should in no way feel compelled to give away brand new sensors (and the labor required to install them) for free. If you want to start a class action law suit claiming "false advertising", then those people upset should do that… they might even win (much stranger things have happend). But to say "it should be free" is ridiculous IMO.
Like people saying every new version of OS X "should be free". Because Kodak and Apple are charities I guess.
😀
$1500 is NOT cheap (I don’t know what the unit cost of the sensors and labor is, but that’s what they should charge IMO). Either way it’s MUCH better than spending $5000 on a new SLR/n, right? At least the option is there. Nikon, Canon, Fuji and Sigma give no options.
I don’t think that’s true strictly speaking. There are plenty of people who shoot the 14n and who will continue to do so based on my readings. It’s not the most popular camera out there, but it’s not "totally defective" by any means either. It’s just not very flexible / has a limited range of shooting scenarios where it performs well.
Switching gears I will be interested to see the quality of the S3’s 12 MP images, despite some pessimistic commentary in this thread earlier on. Their means of interpolating these images is clearly not the same as with other cameras and in this case, even less similar because now you have two 6MP data streams of real color and luminosity data to work with… I will be curious to see how large non-macro / non-close-ups can be printed with this puppy.
Professional quality prints I’m talking, not "pretty nice". Something that could hang on an art store wall or museum wall. 20×24 maybe?
You see this is an excellent thread with real honest opinions from real world users of the equipment such Ashley, Buko, Ramón, Dan-0, Allen (all though he doesn’t know his elbow from his elbow) Wicks, Todie, Linda, Cindy and Jelle execleent discussion.
This is probably one of the most informative and helpful threads on this subject that has ever appeared on the Photoshop forum.
Without all of that corruption and ego nonsense.
Good to know your experiences and your feelings, oh my even Allen’s!
I’ve made some blowups with the S2 that just blow my mind and when you enlage the image using the photoshops Camera RAW the results are just astounding. The fact that S3 holds the highlight detail is really fantastic. When I shoot Rock’n Roll, if the exposure is not perfect, with all those bright lights the first thing to go is the highlights. So I’m really excited about this. I spoke to my camera store guy the other day about the S3 and it won’t be in the stores till at least August, maybe longer.
Want a Canon 1Ds for cheap(er)? Just received a Calumet flyer with a pretty good offer. Buy a Phase One H20 back and get an EOS 1Ds for FREE! ‘Course, the H20 is $19,990 but selling it for $17 to $18k shouldn’t be much of a problem.
Or, maybe Linda would want to use the H20 and sell the Canon? 😉
According to the flyer that is a $6,000 savings. Either both are being discontinued or they are not selling enough of them.
Or both.
That is what I like about this thread here are professional happy with their technology but still see room for a lot of improvement that threads in the past only saw deliverance.
Finally glad to see such an exchange of good ideas. Hope you guys keep everyone informed of the good and the bad so they can make intelligent decisions.
I’ve been busy with several small jobs. Now I need to remember where I was and what it was I was leaning towards. Still wondering what’s around the corner with Canon. Nikon is still a consideration but Canon seems to be tipping the scales a little more for me. I guess if there was anything new we’d see it here first…
Just to warn you: DPReview Forums are not the greatest place in the world for getting "good information" on new cameras IMO.
For every good "upcoming product tip", there are literally dozens of bad ones (that means blatantly inaccurate / misleading). Most people in there are spec-junkies. They just sit around and argue about what they want / what should be available vs. what is available, while having absolutely no knowledge of operations at companies like Nikon or Canon.
In general, the forums there are a lot more "noise" than "signal". Far worse than this forum on its worst day… mostly because they are unmoderated (for all intents and purposes).
The DP Review News Page and Reviews though, are very useful. Bookmark those instead.
One thing that helped me by reading those forums is I realized that if I wait until they actually start selling the units and users actually start using them, not only will there be more accurate reports, but the price is expected to drop to around $750 or so.
One word of caution Linda. The reviews are fine (though not scientific) however, the forums at DPR can be horribly addictive for their shear weirdness at times. I’d liken it to a bad car accident where you know you shouldn’t stare, but somehow you can’t help it.
The problem is that for every one useful bit of information there are 50 totally absurd statements made by self proclaimed experts with absolute certainty and yet the highlight of their photographic experience was once successfully photographing a focussed image of their cat in the garden. While you are still learning, so much conflicting information may be counterproductive. To be fair, the Fuji forum is quite civilised and the Nikon ones are not bad, but if you find yourself reading the 10D threads you may soon lose your faith in humanity just reading all the insults being thrown at each other plus the banality of so many posts.
Although its slower, the Rob Galbraith forum tends to be a little more serious and attract more knowledgeable people who could help you more.
"One word of caution Linda. The reviews are fine (though not scientific) however, the forums at DPR can be horribly addictive for their shear weirdness at times. I’d liken it to a bad car accident where you know you shouldn’t stare, but somehow you can’t help it."
LOL! Best Description of DR Review Forums I have *ever* heard.
They on the other hand *can* be helpful. You have to know how to separate it and not take the idiots too seriously. And don’t get addicted! They have a saying "take what you can use and leave the rest".
Same can be said for any forum. The bickering around here is just on a different level but it is still bickering…or, it can be helpful. I’ve seen it get pretty silly.
Post a picture there and you will get hundreds of viewers. Out of that you might get some pretty decent feedback. It has helped me with exposure issues, lens issues etc. Questions I would be reluctant to post here.
The 10D forum is seriously bad and the 1Ds forum is getting even worse because its the same people but with more money. There are threads from people asking if they should buy a spare 10D or a pistol? Then there are those sad individuals who just feel compelled to post anything no matter how ridiculous. One guy was recently banned for continually trashing Canon and he had posted an average of 167 messages per week totalling almost 30,000 in the end.
From what I saw the 300D forum wasn’t quite so bad, but I’d suggest that you’ll actually get more general knowledge out of the Fuji forum. Very few web forums are actually useful once you get to a certain level but this one always seems to attract a good number of skilled Photoshop users who are willing to help out.
I wonder if there should be a limit to the number of postings here per week in these forums? Did you go to Focus Ashley?, there were some good bargains this year.
Wasn’t focus the PMA one in Las Vegas? I am in the UK, but I never seem to go to any of these events. A friend who just went to a show held in Birmingham (UK) said the 1Ds was on sale with a £1000 discount.
PMA was in Las Vegas, Focus on Imaging was in Brum, that’s the one I meant and yes Jessops had some 1Ds’s for £4450 inc VAT. Makes me wonder if a replacement is coming. There was also an Adobe demo changing a yellow car white, I’ve seen that before somewhere, anybody know a link?
I am pretty sure that Canon either has the replacement for the 1Ds ready or 90% there and is just waiting for Nikon to announce an update to the 1DX. One thing that amazes me is the way Canon can just drop £1000 in price on their cameras at the drop of a hat and that’s why I never believe those sob stories about how they aren’t making any money on digital cameras because of the expensive sensors.
A few months back I spoke to somebody pretty high up at Canon in Europe and he wouldn’t give me any details about future development but he seemed absolutely certain that no other manufacturer had the technology available to compete with Canon at the higher end with DSLR cameras today. I had been expecting Fuji to come out with something with more MP at a low price and Nikon to announce a 1Ds beating camera at PMA, but neither happened and I think that Canon knew this all along. That’s why the prices are still relatively high.
The 14n has to be cheap to gain interest because the old one had such a bad reputation. The new one seems to have solved the noise issues but skin tones still look rubbery and of course the body is not that great. With those issues placed on one side though many people would see great merit in being able to spend a couple of thousand pounds less on the 14n compared to the 1Ds and gain in resolution at the same time. The new 14n finally looks like the camera it always should have been.
I think we will soon see £4500 become the new standard price on the 1Ds. Nikon will eventually come in with something good at a similar or lower price and Canon will launch the new all conquering 1Ds replacement but as usual market demand will decide the final price. I have no reliable predictions to make there. I am certain though that we will continue to pay much more in the UK than in the States.
ashley: The 1Ds’ replacement is already announced right… the 1D Mk II? Or are they calling the 1Ds a "different line" than the 1D? I don’t follow Canon that closely but if this is the case, they need to get some new people in their marketing department. Someone forgot what product differentiation and product branding are, apparently. Not that Nikon or Kodak’s labels are "ultra-intuitive"….
They are two very different machines, but I agree this whole use of the "D" everywhere does make life confusing especially with Nikon doing the same trick.
The old 1D was the original professional bodied digital camera. It was fast but produced small files that were only of use to a limited number of photographers. Then they produced the 1Ds which has much higher resolution and can be seriously considered as an alternative to medium format film for many applications.
The new 1D II takes everything that was best about the old 1D such as its speed and improves it while adding to the MP resolution considerably, so that many more people would find it acceptable to be used instead of film. Depending on your wallet and quality needs will determine which is the best camera for you. In the future, I think we may see one professional camera that is capable of doing it all.
I still don’t see much differentiation. What will be different about the 1D Mk II and the 1Ds Mk II? Different target markets? If so, which? Seems to me that the 1Ds Mk II is certainly competition for just about any good DSLR out there… whether you need MP, FPS or whatever. These cameras are starting to be like midsize cars from the same manufacturer. Slightly different look, same internals for the most part, but marketed as "something different".
A lot of photographers feel that the new 1D II is the first ever no compromises camera and I think it may well steal some market share from the 1Ds because it costs a lot less and does many things better, while its 8MP will be deemed good enough for many purposes. This is probably a sign that the 1Ds is on the way out fairly soon and that whatever replaces it will have to be something very special indeed.
Wade is right about the VAT, but there is no import duty in the UK on digital cameras. I know this because I seriously considered getting a camera shipped over from B&H. What we do have are exceptionally greedy dealers who are used to marking up prices to an excessively high degree and even after reclaiming the VAT as a business, our cameras are still typically around 40-50% more than in the US. At current exchange rates a 1Ds is over $10,000 at the cheapest places in the UK and no matter how much stronger the pound becomes which should in theory make our imports cheaper, the price never goes down.
As for the labs here, they’ve lived well for years and I think they were quite shocked at how enthusiastic pro photographers were to jump over to digital when they saw how big the savings could be. The price of scanning has come tumbling down but its not really changing the overall situation that much. BTW Wade a magazine for digital photographers in the UK is running a story on my work soon. Should I give them your number?
I just checked a few labs and the shocking thing was that some are no longer even processing E6. Metro are charging £3.35 + VAT for processing one sheet of 5×4. That’s about $7.50. If you look at some of their other prices that actually starts to look cheap.
I figured I could give that mag your number so you could express some opinions on digital photography 😎
Thank you Ashley. I’m enjoying the article. Helps bring a little more perspective. If the prices had dropped a little more on the Canon EOS-300D I might be interested now, but not enough so far for the trade off of seeing what’s next. Also it looks like I still would have to buy a lens right off the bat, since it doesn’t come with one.
I’ve been reading up on the good stuff at the Canon site. Does the Canon EOS Rebel have the L lens? Is the EF lens the same or different? I’m sure this is a stupid question. Sorry.
The Canon EOS-300D is sold without a lens (body only) or as a kit (body + lens + (sometimes) other goodies like flash cards, tripod, etc). Check every kit to see if it includes the lens you want. Some dealers (Ritz, for instance) will offer it with their own brand of lens (Quantaray in the case of Ritz). Stay away from the latter.
Thanks John! I hear that, but then I hear how much money people put into lenses and accessories. As much as I would love to learn and grow and get really good, I am aware of my limitations. Still, I do plan to try them both out at a local store if possible.
I’ve been reading up on the good stuff at the Canon site. Does the Canon EOS Rebel have the L lens?
You mount any of Canon’s L-series lenses on the camera, but it doesn’t ship with one.
Is the EF lens the same or different?
Yes. (Heh.)
EF refers to the lens mount; all Canon’s current autofocus lenses are EF-mount. Before that, Canon’s best were FD-mount, manual focus, open-aperture metering, introduced in 1971.
Before that (late ’60s and before) were FL-mount, stop-down metering, introduced in 1964, preceded by R-mount, manual stop down lenses introduced in 1959.
L-series lenses first appeared on the FD mount, and they were and are Canon’s top lenses. An L-series lens may have aspheric, UD (ultra-low dispersion) glass, fluorite or SLD (super low dispersion) lens elements, or combinations of any or all of them.
It’s all magic (spelled optical physics); they’re good, and not cheap.
The easiest way to tell if a lens is an L, is a thin red ring on the body of the lens.
Your statement "The old [Canon] 1D was the original professional bodied digital camera" is false. The Nikon D1 (approx. late 1999) came out approx. two years ahead of the Canon 1D (approx. late 2001). And I seem to recall that Kodak had a digital SLR using a Nikon camera body before that.
———————————————————– Linda-
If you do prefer a compact non-SLR digicam, also test handle the US$150 cheaper 8 megapixel Nikon Coolpix 8700. See how each camera FEELS operating in YOUR hands. Take some shots, and pay particular attention to how easily you can frame a shot, focus, and achieve shutter release. Most but not all non-SLR digicams are either clumsy and/or *slow*; a very few are not. Such slowness/clumsiness can be excruciating in practice.
Note that a few non-SLR cameras [including the Pro 1 and the Coolpix 8700] have "swivel" capability. Such swivel capability is a huge benefit for creative photography: candids, low angle (e.g. ground level flowers from below), high angle (e.g. in crowds), etc. Swivel lens or LCD capability is very useful in any situation where lining up a direct shot is difficult or impossible.
[Whoops – I guess you already know about the joys of swivel lenses from using the CP 990! IMO the swivel LCDs are even better.]
Yes I do enjoy the swivel part of the 990. Good points again about the problem of slowness with non SLR cameras though. I remember having to guess when to push the button so I could catch a horse just as he was at the top of the jump. It was hit or miss for sure.
I guess I’m back where I was again… waiting for the opportunity to try out what comes available next month. I just hope that I can get plugged into a local group that has as much patience as you all. 🙂
"Your statement "The old [Canon] 1D was the original professional bodied digital camera" is false. The Nikon D1 (approx. late 1999) came out approx. two years ahead of the Canon 1D (approx. late 2001). And I seem to recall that Kodak had a digital SLR using a Nikon camera body before that."
Allen, I meant that the (Canon) 1D was the original digital bodied camera from within the Canon range . Sorry if that wasn’t clear but I was talking about the Canon range only in that particular message.
We went down and picked up the Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n just a few minutes ago. 14 MP, ISO 6-1600, 4536×3024-pixel 12-bit CMOS covers rull 24 x 36mm, exposure up to 60 seconds, F-mount lens compatible. It’s a beauty. Will need some time to get it set up and see how it does in our work flow.
Hey, that sounds like fun Ken. 14 Mega pixels? I wonder how that will do with noise. You must let us know how you like it. I’ll even post some pictures for you if you want to show off a little.
Linda, those are Kodak’s samples… apparently some are having trouble reproducing that quality with shipping units but who knows.
Ken, congrats. Let us know how it goes. I would be interested to hear how it performs with fast zoom lenses like the 17-35 AFS or 28-70 AFS, since there are many conflicting reports on this. Also I’ve heard claims of bad noise at 400 ISO and above, but I don’t necessarily believe it. I wonder though, if Kodak is having manufacturing QA issues where some batches are producing good results and others frankly pretty bad ones.
That’s actually the old firmware I think. Kodak is supposedly working on some CA problems with certain lenses among other things, so I think "the new version" of the SLR/n firmware is a ways off yet. Although Kodak is also writing new versions of Photodesk and the other software components too. Might be worth inquiring about / keeping you eye out for, Ken.
For pros, this will be more a curiosity than anything else, but it could signal a breakthrough for some enthusiasts: an entry-level digital SLR for under $300 including one lens.
Just got through reading up on the D70 again, this time a little more thoroughly. On the one hand it sounds very nice, but on the other hand might be a little complex and confusing to set up… along with the view finder negatives. Lately I feel more dorky than usual when it comes to having to learn something too complex. I will probably keep waiting around for an easy to use, high quality, hopefully 8 mp camera… that will produce shots nice enough to use for my clients… but with a relatively small learning curve.
Linda>Just got through reading up on the D70 again, this time a little more thoroughly. On the one hand it sounds very nice, but on the other hand might be a little complex and confusing to set up… along with the view finder negatives. Lately I feel more dorky than usual when it comes to having to learn something too complex. I will probably keep waiting around for an easy to use, high quality, hopefully 8 mp camera… that will produce shots nice enough to use for my clients… but with a relatively small learning curve.
What! I don’t understand…you are one smart cookie and once you figure it out it will be smooth sailing.
Also using a point and shoot or a 35mm digital you can make it as easy or as complex as you like.
The Ring was a horror movie that came out a couple years ago. The main "villain" was a little girl who, although she didn’t have the same general features as the girl pictured here, did have "the same look" with the piercing / haunted eyes, pale skin, standing behind the window, B&W, etc. Not a big horror movie fan but that one was the kind that creeps you out with the story (not gore). The picture reminded me of the movie, obviously.
I strongly recommend that you don’t let any particular detail from any particular review drive you to inaction. Reviewers look to report as much detail as possible for a HUGE range of users. IMPORTANT: most users will find a very large portion of every review irrelevant in practice. Touch one, do some test shots yourself.
E.g. regarding "…might be a little complex and confusing to set up… along with the view finder negatives."
[1] You can pick such a camera up, set it to "P," push the shutter release and get great 10×12 or larger quality pix immediately. It is NOT initially substantially harder to use than your CP990. With a well designed (evolved a generation from the D100) camera like a D70 advanced features are something you grow into, not prerequsites for basic use.
[2] Like I said earlier, a pro photog comparison of a low priced digicam SLR’a viewfinder against Nikon’s best SLR viewfinders may mean nothing to you. When YOU look through the D70 viewfinder you are most likely to think "wow this is cool" rather than think "oh darn my US$4000 D2h viewfinder is better."
Thanks Allen. Yes, those articles are very wordy… and half of it goes right past me.
Looks like I just got more work to do tonight… but I’ll keep an eye out for more conversation on this topic.
I must say, I’m leaning toward the Canon more and more. The main reason being the images I’ve seen from the Rebel and other Canons seem to evoke something deeper inside of me than those from other cameras. After all it was a photo from the Canon Rebel that gave me this new fever. 🙂
Somehow the images are creamier and the colors more vibrant with the others I’ve seen.
For the most part, I would consider the act of "not going to the movies" a wise thing these days. Each year, for every movie that is worth seeing twice [great acting, good cinematography, good storyline, etc.], there are a dozen that are horrible. Hollywood needs better QA methods.
"I must say, I’m leaning toward the Canon more and more. The main reason being the images I’ve seen from the Rebel and other Canons seem to evoke something deeper inside of me than those from other cameras."
Does that mean that you have actually shot and printed some identically comparable pix on multiple cameras? Anything else is pretty meaningless.
From an earlier post: ——————— Learn features (e.g., in camera sharpening, etc.) before you test shoot so that you know to take test shots both with and without such features enabled. Otherwise you may be comparing one camera’s pic with [default] sharpening on against another camera’s pic with [default] sharpening off. The same applies to many other features like white balance, etc. Cameras being compared should have the same shot taken many different ways with identical lighting to allow righteous comparison.
Allen: No, I admit it’s not from pictures that I have taken or printed. It’s all from pictures I’ve seen on the monitor, mainly from people I know from the forums. The first picture was this one by John Burnett <http://www.pbase.com/image/24687570>. Actually I did download this image and printed it on my Phaser 790. It looked pretty good, even with plain old regular paper stock.
Now I do understand that John used a special lens for this shot, which is something I might have to consider as well.
I am also impressed with some of Cindy’s images taken with the Canon. Cindy also mentioned the creaminess of the Canon shots.
There have been several other images I’ve seen but don’t have time to find them right now.
By the way, please pardon my unprofessional demeanor when discussing photography… but the fact is, I am still taking baby steps with this stuff. Not sure when and where I will graduate to Kindergarten but I’m working on it. 🙂
Just be aware that when you look at photos in that way you are *NOT* comparing the ability of individual cameras to facilitate the creation of the photos you like. You are simply liking someone’s work that was coincidentally shot on a particular camera.
Linda, One thing about Sony (I’m not just advocating for the company to annoy Allen:) is that they have a good initiative about color. It’s called RGBE (with E standing for "emerald green"). It’s a long shot still, but I see some good things in the future.
As Allen is wisely pointing pout you are not going to achieve what John Burnett did in the image you posted as one that was done in a studio type environment as the lighting appears to be strobe lighting which would certainly take a bit of a curve to learn, And a season professional has developed techniques of optics and photography which is often independent of the equipment for achieving a certain results.
The best thing is to rent a camera or two that you think you would like or at the very least put one in your hands to see how it feels.
That particular image which is the high res image needs a lot to be desired though excellently captured.
Allen: That is true… but with my knowledge I’m not sure I could make the perfect decision at this point. I may be developing a different mentality about this purchase than at first. This purchase may indeed end up being just a stepping stone. If I go with a reasonably priced Canon ($1,000) and start with one or two good lenses, I can practice and learn to my heart’s content… then if there is reason to move up as new models come out, I can… then use my lenses for the next model.
Todie: That’s cool about the extra channel. I assume Photoshop would see this channel? … or at least there would be a plug-in for it?
Wade: Renting a camera would not be practical for someone like me, especially with my recent workload. Not much spare time and have yet to plug into some local support.
Ramón, Betamax served professionals for a looong time. Purists (like you and Allen : ) wouldn’t have touched another format for about 20 years (methinks).
I use the Artisan. I’ve acknowledged the excellence of Sony’s monitors and CCD sensors.
Sony’s contribution to the CD is an abominable example of marketing hype. I was working for Philips in The Netherlands at the time, the 1960’s and early 70’s (I started out my productive life as a chemist). Sony’s involvement came very late in the game, when the CD was practically finished and ripe. All Sony contributed other than financial encouragement was minor work on the software error correction, all of which was later superseded by more advanced development. In my eyes, anyone who tries to say otherwise is either a shameless liar or badly misinformed by the marketing hype from Japan. Don’t get me started on this, this subject almost makes me want to get rid of my Artisan.
Producer/director Lucas recounted, "We tested the camera in pre-production, and in a previous standard def show, and loved the look of it. HD allows us to keep costs under control and maintain high standards, and 24p only increases those options. And what we can get with the Panasonic Varicam camera is increased mobility and off-speed shooting."
That might have been a statement he made but I believe Buko is correct. and as that sight says the quality is according to what Panasonic says!
I have no doubt that it is s good camera but I still am under the impression that most professionals use SONY but I will take another look. Perhaps things have changed.
They look very sharp, but I don’t like the look of that noise in the shadows at 200 ISO. Frankly its not that difficult to create sharp looking digital files with close ups, so I should look at some images done much further back to get a better indication of the real quality.
I agree with Ashley. I wouldn’t base any decision on those images. There are some awfully blown highlights on some of them, so it’s not entirely clear whether that’s operator error (lighting, exposure) or a camera problem.
By all means try the camera first yourself, Linda.
Here’s another one I found by googling. It’s farther away. Mind you, these are probably not taken by professionals but I find them kind of nice. This one does have a little halo effect but may be caued by jpg.
Whenever I do something like that, I need to sneak it past my wife. She’d never notice one or two new camera bodies being added to the arsenal, but I wouldn’t have the nerve to announce it publicly until a few months have gone by.
Linda: You are not upsetting this thread in any way.
By sharing information and ideas, we all learn — and benefit each other.
Looking at other people’s images encourages experimentation and discovery. If you see an image that impresses you, try to see if you can do better — and test different equipment to see how it works and feels in your hands.
The images that you admire MAY owe their quality to the camera which was used to capture them — but it is much more likely that they result from the competence of the photographer who was driving it.
Good point. Any image does show a minimum competence of which a given camera is capable. I did not mean to belittle, but rather to encourage folks to handle cameras and shoot their own shots. Just like cars, not every camera is right for every individual. It is mandatory to test drive and go beyond simply trying to interpret what everyone else says.
I would like to simultaneously echo Ann’s and Allen’s sentiments here. You are by no means disturbing or upsetting anyone or anything, quite the contrary.
I believe that what Allen and I are trying to say is that one can’t use someone else’s pictures to base a decision over another camera.
To illustrate this, allow me to point you to a site with some astonishing images of celestial bodies taken with a Pentax *ist-D. If I someone were to look just at those images, without reading the text and without the benefit of perspective, they may very well conclude this is the best camera in the world, for sure.
However, how likely are you personally to spend hours taking pictures of the night sky? Sure, images like the one of the Andromeda Galaxy or the Flame Nebula/Horsehead Nebula will knock your socks off.
More importantly, once you read the text and realize the tremendous amount of postprocessing performed here in terms of putting together a composite of a dozen or so 90sec exposures, you’ll realize that the skills of the person doing the postprocessing of any images are of extreme significance. The grasshoppers didn’t need as much work, I’m sure, but I’m pretty certain the jpeg you saw on the web site is but a faint reflection of all the data that would have been contained in a RAW image.
Thanks for the encouragement and reassurance that I’m okay here. 🙂
I don’t know whether to wish for more time at the risk of less work or continuing work at the risk of less time, but the way things are going my only research is through the Web… and that’s been pretty weak. At least by previewing the different photos people post, it keeps my interest peaked.
Here’s a link you might enjoy. It contains a bunch of photographs taken by the same photographer with a variety of digital cameras, some of which you have been considering lately. Each series of images are presented separately, by camera, with some brief pros and cons the photographer found in each camera.
It’s still no substitute for handling the cameras yourself and making your own test shots, but at least there’s the consistency of having all photographs taken by the same photographer, so the level of skill remains constant.
Thanks for the link. This kind of stuff keeps me pumped on photography. I have a strange learning style with some of this stuff. It seems I read and read and read… and feel like I’m not getting certain things… but persevere over time… then one day it’s like I wake up and bingo, I’ve got it… at least whatever part I’m trying to get. There’s always more of course. 🙂
Articles and examples and interaction all keep me moving toward my goals. I consider myself blessed to be able to interact with each one of you. Each person here seems to have something unique and significant to contribute, whether a seasoned professional or an enthusiastic hobbiest. Each one adds to this thead.
Buko: This thread just keeps getting better and better. You done good! 🙂
Just like cars, not every camera is right for every individual. It is mandatory to test drive and go beyond simply trying to interpret what everyone else says.
This is so true. and you probably wont find all the limitations and quirks of any camera until you’ve used it for a few months under many different circumstances.
I’ve started going through the site you linked me to previously, <http://www.terrylane.net/> and I want to say thank you for leading me there. This is a wonderful place to get a simple breakdown of each camera and I’m enjoying the samples. I would kind of like to comment on some of them but don’t want to push this topic in the wrong direction. I wonder if another new thread would be better.
You mean camera manufacturers have tech support? Since when? I certainly have never found any decent camera tech support except for the occasional retailer with an in-house guru.
[Edit] Actually that is not true. A few years ago Nikon recalled their SB-103 underwater strobes (mine had hundreds of dives on it with no problems) and replaced them with the more powerful SB-105 at no charge. The process was very smooth.
I had to call tech support at Fuji in NY about the software that did not work. they were very helpful and told me when it would be released. so there is tech support for cameras at Fuji.
Linda, I sympathize with you… Im in almost the same boat youre in.
Unlike you, however, I already know which brand Im after… Canon. That way I can swap lenses with my 35mm.
Over the years Ive owned about a dozen 35mm film cameras, and the 3 Canons I used were my favorite. My beloved (EOS 650) is still going strong after 20 years and still looks as good as it did the day I bought it. Not one single problem with it… the only costs associated with it were film and batteries. Also, by far the best camera Ive owned in relation to battery consumption.
To be fair, I never used Nikons, so cant comment on them. Im sure that theyre just as good, otherwise Pros wouldnt use or recommend them.
My nephew bought the D60 about two years ago, and Im blown away by the images from that camera. I borrowed it on a couple of occasions to test it out and was really, really impressed. The pictures were simply gorgeous. Far better then I ever envisioned digital prints capable of achieving. I was hard-pressed to tell the difference from the printed shots of it then from commercial ones. And, that wasnt even done on a high-end printer.
Right now, Im debating whether to go with the EOS Rebel (300D) or the 10D. Either one would be a giant step up from my current Sony DCS S85. Although, I cant really complain about the quality of the pics Ive taken with the Sony over the last two years. Its performed admirablyno real issues to date. Its just the fact that I sincerely miss the lens interchangeability Ive come accustomed to over the years. Sure, its got a Zeiss 3X Zoom, but its nowhere near as nice as my workhorse 35-105 Canon zoom. Not even close! Once you experience the convenience of interchangeable lenses, believe me, you never want to be w/o that option ever again. The pluses far outweigh the minuses.
Ideally, a person should have both: a compact digital you can stick in your pocket or purse, and a DSLR for more serious work. Even if I spring for a DSLR, Im planning to keep the compact around…the best of both worlds!
So, Im still waiting around in the shadows like you… watching, deliberating, daydreaming, and waiting for prices to stabilize and come down more. And, prudently buying lottery tickets…one never knows when his/her ship might sail into port… 😉
You’ll find the D10 surpasses the D60, and the 300D (digital Rebel) takes just as good pictures as the D10, just in a cheaper plastic body and some functions that were intentionally left out by Canon in order ti differentiate it (a bit) from the D10.
If you have Canon lenses, by all means stick to Canon.
I believe Ramon means the Canon 10D. A friend bought one last week and I had a chance to use it a bit. It is a fine camera, IMO *much* better than the 300D. But then again the 300D is the cheapest SLR digicam made, so maybe we should expect it to feel like the cheapest SLR digicam made.
Glad you shared your experience and possible plans for your next move. Although I trust the quality of the Nikon and previously thought for sure I would buy another Nikon, now I’m pretty sure my next purchase will be a Canon… although I think I should at least try out a Nikon and personally compare it to the Canon first.
If I were forced to make a purchase tomorrow, it would probably be the 300D… but since I’m not in any hurry and actually don’t have that much spare time right now, I will wait a little longer… and just keep following the reviews and forums.
Not sure how everybody else feels… but while I’m waiting I am enjoying the ride. I find the anticipation and learning process enjoyable. When I take breaks from my time sheet I love to see what the pros, amateurs and enthusiasts are saying… and even finding more samples to look at… until I can get out and try the equipment myself.
I hope I have as much fun after I buy the camera as I am in anticipation for it. 🙂
I hope I have as much fun after I buy the camera as I am in anticipation for it.
Yes, Linda, youd better catch up on all your work now, cause once you get that brand-spankin-new toy in your hands, NOBODY will be able to find you…:)
I can see the headlines already… Missing In Action possibly roaming the hills in search of a Black Cat.
Yes, I got my designations backwards on both the 10D and the 60D, though I got the 300D right. Thanks for correcting me.
It gets a little confusing with all these "D" camera names, it takes a really outlandish name like "*ist-D" to remember it correctly. Maybe that’s why Pentax chose it and, in that case, it’s not as dumb as I first thought. ("CS" is not cool, though. :))
You’ll find the D10 surpasses the D60, and the 300D (digital Rebel) takes just as good pictures as the D10, just in a cheaper plastic body and some functions that were intentionally left out by Canon in order to differentiate it (a bit) from the D10.
Ramon,
Yeah, thats what Ive gathered, so far. The only problem I encountered with the D60 is with the autofocus… it seemed a bit slow and lethargic in certain situationsunduly hunting around for the ultimate setting. Other then that, I found it to be a great camera. In fact, I found it very similar, in both feel and handling to my EOS 650. Striking resemblance.
The 10D (which replaces it) Im told, resolved the focusing problem. From all the accounts Ive read, its extremely fast in that regard.
Hi, Sorry if breaking in on this thread. 🙂 I recently bought a Canon 10d and while I love it I thought I’d share some things I encountered along the way. One thing to keep in mind with the new Canon’s (specifically the 10d and Digital rebel) is that they aren’t compatable with some of the older Canon lenses. Also, some lenses (such as my Sigma 170-500) require you to send in for (in this case free – except for shipping) upgrade. If you aren’t invested in lenses and are going to be buying mostly new this may not be much of a concern. Also, compatable off brand flashes are hard to come by.. the Speedlites are kinda expensive considering I hardly use a flash. I’m used to picking up a cheap Sunpac or something, but not in this case. That being said, I love the 10d.. we have a Nikon D100 and Canon 1DS at work and I take my 10d out more than either. The new Nikon (D70?) DOES look very nice though. Hmm… 🙂
The dPreview review of the D70 leaves out the fact that there is no ISO 100 for the D70. They tested the D70 against the Rebel with the Rebel set at ISO 200. I consider this fact huge when evaluating the two. If you want the best that each camera can produce the Rebel should have been set up at ISO 100 to be fair.
As far as flashes go, the Sigma EF-500 DG Super works perfectly with the Canons and has FEC like the Canon 500EX flash. It can be had for $189 from B&H.
The Rebel and the 10D use identical sensors and produce identical picture quality. The Rebel has a few crippled features the D10 has but so far it hasnt been something I miss.
Good review overall, but I find that either Phil has inconsistent methods for testing noise or his conclusions don’t follow the actual samples he produces. I thought the noise from the D70 looked clearly more acceptable than the Rebel in a couple of instances, and at least as good as the D100 in every instance, yet he claims the three are about the same and actually charts the D70s as worse on the graph. Weird. Just goes to show even his reviews (the best on the web generally) are not without flaws.
From your posts I surmise that you own, and/or use a Digital Rebel. Would you mind sharing your experiences (good/bad) with it so far?… Handling, Feel, Stability, Body Structure, etc.
I dunno; Ive always been wary of second-class imitations… the timeless slogan of: you get what you pay for, keeps harping at me every time I feel the urge to make a move on the Rebel. However, in this case, I believe that I could make an exception. DSLRs are still in infancynew models are sprouting up like wildflowers every week, it seems. Still, how many snazzy features does a guy/gal really need to get a good, printable product? Ofttimes, less is conspicuously better. My EOS 650 has all the bells and whistleswhich, while nice to know, also makes selecting certain functions unduly cumbersome. Heck, there are some that I seldom (if ever) even use.
As long as I have my selectable shutter/aperture/focus/ev settings, thats really all I need. Twenty years ago I would never dream of buying a camera w/o a double exposure feature. I used it incessantlyGrads, Weddings, Family Port, etc. I loved experimenting, and it provided an outlet for my imagination. Also, impressed the heck out of all my friends/foes and associates. Nowadays, with Photoshop, that feature, IMO, is completely useless. Anything I accomplished with DE then, I can now do ten times faster and decidedly more accurately using PS.
Here in Canada, the Rebel retails for $1399.00not exactly chick feed. The 10D is well over two granda serious investment. While I have spent well over that limit (Bronica ETRS) for a camera, I also did a lot more freelancing then, so getting my investment back was no problem. I dont really do that much commercial shooting now, so a Pro oriented outfit isnt that significant anymore.
Basically my choices were between the Canon 10D, the Rebel and the Nikon D100. With the research I did I decided to go with the Canon line due to the CMOS sensor and the excellent photos it produces. Now the choice came down to the 10D and the Rebel.
Since this was my first digital camera and I was starting from scratch I decided since the 10D was a good $500 more that did not include a lens I thought I might be better off getting my start with the Rebel with kit lens and invest that $500 in another lens when I had a clue what I was doing. I haven’t been sorry. The only thing I have heard that worries me is shutter problems on a few cameras. As more people have these cameras over the long haul more info will be available about how long they last. I know people who take around 5000 photos per month. So far I have had 0 problems. It feels sturdy enough to me and the 10D is quite a bit heavier.
I am not a professional photographer but I have heard quite a few pros say they love this camera and many more of them have it as a back up camera. Sometimes I wish I bought the 10D but then think that I will probably just upgrade when Canons next camera comes out. I am completely hooked! Waiting until then to begin my experience was not an option so for now I have the Rebel and absolutely love it.
If I were starting today I would probably do the same thing. I would give the D70 a serious look but the lack of ISO 100 kills that for me since I almost always shoot with that ISO.
I don’t know how helpful I am since I have not owned one of these other products and my experience is limited to the past few months. Perhaps you could go to a camera store and handle all of these cameras. Take a flash card with you and take a few pictures.
Can’t you order online? You can pick up the kit for under $1000 from B&H or Canoga Camera.
If you can’t bring yourself to order the Rebel for fear of low quality I would wait until the next general 10D since that camera is probably on its way out. I do not expect a next generation Rebel for a while. The D70 does have features (bells and whistles) that Canon has to answer.
Thanks, Cindy… I appreciate your feedback. Looks like you are happy and contented with your Rebel. Your personal experiences seem to reflect the ones that Ive come across in various forums over the last few months. So far, Ive yet to hear anything negative about the camera. Your reference to shutter problems is the first one Ive heard. Where did you read about that? Might be worth checking out!
Can’t you order online? You can pick up the kit for under $1000 from B&H or Canoga Camera.
$1000.00 US… which, (with current exchange rates) equates to about $1400.00 Cnd. The price of the Rebel is pretty much the same everywhere, give or take a buck or two. Its probably one of the hottest items out there right now, so I cant really see that changing for a while unless Canon decides to up the ante with a newer model.
Im gonna wait for a month or sodont rightly have any spare time right now anyway. Maybe Ill order it from the Shopping Channel here and check it out. Thatll give me 30 days to evaluate and play around with it. If Im not impressed, itll just go back…
I understand the Rebel has ISO 100 (which should produce even less noise than ISO 200 on either camera), but you kind of missed my point. I’m saying the DPR samples (for those ISO settings each camera has) don’t bear out the D70 as being more noisy, even though Phil implies otherwise and actually graphs the D70 as being more noisy across the whole spectrum of ISOs.
To my (hopefully still 20/20) eyes, the D70 samples actually look quite a bit *less* noisy at ISO 200 and 400 than the Rebel, and certainly no worse than the D100 at either setting. One thing Phil did note that I agree with is that the D70’s noise — where it appears — seems much more granular compared to the competition, which is more "splotchy" in certain color channels.
Anyway, not a knock on the Rebel — cameras are just tools — but more a bit of ding against Phil in terms of the consistency of his review approach. In this particular case, anyway.
I think the shutter problem is mostly rumor. There were a few people who had to have the shutter replaced due to Err 99 around 5000 photos. Of coarse that is way too low to be doing that. Then I know those who has thousands of photos with no problems.
When you consider how many Rebels have been sold I would think if there were a real problem it would be all over the place. I am waiting to see if more of this comes in when the Rebel is close to a year in production but I truely think everything is probably ok.
I know it sure is easy to take lots of photos with a digital camera 🙂 I am slowing down now and thinking much more about composition and exposure than I did in the beginning.
I guess viewing those pictures is subjective. I have heard just the opposite. Maybe people see what they want to see. I’m not meaning specifically you but perhaps everyone does that to some extent.
Up until the Outdoor Scene Comparison Page, I was getting very excited about the D70… with a bit of little concern about the RGB color tag mentioned earlier in the article. Then I saw the Outdoor Scene images and the Canon again seemed to win over the Nikon.
"Can’t match the EOS 300D’s silky smooth ISO 100 (low noise)" is what I think I keep seeing.
Then I read the…
Overall conclusion
Nikon have achieved three major improvements with the D70 (compared to the competition / the D100): (1) They have improved the performance of the camera, with its instant on availability, very fast shutter release, superb continuous shooting and image processing speed and smart use of its buffer. (2) They have maintained build quality while still delivering a smaller and lighter camera, the D70 doesn’t feel much less well built than the D100 but is lighter, it certainly feels much more like $1000 worth of camera than the EOS 300D could. (3) They have improved image sharpness and detail, while we could niggle about moiré the compromise between artifacts and sharpness is worth it, in many instances the D70 delivering more detail than our previous benchmark, the EOS 300D / EOS 10D CMOS sensor.
Yep. Everyone does see what they want/read to some degree, however I’m referring not to actual photo samples but Phil’s "grey screen" noise tests. The one with side-by-side comparisons of a grey card (I think) that was shot by both cameras, one for each ISO. Then he splits them into three channels so you can see where the noise comes from….
Those reviews at Dpreview are fairly worthless in my opinion. He shoots images in totally different lighting conditions and then concludes that one camera is better than another. With the resolution charts he’ll shoot one chart with a camera using a prime macro lens & another camera with a cheap zoom and then state that one camera shows more detail when in fact its only really showing that the lens is better.
Actually, my whole point is this: the 10D and the Rebel are noise free at ISO 100. That should have been part of the test. The Rebel was tested at ISO 200. Who cares?
Regarding the comment about the Rebel 300D: "So far, Ive yet to hear anything negative about the camera" you must not have read very many reviews, or touched one. No way any competent reviewer is going to rate that camera high in the "expected durability" category, unless they don’t evaluate that parameter, in which case IMO it is not a complete review. Of course, low on "expected durability" does not mean it is not an appropriate choice for some folks (those that baby an SLR, don’t use it a lot or hard).
Regarding ISO 100 being a big issue: NOT. These SLR digicams are NOT FILM. They do NOT perform like film. If noise is very low at 200 (which it is) there is little downside to not having ISO 100 available, except to slow down the camera in bright sun while maintaining wide aperture on fast lenses. Most photogs seldom need that, and when they do, inexpensive neutral density filters work very well. Far more important is how does the camera do with noise at higher ISO settings.
As I have stated before, I do not in 2004 recommend the Nikon D100 as a choice; it is older technology. The use of evolved modern technology is very important in digital cameras – just like computers (the D100 is now a G4 in a G5 world). Today in digital Nikon SLRs folks should be comparing to the D2h and the D70, and hopefully soon to a D2x.
I fully agree with Ashley re the relevance of the "test" and "conclusion" parts of the reviews at dpreview. The descriptions are a great help though.
Just by the sheer number of reviews posted, you need to take each one of them with a grain of salt. Think of them as nothing more than a good starting point, not as the final word.
What is it that makes the Canon produce images that seem to have an extra punch of color? Do you think the Canon beefs up it’s images with a shot of saturation? But then, it’s not just the intensity of the color, it’s the creamy dreamy feel of the color.
It appears to be a combination of the quality of the sensor and the degree of manipulation (or lack thereof) in the camera. They seem to have found a very happy medium of sharpening and texture.
I’m shooting a bunch of cameras, about 70% film and 30% digital; everything from the trusty old rangefinder Leica and Contax through Nikons and others in various film formats.
Digitally, I’ve been using loaner Nikon D100’s and many others. The only digital one one I have bought out of my own pocket is the Pentax *ist-D, which uses the same sensor as the Nikon D100 but has other features I like much better (much brighter viewfinder, smaller but sturdier build with metal frame, no in camera sharpening unless you intentionally apply it, and other features that make it feel more like a film camera than a digital, such as more control through knobs and physical switches, no LCD for composing, etc) and allows me to use over two dozen prime lenses I’ve accumulated over the years, including an 1100mm telephoto lens (1650mm effective angle of view on the digital camera).
I also had a Canon 1D on loan, excellent images. The digital Rebel didn’t appeal because it just didn’t feel right, and the only previous Canon camera I have ever owned was a 35mm Rebel that was about the most unfortunate purchase I ever made.
I’ll probably buy the next generation Nikon because I do have some Nikon lenses.
For the time being I am really thrilled with the *ist-D. As soon as I’m able to get around a little bit more I’ll be taking it out again.
Thanks for the explanation Ramon. I want those kind of images. I think Cindy and Todie have it right. I need to wait for the next generation, if I can wait that long. Let’s hope it will be sooner than later.
Regarding: "Digital cameras change so fast that I will shoot pictures till my Rebel breaks and buy the next generation camera."
That makes perfect sense if it is not for daily professional use.
Regarding "I need to wait for the next generation…"
That makes no sense at all, except of course as regards cash flow matters. 🙂
The current US$1000-7000 digital SLRs (and also the top end of the Canon and Nikon point-and-shoots) all are spectacular devices at their respective price points, including the Rebel 300D. You can shoot 10×12 magazine covers all day long with any of the digital SLR cameras. And, they are all hugely cost-effective when compared to shooting film. There is certainly no technical reason for anyone to postpone entering the learn-photography-quickly digicam world right now.
I like many Nikons, many Canons, and some Fujis. By far my greatest experience is with Nikons, often used under the most rigorous conditions on the planet. My Pentax experience was 20 years ago, and the hardware (admittedly not Pentax’s very best at the time) did not stand up to my hard usage.
Ramon-
What do you know about coping with internal dust issues with the D100? Any tricks or other advice?
Regarding the comment about the Rebel 300D: "So far, Ive yet to hear anything negative about the camera" you must not have read very many reviews, or touched one.
Youre right… Ive never touched one; nor have I been anywhere near one, yet. If I had, Im sure my decision would certainly be less taxed then it is at this time. All Im going on right now is word of mouth, and what Ive seen on paper and monitors.
The negative comment was indirectly aimed at various user forums across the net where different members freely exchanged data about their Rebel purchases. I just came across another one this morningthe fellow is happier then a lark reciting its latest rendition of The Tennessee Bird Walk… 😉
During the various times I used the D100, I never encountered any particular dust issues, though I read somewhere that may be a problem. I did switch lenses a number of times, and just used the dust blower bulb a couple of times. Nothing out of the ordinary.
There are a lot of people who are not professional photographers but are in the design field in one form or another for whom the entry level of SLR’s are perfect. I am one of those.
While I would love to have a high end SLR it is probably not an investment I will make unless for some reason I start making a lot of money selling photos. If I were to make enough money on photography I would natually buy the best camera that my business could justify. Until then the Rebel is a great camera that serves me well. For me the Canon 10D and the Rebel shoot photos that are the best my money can buy in my price range.
I was able to buy myself another lens with the money I saved buying the Rebel instead of the 10D. With the way digital cameras are changing I think that was a sound decision.
I think the Nikon D70 is a contender but for me I have purchased into the Canon line which I do not regret and when the Rebel breaks I will buy another under $2000 Canon unless my situation has changed.
From what I can see of the samples from the D70 compared with the Rebel I still think the Rebel produces better looking pictures. The D70 is a more solidly built camera or it appears to be. We have yet to see how well it holds together. Build quality is not all there is to it although it is something I will pay close attention to on my next purchase.
Thanks for your encouragement Ramon. Sometimes I feel a little sorry I didn’t get the 10D but I should’t. I think what is going to happen is that I am going to learn a lot and buy the next camera up when it comes out or when my Rebel quits on me. Who knows, maybe by then I will buy "L" glass but so far since I shoot RAW, Photoshop RAW has been able to correct any CA that I have.
The only reason Linda hesitates (in my opinion) is because like me she is afraid of making a mistake especially where business is concerned. Perhaps I am out of line for making this assumption but I believe that sometimes we just have to start (Linda if that offended you my apologies).
I wouldn’t miss this last year for anything. But then by the time Linda buys a camera I will be able to help her out 🙂
It makes sense for Linda to wait for a less expensive, better SLR, because she has a digital camera and knows how to use it for her actual needs (while learning more about the ways of the professional photographers).
Wait? Why? Certainly Linda does not need a "better SLR" than the low end digicam SLRs like the Rebel 300D and the Nikon D70, which both are very good digicams. Suggesting that someone miss out on a year of digital SLR photography to wait for something better than exists now is IMO very bad advice. Life is too short.
Every modern SLR digicam already is capable of producing images equal or better than 35 mm film scans for most pix. Only folks needing to equal medium format film scans should even remotely consider waiting.
Cindy-
Note that in post #852 I specifically included the Rebel 300D as a viable choice. Not for me the camera-beater, but certainly for many other folks. I am thrilled that Canon hit the US$1000 price point; I am sure it motivates all the other manufacturers.
For those bright sunlight shots – and especially on the web at 72 ppi – an SLR digicam would provide small benefit. However with an SLR Linda probably would have come back with good (10×12 prints no problem) pix of those same planes FLYING (assuming that they flew while she was there). A huge difference, probably the biggest difference between the under US$700 cameras and the over US$999 cameras is the ability to reliably capture pix of moving subjects. Also the ability to cope with less than ideal light, and the ability to capture good telephoto. And croppability [I just made that word up, so I decide how it is spelled 🙂 ]
[Edit] I did find some flying plane pix on Linda’s Air Show site. The limitations of lower end digicams like the CP990 are apparent. All in all though I think Linda has a good eye and takes nice pix! All she needs is an SLR…
Not to worry about me being offended. I know you have my best interest at heart and I appreciate that very much.
It’s not hard to wait when you’re too busy to go out shopping. 🙂 I’m about ready to wrap up a couple of jobs. By that time I should be able to focus and take this more seriously, and if all goes well my budget will be a little larger than I expected, making it possible to buy needed accessories and maybe an extra lens.
I don’t think I’m missing out on anything so far, mainly because I’ve been blessed with enough work to keep too busy to shop or shoot. I appreciate you saying that about having a good eye. I hope so. We shall see…
As for larger prints, I’m hoping to be able to incorporate them into oversized graphic design pieces that can be used for poster purposes… either as backgrounds or incorporated into artwork.
I just wonder how many mega pixels I would need for 18×24, 24×36, or even 36×48.
Oh, and since you made it up, croppability it is! 🙂
I am reminded of when I was going through a similar process trying to choose a color laser printer. The Phaser 780 was a big hit with graphic designers. Because it had been out for a while I decided to wait for the next one to replace it, thinking the next one would surely be even better. I did just that. I waited until the Xerox Phaser 790 came out. The reviews were great. I plunged right in and ordered one. It has since turned out to be the worst purchase I’ve ever made. It’s a lemon. People are still loving their 780 while I continue to pour money into the 790. It’s one thing after another. Yesterday it started printing messy. Today it’s jamming. It’s now telling me I need to order another print copy cartridge. I’m only on my third set of toners (some of them might still be the second) and I’m replacing the print copy cartidge for the second time.
I hope I don’t make the same mistake with my camera purchase. Perhaps I should go with the proven Canon Rebel and then later upgrade if needed… like some here have suggested.
Linda, Regarding those print sizes, much will depend on the resolution that you need to print at and above all, the RIP doing the upsizing. I would normally be tempted to just say that you need a 1DS for those file sizes, but the truth is that much is subject dependent and will also be down to what you find acceptable.
A well known fashion photographer called Melvin Sokolsky once talked about obtaining superb prints from the old 1D which is a 4MP camera with prints up to 40×60 from the lightjet printer. A 10D is more than capable of producing billboards sized images because they are done at such low resolution however it might have difficulty with some subjects that need to show very high levels of detail in large prints and at close examination in which case you need 11MP and up.
Its impossible to say whether a camera will be able to produce images or not at a certain size without knowing the complete process. To get the best results though, shoot Raw, work with prime lenses and stay in 16 Bit while making tonal adjustments. I’ve found Sharpener from Pixel Genius very useful in getting extra details out of digital files.
I agree with the sentiment of working with prime (meaning non-zoom) lenses. My problem with most of the more moderately priced digicams is that they are supplied with non-interchangeable zoom lenses.
Also, I won’t touch Auto-anything — exposure or focussing.
All of the SLR cameras have manual and auto modes as well as interchangeable lenses. That is one of the main differences between point and shoot cameras and SLR’s. The moderately priced Rebel and D70 can be shot in manual mode as well as a lot of in-between modes.
I agree with the sentiment of working with prime (meaning non-zoom) lenses.
My problem with most of the more moderately priced digicams is that they are supplied with non-interchangeable zoom lenses. Also, I won’t touch Auto-anything — exposure or focussing.
Perhaps I should go with the proven Canon Rebel and then later upgrade if needed.
I don’t think you’ll need to upgrade, save for the eventuality that the camera disintegrates on you, which I wouldn’t expect any time soon –unless you keep loaning your cameras out. The 300D digital Rebel takes wonderful pictures and the Canon line of lenses is excellent.
Cindy: The "more moderately priced digicams" are not SLRs — they fall into the next bracket!
(And I can still shoot a tremendous amount of film with the equipment that i already have before the outlay on digital equipment of comparable quality would be justified!)
For a slight change in subject. I am just scanning some Kodachrome 25 images that I shot nearly 20 years ago with a Contax using the legendary 50mm Carl Zeiss lens. Wow, it makes all other film look really nasty by comparison and I think it says a lot for modern digital cameras that the noise levels are about the same as my 10D at 100 ISO.
Ann, that’s really not a fair comparison because you are discounting your existing investment as though it was free. Throw in the price of your scanner, clip tests, Polaroids and all the rest to see how it compares. Digital will pay for itself very quickly.
But in the last few days I have bought another camera body (film) and another lens so my Purchasing Privileges are currently in dire danger of being peremptorily curtailed.
For 35mm (which is mostly just for personal use), I use the Olmpus OM system and stick with their own lenses. For medium format: Mamiya — and their own ones. For large format: Schneider.
Once upon a time Ann you were resolutely in favour of OS 9 and now you are using OS X. My bet is that in 12 months time you will be telling us all how wonderful digital is. Wade may hang on a while longer…
I really think that in the not too distant future digital backs for medium format are going to have a very hard time selling. Its not that they won’t be better than 35mm cameras, just that the difference will be largely academic in print and they will always lack the handling advantages of 35mm.
When the new 1DS comes out with a very likely 16MP sensor and super low noise like the 10D there will be no justification to shoot either film or medium format for most people. The only exception will be when very precise camera movements are needed with view cameras and that’s a small market.
The D70 and the 300D are both good choices, each with its pros and cons. Both are far too new to qualify as "proven," however.
