JLavino

Thanks. Well I took the shockwave picture at an airshow last august. Me and my buddy who has a 20D rented the 300 2.8. As you know the glass is roughly $3000 to own (YMMV) LOL. I was leaning towards the 20D. The 5 FPS for 25-30 Frames is what i love about it. The 1DMKII is bit to much camera for a hobby "ist" like myself. Since the 350D came out though, its roughly the same thing as the 20D for about 600 less. I might go that direction. the 3 FPS for 15 Frames on the 350D is good enough for me. I like the AI SERVO so I can shoot these airshows. Big fan of the moving flying objects like birds and planes. To be honest, some of my best work came out of the Rebel. The AI Servo is garbage on that, even with the hack i had. Rebel is a fantastic camera. Cheers to a fellow hobbyist. Ive learned most of my knowledge from http://www.fredmiranda.com best photog forum ive seen. Rob gibraith and Dp review i use as well. wow, this is a car forum LOL

Justin

DietCoke

Post a rear shot of your Greddy EVO2, I wanna see it with the Euro R Kit... More Pics of the Car Colts!

Dan Martin

LOL I'm on Fred Miranda and Rob's site too. I like DPReview's reviews but their forums are the ClubRSX of the photography world.

The 1DMKII is a pipe dream for me. Unless I hit the lotto, I've got other things to spend my money on. I know how pricey the 300/2.8 is (actually I thought it was mid to high $3000's) so I had to ask if it was yours. I don't know how any hobbiest could justify that lens since it's a weird focal length for a prime. I guess it would be good for soccer or football but I don't know what else you'd shoot with it.
Bird, airshow, or surfing photogs would probably want something longer and most other people would want something shorter.

Still, it would be fun to play with.

Astroboy is our resident Canon whore. He's rockin a 1D and I think he's got 4 pieces of L glass.

Dan Martin

He posted some pics here: https://acurazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19923
...and here: https://acurazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21940

JLavino

Well Considering im a canon whore this is a little extreme. The Best all around lens ive shot (not a canon). THE BIGMA. Sigma 50-500. Decent lens for all the focal ranges. God I miss my cameras. LOL

JLavino

Ohh i was refering to a used 300 2.8 hense the YMMV. Ive seen a few go for around that price on FM forums.

leftride

iTrader: (1)

I have a sony v1 and I love it. I would love it more if i had a dslr, but it was a nice stepping stone from my canon s400

LI_NY_1

Sorry for the continued hijacking - but any of you guys have first-hand opinion on getting Digital Rebel now vs. the new XT?

I've had old film leica's, contax, minolta, canon, olympus systems but have only been with P&S in recent years. Now that the digi-slr's are reasonable, I want to get back in. The cost of a brand new digital rebel with lens kit is now down to $669, all-inclusive (shipping/tax) from what I can find.

Probably have to spend at least $300 - $350 more for the XT. Any convincing reasons?

JerseyJeff

The XT is smaller and lighter and I believe is 8 megapixels. The digital rebel is 6.3 I guess that doesn't really matter unless you're making posters.

I have the digital rebel and absolutely love it!

In short, I would get the 300D, not the XT. I don't think it's worth the extra money right now.

Dan Martin

The Rebel XT is a very impressive camera. I'd easily pay $300-$350 if I could upgrade my Rebel to a Rebel XT.
These features alone make it worth the extra bucks:
- Digic II
- AI Servo available in creative exposure modes
- FEC
- better/bigger buffering of images for drive modes
- 8mp
There are many other features, but those are the top differences for me.

The Rebel XT is a lot lighter which makes it nice to cary around but if you plan on using some long lenses it can be a little out of balance. The grips are a little small for my gargantuan hands but should be fine for most people.

They revised the kit lens that comes with the XT but from what I've read, it wasn't for the better.
I think you'd be better off getting the body and putting the $100 you save towards a different lens. My recommendations are either the Sigma 18-125mm F3.5-5.6 DC (~$250) or the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC (~$400). If you want to stick with Canon glass, your choices are somewhat limited. You could pick up a 17-85 IS but that's mid $500's or you could pick up the old kit lens that came with the Rebel on ebay for about $60. For whatever reason Canon doesn't really make a wide zoom priced between the two.

JLavino

Dan, from what i understand the only differences in the updated kit lens, was cosmetic, nothing in the element. The Canon 50 F1.8 (Plastic Fantastic) is a terrific lens as well for about $70. That lens can do most portraits and low light Sporting/Concert events.