————————————— Linda- You have received enough advice, done enough asking. Ask a D300 owner what he/she likes and the answer is obvious: he/she chose the D300. The same applies to D70 owners. The two cameras are of the same genre, both good value. The D70 is more camera but costs more.
You have to decide which is the better value for you, in your hands, for your planned shooting, so… you _must_ handle the cameras! The ergonomic differences as experienced _only_by_you_ are much, much more significant than the picky details as expressed in a plethora of reviews, and way more relevant than what I prefer, or Cindy prefers, or anyone else prefers.
Most importantly dont let the camera store person sway you. Each store receives very different profit margins on different cameras. And **absolutely** stick with lenses of the same brand as the camera you select. **Never** accept that "special deal" offered to you with some third party lens (why could be a whole new thread topic); just don’t go there.
————————————– Ann, when you recommend only prime lenses and no auto exposure, no auto focus, you are back in Luddite mode. True in the 1970s, but very bad advice today for someone newly moving up to either film or digital SLRs.
[1] Quality modern zoom lenses today are just that: quality. Prime lenses will always technically be inherently better because they are usually a bit faster, and in the very long term moving parts do wear on zooms. However, prime lenses s*ck for getting the shot in a changing environment.
The ability to – instantly, and without carrying multiple lenses – compose at varying focal lengths is a very, very significant boost to composition. Unless you wear a camera vest full of lenses and are really fast at changing lenses, by the time you can change a lens you have missed most shots in the real digicam world (where one of the photoflow [another word just coined] benefits is to shoot lots of _free_ shots and learn from each shot) because the subject or the light has changed.
For a beginning SLR person actually seeing the full range of compositional choices through the lens in real time is a huge learning benefit. Only with many years of experience can a photog glance at a scene and immediately know what focal length lens will be best. Even then, sometimes a scene begs to be shot at two focal lengths, like the plane with pilot as one pic and tight on the pilot as another; and you only have 4 seconds to get both shots. It is easy with a zoom lens, impossible with prime. Zoom lenses allow more precise composition in camera, meaning less cropping, which of course means better post process resolution.
[2] Not using auto-exposure on a modern SLR digicam is absurd. Auto-exposure (at least on the better Nikons to my knowledge) became very good in the 1980s and excellent in the 1990s. Today in 2004 it is nothing short of spectacular. In the 1970s and before I bracketed every exposure, meaning 12 images per US$20 roll of slide film; very important pix were double bracketed, meaning 7 images per US$20 roll of film. During the 80s I started finding very good auto exposure almost all the time, and stopped bracketing anything but really critical shots.
Even if you ignored the above truisms, digital SLR cameras have a different photoflow. What you do is shoot the pic, look at the image, look at the histogram, look at the blowouts, adjust (all these cameras easily adjust exposure +/- 5 stops) and reshoot if necessary – faster than you can even pick up a light meter, let alone get a righteous reading!
[3] Autofocus has similarly improved over the decades to where on the most modern (meaning 1990s and later) better SLRs it can be the focus method of choice for many (but not all) shots. You can switch among, focus, recompose and photo three different critters in a herd in two seconds, for instance, and have the eyes in all 3 photos in perfect focus. To approach (but still not reach) that speed manually takes years of practice. Manual focus of course still is always available for those pix where it is necessary.
Well, lets see Photoshop 7.0.1 is definitely faster on the new machine in OS 9.2.2 than in Panther; no printing, scanning or third-party device incompatibilities; superb and trouble-free font management, including ATR; a bunch of applications that only run in native Mac OS 9.x and not in Classic; no need to learn much new stuff nor ever worry about system updates any more; minimal system maintenance, no need for Cocktail waitresses or Janitors; no fear of destroyed FireWire drives; vastly superior proofing tools in Russian, German, Dutch, French and Italian; no decent MS Office suite of applications in OS X; I could go on
Like I said, manual is still sometimes preferable. Fast moving critters, particularly at a relatively _unchanging_ distance are one good example. E.g., in addition to your marine mammal, I shot a ski race this weekend and manual focus was much preferable. I could get 3 high speed shots of each racer in manual focus mode instead of just one shot in autofocus mode.
I have to agree with what you are saying Allen regarding auto-focus these days and my perspective on using fixed focal length lenses is because of the sort of work I do where zooming is just not necessary and I feel happy with fixed lens. If I was shooting street scenes I’d go for a zoom every time.
On the subject of light metering, yes I think that much has improved to the point where I’ll only use my hand held light meter in the studio or on really tricky subjects. Very curiously, I’ll often choose the centre weighted option rather than Matrix, because I think the Canons have a habit of going crazy over a small distant highlight and underexposing the scene in general if you aren’t careful.
For me the great thing about digital, is that I can think of an idea for an image, do it and look at the Raw processed result 5 minutes later on my screen while knowing in advance that I had everything right before putting the camera away. Recently with photo stock shooting, I have been able to shoot a series of images, process and upload them to the agencies in a couple of hours and it hasn’t cost me a penny. The quality of cameras like the 300D is now good enough for a large number of commercial applications and the convenience and productivity is astounding compared to film.
All fair points Ramon, although I get on very well with Office X and there are numerous wonderful applications out there for OSX that OS9 cannot even compete with. Anyway OSX is so colourful!!
Ramón: You can mute the colorfulness of OSX very easily by choosing Appearance: Graphite.
You could also make your own desktop background by taking any one of Apple’s; opening it in Photoshop; and desaturating it. Then settle for tiny icons and a disappearing Dock and you will be safely back in the Calm Zone again.
Todie that says an awful lot about most pro labs. Actually the one thing that really pushed me towards digital was a sense of total despair with a lot of the shoddy work being turned out by the labs. It seemed like I was bending over backwards to do everything right and some underpaid lab technician would always mess everything up and I got fed up with paying for such sloppy work.
The labs may be complaining now, but they have been their own worst enemy in many cases.
Yes Kodachrome 25 had its pluses IF you had enough lens speed and light to get the pic and liked the saturation and color shift. The problem was how many pix were missed because of that slow film speed; I preferred Kodachrome 64 back then. Note that AFAIK they stopped making Kodachrome 25, probably because of the similar competence of Velvia at ISO 50.
Ramon: I could never go back now that I’m used to Panther. When I first saw OSX I thought the same as you. Then I began using it. Now OS9 looks plain and sterile. Nor do I miss all the system crashes with OS9. Panther is the best ever!!! I work day after day, week after week, month after month… lol… no system crashes… well, maybe one when I allowed it to go to sleep without shutting down one night.
Allen: I think I’ve got it. You never know though. 😉
I have used Panther. I experience no crashes in 9.2.2.
The notion that if you keep banging your head against the wall you’ll eventually learn to love it is not very appealing to me.
Sure, a human being can and will adapt to just about anything, but why adapt if there’s no reason to? I tried all kinds of tobacco products when I was young and hated every single one of them, so I’m a non smoker. No reason to make a special effort to get addicted to something you don’t need.
Why is it difficult to conceive that people have different tastes and needs? Personally I dislike champagne and I dislike caviar; give me a bottle of good German white wine or a Spanish or French red anytime. Why would I have to make an effort to like champagne or caviar?
Sorry, but the more I read you guys, the more convinced I get that you’re wrong. 🙂
Seriously, if you are not having trouble with 9.2.2 then I can see why you hold onto it for a while, especially if you have older software you want to keep using.
For me, Panther is a relief since I had nothing but trouble with 9.2.2. But then I push things to the limit sometimes.
On second thought, maybe you OS X fans are just responding to an overriding, primal need to rationalize all the money, effort and time you’ve put into the new system and the new applications. 🙂
And also suppressing a need to atone for your betrayal of the old Macintosh OS, against which OS X does as much violence as Windows does.
No; neither of the above. It’s really much simpler: you guys like OS X and I don’t. There’s nothing else to it.
Ramón, Ramón, Ramón as I have said i the past to Ann (stubborn, stubborn Ann) Shelbourne come to the darkside and Ramón you have had crashes and loss of work in OS 9.2.2 even though it is pretty stable, but you have had them
Nope. no crashes in 9.2.2 so far. Maybe in 9.1, but it was quickly attributed to the extensions I got rid of since. Earlier than that, sure, many freezes and crashes.
Besides, in the last 30 months I lost hundreds of hours trying to troubleshoot OS X on my old Frankenmac. And OS X did crash on me, Kernel Panic and all. Not 9.2.2. (Knock on wood.) I read about folks losing files in Panther too, though it doesn’t crash. Sure, there’s always something to blame it not, never on the sacrosanct OS X though. Programs quit, but the OS X allegedly doesn’t. A difference without a distinction. I’ve lost work because the program crashed on me, which then led to a system crash in earlier, pre 9.2.2 systems.
My point is that by the time 9.2.2 came and stayed, I had it pretty much figured out. I knew what extensions to get rid of and other tricks like never ever let the first application you open be a MS one, purge and check the system often, save all work and quit if it’s starts ballooning in size (MS application at work, for sure), etc.
One thing I can assure you, combining all work I may have lost in twenty years of Mac usage, it doesn’t amount to one fourth of the time I wasted on OS X.
I know there will come and time when I will be forced to start using OS X; but, for the time being, I don’t have to, and that’s a very good thing.
Have you ever considered sidling down to the pet shop and acquainting yourself with a cute, cuddly kitten? Sneak it on home, then watch in wide-eyed amazement as it jumps up into your lap and purrrrrrrsss you into a conciliated little nap…. 🙂
You have to decide which is the better value for you, in your hands, for your planned shooting, so… you _must_ handle the cameras!
This is not necessarily as Cut and Dried as its sometimes laid out to be… I just got my Kensington 5-button mouse replaced under warranty. Id been using this rodent for about three years, and every nook and cranny of its structure had become so distinctly familiarized with my right hand that every action I performed with it was second nature. When it failed, I called Kensington, and they informed me that the model I had, had been discontinued, but that theyd send me the replacement model. When it arrived a couple weeks later, I almost threw a gasket… Instead of having the 3rd and 4th buttons on either side like before, they switched them both to the left side.
Holy Cripes….!!! For the next couple of days my mousing maneuvers were frustratingly rippled with repetitive errors… my finger kept reaching for that elusive, right-side button, only to find an empty void there. This was about three weeks ago. But, you know what? Once I got my finger reprogrammed, I found that Kensington actually made a smart move… Having those two buttons on the same side, now feels much smoother, more intuitive, and allows noticeable faster button selections. I can actually work considerably faster with that setup. I still make the odd mistake ever so often, but theyre getting rarer by the day. Another week, and the old setup will feel like OS 9 does to me now stagnant and stale..!
When I used OS9 I pushed it to its limits. I kept a lean and mean system. I think I actually locked it up 2 or 3 times. mostly because I tried doing too many things at once. But as Ramón said 9.2.2 is rock solid (it has to be to run as classic under OSX). Although I have managed to crash Classic a few times.
the Fact that Ramón doesn’t prefer OSX at this time is not a bad thing. Poking him in the eye with your verbal sticks isn’t going to change his mind. If you follow Ramóns helpful posts he has a good grasp of OSX and is able to help those having trouble with it. Ramón, like Ann in the past, prefers OS9.
He will in time come to use OSX mostly because all the new software is only made for OSX and soon some app will come along that Ramón will feel he can’t do without forcing his hand. Similar to Ann having a G5.
I have one, but for the majority of my work I still prefer the lowly ole mouse. Call me blind, stupid or indifferent, thats just the way it is!
Poking him in the eye with your verbal sticks isn’t going to change his mind.
Notice that I said: the old setup will feel like OS 9 does to me now
If Ramon and company still prefer working in OS 9, thats more than fine with me… as long as they dont try to cajole me back into it. I think Ramon also knows that were just trying to ruffle his feathers we all enjoy his crafty comebacks, and OS9 seems to do the trick at this point… 🙂
Guess what? I might be actually needing a new camera sooner than I thought. A client whose print and Web jobs I wrapped up yesterday asked me if I’d like more Web work. He said he wants to refer me for another Web design job that will include going in and taking pictures of the office and equipment. Is it not interesting how circumstances and time prod us along at just the right time? I’m sure for Web work I can still use my little Nikon and then enhance photos in Photoshop but since I’m almost ready to upgrade I may as well make the purchase before I take on a job like that.
But folks, Linda wants to buy a point and shoot camera because its easier to use and I’ve gotta come up with an intellegent way to talk her out of that. I think a point and shoot is a mistake in the long haul but is it?
I’d like to hear what others think of that. I say that if Linda is in a big hurry for this particular job she should use the camera she has rather than buy the PowerShot Pro1. These cameras (her current camera) work just fine for web work.
I think… that if Linda really gets interested in photography then she will, like most photographers, end up with a collection of cameras and lenses for each particular subject matter. In the short term, i.e. the next couple of years, the Pro1 would be ideal.
You probably don’t know what age bracket I’m in, so let me just tell you that I was born when Franklin Delano Roosevelt was president of the US and Adolf Hitler ruled Germany. That leaves a suitably ambiguous time span but gives you a rough idea. 🙂
The reason I bring this up is your remark about cats and petshops. I’m old enough to know what I like, what I dislike and what I have a genuine aversion to. Cats fall in that last category. I have been involved with horses all my life and with dogs since I was about four years old. I love both horses and dogs; I hate cats. It’s a genuine phobia. Who knows, it may even be in my genes, for my oldest daughter is deadly allergic to cats, and I do mean in a life-threatening manner.
Now, why in Hades would I go into a petshop to cuddle up with a cat? It doesn’t take an IQ much higher than that of a caterpillar’s to realize that isn’t going to change a thing.
One thing that amazes me is that you OS X fans seem not to have read my posts where I have set forth why OS 9 suits my needs at this time, otherwise you wouldn’t keep insisting that I make yet an umpteenth painful effort to bang my head against the wall with Panther until I adapt to it and in the meantime lose considerable speed in Photoshop, multilingual custom software keyboard layout functionality, and the use of highly specialized software, including a CATA system that cost more than the new car I bought late last year and will never be available for OS X. That would really be insane.
The reason I’m irritated this time is because it’s become increasingly clear that you presume to feel entitled to act condescendingly because you believe I’m actually resisting OS X out of sheer ignorance. Allow me to turn the tables on you for a change, for it is you who doesn’t have a clue as to what you’re talking about.
Zeb, that may be true but money is a consideration for some of us. Also I think the "feel" that comes with an SLR is part of the addiction. If she were going to get addicted from a point and shoot she would have that already. She already has a P&S.
Linda already has a point and shoot, and a good one too. She doesn’t need the Canon PowerShot Pro1. I’d say she either gets a digital SLR, or she waits.
Sigh….sorry Linda. You said you wanted really easy. The Rebel has a learning curve. So does the D70. I guess I assumed that when you said easy it meant Point and Shoot…..sorry
I guess I can see how you might have read into my email, as follows…
Since I do not have a lot of free time, do you think I will find the 300D Rebel to be easy to use? One of my clients wants to refer me for another Web job that will include taking pictures of the office and equipment. I want to buy something that will be easy to use and give me great results.
I just wanted your take on the Rebel in this regard. 🙂
Linda, regardless of which digital camera you get I would suggest that you test it out really extensively as soon as you get it and if its not 100% right don’t let anybody hoodwink you into accepting substandard performance.
When digital cameras are good, they can be a true pleasure to work with, however, in this day and age when too many products are rushed to market without being thoroughly tested, quality control is not what it should be and many bugs are never resolved during the life time of the product, which can be so annoying when you have spent thousands of dollars.
Apart from the little test reports, which mean very little when you remember that reviewers will never be too critical when they depend on the same manufacturers for advertising, look closely to see if there are constant user complaints and how the manufacturer deals with them. Also make sure that you purchase from a reliable vendor who has a good policy for returns.
Let me put it this way Linda. Any time I take a picture now it is really easy and instinctive. It took me a little while to get to that point. I think that is something you have to commit to.
If you are going to take indoor shots you would be better off with an external flash. But that is the case with any camera. The Rebel tends to underexpose indoors with the built in flash but that can be helped by shooting RAW. I got an external flash that has built in FEC which solved that problem for me. I do know some tricks on how to use the internal flash successfully too.
I think if you got the Rebel with the kit lens you would be shooting great pictures in no time flat. It even has a "P" mode that does pretty good. The only thing that is hard to get used to is the exposure. I think P&S’s are easier there. Also, you will need to do some post processing which you probably do anyway.
If you do it I think you should shoot a lot of picts in jpeg till you get a feel for it then switch to RAW.
I would be willing to help you out any way I can in email too.
Go with the SLR because your skills will rapidly expand to fully use its capabilities.
You have no idea how greatly an SLR camera (whether digital or film-imaging) will develop your skills as a photographer — but it will. And very quickly too.
Life definitely looks very different through the lenses of an SLR.
Ashley: Thanks for your comments. This is why I’ve not been in a hurry… and I really don’t need to rush into a purchase for the job possibility. I feel pretty confident that my little Nikon will do whatever I need it to do for this kind of Web work. I’ve been somehow pulling off this sort of stuff for a while… and clients seem pretty happy with my work… thankfully.
Ann: I am leaning toward the 300D which is a SLR.
BTW, I don’t even like the looks of the Pro1… it looks unprofessional and requires special lenses which won’t work on the others. Not going there.
The new 1D II would be a great camera and more importantly will still be very usable in a few years time. I was tempted to get one but I am holding out for the 1Ds replacement.
Did anybody see that the 300D is now available in black?
If I bought the Mark II, what kind of accessories would I need right away? I know I’d need a large Flash Memory Card, probably enough to fit a CD (thanks to recommendations earlier in this thread). But what else would I need to buy?
From those reviews, the Rebel would appear to be an excellent choice for you.
The reviews do all cite durability as a factor but this probably won’t worry you because you treat your equipment carefully. Just do NOT lend it to anyone else!
Regarding the built in flash: you can disregard those comments because you shouldn’t want to use it — except perhaps at 1/3 power to fill in shadows (if it lets you use it in that way) because you will almost certainly want to get an off-camera flash.
Try to give yourself a day off so that you can go to the nearest dealer and get a hands-on feel for it but beware that you probably won’t go home without it!
[ "That? That old thing? It’s just a camera. Had it for ages. Hadn’t you noticed it until now? "]
You’ll need at least one decent lens (probably a zoom) plus a flash card reader and spare battery to be safe. BTW Linda, I sent you an email about the 10D.
Ann, Cindy: Coming back down to earth. I almost zoomed into outer space with the Mark II temptation. Reason and sanity returning [for now at least]. I’m reminded to crawl before I stand, and stand before I walk… 🙂
Ashley: Thanks for the email… Enlightening and helpful.
Working through this process is great! Fixed on the 300D again.
You could get the Rebel, buy a good lens in a month or so as an addition to the kit lens and when the next camera upgrade comes out get that which will probably be better than the MarkII by then thus saving a bundle 🙂
That’s what I’m thinking Cindy. By this time next year a camera such as the Mark II or it’s replacement may come down enough in price to cover both purchases. It’s the 300D. I would order right this minute but I have work to do… so I’ll sit on it over the weekend.
Do you have a local camera store that carries the 300D? For the camera I prefer a local store in case there is anything wrong you can take it right back. Also, get an extended warranty. Just a good idea.
Cindy: I’m thinking the same thing. I called MacMall and my discount isn’t that great this time. Matter of fact it’s not much of a discount at all, it’s quite a bit higher than other mail order sites I’ve seen.
It would be nice to get plugged into a local retailer, where they can get to know me and be there to help when I need it.
I’ll wait on the lenses then, and make sure I get the extended warranty. Thanks!
A lot of the time a local retailer will teach you a lot. They took a few hours with me. Not so much because I wouldn’t let them go but because these camera folks love to talk camera so are very helpful.
I’m glad you are willing to wait on the lenses. There is a lot to say about that too which is premature.
Since she knows what she is going to the local retailer for they can’t sell her anything she doesn’t want. I have had very good luck with mine. There are many advantages to using a local retailer as long as you do your research before you go in. If they are trying to scam her then she needs to go to the next one.
[1] A digital SLR is indeed what you want for the new work you just described. There is even the "image" issue with clients, which is not a small point. For the work described you might well accomplish the exact same pic with a CP8700 as with a D70, but with a full size SLR you look like a more professional photog to many clients. I am not personally espousing that image concept, but clearly it very substantially exists. And in a way it is true, because having a pro tool in one’s hands often helps lead one toward doing more professional work. Which cameras may look/feel more professional in your hands is up to you to decide: put some time in handling those two cameras!
[2] A very large competitive benefit that accrues to those of us PS-competent folks using SLR digicams is the ability to very quickly get a job done from concept to photo shoot to final web or print output. We do it in a few _hours_! Clients love the instant response – dinosaur film-based work flows cannot compete.
Lighting is of course what photography is all about, and instant lighting as needed for the fast workflow described above very often involves flash photography. If you evolve into doing more of the work you describe, at some point in the near (my advice would be on day 1) future you will want to add a righteous external flash to your digicam.
The key word above is righteous. Old style flash photography as still practiced by most pro and amateur photogs s*cks as an instant-lighting tool even though it works very, very well in the hands of a pro with years of experience and lots of setup/equipment time.
The very latest Nikon camera/strobe systems (e.g. the D70 or D2h with an SB-800 or SB-600 flash unit) are very much better than previous strobe systems, the last generation of which was pretty good. A relative newcomer to SLR strobe photography can now achieve generally pleasing instant flash assisted pix; a boon to those of us building quick-turnaround workflows.
Canon also has one modern strobe for the 300D, the 550 EX. IMO among modern SLR camera/strobe systems Nikons setup is very substantially the best, but if you do select Canon you should plan on that one specific Canon 550 EX strobe being likely in your future. The cost of such external strobes runs in the range of US$300-350.
P.S. Please, please spend some time handling the cameras in question. It sounds like you are evolving to your decision without what is by far the most important information.
Linda, Another flash that works well with the Canons is the Sigma EF-500 DG super. Its around $189 although the 550 is a better build and has a couple more features.
I sent you an email with links. Is your email working?
Thanks Cindy. Yes, I think it’s working… although I never received a response from my email this morning… which is okay… but if you sent one I never got it.
Oh my gosh. I just changed my settings and have a whole bunch of email. Somethings wrong with it. Ever since our DSL went down my Mail has been giving me trouble. Glad you said something Cindy.
Ann must be sleeping, or she would have poached #1000.
Linda-
You may want to review earlier strobe discussions in this thread before any strobe decisions: a strobe that "works with" a camera is not necessarily "state of the art" with that camera. It makes no sense not to take advantage of the very latest technology when it can greatly improve the quality of flash pix. If you buy a 300D there is only one right strobe choice. Or with the (IMO better flash system) Nikon D70 there are only two right strobe choices.
I sort of agree with you on this one Allen. When I bought the Sigma Flash it was when $ was really tight. It works well though I do think the 550EX would be better if she can afford it.
LOL! Now I have another decision to make… which camera store to use. We have several that have been around for a long time. One is quite large, the other very old… then there are several more. I plan to visit them and see how I like the people who work there… as well as check prices.
The prices are going to be within a few dollars of each other because I think Canon sets the price. These stores do not make much commission on the cameras. They make it on lenses and accessories so be careful there.
I would go with the combination of who is most helpful as well as knowledgeable. We (me) can be pests. When I bought one lens at Canoga Camera I took 4 back until I was happy 🙂 I bought the camera at a different place that I actually like better but unfortunately their lenses are too much higher to justify.
Thats another thing. Don’t order lenses on line. When you are ready for that you go to the store that has the most lenses in stock.
Now as far as flash cards and batteries I got those after market and sometimes they are better that way. You do have to get a flash card right away though so you will probably get that at the camera store. 512k is a good size. I would rather have 2 512k than a 1 gig.
By the looks of this thread, neither can anyone else today
Well, I have an excuse, I’m on sick leave, kind of recuperating myself and taking care of my wife, who had surgery last week and has a steel nail protruding from her toe and going into her foot toward the heel. She has to keep her foot elevated above heart level, so she needs lots of help.
Ramon: I’m sorry to hear about your wife’s foot. I hope it heals okay. Hope you also are doing better. Sounds like you’ve had your share of recent troubles.
Cindy: I need to get out and start walking again before my joints freeze up in the seated position.
Thanks, Linda. BTW, I have a picture of the nail; while it’s nowhere as scary as the picture of Wade’s injured hand, it’s still at least mildly disturbing. 🙂
I strongly believe in buying things in person at retail when possible. E.g. if I use a camera store to test shoot new cameras I feel ethically obliged to buy the camera there, even though it costs a bit more.
However, for many other things – like strobes, lenses, filters, film, cameras I don’t store test – many pros including me have successfully used B&H Photo out of NYC for decades. <http://www.bhphotovideo.com/> Unlike many other retail vendors, they are scrupulously honest and fair, and usually have among the lowest real (meaning without scams involved) prices. In addition to mail sales they have a retail store (that everyone should visit at least once, it is better than Disneyland) but taking your time and handling the hardware is NOT part of their sales ethic. The average sale is probably more than US$1000 and takes about 90 seconds – literally!
Note that much camera eqpt. comes in USA and (cheaper) non-USA versions. B&H identifies which is which, but many other sources do not. One trick is to always verify that a USA warranty is in the box.
[Edit] Actually 90 seconds for a transaction is probably an overestimate. It seems the push your multi-thousand-dollar transaction through in half that.
I bought the camera where I tested and I bought most of the lenses where I tested. I like being able to test several lenses before I buy. I am down the street from Canoga Camera which is similar to B&H as far as stock.
I do not feel obliged to buy lenses where I buy the camera but I have tried to be fair if I do a lot of testing. Canoga actually sent me to their competitor when they were out of stock on something so I do try to have a good relationship. Spent good money at 3 different local camera stores.
Allen: I’m glad to know about the USA warranty. I too do not like to take advantage of a store if I don’t plan to use them, but in this case I would like to find out what the people are like as well as test the equipment.
The store I visited a few weeks ago in Wellington will probably not be my choice. The young guy was very nice. The older guy was so so. I knew more than they did about some of the features of the camera. There was no real enthusiasm about their products.
Do try not to buy their demo camera. I bought my camera and after 5000 pictures I noticed that the s/n on the camera did not match the receipt. The store questioned it but I happened to have pictures taken inside their store and each photo has the camera s/n embedded in the EXIF. They exchanged it without any further question.
These cameras are made to where the amount of pictures taken get recorded inside the camera and cannot be changed. You can take your flash card and it can get certain numbers in the camera to change so format your flash with the camera. Actually, you would be better off to buy a new flash card to do your testing with because of the numbering. Hard to explain.
There is a setting that has continuous picture numbering but even if you dont select this it still has embedded the actual number.
She had fractures on both feet but kept walking on them for nearly two years. During that time they tried plastic boots (removable casts really), the device with electrodes that send electrical impulses 24/7, etc. All to no avail. Finally they had to do quite a bit of reconstruction of that particular toe and other parts of her foot.
Bless her heart, I feel so bad for her. Does this seem to be working now? How long do they project it will be before it will heal? Maybe a hug from us will help?
Well, the nail comes out on the 23rd, then two or three more weeks of rest, then a few months of limited activity without putting weight on it. The hugs are appreciated, thanks, 🙂
I’m getting ready to really work now. Just invented a healthy energy cake…really I did. That with a couple cups of black coffee and I’m good to go. Let’s see how much I can get done in 2.5 hours.
Based on this article <http://www.dpreview.com/news/0404/04040801eos300dblack.asp> released today, the black version of the 300D is only being produced in Japan right now. So unless I’m willing to wait I will have to go with the original one… which is really okay. I like the black but not sure I want to keep waiting now that I’m pretty sure of what I want to do.
Canon Japan has today announced a new black bodied version of the ‘Kiss Digital’ as it is known in Japan (EOS 300D / Digital Rebel). At this stage it’s unclear whether Canon will make the new black body available in Europe (as the EOS 300D) or North America (as the Digital Rebel). Remember also that the Japanese market get the USM version of the EF-S 18-55 mm lens which is powered by a normal DC motor in the rest of the world. Personally I think the camera looks much better in black, the color Canon should have chosen right from the start.
Trying to remember who else might be ready to take the plunge? Was it Macmanx or Oz that said they were in the market? Just curious if and what others are planning to do.
Probably not this weekend. I am still quite busy and want to take my time with the final process of tring them out and finding a store that I like. Maybe this coming week though. I actually prefer to shop during the week to avoid the weekend crowds. That way I have a better chance of getting the attention I need.
Ive been away all day, and just got back to read your last post addressed at me… I had to reread it a couple of times to make sure I wasnt hallucinatingit literally left me speechless!
Let me begin by saying this: This conceived notion of yours about me having it in for anyone (especially you) still using OS9 is completely misconstrued. Why should/would it matter to me what any given person prefers as his operating system…? Its an individualistic preferenceplain and simple. I still exchange pleasantries and ideas with some net buddies who are still on 8.6, and swear on their mothers grave that its the ultimate system… 🙂 Who am I, to argue otherwise… if theyre happy, Im happy!
Ive been roaming and participating in user forums since the advent of the net. Never have any of my posts been as misinterpreted as the ones youre referring to in this thread. I dont know about you, but I sometimes get exasperated rereading the same problem topics day in and day out. When youve just finished answering a users question with a lengthy (possible) solution to their problem, and then come back an hour or so later to see another poster requesting answers to the exact same problem…well, lets just say I get a little vexed… especially, after a trying day. Possibly, even worse, is if you never hear back from them again. Now, did my solution work, or didnt it? All too often were left in the dark as to the final outcome. One would think that the aided person would at least extend the courtesy of a simple reply or Thank-you! At least thats the way I was raised and schooled.
So, what does all this rhetoric have in relation to the topic at hand? Years ago, after keenly watching other skilled wordsmiths at work, I found a possible solution to vent away some of my frustrations… Humor! Why not throw out some good-natured humor from time to time to lighten the mood? Seems plausible, right? So I give it a shot, and have successfully used it over the years to brighten my (and hopefully) someone elses day. That is, until yesterday..! I guess I just found out that some of you folks around here are not too keen on some of my raw humor. Either that, or Im starting to lose it! So, for now, I guess Ill have to start picking my spots more diligently… 🙂
The reason I bring this up is your remark about cats and pet shops. I’m old enough to know what I like, what I dislike and what I have a genuine aversion to. Cats fall in that last category. I have been involved with horses all my life and with dogs since I was about four years old. I love both horses and dogs; I hate cats. It’s a genuine phobia. Who knows, it may even be in my genes, for my oldest daughter is deadly allergic to cats, and I do mean in a life-threatening manner.
Now, why in Hades would I go into a pet shop to cuddle up with a cat?
Youve avidly made your point, Ramon… Cats, for you, are definitely out… BTW…if I had known about this beforehand, I certainly wouldnt even have raised the topic… My apologies.
It doesn’t take an IQ much higher than that of a caterpillar’s to realize that isn’t going to change a thing.
Fair is fair, Ramon…but if this is directed exclusively at me… its far more condescending than anything I may have inadvertently suggested in any of my posts.
One thing that amazes me is that you OS X fans seem not to have read my posts where I have set forth why OS 9 suits my needs at this time, otherwise you wouldn’t keep insisting that I make yet an umpteenth painful effort to bang my head against the wall with Panther
I dont have time to read all the daily posts, Ramon… so youll have to pardon me on that count, also. I may simply have missed them.
The reason I’m irritated this time is because it’s become increasingly clear that you presume to feel entitled to act condescendingly because you believe I’m actually resisting OS X out of sheer ignorance.
Nothing, could be further from the truth, then this, Ramon. You are totally, 100% mistaken. Any person who frequents this forum would have to be totally blind to NOT see the valued contributions you make here on a daily basis. I personally command you for your exemplary efforts.
Allow me to turn the tables on you for a change, for it is you who doesn’t have a clue as to what you’re talking about.
Well, if you wanted revenge, I guess you got your wish… Again, my attentions were NEVER meant to cause hard feelings, much less to be construed as provocative or inflammatory. Im sorry you took them as such. My motto in life has always been to try to make friends whenever possibleNOT enemies… unfortunately, we dont always succeed with the latter part.
My take on this fiasco (not the first I’ve been involved in) is that Ramón is a very passionate man (well,.. so am I; that’s not a negative) and he has a tendency to forget his civility (which under normal circumstances is more than adequate). I find myself redrawing the line in the sand closer to my essentials. Hopefully Ramón’s redrawn line will leave out cats (I cannot care less about Sony but don’t touch Rollei : )
Drat! I was looking on dpreview for a new device to keep the topic alive but there’s nothing important to me.
When I want to read on screen some of dpreview and not getting the white on black, I click on "print page" in the bottom of each pages and then cancel. That way I get a readable review.
Don’t you mean Canon Speedlite 420 EX TTL Flash? It works but from what I hear is not really adequate. You need either the 550 EX or the Sigma EF 500 DG Super Flash EOS because both of these have FEC (Flash Exposure Control).
The Rebel does not have built in FEC which some people have considered a handicap. I personally have not had any problems. There is a hack out that enables it but I have not wanted to use it.
Yes, its the one I got back in 84 when I bought my EOS 650. If I remember correctly, it was the best flash unit Canon had to offer then. It cost me over 300 greenbacks back then, and I was hoping that it would suffice for a while if I got the Rebel.
Whats the 550 EX going for now? I can only imagine… If prier experiences are any indication, its probably half the price of the camera.
There used to be a key combo for 8/9 too, but cant think of it right now. When I get a chance Ill look through my OS manuals and see if I can find it.
Thanks, Cindy. Ill wait and see what kind of results I get with 420EX combo before I decide on further action.
My only regret now is that Ill have to invest in CF cards. Oh, well… I wanted a digital Canon, but the deal I got on the Sony was simply too good to be refused. Plus, its still a good little camera thatll be handy to keep around for a while.
You may want to review earlier strobe discussions (e.g. post 986) in this thread before any strobe purchase decisions: a strobe that "works with" a camera is not necessarily "state of the art" with that camera. It makes no sense not to take advantage of the very latest technology when it can greatly improve the quality of flash pix. If you buy a 300D there is only one right strobe choice. Or with the (IMO much better flash system) Nikon D70 there are only two right strobe choices.
Financially even the lowest end digital SLR (the Rebel 300) with cheapest external strobe is in the range of US$1500 total package. Spending 10% more to get the optimal strobe for the camera/lens combination is the smart way to go. If someone cannot afford the correct external strobe they should simply not purchase an external strobe.
In the 1970s and before, third party strobes were often better than those from camera manufacturers. Since the advent of computerization in camera/lens/strobe combinations in the 1980s, however, the performance of matched camera/lens/strobe combinations has typically FAR outperformed third party solutions. The 2003/2004 versions are the best yet, very much improving the quality of most flash pix – especially in the hands of less skilled photogs.
As a working tool for the kind of work Linda referenced, IMO having the very best, most modern strobe/camera/lens system is a hugely important characteristic.
Note 1: the above comments refer to on-camera external flash units for 2004 film/digital SLR cameras.
Note 2: not all lenses, even those by the same camera/strobe manufacturer, support optimum strobe operation (more prepurchase homework to do).
the performance of matched camera/lens/strobe combinations has typically FAR outperformed third party solutions. The 2003/2004 versions are the best yet, very much improving the quality of most flash pix – especially in the hands of less skilled photogs.
Personally, I have never used an external flash directly on the camera, always on a bracket (or on a separate tripod, if shooting conditions allow it).
[EDITED TO ADD: Obviously, in a studio you would use studio lighting.]
I am not going to read over all the threads to find where I DID previously state that I thought getting the 550 EX was a better idea if you can afford but I did say it. But I also believe that if you are strapped for money the Sigma works fine. It is what I did and I don’t regret it.
You keep harping on the same thing when I have already agreed with you.
macmanx ask me about the 420 and my answer was relative to that as I don’t feel it is adequate if you are going to use an external flash because it isn’t strong enough and it does not have FEC.
As far as my camera choice I am completely happy with my choices for a number of reasons which I won’t go into…again. I reviewed it again today and came to the same conclusions.
I fully agree with Ramón that among the current crop of digital SLRs there are no bad ones, just different ones. There are, however, IMO only a very few appropriate strobe choices.
I’m back… not shopping yet. 🙂 I plan to wait until after the holiday weekend to check out my local camera stores. Now that I know what I want, I don’t want to wait too long or some other cause will beg for my bank account. 🙂
Monday I have a job to finish. Tuesday one of my clients wants another Photoshop lesson before he goes north for the summer. So I might aim for Wednesday or Thursday. I am very excited about this.
Allen, I do plan to buy the 550 EX Strobe. Not sure if it will be at the same time as the camera. We shall see.
Hi John! I wondered where you were. I am going for the Canon 300D.
Why are you fellows referring the flash units as strobes? A flash unit lamp and housing is very different in design, light emission and color temperature than a strobe unit.
It might sound professional and the camera manufacturers may be labeling these flash units as strobes but quite frankly there is no comparison even if they are technical considered a strobe. It’s like calling Welch’s grape jelly preserves. Just doesn’t spread the same way.
OK, macmanx, I’m trying hard to like you here. Please enlighten me as to which one of the currently available digital SLRs is bad according to your definition.
The only recent digital camera which springs to mind that I would actually call bad is the Kodak 14n. To be fair there is a brand new updated version that is probably a lot better but the original camera which was launched about a year ago suffered from terrible noise levels in shadow areas that required huge amounts of post production work and it was very limited in its ISO settings. Despite the incredible 14MP resolution I’d still call that a bad digital camera.
I have no axe to grind with Kodak, I just don’t think the noise levels shown on that camera in practically any situation except the studio were acceptable with a "pro" label on the camera.
On a slightly different subject, has anybody seen this:
Linda, the D2h is actually a very new camera that was only released a few months ago. It is aimed at sports photographers primarily who need speed rather than high resolution and there have been a few reports that the quality is not as good as it should be.
Really that article just backed up what I said earlier that producing successful large format prints is very subject dependent and relies heavily on the method of interpolation chosen.
I always feel with digital that when you get everything right it can look fantastic, but small errors which would often not show with film can make you look bad as a photographer if you mess up. The capture medium may have changed but good technique is more essential than ever.
These images are not altered in any way different than my typical prep for web display. They are Fine JPEGs, straight from the D2H camera, ISO200, resized to 72 dpi, converted to sRGB colorspace, and one application of USM at 500%, R0.1, T0 simply to correct for digital capture.
What a bizarre way to set up a picture for printing.
Ashley it should be pointed out that the lab probably used a very high end sharpening software and that they use such as software at a lab I use to use called Color wheel where I saw them take a low resolution scan made from a slide on a poor flat bed scanner that was fussy and pixelated at 4 x6 inches and re-interpolate the file to 11×14 and it looked as good as what you saw in that posting.
So yes if you have the software you are fie and quite frankly it doesn’t matter how you shoot it.
Heidleberg has such software a very interesting thing to see. I am sure there are others.
The only recent digital camera which springs to mind that I would actually call bad is the Kodak 14n.
You’re right of course, That camera was not only bad but terrible. I don’t think it qualifies as a current model any more, though. From my viewpoint, it represented a premature release motivated by sheer desperation on the part of Kodak.
Sure why not you have one? Are we talking about the medium format or large format version? The medium format you know will no longer be made! That is because they think that it will not improve the quality over the newer 35mm size digital cameras and of course they aren’t selling a whole lot of them.
I have always used the term strobe rather than flash to apply to both. The dictionary definition is
strobe light: n. A flash lamp that produces high-intensity short-duration light pulses by electric discharge in a gas.
Anyway it sounds like just semantics to me.
Regarding technical differences between (using your preferred terminolgy) strobes and flashes, would you please elaborate? My understanding was that flash units like those used on Nikon & Canon SLRs are around 5000K temperature as are "daylight" studio strobes; the big difference being in power and recycle times. Of course studio strobes of other temps are also available.
Suggesting that all digital cameras are premature is pretty silly when the digital SLRs work so well and have so many benefits over scanned 35 mm film for many pix. Only when compared to scanned medium format film are SLR digicams still premature.
The studio strobe or monolight or mono block units have a lamp that is mounted outside of the housing that is they send the light in all directs. they doe have a small reflective surface behind the lamp but they remain omnidirectional and are general shape in a circular con figuration although there are more specialized lamps as well, as opposed to a flash unit which has a lineal tube that is housed in a reflective housing and offers only directional lighting, part of the reason for red eye. The color temperature of the flash unit as opposed to a professional strobe unit I have never seen one that is actually 5000k even though all of them state that they are 5000k.
Because a strobe is omnidirectional if you bounce it of two or three adjoining surfaces you will obtain a true diffused light and a very natural look you will never be able to achieve this with a flash. It is true that light is light but it becomes an issue when you want to control it. You can use all sort of bounce apparatus with a flash and you will never achieve what you will with a simple operation and a strobe unit.
Also keep in mind the amount of power and light you will get from a strobe output is enormous by comparison to any flash unit 1000ws is something like a guide number of 600. The highest monolight comes in 1500ws I believe but there are power packs that yield 6000ws though you need several heads to take advantage of this.
A powerful flash might yield 100ws the Norman 200B is 200ws and is really a battery operated strobe as it requires a reflector to give it true directional light as do all strobe units.
Todie 6:30 would be fine where would one meet I guess at Color Edge how about tomorrow?
Allen, it is true what you say about what the dictionary says as it is not defining the word in the professional context that a photographer might.
There are strobes that are not even photographic equipment. I am referring to the difference between camera flash and a bona-fide studio or location strobe or mono-light.
I do not follow religious Holidays myself, I have no real calling for it. So I am never up to date, perhaps next week when the Holidays are over. They are over then? I know I have clients away until next Friday.
Is that when it all ends? I hope you are not offended by my ignorance in this matter.
Ramon, I am hearing some much more positive things about the new Kodak 14n and from a couple professionals that I trust. It seems like a lot of the old problems have been fixed and that this camera is now capable of some outstanding results.
The overall opinion I have heard is that it is a camera which needs to be treated with great care and that the 1Ds is more tolerant of exposure errors, however, if you get it right with the new incarnation of the 14n its honestly capable of outperforming the 1Ds from a quality standpoint with higher resolution and much better colours and zero noise that really takes sharpening very well.
Please enlighten me as to which one of the currently available digital SLRs is bad according to your definition.
The only DSLR Ive ever used or been associated with was with the Canon D60, which I enjoyed. My post was in reference to a recent incident… I ran into someone in a coffee shop who said he used a HP DSLR for a week. His exact words: A piece of sh*t.
That’s because HP is a printer company. I’m not even sure what would posess a person to buy an expensive camera from HP (or Epson for that matter). Would you buy a blender from Toyota or a bicycle from Panasonic?
🙂
Granted, they pitch themselves as a digital photo company, but there’s a difference between making a good consumer-grade PAS camera vs. a fully functional DSLR. Entirely different animals.
They might have been refering to the HP PhotoSmart cameras (an SLR-like camera.. not a true SLR…instead of having a mirror, there is a beam-splitting prism that directs part of the light to the viewfinder and part of the light to the CCD sensor)
Chris – no I’ve never handled any of the 14n bodies whether Nikon or Sigma based.
I never thought for a moment that the handling would be as good as the Canon 1Ds but I have heard that if you edge towards overexposure with the 14n and use Camera Raw you can preserve the highlights and still maintain noise free shadows with great colours and resolution.
The photographers I know who are doing this are very satisfied with the results and say are preferable to the 1Ds which they have also used.
Sorry Chris, with this bad cold I misunderstood your original question. This medicine is strong stuff!
No I haven’t ever played with the Sigma digital cameras, though I have received a few files to play with. The images looked very sharp, but the jagged edges in some parts were pretty horrible and the colour looked like it had come from some cheap no brand film and had been poorly processed.
There has never been a digital SLR manufactured by HP or marketed under the HP brand that I can find anywhere.
Interesting! I never saw the camera in question… I just did a search at dpreview for SLR, and the HP Photosmart C912 shows up alongside the Canon 300D, 10D, Kodaks, and others. Under format: SLR. However, looking at the picture and reading the specs, reveals otherwise. Looks like the poor guy fell for the marketing hype.
This seems to be a good case for: Dont believe everything you hear…
Either way (I’ve never even bothered looking at HP cameras), whether it’s an SLR or an integrated "prosumer" camera (like the E-20), you’d be nuts to spend a lot of money on an HP camera. They make some OK Point and Shoot type deals I think (competing with Kodak and Fuji PAS), but that’s about it. Marketing hype indeed.
The HP Photosmart C912, definitely not an SLR, is nothing other than the Pentax EI-2000 sold in Japan in Europe under the proper model and brand name of its manufacturer. It was made by Pentax with the HP name and logo stamped on it.
While not a digital SLR by any stretch of the imagination, that Pentax camera was actually an excellent performer within the limits of its class range (2.24 megapixels) at the time it came out. It was made to look more like an SLR, at the time when digital cameras in its class looked more like belt buckles or screwed up miniature TVs, but it had none of the functioning characteristics of a digital SLR.
I make it a point to go through with my spring purchases before completing my tax return. I know what the IRS does to people’s plans. Fortunately, this year I owe them less than any time in the past 25 years, but I still have to mail them that check –on the 15th and not one day before.
That’s funny Ramon. My husband is filing early this year. 🙂 It’s too late for my camera purchase. It was my income that did it too. I made more than I thought I did.
That’s a good idea. Too late this time though. I also forgot to mention that my next big expense will probably be my inevitable printer repairs. Hey, anyone want to buy a lemon of a printer for $3,000.00. I paid around $6,500.00 for it and it retailed for $8,000.00 with the duplexer. Joking of course… no one is going to want my printer. 😉
PS, We are so busy here, not really set up with the new DCS Pro SLR/n Camera, thanks for the post about adding RAM. A beautiful camera, requiring that we upgrade the G4 we use in the photo studio.
Post 1126… sure is a lot of drooling going on around here.
The fixed pellicle mirror was introduced back then when the Canon Pellix came out, if I recall correctly. Yes, there were arguments pro and con as to whether it was a true reflex. The idea was that it wasn’t just a prism splitting the light, but if the mirror did reflect enough light through the viewfinder, then it wasn’t a plain mirror either. Just the same, not all the light entering the lens reached the focal plane, since part of it went to the eye of person taking the shot.
Nope! Worms is for the garden, feeding the birds or fish bait.
Canon have been making fixed mirror cameras for just short of four decades. Somehow I think that had the definition of SLR been a moving mirror then they would have corrected their blunder by now 😉
Canon have been making fixed mirror cameras for just short of four decades.
I agree. The Canon Pellix I mentioned in my post # 1130 was the first one. Your link confirms it.
Still, the Pentax EI-2000/HP C912 had no mirror, but a prism that splits the light in two.
Even if you apply the definition of SLR very broadly to include a prism instead of a mirror in order to apply it to Pentax EI-2000/HP C912, which is a bit of stretch (in the German-speaking world, it was marketed as a "spiegelreflexartige Kamera", "SLR-like camera"), the fact is that it was not a "bad" camera in its class.
So, same camera, called an "SLR-like camera" in Europe and a "digital SLR" by HP in the USA. That says something about HP’s perception of their customer base.
Then you should have written "a law" rather than "the law", since you’re speculating and not referencing a specific law. Besides, advertising laws are rarely enforced and even more rarely complied with.
I do think it has to do with what a corporation perceives to be the strength or weakness of their intended market base. The usual hype we see in the US rarely goes well in Europe, in my observation. It’s more a question of approach rather than claims, I think.
Advertisers wish to get away with many tricks, both in Europe and the US, but some things, like (just an example) subliminal messages are prohibited by law.
Actual cases involving so-called "subliminal advertising" are, in actuality, few and far between. Nevertheless, one recent federal district court case did involve the allegation of subliminal advertising. (Rickel v. Mountain Valley Television Corporation, et al., No. C-96-1033 DLJ, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19961, November 27, 1996.)
I have seen someone get a ticket for jay-walking : )
Oh, I’ve seen a senior federal judge being ticketed for jay walking two blocks from the federal courthouse. That’s easy to accomplish. 🙂
Suing or prosecuting for advertising excesses is a horse of a different color.
I think American professional photographers are not dumber then their European counterparts.
I hardly think a professional photographer (anywhere in the world) would have considered buying the HP C912. The intended market base is a different one. And, yes, it’s easier to get a certain segment of the American consumer base to buy certain things like pet rocks or a pasta machine. Look at Ron Popeil.
We had concluded that the HP C912 is not an SLR, not is it remotely aimed at professionals. (One non-removable 3x zoom lens + 2x digital zoom, 2 megapixel, etc.) The "digital SLR designation" was aimed at certain types of snobs in the market who know little about photography.
Nope, that ticket wasn’t dismissed. The judge sent a cheque forfeiting bail, i. e, paid the fine.
Well, the gentleman was soon thereafter diagnosed with Alzheimers. If he hadn’t paid the fine, the ticket would have been dismissed. He’s passed away since.
While not a digital SLR by any stretch of the imagination, that Pentax camera was actually an excellent performer within the limits of its class range (2.24 megapixels) at the time it came out.
If this is the same model the person I talked to used, then he certainly didnt share your glowing reviews. Quite the opposite, in fact… three flaws he harped on were: corrupted memory cards, (his biggest beef) exposure problems, and excessive battery usage.
So you got double BS from that person.
Not necessarily! There are those ignominious creatures posing under the moniker of ‘Lemons’ rolling off assembling lines every day. Its quite possible that he couldve gotten hold of a Monday Morning Special, or a late Friday Afternoon Express. He certainly wouldn’t have been the first person cursed with that affliction. Nor, sorry to say, the last!
You’re talking about hypothetical conclusions based on a model you’re not even sure of, used by a person you ran into in a coffee shop, and you feel confident to express an opinion on a camera you’ve never used and debate it. It certainly puts your previous posts into perspective.
You’re talking about hypothetical conclusions based on a model you’re not even sure of, used by a person you ran into in a coffee shop, and you feel confident to express an opinion on a camera you’ve never used and debate it. It certainly puts your previous posts into perspective.
Oh man, here we go again… this topic is perilously spiraling out of control, so Ill take the initiative step to rise above it and put it to sleep.
Somehow, somewhere, we got off to a rough start, Ramon. Im throwing out my white flag… Truce..?
Things are looking a little better. I might end up with money for the 300D after all, in a week or two.
Linda,
Keep digging away… I need a 300D ciber-buddy to share my trials and tribulations with once I eventually spring for mine… 🙂 Hopefully, Cindy will take us under her wing as well.
That darn old tax man… seems like every year he wants a bigger slice of the pie, doesnt he? One of these years well just have to throw up our hands and say: enough is enough, and go on strike. Or, form a union! Maybe that’ll teach ’em… 😉
MacManX: I’m trying to remember… Do you already own the 300D or are you getting ready to buy one? Cyber-buddy sounds like a good idea… Kind of like an extension of what we are doing in this thread. Cindy has been a wonderful resource and inspiration with photography to me… and provided she has the time, I trust will enjoy teaming up with us.
The D70 is compared to the Rebel 300D and other cameras in a very comprehensive review. The review seems to concur with my earlier opinion that at only US$100 more than the digital Rebel 300D (camera bodies only) the Nikon D70 is MUCH more camera.
Among other things, the author in detail and with sample photos disusses the HUGE benefits of the latest Nikon flash technology as expressed in the D2h and D70, confirming what I posted earlier:
"From the above, it’s easy to see that flash photography is one area in which the D70 easily outdistances its competition. To even approach the capability offered by the D70, you’d have to spend several hundred dollars more for a wireless strobe trigger system for a competing d-SLR. And even with a wireless slave system, you’d still lack the effortless TTL flash metering the D70 provides. If you have any significant interest in flash photography, the D70 really stands alone (along with its big brother, the D2H) in the d-SLR market."
This review seems to concur with my earlier opinion that at only US$100 more than the digital Rebel 300D (camera bodies only) the Nikon D70 is MUCH more camera.
Thanks for the link. I went there and attempted to preview some of the photos. After a few previews they crashed my browser. I’ll try downloading them this time so I can see up close how things look.
I’m hoping to find an updated page with comparrison photos between the 300D and the D70. I realize I’m supposed to not go by all that but it’s better than nothing right now. 🙂
I hope you don’t hate me… I know I’m not supposed to go by those samples… but I figure who ever took those pictures surely knows more than I do, so I must somewhat go by them… but I think they are missing something… particularly the Musicians group. Ugh!
That review site has reviewed almost every digicam since digicams started coming out. Generally they do a very good job.
The pix are not supposed to "look good." They are a standard set of pix they take with every camera reviewed, to attempt to compare different sensors/software/etc. Particularly early in the digicam evolution individual cameras would shoot warmer or with a green cast or whatever. Today mostly they can help with identifying resolution quality and the ability to check shadow detail.
The musicians image I believe they use to visualize white balance changes. You may also check the same musicians image as tested on the other cameras you consider. However in my strong opinion what really matters is what YOU test shoot. Like I have said many times, ergonomics are far, far more important than small details as reported by any given reviewer, and more important than other folks opinions in this thread, including mine.
Ha! It’s too late I just read that Jeb Bush has outlawed the use of digital cameras in the State of Florida because they cause to many car accidents! Or is that cell phones?
are you going to tell me that there has never been an accident because a driver was eating or reading the newspaper or shaving or using the stereo or putting on makeup etc…
I didn’t know that law passed. I guess I’d better get in the habit of turning mine off while I drive… since I am a compulsive phone answerer.
As for Jeb Bush, we are lucky to have him in Florida… regardless of what I might think about the cell phone law… although cell phones really are a problem on the road.
Now, let’s not spoil this wonderful thread.
Back to digital cameras? 🙂
I have one of the pros getting ready to show me some shots from his new Nikon D70. He has all kinds of equipment and has won all kinds of awards for his photography. He is elated over the new Nikon so I’m going to take another look.
I’ve been asked to take some pictures of this year’s Parade of Breeds for our community Equestrian Show (this one not for pay). I lost track of the time and just found out that it’s this Sunday. Last time I used my Nikon 990 but this time I would like to be able to use my new camera… but I haven’t bought it yet… and worst of all, I don’t know how to use it…
If I buy the Canon 300D, I wonder if the automatic settings work sufficiently in a pinch. 🙂
Thanks for the link John. I’ll check it out shortly.
Hi Ann. I got on the phone and called a local camera shop. They don’t have the 300D in stock and are going to call me back about ordering it and price.
I think I’d better slow down. I want to enjoy this process and not be pushed into anything. My 990 did a decent job for the last two shows, better than any other photos I saw if I remember right. It should serve me well enough again. Some of the photos will be published in an equestrian magazine… provided they turn out okay.
Maybe I’ll dig up some from the last two shows and see what you think.
Oy! I’m a little nervous. The other place I called last week was short with me. I want to find a place where they will offer me support and be NICE too. If they are short over the phone without having met me, what will they be like if I end up having lots of questions. I may as well order from Mac Mall if that’s the case… cause I sure won’t have the nerve to go in for help if I’m not comfortable.
Maybe the Apple store is a good idea. It’s an hours drive though. It’s getting late to start out now as most places close by 6PM. Maybe I’ll start out early tomorrow morning, start at my end of town, and work my way south to the Apple store. The Ritz store is also in the same mall, which is where I tried out the 300D a few weeks ago.
I will be buying the kit lens… mainly because I have way too much to learn to be messing around with special lenses at this point. I’ll start with the basics and then add to them once I get more experience.
For the extra $75 I’d get the kit lens as it’s nice and wide…then get a second lens in a few months when you feel comfortable with the camera… you might have a better idea on what lens you could use as you mentioned about shooting birds – the 28-70 is just too short for bird photography. Though the pros use 400 to 600mm lens you could get a 300 Zoom as a compromise.
It appears that prepurchase handling/testing of cameras is a lost concept on this group. <sigh>
It appears that recommendations to stick with the-same-brand for cameras, lenses and strobes ia also lost on this group. Folks seem to think that the cheaper third party manufacturers fully understand what Nikon and Canon are up to with their complex electronics, both now and in the future. <sigh> <sigh>
The ERR 99 messages is the Canon "fit all" explanation for anything it can’t quite explain. It happens with Canon lenses too and might not be anything to do with the lenses at all. I’ve luckily never had this problem but know some others who experience it regularly. Canon seemed intent on making this look like a Sigma issue and that is not necessarily the case.
With all that said, I once bought a Sigma lens but sold it pretty quickly and now use Canon only but it was more related to an issue of colour consistency with film because the Canon lenses all seem to have the same look and the Sigma colours were very different and I have to say less attractive. Its debatable if this is so important with so much digital manipulation going on nowadays.
People underestimate the way that a lens can change the feel of an image and its not all about shear resolution. I have run frequent tests between Nikon, Canon, Carl Zeiss and Mamiya lenses and found that the biggest differences are not so much in sharpness but in the way that subtle tonal nuances are revealed.
Then I had a conversation with the photographer who took that shot and here is a link to what John Burnett had to say <http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?14@@.2cd0701a/114> about lenses. BTW, this conversation took place over a month ago.
Let me put this in perspective Linda, the Canon images just looked more real to me, but don’t let my one experience from several years ago influence you too much. My chief problem was that everything was consistent on the colour front while using Canon lenses regardless of focal length or when I had bought the lens. If you threw the shots done with the Sigma somewhere in the same sequence, it looked like the lab had messed up with the processing or I’d worked with a different batch of film.
No insult intended, Mike. It is just that from a gearhead’s technical perspective, inserting third party components into complex *proprietary* computer-based camera/lens/flash systems just to save a few bucks is not smart. This is not film in the 1970s; SLR digicams are complex interoperating systems, not independent stand alone components. You can still take pix with third party (or unmatched same-brand) components, but at the cost of losing some modern capabilities.
And, when purchasing components today, we want to optimize as best we can for the future as well. When I first started paying a bit more for Nikon "D" lenses back in the 80s they really had very little benefit over cheaper Nikon glass with identical optics. However, that small additional amount spent then has meant that those lenses have been capable of 100% utilization in every Nikon tech feature since then, including the latest flash system and camera technology as represented by the SB-600/800 and D2h/D70.
This is probably the main paragraph I took note of from John Burnett:
The ‘tomato’ picture to which you refer was taken with a true macro lens the Tamron 90mm f2.8. It is one of the sharpest lenses available for this purpose. I have recently settled on two other Tamrons, the 17-35 f2.8 ‘di’ and the 28-75 f2.8 ‘di’, to do most of the ‘walkabout’ photography. Note that it took two lenses to cover the range of the kit lens. Yes, I did pick up a bit of extra range, and they are a bit faster, but the chief benefit is sharpness and contrast. Ummmm, and I have that Macro lens. And a 50mm f1.8 for low light situations. And I’m thinking about a longer zoom. Arrrrgggh! You can see why many people opt for a digicam!
Would anyone like to comment on the Tamron that John Burnett spoke about?
Like I said, you can still take (excellent) pix. You are just likely to lose some features (e.g. some flash system capabilities) now and/or in the future.
He isnt just talking about one lens but two. The first: Tamron SP AF 17-35mm F/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical (IF) Zoom Lens EOS = $479 Tamron SP AF 28-75mm 2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical [IF] Zoom Lens EOS = $319
Get the kit lens… After you have used the camera for a while then start your lens research. You cannot do it in a day and you need the camera now.
With both Sigma and Tamron lenses, each within its own line of lenses, you will see a substantial leap in quality (and price) when you go to the faster lenses. The f/2.8 indicated maximum aperture usually remains constant throughout the range of focal lengths achievable by the zoom lens, whereby the cheaper (kit) zoom lenses are slower and their maximum aperture varies, such as 3.5-4.6 or whatever.
All of the above holds true for Nikon and Canon lenses, each within their own line of lenses.
A faster lens with non-variable maximum aperture is just more expensive to make, so it has to be aimed at a more demanding segment of the market.
One Sigma zoom lens that I found to be very good was the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, for instance. If I were a zoom lens fan, I would have kept it.
Okay, bear with me please as I have a hypothetical question… for those who are not ready for a nap by now. 🙂
Take the tomato shot. <http://www.pbase.com/image/24687570&exif=Y> If I were to develop the skills and understanding to do so, along with producing the same lighting, could I get a shot that good with a Canon lens?
I realize that there is a lot more to good photography than a good camera… so my expectations of what I can produce are realistic and not too lofty right now. Just so long as I know I have the right equipment to achieve my goals in time, I will be happy… very happy. 🙂
Surprisingly little is missing, given that Canon has had to be careful not to cannibalize sales from its next up the model-ladder brother, the almost twice as expensive 10D. Of course image quality is of primary concern, and I’ll cut to the chase. When using the same lenses image quality is essentially identical to that from the Canon 10D. Both cameras use virtually the identical imaging chip and processing electronics, so this isn’t surprising.
Slow down. You WANT to test the camera before you purchase it.
For the horse show.. the camera you have will work just fine, you did it before with that camera & you can do it again.
Rushing into this will just get you all nervous & that won’t do you any good trying to deal with a new camera at this event.. you need to be comfortable with what you are working with.
Take the time to find the camera in stock somewhere.. so you can hold it & test it & see if it is a good fit for you. Then you can also look at the lenses & see what you like.
You’re right. I might take a ride tomorrow if it looks like my schedule might be clear. But I do not want to ruin this whole thing with a sudden impulse.
BTW, I did test the 300D several weeks ago. Trouble is, at that time I was intersted in the Pro1 which was not in stock… so I failed to take the 300D seriously at that time.
I took a picture of the guy who works in the store using RAW. He also took one of me but used JPG. These were automatic settings though and when I got them home I noticed the lighting was not too good.
So go back re-look at it & be very aware of your settings, lighting conditions etc.. take your camera with you & take similar shots with your own camera.. then compare.
Take the tomato shot. If I were to develop the skills and understanding to do so, along with producing the same lighting, could I get a shot that good with a Canon lens?
You can can that quality with your Nikon 990 – just can’t blow it up too big. It’s really the photographer’s skills.
Yes you can get the quality with the Canon 300D too.
The following people use Canon 300D and/or Canon 10D:
Thomas Knoll Chris Cox Andrew Rodney Bruce Fraser Jeff Schewe – He’s a Canon guy but not sure if you uses the 300D/10D Mike Ornellas
What more can I say? They know something about the Canon image.
JPEG at its highest resolution is an excellent format with many benefits for some situations. Certainly if a pic in the store was "bad," the use of JPEG was not the reason, unless one of the low JPEG settings was used. One thing to do in testing camera A vs. camera B is to shoot four quick photos set at best JPEG and the same four RAW with each camera. Different cameras may perform very differently (e.g. Nikon D100 is slow at repetitive RAW captures but the Nikon D70 fixed that).
I have been reading this thread with interest so I will jump in at this point.
Re tomato – Canon makes 2 very good macro lenses 100 2.8 and 180 3.5L. There is also a MP-E 65 2.8 but that is strictly macro whereas the other 2 function as regular lenses as well.
Re testing the 300D – You should really spend at least a few days shooting with the camera to get to know it. When you test it, test it’s limits so you know when noise appears, when exposures might not be as accurate etc.
As others have said just get the standard lens with the kit and get really comfortable with that before going to extra lenses. When considering lenses, try to but the best you can afford. Let’s say in future years you decide to get a higher res camera like a 1Ds, if you don’t have really good optics you won’t be able to get the most from the camera.
John and Mike: Those are some impressive heavy weights alright. Thanks! 🙂
Thanks for jumping in Jim. All this input is so helpful. I’ll hang onto your comments.
Allen: I went back and looked at those pictures again. Actually, other than a little glare from the store backlighting, they are not as bad as I thought. I might post the one I took of the store clerk. I told him I might post it at a forum and he did not seem to object… so I trust it’s okay.
Safari is not color manage, when you want to look at some pictures, drag the photo to your desktop and open it in PS. That way you can zoom-in and check the levels.
Sylvain: I too like to open them in Photoshop. Thanks for the link. Looked at that picture only taken with the D70 yesterday. I guess it might be good to compare them. I’ll check out the highlight and shadows as well. Thanks!
You know everything I am reading about the D70 is extremely positive. I currently use the 10D but I would have to agree with the reviewers when they say that for $100 more it seems quite a bit more capable than the 300D. All in all, I really think that anybody looking at these cameras should go and test them side by side and only then make an informed choice.
Linda really has to just buy a camera with some professional features so she can give it a whirl. And she might want bend a knee or elbow when composing the images.
So far it is strictly eye level and a bit well it have something more to say about the subject.
My neighbor came wandering over to my house kind of delirious. She had fallen off a makeshift ladder and hit her head pretty badly on the cement. She was having trouble remembering things. I sat her down and put peroxide on her elbow scrape, called her doctor and was told to take her to the ER, where we have been until now — 10:45 PM. She had a cat scan and seems to be okay. It ended up being a nice time getting to know her better… after 15 years. All’s well that ends well. 🙂
Staff photographer Bob Rosato’s collection of gear is fairly typical. To a football game he takes four or five EOS-1D bodies and 600mm f/4, 400mm f/2.8, 300mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8, and 50mm f/1.4 lenses. For basketball, he adds five or six EOS-1Ds cameras and dispenses with the 400 and 600mm lenses. Of the ten or so camera bodies that he takes to a basketball game, many are of course mounted overhead or around the basket for remote operation.
That’s kind of amusing! For football or basketball game!
It is also amusing to see that sports illustrator has so many digital images. It was posted here many times that this magazine shoots mostly digital these days so I picked up a couple of copies of different issues. I took a pretty close look at the photographs.
That film grain filter they’ve been using to make those digital images look like they were shot with film is impressive.
Over 1 million photos just digital I wonder how many images they use in an issue times twelve times the number of years. It’s amusing!
The Canon was in first place… then the Nikon began gaining ground… then the Canon pulled ahead again… and now the Nikon is pulling up almost toe to toe. What a race!
I’m obviously not quite ready to buy yet. Must remove all plausible doubt… whatever that means. 🙂
This morning I received a call back from another camera shop that I called yesterday. He told me that the 300D is not American made and would have no warranty in the US. I questioned him about it and he said it is only known at the Rebel in the US, not 300D. So I asked how many mps it has and he said 6.3. I might have jumped in my car and gone over there right away but by the time he said 6.3 his tone was getting a little irate… just what I don’t want. I said "Okay, thank you!" with a certain finality about it and ended the conversation. I don’t like doing that but if I figure that if they can’t be patient over the phone, what will it be like after the sale when I come back to ask questions.
I don’t know what this camera shop is talking about but if it does not have a warranty then something is wrong. Actually, you should get an extended warranty. I think there are Best Buy stores in Florida that sell a good extended warranty with the Rebel. At least that is what I have heard. Just a thought…
Of course the camera is not American made…Maybe he was saying the camera is a gray market camera and has no US warranty. Avoid this camera shop and any that sell gray market – if your gray market camera has a problem US Canon will not fix it.
I was walking down the street yesterday, when this blonde… oops (fallacious drooling!)
Also, is one just as good as the other?
Good question, Linda… I, too, would like to know whats behind the two different naming schemes… Anybody really know? Here in Canada its sold as the Rebel by at least one retailer Ive come across.
Every camera has it’s idiosyncrasies no matter what you pay for it. When it comes to lenses you will find that one manufacturer is better at certain focal lengths than the other. Just keep the basic questions like these on your mind:
Feel of the camera (shape, controls, weight etc) Image quality (should be judged by prints) Viewfinder (easy to focus, bright enough etc) Color rendition Auto focusing (accurate, easy to override if you want to do it yourself) Flash (accurate, easy to use)
The more choices we have the harder it is to make a decision and the easier it is to question if we have made the right one. All we can do is make our best judgment and go with it. Believe me I have questioned more of my decisions than I want to admit to so I understand quandaries 🙂
Jim: I’m enjoying the article. I’m trying to remember the keyboard shortcut for reading the text reversed. My eyes are playing tricks on me with that white text over black.
He told me that the 300D is not American made and would have no warranty in the US. I questioned him about it and he said it is only known at the Rebel in the US, not 300D.
Never deal with that shop again. He obviously had a "Gray Market" item, meaning imported directly from Japan without Canon’s authorization. That’s why Canon will not honor the warranty in the US.
Some shady dealers even utilize that tactic so they can charge way more for the US-warranty model, usually hundreds of dollars more than their advertised price. They may not even have the gray market item at all; if you insist on buying a gray market camera at the lower price, they’ll just say it’s out of stock.
I’m trying to remember the keyboard shortcut for reading the text reversed
About the guy from the store, I think I explained it wrong. He told me that the 300D was gray market and was discouraging me from ordering it. He just wanted me to know that the US model was only known as the Digital Rebel ESO. This was sinking in as we spoke. The part that bothered me was the edge that increased in his voice when I asked about the mega pixels. I had not been on the phone more than 60 seconds and sensed the guy was getting impatient.
I know this is going to sound silly, but I am at a point in my life where I would prefer to surround myself with people who are more positive and less irritable. I realize that we all have our moments and we have to tolerate a certain amount of stuff, but whenever possible, if I have a choice, I would like to to find postive, supportive, and most of all patient people to give my business to… oh and honest of course. 🙂
I guess I would like to be treated as well as I try to treat my own clients.
He told me that the 300D was gray market and was discouraging me from ordering it. He just wanted me to know that the US model was only known as the Digital Rebel ESO.
I misunderstood, sorry. Yes, that would be correct, the model sold in the US with a USA warranty is called the EOS Digital Rebel.
Well it sounds like he is an honest guy after all and that it is your interpretation that is flawed. Also he was just responding to what to him must have been seen as a sign of mistrust on your part after he explained it was the same camera and made it quite clear that it was the camera and model you would want to buy if purchasing it for use in the US.
Quite frankly look at the picture you painted of this person and how everyone jumped on him just from taking in your view point. Hell on the phone or over the internet is really difficult to come to such conclusions in 60 seconds.
I think the guy is better off if you don’t buy from him. That s my conclusion!
Long ago in this thread I suggested that Linda not try to use the camera shop guys for info; naturally, some folks disagreed. Also the whole USA/non-USA warranty issue was discussed. But do use a retail store for test handling the gear and for actually buying the product. IMO it is unethical to handle product at brick-and-mortar retail without buying at brick-and-mortar retail.
Manufacturers and dealers love selling extended warranties! IMO extended warranties on high tech gear are no way worth the relatively very high cost, since most anomalies occur under warranty, and by the time the warranty expires the product has become old tech anyway. And such warranties seldom if ever cover the most likely thing to happen to a camera, which is shock-related damage.
About the extended warranty, I think you are right. I called and got info from Best Buy that they offer a four year extended warranty for $100, which is very good. The guy also said parts was covered automatically 1 year, labor only 90 days. But when I checked the Best Buy web site I got different informamtion. There it said both labor and parts are covered for 1 year.
I think my expectations for service and support are unrealistic so I’m just going to buy from the camera store at a mall close by for convenience. I might even spare the people my presence and allow my husband to make the purchase. 🙂
Now that my husband knows that I’m supposed to take pictures for the horse show tomorrow he wanted me to buy the camera tonight. I actually have decided it best not to use a new camera at the horse show because of all the dust in the air. I’d rather take pics with my old camera than to subject my new camera to all that dirt while it is still new.
BTW Allen: I truly appreciate your perspective on things and whereas I do think handling the camera is a good idea, I’m sure either the Nikon or the Canon will handle well enough for my liking. I still think I’m going with the Canon, although I’m recommending the Nikon to some people I know.
I still would like an 8 MP but I think the Rebel should be enough for me to learn on this coming year. It will be interesting to see where we all end up next year. 🙂
I worked on a CD package last year. I happened to remember that the photo on the back was shot by some local people that I know a little. I called the guy this morning and we had a nice discussion about cameras. He uses Canon film and his wife uses Nikon digital. His wife is looking to buy a new digital. They haven’t had time to research the reviews so I sent her an email filling her in on the new D70.
IMO selecting among cameras without handling them is a mistake. Any given camera can "feel/handle" very different to different folks. E.g. I have large hands and many cameras are clumsy in my hands. A person with smaller hands may well have a whole different set of preferences. Those preferences have a significant impact on how readily a photog "gets the shot." And that is just hand size, only one parameter of ergonomics.
That said, there are all kinds of good interpersonal family finances reasons for having your husband "pick it out." <g>
IMO 6 MP vs. 8 MP is an almost meaningless issue. Optics, ergonomics, optics, flash software, optics, etc. are all much more important.
Use your new camera – that is all it is good for. Don’t leave it in the closet for fear of dust! And any 6MP SLR is a much, much better horse show camera than the s-l-o-w CP990. You can still (literally) have your CP990 in your pocket, just in case.
Thanks Allen. Good points… especially about the speed. I might actually get some horses while they are still jumping. 🙂 Last time I had to guess and click early in order to catch the horse as it went over the jumps.
My husband may be out buying one now… to surprise me. He asked the model of the one I want a while ago… then left to run some "errands".
So if he buys it, you think I should take it to the horse show? It really gets dusty with the horses kicking up all that dirt. I’m sure it will need a good cleaning after the show.
Other than canned air, what do you all use to clean your equipment?
If you are worried about dust, one good thing is to put a UV Haze filter over the lens. I have them on all lenses that will except them.
Be careful with canned air otherwise the propellent might get sprayed with the air. There are sensor swabs and eclipse fluid for cleaning the sensor when the time comes. You could also get a lens brush to brush dust off the filter.
I’m glad to know about the rubber blower and sensor swabs/eclipse fluid.
The surprise turned out to be ice cream, lol! So I don’t have to worry about taking a new camera tomorrow. I will want to clean my Nikon just the same. Glad I know not to use canned air. I think I have used it in the past. Lucky I didn’t damage it.
To take moving horse jump pix with an SLR digicam, typical 18-55 zoom lens, no flash usage:
Get a good spot <g>
Set exposure to Aperture Preferred, f-11.
I suggest you shoot JPEG Highest setting at first. Save RAW photography until you have practiced a lot.
Read the shutter speed in the viewfinder. It should be 1/250 or faster. If it is less than 1/250, change the ISO setting to a larger number, e.g. 400 or 800 so that your shutter speed ends up to be about 1/400 to 1/250 or so. Use the lowest ISO number that will give you 1/400 to 1/250 shutter speed.
Set to manual focus and focus where you expect the horse’s eyes to be.
Depress the shutter release half way as the horse approaches. Press the shutter release all the way when the horse gets where you prefer.
Check the LCD and exposure compensate as necessary for the next shot.
Check the LCD and zoom in to check for blur in the image. If the subject parts you want (and always including the horse’s eyes) are not crisp, recheck the point that you are prefocused on, and if that is ok, change the f-stop setting to a larger number like f-19. Then redo the ISO setting as needed like you did above.
—————————–
If your camera has a high speed high resolution shot capability you can set the camera for High Speed and get multiple shots as the horse goes over a jump by holding the shutter release button down.
——————————
Obviously there are many other details and lots of other choices to experiment with, but the above should achieve useful pix, first try.
Allen: I’m tickled to have your detailed instructions and will hang onto them. It might be good to practice on one of my horse trainer friends after I get familiar with everything. Thanks very much!
As it turns out I didn’t get the camera yet but it won’t be much longer. I can hardly wait to start using an SLR.
Im curious as to why youd prefer to use Aperture priority in this case…
Before I start shooting, I always weigh the perks of motion versus DOF (depth of field), then try to arrive at an acceptable compromise between both.
So, when I shoot ANY moving pix, I always opt for Shutter priority. For me, stopping camera-shake/subject-motion would seem more important then DOF.
In this case, Id set my shutter for 1/250 and play with the ISO to arrive at a suitable aperture. If lighting conditions should happen to change during shooting, Ill have better luck getting sharper images.
If, however, Id want some form of motion blur, then Id simply Pan the action utilizing a slower shutter speed.
Ill go along with the rest of the techniques outlined in your post… All good strategies!
The answer is simple. What I gave Linda was a relatively bombproof, therefore simplistic, setup for: first SLR 24 hrs new; challenging moving critter pix; photog coming from extensive experience with a CP990. As I said:
"Obviously there are many other details and lots of other choices to experiment with, but the above should achieve useful pix, first try."
———————————————- As to why aperture priority rather than shutter piority, I have found shooting ski racers with the lens discussed that the most common reason for unintended blur is the subject getting out of the camera’s in-focus range. 1/125 second is actually fast enough for the shutter, so the 1/400-1/250 second speed suggested actually gives 1-2 stops of shutter speed slack to Linda. IMO what makes a pic like a horse jumping look good is having minimum workable depth of field ("DOF"). If set to Shutter Preferred [a] the photog is wrapping his/her head around shutter speed, and I try to teach photogs to learn Aperture/DOF; and [b] as lighting changes (like it always does) the camera auto-adjusts DOF, and either too much or too little DOF makes for a poor pic. I want the photog to primarily be thinking about DOF and aperture on every single shot.
The reality is that the choice of Aperture or Shutter Preferred does not really matter to an experienced photographer shooting Auto, because hopefully we think about both settings with every shot, and it does not really matter whether you adjust SS to achieve 1/125/f-8 or you adjust Aperture to achieve 1/125/f-8. The result is still 1/125/f-8!
So it gets to the thought processes, and I prefer to teach folks to learn via Aperture Preferred, because planning DOF is essential for every single pic, and small changes in DOF always change the pic. Unlike shutter speed, where once you get in the habit of providing a stable platform the properly exposed pic does not change whether the shutter speed is 1/60 or 1/5000. Pretty much the only time I use or recommend Shutter Preferred is for panning or other planned motion-blur shots, or in bright light when synching to old style flash systems that give limited camera to flash shutter synch speeds.
Panning or other planned motion-blur shooting is beyond the scope of day 1 suggestions to Linda. <g>
I’m back. As mentioned last night I did not get my new digicam in time for the show today. So I used my old Nikon 990 and just did the best I could considering I could hardly see the monitor. I am long overdue for a new camera.
Allen is so nice to explain how to get the best results with a SLR. Some of the follow up explaination seems almost greek to me, but I’m determined that God willing, I will learn it in time and hopefully be able to converse intelligently with some of you.
I spoke with another professional photographer at the horse show today, a Nikon man with a lot of money tied up in Nikon lenses, and he also is interested in some of the information I’m gathering about the Nikon D70. So much of the great advice from this thread as well as some of the reviews about the new D70 is proving helpful, not only to me, but to two other photographers within two days.
I guess it all boils down to what techniques you first learned and started out with. In my case, Aperture preferred automation wasnt even available on some of the earlier cameras I used. If I remember correctly, the Canon A1 may have been the first camera I bought with that option.
LRK – that depends on the exact camera model. For my 10D, and probably the 300D, RAW files can be anywhere from 5 to 8 Meg (depending on the image content).
On a 1 Gig card, I typically get between 170 (conservative) and 200 (if I’m lucky) images.
I usually carry at least 3 Gig of CF cards – and have shot over 500 images per day on those (usually wildlife, so it’s not steady shooting). If I were shooting a sports event, I’d shoot a lot more images and thus need more CF!
See that is the kind of misinformation I am referring to, Chris, Linda is an amateur photographer with limited knowledge of what is going on she has to learn to walk before running.
First of all you don’t shoot sports events and are not a professional photographer and what you do or think should be done should be expressed in that light.
For instance I might shoot between $400 to a $1,000 of film in a day and may only do 6-8 different compositions that the nature of what I do but if Linda was buying a film based camera I would not be so irresponsible to suggest to her that she should bring a $1,000 worth of film on a shoot. Nor would I suggest it to an amateur like yourself.
She probably only needs one card this should have been your answer:
On a 1 Gig card, I typically get between 170 (conservative) and 200 (if I’m lucky) images.
Wade I think you awoke on the wrong side of the bed this morning.
She probably only needs one card this should have been your answer:
Wrong Wade. At least two – both don’t have to be 1 gig in size – having one as a back-up is good insurance. Any good photographer has extra batteries, polaroid film, regular film extra camera body, etc…
Wade: Why not let go of your grievances with me and move on. There’s no need to take out your frustration on everybody else. Let it go. No hard feelings, okay?
Best value was (last week, who knows what it will be next week…) to buy 512 MB cards. If you were to shoot a batch of pix of something (e.g. a wedding, a horse show, whatever) one card’s batch of images fits nicely on a CD. With 2 cards you can have one uploading to a laptop or a portable CD burner while you continue shooting on a second card. Two 512 MB cards is plenty to start with, maybe forever if you end up routinely uploading to something portable like I do.
Note that you may use neither laptop nor portable CD burner at this point in time, but having pix come from the camera in ~500 MB chunks has its benefits.
Which reminds me, a FireWire CF card reader is a necessity unless you use a CF–>PC card adapter in a laptop. Uploading via USB cables is not recommended.
Thanks Allen. The idea of using similar size cards to CD space sounds sensible and easy to manage. I currently have the Microtech CameraMate USB card reader. I probably will need firewire to speed things up.
I took 136 photos today before I ran out of cards. I ended up erasing some images to get more, so I could have used more space.
Thanks Bruce. Two 512 MB cards probably would be enough to get started. Glad to know it’s cheaper to do it that way.
I realized this week that it won’t be long before I need a laptop. I wasn’t thinking because of photos but rather being more mobile with my work. Now that you all mention it, having a laptop to take when shooting pictures would be very handy when warranted.
It wasn’t address to you Linda, it is to those who might not recognized that it is simply not a requirement for them to have outrageous amount of equipment and that some of the people posting here altoughg behaving as if they are professionals are not that at all.
There are many Photoshop users who read these threads that do not post respones as they come forgeneral knowledge, as I pointed out several times I thought that the info that Allen and Ashley and Todie and Buko and John and Ann and the others were extremely enlightening and exceptionally responsible. Because they understood what they were talking about and that it was a real world exchange of information.
Taking an extra card or battery is one thing taking tons of them is ridiculous for someone getting started, and Chris Cox is not the Pro he dreams about being and should come down to earth.
You only need a card or two, after all today you probably shot between twenty and thirty images at the most am I correct.
You don’t shoot hundreds of photosa in a day let alone in an hour.
I do not understand your reaction to Chris. I am very grateful for his advice. It is right on the money for me. I took 136 photos today before I ran out of card space. I will probably do exactly what Chris recommended.
I think it’s idiotic to make any assumptions about how many or how few images someone else will shoot in any situation, but one thing I’ve noticed with people making the transition to digital is that they quickly learn, when in doubt, take the shot anyway.
The metadata that accompanies each digital capture provides a great tool for learning why some things work and others don’t, for learning how trustworthy the on-camera metering is, and for learning how to expose for digital rather than film (which is a learning curve everyone who wants to shoot digital needs to ascend).
Having a laptop certainly has advantages. The main one being you can continue working if something takes you away from the office for an extended amount of time. I spent several hours in the ER with my neighbor Friday night after she wandered to my house somewhat delerious after having fallen from a makeshift ladder. Fortunately I had wrapped up my jobs for the day… but it confirmed the need to have a backup solution for continuing to work if taken from the office unexpectedly and feeling pressure to meet a deadline.
There is a new Web site I might be designing for an Optometrist. If I get the job it would require taking pictures of equipment in the office. Having a laptop would be ideal for sorting through the images on site for approval before taking them back to my own office. I won’t be buying one for this job but it would be nice if I had one. Hopefully by the time I’m ready for a laptop the next generation will be out. 🙂
"Quickly learning to take the shot anyway" is right. Since I’ve had my Nikon digital I always take more shots just in case. Besides, with that little monitor I can’t really tell how good a shot is until I get it back to my office.
I want to be able to take a very generous amount of pictures, and even all the more while I am inexperienced… the more I take, the better the chance of getting a good one. 🙂
Folks: It appears I have stepped over a line with my many postings here. I’ve received an email from Wade letting me know how foolish I am, for this and other things. I apologize for monopolizing this thread. I admit that I can be self-centered but have truly enjoyed interacting with you all on this topic. I hope I have not offended or irritated anyone else here. If so, please accept my apology.
I can’t imagine that anyone (except the one who complained?!) is in the least irritated by LRK’s posts in this thread — in fact I suspect that they are helping many lurking readers to understand the dilemmas that anyone faces when trying to decide on whether to make such a major purchase as this.
I’m sorry Wade. Tonight was the first time I decided to share this with others. I’ve kept quiet about the series of events that led up to this. You seem to have an extreme problem with me. We either drop it right now or I’m going to continue to involve other people in this. I have no idea what goes on inside you to provoke such anger.
Wade: It might seem stupid to you but to me it’s wisdom. This problem has been going on for a while. It’s not really about this thread and you know it. I have tried to make things right and drop it. You have put me in a position that I felt best to make others aware of it.
I apologize to others about this. Not sure it was the right thing to do but not sure keeping it quiet is either.
Now, I don’t want to ruin this very interesting and helpful thread for others so I will stop posting here about this matter.
If you cross a line, the Forum Hosts will let you know. It’s not like you’re holding a gun to anyone’s head and forcing them to read the thread…
….and the fact that this is post #1339, and the thread is still generally on-topic, would suggest that your contributions have value.
I don’t think you owe anyone an apology for anything you’ve posted here, and it’s probably pointless to apologize to anyone who is twisted enough to get offended by anything you’ve posted here. Of course, it doesn’t hurt to try, and you’ve done that. Now you can move on with a clear conscience.
You are correct some things can’t be fixed and this is one of them. And I am pleased that you recognize that yo are an idiot for judging something you know nothing about Linda is bringing an unknown issue to the forum highly unfair thing to do!
I always say put things in the light and they become quite clear.
BTW Wade, you are the one that brought this to the thread. It has been quite clear you have a problem with Linda so if you don’t want something in the thread put down your sword.
Ive personally enjoyed this thread immensely. Probably because, like Linda, Im in the market for a DSLR. The abundant flow of diverse info Ive gleaned from within all these posts has been truly helpful.
Wade for someone who dislikes digital photography so much you seem to have way too much advice about digital photography for Linda. Either you do it and understand it and know about it or you don’t, and you repeatedly show your distain for digital photography. You claim you don’t use digital, so how can you advise someone about digital photography?
The Nikon D70 just came out so was not supported by Camera Raw…but a beta Camera Raw is in the works. Whatever camera you decide it will be the best one. Congrats!
One point to keep in mind while making your final choice: "How quick-on-the-draw is this weapon?".
If you have any type of action photography in mind, you must have a camera that responds instantly — and allows rapidly repeating shots at full resolution.
[Actually, this is another area in which film has hitherto had the edge, but maybe the new batch of DSLRs can now compete? A good powered winder can give you between 3 to 5 frames per second — although a well trained thumb doesn’t do too badly either!]
Thanks Dan-o… I’m sure someone else will pick up this thread and keep going with it. My guess is, it might have another 1,000 miles on it with all the new technology springing up.
Even if another new one comes out next week, I will be satisfied with the Canon. As I’ve said and keep reaffirming, it’s the pictures I’m interested in. I like the pictures.
Take a chill pill. When were you voted director of vapor land?
If anyone needs to be kicked out of here it’s me, but than again, ask me if I care.
I realized this week that it won’t be long before I need a laptop.<
The other way you can go about this is a new nifty little device that is the size of a small, oh lets say 5 X 7 X 1.5 inch thick gizmo that has a built in LCD screen and 30 gig hard drive for about 400 bucks.
My idea of a really inefficient and over-burdened photographic expedition would be having to lug a laptop along as well as a camera-bag — the "Gizmo" would answer that problem nicely.
"FlashTrax can safely store high-resolution images transferred from any flash memory card onto the built-in 40GB USB2.0 hard drive and displays them on a 3.5" LCD that outperforms tiny on-camera screens. By using the sleek control pad, the user can change the image, zoom in, zoom out and scroll, or choose a slide show function – all without the need of a PC."
That sounds like the perfect answer:
The size of a couple of 5 x 4 DDS and a mere 12 ounces — you could pop that into the bag and not even notice that you were carrying anything extra.
Ashley – no serious problems. But I have found that digital cameras (on all dSLRs I’ve tested) are more demanding of proper focus than film because you can get sharper details and no grain. If I were printing everything at 4×6", I would be quite happy with the focus. But since I want to print 8×10", I find that the auto-focus will usually be off by a little bit — but no worse than I could do by focusing manually. This is something that digital SLR makers are going to have to address in the near future (and more megapixels just makes it more obvious).
Then there’s chromatic abberation in lenses that you don’t notice on film (due to grain breaking up the edges), but becomes obvious on higher resolution digital captures….
Cindy – yes, most can. (Man is that useful. Thanks Thomas!)
But I’d rather that they improved the lens quality rather than rely on a post-process fix that can’t always be accurate (because it can’t know the exact curvature of the abberation). (and I’ll be happy to test any new lenses Canon comes up with 😉
I’ve had some serious issues that just wouldn’t go away and I’ve had a few of these cameras, however an independent service centre in the UK was recently able to improve the focussing accuracy dramatically and I now feel happy to use the camera on jobs.
As a question of photographic style I like to work at F2.8 which I have always done in the past but Canon were trying to convince me that I should be happy to work at F8 and make countless other allowances, which I refused to accept. It should be in focus where we want and the fact that it now does, proves to me that its possible and that its more a question of quality control on the production line than anything else which needs to be addressed.
I have the 28-135 IS. This lens does pretty good except at times I am aggrevated by the CA. It is only in certain types of shots and I am told that it is not as bad as I let on 🙂 The more expensive L glass IS lenses are too heavy though.
They are coming out with DO lenses that are of interest to me but again, expensive.
For me the difference has been like night and day…
Before getting it adjusted at this place even when it looked pretty good on screen at native resolution and viewed at 100%, it was never really as precisely focussed as it should have been, so the moment I started to interpolate everything got pretty nasty regardless of which method I used. Now I am able to uprez quite substantially before any problems become apparent and that is even when working at wide apertures. As a standard, I now create 48MB files for a stock agency which look extremely close to the way they did at 18MB. Frankly I can’t think of anything really that used to be done on a 6×4.5 camera that cannot now be done on the 10D.
Mike: Thanks for the FlashTrax info. Looks like a very useful device, not just for images, but to serve as a portable hard drive. My husband was just getting ready to order a new portable LaCie for backing up his files. If I can talk him into taking mine, I’ll order a FlashTrax to use for temporary backup, transfering client files, and photos.
Just got back from the Ritz camera store. I couldn’t tell the difference in handling between the Nikon and the Canon, they both felt the same to me. Since to me handling is not an issue, I went with the Canon. Also purchased a 512MB High Speed Lexar card for starters.
John, I’ve been through every document and forum on the web for 12 months plus spoken to everybody imaginable at Canon all over Europe. It didn’t matter what I did or how I tried, the camera had focus problems which became worse as I got further back and I had the same problem with three different bodies and 5 lenses. Just for the record getting a portrait image in focus should not require a degree in understanding and it was only put right when I sent the camera away to an independent service centre.
Anyway congratulations to Linda for buying the camera. This feels like one of those "Berlin wall" moments that we’ll all remember forever.
Cindy: I almost bought the extended warranty. My husband made a comment that I don’t need it, so I decided to wait. I have ten days to decide but have to bring the camera back in to sign up for it.
I’m so glad I only bought one card now that Mike has pointed me to the FlashTrax. I noticed that it is USB. Wonder if they make something like that with FireWire to speed things up a little.
HERE’s a good selection of portable digital storage devices. < http://www.mydigitaldiscount.com/s.nl/c.ACCT139057/sc.2/cate gory.3/.f ;jsessionid=ac112b781f437dced6b5d145489dae039546f6392352.qQv Jq2PEmlnva30P-BbQmkLz-ATzr6Lzn6rzqwTxpQOUc30KaNDNo6XKq6zInRm TbgbNo6XK-kDvrA4Ka3iIqQvJq2PEmlnva30P-BbQmkLz-ATzr6Lzn6rzqwT xpQOxch0Tahuxo6XHngbCpQPz8QfznA5Pp7ftolbGmkTy > Look at the eFilm PictutrePad; it comes in various capacities (from 20GB to 80GB, I believe)>
Incidentally, I kept the 20GB I/O Magic Digital Photo Library < http://www.radioshack.com/product.asp?catalog%5Fname=CTLG&am p;product%5Fid=25-3104>($100 from Radio Shack after now $30 rebate at the time I bought it), and I’ve been giving it a good workout to see how much I can trust it. So far it’s performing admirable. Very light and compact, and it reads just about any type of flash card or memory stick. It also works as a plain card reader if you want to use it that way. No image preview, though.
I went to the Radio Shack site and looked at that this morning. Works fine on a Mac??
Yes it does; very well. The blurb doesn’t mention that, but if you download the manual in PDF format it’s clearly indicated there. I’ve used it on both my Macs and it works flawlessly.
Thats the one I think I want to get. It costs about the same as a 512 k Flash card.
Linda, I usually do not buy the extended warranty on anything except my Mac and I wish I had it on my Rebel just in case. When you send something to Canon it can take 3 weeks. The Best Buy plan is the best and I think Ritz has a good one too where they will replace the camera there? Check it out. How much was it?
I wonder if I can get by with my old ones for a while. I already have one 80mb, a 64mb, and a 15mb card that I used with my previous Nikon.
In theory, yes. Not much room there, though. My RAW images are about 18MB, so I get the rough equivalent of a roll of film with a 512MB card. With your smaller cards you’re going to have to shoot JPEGs.
Also, I found that there is a noticeable increase in write speed with the Ultra II Flash Cards. Old cards may slow you down (or not, depending on the camera).
Just a thought Linda: Shoot jpeg until you get used to this camera. You will probably initially blow a lot of shots. Soon as you have a feel then switch to RAW. My 512K holds about 65 RAW and 150 large jpegs
That works out to less than 8MB per RAW image, which is less than half the size of the RAW images from my current camera. I just wanted to clarify so that it didn’t look like I was claiming my rolls of film give me 65 pictures. 🙂
Cindy: The 512MB Flash card I bought today was $219.99. The extended warranty on the 300D was I think around $112.00. He forgot to write it down for me but I think that’s right. This warranty covers dropping the camera as well as it malfunctioning on it’s own. Not sure if they swap it out in the store or not.
The Best Buy warranty was very good. $100 covered 4 years. The reason I chose Ritz is convenience and location.
The one thing to watch out for when dealing with Ritz is their practice of selling you their own line of lenses ("Quantaray") and filters, sometimes trying to sneak them in when you buy a camera kit or buy a filter without specifying a brand.
"Outpost.com" is the online store for Fry’s Electronics I had mentioned earlier in connection with the rebate for David Pogue’s Panther Missing Manual. I’ve never bought online from them because I drive past one of their huge stores on my way to and from work every weekday.
I can’t get your link to work, but the local Costco stores don’t carry the SanDisk Ultra II CF cards, only the plain vanilla ones. I think you should seriously consider the Ultra II. I have been pleasantly surprised by them
BTW, there were reports of some Canon cameras having trouble writing to Lexar brand CF cards larger than 256MB, but I believe that applied to some of the low end Canon consumer point-and-shoot cameras. It was definitely the Lexar brand, though.
Ramon: I think I will be going with the brand you recommended. The SanDisk Ultra II CF Cards seem to be pretty popular and the price is much better than the Lexar. I noticed that where ever Lexar was rated it didn’t do too well. I will be returning the one I bought for the SanDisk.
Now I did a little testing tonight myself with the help of Todie and his friend and the Mamiya 645 with the Pro Back.. Now I only sort of composed the picture and Larry photographs rather well but I have to say that I felt that this digital capture left a bit to be desired.
I also noticed that the cameras you are drooling over were not an advancement over the Pro Back and perhaps like with the Pro Back in a year or two what you now call terrific you will scorn at as being only some kind feeble introduction into will then be new.
These cameras will not be adequate in five or six years and they will not last for a long long time as many film cameras have and over time the quality will fade as well and there will be no replacement for the sensors.
So my message is for those who are buying a digital camera it will not make you a pro, it will not improve your understanding of photography it will not last for ever and you will have to spend more money sooner than later.
However if you read this thread with a grain of salt, well maybe more than one grin of salt you will get some good information as to what is available and you will if you spend your money wisely and don’t over do it you will probably really enjoy your digital camera and your digitally captured images.
Also for those who read this thread and have followed the links showing photographs tomatoes and safaris don’t worry about it it is not that likely that you will accomplish anything like that as those images were captured by pros and probably by pros who specialize in that one field.
Now that linda has her camera we all wish her well on the Tomato photograph.
Just be aware (as per the earlier extensive discussion about field storage) that devices like the Flastrax that cannot burn CDs are very light weight hard drives being used portably in the field. As such, they are neither archival nor particularly safe.
Certainly they are very cool and very convenient. However they are not inexpensive. Rather than US$480 for a lightweight hard drive, personally I would MUCH prefer a similar $ investment in a laptop (eBay) that would allow burning CDs as well as have a real monitor. Or if a 4 pound iBook is too heavy, for less money I would buy one of the portable CD burners earlier discussed. When a portable CD burner fails it does not take 40 GB of data with it.
Superlight portable hard drives in the field are a recipe for data loss IMO. And the typical workflow used with these devices has un-backed-up data on them. IMO not wise.
You are reviewing digicams at their high end against film at its high end. For medium format and larger film still generally rules IMO. This thread is (generally) about low/mid range SLR digicams, which compare _very_ favorably to typical 35 mm film scans. All of my comments, including those below, are meant to refer to the 35 mm level of photography.
Regarding "for those who are buying a digital camera it will not make you a pro, it will not improve your understanding of photography it will not last for ever and you will have to spend more money sooner than later." I disagree: [a] use of a SLR digicam vastly improves learning rates as compared to a film SLR (cheaper –> more pix, and instant visual feedback), and [b] SLR digicams pay for themselves so quickly I don’t care if the sensors do wear out in a few years. And, my personal experience has been not to see sensor degradation on a 6 year old Nikon Coolpix 990 heavily used, so I don’t really know about sensor degradation over time.
Allen: For some reason I missed that part about the portable drives not being reliable. I wish I had known. You mean I cannot backup to a CD through my Mac if I plug the Flashtrax in? I don’t really care about playing music but did hope this would be a reliable backup device.
The risk is when you are in the field, not at your Mac. If you were at your Mac you would not need the Flashtrax, right?
And it is not necessarily a foolish purchase. It is just that with typical workflows such superlight devices used in the field involve risk of data loss that I personally find unacceptable.
For sure keep it in a zip-lock bag and a padded case when not in use, and handle all hard drives gently.
Thanks Allen. Not sure if this will work as well as my Pocket Drive for transfering large files back and forth from one of my regular clients. I guess I can return it if necessary. I saw the rave reviews and ordered without doing all my homework. Anyway I just placed a call and left a message in case I can cancel the order in the morning. Time to shut down for the night. Have a good one!
The difference from your Pocket Drive client "sneakernet" data transfer use is that the data on your pocket drive always also exists somewhere else, either on the client’s box or on your Mac. After a digicam upload the CF card gets reformatted, and the uploaded data only exists on the Flashtrax.
Allen nonsense digital photography will not improve the users ability to be able to record and capture images one iota! That is what is wrong with the threads on the Photoshop Forum when it comes to digital photography.
I was not comparing the pro back to film I was comparing the pro back to the pro back and I was comparing these cameras to these cameras.
They’re not going to last. But then I was not addressing my thoughts to you or the other screwballs on this thread but to those people who are interested in pursuing photography who may read this thread.
That is there is good information here but not all of it, so don’t spend your money foolishly.
Actually what I was trying to communicate, Wade, was that digicams faciltate learning photography, due to instant feedback and free photos. Time spent waiting for film processing has always had a stifling effect on the photography learning curve, as has the cost of film.
And I do agree with you that one-up film art photography is a unique field very worthy of independent pursuit. Of course, any image that ever gets scanned is not in that one-up film art category. For digital imagery digicams will continue to increase their market share as compared to scanned film.
That won’t help Allen is what I am saying, it takes a certain amount of time for someone to learn. The instant feed back does not actually give a person the opportunity to think about what they have done and integrates the shoot process into the printing process or if you wish pout put process.
Which interferes with the spontaneity of the capture of the image and then interferes with the evaluation process as well.
You know the art process. You do some drawings you hang em on a wall you absorb the dynamics you reject and accept you develop the concepts of how to render the final print, you look at your good points and bad points hey what’s wrong with thinking about what you’re doing?
I think developing your skills are a lot more important than instant satisfaction and this technique of this instant feed back might actually inhibit the user and even discourage them prematurely.
These cameras will not be adequate in five or six years and they will not last for a long long time as many film cameras have and over time the quality will fade as well and there will be no replacement for the sensors.
Very true, The moment you get the camera, the sensor will start its slow and gradual path to extinction, pixel by pixel.
I understand you but some of these other folk are just a bit to much.
The unfortunate thing is some of them actually sound sincere about zealous enthusiasm. I have looked at this with a careful professional eye to evaluate the merits. This technology has some serious flaws. They may never be overcome. And these particular cameras are transitional at best.
When I mention that there are other technologies on the horizon these guys go crazy. Hard to understand this.
Get a load of this one I had to transfer in Paris when returning from Venice last summer. I use Ready Load film which I can carry in the boxes that I purchase them in. I only need one film holder. That is not the technology I speak of.
So I carry this in a backpack as I usually ask for visual inspection at JFK they didn’t do that but used a sonic device in Paris I thought since it looked the same that was what they were doing. No they were X-raying it. This would normally not even hurt the film. But this was a very special X-ray it could not only see the boxes but could see the labels and the graphics on the labels and the color of the boxes and labels and also fogged about six sheets of film.
So there are other technologies and this one may ultimately bite the dust perhpas sooner than later.
Coming Soon Laser Capture no Lenses. You vaporize your subject but have a stunning image to remember them by!
When a portable CD burner fails it does not take 40 GB of data with it.
There’s always some degree of risk involved, no question about that. The CD-ROM can get burned improperly or otherwise become unreadable too. The lab can accidentally wreck your film during development (it’s happened to me). Some gorilla in Moscow even managed to burn my negatives in the enlarger once, in the early sixties.
In a little over twenty years of using hard drives, I haven’t had one fail to a degree where I couldn’t eventually recover all data.
As far as the I/O Magic Digital Photo Library I’m testing (the $100 20GB job), I pulled the strap on the case to pick it up without realizing the zipper was open. The device flew about a foot up in the air and then dropped for about three feet onto a linoleum floor. It has continued to work flawlessly since then. For the price, that’s pretty good performance.
I do share your mistrust though, and it remains to be seen how long it’s going to take me before I risk erasing a CF card without certifying the images.
I would not store the images in the portable device for long, only till I can get back to the computer. There’s no comparing its portability to a lap top, though. I can comfortably fit the I/O Magic Digital Photo Library into a coat pocket or the pocket of a pair of loose fitting pants (as oppsed to jeans). Laptops are an albatross, as far as I’m concerned. I’ve had three since my first Toshiba MS-DOS laptop a loooong time ago, including the G3 PowerBook and never used them for more than three hours total, all of them combined.
There’s nothing to keep you from shuttling files back and forth in the portable device. As matter of fact, the one I have came with an MS Word file copy of the printed manual on the drive itself.
One thing to keep in mind with the devices that have their own viewing screen (FlashTrax, eFilm PicturePad, etc.) is that using them this way shortens battery life considerably. The idea is to use it only when you absolutely must make room available in the CF cards, then transfer the images to a computer (laptop or desktop) as soon as practicable. They’re no good if they are out of battery power, and they come with internal rechargeable batteries only.
BTW, I’ve discarded the original case and put the I/O Magic Digital Photo library in a smaller but better padded case that has both a belt loop and a thin shoulder strap, rather than the impractical wrist trap the original case had.
Well, well, well… you finally took the plunge, Linda… Congarts!
I was beginning to wonder if youd actually beat me to the punch… 🙂
Now, put that baby to the test and report back your findings, as I just got some added incentive today, myself. A young lady whom Ive had the pleasure of knowing since she was knee-high to a grasshopper, informed me that shes getting married on July 17th. Outdoor wedding with all the trimmings… should be a perfect plateau for a digital experience.
Thanks Macmanx! I haven’t tried my camera yet. Waiting until I have time to focus. <g> Your friend’s wedding sounds nice and would indeed be a good reason for a new digital. Be sure to keep us posted on this. Hope to see some pictures. 🙂
Thanks Ramon! My main concern is whether I can use the Flashtrax adequately as a backup for files. First thing I thought when I saw it was how multipurpose it could be. Since we needed another external backup drive I thought this…
1. Could be used for an extensive outing or trip for photos 2. Back up current job files before leaving the office 3. Transfer large jobs files from my Mac to Mac
Being able to play music is nice but not essential.
The part that is in question is #2 & #3 because of speed and question of reliability… although I’ve heard that some of these new gadgets are pretty solid. I guess time will tell.
Thanks John. What about transfer speed of large files? I’m behind on my knowledge of USB2 technology. I assume I would need to have it on my G4 in order for it to work right with the FlashTrax but I don’t think my G4 has it.
Someone asked me if I got the external flash and I forgot to answer. Not yet. I want to use the camera some before I put money into accessories that are compatible with it… just in case. Then again, if I wait to make any needed purchases I may be out of luck. Right now I have the credit card. 🙂
What about transfer speed of large files? I’m behind on my knowledge of USB2 technology. I assume I would need to have it on my G4 in order for it to work right with the FlashTrax but I don’t think my G4 has it.
USB2 is not as fast as FireWire but it’s fast enough – much faster than USB1 by about 30 times faster. The download speed will do nicely!
Your Mirror Mac will need a USB2 card, I’ve had good luck with MircoOrange:
Orange has a combo card – USB2+Firewire 400 ports. I figure you can never have too many Firewire ports. At PC/MacMall with Napp discount it goes for $60.00
If you want just the USB2 card Orange has both a two and four port PCI card – go with the four port as it’s a little more in cost.
Sonnet is good also! Actually the last time I installed an Orange product was about a year ago and it performs fine. Don’t know if OrangeTech has gone down hill since then.
Take your time getting the flash and extra lenses – master the camera first.
There is nothing like a load of new gear to re-awaken the thrill of photography! [I have just re-confirmed this from recent (expensive) experience!]
Truly, take the rest of the day off and take that camera out and fire it off at everything in sight — however mundane — and you will discover a whole new world through a lens on an SLR.
Well I walked out the door with my camera and there beside the door was my duck. So… what would you have done? At least I fit in with classic newby behavior…lol!