Dan Martin

I know it was supposedly cosmetic but both DPreview and one of the magazines I read noticed that the telephoto end was fairly soft:
The 50mm/1.8 is a fantastic lens and everyone should have one but he's still going to want a wide zoom for everyday shooting. I think the Sigma 18-125 would be an excellent starter walk around lens and for only $250, it's a pretty good deal.

JLavino

It is, however im a stickler for all canon products. The 28-135 EF IS is a superb carry around lens. Its all what you like. Cheers.

05_TSX_GP

Thanks for the kind feedback on my Sony W1 question

I have owned a W1 since it came out last June, very very happy with it. Yes Dan, the AA size NiMH batteries are awesome! Way better than what I had to use on the P1 I used to have.

Any thought on whether the Telephoto lens for W1 is worth it?

CCColtsicehockey

does anyone have any suggestions on taking pictures of lightning

05_TSX_GP

oh... I'd imagine that to be very difficult. The only fancier shots I've ever taken were night shots at Niagara Falls (using the W1). They turned out pretty nice

I suppose shots of lightening must involve high speed burst shots and no flash?

Dan Martin

There are two ways:
1) buy a lightning trigger
2) use a long exposure and just hope for the best

Since you'd have to be a dedicated storm chaser to justify #1, #2 actually works pretty well. All you do is set the camera on a tripod and point it towards the storm. Then you set the shutter speed to somewhere between 30 seconds and 2 minutes. Usually you need to put your camera in "bulb" mode and use a remote to do anything longer than 30 seconds. Also, this lets a ton of light into the camera so you should only use this technique at night.
If you wanted to do it during the day, you'll have to set your camera for shorter exposures and likely even use a ND filter because I doubt you'll be able shut out enough light with the aperture.

Here's a good article on the Lightning Trigger from a fellow Canuck: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...ightning.shtml
Actually there's some really good general photography articles in there too if you're looking for something to read...

leftride

iTrader: (1)

i have a telephoto for my v1...but the main reason i got it was to use the 58mm adapter in order to use filters.

MikeMa

K. This post went on way longer than I thought....so you can whip past if you like....

Since we're talking about one of my fav. subjects....

I've got a Digital Rebel (Classic version--not the XT). I'm pretty happy with it. I've got the kit lens, plus a 28-135IS and a 75-300IS, and a 550EX flash. I think this thing takes pretty good pictures even without the L-Series lenses, and I find the Image Stabilized option on 2 of my lenses helps a great deal when I don't want to shoot with a flash. IS seems to help the most on the longer lens (for obvious reasons)....I can shoot down to I think 1/13 of a second at f5.6 with no flash (If I had steadier hands, I could shoot even slower).

Anyway, like I said, I like this camera. It seems to take way cleaner shots than any point and shoot, and being digital, it gives me the ability to experiment more (without the fear of racking up $$$$ for processing film). I think since getting this thing, I've definitely become more adventurous and creative about shooting.

As for a general blanket statment about Nikon vs. Canon, I'd say that image quality is pretty good for both cameras (at lower ISO's). I've found that Canon's interface is a bit easier to get used to, but Nikon probably has more customization. Nikon's tend to also be faster and more professional feeling cameras. For example, my brother's D70 can simply wipe the floor with my Rebel when shooting consecutive frames (mine will shoot about 4 frames at about 1/2 the rate of his, then drops off to about 1 frame per second...his will just keep on going....we've never had the patience to see how many frames it takes to fill the D70's buffer). The D70 also is quicker at writing the images to memory. On mine, there is a delay when switching into play mode after just taking a shot (but, I believe this disadvantage is somewhat minimized in the Canon 20D/Rebel XT).

Now, as for lenses, I basically bought Canon because they have reasonably priced lenses that feature Image Stabilization. Nikon, from what I can determine, has only had their VR technology in either their high end lenses, and is just now bringing that to their lower end ones, or they didn't even have that technology when I was looking to buy (which was roughly 2 years ago). But, for Nikon, I do like the fact that the "kit" lens with the D70 is actually a pretty nice lens....all glass, and takes very nice pics. The "kit" lens that came with my Rebel is a wimpy polycarbonate lens...so I'm forced to use a less than impressive lens for my wide angle shots (yes, I could buy a 17mm or shorter lens, but you're looking into megabucks). My next purchase will probably be a decent wide angle zoom L-series lens....then after that, it'll be a new digital body (I'm waiting for a prosumer camera from Canon that is full frame and over 8 megapixels).

Okay...enough rambling. If you'd like to see a few examples of shots I've taken with my camera, have a look at

http://homepage.mac.com/mikema/mikepublic

I'm not that good yet, but I'm getting better (better than I was when I was shooting