Ann: I see what you mean about focusing on the eyes. First lesson learned… Thanks! 🙂
Regarding your newly-defined uses for a Flashtrax:
"1. Could be used for an extensive outing or trip for photos 2. Back up current job files before leaving the office 3. Transfer large jobs files from Mac to Mac"
For #1 above my earlier comments apply. Superlight (12 ounces!) portable hard drives are not in the category Ramon implies when he references 20 years of hard drives. These things when used in the field have a much higher failure rate than desktop hard drives. A workflow that stores images ONLY on such devices puts those images at risk. Which is OK so long as users accept the risk. And although it is very expensive, lost drive data can often be recovered.
For #2 & #3 above I don’t know exactly what you mean, but in general those tasks can be performed by an external Firewire hard drive, better and for about 1/3 the cost. Note that for #2 and #3 presumably data is copied, not deleted like with a CF card, so issues of reliability are largely moot.
Cindy: Thanks for the red-dot-beep advice. Will remember that. Just read that you are reading the manual in anticipation for my questions, lol! 🙂
Ann: I can see how important the eyes would be… especially since I’ve done a little photo restoration work. The eyes are paramount. Have to practice on Miss Ducky some more since she loves having her picture taken.Thanks!
Allen: I just found out that the Flashtrax is on backorder so I have time to rethink it. Thanks for your comments.
Correct, Cindy, that’s IMO the correct way to proceed: Resolve workflow – and particularly data safety – issues before spending money, and hopefully BEFORE a problem occurs.
Superlight portable hard drives are cute, but they are not a very safe way to store irreplaceable data.
The stuff about the sensor degrading is, of course, almost total horseshit. The color filters will degrade over the course of about 3 human lifetimes. The CMOS element will take longer.
Yes, these are transitional cameras. Yes, there will be something better coming down the pike. That’s not a reason to not buy this generation of cameras. Just look on it as buying a 35mm camera and processing for about 75,000 rolls of film…
The instant review is only a very small part of digital’s usefulness as a learning tool. More useful is the fact that every image has a record of the shutter speed, aperture, ISO speed, focal length, etc. (Some of us used to write all these things down…) Hence it becomes a great deal easier to learn the technical reasons why some things work and others don’t. Aesthetics still have to be learned the hard way, though instant review is somewhat helpful there.
BTW Everyone if you want to see really exciting stuff you should see Larry Todie’s paintings but unfortunately they the web just doesn’t do justice to them.
The Mamiya and the Pro Back did not impress me but his paintings did.
Thanks Wade! I think there is a camera system with "scanning lights?" that can capture paintings’ textures best, but I don’t know enough about it. (maybe someone here knows more?!?)
Todie – actually, I know lots of such systems, but they’re all research devices or one-off museum archiving systems. (plus multi-spectral imaging, specular lighting reconstruction of the 3D surface of the painting and specular and diffuse components of the reflection, etc.)
Are you that confident that the increasing amount of dead or hot pixels in sensors is just a figment of someone’s imagination or an outright lie?
The first digital camera I ever played with was (is) a Sony Mavica (model FD97 or something like that, it uses memory sticks and/or floppy diskettes) that my wife brings home from work from time to time. By faking the taking of a picture with the lens totally obstructed (lens cap on) we can see a few dots here and there in the image, and this has become more noticeable over the years. When I get home tonight, I’ll take a non-picture and post a link to it.
You tell me then how those horse apples got there. 🙂 (Of course, I freely admit that I feel that camera is a very poor piece of equipment, even by Sony consumer product standards.)
–>Are you that confident that the increasing amount of dead or hot pixels in sensors is just a figment of someone’s imagination or an outright lie?
I don’t claim knowledge of every CCD ever manufactured, but…
No dead pixels on
10-year-old QuickTake 100 10-year-old Casio (the first one with an LCD) 8-year old Kodak DC 310 7-year-old DCS 460 6-month-old 300D
or any of the numerous CCD scanners in the collection, including a 10-year-old Leafscan 35.
So, not impossible, but pretty darn unlikely on a Canon 300D or a Nikon N70.
Are you sure those dots are actually stuck pixels? It could just be a noisy chip… Unless you can look at the raw mosaic, it would be very hard to identify a single stuck pixel.
(Of course, now you’re going to have bunches of people photograping the insides of their lens caps deliberately.)
I have a friend Todie who works at the Met he nows does photography but use to paint and even showed at Feldman. I see if they have such a camera or recording device and if they are up to the challenge of capturing your paintings.
Actually Wade the Mamiya camera with the digital back is the one where you CAN replace the sensor and compare film to digital by simply changing the back. One can get a 22 Mega pixel Mamiya back.
What was happening in the film world has stopped. Essentually you could buy a good film camera and it got better every year because Kodak and Fuji were always competing and the film got better year after year. That’s not the case anymore. Now the race is in the digital realm and it’s true it will be harder to replace the sensor.
I’m almost ready to get a REBEL also, I believe I’ll wait for an 8 mega pixel though as I’m so picky.
Sorry Larry you CANNOT compare film to digital by changing the back. You can only compare film SCANS to digital.
Like I said earlier 8 MP vs. 6 MP is essentially meaningless. Everything else (optics, interpolation software, optics, flash system integration, optics…) in an SLR digicam matters much more than 2 MP additional.
Are you sure those dots are actually stuck pixels?
No.
It could just be a noisy chip…
I guess it could. (I said it’s a crappy camera.) The chip might be getting noisier as it ages, you know, clearing its throat, fighting a persistent cough, etc.
(Of course, now you’re going to have bunches of people photographing the insides of their lens caps deliberately.)
That’s the whole idea! 😀
Seriously now, thanks for replying. It’s easy to forget to stop and verify preconceived notions.
All this talk about sensors wearing out and pixels dying makes me suspect that all of you have forgotten what it was like to to find a box full of out of date film!
"Automatic" usually assumes an average sort of view (is there really such a thing?) with an equal distribution of tones between highlight and shadow and selects a midway point to render as a mid-gray. (Yes, that is an over-simplification but it will do.)
This method falls apart when your main subject is a white duck or a black cat — particularly if the black cat is sitting in a snow-field.
You will learn as you go along how to expose for these special cases — or perhaps the Canon lets you take spot readings?
I use av. I blew two flash cards full of highlights until I learned how to do it. If you are blowing highlights it means you are metering on areas that are too dark. This is exactly what I was reading about in the manual so I could tell you page 62, 63 and read 84 too.
Ann, yes she can do spot readings but that would be more difficult for her right now.
I have had the best luck in av which allows me to balance my f/stop with shutter speeds. I usually pick the f stop I want and the camera picks the shutter speed in this mode. Try to make sure the shutter speeds arent getting to slow.
Allen I appreciate your input on this and though I know the camera that I was working with in a limited way was just a film based came with a digital back I was not comparing digital capture to film. As Todie could tell you I was just investigating what one could expect from this particular camera and this particular back.
BTW LT it appears it is a 22 megapixel back.
Now I did not set up the camera as it was set up ready to go. I was not thrilled with what I saw both perhaps by the way it was setup and the way the camera captured the image. It seemed to capture enough detail but then there where artifacts as well and the worse problem is that Todie has ants in his pants.
I think from what I saw I would have placed gels over the lights that we were using or turned off any lights in the space that was not directly contributing to the subject.
Todie photographs real well, but he appeared greenish, in case you are interested I think we had polluted light with more than one type of light source.
I don’t think it would have been very difficult to color correct the captured images.
This is not actually the first time I tried a digital camera I’ve just not been real happy with many things about them.
The blue halo-ing is strange. It’s hard to tell from the low-rez. web-image, but it may be due to blur caused by the leaves blowing in the breeze. A faster shutter-speed would freeze them.
On the other hand the blur could be the result of being out of focus which a higher-numbered aperture would help.
[Decisions. Decisions. So many things to consider.]
The sky isn’t really blown out but is as expected if you want to retain detail in the foreground bushes. You have a wide range of tones in that image from deep shadows to bright sky so something has to be sacrificed.
Ann, my understanding is that these cameras cannot handle the real high contrast as well as some of the higher end film cameras. Also higher end lenses. I could be wrong but I have really fought with this issue and just about have it "down" now 🙂
I recently started a thread recently on another forum because I saw some CA using my 28-135 lens. I was told that it was really minimal so suffice it to say I wish I could eliminate all of it in all situations.
As far as blooming I dont know about ALL digital cameras but it is there with the lower to mid range. Seems I read something recently that the 1D’s may not have as much problem with that. Also with "L" glass that is much improved as well.
If the exposure is done within certain limits it can almost be completely eliminated
I just had someone tell me that the kit lens is probably the culprit for the blue/purple fringing around the bright areas and branches/leaves. He also said it is common on all point and shoot cameras and SLR with consumer lenses.
[edited]
If that’s the case, I need to think about new lenses in a hurry.
Linda, hold off a while on the lenses. You can learn a lot just learning to get rid of this. L glass is rather expensive too and heavy. I can show you shots I took with the kit lens that show no problems. As a matter of fact I could take some sky shots just for you 🙂
I just got another tip that seems to confirm what you are saying.
The kit lens is pretty good when stopped down to around f8. With that small aperture, it would be unlikely that you will see any of those blue haloes around your branches.
For those who are reading this thread and not participating and are considering buying a digital camera and have read the likes of Bruce Fraser outrageous claims by others about digital capture and about how film is dead. This points out several of the reasons why one will enter into to this understanding that the technology has flaws and will require some experience and a lot of hard work to master.
Digital photography will not make you a photographer because you have a digital camera and it will not be that simple to get to understand photography just because you have instant feedback. You see you will now also have the shortcomings of digital technology and the digital method to overcome plus the photographic process which you cannot escape with this technology.
BTW one of the reason some of these problems exist is the lack of grain even ultra fine grain would be helpful.
I’m telling her the truth she might want to get rid of it.
I think the kind of advice that Cindy offered was stupid and disingenuous in that she painted a picture that she should not be and so did many others here on this what turned out to be a ridiculous thread and it started out so well.
Not one of you mentioned how sometimes you just want to trash the damn camera and I know as well as you you have those moments.
I am certain that Linda will over come the problems and ultimately learn the does and don’ts but the picture you people painted was all glory and no pain. And that is not Photography or Life.
Linda it is going to take time and work to get this correct. But one of the reasons you should be out shooting as much as possible is to find out if the equipment you have is functioning properly and if not you want to take it back pronto.
Do not listen to Cindy! Go shoot first thing in the morning and shoot a lot.
And just in case you are interest you are not going to learn anything about photography from this forum as you see Cindy and company don’t know a thing about it. You shoulkd have look for the Lieca manual that would have showed you how little they know.
Cindy quite frankly you shouldn’t give anyone advice.
I’m not trying to be cruel I just want anyone who reads this to know that this is not a perfect technology and spend your money wisely and most of the people on this thread are overly enthusiastic about digital photography.
And I really have no doubt that Linda and those contemplating buying a digital camera will ultimately find it suitable for their needs. But digital photography means you need to know something about the computer end as well as the photography end.
And it is not as simple as loading a roll of film set it on automatic and shooting and bringing it to the store for processing.
Hey Chip Linda just spent a lot of money for a camera don’t you think she should get that kind of money worth of equipment for that Money?
And so everyone here should be warned this is not a simple task and digital requires an incredible amount of work to do something that was fairly simple in the past.
For linda it is fun to play with the computer but for the millions that do not this is going to be a nightmare.
With the lower end lens you will get optical anomilies. The blue/purple halo is one such item… to help tone it down it you need to stop the lens way down (but it still does not totally eliminate it).
With the higher-end lens this is pretty much a non-issue.
Knowing how fussy you are with your work… it might be worth it to go with a better lens than the one that come with the kit.
I don’t find the higher-end lens heavy… perhaps I am just used to working with them.
Thanks Bonnie. I agree about the lens… although I think for starters it might be a good exercise to try to overcome it. If I can get good shots with a lesser lens, then hopefully it will eventually help me to get excellent shots with a better lens. Hm… Did I say that right? 🙂
That said, I have started collecting information about lenses… so any advice will be added to that collection. I know there’s already been some advice in this thread. Hopefully I can find it all with a search.
About Compact Flash Cards… It doesn’t take long to figure out that you can never have too large of a card… a lot like memory. 🙂 Especially with the higher res digitals and using RAW, which I intend to use as much as possible.
My husband picked up a 256 MB SanDisk at Costco yesterday. This was the only one they had in stock. It was cheap so I told him to go ahead with it until I can order more. I think I might order a 1 GB card next to avoid having to think about swapping.
I also think I’m going to go ahead with the 40GB FlashTrax. Being able to store and better preview your images on the field should be a plus for learning.
Comments in response to an earlier post by a member here…
In all fairness I want to put in a good word for Cindy. Her enthusiasm for photography and being able to preview her progress with the 300D has been an inspiration to me and fun as well. I think Cindy has some excellent looking shots. She also has been very generous with her time and advice. I respect Cindy as a professional graphic artist and also as a photographer. She will not deny that she is still learning and attempting to perfect her skills.
So please do not use this thread to discourage or tear down other participants. These people are good and generous people with amazing knowledge. No one person has all the answers but esteeming one another as a group can have a powerful and positive outcome.
[edited]
Oh… and as for people like Bruce Fraser and Chris Cox, nothing needs to be said in their defense. We all know they are well respected in the Photoshop community. It’s a priviledge to have them among us.
Linda you need new glass. I can’t remember who MO or Chris suggested you get a different lens. Your lens maybe worse than Cindy’s no way to tell with out a side by side comparisson. but just like you can buy a new G5 with a bad hard drive or bad RAM you can get a bad lens. Maybe you could trade the lens for another, I personally would get a better lens.
You should not have to learn to compinsate for a bad lens.
If you do…..When you do finally do get a better lens & you are used to all the tricks you had to use for the bad lens, you images will suffer until you un-learn all the compensation tricks you were doing.
Just to add to the opinions already expressed about your lens, and in the hope of encouraging you to take it back and trade it in for a better one, I have to tell you that, judging from your image, that lens is not bad; it is terrible.
Bonnie’s comment is right on point. Don’t go acquiring bad basic habits just to compensate for an awful lens.
A few people on Rob Galbraith forum are converting the kit lens to work with their higher end Canons – so how bad can the lens be? Shoot with it more – the sweet spot of many lenses is around f8 to f11.
Buko, Bonnie, Ramon: I’m so glad to have your feedback on this. I can’t help but think it could be my lack of knowledge… so perhaps I should take another day to learn and practice before returning it.
John, I don’t know. {under my desk} 🙂
At first I was using automatic but that produced horrendous results, much worse than what I posted.
I need to study up on the camera some more today and do some more practicing. I’ll try to post some results as I learn.
If you all would go back in this thread you will see that I pointed to the fact that these problems existed with all the models, everyone of them and so I don’t just think it is the camera.
And just what Linda needs is to have Cindy take a look at the camera and lens to figure it all out for you! Perfect!
Someone hare might want to take a course in photography and perhaps with a inexpensive reliable film based camera. I wasn’t talking to you Fraser or Chris, although
the sweet spot of many lenses is around f8 to f11.
It seems that younger generations are getting more and more used to the deficiencies of zoom lenses in general, and very forgiving of lower priced ones.
Personally, I would never consider a lens with that kind of chromatic aberration, nor a lens you have to stop down just to get passable pictures.
I know prime lenses are more expensive and I’m also aware of the fact that many users like the perceived convenience of zoom lenses. But a lens with that kind of handicap is absolutely not worth keeping.
And MO if Bruce knows anything about photography he doesn’t seem to be exhibiting it here.
The one person who professes to know so much about this digital wonder is Brice and especially about Canon and I now notice his absence when he should be explaining to Linda what she can do to correct this problem other than perhaps to exchange the camera for a Nikon.
BTW the Nikons seem to fair better than the Canon in the digital capture world.
I see no Bruce need to comment when others have done so very adequately.
Ramon: I’m listening. You know far more than I do about lenses. I take it you are saying that no matter how badly I shoot, the lens should not be doing that?
I probably will return it but not until I’ve tested it with different settings and put more images up for comment.
I wholeheartedly agree with Ramón, and the others who made similar comments, about the importance of a good lens. Your lens is your eye on your new world, and a bad one can never give you results with which you will be satisfied.
I also agree about zoom lenses — they may be convenient but they are not for me. If you want the ability to change rapidly between focal lengths, get two camera bodies, put a different lens on each, and wear BOTH of them.
In Linda’s shoes, I would want to return that Tamron and buy one of Canon’s own in its place. I know that this sounds extravagant, but I do believe that it would be for the best in the long-run.
The one that was on the Rebel that i handled recently in a Ritz store was a Tamron (which have no reputation for excellence). Yours may be different — but whatever it is, i think that you could find something better than what you have.
I don’t think the problem lies in your inexperience but in your optics. In this connection, try focussing on a high-contrast target with black lines crossing against a white background. Shoot at full aperture and then take more shots with the lens stopped down. Do this at various focal-lengths and distances and see how sharply the lines have recorded and how much color fringing and distortion you are getting.
Oh, put the camera on a tripod to rule out camera-shake.
If you get the results that i think you will, you have all the ammo. you need for returning that lens to the store.
… no matter how badly I shoot, the lens should not be doing that?
Obviously a bad exposure would produce a bad image regardless of the lens used, but what I saw in your image, especially in and around the tree branches, is extreme chromatic aberration caused by the lens.
I’ve noticed that they sell the Canon digital Rebel "kit" for less than $99 over the price of the camera body alone, so that lens (whatever it is, since I don’t even know that) falls into the category of bargain lenses.
Even in less expensive lines of lenses like Tokina, Tamron and Sigma, I would expect to pay something in the neighborhood of $700 to $1,000 for a halfway decent zoom (for the lens alone). The good Canon lenses are more expensive that these three brands I’ve brought up, so I have no idea what Canon can be offering for under $99 –obviously not much.
Just out of curiosity, what is the zoom range on that lens? Anything over 3X in a zoom lens (say 28-80mm or 70-200mm) is bound to impose a mighty heavy burden on the lens designer, and if bargain-basement pricing is contemplated, I would expect results like I see in your image.
Look closely at the inscriptions on the lens, including on the front. That kind of poor performance is what I would expect from a Quantaray lens (or filter, incidentally). Quantaray is Ritz’s own line of lenses and filters.
If it is a Quantaray, consult with an attorney experienced in criminal law in Florida first, then go back to the store and hit the salesman over the head with it, preferably several times. (Speaking figuratively and only half facetiously.)
I wonder if she would have done better with an honest guy like the first one she spoke to over the phone who set her straight and got a little impatient with well try being sensible around some people.
You had the right story the first time he was trying to get you to understand without confusing the issue and if went there he probably would have explained everything to you much better than is being done here.
You have too many opinions here and not enough knowledge, even those people you respect are doing nothing but adding to the confusion.
I don’t think a tripod will help.
Linda should go a little slower and learn something about photography first.
BTW… to the person who enjoys taunting me… The guy I called did not like me calling the camera a 300D and reprimanded me for calling it that, as if I were a criminal. When I asked about the resolution he answered me with an irate attitude. I don’t think I was wrong to not want to go there… nor did I do anything wrong. I consider myself easy to get along with and a good customer. Ditzy and particular? Maybe. A bad or unpleasant customer? No! I’m a pushover and I know it. That’s why I had hoped to find a supportive store before buying locally.
Linda – I believe that it’s really hard to tell from the photo you posted whether or not there is a problem. The lighter background sure looks like a cloud to me, but then I live in Portland. Take a picture of a nice flat target to see if there is blue fringing. I don’t believe that you have that issue either. I believe that you have a winner and will have many great experiences with it as well as manyu great photos!
The reason for using a tripod when testing this lens for sharpness is to rule out the possibility of camera-shake.
It is important for Linda to establish whether her lens is good enough for her purposes fairly soon so that she has the chance to ask for a replacement if she wants to. She also needs to be sure that the lens is focussing accurately in her camera.
[Wade: Reading exactly what I originally posted should make my reason for suggesting a tripod fairly clear, I think.]
Ok…I looked at the raw landscape shots and the DuckShotsDay1 images. The jpgs 124,137 and 139 were corrupted and could not open…I tried to download twice.
Opened raws in Adobe Camera Raw. The two landscape shots were shot wide open at f5.6 according to File>File Info. There is not one lens that I know of that is at it’s sharpest wide open – especially zoom lenses. I have two Nikon Zooms that are soft wide open and super sharp at f8-11. With that in mind the images are soft and applying PhotoKit Sharpener the images sharpened ok but were still soft…a higher f stop is need for better sharpness across the image. I’d like to see the same shot at f8, f11, f16 just to find the sweet spot of the lens – need to use a tripod. I did this test with all my lenses and know the sweet spot of each lens.
Regarding the vertical image with the road – the blue color in the sky is just the sky – nothing more – no lens problem. It’s difficult to tell if there is color fringing in the branches since the softness of the image probably hides this.
The duck shots just had focusing issues – the areas that were on the focus plane were sharp but seems like focus was either in front or behind the duck. The grass area that is in focus is nice and sharp. Duck shot 101 is really sharp and it’s focused on the eye of the duck…nothing wrong there. The focusing issue could just be not familiar with the camera.
Take more shots and avoid shooting ducks as the feathers are probably lacking in contrast for the camera to focus on. Shoot a few walls at different f-stops and report back. Also there was movement with some of the duck shots – those little legs were moving!
My feeling is the lens is ok…it’s not the best but not a dud either…but I think we all knew that.
Also Linda you might want to invest in PhotoKit Sharpener – it takes the guess work out of sharpening.
The kit lens is what it is, not great, but not terrible either.
If you shoot wide open at 18mm, you will get plenty of chromatic aberration, but you’re going to get this to some extent at the short end of any wide-angle zoom currently being made, with the possible exception of the DO lenses, which nobody I know has yet had the opportunity to try.
Don’t overlook camera Raw’s Lens controls! You can dial out most of the CA using these. Tip: when you adjust the CA sliders, hold down the option keyit hides the channel that isn’t affected and lets you dial in the adjustments much more accurately. Unless you buy a very expensive wide-angle prime, or never shoot wide, you’ll need to learn to use this feature anyway.
Bruce: That sounds like a great tip… once I get there. Thanks very much!
I am very grateful for all the support here. You all are the best!!!
At this point, there is way too much to learn to be burdening this thread with my progress or lack there of. 🙂
I think it might be good for me to catch up on a lot of learning… you all have no idea how little I know about photography. Once I get to the place where I know how to use the camera I will then try follow some of the suggestions here.
I’ve been outside with all of my lenses intentionally blowing highlights with the lenses wide open. I get exactly the same CA and blooming that Linda does with the exception of my 100m macro. It isn’t exactly for shooting landscape though.
I think John and Bruce are both voices of reason 🙂 Thanks for the tip on the CA sliders Bruce, I didn’t know that.
I would love for Canon to come out with a DO lens that is in the 28-135 range. Now those are good lightweight lenses but pricey. They have a 70-300 zoom that I would love to get my hands on. These lenses cost more than the camera does.
There are a lot of reasons I choose the lenses I did. They have Image Stabilization but they are not the L glass. Each was in the $500 range but they are consumer grade. I have invested in around $4000 worth of camera equipment which has stretched my resources as it is. If I started making money from my photos I would reevaluate but what I have works well for me. None of my final photos show CA or blooming. That’s the point.
Some fairly good L glass lenses are listed below but they do not have the IS. I would buy all of them if I were flush but best of all would be the DO lenses that Bruce mentioned.. Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Zoom Lens = $679 Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Zoom Lens = $1149 Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM Zoom Lens = $569
Sigma has a series of lenses designed specifically to get rid of CA (APO lenses) but a lot of people object to 3rd party lenses since if you upgrade the camera body they might not work with it. Sigma will rechip for free from what I understand. Their lenses are generally cheaper too.
This thread has been very useful I think we’ve come to the point that any sensible person who reads it will realize that this digital camera technology needs a lot of development.
Well Wade that’s not the conclusion I get from this thread.
I just love my digital camera and would not give it up for the world. I just can’t see ever having to use film ever again unless it is for special effect. I can’t embrace new technology fast enough.
So if you don’t like digital don’t read this thread. I’m sure no matter how good digital becomes Wade will be there saying how bad digital is and only film is good.
I think I shall officially give the mantle of Resident Luddite to Wade.
There is not one lens that I know of that is at it’s sharpest wide open – especially zoom lenses.
In the context of the zoom lenses discussed in this thread and used in this manner, I’d not be inclined to disagree with the above statement. However, as a generalization, it is not accurate and can mislead some people unless a disclaimer is made.
A smaller aperture will indeed increase depth of field and therefore make more objects in an image be sharper. But if you’re shooting something on an absolutely flat plane (as is often the case in macro photography or photographing paintings) a first-rate prime lens will be at its sharpest at or near its maximum aperture.
The lens that you have does lack contrast and the general lack of apparent crispness is partly due to this — and partly due to the Chromatic aberration (which others have commented on).
If you open the CRW files in the browser, you get taken immediately to the Camera Raw dialogue and you can do a lot here to put the bite back into your shots — particularly with the "Advanced" sliders.
The Chromatic Aberration (which shows itself in the color-fringing around the leaves) happens because the lens does not bring the blue and the red ends of the spectrum into focus at the same point in the camera. This is due to the lens design itself but will be less apparent if you use the lens partially stopped-down. Whether or not this imposes too much of a limitation on you, only you can decide.
Don’t get discouraged — you have made an excellent start with the camera and you will rapidly go from strength to strength.
What? Does that mean I’m no longer in contention for the title?
sorry you open your self to new thinking and accept it. Our original Luddite Ann can no longer hold the title since she is purring along with her G5 with Panther.
So that leaves but one curmudgeon worthy of the title, and its Wade, who has been fighting digital imaging since I can remember.
I get deprived of my rightful title just because I kicked my G4 to death …
Well, kicking a G4 is unforgivable. Kicking it to death calls out for some kind of retribution.
I fully agree with your assessment of what we see in Linda’s image, and I’m also still very attached to my film cameras –all of them, and they are a bunch.
Over the last five years, I have tested and played with digital cameras for periods of three weeks at a time each, and I plunked a few grand on a digital SLR and associated gear in the last five weeks or so; but my heart is still with film, and definitely with prime (i. e. non-zoom) lenses.
Unless Linda’s lens is not typical of this particular model, Canon is not the only maker of digital SLRs that has made an incomprehensible decision to put out a dirt-cheap zoom lens to promote sales of their digital SLRs.
IMO there is way too much critical detail being discussed here regarding your first SLR lens. All experienced photogs know you get what you pay for, always. That does NOT mean that every photog needs to haul around a bunch of heavy prime lenses that weigh 2+ pounds each and cost > US$1000 each. You bought the cheapest SLR digicam and a cheap lens; direct comparison to ten thousand dollar setups is silly.
Take what you have and use it, enjoy it! So you are using a US$100 lens. So what? It just means you got what you paid for. You can buy more after you have lots of experience.
Regarding blown highlights don’t stop auto exposing: shoot, review, adjust exposure compensation in the minus direction, reshoot. Very easy with digital; you would have the same problem with film, but find out a week later when you get the film back. The advantage of digital. Note that you probably should have the flash disabled in bright sunlight with that camera.
Think back to that eventful day when you first fired up Photoshop… ALL those cryptic, mysterious palettes, ALL those peculiar and far-out commands in the menu bar that made your eyes boggle with bewilderment. Remember those days?… 🙂
Think of Photography in the same general light… ALL those foreign, unfamiliar controls staring back at you from the camera may seem daunting at first, but, just like you eventually conquered your mastery of Photoshop, so too, shall come the convivial day when youll also vanquish the inconspicuous foibles of Photography. However, dont expect to learn it all in one day; be patient… itll all come seamlessly together some day… just as it did with Photoshop. All it takes is time, and lots and lots of practice.
Get yourself some good books… read, practice… read some more, shoot, evaluate, reshoot, and revaluate your findings. Practice makes perfect!
Thanks everybody for all the support. I’m rethinking everything and doing more research. I’ll touch base with you after I’ve made some decisions. Thanks very much for all your suggestions and encouragement. It will not go to waste as I will probably go back and use that which I need to once know what I’m doing.
I’m following this thread but not responding until I gain confidence in the direction I am going.
I’ve made a great deal of progress with my outdoor shots this morning. I am actually impressed with some of them. The indoor shots are another story. They tend to be fuzzy unless I use the automatic settings, then they tend to have too much in the highlights… partly I’m sure due to the built in flash.
I might post some screen shots of my outdoor shots with the information about them included.
[edited]
At this point I won’t return the camera unless I know for sure there is a problem with it. Hoping to get into that class tonight so I can gain some more insight. I’ll probably take the camera with me.
Wow! I was off this thread for a few days and had to read about 300 posts to catch up.
Wade, youve been very disrespectful to some of the posters here.
If I remember correctly you shoot architectural photography. Makes perfect sense to still use film to me. However, not everybody shoots like you do nor wants the same results. There are positive and negative aspects to both film and digital and if you want to educate the new members to the forum, theyd best be served by such a discussion other than by attacking Linda, Cindy, Bruce and Chris.
From my perspective (someone who has an arts background and has always painted on my photographs), digital photography is a perfect marriage of drawing and photography. I am thrilled by the advances of digital. There are no darkroom fumes. I dont have to schlep my film to a professional lab hoping the guy at the counter wont mess up my order. I have an endless creative palette in front of me. Sure, my camera equipment (bodies) will be obsolete in a few years (but Im not sure this is strictly a negative, I kind of like buying a better camera/computer).
The advantages of film; Im not staring at a monitor. I can view my negs/trannies without expensive computer equipment. I can always print my images without worrying about new technology making my jpgs or raw files obsolete. Quality equipment is cheaper to buy. My camera equipment will probably outlive me!
Im sure some of you will add to these short lists of mine. However, IT IS ALL JUST EQUIPMENT. What is good/bad are the eyes and gray matter of the person running the equipment Wade and theyll make of what they have for their own needs, not yours.
If you have seen Lindas graphic work, (and my favorite, her Flash file of the sprinkling system) you should understand that eventually shell know photography very well.
Hi Colorfulbird! I appreciate your comments very much.
Since yesterday I’ve made a little progress. Here are some Web pages < http://graphicspalmbeach.com/forum/CanonShots/outdoorshots04 2204/outdoor5.html> are some Web pages with screen shots and info combined. I’ve started with page 5 so you can see the difference in the pine tree. Be sure to click on the image to see a zoomed version.
Thanks Larry. I guess the only way I’ll be using this camera is with the manual settings. Just the idea that it doesn’t do as well as my Nikon 990 on automatic puts a slight damper on it but I guess once I get used to everything I won’t want to go back to the old way of doing things.
Hope so Cindy.
[edited – fixed to say automatic comparing to Nikon 990]
I dont know why you are using manual settings. Do you mean not full auto? When you get used to shooting with it, it will be better than your 990. That is a very common complaint from people who are used to point and shoots. It is not quite as easy to get a good shot until you are used to it.
"P" mode is almost fully automatic. Read on it. From there you can adjust the exposure compensation which may just give you what you want.
Early on I wanted auto too but I would rather not shoot that way now. I find shooting in av is very fast for me. You are only adjusting two settings from there: shutter and f/stop and it only takes one control to do it. It is just a matter of getting used to what each situation calls for and that will click in for you.
I took me a while to get used to shooting with my Fuji S2. But after a few weeks you start to get a feel for the camera. the nice thing is you don’t have to waste a couple hundred feet of film to learn to use the camera.
Be sure to use all the settings auto, aperture preferred, shutter preferred, as well as manual. use all the different meter settings spot, center weighted, zone, etc…
make sure you push every button on that camera. Its going to take more than a day to learn all the buttons but when you do it will benefit you.
Will do Buko. I hope to learn everything I can about it. It helps to know you also had some adjustments to make with your Fuji. If all goes well, this camera will be like training wheels… hoping to outgrow the 300D and upgrade in a year or two.
Thanks for your help and support John. I appreciate you looking at those files yesterday. 🙂
Looks like I’m going to the Canon class tonight. Tonight is a basic class to get us familiar with the camera. Next week is a little more advanced class.
Linda, I think you should give "automatic" another chance, after you learn more about the other shooting modes. Just take "ducks" and "trees against bright sky" of the list. I’ve been shooting mostly on automatic since the Minolta Maxxum 7000 came out, some 20 years ago : ). I only use manual (and/or another camera) when I know that automatic won’t do what I need.
I cannot tell what you are talking about. Hopefully you are not really shooting Manual like your words say. And references to Av need explaining since only a 300D user knows what you mean. If it means aperture preferred automatic, that is exactly where you should be; then correcting with exposure control.
Note that by now your image count should be around 1000. If it is lower than that I suggest you aggressively shoot/review/reshoot more *free* pix. The delete button is your friend. <g>
Av is a mode where you control the aperture and the camera controls the shutter. So it is simi automatic oraperture preferred automatic. It is the mode I live in except when I am shootin macro.
TOKYO (Nikkei)–Canon Inc. (7751) and Nikon Corp. (7731) are boosting production of their volume-sales SLR (single-lens reflex) digital cameras priced slightly above 100,000 yen.
Canon has raised monthly production of its EOS Kiss digital camera to 100,000 units from 70,000. Production of the firm’s mainstay SLR digital camera was launched in September 2003, with the company’s subsidiaries in Oita Prefecture and Taiwan making 35,000 units a month each. Canon had shipped a total of around 600,000 units by the end of March.
In addition, the company plans to expand its lineup of SLR digital cameras by launching a professional-use high-end model priced at around 550,000 yen on April 29 and a budget model priced at less than 100,000 yen in the near future.
Canon hopes production hikes and new product additions will boost its annual SLR digital camera shipments from roughly 600,000 units in 2003 to about 1.3 million units this year.
Meanwhile, Nikon has decided to boost production of its volume-sales model D70 at its Thai subsidiary. The product was released on March 19 to compete against Canon’s EOS Kiss, and as of the end of that month a total of 100,000 units had been shipped.
According to the Camera & Imaging Products Association, worldwide shipments of SLR digital cameras are forecast to grow 130% to about 2 million units in 2004.
To cash in on the growth, Olympus Corp. (7733) is also planning to launch a low-priced SLR digital camera within the year. (The Nihon Keizai Shimbun Wednesday morning edition)
<< I’ve been shooting mostly on automatic since the Minolta Maxxum 7000 came out, some 20 years ago :). >>
Really? Thats cool! Well, actually the first day when I shot those ducks (sounds like I went hunting) I used automatic. They were a little blown out in the highlights but could easily be fixed in Photoshop. However, I do want to become as skilled as I can so Ill probably not mess with automatic for a while now that I know it seems to be out of balance.
Works great with my Nikon 990 though, which spoiled me and probably kept me from learning much the past few years. 🙂 Good thing I didnt have my new camera at that horse show last Sunday.
***
Allen,
Im trying to shoot every which way. Ive been trying out all modes along with moving those f/stops and changing the ISO. Im actually learning a little still have a long way to go though.
How many images have I shot? Looks like about 152 by the numbering system. If it started at 0100 and is not 0252, yep 152 sounds right. I guess Im doing more studying than shooting. I have several word docs going with advice from different sources, mainly the forums, then I have 3×5 cards that Ive been writing on so I can drill myself with terms and their definitions.
According to the card I made last night Av means Aperture-Priority: When DOF (area in focus in front and behind a subject) is important, use Av mode. Choose wide f-stop (4/4.5 & wider) for shallow DOF. Choose small f-stop (f/8 & smaller) for greater DOF.
Howd I do? Actually I cheated and read it from the card. 🙂
Oh, and its the mode Cindy lives in . and I just read that you think I should too. 🙂
***
Ashley,
Interesting article. Thanks for sharing it.
***
BTW, I purchased Real World Digital Photography 2nd Edition tonight. Authoris Katrin Eismann, Sean Duggan, and Tim Grey. Looking forward to trying to digest it all.
The Av setting _is_ "automatic," meaning that the camera selects the amount of light reaching the sensor. You would have gotten the same blown highlights that first day set to Av. The solution to blown highlights is to look for them (e.g. Nikons can flash them at you in the LCD, and I would expect the Rebel to be capable of the same) with every shot, and simply to change viewpoint or decrease exposure using exposure compensation when that happens. I check the Histogram and the blown Highlights screens with every shot; takes under 1 second. In-camera light metering, even Nikon’s excellent Matrix Metering, is by definition limited.
Immediate Exposure Compensation adjustment is a huge benefit of digital photography and very frequently appropriate. I very often (almost always when exigencies permit) use Exposure Compensation adjustment to "bracket" exposures, shooting 3 or 4 shots of the same pix and watching the Histogram and the blown Highlights screens to dial in the best exposure. I don’t make the final choice until I am reviewing the images on a large monitor with PS and Levels controls. The same thing is done when shooting (ugh) film, but with film each pic costs money and it takes days to see your shots.
Familiarity with Exposure Compensation adjustment is very important, and easy to learn. Just shoot 3-5 pix of every shot, varying exposure by 1/2 stop increments with each shot. Many folks set their cameras to 1/3 stop increments, but IMO 1/2 stop changes are more than tight enough for folks like us who competently post-process in PS everything we shoot.
I’ll try the Exposure Compensation suggestions tomorrow… well actually I’ll be gone part of the day… but either when I get back tomorrow or Saturday. I did something similar this morning when I went outside to conquer those tree shots. I did several and just kept changing the f-stops for each one. Can’t remember now if I used Av or not… and too tired to check tonight.
Anyway, at least I’m encouraged tonight. Yesterday I was overwhelmed, between the automatic fiasco and what seemed to be a mountain of learning ahead of me. I’ll just keep plugging along little by little… and hopefully learn how to take good pictures.
The basic premise of that site, "bill for, do not give away your work" of course makes sense. However they make some weird cost comparisons:
"$20,000/10 years = $2,000/year average cost if youre shooting film $40,000/5 years = $8,000/year average cost for digital"
I think perhaps the writer is dreaming of some long past world where 100% of the commercial work was not digital files.
The only way to create those numbers is if you ignore the cost of film and of film scanning. Most folks on this Forum perform post processing themselves. In my case, for instance, I can shoot film and scan it to provide an image, or I can shoot digitally. The digicam capture workflow is not only much faster for the client, it is also much cheaper and less time consuming for me.
As always, my comments apply to the 35 mm equivalent world, not to larger formats.
Allen, I agree on both the premise and imperfections of the manifesto.
I think Linda should write a business plan and decide how much of the new trade she wants to perform and what price to charge. This way, maybe she’ll know better if she wants to learn table-top techniques, parallax manipulation, fashion lighting, and so on : )
I appreciate the article and sent it to a professional photographer who lives in our community.
However, I have no intention of entering photography as a profession. I only want to learn as much as I can so I can offer more as a graphic designer. Graphic design is what I do but there are times when clients want decent photos for a job that I do. Because I am particular about all my work I see the need to improve my photography as well. So it will simply be an extension of graphic design for me… and I will probably charge my regular hourly fee.
I also would like to begin creating artistic posters that I might be able to sell on the side to help supplement my income. That’s why I originally wanted to wait for the 8 mp digicams… but like I said, this one can be my training wheels. If all goes well and it looks worthwhile I might buy another better one in a year or two.
Todie: I would like to learn table-top techniques… if that means what I think it does. I assume that means you set up items inside with umbrella, lights, etc. to get a good products shot. I’m asked to do this now quite frequently. I’ve been setting up outside in indirect sun with a white sheet or paper and then cloning out any glare in photoshop, create a clipping path, and then choose a proper background… but I’d like to learn to use more professional methods.
Direct sun is nice but white clouds are better. Umbrelas, reflectors, black cards, polarizers and dulling sprays would be best if you wanted to be a photographer, but since you don’t… (just kidding: ).
I wasn’t going to butt in but before they send you off to Ritz to purchase $10,000 worth of lighting equipment you can do some thing like Allen does. You can purchase to start some inexpensive 3200k tungsten balanced bulb some clip on holders they come together and you can bounce them of off some illustration board or shoot through diffuses made for those reflects.
Fool around with that or take a simple course in studio photography, but that means you have to actually listen to the instructor and allow them to correct your mistakes.
And then after learning a little bit about the how the various types of lights work rent a set of lights, Lights are not that expensive to rent and if you do it over the weekend that is a one day rental cost. You can practice and since you have instant feed back this should give you a fair idea as to which lights work best for you.
The best type of lighting for digital from a logistic point of view is HMIs way to expensive and heavy so the next best thing are the new fluorescent tube type lighting which come either daylight or tungsten balance. Everyone is beginning to use these they don’t give off light as efficiently as strobes nor are they as powerful nor is the light as clean and they are not cheap but everyone is using them and they are easy to handle and do not get as hot as quartz halogen hot lights or the standard bulb type lamps.
They quartz halogen such as the Lowell Lights are relatively inexpensive are very hot give off very clean light are easy to control and if you are not careful can easily cause a fire. I believe they heat to 637º three degrees lower than the melting point of the crystal filament.
Take a course, this is a real can of worms.
Strobes might work with your camera but there is evidence your camera might not sync well.
You can rent a kit for $25-$40 for a day. Two lights power pack two lamp heads, two umbrellas two light stands. Dyna lights would be my choice for you a whole out fit would cost about $2000.
I believe the Editorial Photographers billing comparisons of film and digital address the issue of the erroneous assumption of digital being cheaper. E.P. members have been discussing how photo editors assume because digital files are faster to turn around that they should be cheaper to bill out.
However, with digital the photographer is doing the post production work that a lab would be doing with film. With digital the photographer is downloading of files, color correcting, CD burning, web gallery posting, the list goes on…
The E.P. Manifesto is also including the high costs of purchasing and upgrading computers, software, peripherals, and digital cameras.
Not billing these increased costs is not good business sense and of course is something all photographers should educate their clients about.
Of course, the high cost of digital is one reason to still love film (Hi Wade!) 🙂
I think you are mixing terms. USM (ultrasonic motor) is the focusing mechanism that Canon uses and IS (image stabilization) is the anti-shake mechanism.
IS can allow you to shoot at a shutter speed 2-3 speeds slower than recommended with a particular lens. The basic rule of thumb is do not shoot slower than 1/focal length. So for a 50mm lens don’t go slower than 1/50 sec. The newer Canon IS lenses can even determine if you are shooting with a tripod and adjust themselves accordingly. On older lenses the IS doesn’t work on tripods from what I understand. For IS lenses there are 2 settings: mode 1 for shooting and not panning and mode 2 for panning. If you are not familiar with how the system works, it basically senses lens movement and shifts some of the inner elements to realign the image so the image is sharp.
For lighting, I would go with monolights (flash) every time– particularly because of the sheer convenience of their portability, daylight color balance and low draw of electric current. (You don’t want to blow the circuit-breaker in the average house every time you switch on your lamps.) Keep an eye on eBay — I have seen good equipment there.
Regarding camera techniques: I actually take the opposite position from may of the opinions expressed here.
More photographs are wrecked by unsharpness than by anything else and the practice of using auto-focus, and auto (aperture-priority) exposure, is the prime cause of this.
Choose the shutter speed that you need for the subject — AND the focal-length of your lens. Remember that 6x magnification (a 300mm lens on 35mm) gives 6x the blur caused by camera-shake! I really prefer to be able to use 1/250 for hand-held shots.
This means that you will have more limited Depth of Field — which can actually be a huge advantage when you want your main subject to stand-out from the background.
It also means that you have to learn to focus accurately on what matters (like the eyes!). Auto-focusing doesn’t "know" what you consider to be the most important area — it just looks for a change in contrast so, for a portrait against a bright background, (or a white duck against grass!) the camera will focus on the edge between the back of the head and the background — not on the eyes.
Linda’s pictures took a big stride forwards when she moved over to manual mode.
Also, I don’t care how many exposures you make, I don’t think that anyone learns anything about photography by driving on Auto. The important thing is to learn to DRIVE your camera so that it produces the result that YOU want — on the first shot — always. The first shot may be the only chance that you get .
I don’t think you can use aperture-priority successfully without first coming to understand the relationship between aperture and shutter speed. I look at a scene, decide what DOF I want, set the camera for that and see if my shutter speed is within the limits of what I know will give me a sharp image. If it is not, I change my f stop. If I can’t get what I want I add more light. I do like to hand hold my shots so I got 2 IS lenses. One of them allows me to hand hold down to 1/30 which is pretty slow.
As for lighting for tabletop shots I am setting up something right now by making a frame out of PVC, throwing nylon material over it and placing 2 lights on the outside. Works great. I am still playing around with what type of bulb to use but I was actually pretty successful with 2 60 watt bulbs. Really not enough light. I do shoot objects in manual mode.
I have a white seemless paper back drop & a piece of white wool (similar to a thick piece of felt)
Depending on the product.. depends on which I use.. or both.
The wool is great because I can put boxes under it to make layers or platforms for the products to set on at different heights.
For lights I have 2 Ott-Lite floor lamps (18 watt) & a table top lamp (13 watt). All these have have true light bulbs in them which simulate natural daylight (5000k)
My mother uses a PVC pipe frame, plus a translucent shower curtain for photographing her jewelry. Add in a piece of white cardboard as a reflector (filling shadows), and some light sources (sun or lamps) and it’s pretty effective for photographing small to medium objects. All for an investment of about $30.
Your comments are true – IF you are using 1980s and earlier camera equipment, which of course is all film. 2004 equipment, particularly the latest SLR digicams, are a very different ball game regarding optimizing photography for intermediate photogs.
It is like saying the workflows I had on my 128k Mac with no hard drive is what I should use on my DP G4 with almost a Terabyte of hard drive capacity. The comments above and below by folks like me relate to the very latest equipment by folks very experienced with the latest digital equipment.
[A] Autofocus on modern gear can be faster and more accurate than manual. Manual focus is the exception rather than the rule with _modern_ gear. Your eye/brain still makes the final decision as to whether the focus point selected is the desired one; it is just faster and easier to get there, and what the gear is designed to do (note that modern eqpt. set to manual focus usually lacks the "feel" of the old days of the 80s and before, e.g. Nikon F2; bummer).
[B] Aperture preferred is not "driving on Auto." It is establishing first what you and I both agree is essential: DOF. Then letting the in-camera light meter set Shutter Speed, all the while observing what the settings are in the viewfinder in real time. If you need a faster shutter you adjust ISO – something very expensive to do with film, requiring a whole roll off push or pull in processing.
We fully agree on the eyes, an observation I have made multiple times in this thread.
We agree that "The first shot may be the only chance that you get ." With digital you shoot a shot immediately and adjust, right when you first enter any venue. So your first shot is usually your second.
Long telephoto lens discussions are just confusing at this point and should IMO be avoided. A decent 300 mm lens will cost Linda as much as her whole setup and weigh more, and also lead us into a extensive tripod/head discussion.
Yup, I spent a total of $25. I have also found foam core to work real well for a surface. You can even make tiny slits in it to place jewelry in. The wool fabric sounds like a really good idea. Is it non reflective?
I believe those shots were not black draped as suggested above. If one were to do lots of those a cardboard box (lined with black fabric) that fits well above the scanner is ideal.
Cindy >I don’t think you can use aperture-priority successfully without first coming to understand the relationship between aperture and shutter speed. I look at a scene, decide what DOF I want, set the camera for that and see if my shutter speed is within the limits of what I know will give me a sharp image. If it is not, I change my f stop.
I work this same way! Set camera to aperture priority and just keep an eye on the shutter speed. It’s really second nature to me and can adjust exposure if needed. After awhile you’ll know when to adjust the exposure on tricky lighting situations and when to just take the picture.
Table top shots – Your best bet is to shoot near a window and use the daylight – not sunlight as it’s too harsh on most subjects. Or go outside and and shoot in the shadows.
Also use a panel diffuser as mentioned above or buy a stand, one white umbrella and adapter to hook the two together. Shoot outside in the sun with the umbrella diffusing the sunlight. Add a folding foamcore to fill in shadows if need be.
Allen – read my messages again, we did try it. You’ll always get artifacts on flatbed scanners with reflective objects, and if you use a background you’ll get artifacts with transparent objects. The images I directed you to show both problems.
I once saw some pretty impressive still life images of perfume bottles that had apparently been scanned on a flatbed though I have no idea how it was done in terms of masking etc. The products were all scanned separately and then pasted next to each other in Photoshop on another background image of frosted glass and the general impact was amazing with a very 3D like quality that is not so evident with normal photos.
Wow, Fridays are fun around here. Seems everybody is charged with great advice. I appreciate those who took the time to share their preferred method of table setups. Time to start another Word doc for when I’m ready to go there. 🙂
I just returned from taking some pictures at the inlet. I’ll preview them and see if I want to post them for comments.
Understand the grin, Allen but I have to disagree with this advice for someone in Linda’s shoes. "Shooting more" will develop a photographer’s "eye", but it’s not going to help much when trying to learn the technical aspects of basic photography. Linda HAS to read because going out and shooting a ton of images without having a clue of what or why won’t lead to any greater knowledge – just a lot of (probably) bad photos with no understanding as to why.
Photography is part art, part science – only until you understand the science can you create the art.
I’ve been cracking up reading this thread. I mean, my goodness – Linda just bought her first prosumer camera (good choice, btw), and some of you already have her competing in the professional photography world! Suggesting lighting gear to someone who’s trying to understand photo basics is crazy, imo. All good intentions for sure but no wonder she’s overwhelmed.
Linda – FWIW – my advice is to take it slow – there’s much to learn. Focus on one aspect, say depth of field (see what I did there? focus – DOF 😉 ), shoot some to apply the concepts you’ve just studied, evaluate the results, read a little, shoot some more, and so on until it makes sense. Once you feel you’ve got it down, move on to something else.
It sounds like a good place for you to start is learning how your camera’s meter works. EVERY camera is different with different metering modes, patterns, etc., and each have their intricacies but the one constant is that an in-camera’s meter is a DUMB instrument. The meter doesn’t know if what it’s pointed at is black, white, pink or purple – it just knows that whatever it’s reading will have a tonal value of 18% grey when you snap the shutter. It’s up to YOU to decide if the meter is correct. (two objects in nature that should be close to an 18% value are green grass or trees and a clear blue sky, (opposite side of the sun) at about 45º above the horizon)
The reason you feel your Coolpix is "better at auto" is most likely because it’s using a metering pattern that it just happens to coincide better with whatever it is you’re shooting. The Canon has several metering modes, you need to learn which is better for which situation. (Also, just like a film ISO rating – a digital ISO may not be correct. I find with my D60 it’s closer to ISO 64 or 80. Overexposing by 1/3 stop over the meter reading usually nails it.) I guarantee your 300D is far more capable than your Coolpix – once you learn how to use it.
I’ll just keep plugging along little by little… and hopefully learn how to take good pictures.
Perfect! One exception tho’ – there’s no "hopefully" about it! 🙂
Hi Phil! It’s good to see you here. Your wisdom is timely and your humor appreciated.
I love this…
Linda –
FWIW – my advice is to take it slow – there’s much to learn. Focus on one aspect, say depth of field (see what I did there? focus – DOF ), shoot some to apply the concepts you’ve just studied, evaluate the results, read a little, shoot some more, and so on until it makes sense. Once you feel you’ve got it down, move on to something else.
Fits my learning style perfectly!
As for all the stuff that’s a little <g> over my head, I’m creating properly labelled Word docs in a special learning folder… so I can easily find that info when I’m ready for it. Those who wish to give me advice can continue to do so… I appreciate it all… even if it is beyond my reach at the moment. Almost all of it is being pasted in Word, some for now… some for later. 🙂
Regarding "The reason you feel your Coolpix is "better at auto" is most likely because it’s using a metering pattern that it just happens to coincide better with whatever it is you’re shooting." I disagree: the reason the Coolpix exposure is better is because… Nikon’s Matrix Metering costs more (US$80) because it IS better. I am not flaming here, it is a simple reality.
Regarding "my advice is to take it slow" I could not disagree more. That is the old pre-1995 hardware/software mentality. In our modern SLR digicam world the best way for IMO *all* folks to learn is to TAKE PIX. Digicam pix are free, and feedback is instant. Unfetter your mind, be creative, think outside the (lame film) box! Do not stop reading, do not stop thinking. But TAKE PIX – and then think about every single pic, why it is what it is.
"Linda HAS to read because going out and shooting a ton of images without having a clue of what or why won’t lead to any greater knowledge – just a lot of (probably) bad photos with no understanding as to why.
Photography is part art, part science – only until you understand the science can you create the art."
I agree 100%. I do find that – always thinking – more photos shot and reviewed equals faster learning. However, without the thought any photog is just pressing the button.
About film… I know less about film than I do digital. The only camera I’ve ever used very much is my Nikon 990. Really. 🙂 That’s why I have so much to learn.
Anyway…
I have a few photos < http://graphicspalmbeach.com/forum/CanonShots/inlet042304/in let0311.html> that I’ve chosen to post from today’s visit to the inlet. Because the photos were not perfect I proceeded to correct them. This is "quick and dirty" correction but felt like I had to do something for my own satisfaction. A few of these have a screen shot of the camera info at the bottom of the page.
There are links at the bottom of each page to go to the next page.
You guys are correct except in this case she actually needs someone to show her. She should be in a class where she can see other people learning from someone and how the other students make progress.
She needs to exchange ideas and she needs a class environment where there is colleague criticism of each others work. I t would do her well to have people say hey that’ great and then have that same person look at another one off her images and say hey but that sucks.
Although that would be very helpful she may walk at that point. But she needs that experience.
Very nice presentation. It is clear that we don’t have to worry about you "not thinking" about your pix.
The blowouts (see clipped histograms) are of particular interest. Many times a "blowout" can be totally acceptable as part of optimizing a pic. If your brain sees a blown out white roof as just a white roof, who cares if it is "blown out?" The nice thing about digital is that you can look at it, THINK about it, and reshoot (or choose not to reshoot) in a few seconds. E.g. the boat is moving at about 15-25 feet per second, so you could easily reshoot if necessary.
P.S. I post-process EVERY pic. ————————————-
Wade-
I agree that a class environment can be helpful. However, Linda is not a visual rookie. The fact that she is competent to critique her own work is a nice plus for her. Also, independent pro review obviously can help all of us; tough on the ego, but invaluable.
Thanks very much Allen. You are encouraging… and at this point that helps a lot. I have a long way to go. Thankfully I have nothing pressing by way of work right now… I do have several photos to be restored and retouched but client doesn’t care how long I take. When I finish them she just keeps giving me more. I love clients like that.
Also, I am enrolled in a class and went to the first one last night. It was very basic and next week is material I already know… but the two weeks after that I plan to attend. Interacting with you all is terrific and I’m grateful for your time.
I disagree Allen! She needs to see how others exchange their experience if she is visual then she will relate. This place is a verbal exchange, loaded with subjective content and very little objectivity.
She may also get some ideas about lighting that will be more concrete then can possibly come from here and she may be able to actually see how some people start to set up their studios. Or she may meet someone who might like the idea of sharing a rental of a kit for a week end etc.
Usually, when I don’t understand a reference it means it has to do with movies or sports, two fields in which I’m absolutely ignorant.
However, since there are many other fields of human endeavor in which I’m not particularly well versed, it’s prudent to inquire whether I’m missing something about which I should know. (Sorry, I just got a gazillion Google hits on animal house.)
Thank you Ramon. I think I learn best by all means available… and interacting with you all is not only enlightening but enjoyable.
From day one, almost everything I’ve learned about graphic design, software, the Web, etc… have been from studying and interacting with others. I create my own classroom, then purchase and study whatever materials I think are the best, drill myself, test myself, then try to practice on something worthwhile. Generally I also usually end up doing probono work while I’m learning something new if I have the time.
By the way, I’m glad to see you back. Just last night I was wondering if you were okay. Hope your health is improving… and how is your wife’s foot?
I remember Mike mentioned something in the past concerning the color space of RAW and Photoshop.
I noticed that the RAW images are opening up with the default Adobe RGB (1998) color space. I wonder if it’s best to leave them in this color space until you determine what they will be used for… or if it’s best to discard the embedded profile…. or assign the current working space profile if different.
Also, since the file is still in RAW format, I assume you loose nothing by changing the color space from it’s default.
Actually I do work in Adobe RGB if I’m preparing files for print, prior to converting to CMYK. Naturally if I’m working on Web files I use sRGB.
I was just trying to remember the topic Mike commented on a while back. I could be wrong but I seem to remember that he thought the default should be sRGB rather than AdobeRGB. Trying to remember what that was all about.
Hope he was joking. Forgot to comment on your latest images. Looks like the image quality is improving a lot! Nice job, all adjustments seem correct except for the last image – inlet0318 too much correction. The lens seems sharp – I noticed you stopped down more – excellent. Have you tried changing metering settings – from center to matrix for example.
remember Mike mentioned something in the past concerning the color space of RAW and Photoshop.I noticed that the RAW images are opening up with the default Adobe RGB (1998) color space. I wonder if it’s best to leave them in this color space until you determine what they will be used for… or if it’s best to discard the embedded profile…. or assign the current working space profile if different.<
Also, since the file is still in RAW format, I assume you loose nothing by changing the color space from it’s default. <
You can determine what working space you want in ACR, ( I think 4 choices last time I looked) before you render the file out to the working space.
If you really want to capture all the color fidelity, tonal range and all that jazz, use Prophoto RGB in 16 bit. It’s a larger color space than Adobe RGB and is the flavor of choice in my book for many reasons.
I need to go work in the garden now and may bring back some shots.
Off topic Thanks for asking about my wife’s foot. She is doing very well as far as avoiding infection and swelling, but the pain has begun to intensify again, She still has that steel nail protruding from her toe; it’ll get taken out in two weeks or less. I’m OK myself, with everything under control.
Back on topic:
It’s good to know that Adobe continues to work on AC RAW. As Mike points out, remember that you can determine the color space before the RAW conversion.
As Bruce mentioned – your lens isn’t great but it’s not terrible either. IMO, it’s perfectly fine for you at this stage of the game. I think the sole reason Canon developed and included it as an optional package was so people wanting to move beyond point and shoots wouldn’t freak out – "What! You mean for $900 I don’t even get a lens"?!!
(About sharpness: Canon digital has always been a little soft even at the highest sharpness setting. I actually prefer it that way because I want to be the one deciding what gets sharpened and by how much as I do a lot of selective sharpening. Even when processing RAW file in ACR, I keep sharpening low. Some other brands/makes way oversharpen, imo.)
It’s REAL easy to get caught up in equipment. Don’t fall into the trap. Go to most photo forums and you’ll see people arguing over which latest and greatest gizmo is the best. They’ll brag about spending a couple grand for a lens and yet when you look at their photos, it’s obvious they couldn’t take an interesting (good), photo to save their life. A crappy photo created with the sharpest lens in the world is still a crappy photo. Quality equipment is important but it’s secondary to the ability and vision of the person using it.
At Brooks, I had a roommate who was ALL about the equipment. A then, 30-something trust-fund baby who bought "nothing but the best" and a LOT of it. I think the first week he bought something like 3 brand new hassy bodies, 6 or 7 lenses and some high dollar lighting equipment. When it came time to do an assignment, he spent more time trying to decide which piece of equipment to use than actually making photographs. He couldn’t figure out why he got mostly C grades when I’d get A’s and B’s with my low budget camera gear and homemade/improvised lighting equipment.
Allen –
I can’t tell now – are you wid’ me … or agin’ me? 😉
I agree that for learning purposes, digital is great because of the immediate feedback. My only problem with them is THERE’S TOO MUCH STUFF ON THEM! Auto this – auto that, matrix this – matrix that … phooey! None of that stuff is going to help teach anyone the basics of photography. I still think one of the best 35mm cameras to learn with is the Pentax K1000. It’s cheap, (you can pick up a body and lens on eBay for about $50), has only one bell (manual meter), and no whistles – which means there’s nothing to get in the way of learning basic photo principals. Way back when, I learned how to use guide numbers to determine proper flash exposures. At the time, I thought it was totally useless knowledge because "Why not just use an incident flash meter?" What I didn’t realize was how much I was actually learning about basic lighting principals.
Current technology is great as it makes photography easier for the masses and even pros, but the very same laws of physics that applied 100 years ago still apply today. Technology will never change that.
Ramon: I’m sure your wife will be glad to get that thing out of her foot. Hope everything goes well. Keep us posted.
Phil: I’m glad to know that what’s happening seems to be normal with my camera. Also glad to know that post sharpening is normal. I must say I’m hooked on RAW and 16-bit. It’s wonderful to be able to make umpteen adjustments to an image, then when I click on the histogram it fills right back up again. How cool!
Still, I want to learn to capture the information in the best possible way from the get-go.
I just got through taking more outdoor shots on my property. I’ll post some for evaluation… if I’m not overdoing it. 🙂
Hopefully we are not wid or agin, but discussing. <g>
I have mixed feelings about the learning process. Certainly everything that you said is true for film photography and for learning photography in general if someone has 4 years to do it at a place like Brooks, or R.I.T. or Pratt. Your example about learning Guide Numbers and fully manual flash photography, and how that translates into learning about lighting in general makes a world of sense. After all, photography is only about light.
For folks learning one-up film photography as an art medium your K1000 suggestion is spot on. I have an artist (ceramics) friend who I pointed in the direction of a 1980 Canon SLR with 50 mm lens at a bargain price as her first camera (her goal is one-up photo art). However, her path [a] is not cheap, since her first 1000 photos (a small number) are costing her about US$500 for film and processing; and [b] is IMO seriously handicapped by the multiple days it takes between creating a pic and seeing what it looks like. She has been trying to get into the local JC photo lab class, which would reduce processing cost, but it is always overbooked.
I am leaning toward feeling that SLR digicam technology really is very different. For instance, yes physical laws of 100 years ago still apply, but applied very differently. E.g., chemistry is now out of the equation – a huge, huge change that could be its own thread here. Micro motors now exist that facilitate changes in hardware, closely integrating with the optics of a camera system. All commercial images are now digitally processed, another big impact. Flash integration with camera/lens systems allows a photog to create flash lighting in minutes that would take hours the old way.
Biggest of all is seeing a pic in real time and being able to dial in lighting in seconds. E.g. Nikon’s iTTL wirelessly can strobe from as many flash units as desired, all TTL synched. That ability makes learning to calculate Guide Numbers analogous to learning Latin prior to learning Spanish. A nice idea from a classical education standpoint, but perhaps not optimum time expenditure for most of us who want to converse with our Hispanic neighbors.
So I am wrestling with this from a conceptual standpoint. Aperture, Shutter, DOF, ISO, focus remain parameters. But how a photog achieves them has changed a lot. Composition and lighting remain all-important. But again, how a photog achieves them (real time review/correct) has changed a lot.
My (tentative) conclusion is that SLR digital photography using 2004 gear is actually a new medium, and the best ways to learn are different in the new medium. At this point almost 100% of the really competent SLR digicam practitioners have evolved from film. It will be interesting to see what transpires as SLR digital photography evolves and competent practitioners exist who never knew film.
—————————— Linda-
We love your posts. They makes us think, which hopefully is a good thing…
I pulled a boo boo today. I reset my camera to default before I began chaning the settings and forgot to use RAW. If I post any images they will be from JPG files.
I am curious to know if you were using Auto-focus for that one (which I guessed that you were).
If it was Auto-focusssing, do you see how the camera has picked on the edge between the dog’s dark fur and the brighter grass as the point of focus when you would have chosen to focus further forward and got a sharp nose and eyes?
Also, notice how the exposure is correct for the grass but insufficient to show the texture of the black fur? This is where spot-metering would be useful, or you could just make a quick judgement to open up a stop more than the meter was indicating.
Hi Ann. I did use auto focusing for the dog. However, I think what you are seeing is the extreme bluring I added to the picture to give her more of a glamour shot look. You seen she’s very vain. 🙂
Anyway, if you like I’ll post the original so you can get a better idea of what really took place inside the camera.
Remember, yesterday was not a good day for shots. I also forgot to change my settings back to raw. This picture of my dog was rare in that I even got her to look at me long enough to snap it. She never looks at me and she’s always moving. I think I had to meow like a cat to get that one. 🙂
Well, well, well… what do you know. Mr. Z has decided not to buy a digital camera… Gee, and I was responsible for that? I think I’ll just have to go buy some ice cream to feel better… 🙂
Anyway I hope we all know the dog was not meant to impress anyone… just posted her because she’s my dog… and she does have a pretty face, with or without a glamour shot. 🙂
You seem to want to think that MODERN Auto Focus somehow correlates with incorrect focus. Not true. The rebel is not 1980 Olympus hardware any more than your DP G5 is a 128k Mac from 1985. Modern equipment is totally different today; it is now very much a tech/optical world in SLR digicams, not an optical/chemistry world like it is with your equipment.
The photog can either manually adjust focus or depress the shutter button half way to (instantly in most cases) adjust focus. In both cases the *photog* chooses the focus setting, being also aware of the DOF preset by Aperture; unless someone sets to Shutter Preferred as you recommended earlier, in which case aperture and DOF will be varying as the critter movse and become lit differently.
The dog shot – a moving critter fairly close – is very difficult using any camera. In any event it is usually much easier to accomplish with instant modern autofocus than it would be shooting manually. The exception would be when the distance is predictable, like my earlier examples of a skier, or a horse over a jump, in which case Manual Focus often works best.
The Rebel’s autofocus is not so 1980s lame as to cause "the camera has picked on the edge between the dog’s dark fur and the brighter grass as the point of focus." In that pic if the photog aimed the camera on the nose/eyes that’s where the camera would be in focus; the same as if manually focused there. Most likely (I have 3 generations of labradors and have taken lots of dog shots) either the critter moved like critters do, or the photog just missed the focus point. Actually I think the pic is OK given how hard it is to collect interesting pics of lively dogs (much easier when they are asleep) <g>. But in any event, the "camera" did not miss the focus point!
Not to say that Autofocus is perfect. Even with modern autofocus sometimes the camera cannot quickly find a point at the focus distance you want. When that happens and tilting the camera to achieve autofocus does not work, manual focus becomes necessary. However, eyes do tend to be something that autofocus almost always can achieve focus on.
I do agree that a very experienced manual-focus photog with old manual-focus gear could do a better job on that pic than the same photog with the latest SLR set to Auto-focus. The very experienced manual-focus photog could be changing focus as the dog moved. However that takes many years of experience and does not work all that well using lens/camera systems that have auto focus as an option. A downside of most SLR camera systems since 1980 or so. Note that Linda is not a "very experienced manual-focus photog" and her gear is not "old manual-focus gear."
Additional choices on some modern SLR digicams are Constant Autofocus and/or Predictive Autofocus, but I so far have chosen not to use them very much so I cannot really comment.
Autofocus works so well on my SLR digicam I almost always use it for Manual focus! I autofocus on the point I want, and then switch to Manual focus to keep the camera from wanting to refocus on successive shots.
My (tentative) conclusion is that SLR digital photography using 2004 gear is actually a new medium, and the best ways to learn are different in the new medium.
I really disagree. It doesn’t matter one iota that considerations for color temperature are handled differently – you STILL have to understand what color temperature IS and HOW it’s going to affect a photograph! Sure, the ease of correcting color temp that digital affords is wonderful but what about shooting in a mixed lighting environment? The photographer who only knows "custom white balance" isn’t going to have the first clue what to do in that situation.
I don’t view digital as a "new medium" in the least. To me, it’s more akin to using a different emulsion. You have to treat it differently, but the main concepts and principals still apply. The largest difference of course, is what happens after the shutter has been pressed. But it doesn’t have to be. With film, you paid a lab to process after the shoot. You could very well do that with digital.
Whether digital, glass plates, 8×10, 35mm, or an pin-hole’d oatmeal box – photography is the medium. "Digital" is simply another method to record an image.
At this point almost 100% of the really competent SLR digicam practitioners have evolved from film.
Why do you think that is? It’s because those that have successfully transitioned to digital understand photography! To be competent in digicam photography, one must be competent in photography – period! Yes (again), I agree that instant feedback is great but what good is instant feedback if the person using it doesn’t have a clue about the cause of a problem, or how to solve it? Just because the latest xxLL flash get-up from Nikon (which I assume is similar to what’s offered from Canon – I’m sure you’ll let me know Nikon’s is better 😉 ), allows someone who knows nothing about lighting to get a decent exposure doesn’t mean they know how to use it effectively. You think the amateur with money to burn for expensive gear understands how light works? Tools and techniques are just means to an end – a good (or at least an interesting), photograph. "Yeah great – nice exposure. To bad the photo sucks". Any current tennis pro could clean my clock in tennis if they were using a pool cue and I had the best racket money could buy.
Honestly Allen, I’m surprised on your views on this. (We normally agree on pretty much everything. ;)) In some ways it’s troubling as it reminds me of camera manufacturers claims – "Buy our latest whiz-bang wonder and you too can shoot like a pro!" Unfortunately, way too many people believe it. (Of course, this is nothing new – they’ve done the same with film cameras for years but for some reason more people are swallowing it because of digital.) Knowledge and experience will always be king – and they don’t come in a box.
(On a more agree-able note – my auto-focusing 35s (film or digital) are much faster at focusing than I am. I’m pretty quick with my RZ tho’!) 🙂
Linda —
It’s dark overall. It could be an exposure issue or simply because of differing monitors. Remember though about what I said regarding ISO. Just because you turn the dial to ISO 100, doesn’t mean it actually IS ISO 100. You may have to compensate by using exposure compensation. The image did brighten up well and revealed lots of detail in the dark parts of the coat.
Focus: Nothing looks completely in focus. Could be camera shake, subject movement or a combination of both. What was you shutter speed? Don’t feel bad tho’ – animals that don’t sit still are extremely hard to photograph well. I know – I have one. There’s an old saying amongst pros regarding 36 exposure film rolls – "it’s not 36 exposures – it’s 36 chances"! In other words, shooting more than one frame will increase the likely-hood of a good shot.
Is this discussion limited to technical issues? I’d like to give some subjective feedback but unlike SOME people here, I don’t want to offer unwanted advice.
(btw – there’s no such thing as "not a good day for photography". A great photograph can be created in ANY kind of weather.) 😉
"Is this discussion limited to technical issues? I’d like to give some subjective feedback but unlike SOME people here, I don’t want to offer unwanted advice."
Not sure if I’m qualified to answer that but if I am I’d say, it’s wanted! 🙂
I appreciate your comments on the dog. She never stops moving. I’ve been shooting her since I bought the camera and this was the first shot I got of her face. My guess is we both moved.
Anyway the dog was not meant to be an example of good photography, just something to post of interest since I did not feel compelled to post anything I shot yesterday. It was all very hum-drum-booring and a dull cloudy day as well. Where I live is beautiful to me… all natural, palmettos, pine trees, ponds and canals… but it’s all the same or similar colors and can make for boring photography… especially since yesterday was overcast and kind of gray anyway.
<< I autofocus on the point I want, and then switch to Manual focus to keep the camera from wanting to refocus on successive shots. >> proves my point which is that auto-focus is a devil in disguise.
Instead of falling for this "Auto Everything" marketing hype, learn to DRIVE the camera rather than letting the camera drive you!
That includes learning to keep your hand on the focussing ring and instinctively following your subject.
That’s has NOTHING to do with "Modern equipment [being] totally different today; it is now very much a tech/optical world in SLR digicams", it’s a BASIC camera skill — whatever the recording medium.
While you are going through the rigmarole that I have quoted at the beginning of this posting, any moving object has long-since flown, blown, galloped or simply walked away.
Technology may be wonderful, developing the skill to use it is more so.
Like I said, I am trying to work all this out. You and I disagree on some points conceptually, but not on the reality – if that makes any sense at all (too many Berkeley years, perhaps). I appreciate our discourse.
You don’t consider digital to be a new medium, and you may be right when you say: "Whether digital, glass plates, 8×10, 35mm, or an pin-hole’d oatmeal box – photography is the medium. "Digital" is simply another method to record an image."
However, as I see it glass plates, 8×10, 35mm, or a pin-hole’d oatmeal box are all light/chemical processes, whereas digital photography is a light/electronic process. That to me seems to make them different media. To be sure, hard copy prints are still chemical, but the photo is already a viewable end result, fully defined digitally when it is on the monitor.
IMO the shift to fully optical/electronic from optical/chemical changes the appropriate way to persue many things photographic. Lighting that used to be calulated can now be quickly eyeballed (perhaps eyebrained would be a better term). Of course mixed lighting issues are still there unabated, but the approach to understanding and solving such issues can be different.
In fact I went through a really huge leap in understanding light (I am still working at it; my degrees are not in Photography) when I got my first "digital camera," which was just a cheap lens tethered to the computer. Color – not just brightness – changed dramatically with small lighting changes, what a concept! To see it in real time is very instructive for me.
You say: "The largest difference of course, is what happens after the shutter has been pressed." IMO in commercial photography that is the smaller difference, since all film is scanned; the larger difference is in the electronic tools that can be instantly applied, reviewed, readjusted, reshot. That capability changes the way we can approach photography. Even though light has not changed, IMO the way we approach modifying light is changing.
I would liken the (IMO) different film/digital photo media to the differences between oil and acrylic as painting media. Painting is still about light and color in either media, but the characteristics of each allow the painter to create a bit differently.
It’s not the way to go but I will probably buy digital capture equipment in the relatively near future.
Well assuming they fix the problems with wide angle lenses.
I think they will.
And of course fix the problems with quality.
BTW linda it wasn’t the photograph per se, though it is nothing special, the doggie is pretty, but the quality of the capture I am concerned with. I will make note that the Canon Lenses have always seemed to me to be a bit weak on sharpness.
But I would rather paint the take photographs any day of the week.
You misquote my intent. My statement was saying that even in the situations where _fixed_ manual focus is desired, I find autofocus the fastest way to get there. My eyes are good, no correction necessary, but with modern gear I personally find auto focus to be substantially faster than manual focus most of the time.
Other folks with different camera/lens combinations and eye/brain/hand coordination may find otherwise. However, experience with old gear should not even be in this discussion. Modern gear is very different: [a] manual focus often lacks the "feel" that helps facilitate driving manually, and [b] auto focus works superbly.
All photogs should experiment and choose for themselves – after experiencing at least 10,000 or so pix taken using a modern SLR digicam. It does not take long when pix are free.
Alan you have to get yourself a Lieca, and remember there is nothing like a Lieca!
They’ll be coming out with a digital/film capable camera soon. But of course the cost will be phenomenal. And it will probably be hard to get one because the collectors buy up the first batch.
BTW most of the collectors never actually use the cameras they just collect them.
But there is nothing faster than focusing with a Lieca range finder!
Not sure if I’m qualified to answer that but if I am I’d say, it’s wanted!
Au Contraire – you’re the ONLY one qualified since it’s regarding your photography. ;- )
Earlier I said photograpy is part art and part science. Well, the "art" part is MUCH more important than the science part. Even at these beginning stages, talking about the subjective aspect of your images will greatly aid you to become a better photographer.
I understand the dog image was just a snapshot. Even before you mentioned how you created it, it was evident of what transpired – I could almost hear you snapping your fingers (or some other attention-getter), as you stood over your handsome pooch. Ok, just a snapshot. Fair enough. However, if you WANTED to get a good image of your dog at the time, what would you do? I’m not asking about anything technical so don’t think you need to come up with some magical exposure or it need to be in "better light" or anything. Using what you had to work with THEN, how would you make this image better?
it’s all the same or similar colors and can make for boring photography… especially since yesterday was overcast and kind of gray anyway.
Absolutely, 100% wrong. That’s the "snapshot Linda" talking – you’re beyond that now. There’s no rule in photography that dictates good images can only be created on sunny days with blue skys and lots of color. There are probably thousands of great, overcast-day images just waiting to be discovered – you just haven’t learned to "see" yet!
–>That includes learning to keep your hand on the focussing ring
Ann, I’m sorry, but I think this is fairly dubious advice for anyone with eyeballs over 40 using modern autofocus equipment. You’d be much better served learning to make the autofocus focus on the right spot! Even the lowly Digital Rebel has a seven-point AF system, and until you know how to control which of the seven points get used, you’re as well just pointing and shooting…
Once you do know how to control the AF systems, they’re quite embarrasingly good. The same is generally true, though to a much lesser extent, for Aperture-priority or shutter-priority automationthey automatically give you a starting point that you can very easily override. But autofocus, used correctly, gives me sharper images, on the fly, than my 50-year-old eyeballs can manage unassisted.
My eyesight isn’t atypically bad for someone my age. Yours may be atypically good, but honestly, learning to control the AF system is a significant part of learning how to drive the camera, and for shooting moving subjects, it’s an essential skill.
You will like this: I am considering buying a Nikon F2 (nostalgia) and going back to the basics, working on one-up photography, just using an old 50 mm lens. I could do the same with my modern film cameras, but it seems not the same.
I will not regress on the commercial work side, since I am fully convinced digital capture is the way to go.
All this discussion has made me even more convinced that film/digital are two different but related photo media. But also that I should go back and play (note play, not work) more with film (do they still make Tri-X?) and an F2. That camera did have excellent "feel" in the manual focus, but I was never even as close to as fast at capturing a shot as I can do today with an SLR digicam.
I have fouvd shooting live rock’n roll the more pics you take the better chance you have of capturing that truly great picture. When I was using me F4 I found myself shooting 5 to 8 rolls of film duing the first 2-3 songs(impossed shooting time for most live shows) where the other photogs present only made it through maybe 2 or three rolls. I always felt lucky to get one great shot per roll. with the lights changing and the musicians jumping around the stage.
digital gives me even more good shots because I can quickly erase badly exposed pics because of unexpected light changes and unexpected movment. a quick glance at the screen tells me how good I might or might not be doing and give me the chance to compensate.
It took me a while to get used to digital but now its becoming more of a second narure to me. the reason I started this thread was the S3s double sensors. I was excited about this because of shooting rock’n roll live and having little control over lighting. and having greater chance of caputring the moment without those blown highlights.
I made some progress today. I think partly because the day was so beautiful. I’m only posting four shots and two are the same with one adjusted. The first shot was a test and has no corrections.
Buko: I’m so glad you started this thread. I’m also glad to hear how you are liking your new camera. Are you up to posting some photos? I’d love to see what you’re doing. If you prefer not to that’s fine… or if you prefer to email me with a link that’s fine.
Interesting, none of this focusing stuff with the auto focus is true though. Especially what Fraser wrote. And my 59 year old eyes easily beat the Mamiya 645 even the logic is ridiculous!
Turn the ring sharp shot you just can’t beat that.
I have no doubt that most folks can focus most medium format cameras faster manually. This is not about medium format.
Like I said, "Other folks with different camera/lens combinations and eye/brain/hand coordination may find otherwise." Perhaps your eye/brain/hand coordination is such that you can manually focus a Nikon DSLR or a Canon digital Rebel faster than you can autofocus the same camera. Until you shoot a few thousand pix with such a camera we won’t know.
Chris, I think your mom’s shot <http://www.eaglelapidary.com/artists/delane1.jpg> is the best photo and my favorite piece of jewelry on the page. Without knowing it was her’s when I first looked, that’s the one I liked the best.
Well Kitty moves her ass real fast, and of course CBGBs allows no lights of any kind. She was more fun than anything I ever shot. You got to see the girl move.
But Bruce I have to hand it to you once again you prove you have your head up your well I think you know!
Maybe I will post Greg Troopers photos from the Lone Star one day well that was not as challenging as they had two extra bulbs.
I tell you Kitty has more energy than anyone alive. go Kitty!
Thanks bruce for posting that i haven’t seen that in a long time I’ll think I ‘ll see what she is doing lately.
First let me say that I love the way you provoke me to think! Now, in response to your comments I’ve responded below. Not sure I gave all the right answers but you can give it back to me if you want. 🙂
Au Contraire – you’re the ONLY one qualified since it’s regarding your photography. ;- )
Oh yeah… good point. 🙂
Earlier I said photography is part art and part science. Well, the "art" part is MUCH more important than the science part. Even at these beginning stages, talking about the subjective aspect of your images will greatly aid you to become a better photographer.
Good point…
However, if you WANTED to get a good image of your dog at the time, what would you do?
Something like I did for Duke. Click here. <http://graphicspalmbeach.com/coffee/duke.html> …only a little more intense. I would like to get Thea to look at me with an expression that conveys some kind of message. Trouble is, Thea is not really that kind of dog. I used to have another Shepherd, Goatee… who looked me in the eyes and could read my mind. I loved him dearly. He was beautiful in his own way, however imperfect. He was a very large dog, weighed at least 130 lbs, had a beautiful face, but his ears never did go up all the way. Still I would love to have a shot of him looking at me the way he did so many times, especially when I needed a little encouragement. Did I say I miss him…
There’s no rule in photography that dictates good images can only be created on sunny days with blue skys and lots of color. There are probably thousands of great, overcast-day images just waiting to be discovered – you just haven’t learned to "see" yet!
Well then, I guess I’d better start looking a little harder. 🙂
Click on the thumbnail in the very center this site. You know, that "boring and grey" one.
Hey, what’s so dull and boring about that? It’s wonderfully soft and intriquing. 🙂
Thank you Bruce. I think I can boost the QuickTime’s performance and resolution I am really surprised at how well it does play. I never had so much fun.
IMO flatbed scanning necklaces is better than photography in most cases. Often the more complex necklaces are impossible to make look right when hanging on anything other than a model unless you spend an inordinate amount of time.
My server is down at the moment, so I am emailing 2 pix of flatbed scanned necklaces to you. I hope you don’t mind, I made them fairly small files.
They were scanned with the backdrops (one black felt, one gray seamless) fairly close to the bed. IMO the best presentation for web marketing if a black background works for the site is black felt higher (minimum six inches) above the scanner surface, e.g. an oversized cardboard box lined with black fabric (avoid paint because it flakes).
Scanning is fast, little setup time or photog skills needed – no lighting! I use an Epson 1650 set to Auto.
One point re web product display is that IMO images should be cropped very very tightly. IMO folks come to see the product, and sites necessarily limit image size. Ergo ideal photo/backdrop visual should be sacrificed to maximize product image.
I had to shoot some trinkets for a website once before I got my S2 and used my flatbed scanner. If I had to do something similar I would most likely use the flatbed again. The DOF is quite impressive. I discovered this scanning a small pic with the transparency back still on.
IMO, Autofocus on a camera has to be the single most innovative feature to arrive on the scene in the last twenty or so years. Especially, so, for someone who wears glasses. I utilize autofocus for well over 95 percent of my pix. The only time I revert to manual mode is if I have to shoot through glass or wire mesh, etc. Or some macro work.
I love taking pix of kids… theyre one of my favorite subjects. As anyone whos been around tykes or kids knows, getting them to hold still for a second is like asking for a divine miracle. Before autofocus arrived, I had one heck of a time keeping my focus in check whenever I tried to follow their impulsive, spontaneous actions. Now, if I had to rely on manual mode for this, Im sure that Id miss well over half my shots. For me, its a godsend!
I could live w/o autoexposure if called upon to do so, but NOT autofocus!
You wear glasses many cameras come with built in or there are available lenses for such purposes.
But you do recognize that auto focus no matter how sophisticated can only be a compromise especially with moving subject.
Auto focus was developed for hey stand over there don’t move say cheese and snap!
When you listen to people like Fraser who demonstrated his ignorance when siting the images of Kitty as being out of focus then your in trouble.
BTW Bruce of course the images are in focus it is your comprehension of what is going on that is derelict. So I will explain the situation to you. Available light shooting with tungsten balanced film rated at iso 160 shutter speed .25 seconds lens opening f2 strictly available light and no tripods allowed no strobe or flash equipment allowed past the front or stage door. That is the policy of CBGBs. And you need permission to take pictures in the first place. And of course Kitty is really moving. I don’t think they even allowed such equipment it for the Talking Heads or Blondie, that’s where they started out and the place is still going strong so I guess they know what they are doing.
You got me curious it has been years since I’ve been there I’ll think I will go back.
But auto focus is a comprimise and will make you miss some rear opportunities.
Ann she is using her macro nicely now if she can find out what she can bring to the subject or what she wants to say about it comes from within instead of what comes from what everyone else in the world has done Cindy might actually develop into some more than a professional.
I actually see that Cindy does have something to say I will curious if she finds it as well!
Cindy that’s a compliment, just in case you didn’t get it!
A few of the images are not as trite as most macro images and i think this comes from you.
Thanks Bonnie! With the bees you just pull up a chair and get comfortable. I have found the older bees a little slower. And it depends on the flowers. Some of the flowers they hang out longer LOL This bee hung around forever! <http://www.pbase.com/cindy74/another_bee>
I also have something to add about Cindy’s work. Yesterday she asked for my raw file of image 0472. Here is a sample < http://graphicspalmbeach.com/forum/CanonShots/sunday042504/c indyswork0472.html> of what Cindy did in the raw settings to correct my image. I was impressed! I also am blown away with some of her photography.
Cindy: You might want to show off your latest table top projects.
I still get skittish around them (one too many hospital visits due to allergic reactions). But then I normally am comming up on them… will have to try the sitting & waiting method.
Version 10.3.4 should provide a performance gain when launching non-prebound applications. In addition, the update includes several changes that may affect device compatibility, specifically, TWAIN scanners, USB Flash Media, SCSI drives, iPods, and some PCMCIA cards. The update also reportedly incorporates updates relating to Audio FireWire and USB 2.0 connectivity for the iPod. Version 10.3.4 also includes changes to Core Audio, OpenGL, Graphics, Core OS, and the High Level Toolbox, Apple told developers. Apple also specified several known issues with the latest build involving Quartz Extreme and DVD playback, Safari table rendering, redraw problems, display resolutions, and System Profiler.
LOL…my cell phone AFTER I cleaned it. Macro lenses are excellent for product shots and portraits. I recently had the privilege of taking a baby being born with it. I had to stand back a little too far though. Would have been better with a 50mm
I appreciate the link Cindy. I’m trying to see if there is a relationship with f/stop before and histogram after. I’m off to exercise and read some more from my new book on DP.
More accurately, f-stop interacting with shutter speed interacting with lens+filters speed interacting with camera exposure settings (e.g. exposure compensation) controls the amount of light reaching the sensor. Varying any of those affects the amount of light reaching the sensor.
Shooting Aperture Preferred Auto (Av on the DRebel I am told) like Linda often is, varying the Aperture (f-stop) does NOT affect the amount of light reaching the sensor, because shutter speed auto-adjusts to maintain the exposure determined by the camera settings and light meter.
Allen altering the shutter speed or the aperture regardless of the mathematical balance you achieve changes the nature and quality of the light. A longer exposure will effect the capture film or digital a variant in the aperture will as well in a different way.
The only constant is the speed of light any other factor is a variant of that constant.
It’s almost like saying if I underexpose film two stops all I have to do is push the film in the development to get back to the right exposure which of course does not work.
If the light is on the sensor for more time it affects the quality of the data as well as if there is more light on the sensor at a smaller aperture.
Thanks Allen. Actually I am not partial to any particular mode at this point since I’m still learning about all of them. I tend to use P probably more than the others on my most recent shots at least.
I do see the sense in it from a theoretical standpoint. More particularly with film, which is a photochemical process. And also most relevant with very large time differences. I am glad that you raise the issue for thought.
Almost all shots taken on an SLR digicam are in the range of 1/5000 to 1 second; most are 1/1000 to 1/30. The speed of light and the speed of most electronic processes (not the mechanical ones) are faster than many millions of feet per second. From a practical standpoint using modern electronics the difference at the sensor between settings that vary by 2 or 3 stops aperture vs. shutter IMO the functional difference is zero.
"P" on most cameras means Full Auto, and I agree with Ann and others that full auto is generally bad form. That setting pretty much has no role for a thinking photographer like yourself. Better to get in the habit of set to Av and f-5.6 or f-8. In underwater and wildlife photography when we had no clue what might happen next and changing settings was very difficult, we had a saying "Set to f-8 and wait." When I get confused (it happens…) I still fall back to that.
Then when you want to change DOF you go to f-11 and higher for more depth, f-4 and below for more shallow depth (use the DOF Preview). After any series of shots you leave it set to f-8.
The exception is for what I call an "emergency" shot with modern gear. E.g. you forget what the camera settings are and an event is happening right now. You push the setting to "P," point, zoom to compose, get a stable platform, autofocus, recompose, and shoot; all in approx. two seconds.
Note that often Full Auto will select the widest aperture, minimum depth of field. But you may not want minimum DOF for your "emergency" shot. If your routine becomes – like mine is – to routinely leave the camera set at Aperture Preferred f-8, you can approach an emergency shot knowing the camera settings! Sweet. Even faster, and you can easily spin the aperture to wider or smaller if you choose, knowing the shot will work.
I really appreciate your patience with me. After reading your post I realized that you have told me about Av before. Some days between lack of sleep and so much to learn I tend to forget while in the learning stages. Anyway you are very good (and patient) at explaining all this and it really helps.
So the basic formula you recommend is Av & f-8… and adjust from there. For more DOF, go to f-11 and higher. For shallow DOF, use f-4 and below… and P is good for emergency shots that you don’t have time to figure out.
Allen light travels as light wave the frequency changes according to the amount of light the angle of the light and the amount of light think about the speed again then think about the math again and you will see there is a big difference between shooting at 1/30 of a second and 1/125 of a second a digital sensor is highly affected by the time the light is on it like it or not.
Just saying because one is a photo chemical process doesn’t mean any thing except that it is a photo chemical process.
Light reflects even inside the dark space the sensor will pick up the variant in the light wave over time which at the speed of light will change really quickly. The sensor is probably equal its susceptibility to this influence as is film though film may have the advantage to being cumulative in recording this variant. I often use multiple exposures in my work some times as many as thirty or forty for light painting effects.
The total time of the exposure might only be a second or it could be five minutes but I wonder if a digital sensor would fair well this way.
I am not really trying to compare film to digital in this way actually just to suggest that you might give this another thought as you might be overlooking an important aspect of rendering and image at the capture stage..
For instance using a smaller aperture is going assist in capturing more detail in the highlights and the dar areas though sharpness over all diminishes over the frame it will increase the depth of field it is the loss of over all sharpness which results in less contrast as well as the increase of depth of field that that adds to more information in the light and dark areas.
The point I make is that it is not such a simple mathematical equation as you portray it to be.
And in digital it might be even more important to pick the correct aperture and shutter speed relationship than in film. As you will certainly be manipulating the file after capture knowing how strong the data is might become critical.
At any rate that would be the approach I would take as a professional even when shooting a CBGBs and knowing I am going to either push the film 3 stops or more likely in a case like that shoot digital. In a situation like shooting at CBGBs shooting digital would make sense.
–>Allen light travels as light wave the frequency changes according to the amount of light the angle of the light and the amount of light
!
Buried somewhere in there is a factually incorrect statement. The amount of the light and the frequency of the light are not interrelated, no matter whether you choose to treat light as wave, as particle, or as wavicle.
amount and angle. It is your failure to comprehend what you profess to know that is flawed such as Bruce RGBs.
I don’t think you quite understand anything dear fellow but you do know one thing you only have to fool some of the people all of the time in order to be successful. And you do that very well indeed.
Maybe there is a problem. That happens a lot with Ann. I did get one from you and answered it. Then I sent another one as a test after reading this post.
I didn’t write the rules of physics, I just have to live by them.
A 550nm photon is a 550nm photon no matter what direction it’s coming from, and adding another 550nm photon will simply give you two 550nm photons. Add another 20 billion 550nm photons, you’ll still get green light, just more of it.
Different frequencies of light will refract to different angles when they travel through air to hit a surface with a refractive index >1that’s how prisms work, for examplebut the frequency or wavelength doesn’t change, either with amount or angle. That’s why chromatic aberration happensthe different wavelengths refract at different angles.
Fluorescence does involve frequency changestypically, UV gets shifted to lower, visible wavelengthsbut that’s not the topic of discussion here.
The list of things I don’t understand tends to grow exponentially as I get older. I believe that that’s as it should be, it’s a sign that I continue to learn, and I’ve never had a problem answering questions with a simple "I don’t know." (I don’t do that here very often because people generally come here looking for answers, and if I don’t have one, I don’t post.) But I’m pretty clear on the basic attributes of light, and frequency, angle, and amount do not have any inherent relationship.
You wold think when you have all the info you could easily comprehend what it means when you do the simple mathematics.
A available light photography depends on the the amount of available lumens.
Your facts could be correct Fraser your application of things are from from realistic or accurate as you read one thing and assume that because it comes from a reliable source it is correct. The amount of light is accumulated as it is reactive to that which it affects. So the scientific substance must be applied to the circumstances.
I would say it is safe to say that most professional photographers are not necessarily scientifically oriented but they understand the nature of light far better than the scientist that study light because they experience it in a practical way that scientist does not ever experience it. It is this practical experience that allows the photographer to give feed back to the photographic companies and tell them you are missing something in you deductions as you have never gotten it correct.
And one of the reasons that they miss this element is unwillingness like yourself to accept that there is something there that they do not understand.
I say the amount of light is important no matter how you wish to describe it.
If we do not question what is already known we will not be able to correct the errors!
Your assumptions are based on what is believed to be known and not on what actually seems to happen in the real world.
And as we know what we know today will be laughed at tomorrow.
This got confusing to me such that I lost even my own original point. Of course different apertures and different shutters speeds all have significant impact. Of course the amount of light is important. The point was that we set the aperture to achieve desired DOF and then shutter speed and/or ISO is varied to maintain chosen exposure.
I don’t think you quite understand anything dear fellow but you do know one thing you only have to fool some of the people all of the time in order to be successful.
And on the other hand, a person who chooses a low asa, tungsten balanced film stock to shoot a dimly-lit, multi-colored stage act doesn’t fool anyone with even moderate photography knowledge. It speaks volumes about the abilities of the person who made that choice. Even a novice knows when a photo fails on a technical level.
That is true to a degree Allen that is what I am trying to point out there are other reasons for choosing a certain aperture than DOF although more noticeable in large format it is more critical in miniature photography. 35mm is considered miniature photography.
When shooting wide open that will produce more contrast as Ashley points out he prefers shooting wide open as many fashion photographers will do and will be even willing to spend $4-5,000 for a telephoto with an f2 or f2.8 opening. That is also why the prefer to shoot usually in diffused lighting.
I prefer to shoot at f32 not that I usually need the depth of field but I prefer to capture as much image detail as possible in the highlight and dark areas. And since I have my camera on a tripod it is usually a feasible approach.
But I do agree with you that it seems less critical in digital capture as you start off with almost no contrast anyway. Except of course as I pointed out in my last post what makes technical and scientific sense doesn’t always work out that way as Linda has shown.
What I am saying it is that it is a little early to tell what the call is in this regard and I would myself do what Linda is doing and take notes and compare what happened then and now.
Nice bike. With close (12 or less feet away when using the small built-in flash) shots like the bike, start shooting them like you did and also switch to P (like I told you not to do <g>) and shoot one shot with the flash on. The purpose is just to see what happens: how does the pic look, the histogram look, what settings did the camera auto-select, etc. For instance in that pic the bike might look better but you might have too much DOF – and then find that adding DOF blur using PS works great. Just experiment with those free pix. <g>
Strobe use in bright light is a case where you will want to use the "P" setting because your strobe will not synch to faster shutter speeds like the bike shot, and "P" with flash fill sometimes produces some great pix. I shoot almost every still both with and without flash (an external SB-800), just to see what happens, especially including the effect of a dose of 5000 degree light source. If strobe appears beneficial I will shoot more pix varying the flash component of the total lighting.
Let me reiterate before Wade becomes less glued: these flash shots are experimental, trial-and-error.
It is common practice o use flash and there was a great photographer who use to use the great great Honeywell oval flash which he hand held and did night time and dusk portraits of people.
I think that was the best flash ever made. BTW Honeywell are the people who brought you AutoFocus behind the lens metering and a lot more things they sell the technology. I believe also the modern SLR is their technology as well they where associated with Pentax at one time and may still be. I loved my Honeywell Pentax.
I think I said all I have to about this good night and Linda enjoy your camera.
–>I say the amount of light is important no matter how you wish to describe it.
Me too. But I go farther, and ask why, and to what degree, the amount of light is important, and whether or not it’s the only important factor (I think we both agree that it isn’t). Then I ask, if the amount of light is the same, but the results are different, why is that? What would be a good way to describe light to account for those differences? Are the differences even attributable to the light, or are they caused by the way we collect the light?
–>If we do not question what is already known we will not be able to correct the errors!
I agree completely.
But there’s a world of difference between questioning what we know, and making up impressive-sounding guff that doesn’t actually mean anything. I’m all too willing to accept that there are things that I don’t understand personally, and equally willing to accept that there are things we don’t understand as a species. I’m equally willing to accept that theories are just thatpermanently provisional explanationsand I never, ever, go with single sources for anything.
"What is believed to be known" is believed to be known precisely because it explains what seems to happen in the real world. But verifying the entire canon of optical knowledge personally is about as practical as putting the theory of gravitation to test by walking out of a 40th-floor window.
If what you are trying to say is that there’s a significant difference to the capture between collecting x number of photons over a period of 1/1000th of a second vs collecting exactly the same number of photons over a period of 5 seconds, then yes, that’s quite true. You can manipulate the relationship between aperture and shutter speed to keep the number of photons falling on the capture medium constant, but you’ll see (if you look) other effects besides depth of field and local contrast that vary with different aperture/shutter-speed combinations.
But these differences come from the recording medium, not from the light itself. Film is subject to reciprocity failure. Digital sensors have a different set of issues. Neither of them have anything to do with the photons themselves, just with the speed at which the photons are counted. (I used to do long-exposure available light photography of objects where the focal distance was measured in hundreds of light years and ‘long exposure’ meant hours rather than seconds or minutes….) For exposure times of less than a second, they’re pretty much irrelevant for film or digital, but they get progressively more relevant as exposure time increases.
"What we think we know" is the simplest explanation for the observed datait just isn’t the whole story. What we know today will be laughed at tomorrow by smug idiots who think they’re modern. Smart people will recognize that what they think they know then is simply a more general explanation of what we think we know today. Newton didn’t get relativity or quantum theory, largely because he was unable to make observations on scales that would make them relevant. I doubt that Albert Einstein, Max Planck, or Neils Bohr laughed at Newton, though.
Lastly, I know plenty of photographers who have a pretty deep understanding of the physics of light, and a good many physicists who are talented photographers, so I’d have to say that the notion that scientists who study light never experience it in a practical way that photographers do is, to put it gently, a false dichotomy.
This is something that I have been wondering about. I am assuming that a digital sensor is not affected by RF in the way that silver halides are — but does anyone know?
Digital sensors don’t suffer reciprocity failure. The limitation on long exposures with digital is the point at which elements on the sensor become saturated, and the current starts spilling over to neighboring sensorsi.e.,blooming.
The reason (or at least, one big reason) why you can’t do really long exposures with digital cameras designed for ‘normal’ photography is that they don’t have the eyeball-like tone response curve of filmthey’re strictly linear-gamma photon counters. So half the data that gets captured represents the brightest stop of dynamic range. That means that you get to blooming relatively quickly, while the still-weak signal in the dark areas get overwhelmed by the system noise.
If you want exposures longer than about 5 seconds, you’re better off with the type of cameras used for astrophotography, which integrate a whole bunch of short catures into a single frame, rather than trying to make one long one.
Bruce – that is interesting (and clear – it’s stuff I sort of knew once in the dim and distant past when I did science at University, but have long since forgotten!) And Ann’s question about reciprocity failure is also interesting – I haven’t noticed anything dramatic in the way of colour shifts or the need to adjust exposures – but then I don’t have a dSLR yet and the longest exposure I can do is 15 secs. Does anyone know of any material (reliable sources, that is…I can use Google but it is sometimes difficult to judge the accuracy of more technical stuff) out there on the way that using different aperture/shutterspeed combos change the result in ways other than the depth of field – I know for example that really long exposures can increase the noise levels out at the limits (particularly for cameras with small sensors like my G3), but what else should I know? Or is it something that varies too much from camera to camera or sensor to sensor to generalise about?
Susan S.
Edit (thanks Bruce – you just answered my question while I was posting!)
<< The limitation on long exposures with digital is the point at which elements on the sensor become saturated, and the current starts spilling over to neighboring sensorsi.e.,blooming. >>
It is good to know about that limitation.
On a number of occasions I have used long exposures combined with multiple flash for such things as night shots of poorly-lit industrial buildings. You open the shutter then run round, like a crazy dingbat, popping off flashes to "paint" parts of the plant (and plants too sometimes) with light.
[It looks as if I will need to hang on to my film cameras for a while yet.]
Sorry to contradict you this frontally, but Honeywell was nothing more than the US distributor/marketer for Asahi Opt. Co., which later became Pentax. Asahi and Pentax cameras only bore the Honeywell name in the US, nowhere else in the world, and Honeywell was not remotely responsible for any of the developments you mention. Not a single one of them.
Here’s a link to the ASAHI OPTICAL HISTORICAL CLUB, the International Club of Enthusiasts, Historians and Collectors
Here are just a few of the milestones achieved by Asahi/Pentax (without Honeywell’s participation in the least):
1951 – > First Japanese 35mm SLR prototype; 1952 –> First Japanese 35mm SLR mass production model; 1954 –> THE WORLD’s first successful instant-return mirror; 1957 –> THE WORLD’s first 35mm SLR with right-hand rapid-wind lever; " " –> THE WORLD’s first SLR with microprisms on focussing screen; " " –> The design of the Asahi Pentax (AP) set a standard later copied by the German and Japanese SLR industry; 1960–> THE WORLD’s first SLR with TTL metering (Pentax Spot-Matic); 1961 –> THE WORLD’s first hand-held spot exposure meter (derived from Pentax Spot-Matic technology); 1964 –> The Spotmatic (no longer Spot-Matic), the most successful and copied camera of the 1960s, becoming the standard for the entire Japanese and German industry; 1966 –> THE WORLD’s first TTL aperture-priority auto exposure camera, the Metallica II; 1966 –> THE WORLD’s first TTL shutter-priority auto exposure camera, the Metallica II; 1969 –> THE WORLD’s 6×7 SLR, The Asahi Pentax 6×7; 1971 –> THE WORLD’s first multilayer coating on consumer lenses (Super-Multi-Coating); 1971 –> THE WORLD’s first integrated coupling between camera meter and dedicated flash units, the Spotmatic IIa, precursor of modern TTL flash control; 1971 –> Electro Spotmatic, the world’s first mass -produced aperture priority automatic exposure SLR. Another industry standard, inevitably later copied by all competitors; 1975 –> the world’s first rectilinear ultra-wide angle lens (one aspherical element), the SMC Takumar f/3.5 15mm ultra-wide angle lens; etc. etc.
In 1981, Asahi opt. Co. became the first manufacturer to reach the 10 million mark in the production of SLRs.
In 1984, the Pentax 645 became the first multi-mode medium-format SLR.
The list goes on and on. Check the Milestones at the above link.
Did you ever come across the Soho? They were large format SLRs (built during the 1920s I believe). I once had one but I got too grand for it and bought a Linhof instead.
Read carefully the details on those milestones. Nowhere did I say they had made the "first SLR"; just the first ones to incorporate each of the characteristics mentioned for each milestone.
I did read carefully and was fascinated with the list of Asahi’s achievements — it just reminded me of my old Soho! However, it didn’t have an instant-return mirror — you had to turn it down again manually — but it was co-ordinated with the FP shutter.
The shot of Duke is much better – mainly because you were on his level and thus, more intimate and interesting. (the panting tounge and raised eyebrows are indeed bonuses! :))
The true sign of a "snapshot" is the evident lack of thought before the shutter was pressed. I’m willing to bet 99% of all pet photos are taken with the animal on the ground and the camera at standing eye level. Boring. MUCH better photographs will result when you explore different angles and perspectives. The first angle chosen for any photograph is rarely the best. In the case of animals or pets, try getting INTO <http://home.earthlink.net/~fotoshock/zap_prowl.jpg> their world. I understand your latest canine is a bit unwilling to sit still but professional pet photographers don’t have the luxury of only working with trained creatures who pose on command. The old cliche, patience is a virtue, really comes into play. And this is true for any photo endevor. Great landscape photographers rarely just hop out of their car and snap an award-winning photo. They may happen upon a great composition but decide the lighting is wrong and come back when they think it’ll improve – and even then, they may have to wait for hours or days. The point is, to be a great (or even good) photogrpher takes exploration, dedication and patience.
The bike shot appears perfect on a technical level (great job!), but it’s a snapshot. Next time, try exploring different angles and different focal lengths (zoom ranges in your case). Some very interesting photos can be created by using wide-angle – in close to the subject for intentional distortion. Your second shot of the trees — well, I don’t know what that is. What is the subject? As a viewer, I have no clue. (because there isn’t one)
And yes – I COMPLETELY understand you’re just trying to grasp the technical aspects and none of these are meant to be award-winning photos. That’s fine — it doesn’t matter. The sooner you start THINKING about what’s contained within your viewfinder, the faster your photography will improve. Of course, you can ignore the following completely if you wish … but I don’t want to see another photo where you simply put the camera to your eye and snapped the shutter within seconds of getting there. Find a subject and then EXPLORE it. What’s behind it? If the background is distracting, can you subdue it with selective DOF? Would it be better if you were closer – or maybe another angle would be better? Look at the light striking the subject. Maybe it’d be more interesting if the light was coming from another angle?
Your assigment? Take a minimum of 5 minutes exploring a subject in the viewfinder BEFORE you press the shutter. (Just be thankful I don’t force an old photo assignment on you I once had – shoot an entire 36 exposure roll — in our bathroom.)
I wouldn’t generalize as far as taking pictures of animals, but for dogs, domestic cats, goats and the like, nothing beats a waist-level viewfinder. On the other hand, I wouldn’t want to approach a mountain lion with a TLR. 🙂
Oh, Sony lies like a cheap clock, no question about that. They’ve also made a few crappy products that ended up in my hands at one time or another.
As far as the Pentax milestones, however, I was right there spending my money on their milestones since the Asahiflexx IIB half a century ago. They’re not lying; I would know and remember.
Incidentally, the ASAHI OPTICAL HISTORICAL CLUB, the International Club of Enthusiasts, Historians and Collectors web page was not set up nor is it maintained by Pentax at all. Just dedicated collectors.
What a wonderful mix of great minds we have here! After reading this thread I feel as if I’ve been in the presence of masters.
Hi Allen:
I continue to appreciate your advice and hope to learn as much as I can before I get busy with work again. After reading your post, I hope to experiment with DOF and blurred backgrounds today. I have done this in Photoshop and of course, ps is my all time favorite program, but rather than take the time drawing a clipping path to create the effect there I think I should work on trying to get a good shot with my camera. If all else fails I may end up in ps anyway… just because we can. <g>
As for using a flash, should I even bother with the built in flash? I get the impression that an external flash, such as the 500EX is the way to go. I have this on my list of purchases to make, along with a reasonably decent zoom lens. So I wonder if I’m wasting my time using the popup flash. Feel free to let me know if I’m wrong about this.
Thank you so much for your continual and very patient coaching Allen!
***
Phil:
I’m so excited I could pop! I’ve had my first official "lesson" from you and haven’t had time to fail the class yet. 🙂 I am inspired and charged. Like most things in life that are worthwhile, we have to stop long enough to take it all in.
Up to now I’ve been thinking technically about photography… and rightfully so. If I don’t get the mechanics of it down I can’t do much artistically… which you also confirmed in so many words.
Before I read your thread this morning I really had no intention of shooting my pets other than for my own enjoyment. Generally I think of pet photos as all too common and generic. After reading what you wrote I may reconsider… although truthfully, I’m not sure my animals are all that good of subject matter. Still, this can be a challenging exercise to help me think more artistically. 🙂 Now my friend as a very bratty cat with lots of attitude. I might have more fun with her. BTW, I love the kitty photo you linked us to. Did you take that shot?
You made the comment, "The point is, to be a great (or even good) photographer takes exploration, dedication and patience." I really like that… the kind of quote that probably should go on my wall. 🙂
Why did I shoot the tree? Simply to test the Av settings on something with color and texture. Our property is photographically boring and generally colorfully drab. As you might know, the two flowering plants I did enjoy are now history. However, after reading your excellent lesson I already have an idea or two for making our property more interesting, hopefully. Still, I need to go back into town and look for better subject matter soon… maybe today.
Find a subject and then EXPLORE it. What’s behind it? If the background is distracting, can you subdue it with selective DOF?
Your assigment? Take a minimum of 5 minutes exploring a subject in the viewfinder BEFORE you press the shutter.
Okay…
Hey, thanks very much!
***
Ann: Congratulations on 1800. Celebrate and enjoy some Godivas today! 🙂
I have both of those lenses. I use the 28-135 almost all the time. It is my general walk around lens. The 75-300 is what I used for the zoo and birds.
The 70-200 is a very good lens. I shot some pictures with it and may even get it someday. It does not have the IS. In order to get the IS you are talking a lot of weight and expense.
Yes, it is pricey. That is why I have the lenses I do. I figure if I start making money off of photography then I can invest in some of the best tools but until then I am still learning. There isn’t anything my lenses can’t do with a little post processing.
because of the size of the sensor you probably need to multiply the focal lenth by 1.5 so that 28 -135 for a 35mm film camera is really a 42 – 202.5mm zoom.
Now if we could get her to go to a camera store and try some out. The IS is a beautiful thing. I have been able to get hand held shots at 1/30 shutter with amazing sharpness. I think Nikon is coming out with something like that too.
I’d get the 28 – 135. Because of the size of the sensor you probably need to multiply the focal lenth by 1.5 so that 28 -135 for a 35mm film camera is really a 42 – 202.5mm zoom.
the 70 – 200 is really like a 105 – 300.
Sounds good, thanks!
***
Mike said…
I like your choice of lens(s)
I like the color.
I like.
you like?
I like too Mike! 🙂
***
Cindy said…
I agree with Buko about the 28-135 IS. You will love the IS. Can’t you go test some of these out?
Maybe I will… today or tomorrow.
Now if we could get her to go to a camera store and try some out. The IS is a beautiful thing. I have been able to get hand held shots at 1/30 shutter with amazing sharpness. I think Nikon is coming out with something like that too.
This sounds very good! I also like the shots you showed me with that one. Thanks!
***
Bonnie said…
Just a note for comparison… the lens you wre using on my D100 in Miami was a Nikkor 28-105
Your next expenditure should be a quality tripod and head, not another zoom lens. A quality tripod and head is a prerequisite for a longer zoom lens. Your camera multiplies any lens at 1.6 times its 35 mm equivalent. A 200 mm lens functions as as a 320 mm (35 mm equivalent) which is long telephoto range that requires a tripod.
Your existing lens is not a major limitation, but not having a quality tripod and head is a major limitation for many pix. [Of course, when a fence post is handy, or with a beanbag on a table you can get a stable shooting platform without a tripod.]
Yes, use the built-in flash for close pix experimentation; please reread my previous post.
I think the tripod I have is pretty good. I need to find it so I can tell you what it is.
I am hoping that with the newer image stabilization zoom lens I won’t need a tripod as much though.
I will reread your post about the flash. Thanks!
After looking at images shot with a couple of these, I’m still a little undecided. Which one would you pick?
Bear with me Buko and Cindy. I need to keep sorting this out. 🙂 Cindy showed me some wonderful shots taken with the 75-300. So far I like them better than the ones with the 28-135.
Allen, these IS lenses really help when it comes to hand holding slow shutter speed shots. I have been able to shoot with the 28-135 IS at 1/30 and the 75-300 IS at 1/60 although this lens does better at 1/100.
I did finally get the tripod, (a Bogen Manfrotto with the 3030 head) but for the most part I run around doing hand held.
No matter what Linda, if you plan on doing sunsets and product shots you must have a tripod.
I have two tripods… an older one and a newer one. One is loaned out so I might need to find out which is better. The one I have seems pretty sturdy and I used it two years ago for a horse show.
Buy both? Hm… Which do I value more, the lenses or my marriage? 🙂
Buy both? Hm… Which do I value more, the lenses or my marriage?
The lenses LOL Just kidding
BTW, get a head for your tripod that has a quick release. Worth everything to have that. I can leave the little fixture attached to my camera and just click it on a off. You dont want to have to screw it on every time you put it on your tripod
You will find the longer telephoto much more limiting if you buy it first and you will wish you had the shorter lens. the 70-200 would be a much better second lens. a wider angle lens is much more useful as a general lens.
BTW, get a head for your tripod that has a quick release.
I think she already left for the store. That 70-200 is a very nice lens but no IS. Getting the consumer IS lenses was a really hard decision for me but I dont really regret it.
I took a few test pictures with that 70-200 and it is really sweet but I had to look at my overall situation and what I want to do and where I want to go. Hopefully someday I will buy that DO lens I was talking about and will sell my 75-300 IS but now is not that time.
Yes, that’s my studio cat, Zap. Note that the blur is optical blur – not Photoshop blur. The combination of a longish lens, short subject to lens distance and an F2.8 aperture creates a REALLY shallow DOF. Was that shot easy to get? No – I was crawling around on my belly for a good hour. Was Zap cooperative? A rambunctious, 6 month-old kitten doesn’t know the meaning of that word! Was there some luck involved? Absolutely, but you have to put yourself in the position of taking advantage of that luck. A split second after I captured that image, he captured me. 🙂
In my opinion, it’s way to early for you to start thinking about buying more equipment. (Remember the "trap" I mentioned?) As Cindy pointed out, you can’t look at an image you like and then deduce you could create equally great photos if only you had the same lens. Doesn’t work that way.
At this stage, your largest limitation is you – not your equipment.
Those lenses you posted have different features other than zoom range and image stabilization. What would be the ADVANTAGE of the 70-200 f4 L lens over the other two? (yes, there are a couple) More importantly, why would you want or need that advantage? (This question is for Linda only. Cindy, Ann, others – no helping!)
I loved some of the pictues from your site Phil. I have a couple of sites but I want to create one for just photography that is simple and clean. I dont let anyone know what my other sites are LOL although my pBase is now open season 🙂
Thanks for the input. I probably should wait on the lenses but I only have a small window of opportunity financially right now. Once the window closes, it may be six months to a year. Maybe not, but based on the past two years, more than likely. The next big issue is what to do about my expensive lemon of a printer that keeps haunting me with problems.
I too enjoyed visiting your site Phil. Excellent work!
Yes pix shot with a long tele lens can look fine. Tele perspective makes things look good. However, there are for most of us few good tele shots to take compared to other opportunities. IMO long tele is the _last_ thing a photog needs to buy into, and personally I would suggest a 200-300 (35 mm=) mm prime lens when that time comes.
Purchase priorities IMO:
First would be a quality ball tripod head with quick release (Gitzo is my preference regarding quality/value).
Second/third would be a fast (f1.8 or pref. f1.4) prime 50 mm lens and/or a macro (closeup) lens. A prime 60 mm f2.8 macro lens can compromise and fill both roles.
Fourth would be a 550EX external flash unit.
Last would be another zoom lens like you are considering above. Even though it is not the best, your existing lens really is not in reality limiting your photography.
I forgot to mention, I had my husband print the advice from your post and Phil’s post early this morning… so that I could take some time and work on it. I have the flash info as well and will experiment.
I stand by my assertion that they were merely the distributor for Asahi Opt. Co. and Pentax at one time, and Pentax put the Honeywell name on some of their products, just as the Sears name ended up on some Pentax cameras and lenses at around the same time.
You are the one who is mistaken, and you’re equally free to believe whatever you want, as long as we know it’s a myth. 🙂
Most of the shots I want seem to be farther away. Where I live we have wildlife such as gators, birds, foxes, occasionally eagles, otters…
Have a good look at the Sigma f/2.8 70-200mm. It’s available for Canon, and in order to get the same quality and performance out of a Canon lens you’d need to spend a heck of a lot more money. It’ll help you to have one more reference point before decifing.
For gators, birds, foxes you want a prime telephoto lens, not a midrange zoom. I do like quality zoom lenses, but not for tele and not for macro.
Even given your unusual tele opportunities my recommendations at Post #1866 still stand, because the 60 mm prime macro lens and the 300EX each might pay for themselves in one job. The tele is for fun.
Bad advice Ramon. Modern SLR digicams are so high tech it is a mistake to buy lenses that do not access all present and _future_ features. Linda should stick with modern Canon lenses only.
Read my post to Linda. I’m not advising her to buy the Sigma lens (though I would consider buying it myself), but looking at it so she gets a better perspective.
On the other hand, I don’t agree with your assessment of third party lenses.
This "high tech" compatibility nonsense has done me no good in the past; I wish I hadn’t paid any attention to it. Once technology advances, old equipment from the same manufacturer is not the ideal thing to put on a new camera anyway. If anything, third party lenses are easier to modify. When Canon modifies their digital SLRs in the future, you can bet they’re going to go put of their way to steer you toward buying newer Canon lenses.
The analogy that comes to mind is computer technology, particularly Apple’s. There are third-party accessories that are more compatible with Apple than Apple items. I already cited the Orinoco Silver card that works just as well with Mac OS 8.x as it does with Panther. Apple’s outrageously overpriced Airport doesn’t.
Not true Ramon. With Nikon and Canon these are not just fadlike features of some kind. E.g. Nikon D lenses from the 1980s access the latest (sweet) features of the new SB-800/600 strobes when used with a D70 or a D2h. No third party lenses do. With SLR digicams complex software controls everything, and the manufacturers keep the code very proprietary. Like it or not you must buy within the brand to access some (IMO important) features.
Your camera multiplies any lens at 1.6 times its 35 mm equivalent. A 200 mm lens functions as as a 320 mm (35 mm equivalent)
I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately, and I’ve come to a slightly different conclusion.
The 200mm lens will only give you the equivalent angle of view (field of view) of a 320mm lens on a 35mm camera, but will not bring the objects any closer to you. Sure, when you print the photograph you will have a smaller image to begin with and you’ll end up enlarging it more, thereby creating the illusion you were using a longer lens, but the perspective will still be the same you would get out of 200mm lens on a 35mm camera. Perspective depends on where the camera is on relation to the object, whereas the field of view does depend on the angle of view.
Try it for yourself if you happen to have both a film camera body and a digital SLR that will accept the same lens.
Not a test of teles but this comparison of Sigma’s 14mm prime vs. Canon’s 16-35mm zoom might be telling. Personally, I only own Canon lenses. Canon glass is the reason many shooters moved from Nikon to Canon years ago. That, and the superior auto-focus (at the time).
The 200mm lens will only give you the equivalent angle of view (field of view) of a 320mm lens on a 35mm camera, but will not bring the objects any closer to you.
Technically, that’s true Ramón. With a full-frame sensor image, you could achieve the same thing by cropping in Photoshop. However …
… with a truly longer lens you wouldn’t stand as close to the object in order to fill the frame.
If the sensor is less than full frame, you STILL wouldn’t stand as close because the frame (to fill) is smaller. It’s the same result – it’s just that you’re working with a different format.
I would agree that the 14mm Sigma wide angle was not a good lens. I had it in a Nikon mount and sold it. The 14mm Nikon is wonderful. Generally speaking, I would not expect any Sigma prime lens to be nearly as good as a Nikon or Canon. With medium tele-zooms (like the 70-200mm), however, the difference can begin to look pretty negligible when compared to the price differential, since you’re looking for the lesser of two evils (zoom lenses).
In response to the quiz question, the benefits that come to my mind are:
1. L Lens is better 2. Shorter distance between the numbers makes for a better lens 3. More multi purpose
That’s all I can think of… but I have a feeling you had something else in mind. 🙂
Your studio cat is adorable. Good job on the optical blur… but I’m not sure what you mean by combination of different lenses. How does that happen?
At this stage, your largest limitation is you – not your equipment.
Whereas I’m filled with limitations, I’m not buying lenses to overcome limitations… Just would like to be able to get a long distance shot when I want to.
Here’s the plan. I intend to learn as much as I can as soon as I can so that I’ll have the ability to take pictures when I need to. Right now is that time because I have some money in the bank and time between jobs. Once I get busy I will probably have to put my camera on the shelf until I either have time to learn more or need it for something.
Which brings up another quesion: What kind of learning curve will I have once I get a telephoto lens? If the main learning curve has to do with the camera, then I can probably leave off this purchase until I need the lens for a project or job. If I need to spend time learning how to use it, then it would probably be good to buy something in advance.
The MAIN learning curve is the art and science of photography itself. And it is a big one. (The college course that I took encompassed a full three years of doing NOTHING but photography and I believe that the courses here in the U.S. take four years.)
You really shouldn’t be buying more equipment until you have had a lot more experience of using what you already have. When you master that, you will instinctively know what else you should buy.
It’s a case of practise, practise, practise and OBSERVE!
So you’re saying I should not learn to use a telephoto lens until I’ve become an experienced photographer? I probably will never reach the level of professional. I only want to be able to better serve my clients with better quality photos when they ask for something related to graphic design… and maybe take some pictures when I have time for my own enjoyment… as well as adding resources to my library.
I’ve been taking my own pictures for clients to this point with my Nikon 990. I’ve never had anyone not be happy with it. So hopefully using the Canon will only improve things, to whatever degree remains to be seen.
I know these are not impressive and there’s a lot more (unimpressive stuff) that I’ve done that has not made it to Web site, but this is the kind of thing I’ve been asked to do previously…
If I had not bought the lenses (all I could afford at the time) that I did I would have missed so much. I have had a ball and plan on continuing. I could not stop to go to school for 3 years if my life depended on it right now although I would love it and am sure that I would collect a ton of missing pieces.
I would like to see Linda shoot a ton of pictures though.
As far as Linda is concerned purchasing long telephoto lenses for her 300D to photograph critters at distance, field of view and image quality are what matter in the lens choice. The perspective is of theoretical interest, but the functional magnification for printmaking purposes is determined by 1.6 times the 35 mm equivalent.
My recommendation is a prime modern Canon lens with final field of view after multiplying times 1.6 to be in the range of something like 250-480 mm. Prior to multiplying, something in the 180-300 mm range.
I am not saying that you should not learn to use a telephoto lens until you have become a thoroughly experienced photographer — but just that I think you should first spend a while learning to use the equipment that you now have, and fully exploring its possibilities, before adding another component (such as a telephoto lens) to the mix.
It’s awfully easy to become an equipment junkie and end up without the skill to use any of it — not that I think that you would do that — but concentrating on mastering one skill at a time is quite a good way to become an expert.
1. L Lens is better 2. Shorter distance between the numbers makes for a better lens 3. More multi purpose
Yep, the L denotes Canon’s highest quality glass. Your #2 is sorta accurate. The longer the zoom range, the harder it is to keep lens quality high. The #3 answer well … methinks you’re making a wild guess. 😉
The one advantage you missed though (and for some photographers, it’s crucial), is that the aperture is FIXED during throughout the entire zoom range whereas in the others it varies. (Notice that the L lens only lists f4 where the other two show the f-stop as a range.) That means at the longer focal lengths, the less light they’ll be capable of letting in. (i.e., – slower)
Variable aperture lenses aren’t desirable for several reasons.
First, depending on the situation, it means you have to compensate for the light loss. Ways to do that is to increase the light (not possible in nature), or by using a slower shutter speed / higher ISO, both of which can increase noise in digital. Of course, this isn’t going to be an issue in broad daylight, but I guarantee there will be times when you’re begging for another f-stop or two.
The biggest problem with variable aperture zooms though, is that the aperture well … varies. Much of what I do I’m relying on a light output producing a desired f-stop. And for subjects where I need different focal lengths, a variable aperture lens is out of the question.
(And to circumvent the "zoom haters" — a prime, non-zoom lens eliminates this issue altogether.) ;- )
In no way am I suggesting that you’ll ever need a fixed aperture zoom. My point is that – right now, you don’t even know what you don’t know. (if that makes sense) In other words, you’re still an uninformed consumer. (although I guess that’s what we’re here for, huh?) But choosing a lens because you saw a photo you liked and then deciding you need that lens is a mistake, imo.
Buying a longer lens won’t alter your learning curve – and while it may give you different SUBJECT opportunities, it won’t help your photography improve in the least. If you’d rather have snapshots of things farther away than snapshots of things up close, be my guest. <kidding!>
Oh, go ahead and buy another lens – you’re hooked. But in MY class, you get three demerits.
Ann: Congratulations again! Hope you still have Godivas left over. 🙂
Something to notice in those shots: the use of high shutter-speeds. From the data, it looks as though most of them were taken using Shutter-, rather than Aperture-, priority. Try working that way too.
I am going to actually say that I have learnt something about digital photography from this thread and that is from the observations and the comparisons of the lenses and the with the resulting capture it would appear that selecting a lens in the digital capture medium might be even more critical than in traditional photography.
In film photograph if your lens isn’t the very sharpest you’ll survive but in digital the consequences for not having an excellent lens seems very unforgiving.
The camera stores that sell and rent will allow you to take a rental version out for a test ride if you intend to buy it or at least buy one of two or three. Of course if you don’t buy any then you pay. But if you are sure you want to buy one this might be a good approach.
So I say to Linda take your time on this. Though the selection you are choosing from looks very good.
Of course if you are buying from B&H that would be difficult to rent the lens. But they do have good prices and you can always exchange the lens for credit it you find it unsuitable.
I’ve returned items on occasion there because of a poor purchasing decision and have never had a problem.
You don’t have to rush you’re doing pretty good with what you have and for the money it cost you you could probably even make the money back to buy a better one.
One thing you can be sure of they will have newer models.
2. Depth of field becomes narrower as lenses get longer
3. Any camera movement is magnified
4. Perspective changes. Let’s say you have your dog sitting 20 feet in front of your house. If you take a picture with a wide angle, the dog will appear farther away from the house than if you take the picture with a telephoto. Telephoto lenses make it appear like the background is much closer to the subject.
I thought so. I was searching earlier for something unrelated and ran across the Photo.net site. I don’t think I’ve ever been there before but there’s some truly inspiring phtography there. This photo isn’t great in a compositional sense but, MAN – talk about telling a story!
Phil: Thanks for sharing that sobering link. What an amazing revelation about our barn swallow friends. Reveals a little more of the wonder of creation. Seems there is much to be learned by observation and reflection.
(And no Linda, you do NOT need a 600mm lens!) ;- )
You’re welcom Zeb. Did I like the swan? Yes and no. I think the idea is cool… but seems the swan gets lost in the water effects. It’s all subjective and I feel inadequate commenting… but I like some of your other work better.
Are you mad at me Zeb? I hope not. My honesty can get me into trouble. You know I have been sincerely impressed with some of your other work. If you ask what I think I tell… doesn’t mean I’m right though. Like I said, it’s all very subjective.
No I’m not mad at you at all Linda. I had to go out that’s all, same again now. Don’t forget I’m five hours ahead of of you as well , have to visit someone now, 6pm. Take out the ‘mayo’ part if sending email. If you go on a photo workshop Linda, which you probably will in the future, you’ll find out about having your best photo’s critiqued.
Take your time Linda, you didn’t learn Photoshop in a day did you?
I went to our local Mall today and tried out the Canon 75-300 IS USM Lens. If you all are not getting tired of this discussion… and interested in seeing some samples… I’ll post a link.
I should have increased the ISO when zooming in. Didn’t think of that. I erased the card twice while I was shooting. First I shot a bunch only to find out the lens was turned off. Duh! Then I reset the camera to factory settings and forgot to change the quality to RAW, so I erased again. By the third time… which is what you see… I was rushing through the process because I had taken so long and was concerned that the guy in the store might be concerned. It seemed that I could use the Av settings for distance but had better luck using P settings for closer shots. I tried the other settings and just didn’t get very good results with them. I still have a lot to learn.
Also I should have taken some shots with my own lens, just to see how they would compare. Oh well…
It would appear to be a superior lens to what you have by quite a bit.
However you might not want to position your elbows as if you were about to take flight and you might not want to hold the lens when shooting even with a telephoto zoom perhaps holding the body of the camera more firmly would work to stabilize the shake. Although many people hold a long lens when they shoot.
But I certainly would not wrap my hand around the lens more to rest it on it.
That is what I would do.
Though I prefer holding the Body of the camera.
But it is a better lens.
I would also warn against using Digital cameras to photograph architectural interiors as I understand Jeb Bush just signed a law making it a Class A Misdemeanor in the State of Florida to do so.
You were warned!
Actually at in the fall I am shooting several malls for a client who is a great guy for one and is one of the Fifty largest firms designing retail malls and stores and he is definitely interested in having them shot digitally. For him this might work.
However you might not want to position your elbows as if you were about to take flight and you might not want to hold the lens when shooting even with a telephoto zoom perhaps holding the body of the camera more firmly would work to stabilize the shake. Although many people hold a long lens when they shoot.
I wondered what is the best way to hold the equipment. Thank you.
I would also warn against using Digital cameras to photograph architectural interiors as I understand Jeb Bush just signed a law making it a Class A Misdemeanor in the State of Florida to do so.
I did not know that. Files have now been removed.
While I was shooting a security guard walked by and asked if I was testing the equipment from the camera store. I said yes. He was so nice I didn’t even think about why he might have asked, just thought he was making conversation. However, in light of terrorist problems I totally understand why they may have passed that law.
The perils of Penelope Clickstop continue. I know someone who tried to photograph a policeman in New York, until he got out his gun and told him to stop. So I wouldn’t go around shooting security guards if I was you.
This guard was a very pleasant person and I didn’t think anything about his question concerning testing equipment from the camera store.
Now that you mention it, I may have inadvertently got a picture of one of the guards. Yikes! 🙂 Actually I really didn’t think anything of it yesterday and everybody was polite and pleasant with me about taking pictures. Another area I guess I was dense in. 🙂
I would also warn against using Digital cameras to photograph architectural interiors as I understand Jeb Bush just signed a law making it a Class A Misdemeanor in the State of Florida to do so.
In connection with holding the camera, you might find that you would get a huge improvement in stability when taking hand-held shots by shortening the neck-strap.
Make it REALLY short so that you can brace the camera between your neck and your wrists and have it under tension while shooting.
Thanks for the link Ramon. Just read the article and so glad I bought the 300D, although I was already glad. So far, it seems to be everything I hoped it would be. Now I just need to keep improving my ability to use it right.
Ann, Shortening the strap as a brace sounds like a very neat idea. Thanks!
I actually do not recommend keeping the camera strap around your neck though I think Ann is joking. As we all if you are holding the camera between neck and wrist you might accidentally hang yourself.
For walking around around the neck is fine on the shoulder is better and if you have a Lieca M series always keep it snugly in your palm.
But around the neck is the most restrictive place. You should practice bracing arms and yourself and relaxing at the same time. Remember the longer the lens the more prone to shake you have to really develop your technique yourself.
The best place to practice is the New York City Subway while in motion.
I have worked that way for as long as I can remember and I haven’t strangled myself yet! However, I do keep one of those cushioned strips on the middle of the strap.
I was originally shown this trick by a photo-journalist and I use it for all hand-held cameras. If you are wearing two cameras at the same time, you put different lenses on each and keep them on different-length straps so that you can quickly grab the one with the lens that you need.
Try it sometime, it works wonderfully well.
It also keeps the camera safely in front of you, leaving both hands free when you are moving around (instead of swinging wildly from your shoulder and hitting things if you leave go of the camera with your hands).
I can see what you’re saying in this latest post (#1946), that’s exactly what I do. Especially to keep the cameras from swinging all over the place.
But I’m having trouble picturing how you can brace the camera by keeping the neck strap so short that you actually have tension on it when you shoot. It seems that I would have to keep it permanently bending and squashing my nose to achieve that.
you might find that you would get a huge improvement in stability when taking hand-held shots by shortening the neck-strap. Make it REALLY short so that you can brace the camera between your neck and your wrists and have it under tension while shooting.
[Added:] After all, I have to keep the eyepiece real close to my eye.
I like to wear my camera on a harness but I have not been able to find one lately. Tamrac used to make one ,but no more. now I wear the camera strap like a bandolier acrooss my chest and over the shoulder. You have the same tight-in control as a short strap but when wearing 2 cameras they are on opposite sides and don’t hit eachother.
I somehow twist the strap half-way around my wrists — and I haven’t broken my nose yet either! [It’s hard to explain exactly what I do — I just do it instinctively now.]
Cool! Now I’m picturing myself with two cameras, one on each side, much like a six-shooter ready to draw. 🙂
Actually the idea of having the camera go one direction and maybe the camera bag go the other might be good… unless I double-strangle myself.
At this point I wouldn’t dare not put the camera around my neck. The last thing I want to do is end up dropping it… even though I just bought a special warranty to cover dropping and water.
When shooting with one camera I don’t use a strap on the camera. The Nikons just have a balance in my hand such that I have never dropped one, except once from a photo vest pocket and once one that was on a strap (it did not hit the ground but was damaged by a bit of sloshed wine). I have found that most secure from a theft standpoint, however with a heavy lens it does cause some elbow repetitive stress issues.
I always try to achieve three point stability when possibe (e.g. two legs, plus a shoulder against a post). Using a strap against your neck is still only two point stability to the ground. If there is no brace I prefer to lock an elbow against my chest.
Camera movement is way under-considered by the general public. Improving stability, esp. through more use of quality tripods, is the single most important thing that prosumer photogs could do to improve the technical quality of their images.
Allen – I agree one hundred per cent – it’s a big improvement even with a nonDLSR camera. I’ve just taken a trip where for the first time I used a tripod extensively (a light weight one as I was walking over very rough terrain, so I had to rememeber to use the remote or the self timer to fire the camera, or it didn’t help much). And the sharpness of the shots has improved markedly. It also has the advantage of slowing the phtotgraphy down a bit – I consider the shots more carefully when I’m using a tripod, and it leads to beter composition (from a very poor starting point!). I also use available gate posts, fence posts and any other stable surface to lean/hold the camera against and brace it. I use a neck strap all the time – with a flip out LCD you need a longer one or it fouls the screen. If I’m not using a stable surface I try to brace the camera against my front and look down at the screen- it’s all too tempting to hold the camera out and up and flap it around.
Mr. Z – That original post did not sound like a joke to me. Besides you knew I took them down right away and never said a word until others got on your case. I went to a lot of trouble last night sorting through and getting those ready so I could post them for comments. No, I don’t think you were joking, even though it apparently was not true… but I do think you were being mean.
Re: Allen’s comment in #1960: << use of quality tripods, is the single most important thing >>
Unfortunately, if you unfurl a tripod in many urban public places, a security guard will immediately swoop down on you! (In London, you have to get a permit from the Public Parks Commission.)
Fortunately, you can often find impromptu camera-rests on handrails, columns or benches etc..
Susan’s mention of use of the Self-Timer is a good reminder. I shoot almost all tripod pix (not critters, however) with the timer on 2 seconds. And I try to shoot some non-tripod pix that way too. Not knowing when the shutter is going to release is a great way to condition yourself to keep the camera steady.
Some people here are better left ignored. Especially when 99% of the comments are wrong, moronic or intentionally misleading simply made to get a reaction.
On the topic of timers and tripods – that doesn’t guarantee sharp photos. It’s the best defense of course, but mirror slap (the movement of the mirror going up and down), can cause enough camera vibration to make an otherwise sharp photo – not. (Even if a camera is mounted atop a tripod, mirror slap can be an issue if the shutter speed is just right – "fast enough" avoids it as well as "slow enough") You can avoid mirror slap problems using your camera’s mirror lock-up feature if it has it. (don’t think the 300D does) Also avoid using the tripod’s center column if possible. Even the most sturdy tripod in the world can turn really unstable if the center column is used at maximum hieght.
As Allen himself points out, using the timer works except when photographing animals or celestial bodies. Nothing beats a remote control or long cable release. Even the moon travels quite a bit in the sky in two seconds.
While I never hesitate to take different cameras with me, I always take my favorite monster tripod with me. As I’ve said before, if it’s not within 110 yards of the car (or pack horse), it ain’t photogenic.
I’ve been using that same unit without any problems in Panther 10.3.3. I don’t recall having to install any drivers, but I’m not at home right now so I can’t confirm it with 100% certainty (perhaps 99.99% :)).
Probably the one advantage of not having a DSLR is that I do not have an issue with mirror slap! (but the tripod I have is too light for an SLR – I’ll need to get a heavier one at some point) Susan S
The vibrations caused by mirror slap are most apparent when using long lenses and longer exposures. It’s not something you would have to worry about if you’re doing the kind of photography that’s within the capabilities of a point and shoot digital camera.
When I shoot pictures of the Sun or the Moon I use at least a 1100mm telephoto lens (which works out to a 1760mm equivalent on the digital SLR) and sometimes I’ll even use as much as 6x teleconverter power for a total effective focal lens of up to 10,560mm, at which point I’m shooting through an f/66 effective aperture. Because of the distance between Earth and the Sun, or even between Earth and the Moon, any camera shake is extremely noticeable. Without a mirror lockup feature, a rock solid tripod and a precision geared head, those pictures would just no be feasible at all.
None of that is applicable to the kind of photography you normally consider undertaking with a non-interchangeable-lens digital camera.
Interestingly enough, there is a simple workaround for lunar photography at night if your camera lacks a mirror lockup feature. It requires developing a good sense of timing short intervals of time (say between a fourth of one second and three or four seconds). Essentially, you place a piece of black cardboard in front of the lens, press the shutter release, wait a second or two for the vibrations caused by the movement of mirror to subside, then "expose" manually by moving the black cardboard out of the way and back into place for the approximate desired exposure. If nothing else, it’s a great exercise for building up your patience. 🙂
I have used the open shutter with black card trick many times for multiple-exposure shots in an almost-dark studio: Move the object flash cover lens move the object flash cover lens etc. It’s a most useful technique.
I went shopping this afternoon and found out that I dont want to buy the expensive stuff locally. Theres a hefty difference in price and even Best Buy cant come close to B&H, though they tried. Also the guy said he didnt know when he could even get one in. Anyway I did purchase an extra camera battery along with a sensor cleaning kit and a QP Card for calibrating my camera. Oh, and another 100 Pack of CDs for storing these massive files. 🙂
It’s interesting to hear how each of you prefer to position your equipment. It seems that many of you have your own unique way that works for you. Ill have to try out some of them and see which seems to help me hold it best, especially once I get a new lens.
***
Phil, Re Post #1969
About your first comment; thanks for reminding me.
About mirror slap, I guess thats something Ive yet to encounter. Not sure if I have mirror lock-up. I checked the owners manual but didnt see anything.
About avoiding the tripods center column if possible, Im a little confused.
***
I enjoyed reading about Susans evolving methods and the self-timer methods employed by some of you, another yet to be learned topic for me. Susan mentioned the importance of a heavy tripod. I wonder if mine is okay. Its called a Svkenlock60. Is anyone familiar with this one?
***
John,
Glad to know about your friend getting the I/O Magic Digital Photo Library. Hope he resolves any driver issues with the Mac. Im still trying to decide what to do about the Flashtrax. If I get the Flashtrax I will put off the external flash. If I get the external flash Ill put off the Flashtrax.
***
Interesting about the Open shutter with black card trick Ramon and Ann mentioned. Maybe someday Ill be ready to try that too. 🙂
The advantage of my tripod is that it folds up small enough to go in the small rucksack that travels just about everywhere with me, containing camera and flash, keys and money, tripod, hat and a change of clothes for the smallest child… now the smallest child is big enough not to need the change of clothes all the time, there’s a bit more room! I figure that the tripod that gives me that bit of extra stability and that I actually carry around with me is better than the heavy one that I never use. But a big one that I could keep in the car and use when I don’t have to walk and carry the gear too far would be nice – and when I finally get the dSLR it will be essential. My G3 would look pretty silly perched on top of it though – I get enough odd looks from people when I carry a small camera attached to a flash unit that is bigger than it is, particularly when I am using the flash in daylight!
Linda the black card is not an advance technique it is essentially how photography was accomplished before shutters where invented. YOu’ve seen it demonstrated countless number of times in the movies and on television. You know people are posing in the 1800’s like out west and the photographer has his big camera on a tripod and he takes the lens cap off of the camera ignites the magnesium powder for flash fill and puts the lens cap back on.
You can get some flock material felt like material and make it stiff and if you have Bruce stand in frame and set the exposure speed to time then quickly place the card in front of the lens and then have him move outside the frame and quickly expose it again you will have a ghosted image of Bruce. He will become a spirit. Use as small an aperture as possible and a slow rating so you can have more time for the exposure.
My clients think it is magic walk in front of the lens to shut a light off for me and they are not in the picture.
That’s another good technique I often work without an assistant if I have an active client and assign them the tasks I would have an assistant do after about an hour they’re pretty tired and a lot more mellow.
It is a very simple and very old technique and the multiple exposure with multiple flash is very old as well it was the only way they could successful photograph church interiors before electrification unless of course if they brought in arc lamps.
I am not sure that Digital photography is suitable for multiple exposure though as I hear that it might not even be realistically possible at the moment.
I have an Ad. running at the moment that contains a photograph which was made from 13 separate but overlapping exposures on the same sheet of film. (We needed to show how a rather complicated machine-tool worked.) Clean and easy. It would have taken far more effort, and expense, to have combined 13 scans into one Photoshop file. Sometimes "new and improved" isn’t.
Actually the telescope itself is not motorized. What is motorized is the equatorial mount it sits on. I have a pretty good one right now, and I’ve had at least one of them for ages.
However, I have no idea why you bring that up now in a post addressed to me. What gave you the idea I would not be familiarized with equatorial mounts? Guess I’m missing something.
Ann, I was addressing Wade about ways to achieve multiple exposures with digital capture (and mentioning Photoshop in the process, to (sort-of)… pay the rent.
Ramón, I made no assumption of your knowledge. (you just seemed to be the one to cares the most about the celestial shooting contraption, so I addressed you.)
I use multiple exposure for a different reason than you are referring to in photographing interior spaces we often do regional lighting that is some areas have to be lit more than others and we adjust or turn on or off lights while we keep others on at full strength. This can sometimes require thirty or forty exposures. I use what is referred to as a press shutter which will automatically cock itself after each release which means I do not have to touch the camera to load the shutter spring. It can be done with a digital shutter as well and it can be done with many other electronic cameras of different formats.
It is the same technique that I referred to as the original way that churches where photographed also referred to as a painting technique.
We are not trying to make it look like several images where combined to make one image we want one image to be exposed many times so it does not look as if it where exposed many times.
It is a very useful technique.
I even use it out doors especially where there are street pedestrian traffic walking in front of the lens such as a store front.
Wade, I understand the technique you describe and used the one Ann was talking about (several times).
You said: I am not sure that Digital photography is suitable for multiple exposure though as I hear that it might not even be realistically possible at the moment.
I said: use Photoshop
If the camera is on a tripod and one takes as many separate shots as the number of flash bursts needed to light a scene, the captures can be combined as layers set to "lighten".
Regarding "I am not sure that Digital photography is suitable for multiple exposure though as I hear that it might not even be realistically possible at the moment."
Why? Who cares?
Generally what modern photogs (IMO) should be concerned with is creating an image. The fact that a digicam will be noisy if someone spends a few minutes running around a large building painting with a flash to get a pic is moot. If I – in 2004 – want to create such a pic I will populate the building with ten wireless US$300 flash units, total cost about as much as 2-3 monolights. Then I will real time take pix, review/adjust/reshoot to get what I want, and (unlike with film) walk out the building knowing the pic is in the can. No "Bulb" exposures involved.
Multiple exposures were (generally, there were exceptions) not an end in and of themselves, but rather a way to achieve a pic before modern tools became available.
Granted "Ghost Bruce" could be created by burning lots of expensive film. But burning film in experimental multiple exposures is not the end. Ghost Bruce is the end, and he could be created very easily with a digicam and PS. Without burning expensive film.
The statement "It would have taken far more effort, and expense, to have combined 13 scans into one Photoshop file" may or may not be true; scanning s*cks. However, if a digicam of the same format existed (we have not been apprised of the format) I would guess that 13 digipix could be shot, _reviewed_ and manipulated in PS faster and more easily and at way less cost.
Pursuant to our necklace pic conversation, today I had to shoot a rhinestone necklace for web quality presentation. As is my preference (fast and easy for such low rez presentation) first I scanned the necklace.
You will be pleased to know that the image on that necklace was so poor I had to resort to (your preference) photography. <g>
The center column in a tripod, when extended, adds instability and susceptibility to winds, greatly increasing vibrations. The best policy is never to use it at all.
With a big tripod like my favorite one, the Manfrotto 161 MK2 / Bogen 3258, I have no need to raise the center column at all. Even without the center column, it stands over 95 inches tall and almost 9 feet (a little over 105 inches) with the center column extended, not counting the height of the head. Of course, such a behemoth is not everybody’s cup of tea. (I meant to upload a picture of it my wife took with her Sony Mavica, but I’m having trouble with Fetch and the ftp upload in Panther. I could email you a low-res JPEG if you’re curious about it.)
It’s my personal opinion that a poor tripod is worse than no tripod at all, as a light and wobbly tripod will only magnify vibrations, but I’m just set in my ways when it comes to tripods.
By the way, since I brought up the subject of solar photographer, the customary cautionary note and disclaimer is appropriate at this point.
Do NOT look into the sun at all, and do not aim your camera at sun without an appropriate solar filter (Baader film or specialized glass filter). Permanent damage to the retina can result in a matter of one or two seconds, sometimes in less than one second, and your camera’s lens acts as a powerful magnifying lens that can set your camera ablaze at the focal plane in no time.
In other words, folks don’t try this at home, please!
Ann, I really like that cover you did. Great photography!
Ramon: Are you familiar with my tripod to tell me if it’s good or bad? Maybe I’ll post a picture later. I also have another newer one that I gave my daughter… but could borrow it back if needed.
Way to go Buko!!! … and Ramon for hitting the 2000 mark!!!
This has been a very enjoyable and educational thread… one of the best!
Allen I never thought of that I am running to get those lights.
Todie I don’t think that will work. Perhaps I’ll have an opportunity to show you what I am talking about and how this gestalt actually works and why it works so well.
BTW Allen try sometime let me know how it works out. I think you will enjoy it! Ha!
Here’s a couple of shots I got while at my friend’s house Thursday. The cat shot is not so great and I know Phil’s going to give me another demerit <g> … but it’s the best I could do with the level of attention I was able to receive from this one. Usually she is full of attitude when I go over there and shows it. Once I put the camera in her face it was as if she were saying, "It’s about time I got the kind of recognition I deserve. Shoot away… and ho, hum, this is boring."
The crab was shot through the aquarium glass and with hi res jpg settings. Can’t remember how that happened but nevertheless, I didn’t do any corrections to the crab shots.
That tripod should be perfectly all right with a small camera like your Rebel but, as Ramón and others have suggested, you need to be careful of raising the center column if you are using slow shutter-speeds in windy or vibratory conditions.
I liked your crabs, and you focused on exactly the right part of the cat — even if the eyes were closed at the time!
That shot was taken on a 5 x 4 monrail. This was a carefully pre-planned shot which involved having the client assemble some brass cylinders fitted with stainless-steel collars; run his Orbital Forming machine to seal the collar to the brass; and then saw-through the assembled pieces until he got a perfect cut-away section.
I then built a jig in the studio to hold the tool that does the Forming; and clamped the brass/steel workpiece to a sturdy tripod. Full use was made of camera-movements to keep a vertical back from a raised view-point and I made just four multi-exposure shots, processed the four sheets of color-negative (here on site) and found that I had the shot in the bag.
That single negative has been scanned for Press work, used for 30 x 40 display prints for Trade Shows and combined with multiple other images (using LivePicture and Photoshop) to provide a series of full-page 4c Ads.
There is no way that we could have got an authentic rendering of the way the Orbital Forming process works by assembling different shots in Photoshop and it would have taken hours of work to even get close.
This sort of work is not like fashion photography — and neither is it a task for an SLR — even a DSLR!
You can see the shot in more detail here if you like:
Nice work, Ann. Pesonally, I think the "orbit" would have read better with fewer exposures but that’s entirely subjective. But you’re absolutely right – some images are better created with traditional methods. Certainly, the same effect could have been composited from mulitple digital captures, but it would have been more work and probably wouldn’t have been as effective.
Architecture is another area where digital can be more trouble than it’s worth. In addition to wide-angle and perspective correction issues, interior shots often require multiple exposures in order to balance different light sources – both in power and color temperature. What would you rather do, capture several different exposures on a single sheet of film, or assemble it later in Photoshop using (possibly) involved masking techniques?
Creative use of long exposures is something else where DSLRs come up short. Painting with light techniques and blur effects (slow movement – minutes of exposure), are STILL better achieved traditionally. Yes, I know you can create similar effects in PS, but it’s not the same, imo. I once saw a guy shoot a car with a single flourescent tube and achieve a perfect, car studio quality image complete with smooth and flowing highlights. To look at the result, you would swear it was taken with a large, high-dollar light bank. The trick? 1) Long exposure. 2) The flourescent tube was mounted overhead on a simple motorized rail that moved smoothly over the length of the car during the exposure. (Kind of like a huge flatbed scanner.) That could never have been achieved with a DSLR.
Different tools – different uses. The smart photographer knows when to use which.
No demerits Linda. You must have gone through heck in order to sew her eyes shut! In fact, I’m reinstating previously lost demerits due to hazardous duty! 🙂
Seriously though, that may not be the most exciting cat photo in the world but (and this is the important part), it’s NOT a snapshot either. I can tell you put some thought into the composition and that’s a beautiful thing. : – )
The moving-light trick can be incredibly useful if you don’t have much lighting equipment.
You need a constant light-source (tungsten or fluorescent tube) but keeping just one light moving constantly, and smoothly, during a longish time-exposure can produce entirely shadowless lighting.
With just two lights, you could use one as a key-light and the moving-light as Fill.
Seriously though, that may not be the most exciting cat photo in the world but (and this is the important part), it’s NOT a snapshot either. I can tell you put some thought into the composition and that’s a beautiful thing. : – )
It’s NOT a snapshot? I think I just rose two inches from the ground for a split second. 🙂
Exactly, Ann. I had an instructor refer to it as "Time = Money" – meaning [exposure] time could replace expensive equipment in many cases. Need f45 and can’t afford a powerful strobe? Multiple pops to the rescue! (large format, studio environments typically)
It’s no secret I’m a huge fan of digital photography but one thing I do fear, is that with all this "ease", comes the danger of new generation photographers not really having a clue of what they’re doing. Digital has certainly changed my (shooting) workflow – mostly for the better and I’ve made the statement, "I’ll fix it in Photoshop" plenty of times. But because I also have the knowledge to "fix it" before an exposure is made, I think I’m in a better position to determine the best course of action over someone who ONLY knows digital. If what Allen suggests about budding photographers only needing to learn a digital workflow is true, I really have to wonder if the "art" of photography will be lost. In other words, if the focus is on DIGITAL photography rather than photography "the craft", it’ll be a huge mistake, imo.
It’s no secret I’m a huge fan of digital photography but one thing I do fear, is that with all this "ease", comes the danger of new generation photographers not really having a clue of what they’re doing
No matter the equipment you cannot give people an eye. There are a whole bunch of people like Linda and myself that want to be able to offer photo services to their clients.
<< because I also have the knowledge to "fix it" before an exposure is made, I think I’m in a better position to determine the best course of action over someone who ONLY knows digital. >>
I so agree with you. And, if a shot was badly framed, lit in a lousy way, unsharp etc., etc., to start with; it will still be half a sows ear however much Photoshopping it goes through.
It is for this reason that I beg people to turn off the Auto gizmos and really learn what Photography is about — and how to put themselves in charge of the camera rather than the other way around.
WOW I just caught up again. Good thread, lots of info. Thanks to everyone for posting lots of pohotos. Wade, thanks for the entertainment along the way. Some questions for those who already have digital experience:
1) I only carry fast fixed lenses (like a 200 f2.8, 50 f1.4 and 14 f3.5) so that I can catch almost anything without resorting to anything faster than 200 iso film. Do the same considerations hold in digital photography?
2) Just how large can a 6 mega pixel shot be blown up?
Cindy – except that the digital camera is picking up one color per pixel while a film scanner picks up RGB per pixel. So a 6 MEga Pixel camera image RAW is ^ mega Bytes of information while a film scanner picks up ^mega Bytes times 3 (RGB) or 18 Mega Bytes. So the digital file has to have less noise and PS CS has better algorithms. But all of that is just the numbers. What is the real world like? How far can you actually blow a digital file compared to a scanned film file? Thanks!
1) Of course. "Digital" doesn’t change the rules of basic photography principals – it just makes some aspects easier.
2) More important than megapixels is the quality of the sensor and algorithm conversions. I’ve made great looking 20×30 Display Maker prints from a 3 megapixel Canon D30 with no interpolation. The Display Maker can get away with printing a 72 ppi image, whereas I wouldn’t go any lower than 150 ppi with an inkject. Naturally, if you stood inches from the DM print, you could make out a few pixels here and there but from an appropriate viewing distance, it looked fantastic.
Phil – Thanks, so which is better in your opionion. A professional scanner with a professional film or a professional digital camer. Of course both with the same lense, same PS algorithm, etc. I realize that I’m hung up on the numbers a little bit but that’s me!
I just upgraded my old Polaroid Sprint Scan 35 to a new DiImage dual scan iv and the dynamic range is much better. I’m rescanning some Tibet photos that I couldn’t show with the old scanner and are incredible with the new scanner. The low light areas were unexceptable with the old scanner. I couldn’;t resist at $300.
I just shot 21 rolls in Joshua Tree and Mohave Desert last week. OUCH$$$$! It really is time for me to get serious about an all digital workflow.
One thing to think about: Those 21 rolls store in 21 very thin plastic envelopes. Your CDs/DVDs resulting from a digital shoot are going to take up rather more storage space.
I am, of course, assuming that you shot with at least a 95% success-rate!
How much a digital camera pic can be uprezzed depends on the quality of the original image (subject, lighting, lens, stability) more than it does on a camera’s "megapixels." Uprezzing a well shot image to 200% is fairly common for a digital SLR with a good lens, whereas with scanned film zero uprezzing is the general rule for scanned mounted 35 mm slides and good (Nikon 8000ED in my case) desktop scanning.
No doubt there are specialists with high end scanning equipment that can work magic scanning and uprezzing low-grain film, but I don’t believe that is the norm.
It’s impossible to judge the quality of a tripod from a picture. An easy way to detect vibrations is to attach a laser pointer to your lens and take a few pictures of the projected laser dot on a smooth surface like a wall in relatively low-light conditions.
As Ann says, you’re probably OK for now, but by all means keep that center column down. It looks almost painful in the picture.
Just to give you an idea of the size of my tripod, I posted a low-res image of a snapshot my wife took with her Sony Mavica from work a couple of years ago. I prefer a tripod with a black finish, because it keeps reflections to a minimum, which can be a factor when taking close-ups or macro shots outdoor where a bright shiny silver-colored leg can throw a reflected beam of sunlight onto the subject, for instance.
I placed the image [broken link] as my ISP is having problems with ftp uploads right now (glad to know it wasn’t on my end, as I had thought).
I also uploaded [broken link] they took out of my poor wife’s foot –without an anesthetic, pain killer or sedative of any kind. I’m still not over that awful experience, but she is recovering.
Your statement "Those 21 rolls store in 21 very thin plastic envelopes. Your CDs/DVDs resulting from a digital shoot are going to take up rather more storage space" makes no sense.
Even if someone is a new breed of super photog who takes 21 x 37 = 777 pix and all are keepers, that number of digital images fit on two DVDs, space requirement 0.8 inch x 5 inches x 5 inches stored in the hard plastic cases. 777 film frames store in 29 plastic sleeves each 9 inches by 11 inches that stack to about one to two inches thick.
Conservatively, the film requires about 4x as much space.
And of course the 777 film pix (remember we are talking about 21 rolls of usable images) all must be scanned before they can be used in any production workflow. That creates 777 digital files that need saving anyway, so in reality we have film storage plus digital storage.
And 777 pix at 5 minutes per scan (low estimate, I have never averaged that) is 64 hours of scanning time. Long live film…
Those links are not working properly at the moment — they just go to a generic Yahoo page. However, they work if I remove the ".jpg" from the end of the url.
The tripod is great (literally!) but I can’t look at that nail without sending shivers up my spine.
Allen – I can uprez a good slide to 17 by 24 inches @720 DPI and it looks great! That’s with PS CS, it wouldn’t work with PS 7. And that with this new film scanner. The print very well even looking at them up close. Can I get that with a digital camera? I’ve seen some very nice uprezzed digital photos also. Has anyone actually compared them? And of course I mean that all other things are as equal as they can be.
I love taking 35mm and framing them at 13 by 17 inch. Thanks for all of your input! larry
Try it. 777 35 mm unmounted frames in plastic sleeves. What size do they stack to? Obviously we don’t squash such film tightly together. Actually much of my processed film storage is still in the rolls, and that ends up taking up even more space.
In any event I consider the size of image storage space to be a non-issue. I was just responding to your statement. <g>
What is a huge issue for me is categorizing. I have thousands of positives and negatives, many unmounted, that I really don’t know what’s what because I have always had a poor memory. Finding anything other than by date is a nightmare.
Digital images, on the other hand, are a joy to peruse using either Cumulus or Portfolio. I have 15,000+ scans and digital pix that are all easy to find by keyword and easy to review _fast_ on screen, without a loupe or a light table. Clients love images databases. I have had clients pay me for (ugh!) scanning time rather than view their medium format positives on the light table.
Thanks Allen. I completely ignored proper exposure, which is of course, crucial to digital quality.
Larry –
"Better" is really subjective but my feeling is that the current crop of low/mid-range DSLRs can be a total replacement for 35mm film in most cases and even replace medium format in some. (That’s certainly the case with the higher-end DSLRs)
I’d be surprised if it was but it’s quite possible that your film/scanner combo could achieve better quality than a decent DSLR but the only way to know for sure is to compare them side by side. But even if the film image IS slightly better, does it outweigh the benefits that digital provides? Only you can answer that.
Everything’s a compromise. If you were only interested in the absolute best quality, I’d advise to shoot everything with an 8×10. For me, digital is the proper choice in many/most situations. (but not all)
WOW — You blink and this thread has two dozen new messages!
Ramón: I just clicked on your original links and when they took me to the generic geocities page, I just lopped off the ".jpg" and hit enter. Then I could see the pictures. [I have noticed this with geocities links before.]
Mike’s rose is beautiful — and no greenfly, Japanese beetles or Black Spot in sight. he’s a much better gardener than I am.
I just clicked on your original links and when they took me to the generic geocities page, I just lopped off the ".jpg" and hit enter. Then I could see the pictures. [I have noticed this with geocities links before.]
I actually tried that when you first mentioned it and got nowhere, except I was taken to a page that sternly admonished against posting your Geocities images on a discussion board, auction site, etc., as a violation of the terms of the agreement. Well, it’s a free service after all. Hope my ISP fixes the ftp uploading capabilities of the server soon.
Wonderful use of ambient light/fill flash, Mike! (At least I think it’s fill flash. If it is, "hard to tell" is a good thing.) Regardless, nice photos!
BTW Mike… Our Costco only carries the 256 MB Compact Flash cards. Still they’re so cheap it pays to buy a couple there. You can still order the larger/faster cards from Costco’s Web site though. I’m ordering the rest of mine from PCMalll with my NAPP discount since I want to place an order anyway. Price is about the same as Costco.
I’m finally about ready to place an order with B&H and PCMall.
After all the talk about tripods, now I wonder if maybe I should order a newer one. The only way I can do this with my budget is to cut back somewhere else.
Any recommendations on a convenient, sturdy, but not too expensive tripod?
Where can I cut back? I am thinking of the Sigma EF-500 DG Super TTL Shoe Mount Flash instead of the 550EX.
For a sturdy and not too expensive one, there’s a seller on eBay who has a line of tripods made in China specifically to compare with the much more expensive Manfrotto/Bogen line:
Great links… what a huge difference in price with the DreamMaker. I might go that route. Thanks very much for such a quick response and helpful information.
Note that the one example I pointed out in the Dream Maker line is by no means the lightest one in the line. It can support even a small view camera. You should be able to pick a lighter one regardless of brand, just make sure that whatever you buy is an improvement over what you already have, which may be all you need at this point after all.
One of my tripods is the Manfrotto/Bogen 3001BN, which is the black anodized version of yours. The 3030 is indeed a fine three-way head, I just wonder whether it’s not just a little too complicated for someone without a lot of tripod experience, in comparison to a ball head like the 3262QR.
I love the 3 way head and I have not been one to use a tripod much in my life. I hate lugging things around but if I have to have one I love this. It has a quick release too which I love.
Because it’s not only more practical to take off from the tripod, but also because it’s a lot easier to screw the plate onto the bottom of the camera than to screw the camera around the mounted head.
I’ve had the priviledge of following your progress and in my opinion you’ve done an extraordinary job on your new Web site.
My favorite area is the Nature Section. <http://www.cdsphotography.net/nature/nature1.htm> I love how you mixed the icons and the colors just pop out at you. It’s got the WOW factor for sure. I’m very impressed.
Linda has been encouraging me to put myself out there more so this is all an exercise.
And she should. Cindy has been doing Web sites and graphic design as well as artistic illustration work for a long time. She’s kept her talents private and too often underestimates herself.
I respect humility and it’s a prize to be treasured, but I don’t believe in hiding your gifts. I for one benefit from and enjoy seeing what others do. 🙂
Considering anything but the latest Canon flash unit for a modern Canon DSLR is IMO very inappropriate for reasons noted multiple times in earlier posts.
The Bogen tripod in Ann’s link is ideal (I prefer black and B&H for a few more $). You do not want anything lighter unless it is on of the very expensive Gitzo Mountaineers. Light + under US$100 = too flexible. You already have a light flexible tripod.
I am one of those folks who opines that _short_ inexpensive lightweight tripods have a place other the trash can. For mountaineering, backpacking, bikepacking etc. they faciltate important long exposure (when the back country light is best) pix otherwise impossible; they can work very well. They must be kept short, however, never fully extended. You will find that your existing tripod may be quite stable with the light 300D on it if you keep it under 30 inches or so, never extending the lightest legs (even with a heavy tripod always extend the heaviest tripod legs first).
Relief! I’ve finally placed my orders. Lens is backordered and so are the new ultra flash cards but I should be getting everything else this week.
Thanks again for all the input here.
***
Allen,
I decided to stick with the 550EX and leave the tripod purchase for a later time since I do have a tripod I can use if I need it. If I end up with future clients needing inside shots of equipment or people I’m sure I will feel better with the better flash.
I appreciate your advice on the safest way to use my tripod… and for confirming the better flash.
Actually it wasn’t my link but it could have been!
I have been using Bogen equipment (including their Monolites) since they first appeared and have actually been buying some new ones recently to replace some of my older ones.
And the Manfrotto gear is exceptional.
Look also at their range of lightstands, booms and their various clamps. Their MagicArm, which really is a Hold-Everything, works like an extra arm complete with hand, wrist and elbow joints!
If you get requests for interior shots, you are going to need a lot more than that single flash and a DSLR!
Seriously, you need to get some Pro-training FAST if you are going to pitch for those sort of jobs — or find a Pro. to shoot for you and go along to see what is involved!
Honestly my clients are much smaller than what you are using to dealing with. If they have been pleased with past shots using my Nikon 990 and processed in Photoshop, I think I’ll be okay with the 550EX.
I also ordered the Sto-fen #OM-EZ Omni-Bounce for Canon 540EZ/550EX and Sunpak PZ5000AF REG.
My small clients sometimes are the same way regarding not being fully appreciative of higher quality photographic images (that cost me way more in lenses, etc. to produce). However I do think they very much perceive the photo tools themselves (substantial tripod, tripod head, full size SLR and name brand lenses, etc.) as somehow meaning they are getting more. <sigh>
… they very much perceive the photo tools themselves (substantial tripod, tripod head, full size SLR and name brand lenses, etc.) as somehow meaning they are getting more.
Even more sad is that many "photographers" feel the same way.
Fair deal includes the amount charged. E.g. before digital SLRs I did website pix using either a CP 990 or 35 mm plus scans. The scans were better, but obviously much more expensive. IMO in no web instance were the scans sufficiently better to justify passing the substantial extra cost to the client.
"Optimum" very much has to do with cost. IMO the exercise is always to show the client’s premises or products at the very best BUT as constrained by what the client is willing to spend.
And I maintain that it is up to us as professionals to explain exactly what the difference is and why we recommend a particular option — and what a client originally thinks they need to spend and what a client can be educated to actually do can be very different.
My philosophy is different:
I would rather do the photography correctly to start with (and frankly the cost of materials and scanning is a very minor part of what I charge and can easily be swallowed as I have never separated-out the cost of materials as a separate item anyway).
And, the amount of effort required between doing the work on one format or the other (lighting, camera and set set-up) is almost identical.
What I theoretically might "lose" on the initial shooting and scanning, is more than made-up for in having images that can be adapted for many purposes — without having to go to the expense of "re-takes".
frankly the cost of materials and scanning is a very minor part of what I charge …
I envy pros like that, because it gives you a freedom of choice of equipment that ordinary mortals can only dream about.
Recently I had the pleasure of spending a delightful afternoon with one of the photographers I most admire on this planet (and whose confidence I cannot betray for obvious reasons), and for what he charges for a single sitting he could easily afford to buy and discard (if he wanted, but he doesn’t) both a top-of-the line Nikon and a top-of-the line Canon digital cameras and still have more money left over than what a lot of people make in a year. You can easily imagine who his clients are. 🙂
There was another reason for my original decision never to mention the materials-used when invoicing:
Under English copyright law, the copyright automatically belongs to the owner of the media on which the image is created. I have therefore never charged for "film" nor mentioned "negatives" on my invoices.
It has saved a lot of trouble, and settled a few "discussions", very easily over the years!
Frankly, you have a pretty good idea how much material you will use on a job before you quote, so I just build it into the Quote and forget about it.
Ann, your a little out of date on the question of English copyright I think. They changed the law back in about 1990 and the copyright always belongs to the photographer unless they choose to assign it someone else.
I do not pretend to be a professional photographer and I tell my clients just that. If they are not happy with my work, I continue to do what I can to make them happy. If I ever get a client who is not happy with the work they do not have to pay for it.
I am a graphic designer who has upgraded my equipment in order to better server my clients as a graphic designer. For most of my services I have one reasonable hourly fee. I do not consider myself a threat to local photographers and would never take on a job that required a true professional, such as a wedding or once in a lifetime memorial event. I have a handful of local photographers that I can recommend for the big stuff.
We moved to the U.S. in 1977 — lock-stock-and-barrel (including my flagon of C41 Bleach-Fix which is still going strong, although obviously much replenished!), the lawn-mower (ditto) and ourselves (also ditto!).
But the UK copyright law, as it was back then, was my original reason for never mentioning film and, particularly "negatives", on Invoices or Quotes.
Added note: Matter of fact, I’m not a threat to local graphic designers either. I have made it a point to turn down work offered to me that I know is being done currently by a friend. I don’t compete with my friends but I might refer them if I have too much.
However I do think they very much perceive the photo tools themselves (substantial tripod, tripod head, full size SLR and name brand lenses, etc.) as somehow meaning they are getting more. <sigh>
That makes sense to me. 🙂
But then I’ve seen your work and they are getting more, however you do it. You are good!
Up until 1990 the UK had some crazy copyright laws but that is not surprising since they hadn’t been updated in around 300 years. A lot of time was spent looking at the issue and now we very likely have the best copyright laws in the world from an artists point of view, though the response of some clients has been a very heavy handed bullying approach with many photographers.
Far too many photographers are still unsure of copyright issues and allow themselves to be trodden on while others take extraordinary risks through ignorance. I find myself having to deal with questions of copyright and licensing of rights internationally on a daily basis so I am forced to try and stay on top of what is happening. The real problems occur when international copyright laws are in direct contradiction with national laws.
Gosh… After seeing the perception of people like me I probably should have passed on the 550EX. It sounds like I won’t know how to use it right… and if I do it won’t be good enough because what I really need are all the big lights and diffusers and a degree in photography. Oy! <sarcasm intended>
Linda, you will have fun with your flash and I have no doubt you will become very good with the equipment that you do have. And if you get more equipment you will become good with that too. Just depends on how far you want to go.
I experimented on some indoor shots this morning using my exercise equipment for testing… black against light wall, color in chair, etc. No flash used on these to avoid harsh shadows and I closed the blinds to reduce bright sun hitting parts of the room.
Not sure how great of a test this is. I used automatic focusing on some and manual focusing on others. It appears that this info doesn’t show up in the info window so not sure which is which. I was going to post more images but decided to just go with the ones that turned out the best.
Also the processing was different with each one, as I used the sliders and adjusted them differently. Some were sharper than others to begin with. Anyway, comments and suggestions are welcome for those who like doing this sort of thing. 🙂
This is a case where you could use your flash — but probably not in the way that you envision.
In this situation, you might try bouncing the flash off the wall behind you and setting the intensity (or diffusing the light sufficiently) so that it produces one-stop’s less light than the main exposure requires.
Doing that would put some "Fill" into the dark shadows on the black equipment without throwing shadows.
Last night I pulled out some of my professional Stock Photo CDs to find a scene to use on a small job. At one time I though these were beautiful and most of them really are… except now I’m more aware of and plagued by things like oversaturated shadows…
Seems to me that digital photography has taken a giant leap forward and in many cases bypassed film with it’s quality, at least with some scenes. What thinkest others?
{Hiding under my desk until it’s safe to come out} 🙂
Buko: You’re right, I’m sure they were too. Maybe I worded my post wrong… I was making a comparison between pre-ditigal commercial stock photos and current digital shots that I keep seeing.
There seems to be plusses and minuses to both but I see a lot less minuses to digital now. Then again, I’m sure it’s dependent on many factors, as well as the kind of shots.
I’m very happy to have bought my "training wheels" (Canon SLR) and all the more excited to see what is coming in the next year or two.
By the way, I again want to thank those of you who kept emphasizing the importance of going with the SLR over one of the non SLR 8 mp cameras. I’m so glad you did, especially now that I’ve already ordered equipment which can now be used on my next upgrade. Also glad because I see that more mps are not always better mps.
I try this one more time Linda you have learn first you clearly have not demonstrated that you even understand what interior space is all about an you should do a little reading and experiment.
As far as being visual of the two of you Cindy is by far the more visual and technically advance and shows that she has something to say about her subject.
This is a very simple interior photo with much natural light coming in with a couple of monolights (strobes, flash) bounced for fill.
The idea behind this is not to seek perfection but communicate a message, the message is visual and achieved by composition both you and Cindy fall a little short in seeking out a message.
You might want to try some simple interior photos such as the one I posting and as Ann has suggested try bouncing the light off the ceiling and wall best place is the corner of the room opposite the subject. The one behind you keep the flash as close to the reflecting surface as possible and still allow for the spill.
The both off you should seriously consider the subjects relationship to the viewer, that being you, as well as its relationship to the frame of view.
The art is communication, if you have nothing to say about your subject you say nothing!
I can tell you from experience it is often very hard to have something nice to say about your subject.
It was just as test on a somewhat black and white subject… a test related to the camera… and to a conversation some of us had a while back in this thread. If I was trying to do something impressive I would have chosen a much prettier shot.
I might better take it down, lest others wonder what the heck I posted it for.
Cross-posted with you Cindy. I think I was probably foolish posting that picture. Thanks for clarifying… My intent was an experiment and not related to anything artistic… or pretty… or compositional, just an experiment for the purpose of feedback…
Just to clarify… I did not want a complement. Oy! I hope those who know me know that I would not post a picture like that if I wanted a complement. I wanted feedback on indoor lighting… education style. I appreciated Ann’s comments and look forward to learning more once I get my flash.
Just another thing to remember: whenever possible, move the object farther away from the background to attenuate or even eliminate the shadows. Do a test. This is in the context of taking a photo of the object itself, obviously not for depicting architectural interiors.
Thanks Ramon. I’ll try moving the equipment toward me to see what you mean. The room is small but I can still get an idea with a cropped area. I hope to get my 550EX today or tomorrow along with the Omni-Bounce. That should be fun to play with.
You seem to be considering auto vs. manual focus as somehow different in the final pic result. They are not. You choose the focus point and then you must achieve that using either the camera’s autofocus capabilty or the camera’s manual focus capabilty; NO impact on the final image which way you achieve focus. Just pushing the button without you choosing is just random-focus, and you achieve a random pic. Random is by definition not repeatable and should generally be avoided. Sort of like taking a pic without aiming: every 1000th pic might be interesting, but it is basically a waste of time.
During our very first day at art school we were divided into teams of three and told to bring something to photograph the following day.
We were specifically instructed that these should NOT be black, white or shiny objects because those presented special difficulties and we would get to that later.
Unfortunately, one of my team-mates was the daughter of the CEO of Cherry Blossom Boot Polish so (you’ve guessed it!) she arrives the next morning with — black boot polish in a shiny tin, black-bristled brushes and white duster (polishing cloth).
The Head of the School took one look; wondered if any of us would ever listen to instructions, shook his head and said: "Well, you lot had better just figure out how to handle that!" and stalked off. I still have that shot. And no, it isn’t that great.
The moral of the story: Black, white and shiny objects need very special handling — and that definitely includes chrome-plated black exercise equipment against a white wall.
I used Av and P for those shots. Not sure if one was better than the other.
Arggghhh …
Linda – this really needs emphasizing. You appear to be looking for something magical that’s going to "work best" for you. In the words of Ann – You’re letting the camera drive YOU instead of the other way around as it should be.
STOP IT!
Any of the modes (P, Av, Tv, M, etc) are simply different ways to achieve a proper expoure. Each of them has their place and any one of them can be "best" for any given situation depending on what you’re trying to accomplish. It’s up to you to learn why you would use one over the other. In other words ….
THE CAMERA IS NOT GOING TO MAKE YOU A BETTER PHOTOGRAPHER!
If you’re not going to learn to the tools to thier fullest, (which means you’ll have to actually learn photography), you’ve wasted your money, imo.
Thanks Ramon. Like Cindy said, that animation was probably done in a vector animation application like Flash. I don’t really think Flash was used for that one though. I could be wrong but that one strikes me as a generic app that PC people often use. I can’t think of any names since I don’t use them but I’ve had PC friends show them to me.
Yeah, something I have never wanted to learn. I don’t like doing animation unless it is very simple. I get bored with it. The really small animations I do with ImageReady. Other than that I hire someone like Linda 🙂
I guess I should have mentioned. This was my first time truly experimenting with inside shots and the different modes… other than some pictures I took trying to test my camera, the first couple of days after getting my camera… Cindy knows… the clock photos. Other than than, this was my first indoor experiment… and also using the tripod.
I know that doesn’t make my blunder look any better but maybe it helps shed some light on why I wanted to interact.
Anyway, I think I’ve put some of you to the test by way of patience… and for that I am sorry.
Your anecdote reminds me of this photography instructor that got sent to teach a summer course abroad. He sent his students out to take pictures of fire hydrants in black and a white, a task he often assigns to his students at home in Northern California. The problem was that in that particular city of 2 million inhabitants there was but a single fire hydrant, and that one was inside a secure government compound. He never counted on water trucks being the only source of water for the fire engines. 🙂
Geez…I understood what Linda was doing with the room shots. She was just experimenting with different settings – nothing more! That’s how people learn! Man-Oh-Man a lot of people who criticize must have a lot of time on there hands.
Honest, Linda I wasn’t trying to bash you or make you feel bad – that’s not my style. I’m seriously trying to help. But you keep saying to want to learn and yet everything you’re taking snapshots of isn’t going to help you in the least.
If you REALLY want to learn – you need to get into the mechanics of photography. Learn how to read your camera’s meter. (which incidentally works just fine in manual mode) Or, do a depth of field experiment where you shoot a narrow subject fairly close, (say a vertical pencil), at each of the different apertures and compare how different apertures affect depth of field. This experiment will also teach you something about how shutter speed and aperture are parts of the exposure whole – how an exposure of f4 @ 1/250 is exactly the same as f22 @ 1/8. THIS is the type of stuff you need to learn. And there are plenty of people here willing to help, including me.
But if going that deep is more than you’re willing to put into it – hey, that’s your right and you certainly don’t have to listen to me. I’m just text on a page. But trust me, taking a photo in full program mode and then again in aperture priority isn’t going to teach you a thing.
Yes, my comments were a little brusk – sorry. But please understand they were meant with good intentions.
After taking/making pictures for over half a century know, I am more convinced than ever that the most important thing a photographer has to learn is patience.
Many extoll the virtues of the instant feedback digital photography provides as an advantage in learning. There may be some truth to that. However, every human being learns things differently. One of the realities I’ve encountered is that great practitioners of an art are often terrible teachers, if for no other reason that they can’t put themselves in the shoes of a beginner. For me the path to acquiring patience –and without patience you are an absolute failure as a photographer– came with view cameras. Even now with a number of digital cameras available to me, I still shoot very deliberately.
My father was a great amateur photographer whose landscape, architectural and people shots illustrated many a fine book, and even though he eventually handed his Leicas, Rolleis and Contaxes over to me, the greatest gift he ever gave me was a Kodak box camera when I first started. Its upside-down images in its view finders taught me all I needed to know about patience and most of what I know about composition to this day. Here’s a very-low-res image <ftp://zaldidun:@ftp.surewest.net/ElClarin_SanNicolas.jpg> of the first photograph I was happy with. I was eleven years old when I took it. It’s nothing spectacular, obviously, but it gave me the sense I was on my way, despite my lack of any special talents. It’s all about patience.
In reading the advice being given to Linda in this thread and some of her reactions, I can’t help but wondering how quickly I would have given up on photography if they had tried to teach me all about composition, exposure, and a gazillion bells and whistles on a digital camera at once.
What I’m trying to illustrate here is my belief that getting even a modes result like the image I posted, can be more encouraging and conducive to later and more extensive experimentation than trying to do it all at once.
Some sports and street photographers don’t have the luxury to demonstrate their patience. (some do, like Bresson, who was known to stage some scenes he couldn’t capture when he first saw them)
Sports photography has never interested me (because sports don’t interest me), but the best street photographers do have to have an inordinate amount of patience.
Linda, have you considered getting a hand held meter and working in manual? I still use mine a lot of the time even though many photographers stop doing so with digital. The point is that a good hand held meter will teach you more about light ratios than any built in matrix metering.
The father of modern equestrian arts was the great master François Robichon de la Guérinière. His great masterpieces still reign supreme today and define riding as an art and as a science in every one of its many facets.
And the more that you stud, and practice, this art — which, at the moment, is an entirely new experience for you (and no, your old point-and-shoot really doesn’t count!) — the more skill that you will acquire. As you gain in skill, and get the results that you intended to get, the more hooked you will become on using your camera to the max.
Just don’t try to run before you can walk– and black, white and shiny interiors are NOT the easiest subject to start on!– be patient; and you WILL succeed.
I know this might be hard to believe, but the reason I have not taken many pictures is because I have been trying to learn and understand about SLR, reading and rereading, from a book I bought, printouts off the internet, the owners manual, studying the camera over and over, taking notes, and reading some more… trying to get a grasp on how all the factors play together. The info goes in but doesn’t always stick. Today I began practicing with my indoor shots. I thought maybe if I shoot some, then continue to study, the lights will turn on and I will begin to grasp the concepts. For some people learning comes easy. For others it’s blood, sweat, and often tears. That’s who I am.
Don’t get me started about the Olympics either. That’s a nasty affair, not what I would imagine sports should be.
During the pre-olympic games in 1968 (or thereabouts) I was given a membership in the measuring committee for the sailing competitions. With the single honorable exception of the American and the Spanish entries, every single other competitor was caught in gross violations, that included Frenchmen, Hungarians, Brits, Swedes, Norwegians, Danes, you name them. They would fill the bottoms of their craft with water or affix all kinds of heavy tools with wires to the underside of the tops in order to meet minimum weight requirements, would artificially and temporarily shrink their sails in mobile dryer-heaters so they would be within the maximum allowable sizes (and of course would rapidly expand as they absorbed water from the humid tropical air later), etc, And their attitude! Such disgusting, despicable, conceited, arrogant little cheaters.
I was thoroughly revolted and have never paid any attention to any Olympic games afterwards.
Personally even as an amateur photographer I’ve learnt a lot by reading this thread; but I do think that a lot of the advice that has been aimed at Linda is good advice for wanna be professional photographers who want to take pictures that all have great artistic merit (as the people who are giving the advice are, as I understand it). Now I could be misunderstanding, but I don’t think that that is at the moment what Linda’s aim is – my understanding is that she wants to take well exposed, well focussed pictures that she can use for basic web work for certain clients who up until now have been happy with images taken with a consumer grrade camera. In other words she wants to use the new camera as a tool.
It seems to me that her approach to doing this – trying the camera out on different settings, seeing what the buttons do, seeing how the automatic settings work in different lighting conditions and seeing how results vary with manual v automatic is not a bad way to do this – at least to start with. Finding out, for example, that shiny or contrasty or pure black or white subjects are not easy to take on automatic settings is part of the learning process of what this camera is going to be able to do for her in a real situation. The next step is to do some reading, talking or experimenting and find out why these things don’t work well with automatic settings and learn how to adjust.
Another issue is that different people learn how to do things in very different ways – I learn about the technical side of photography be reading everything I can – books, internet sites, you name it, and then going back to the camera to try it out. Other people learn much better by doing practical experiments and seeing what happens for themselves. There is no one size fits all way of learning to take photographs (as some advisors seem to suggest!).
Bottom line – (if it is not too presumptuous of me to offer advice- I’m neither a great photographer or a graphic artist – artistically you are way ahead of anything I could ever do – but I have been an educator) – Linda it’s up to you to find the best way of learning what your camera can do yourself, to take the information that seems useful now and put the rest aside in case it is useful at a later date. Susan S.
Ramon: Thank you so much for your encouragement. I was inspired by your horse picture and your encouragement.
Ashley: I wondered the same thing myself. Thanks for the advice.
Susan: Thanks for your nice comments. Provided I can keep from getting too busy with work again I will persevere and learn as much as I can… and hopefully at least come over the main hurdles I’ve been facing.
This morning started out as a fun time. I set up the tripod and after studying a little I just began taking lots of pictures… all of my exercise equipment. I must have misunderstood a previous post (or some advice somewhere) about taking pictures of something black and white with sharp edges, or walls with corners, as an exercise… that’s why I chose my exercise equipment. In my mind I was following some previous advice. Oy!
Ann, Thanks for your comments as well… sorry I overlooked them earlier… Hope I didn’t miss anyone else.
It’s time that I get plugged into a different type of forum, at least while I’m learning. I really enjoy the people who have participated here and feel like I know so many of you… but I don’t want to tax this poor tread anymore than I already have. 🙂
What Linda really needs is to go to a class where she will have people of the same level as her and so she can exchange the learning experience with them and to learn her strengths and weaknesses.
But most important to have an instructor that explains things and gives assignments. And also an environment where when criticized you have to take it. Especially from the instructor.
She will never learn this way. There is far to much oh how beautiful you’re patting each other too much for this to be a good and constructive learning environment.
The Exposure Compensation, at least technically, is something I learned by experience right away… mainly because I had to compensate for the blown highlights it was producing outside… so I’m encouraged that I understand that somewhat. I also have been able to grasp ISO and how it relates to light and digital noise.
However, the Exposure section is just what I need right now. It’s those fractions and fstops that trip me up. Seeing how it all relates with pictures is already helping me understand better.
Same thing with the Depth of Field section… and seeing the f numbers with each picture.
I can’t tell you how much I appreciate that link. I owe you a dinner in Orlando this September.
Oh… I forgot to mention in an earlier thread that tomorrow night is my second photography class. The first one was very basic but this next one should be more helpful.
Linda, If you feel overwhelmed by all this information put the camera down and do something else for a few days. when you pick it back up you will feel refreshed and much more artistic. you will have a fresh new perspective on photography.
Thanks Buko. Yesterday was a wee bit painful. I put myself out on a limb with a lighting experiment and the limb was chopped off. I admit, that was discouraging… but I also see how foolish it was for me to post that experiment in the first place.
Today I’m ready to learn from it and move on. I am accustomed to working hard for what I learn. One way or the other I will get it and once I do I plan to perfect it, God willing. 🙂
The Web site Bonnie posted last night is very helpful. I can’t print it because my printer is down again but I plan to copy by hand the information that I need to memorize.
It’s sad that Wade has become such an adversary. But like most bad situations you separate yourself from them the best you can and move on. My heart has no room for bitterness. Every day is new. What happened yesterday is past. I know that he will probably smack me again with something, then draw me in by being nice, then smack me again, but I don’t suffer with the same ego problem he does and I don’t have anything to prove, so I’m not too worried about it. 🙂
Ok, just had to check in on this thread. I mean over 2000 posts, something must be cooking.
Just my 2¢. bonnie’s link on photography basics should be standard procedure in how to explain anything technical. Thanks, bonnie, for posting it.
Andy should win an award for his organized, concise and thorough site. No creative writing wramblings to fill up space like some I’ve come across. Pictures, targeted wording and wide open space.
Adobe, Microsoft and other tech companies need to take a que from this guy’s site on how to explain complicated material in their manuals. If color management was explained the same way, I probably wouldn’t have to keep going back and reviewing all my data saved on the subject.
Thanks, Scott. That photo is nothing spectacular, but it does serve to illustrate my point about patience and bare-bones simple equipment when you’re starting out. As I said, I was eleven years old when I took it with a Kodak Brownie model Flash A and a light tripod.
It makes me wonder what happened between the film stock, lens and exposure mechanisms used in the old days of the Kodak brownie and todays point and shoot film cameras.
I can never get a shot like that from a point and shoot today, yet, my grandmother’s Kodak brownie pics from the ’30’s and ’40’s captured the same gorgeous tonal transitions much like yours.
Thanks for the kind words. I think what has been happening is that the expansion of the market for photo gear has brought about a lowering of standards and expectations.
It happens in all walks of life. I stumbled across a classic car show some time last year and I saw a 1941 Buick just like one my father used to have. The interior was all original and in pristine condition. I couldn’t help feeling sad when I realized what the interior of todays cars look and feel like.
For those who are still learning, I found another good Web site called Digital Photography Tutorials <http://www.photoxels.com/tutorials.html> that’s also easy to follow.
I’m also posting Bonnie’s link again so both sites can easily be accessed without having to search back through this thread.
Thanks to the above linked tutorials, yesterday I had a breakthrough with understanding Aperture and f/stops better. I set the camera to Av mode and experimented with a lower f/stop, f-1.8, which gave me a lower depth of field, image in front sharp and background blurred. Then I experimented with a higher f/stop, f-16, which produced a higher depth of field, resulting in more uniform appearance of sharpness. The one site I followed suggested that the optimal range is between f-1.8 and f-16.
I’m finally beginning to understand why some of you recommend sticking with Av mode. In this mode user only has to be concerned with f/stops for DOF. Shutter speed is automatically adjusted accordingly.
My class last night was about composition and I found it quite enjoyable. Next weeks class will be about shutter speed and aperture. I like the instructor a lot.
Sounds like this is clicking in for you. In AV mode you only need to be concerned the shutter speed does not drop down too low for hand held shots. Keeps it simple.
With moving subjects you also need to be aware of what shutter speed you need to avoid blurring of just the subject (assuming that is what you want to do). I still use Aperture rather than the shutter priority even when I want to be sure of keeping a running child frozen in midair – I just check before I press the button – it comes of my first camera (Olympus OM10) being aperture priority only and I always feel happier working in that mode.
I also work in Aperture Priority. It’s really second nature. I always keep an eye on the shutter speed so it’s not too slow. I also know when to go to manual for tricky lighting that might fool the meter.
Interesting. Macro is what the meter does best using the D100. And in any event I would not suggest changing Modes to trick the meter; IMO best digicam workflow – by a lot – is to get in the habit of using Exposure Compensation to adjust when necessary.
In Linda’s case (or anyone else using using a fully-adjustable same-brand external flash unit for their SLR like Linda is) I suggest using the Exposure Compensation built into the 550EX and/or the Exposure Compensation built in to the SLR digicam. Usually I first try the in-camera Exposure Compensation because that is my workflow. Then if it looks necessary I fool with adjusting the external flash unit(s) separately.
You mean as in put my full name on the site rather than a company name? Hmmm. I’ll have to think about that.
I’m a little slow when it comes to writing "about" pages. Want to write it for me 🙂 Actually, on my other sites I have written about page and I just kind of had a feel about this site wanting the content to speak for itself.
In Linda’s case (or anyone else using using a fully-adjustable same-brand external flash unit for their SLR like Linda is) I suggest using the Exposure Compensation built into the 550EX and/or the Exposure Compensation built in to the SLR digicam. Usually I first try the in-camera Exposure Compensation because that is my workflow. Then if it looks necessary I fool with adjusting the external flash unit(s) separately.
Perfect timing. I just got home and found my new flash had been delivered. When I try it out I’ll be sure to use Exposure Compensation. Thanks for thinking of that!
I know I have trouble saying anything about myself or my business. Besides, your Web site as it is has a simple beauty about it. It speaks for itself in a way.
My old photography teacher told me this: even if you just do a test, try to make the image interesting. Making a good composition is more important then a good technic, every "idiot" can learn the technic but there are only a view that can make a good composition.
Oy, oy… thanks Cindy… obviously on this endeavor I’ve started out all wrong… but the story isn’t over until the last chapter… so time will tell.
Even if I don’t do well, I think it will be a fun hobby… something to do for recreation when I need a break… but I’m going to attempt to learn as much as I can with the time that I have.
LOL, that does sound funny… I used to spell Oy as Oi. I just happened to like it that way. Doug very patiently kept reminding me that it is supposed to be spelled Oy. Even though we found evidence that it technically can be spelled Oi, the traditional spelling is Oy. Therefore I humbled myself and submitted to the man who knows best. 😉
"Oy" to me says, "Oh my" with an emphasis on the Oh… like "Oh dear" or "Oh, what have I done now?" in some situations and "I can’t believe you said that!" in other situations. I love it. It expresses certain reactions so well. 🙂
I have just managed to rescue two older Monolites by cannibalizing a third one and am rather pleased with myself — particularly as I managed to do it without electrocuting myself!
I believe that there is a way to drain capacitors safely (apart from leaving them disconnected for several days) so does anyone know how you do that — so that I know for next time.
[I understand that the zap from charged capacitors approaches the electric chair in efficiency so it would be useful to know how to handle them — and remain in the land of the living.]
I would not do this they can arc if not properly serviced.
The Best way would be the Flash Clinic, here in New York.
BTW this is not a subject for photoshop forum nor is it related to this subject as most of the people on thus thread have no knowledge or experience in this matter. And it is giving the wrong signal to people about servicing their equipment.
Don’t do what Ann did ever. It is a very good way to kill yourself and your loved ones.
One of the people that designed the big old Ascor units killed himself by placing his finger on the tube circuit in the head and that completed the circuit. Barbique!
I disagree with Ann I think the postings relating to this subject should be removed at once I don’t care if she save two units or not the most important thing to know that she is still taking a chance in using them and especially if other people are present and especially active children who produce static electricity by running around and rolling on the floor such as that which is carpeted.
What she is doing is extremely dangerous and Adobe should distance themselves from this posting as it might look like an endorsement of such an undertaking.
This thread should now be terminated and it was this type of info about equipment that has been too freely given on this thread without thinking about what anyone was saying. There was very little that was accurate or valuable to someone who has a reasonable realistic outlook that they could count on.
And although it might be some that a particular individual would follow I don’t recommend that anyone take this thread seriously.
I actually do know what I am doing and have done similar work in the past also — with parts and instructions supplied by the manufacturers of this particular equipment. There is no possibility of a short-circuit and the units are properly grounded and have been tested with my VOM. (Yes, I own one of those and know how to use it and, yes, I know how to wire a house too!)
As for this thread, I believe that it has proved extremely useful and helpful to a number of people — in spite of the negativity that has flowed from your corner of the universe throughout the thread.
I don’t understand why you want to discourage other people from getting involved in Photography.
We all had to start once. Perhaps I was lucky that the people around me encouraged and helped me to learn. If I can do the same to encourage more people to discover the sheer magic of the medium, I am delighted to do so.
Well you are showing that you are not thinking about what you are writing about and the possible impact it might have on someone else and it is very nice that you know how to wire a house but what the hell does this have to do with Photoshop, Ms. Fixit?
Even you have a VOM.
And your interpretation of my about going slowly and not to throw your money away so easily is kind of crazy. People shouldn’t just go and run a buy expensive equipment for no reason they should learn first and then see if they enjoy this and take some courses and mingle in an environment where others on their own level are working and only come here for advice about techniques to use photoshop to better their experience and not to go a a pace that will overwhelm them and totally discourage them from using the equipment that they actually do purchase.
There is some one on this thread who seems convinced that the will achieve professional status by following the advice and guidance from this thread. That will not happen. What might happen is that if that person works hard and has the talent and develops the talent and makes an effort to seek out the technical data personal interaction with other people who share their interests and are also striving toward that goal. She might achieve her goal.
Might achieve it that goal there is no way of knowing this and they should be free of this burden of trying to be professional before you even know what an fStop is.
The most important thing is to go out and enjoy yourself find that which inspires you and make that work for you.
This thread is a bit crazy. Repair your own monolights, buy a Gitzo Mountaineer, buy $1,200 lenses. $8,000 cameras and the person doesn’t understand what an f stop is does any of that make sense to you?
This person is having a hard time using manual focus.
You should encourage the person and this particular person but use some sense.
She has to find her pace and how simple the camera really is and how stupid the camera is as a computer is stupid but a camera takes the cake after all it is a dark empty space. And a lot of you are acting like a camera. That is a dark empty space.
That person should not be taking ten photos and then post them and think that everyone is going to think that they have done a wonderful job. They should do some photography they should look at the work themselves and study it and go to their class talk it over with the instructor and class mates and then after they have found the inspiration from working come here for some technical advice.
Once they are more in touch with themselves and has some work offer it up for criticism if they wish because there are to many teachers here.
It will either come to them or it will not. But this thread is doing more harm than good even though it started out very well.
And Ann my advice to you about your monolights, bring them into the shop just to make sure. BTW there is only one brand of monolights that are UL tested and approved that is Broncolor.
Wades comment about buying expensive equipment to start out takes me back to a day in the early 1960s in Paris when I happened to be in the shop of perhaps the worlds premier fine-violin dealer and this Texan walked in wanting to buy a Stradivarius for his kid who was just about to take up the violin and he wanted him to start out with the best possible equipment.
That’s a gross extreme, of course, and I don’t for a moment want to appear to be insinuating that this applies to any situation here, but it does reinforce my belief that, for learning photography, bare-bones equipment is best. However, I do realize that every person learns in a different way.
[Hehehe the spelling checker doesnt accept Texan. 🙂 ]
My Monolites are all made by Bowens of London. I have always used theirs and I bought my first ones from them shortly after the originals were shown at Photokina around 1968. [Neither Broncolor (nor anyone else!) was making a monolight at that time.]
These are the same make that were at one time sold in the USA by Bogen (with Bogen’s name on them) and by Calumet. I have found them to be excellent and extremely reliable.
The three that I worked on this weekend were built for me in London in 1977 (to be used in the USA with 120 volts). Two of them are now restored to perfect health and I can assure you that they do not need to go into the shop. But thank you for being so concerned about my welfare! The third one is lying disembowelled in a corner of the studio and will be further milked for knobs, buttons, screws etc. if and when I need "spares".
[I do have a number of other newer and even more powerful Monolites too — and these are the ones which get used the most.]
Regarding other users and their new cameras: Why be so disparaging?
The people who are buying the new DSLRs are moving-up from Point-&-Shoots. Of course they don’t necessarily know what an f-stop is, or does, at this moment but most of them seem determined to find out and want to learn to use their new equipment to the max. I shall be delighted if I can help them to do so.
I love this thread… and obviously so do many others. After all it’s probably been the most popular thread with the most mileage, not to mention acceleration speed 🙂 in the history of this forum.
As for the intended insults on me, I found it humorous… partly because, well some of it has been true and I can laugh at myself… and partly because I’ve never seen a person so bent on trying to make others feel small… I suppose for the purpose of making himself look important? I don’t know…
Anyway, for the most part this thread has been loaded with all kinds of information and for the most part has been harmonious. Neil can do what he wants to with it but I believe Neil has been pretty sensible in allowing slightly OT discussion that is both helpful and harmonious (for the most part) and seems to generate the same community atmosphere that makes this place so special.
Sure we have our disagreements… and nobody handles everything right (or what we think is right) every time, but I respect Neil and I believe he is part of the success of this forum. I appreciate his involvement as well as those times when he withdraws involvement here. Does that make sense? 🙂
Well if the use of digital cameras and photo equipment is not related to photoshop, I don’t know what is. The only thing truly off topic is Wade and his grumpiness.
People shouldn’t just go and run a buy expensive equipment for no reason they should learn first and then see if they enjoy this and take some courses and mingle in an environment where others on their own level are working and only come here for advice about techniques to use photoshop to better their experience and not to go a a pace that will overwhelm them and totally discourage them from using the equipment that they actually do purchase. =
Then maybe you should return your computer or at least sell it until you learn how to use it.
Unfortunately the latter tends to appeal to me although I know that always makes things worse. I’ve been known to chase a few down until they listen to reason 🙂 I pretty much let things go these days.
I wanted to ask you about polarizing filters. I think maybe I need one. Does it help when shooting against bright skies? Or reflections on water? What kind do I need?
Linda hasn’t gotten her lens yet to try out the filter.
I’ll let you know John. Yesterday I was too busy to take pictures other than at the restaurant with family. Today is a little overcast. I’ll keep an eye on the sky so I can get a better idea.
Yes it does fit the kit lens Cindy. Looking forward to getting my new lens. I should have kept the order with the B&H since they already have more in stock. PC Mall is still backordered.
Wade – When you were growing up and were severely criticized over and over you adapted and found ways to learn anyway. Congratulations! Not everyone needs this kind of negative feedback. There are many different ways that people learn and Linda’s works fine for Linda. Let’s all enjoy our diversity and different styles!
Polarizing filters can be like magic in reducing glare, but note:
— All SLR filters are directly in the optics path, and as such add distortion, dust spots, etc. to the image to some (ideally very small) degree. As with all things photo less is more, meaning less distortion costs more money. E.g. a US$30 polarizing filter is too cheap, probably not something you want in your kit.
— All filters reduce the amount of light that reaches the sensor/film plane. With clear filters the reduction usually is small but with Polarizing filters in use the reduction is very significant, typically around one stop of light (varies).
— Many polarizng filters do not work with auto focus; many do. IMO only polarizers designed for the lens & SLR in question should be matched to it. Also if someone ever uses autofocus they should only purchase polarizers that maintain the polarizing effect during autofocus.
— Polarizing filters are _not_ just "screw on and forget" devices. They must be adjusted for each new pic angle, and misused can reduce pic quality. Definitely one of those tools that needs to be learned before use.
I understand that digital cameras require "Circular" polarizing filters.
[That refers to the manner in which they polarize light rather than the physical shape of the thing — just in case someone says "But ALL of my lenses and filters are circular".]
Cindy>I wanted to ask you about polarizing filters. I think maybe I need one. Does it help when shooting against bright skies? Or reflections on water? What kind do I need?
It takes away reflections on foliage, water and deepens the blue in skies. You see the saturation increase too – it’s pretty cool to watch.
It works best with the sun to the right or left of camera but will work if the sun is in back of you if the sun is low. On overcast days it will take away reflections on glass, foliage and any thing shiny…but will not darken overcast skies.
It also takes away the reflections when shooting thru windows. Such as shooting a store front & being able to see the merchandise in the window without glare & reflections.
Allen: I appreciate your input on polarizers. Thanks to John I did get a good one and I believe it will be money well spent.
Now… just to add a little more humor to the mix… as I know this will be funny to some and aggravating to others…
A client called just a while ago and asked if she could hire me to take pictures of her on her little sailboat tomorrow ASAP. The weather has not been very good for pictures lately but I’m hoping that we can squeeze just enough Florida sunshine tomorrow morning to get some nice shots for some advertising she wants to do. I will be in another sailboat and will take lots of pictures, some with and some without the polarizer just to be on the safe side.
They are wonderful clients and she knows I don’t claim to be a professional photographer. Between the camera and Photoshop I do believe I can come up with something she can be proud of. I’ve done this sort of thing in the past and they were happy. If not, we’ll meet again and I’ll shoot some more pictures.
Thanks on the polarizing info. Great link Ann. I think that needs to be one of my next investments. Too bad all my lenses weren’t the same size! I particularly need it for the 28-135 IS lens
Don’t waste time shooting on-water pix without the polarizer now that you own a good one. For that venue even misused the worst case would be that the polarized shots would be the same as no polarizer. Properly used the benefits are huge.
"Overcast" can still be extremely bright on the water.
As always, early morning and late afternoon are best for outdoor pix. Many photogs will not ever shoot mid day.
Water = movement, always; meaning high potential for pic-ruining movement blur not visible on a 2 inch LCD. Keep an eye on your shutter speed and raise your ISO setting if shutter speeds at your chosen aperture drop below 1/300; or below 1/500 if you use long telephoto.
Have fun! And as always with critters, focus on the eyes – or where you think they are if you cannot see them. [sort of an exercise, but it works]
Cindy>Too bad all my lenses weren’t the same size! I particularly need it for the 28-135 IS lens.
Figure out the largest thread you need for your lenses and get that size. Then buy one or two step-down-rings so the Polarizer will fit on other lenses.
If you are a "modern photographer" you only shoot in the middle of the day when the sun is at 12 O’clock.
But in your case try to shoot with the sun right at you, for the most dramatic sailing pictures. Most people think photography is about light, but it’s not; it’s the shadows that sculpture the image.
Most people think photography is about light, but it’s not; it’s the shadows that sculpture the image.
I know what you’re trying to say but this is entirely wrong. How do you think the shadows got there? Obviously, without light, there would be no shadows – which ulitmately means to effectively utilize shadows, you have to effectively utilize the light.
And besides, shadow isn’t the only thing that "sculpts" an image. Highlights can be (and often are), more important than shadows in bringing out the shape and texture of a subject. It entirely depends on tone and surface properties. Shadows aren’t going to do much for emphasizing the shape of a black car or cat- they’ll get completely lost. To adequately show form on a dark subject requires an effective use of highlights.
And then work your behind off getting rid of the blue cast in Photoshop.
Not if you know what you’re doing at capture time – regardless of film or digital. 🙂
Actually if you are trying to capture the person sailing your simplest way to achieve decent pix of a person will be with the sun behind you, on the person. Intense backlighting from the water typically makes further intentionally backlit (sun facing you) critter photos technically difficult, not for novices. Shallow depth of field can add interest; you will typically prefer _all_ of the boat in focus and the far background out of focus (perhaps f-4 to f-8; do test shots on other boats and check DOF carefully).
The sun facing you, behind the boat, can indeed be best for dramatic pix of primarily the boat.
Just one thing to think about: is your Rebel waterproof? Cameras and lenses don’t usually enjoy salt-spray — keep your Polarizing filter, or a UV one, on for protection!
If the spray is really bad.. put the camera in a big baggie, with a rubberband holding the baggie closed around the lens, so that just the lens (with protective filter in place) is sticking out at one end. Do the same for the camera straps at the other end. It will be a little ackward manipulating the controls….the baggie will protect the camera to a certain degree and costs less than a waterproof housing.
Oh yeah.. and do not unstarp the camera from you, unless absolutely necessary…. you do not want it falling in.
I’ll remember the f-4 to f-8 Allen and sun behind unless I want a special effect with the boat, thanks. Let’s hope it’s prettier tomorow than today was.
Ann, the Rebel is not waterproof, but I did purchase the extra warranty from Ritz that covers damage due to dropping it or getting it wet.
Polarizing Filter is on the camera and ready to go, thanks to John helping me over a bump in the road when I tried cleaning it today.
Hi Bonnie, Good idea to bring a baggie with a rubber band. Hopefully it will be a nice calm morning and there won’t be much of a problem but it probably would be good to use a baggie anyway. Thanks!
That’s the good thing about photography these days; there is no wrong!
Light is the tool to create shadows; most photo’s with out shadows are boring, just like portraits of smiling people!
That’s the good thing about digital, you can see the results instantly. So yes experiment with light right in to the lens. And Linda when you are on the boat try to shoot the "picture boat" from a lower angle, maybe lay down. Also try to take pictures from "weird" angles, it will impress the "client" and make it more interesting for you! And do not have the sun from behind you, it creates boring pictures. If you don’t want take any risks have the sun slightly from the left or right.
Going back to the shadows: if we take Linda’s "Fitness" photo’s and there was a nice light that would have created some harsh shadows on the wall or the floor, created by the equipment, the picture could had be more appealing. I’m just using your pictures as an example.
And take a "shot-bag" with you or a small pillow, so you can lay it on the railing of the boat to rest your camera on when you are shooting, like a tripod.
I know I’m a bit late on the polarising filter stuff – I have a second hand linear polariser (it won’t work on a DSLR but is fine on a compact digital like mt Canon G3 as they use a different focussing system) -it’s Hoya but it isn’t multicoated and it does introduce some cyan/red chromatic aberration which is particulalry noticeable on architectural shots. So I highly recommend going for a multicoated one, which I presume is less likely to suffer from this issue. The fact that a polariser reduces the amount of light reaching a sensor can be useful for us poor mortals with a compact digital – they have a fairly large smallest aperture (f8 or so) and if you want to use a slow shutter speed for effect they can double as a weak neutral density filter! (my G3 has a built in ND filter anyway but even that isn’t enough sometimes) Susan S
My experience (some other experienced photogs disagree) shooting from very small power boats and very small planes has been that bracing against the bost or plane can transmit vibrations worse than fully handheld. Perhaps a pillow or a shot bag can help absorb such vibrations. And of courrse with a sailboat if one is on the same sailboat not under power such bracing could work very well.
I envisioned Linda on a different boat or on shore. On the same boat as the subject my suggestion would have been to shoot using flash fill with the sun and the photog low and at varying angles to the subject.
(it won’t work on a DSLR but is fine on a compact digital like mt Canon G3 as they use a different focussing system)
Just for clarification, whether or not a linear polarizer "works" with a particular camera (DSLR or otherwise), depends on the focusing and metering systems. It has nothing to do with "digital". My 15 year-old linear pola works just fine with my D60 (DSLR), and EOS 1N (SLR), bodies – in both metering and auto focus. If I were buying one today, I’d of course opt for the more expensive circular variety – if only for future compatibility reasons but I haven’t yet felt the need.
Here’s an old trick for easily locating the area of sky that will be most affected by a polarizer: Make a "gun" with your thumb and forefinger. Aim your thumb at the sun – wherever your forefinger is pointing is where a polarizer will produce the most dramatic affect. 90º from the light source is the key.
Thanks for the tips. I spent the morning on a larger sailboat taking pictures. The sky was not pretty and the water very dark. Also I would like to have had the zoom lens I’ve ordered.
Cameras for sure, certainly a Nikonos and D100. But the event is my parent’s 60th wedding anniversary family reunion so it’s not a dive trip. All the housed (film, ugh) underwater photo gear and strobes are a huge PITA so they will probably stay home <sigh>.
For an example of PERFECT use of Depth Of Field see
The pic proportions IMO are less than ideal, no soubt to suit the online newspaper layout. Cropping off the right side of the pic to the edge of the civilian’s suit would be an even nicer pic.
Allen: Congratulations to your parents! That’s quite a celebration. Looks like I have to sign in for that link. I’m seeing double right now. I spent the afternoon with my client choosing photos from yesterday. As it turned out, once she saw them all she was very happy with them and said they are exactly what she wanted. So I did some enhancing while she watched and then proceeded to start working on layout for her business card. More marketing pieces will come out of it soon.
Thanks very much Larry! She laughed gleefully when she realized what I had here that I had not shown her yet. She also called her husband to tell him. She’s really tickled. I’m still pulling myself off the floor. 🙂
I recently purchased the SanDisk ImageMake 6 in 1 Hi-Speed USB2 card reader but somehow forgot to follow up on the USB2 upgrade card for my Mac.
In a previous discussion with John and Mike we talked about the following two options. John leaned toward the Orange while Mike leaned toward the Sonnet because of concern over compatiblity issues with th Orange. Thought I would run it by you all one more time before I call and place my order.
Here are the two options I found. They are both close to the same price at PC Mall for NAPP members.
Not only am I responsible for color, process control, server admin, people, places, things, others that are not responsible, I’m also the IT guy.
I’ve done many installs for hardware and software related items and have found that the Orange products, DO, have issues with other PCI cards, let alone software incompatibilities. Usually SCSI and ATA drive cards. My thinking is that it’s an address issue between Orange cards and others.
I’ve found that the Sonnet products are more compatible, and easier to deal with than Orange boards.
If your machine isn’t stuffed full of 3rd party products, and you don’t plan on stuffing it in the future, you’d probably be OK going with the Orange board.
I don’t think it is Mike. I try to keep only that which I might need on my Mac. However, since I have a choice I’ll go with the one that seems to be less troublesome. I appreciate both yours and John’s advice. You both win in my book!
I use one of the new Adaptec USB 2 cards which is working fine. You can walk into a CompUsa store to get it. Drivers for all of these cards with 10.3.3 are the drivers from Apple.
Why a USB 2 reader? Why pay for a reader AND a card to drive it when you can just buy a Firewire reader? Even if I was out of FW ports, I’d still go with FW reader and the card. USB sucks for data storage compared to Firewire. (actually, imo – USB sucks period)
Firewire is great. For some reason it never occurred to me that they might make a Firewire Card Reader by now. I now own two USB card readers… silly me. ;}
I don’t know if FW (400) is massively faster than USB 2, but it’s been proven to be superior if only because of marginal gains. I just don’t like USB in general – I’ve had far more problems with USB than with FW. Actually, I’ve never had a problem with FW.) USB is fine for input devices and printers, but I’ll never buy a USB device where data storage/writing is concerned.
(And the USB (1.1) CF reader on my desk here doesn’t count – it was FREE with rebate.) 😉
In the case of a camera memory card, wouldn’t the limiting factor typically be the card itself, instead of the interface? My experience is limited to USB 2, but I’ve noticed that even a so-called "high-speed" CF card transfers data much slower than an external HD or keychain-type memory device.
Maybe I just don’t pay attention to USB 2 because of the slowness of USB 1.1 (much slower than SCSI even), but it seems counterintuitive to buy a USB 2 card just to accommodate a card reader instead of just getting a FireWire one.
I have a USB 2 Lexar card reader that flies on my PC with downloads, but its really slow on the G4 because the computer itself is limited to USB 1.1.
The PC copies 512MB in not much more than 1 minute compared to well over ten minutes on the Mac. I know somebody with a much faster PC using the same card reader and his will download files incredibly fast.
With a Mac, I’d definitely go firewire unless you have a G5 with USB 2.
AShley – to get the speed of USB 2 you have to get a PCI card or a G5. USB 2 devices will work fine at about 1.1 MBS when plugged into a USB 1 instead of over 40 MBS with USB 2.
If you go to the first page of the PShocks article there are the facts. Firewire is 33 times faster than USB 1.1 while USB 2 is 40 times faster than USB 1.1. That doesn’t speak about actual implementations such as the disk drive that is noted as being faster on page three of that article. They have obviously paid more attention to the Firewire implementation than the Firewire implementation. I use Firewire, USB 1.1 and USB 2. Yes USB 1.1 is very slow, USB 2 and FIREWIRE are similar while being device dependent.
The only hang up I’ve had is independently powered FIREWIRE devices usually cannot be hot connected or disconnected. There are grounding issues.
With my current Mac I’ll leave everything as it is and if I find speed becomes a real problem, I’ll buy a firewire card reader. Until now, I’ve been raw processing files on my PC using Capture One and then sending the files over via an Ethernet connection to the G4. Adobe Camera Raw does seem to have the edge though over Capture One in some areas.
At the time of writing, I have a scanner, external hard drive and DVD writer all working on firewire 400 and I am impressed on the whole. There never seem to be any problems and everything is fast. With USB 1.1 attachments I’ve sometimes had problems with device recognition. On the PC it all seems to work well, but I think getting a G5 will be a significant step forward.
You said "The only hang up I’ve had is independently powered FIREWIRE devices usually cannot be hot connected or disconnected. There are grounding issues."
I’ve never heard this before. I always thought Firewire devices were okay to connect and disconnect without shutting down. The only think I do is make sure I eject the device first, such as a hard drive.
I only have one firewire port available and keep a cable on my desk from that port. When I use my LaCie Pocket Drive I plug it in and pull it out constantly… although the Pocket Drive is powered by the Mac. When I get my Firewire card reader I plan to use the same cord since I only need the Pocket Drive occassionally.
Which brings up another question. Is the Firewire card reader powered by the Mac or does it need external power?
I just want a cheap USB 2.0 card. I brought one home that was supposed to work in OSX but my computer wouldn’t even boot up. Very disturbing. Then the thing had no web site I could go to.
I know there are cheap USB cards out there that should work with Panther. I just don’t know which one. Anyone?
Brand new, not refurbished like the Belkin in Wades link.
Be cautious about a card or adapter with the Belkin name on it. Belkin makes excellent cables and devices, but Belkin gear conflicts very often with Mac stuff. Go to the Apple discussion boards and do a search on Belkin.
Thanks for the link. It says " OS X.0.3 or greater". That is what this one says I just bought but I dont think it works in Panther. My machine wouldnt even boot up. Do you know for sure this works with Panther? Maybe I should contact them?
The problem with FireWire is that this Mac already has it so I dont like to pay for something I have. Secondly, hot swapping FireWire makes me nervous. Thirdly, USB is as fast or faster and it is cheaper…..if I can find it that is. I do think there might be a Panther problem though.
I don’t get it about the hot swapping fear with Firewire. This thread is the first I’ve ever heard that. Is this a documented concern? I’ve been doing it as long as I’ve had firewire, with both external powered drives and mac powered drives. Wasn’t firewire touted as being hot swappable from the beginning?
Wasn’t firewire touted as being hot swappable from the beginning?
As it compares to SCSI, it is hotswappable. Bus powered firewire devices (like the Lexar and Microtech card readers mentioned here) can be plugged and unplugged at will if they are empty (no card inserted). If there’s a card in the drive and mounted, then it should be unmounted from the computer before ejecting the card from the reader or unplugging the firewire connection. The same holds true for firewire hard drives that are turned on and mounted. I’ve read about possible data corruption occurring if a firewire drive loses connection suddenly (like unplugging the firewire port while its mounted…and especially if its being accessed at the time). Sorry, I don’ thave the links to those articles… its been awhile.
But, you should never have to shut down the computer before or reboot after plugging in a firewire device of any kind. That’s what is meant by hot swappable. 🙂
And I’ll second and third and forth the opinions expressed and recommend the firewire reader (I use the Lexar model… both the first generation and the newer, smaller, but slightly flimsier one) and haven’t had any troubles or complaints about speed. I capture about 15,000 images per year (6MP digital) and haven’t had any card failures while inserted into either reader. Transfer speeds are great and they work well with OSX’s Image Capture app (if you’re working with jpgs outta the camera). With RAW images I drag right from the mounted card to my drive for later processing.
Paul: Thanks! You confirmed what I have practiced since the beginning. I always unmount external devices that need to be unmounted before disconnecting a firewire device. If I remove my card reader, even with USB2 I always unmount and eject the card first. I noticed that in one of those articles the user who had trouble attempted to plug in the hard drive while booting up the computer… something else that should never be done.
Now that I’ve been reading up on the new Firewire 800 and the USB2 cards I think it would be wise to order one of these even if I do still use my new USB2 Compact Disk Reader.
I’m thinking of the one at the bottom on the right with 7 ports. Does this look like a sensible way to go or is there something better?
Don’t assume that Linda. Unless it says it supports 10.3 don’t go for it. That is the problem I am running into. Panther seems to be a different beast when it comes to drivers.
I like your idea Mike. Could I get you to talk to my husband? 🙂
Actually by mid to late 2005 I will be ready for a new Mac. Mine will be under warranty until about that time. I have begun to feel the slowdown blues lately, especially when working on higher res 16-bit photos with special effects. They jump up there pretty fast.
I called IOGEAR and am told that all of their USB 2.0 PCI cards work fine with Panther. I will be taking back this other card and getting one. Will let you know if there are any problems.
Linda – sorry about causing all this confusion. You will not be needing to hot swap a reader so my point is really mute. I’d buy the firewire device because it has one less gizmo to fool with.
The only reason I have USB 2 is that this device is only a USB 1.1 or 2.0 device. It has not run flawlessly either. I have had no trouble with my Epson 2450 Photo scanner and it is FIREWIRE. I never need to unplug it either so I don’t even know if there would be an issue or not. I have a Western Digital FOREWIRE drive that does cause problems when I disconnect it even if I unmount it first.
As far as USB 2 I tried an inexpensive card first and my system would hang. I then called Adaptec pre-sales support and learned which one to get. IT is the AUA-4000A. Their older USB 2 cards will only run at 1.1 speeds on a MAC. But again even this solution still has some issues.
I just installed the IOGEAR USB 2.0 card and things download at the same rate. It may be my flash card is slow. I am trying to move a few files to another flash card for testing….Argggg!
I have a new problem and I’m going to post at the Panther thread. After attempting to download that price list from Bonnie’s link, I suddenly started having weird things happen to all the text on my mac. The PDF file did download even though I didn’t have a password. I did not attempt to open it though. I’ll post screen shots at the other thread.
Cindy, that’s what I was alluding to in post 2371. I just don’t think that the CF card itself can move data in or out as fast as either USB2 or Firewire are capable of.
Geees, my flash card is x45 speed. If this is the case, Linda, there would be no advantage to your buying any card at all because your Mac already has USB
They were on backorder but I noticed that they were shipped today so they are probably in stock again. I hope to get them along with my zoom lens on Monday or Tuesday.
I have news for everyone: These flash cards are not capible of running any faster than 1 MB per second so it doesn’t matter whether you stick them of Firewire, USB 2.0 or USB 1.1.
If you go to any site that offers Compact Flash Cards they all say the same thing: standard speed up to 12 MB’s per second.
I would love it if someone found anything different. Maybe I am missing something.
Sorry Cindy. I too have several of the slower cards… guess I’ll just keep them as secondary/backup and use the fast ones for most of what I do.
My husband ended up ordering a couple of 1GB cards, not for photos, but for backing up files from his PC. When he leaves the office he takes one with him.
Who said that? Are you saying you have the faster cards and they are slow? I’m confused… and I think I am just making things worse for you Cindy. Sorry…
All I am saying is that if your USB goes at 480 MB per second and your flash card is rated at 12 mb per second it will go at 12 mb per second. It looks to me that data transfer on ALL flash cards are 12 mb per second so to buy firewire or USB 2 is a waste.
Anyone know of an on line store, out side of California, that sells Epson supplies?
ink, paper.
I buy all my Epson supplies from B&H <http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home ;jsessionid=Ale44VY6oP!-582891184?O=product.jsp&A=getpag e&Qt=RootPage.jsp > in New York because I’m always ordering photo gear and film from them anyway.
I have one that is rated 45x but when you look at it in the profiler it says this:
USB Storage Device:
Capacity: 499.08 MB Removable Media: Yes Detachable Drive: Yes BSD Name: disk3 Product ID: 1792 ($700) Vendor ID: 1507 Speed: Up to 12 Mb/sec Bus Power (mA): 500 OS9 Drivers: No
Now I just tested out the USB card with my Epson Scanner. It is working. I don’t know if it is worth it though. I just took one of my business cards and scanned it at 1200 dpi and this is what I got:
USB 1 = 57 sec USB 2 – 49 sec Firewire = 51 sec
I just went to B&H and it appears to me that ALL compact flash cards are rated at 12 MB maximum transfer rate whether it is a 45x or a 2x. I find all of this rather odd and it steams me up because it is another case of they (you know who they are) have everyone fooled into buying things that arent doing what people think.
I agree, many of the hardware storage vendors would rather confuse than inform. It’s the same with CD/DVD writers and media. All their 32x, 48x, etc. ratings can be quite misleading.
"Note: Card-to-computer transfer speed for a given CompactFlash card varies with both the card reader and the operating system. The Lexar FireWire CompactFlash reader, model RW019, is the fastest of over 2 dozen readers we’ve tested to date, which is the primary reason we’ve standardized on it. Other FireWire readers may not be as quick, and we’ve observed a big variance in the performance capabilities of USB 2.0 card readers (while all USB 1.1 card readers are slow)."
Also check out the table on the above link – transfer times from card to computer vary a lot.
I am on the phone with SanDisk right now having fun with them….Ill let you know more when I hang up but they have already confessed their fastest flash card runs at 12 MB sec download speed… This is funny.
Totally separately from the questions of USB, FireWire and CF card speeds, I have learned not to trust System Profiler for anything. It’s iffy in its current incarnation and it was next to useless as Apple System Profiler under 9.x.
It fails to see devices, returns phony information, etc. Apple knows but won’t admit it publicly, although tech support reps have on occasion blurted out the fact they can’t really rely on the info it returns.
Now, I’m not saying the card is slower or faster than what Profiler says, just that I don’t trust that data as far as I can throw it, so I’m just taking the opportunity to dump on Apple for this particular piece of shingles. 😀
Ok, so I am really confused. I see no benefit from the USB 2 card I got when downloading files. I do know the card is working because I rean scanner tests. I have a Transcend 512 45x compact flash. This admittedly is not the fasted card but it is far from "slow".
The cardreader I have is a Promaster CompactFlash Card Reader rated for USB 2.0. I do not know where to go from here
Where one notices the difference is in the write speeds in the camera. When the camera writes its full memory buffer to the camera, it will be ready for the next shot faster with one of the Ultra II or Extreme cards. This will be an advantage when shooting action pictures (children, wildlife, performers, etc.).
Copying images from the camera to the computer has not really been that much of an issue for me. It’s not like I have to wait forever. I haven’t really timed it because I get up to check the printer, etc, and the copying process is invariably done by the time I turn my attention to the monitor.
Cindy: I know it’s frustrating and a pain in the tuchus to return things. Anyway, depending on your budget and how much you had to pay for this stuff… well, if it were me I think I would just keep it and use it. At least with your updated USB 2 card installed you will be ready for the next generation of faster Flash cards.
Don’t let it get you down. Go back out and take some more awesome pictures. I want to see more! 🙂
See if you can try the Lexar FireWire CF reader, if you can get it from a place that lets you return it if it doesn’t work out for you. I use it all the time and haven’t even bothered to time the transfers because they are so fast.
Thanks Ramon, you’re right. I almost forgot about the speed involved in actually taking the pictures. After my morning on the sailboat I’m ready for the faster card… and of course my new lens. I don’t know when I’ve been more excited about my purchases. This is almost more fun than a new Mac… and that’s fun! 🙂
Frys is where I go and they have no Firewire card readers believe it or not. I think I will just sit on this. I can always return the USB 2.0 card but Linda has a good point. At least I have USB 2 now. Of coarse not one thing I have utilizes it.
I just got off the photo about my card reader. It is USB 2.
"Note: Card-to-computer transfer speed for a given CompactFlash card varies with both the card reader and the operating system. The Lexar FireWire CompactFlash reader, model RW019, is the fastest of over 2 dozen readers we’ve tested to date, which is the primary reason we’ve standardized on it. Other FireWire readers may not be as quick, and we’ve observed a big variance in the performance capabilities of USB 2.0 card readers (while all USB 1.1 card readers are slow).
The operating system can also put the brakes on card-to-computer throughput, with Windows XP providing much faster transfer times than Mac OS 8.x, 9.x or Mac OS X 10.0-10.2.8. The plumbing for handling FAT-formatted media, including digital camera CompactFlash cards, is all new in OS X 10.3. Gone are the bottlenecks of previous Mac OS versions. The result is throughput that is comparable to a quick single or multiple processor PC running Windows XP, with one notable exception: Mac OS X 10.3 or later provides quicker transfers from Hitachi Microdrives than Windows XP."
Again, if you see no difference in transfer speed between USB 2 and USB 1, something is WRONG. Either the PCI card or the reader. If working as it should, USB 2 and Firewire WILL transfer CF data faster than USB 1. My advice is to return the lot and go for a Firewire solution. But that’s just me …. 😉
Cindy – who made your USB 2.0 card and what model is it. Some USB 2 cards state that they will run at USB 1.1 speeds on Macs while running at 2.0 speeds on windows.
I also shop at Fry’s –sometimes– because I drive past their big local store on my way home, but there’s a bunch of stuff they don’t carry, like the portable image storage devices we were discussing earlier, etc. On the other hand, they have a better selection of cables and adapters than other retailers.
Returning things at Fry’s is a hassle only in the sense that the lines for returns are very long, but they’ll take back just about anything. That’s not necessarily a good thing either; I’ve returned defective stuff there only to watch them slap a new price tag on the item and immediately put it back on the shelf.
The article Phil quotes explains why I saw those big speed gains when I compared the Lexar FireWire reader to the USB 2 readers I had access to. I got the Lexar FireWire reader and have no complaints.
My preferred CF Cards are the 512MB SanDisk Ultra II (coincidentally the best performers on the above mentioned table), probably because they allow me to store about the same number of RAW images as two rolls of film. I have a single 256MB plain vanilla (i. e. not Ultra II) SanDisk card, and the write speed on that one is noticeably slower than that of the Ultra II. You can immediately tell the difference when furiously shooting RAW images in quick succession.
I also was going to get the Tango combo FireWire and USB 2 card, but then I also realized I have no USB 2 devices either, so I decided to wait until the need arises. By then we could well be up to USB 3 or something newer.
Add up the time you have spent worrying about this, talking to SanDisk, posting your findings and questions, and a few seconds are hardly going to make a difference in your daily usage of the reader for a very long time.
I notice that this card comes with drivers. If you are using 10.3.x then I believe that you should not load IOGEAR’s drivers. You’d have to call IOGEAR support to find out for sure. I’d probably take it back and get the adaptec. I’m running my DiMage Scan Dual IV on the Adaptec AUA-4000A and am getting a large speed increase over USB 1.1,
The Adaptec card is identical in time as the IOGEAR which leads me to conclude it is my flash card. I did get the AUA 4000A. It is faster than USB 1 but not that significant.
2 min 40 sec for USB 1 2 min 17 sec for USB 2 12 RAW files
Cindy – I bet that you are right. The card is what limits the speed here. Can you walk the dog in the 23 seconds saved? I’m sure that the dog appreciated it! Sorry that you didn’t get better results.
You all will be glad now that I fixed the silly thing. Gees! It was the card reader. I picked up a USB 2 card reader and now it is very fast. Seems that the one I had before says it runs on USB 2 just not at USB 2 speeds….Sheesh.
Thanks everyone. Sorry I was such a pain on this one.
This will work for me. I really did think about FireWire but the hot swapping makes me nervous. I have a tendency to pull the card out before I’m supposed to. I just keep forgetting so I felt USB would not be as damaging if I did that.
Glad you got it figured out.
Me tooooooo! I wasted a whole day on that little adventure 🙂
I have a tendency to pull the card out before I’m supposed to.
If that’s the case, USB 2 isn’t going to help you. Even with USB, you have to EJECT the card in the Finder before you pull the card out. You risk losing data on the card otherwise. Same thing goes for hard drives. FW or USB, you have to eject first.
Are you confusing what "hot-swapping" is? Hot-swapping is when you physically pull the wired connection from the computer. Not the same thing as ejecting the card (or device). I routinely hot-swap firewire devices and have never had a problem. Like many "issues" you read about on the web, you have to take them with a grain of salt. Same goes for advice, which means mine as well, I suppose. 😉
Oh well, I think I will be happy with the UBS. Its pretty fast. It is actually a little faster than Firewire. I seem to recall a little discrepancy on that but not enough to matter to me either way. I just didn’t want to wait 10 min to get my CRW’s off a card which is what I was doing. I get very anxious when I have just taken photos 🙂
The good news is that with a CF card (even using the less good USB technology) the consequences of occasionally pulling the card out prematurely [sic] should not be catastrophic if you are at least patient enough to wait until the data has been uploaded to the hard drive. You should routinely reformat the CF card in-camera after each successful upload anyway.
Just make it part of your workflow to _always_ verify the hard drive upload against the card’s contents before removing the card. Ideally you will also always eject before removing the CF card from the reader, but if you forget sometimes it is no big deal. Forgetting to always verify the upload, however, could be a very big deal.
Every time I’ve pulled my CF card from my reader or unpluged my camera before ejecting it has screwed up the card and required it to be reformatted in camera.
I’ve just demonstrated (accidentally) the need to eject a CFcard from a USB reader. I got distracted by small child number 2 as I was downloading some images and pulled the card out before ejecting. Now it won’t read in the camera, or reformat. 256 Mb cards are expensive here, and it looks as if I’ve just killed one.
Linda – I’ve tried putting it back in the reader – I just get a not recognised error and if I try to reformat in the computer using disk utility it errors. I’ve also attempted to reformat in both my digital cameras – it freezes the G3 stone dead (which is pretty scarey – it still works with the other cards thank goodness!) and in my old kodak it goes on an endless – "this CF card needs formatting, reformat, this CF card needs reformatting loop.
I can’t think of anything else to try. At least I got all the images off before it expired.
Just for the record, one thing I remember reading (I think at this thread) is to never format a CF Card using your computer. Always use your camera… but it sounds like you’re stuck and this doesn’t really relate. Hopefully someone will have a clue as to how to redeem your Card.
Ramon – it almost certainly is, as it’s less than a year old; but it’s a fujifilm card I bought in the UK – and i don’t have the receipt either. It’s probably less hassle (particularly as it was almost certainly my error that killed it) to just by a new one – but i will email fuji Australia to see if they can help me.
Susan – I bet that there is a way to reformat it and that FUJI will know how. From Fuji’s web site:
Question Is it really necessary to wait for the device to power down before removing a SmartMedia, Compact Flash or SD card?
Answer Absolutely. If the card is removed during any writing process, especially on shutdown, the file system on the card will likely be corrupted, making the data inaccessible. It is very important to be sure the device is fully shut down before removing the card.
Question Oops, I accidentally removed the card before shutdown was completed, and now I can’t access the card. Is there any way to save the card and/or my data?
Answer The card itself can most likely be saved by reformatting it in the device. This will cause the loss of all data on the card, but you should be able to re-use the card with no problem. If you need to recover the data, do not reformat it. If the data is irreplaceable, you may want to use a professional data recovery service to attempt to retrieve the information. If you want to try recovering it yourself, put the card into a card reader attached to a computer running Windows and try running "Scandisk". If "scandisk" asks to fix the file system on the card, let it. This may allow you to read the disk. If so, immediately copy the files you want to save to different media, or your hard drive. Once done, the card should be reformatted before being used again.
I’ve tried that Ramon – it won’t format it – gives an error message. (I was hoping that if I could format it through the disk utility then even if it wouldn’t work on the camera, I could at least get the camera to recognise it as a formatable disk). If I can only find the receipt, then fuji Australia will honour the warrranty even if it was purchased overseas. But of course I can’t find the receipt… (and I paid cash, so I don’t even have a credit card atatement to back me up) Susan S
I have a feeling that once I get my 75-300 lens I will probably want to use it all the time. Is there any problem with storing the camera body in it’s case with the longer lens attached to it? Do any of you do the same?
I don’t think you are going to want to use that lens all the time because of the range but back to your question.
I used to keep my 28-135 IS lens on all the time. The thing went completely south. I’m not sure if it was because it got banged against another lens in the bag or what but I have since started storing the camera with just a cap on the front. That way there is no possibility of it getting damaged while I am carrying it.
I keep my lens (either my 20mm or my 28-105) on the camera when storing it in my bag.
My bag is padded & can be fitted for what ever lens I have on the camera, & for additional lenses, flash etc that I have, so it does not move around freely in the bag.
All I do is move the padded dividers up or down to accomodate the lens in use.
I think my problem came up from having too many lenses in the bag. I cant seem to leave any of them behind and the bag might not be quite large enough unless I remove all the lenses.
Thanks for you comments Cindy and Bonnie. I might know better how I feel about it once I get the lens. I am pretty sure I will be using this lens a lot more than the kit lens. I did purchase a soft case for it anyway.
SanDisk won’t even ask you for a proof of purchase. You send them a defective card, they’ll send you a new one. It’s that simple. Their cards come with a lifetime warranty. Try to get Fuji to do the same for you.
Being adamant about ejecting the CF card as particularly important is focusing on the less relevant part of CF card workflow security.
The smart move is to reformat in camera after every upload anyway. Like I said earlier, verify the upload, then eject. Most essential is to verify the upload as complete. If you screw up on ejecting a CF card 99.9% of the time there is still no problem. However if the upload is incomplete or hung it is almost sure to result in data loss.
Most of the time I carry all my lenses with me. I have 3 (20mm, 28-105 & 200mm) as well as external flash, infra red & other misc filters, lens hoods cables, batteries, extra cards & on & on.
Having the right bag is a must!!! I actually have 3 bags. My main bag that carries everything. Another that holds everything & my film camera for when I need to take digital & film, and a smaller "messanger bag" for things like school field trips & when I need to travel light.
When I want to carry.. one camera,, external flash & all my lenses I use a tamrac photo messenger bag
I have the older version of the Tamrac 5606. In order for me to carry all 4 lenses with one attached it needs to be a tad larger. It works fine if I dont mind taking the lense off and carrying my flash separate so it is on my list of things to buy.
As you know I’m looking at the Lowepro Linx 160 Camera Sling Bag which you recommended previously. Just to confirm, does this have adequate padding? Also do you think it has enough room for the camera, the 75-300 lens, the kit lens, the 550EX flash, and a few smaller items like the circular polarizer, extra batteries, cards, etc.?
Allen I just like to keep an image around as long as possible. even if I have made 2 copies on separate drives. it really irkes me to loose something before I’m ready to erase it.
I really like the Tamrack backpack. but lately I’ve been using a Pelican 1450. It is a hard case and its watertite. I always take the lenses off before storing in the Pelican but that’s how I set up the case. I always left a lens on the camera when I used the Tamrack backpack.
I bought the hardcase when I bought the Fuji S2. I somehow feel safer with the DSLR in the hardcase over the backpack.
Depending on where I’m traveling, I usually stick my camera bags in the most god-awful looking diaper bags I can find, you know, the pink or baby-blue ones with cartoon characters, etc.
Like Ramon I use diaper bags and lunchboxes, or I store gear in coolers. On the mountain use a backpack, on the water or in the rain a waterproof vbackpack. Last time I used a fancy Pelican-type case it was stolen by airline workers in Hawaii.
Well… all my bags are pretty beat up. And the first thing I do is remove the tags that scream "photo bag". Normally I am wearing it, so have never had one stolen.
I remember on my honeymoon (many moons ago) my husband insisted on leaving the door unlocked to his van, despite my pleas to lock it. At the time he had some nice photographic equipment, probably in a similar type bag. Sure enough all of it was stolen while we were in a restaurant. 🙂
I’ve sent the CF card back to Fuji Australia with a polite "please what can you do for me" letter and we’ll see if they will be kind to me! I’m usually anal about keeping receipts – I wish I know what I’d done with it. Next time I’ll buy a Sandisk if they really do honour a lifetime warranty – although last time I looked there was a fair price differential here in Australia. It may be something where it’s sufficiently cheaper in the US that it would be worth importing a larger CF card, especially if it is a world wide warranty as fuji’s seems to be. (I can’t just take the Fuji card back to the place from whence it was purchased, which would be simpler as that’s in London and I’m in Australia!)
At least I have a couple of back up cards – my strategy of having several smaller (256Mb cards) rather than one larger one seems to have paid off. Susan S
I wouldn’t advise leaving long/heavy lenses attached while transporting, especially during backpacking or traveling. Even if encased in a suitable camera bag, it can cause lens/camera mounting collars to tweak and create focus problems. (It’s the same reason long lenses have tripod mounts on the lens collars – weight distribution.)
I think maybe you are right on that Phil. The lens that I kept attached was the 28-135 IS which has the extra IS mechanism. The guy at the camera store suggested it might be that I left it attached.
Wow, every time I leave this thread for a day or two it seems like it will take about the same time to catch up on the reading!
Susan, there is an internet shop based in Australia that many photographers in the UK use because they are supposed to be extremely cheap and even after all the transport costs thy tell me it is better than buying from the UK. You may want to check them out <http://www.powerinnumbers.com.au/>
Regarding camera bags each photographer has their own needs, but I ended up doing a great deal of research on this subject a few months back when there was a crazy lack of available choice, however, that has all changed now. For me a number one criterion is that the bag is designed to take a laptop as well as the normal equipment. Eventually I settled on a British bag called CCS which is extremely tough and comes with a unique 30 year guarantee, but I’ll admit that it was case of this being the only bag on the market that filled my needs at that time. The CCS has the most comfortable shoulder strap on the market and some cool features like a fold out surface to place your laptop on when working in the field.
It is vital that any bag you choose can withstand some tough knocks and extreme weather because you have no idea how bad electronic equipment reacts to being left in a soaking wet bag for a couple of hours. Get the very best bag you can afford.
Nowadays you could consider the new range of bags from Tenba which have been designed for digital photographers with tough construction and very importantly, specifically designed compartments for CD’s and flash cards etc which is the one big fault on my CCS. I have a 3 year old Tenba which won’t take my laptop, but in every other respect its a wonderful bag. Alternatively now, you have offerings from Delsey and Crumpler. Delsey are building a good reputation for style and design while the Crumplers (Australian) are possibly the toughest bags I’ve ever seen and have the advantage of not looking like a camera bag. The only down side is that they tend to be smaller than the makers claim, so try them first before ordering as I was really sad to send mine back because it just wouldn’t take enough equipment. All of the above mentioned bags should be 100% waterproof in heavy rain.
You may like LowePro if you are looking for a lighter built bag, however, I personally just couldn’t use one because the tops have no protective padding and for me that’s just not acceptable for a camera bag of any kind. My first camera bag was a Tamrac and it was a good bag at the time, but I checked out some of the latest offerings and wasn’t that impressed. The rucksack designs are very well thought out for space, but they leak like a sieve in the rain, while there are simply better choices available now with the traditional bags. The hard cases like the Pelican offer the best protection possible, but carrying them long distances is not fun.
I’m checking out the Tenba at B&H now. I purchased a smaller camera bag when I first bought my camera several weeks ago just to protect it until I knew better what I need.
The Tenba looks good. Now to pick out just the right size and style that’s easy to carry and possibly use when I do my bicycle outings.
Maybe there’s something I don’t understand but what’s the point of wide(er) gamut monitors when current RGB screens are already wider than any hard copy output? Seems what we need is wider gamut print technologies.
yea there’s that, and work is being done for that as well, but if you look at the current monitor technology, in CMYK, really saturated yellows in particular, are out of the current monitor(S) gamut range.
Pixel tearing is a common problem when images are moved quickly across the screen.
LED diodes react much faster to fix this problem.
So, the advancements in LCD technology addresses many issues.
PShock – because current displays don’t overlap print completely (CRT or LCD can’t display full magenta or cyan). And because some current cameras and printers go WAY beyond the capabilities of current displays.
If you think that you can finish a job using a B&W monitor, because your color unit just broke, you’ll understand better how to work on a reduced gamut screen.
Just in case this thread gets closed, I just want to say "Thank You" to those who patiently coached me as I took "a while" <g> deciding on a digital camera and even more patiently tolerated my experimental photos afterwards.
I especially thank those who kept insisting that a SLR is the way to go. That was a very important choice. Now that I’ve made my initial investment in an additional lens and external flash I can look forward to my next camera if all goes well.
No-one is suggesting that THIS thread be closed: I believe the idea is to post a Link in the new Photography Forum referencing this thread.
We need to keep posting to this thread so that it doesn’t drift out of sight because there is far too much valuable information here which many of us need to be able to draw upon for future reference.
I think I misunderstood what was going on yesterday. I saw the question about the New Gear. Drool!!! #2 thread and impulsively thought it was referring to this one. Just another brain pooter. Sorry for the confusion I may have caused. 🙂
We need to keep posting to this thread so that it doesn’t drift out of sight because there is far too much valuable information here which many of us need to be able to draw upon for future reference. <
That is more interesting than your other photos and most of the images on the particular challenge.
If you examine it a little more closely you will realize that there is more to this the a record of the subject and it tells you more about you and the subject.
And it is like the only one that does have the subject dead centered in the frame.
Grant I am not criticizing the Challenge that is a really excellent event a serves a great purpose.
And it is good to know that Linda’s spine can actually be flexed. Linda should not worry about the color of the image right now and should post that as well, you see everyone if you tell these folks that everything they do is wonderful they can’t learn but when you smack them with the truth yes it hurts but they learn.
Take Cindy for instance shows great technical skill but is not in touch with her own persona if she was willing not to be so much like everyone else she will see that that she has more potential then she really thinks and that she not so far away from developing her own way.
Now to both these people this will sound and seem like an attack. It is not an attack it is a criticism. One that they sorely need. Both of you need to be more daring and get in touch with who you are. That’s frightening but it should also be exciting.
I probably shouldn’t post this so that these two people might see that just because one might get criticized that is no excuse not to go forward.
I will take the criticism but will not respond, the reason I will not respond is that I would like to see the users from the Elements forum also contribute here as well and I think they are a little weary of the photoshop regulars.
Just as an idea, wouldn’t it be possible to place this entire thread in the photography forum. It would serve as a catalyst to boost the new forum and then new threads could be created on similar areas so that this thread doesn’t go too far astray but stay on target regarding drooling over equipment.
I’m from the Elements forum! (Although I’m currently in the process of shifting from Elements to CS – I hope). And Wade, I think the Elements challenges are wonderful too – Grant does a geat job maintaining the sites and keeping them going. I for one would welcome any criticism of my images – at the moment I find seeing the images that others post, and analysing what I like/could be improved/ could take away to my own photography is an education in itself, but I would be quite happy (indeed glad) if anyone wanted to post constructive criticism of anything that I put up for display.
Linda I like your photo. How did you take it. I found 4 Blue Jays still in their nest today. I could get about 7 feet away with a 200 mm. Then Mother showed up and fed them. The light wasn’t so good but I had the camera on a tripod. I’ll post them after I (cry cry cry) get the film developed.
She has only had her first real (non Point-and-Shoot!) camera for a little over a week and has made astonishing progress in her photography in a very short time.
I have the same criticism of your work as I do of Cindy’s and Linda’s in that in your effort to capture the subject in a good light is dominating your effort to create a composition.
The snake image that Linda posted is from what I can remember her first time at expressing herself.
What I mean to say is that she had a story to tell of this snake peering at her through the tropical growth of the wilds of Palm Beach Gardens.
You’re skills are more developed than hers but if you compare your images to the snake you will see that you can use spacial contrast to achieve a more tense and dynamic composition and tell a truer story.
Here is a link to an old image, I seldom photograph animals of any kind, but here is an occasion that I did.
This is admittedly on the corny side but it does demonstrate what I mean though to an extreme. I won’t keep the image posted long.
I agree with everyone’s opinion of the snake photo. It’s a nice image and it’s definitely NOT a snapshot. Good composition and I really like the way you got up-close and personal. You’re definitely progressing at a good rate. However, I don’t think it works very well as a black and white image. I don’t know what PS tweaks you did to get the B/W but there’s just not enough tonal contrast between the snake and the grass. Perhaps the color image would be better? Or, maybe use Russell Brown’s recipe for altering b/w tones from colors to get more separation. (same principal as using color filters with b/w film.)
Cindy what did you download to your hard drive? Certainly not the image I posted as that is a reference for Susan and I did not say anyone can download it.
Well I am sure you were referring to something else.
You’re welcome, Cindy. Love or hate the "schtick", RB do know his schtuff!
Wade, what was that supposed to "demonstrate"? I know what it "demonstrates" to me (actually, it just reinforces what I’ve known for a long time), but I have a feeling you had a different intent.
Linda the image has a subtle character in B&W but there is nothing wrong with that good is good! It doesn’t have to perfect only an achievement! A gestalt!
That is it works it works and very well. But if you post the color it may also have a subtlety that could work as well.
Now that would be a good topic on the Photography forum and then you will see how really broad the scope of opinion is on the subject of composition and color concept. The good thing about that is that chances are you will at first find that you agree with everyone and then in the end you will probably disagree with everyone but will through the process find out what you really think and feel.
The reason I thin this photo would do well for this purpose is that it is a strong composition and anyone with a brain would agree to that so that won’t be an issue.
I think you should start such a thread and be brave and take everything said in then digest it and then let nature take its course if you know what I mean.
I don’t think Wade’s butterfly picture was a good accompaniment to his message, but since I became somewhat versed at understanding his communication style, I know he’s right about composition and drama.
Well perhaps the it was to extreme for some people.
Perhaps this makes more sense I don’t photograph nature objects for fun or pleasure and if the message was lost on the minds of those that are so literal that imagination is a dirty word well I’ll keep this clean.
I enjoyed the all the comments since I last posted. They are thought-provoking and helpful.
Phil, I agree about the black and white. As for tonal contrast, I should have probably taken the time to isolate the snake with a clipping path and layer mask and then made tonal adjustments separately. It would be good for me to work on it some more. Right now I’m on a different computer so I don’t have the work file. Also it’s 2AM so I’ll probably attempt to get more sleep, then finish a small job, then go through the pictures I took of my dinner with Patrice last night, then… hopefully get back to my snake-in-the-grass picture. 🙂
Wade, I appreciate your comments very much. I also want to commend you on taking the time to be creative with your own comments… and how they remained in context with the purpose intended. I hope you will continue to enter in with this spirit of objectivity and encouragement. We can all benefit from a constructive and encouraging attitude.
Larry, Thanks for you comments. I really want to see your pictures.
Wade – thank you for taking the time to comment. I’ve been out all day, and only just got back. You are right (f I understand what you are saying correctly)- it’s all too easy as a relative beginner to get bogged down in the details of actually taking a photograph – particularly with macro photography where it’s hard to get the critters actually onscreen and in focus – and to forget that there might actually be something that an image of an insect or whatever can say to a wider audience – and that’s all about showing the context and finding a viewpoint that gets a message across – as Linda’s snake image did, I think – (we have very venomous brown snakes around here so the unsettling emotions of seeing a glimpse of a snake in the leaves is one I’m familiar with!) At the moment I think my images say "look what clever stuff one of these little digital cameras can do in conjunction with close up lenses" rather than "look what Susan wants to show us about the world" – I still haven’t got over the gee whiz factor in digital technology and I am still taking too many images just to see what is technically feasible. Now at some levels I don’t mind that too much – until I know how to capture a particular scene to get the exposure and the focus right with the equipment that I have, it’s hard to also capture the message as well. But I’m finding it difficult to make images that are showing a personal viewpoint. I’m not very good at stopping and thinking before I take the photograph of what it is that I want it to show.
There are several entries that are noteworthy at the Challenge. All are enjoyable and all are embraced, whether on a purely fun level or more serious level. There are also some very good people involved in the Challenge. Grant has been quite generous with his time and Web site to make it possilbe.
I also like that there are all levels who participate, from total newbies to seasoned professionals. Yet the atmosphere seems to continually forster nurturing and friendship… much like here. 🙂
Susan you are correct that is what I meant and I am not saying there is anything wrong with your images, they are quite excellent. But they show as with the other two people I mention that you have more potential then is shown in the images.
Though excellent in capture and subject they do not show the end of your development but the beginning of it.
To Linda and Cindy that was what was being said to you as well, the only difference was the reaction to it.
To Linda, that was sound advice not simply about photography but about any of this stuff and it goes for all of us. You should not place your judgment on one opinion you should weigh what is written hear or in the photography forum think about it and then react after you have collected input. It would be better if you did not take the advice of the individual you are taking the advice of as that person needs a lot of guidance themselves.
You might want to post the color version of the snake at the Photography Forum and seek opinions you might actually learn something. Relying on photoshop to do your photography is not a good idea in my opinion unless you abandoned the idea of using photoshop to process you images and now wish to simple use it as an image creation tool.
I am sorry that you don’t understand what is being said to you and that you take offense when someone tells you the truth that you simply have not developed as far as you think and you might want to be more patient with yourself. And I know this will seem like an attack on you but it is not.
In other words you might actually want to have people criticize your work and rethink it.
Look two people made offhanded remarks not even criticism, Todie made a criticism of what I displayed and directed me to what might be wrong with the selection.
So I posted something that might be more literal.It doesn’t have a crawling or flying thing in it but it is more related to the subject at hand. It is really that simple.
I would if I were you post the color version in the Photoshop and you just might be surprised as how much you do learn and what you learn as well. Especially how many different opinions as what good color is.
Keep in mind as men get older many of them get color blind and prefer browns, grays, blues and muted dull colors, this is not directed at anyone in particular. Although you might want to check it out.
I Mikes flower photos! A clue Mike, they look like photos of flowers just like anyone else’s flowers you might want to compose a photo that expresses what you garden is all about even when you take a close up. Consider the possibility that you might actually have something worthwhile saying and that others might really be interesting in seeing it. You shouldn’t be so frightened to have others like or dislike what you have really on your mind.
You night find out who you really are and you might like yourself a lot more than you do!
For an image to be successful, it has to stand completely on it’s own. As a viewer, I could care less about the creator’s "message" or their "unique communication style" – if an image sucks – it sucks. You’re free to get deep and philosophical, and you can even tell me why your photo explains the meaning of life – but in the end … a bad photo is a bad photo.
A photograph is like a joke – If you have to explain it, it’s a failure.
Linda – Not every image makes a good black and white. Notice that you rarely (if ever), see black and white photos of food. It’s because the tones are too similar to make the food look appealing. I once had a client insist I shoot their pasta dish in B/W. I fought against it but only after they saw the result did they allow me to shoot in color, which was a thousand times better.
After looking some more at your snake photo – I think the grass in your image reminds me of that pasta – just a big expanse of too-similar tones. I have a feeling the color image would work better.
Thanks for the comments Phil. If you really want to see the color version I’ll post it at my web site… guess I’d better buckle my seat belt for this one. 😉 I’m learning to duck for eggs! {pun?}
Linda – while I quite liked my images as "pretty" (butterfly) or as a clever close capture (the bee), they don’t stand up as "art" – which your snake does. It conveys a mood, a way of looking at things.
There isn’t anything wrong with taking lots of in focus well exposed images of flowers in the garden, insects, whatever. It’s a big improvement on taking fuzzy, badly exposed shots, and it’s taken me the best part of a year to get there. A lot of people have no ambition to do anything more, and there isn’t actually anything wrong with that – think how many family snapshot albums would be improved if people actually learnt how to work their cameras! And it’s a large part of why I take photographs – I want to just take nice pictures of the flowers and the garden and the kids and the cat, and document them as they change.
But I’d also like to do a bit more than that. I am fascinated by the technical aspects of photgraphy and photoprocessing (having CS is for me like being a kid in a candy shop – there are so many exciting things to learn about – a steep learning curve is one of the things I look for otherwse I get bored!). But I am also fascinated by good photography – by which I mean images that leave an impression that is more than purely visual – and I would love to be able to create some myself. How much of that is an innate way of looking at things and how much of that can be learned I don’t know.
(I’m rambling – it’s 2am and I can’t sleep and I have to be up early in the morning!)
I appreciate your comments Susan. It’s funny you say it’s 2am and you can’t sleep. I was posting at around the same time early this morning where we are. Isn’t it great to be able to participate in this rich forum any time of the day or night? 🙂
Linda – it’s amazing what a creative crop does to an image. Given your orignal snake picture I would never have thought of cropping it in that way (and my small sensor 4MP camera wouldn’t have allowed such a close crop anyway). Personally I like all the low contrast grass with the snake coming out of it… it gets that feeling of something potentially dangerous emerging from its camoflauge, and seems to add a sense of movement. I find the colours in the grass distracting. and not terribly different from those of the snake (although it’s a bit hard to see without a full size colour crop)
Ahh… the "Queen of Crop"! 😉 (My nickname was "King of crop" in school)
It’s kind of hard to compare since we don’t have the high rez version to crop. Any chance you have a color version of the cropped b/w? Adjustment layers are your friends. 😉
And yeah, I agree with Mike – the dark blade should go, as well as the long horiz pine needle towards the top.
I agree with PShock.. it is hard to comapre the uncropped version with the cropped one.
I too am bothered by the dark blade of grass.. it is distracting.
The pine needle also is distracting,. I see the snake, then follow the large blade of grass to the pine needle, then follow that right out of the image. If it were not there I would follow the one blade to the one right next to it & down to the snake again… keeping me in the image.
I do like the fact that you have the eye in focus.
The b&w makes a harmless snake look menicing…. because i cannot see his colouring, i do not know if he is dangerous or not.
The high contrast of the snake in the pale grass works for me: now he really POPS out at you.
And Bonnie needn’t fear this snake but you have to get close enough to see their eyes to know: if the pupils are round, they are benign — but watch out for vertical slits
I think the snake has a different concept and thinks it is blending in.
Just so you have a different frame of reference I think everyone has missed the boat here I would find it more interesting if you thought you were just looking at grass first and then realize hey there’s a snake in the grass.
Phil you don’t deserve this but here goes anyway the idea is not to explain the photograph or the premise but to have concept of what you want to express by the photograph. It is obvious that you have difficult with the concept of visual language as having value other than oh isn’t that pretty.
I also think Brassai and Weston and Adams and Steichen and the rest of the crowd had a very different concept than you did about whether or not food photographed well in black and white. Perhaps you should revisit their work.
That is very interesting. I am not an advertising photographer at all and the approach to photography and how it is expressed in a photograph is very important to my clients.
Kind of funny how photography even commercial photography has different uses and messages.
It’s a crazy world!
I wonder if you told that to a news photographer what they would think! I didn’t photograph the dead body because the pink flowers in the window box gave me a good opportunity to use my new macro lens.
But as a News Photographer (and I did do a bit of that for a national British daily!), I would ask myself what story were we trying to tell/sell. (it’s the same thing!)
Is the dead body news-worthy? Or is it more important that the pink flowers live on despite the mayhem?
[And to hell with the lens — I wouldn’t be testing new equipment on an actual job anyway! Would you?]
Shooting digitally you bet I would. A new lens goes right to work. No need to wait for a bunch of test prints. After all if the lens was not expected to provide a value add I would not have spent the hundreds/thousands of dollars on it.
Not quite. At the same level of magnification and canvas size, divide the canvas into 9ths using 4 lines. The four intersection points are often the "sweet spots" of many images (the "Rule of Thirds"). Now take the original uncropped image and place the center of the snake’s head on the bottom right intersection (same magnification/canvas size).
Try that and also try it with the snake’s head centered on the bottom left intersection. Critter pix often like headspace in front of the primary critter’s gaze. It often feels a bit off if the critter is about to leave the canvas.
Also, if I were using this pic for an ad I might take the time to photoshop out the horizontal grass blade at the snake’s nose.
I see what you’re saying Allen. If this picture were going to be put to some good use, I would back up to the original file and redo it or pick another one and start over. I have enjoyed your comments… along with the others…
I’m still waiting for my longer lens to arrive… Gee, it was supposed to be shipped last Friday.
Ive just caught up again with this thread after a lengthy, work-related absence. Im really surprised and somewhat disappointed at SOME of the posts since my last visit… Several, border on being unquestionably rude to totally ridiculous… WHY in Blue Blazes do some people in this thread expect Linda to miraculously start churning out artistic, award-winning shots just because she recently upgraded to a newer (albeit, more capable) camera…?? Geez, she just got the camerawhat…about three weeks ago? Give her a fighting chance, will ya!
Im totally serious… if anybody would have rebuked and/or belittled me like this when I first starting out, Id have stowed my camera in the darkest corner of the closet and taken up skydiving, instead. IMO, some of the criticisms directed at Linda are way out of line. Ask yourself this…Would you solicit a first-year dental assistant to perform a root canal? I have no problems with constructive critiquesthey can be a major catalyst and an invaluable learning toolBut, only IF theyre offered under acceptable circumstances and in the correct context.
Not everyone can afford the luxury of attending fancy photography seminars (or seeks, not to) nor having a skilled instructor at their side when they first opt to delve into photography or the obscure world of creative artistry through the camera lens. I sure didnt! Yes, I admit, it would have been nice and convenient (probably, even fun) to learn under such environmentsbut, quondam circumstances forced me to do all it on my own (aided, immeasurably, with the help of a selective library of good, knowledgeable books). In some ways, Im not entirely sorry about that primitive learning process, though. It allowed me to progress at my own pace… reading, snapping pix and studying the results. Further exploring and experimenting with different films, subjects, lights, thoughts and ideas gradually took shape and helped foster my addiction. The more pix I snared, the more experimenting I did…the more I learned about the inner workings and mechanics of the camera/lens combo as a whole.
This is why I really have a problem digesting some of the advise offered here on this topic. The cautionary counsel of: Dont do this, Dont touch that particular control, or Wait…youre NOT ready for that yet, are… IMO, nonsense. How is a person to learn anything if he/she isnt allowed to experiment and experience the divergent consequences of their actions?
Would you offer help to someone shopping for a new car, extend support in the final selection, then advise the proud owner now sitting behind the wheel NOT to use the power windows, AC, power seats, or any other inherent goodies that came along with it? Caution them NOT to even think about playing with those bewitching stereo buttons UNTIL they learn how to change the oil and rotate/fix flat tires? Me-thinksNOT… Otherwise, you just might find yourself stranded on a dirt road, choking back a thick cloud of dust from screeching tires… 🙂
Practice makes perfect. And, in order to practice, aspiring photographers need lots of solo Hands On approaches to ALL the different elements/controls that factor into the photography equation. All the specialized technical lectures on the planet DONT mean anything until the endeavoring participant actually puts it to practical use. After a certain length of time the emulous PHOTOGRAPHER and the CAMERA will ultimately unite and procure a cohesive bond.
Linda: Some candid advice… Take some time to thoroughly study every single element/control on your camera. If youre not sure how a certain one functions, read the manual and find out. Experiment with it until everything becomes crystal clear in your mind, then move on to the next one. Even if you think that you may seldom/never use a particular function, you SHOULD learn WHAT its intended purpose is designed for. If nothing else, it will keep you from going…duh!, if inquisitive minds enquire at a gathering, somewhere…;)
Furthermore, DONT be scared to make mistakes. In fact, I urge you to make LOTS of them… 🙂 At least, initially… the more mistakes you make (even purposely) the faster youll learn, and, hopefully, absorb the consequent, abnormal results. Blunders are all part of the learning curve/process. Without them, wed all be clueless as to the whys of their origins. The Wright Brs. never made it off the ground on the first day. But, they persevered, and look at the legacy they left us with. I wager that before long, you too, Linda, will be soaring among those decorous artsy skies and basking in the warm comfy clouds of blissful achievement.
Methinks your advice to Wade has fallen on deaf ears. Wade seems to be a bit grumpy these days.(I picture Walter Matthau when I think of Wade) All this new fangled digital stuff is a bit much for him and he also claims it just won’t work for what he does. So I’d be grumpy too if I had to do all that extra work shooting film.
Also I’m sure Linda know’s that Wade is a little on the grumpy side ever since he peeled back the skin on his hand so he could look at his hand from the inside and get a few interesting pictures.
So ingesting the advice Wade gives with a grain of salt is commonplace around here.
What a nicely written defense on behalf of myself and others like me! I enjoyed reading what you wrote and felt quite blessed that you would take the time to put things into such a great perspective. I am very grateful for that! Thank you!!!
For some reason I wonder if I tend to bring that kind of stuff on myself. Not that I want that sort of thing. I don’t. Fortunately those moments have not deterred me but rather motivated me, other than one point when I got a little too much all at once. I then retreated for a day only to come back more determined than ever, and determined to be better than I first set out to be.
Your advice about learning one thing at a time is good and to some extent I’ve had days where I did focus on one mode or one effect and practiced over and over.
Once good thing is I’m starting to feel more at home with the SLR, learning where some of it’s weaknesses are, and learning to work around them. I also am grasping concepts of Aperture, Shutter Speed, ISO, Metering on areas that are more like the intensity of gray when compensating for white sky against darker trees, etc. I’m also learning more about image composition, lighting, best ways to direct the external flash for different kinds of shots… such as… generally it’s better to bounce the flash off a side wall for better shadows and softer effects on a person’s face… using the omnibounce also…
Along with practice, the owners manual, and the forums, I have 7 library books I’m reading, most cover to cover, and one purchased book by Katrin Eismann. As for educational web sites, I paste the URL into my Web browser preferences for my home page, and leave it there until I feel I’ve got all I need from that site… then I paste a new one in. It’s a constant reminder to have this stuff open before me each time I open a new web page.
Anyway, macman… I think I remember that you also were interested in a new camera… Any news on that? …or am I all mixed up again. 🙂
I wager that before long, you too, Linda, will be soaring among those decorous artsy skies and basking in the warm comfy clouds of blissful achievement.
What a nicely written defense on behalf of myself and others like me!
<blush> Your very welcome… 🙂
When I read some of those posts last night, I couldnt help shaking my head in complete bewilderment. The illogical reasoning behind them just seemed so direly incomprehensible that I had to repeatedly backtrack and reread them to see if Id possibly missed anything relevant to the topic at hand. Try as I might, it just didnt jive.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinionwe live in a free society that, for better or worse, encourages it. Which is great… Ive never had a problem with that. In fact, I highly sanction it. However, when individual opinions venture into contentious shady territories, well, lets just say I get a little peeved. I dont personally know the parties involved, so Ill just say I wasnt at all impressed and leave it at that.
I think I remember that you also were interested in a new camera… Any news on that? …or am I all mixed up again.
Yeah, Im still very interested. But, itll have to wait for a while yet as I dont have time now to pursue it (too busy). Im also in a bit of a quandary… I have a funny feeling that Canon is going to introduce a new lineup one of these days. The Digital Rebel has been around for a while, and might be due for a replacement. So, Im going to wait for at least another month to see if anything peeks around the corner. If not, Ill probably make a move then.
BTW… I like your snake pix… Neat! See, I knew youd eventually get the hang of it. Just keep slugging awaybefore long youll make us all proud… possibly even your staunch adversary 😉
I have a couple of pix here from last year that you might find interesting. If nothing else, they might be good for a hoot. Problem is, I have no way of posting them (no site). If you, or anyone else are interested in hosting them, let me know.
macmanx, Send them to me and I’ll post them. Click on my name and remove the before and after text.
Actually some of the advice, even though sometimes overwhelming and not always the best timing, turned out to be helpful just the same. As for "don’t do this or don’t do that", I pretty much do what I think I need to… otherwise I would not have purchased the Canon or the Flash or the Longer Lens… 🙂 It’s okay to have differences of opinion on these things. Some advice is essential, other is subjective. Also not every teacher is well suited for every student… but over all I can and am learning something of value from every one of you and just think what a well-rounded education that is! 🙂
As long as computers cannot truly think, this will be the case. The translation process involves perceiving a unit of meaning (not word) in the source language, converting it into an abstract thought, and then reaching for the convention to express that thought in the target language. All attempts at machine translation necessarily bypass the critical step of turning the unit of meaning into an abstract thought and attempt to reduce the process to the mindless comparison of databases of words and phrases in two languages.
This is a good example of how it’s not necessary to put garbage in to get garbage out. Anything you put in there will be garbage out.
Cura as in "parish priest" or as the imperative mode of the verb "to heal"? The articles are missing too (la enfermedad del vaquero loco). It doesn’t quite make sense.
The informal one would be fine for a billboard or bumper sticker; the formal one for addressing a specific individual you don’t know that well [as in a plea to the Pope, say, Su santidad, por favor cure la enfermedad del vaquero loco. 🙂
So I just bought a new digital camera! Well actually it’s a new cell phone the just released Sony Ericsson T637 which is also a camera and iSYNC’s to the Mac nicely. And yes it has a low quality 640 by 480 camera. I can take pictures and immediately email them anywhere and it has a web browser. In addition I’m paying less for 800 minutes but they are national instead of local minutes!
Okay… Different brand than mine. I bought that 6 in 1 SanDisk for faster cards. I like it because you can disconnect the card reader from the cradle and carry it with you along with the extra usb cord. It came in handy on a recent photo shoot I did for a Mac client. We were able to plug it into their mac and unload all the images.
No need to go to a German cop car (BMW). My wife’s Chrysler has steering wheel buttons to operate any part of the sound system including the iPod if you have one. I find that monumentally silly.
Yes, you were dead wrong. I have very strong ties to Germany and lived there for about a decade. At the time, the Bavarian police drove nothing but the huge BMW sedans, while the mid-size and smaller BMWs were nowhere near status symbols. I was amused to see them become so popular later outside of Germany. Great marketing!
Apple points out the 30" display needs a PowerMac G5 plus a special video card ($599/£449extra), and that the size of the video card obstructs one of the PCI slots. 🙁 ( but it will power two 30" displays! 🙂 )
Well I for one am excited to think of Tiger being 64bit. Now Adobe will be able to change Photoshop to access over 2gb of memory 🙂
Another real interesting thing is the graphics core in Tiger that will allow graphic instructions to be sent directly to the GPU. They are also providing many image units such as gaussian blur within Tiger.
The only "disappointment" if you can call it that, is that 2.5ghz might be it for a while since they are hitting some kind of wall with the 90nm technology.
The displays do look really cool but my 20" is going fine and I have an older 22" that I use for all my Photoshop palettes so my sights are set on a new G5 and Tiger 🙂
I thought you had said you leave the machine on all night (I do too). That qualifies as daily maintenance, even if I’m not physically at the computer. I still pay the electric bill and the wear and tear on the machine, so do you.
Well I just got another computer. Its not all that new. In fact its sort of a museum piece. Its an old centris 610. I did my first photoshop project on a 610. I’m going to restore it to its glory with Photoshop 2.5.1 and Aldus Pagemaker 5.0. I hope the old floppy disks I have are still good. Since it does not have a CD in it I’ll have to figure out how I’m going to load a fresh system on to it.
You can download image disks of older system software from Apple, all you need is a floppy drive to copy them onto floppies. You can do that easily on the G3.
Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.
Related Discussion Topics
Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections
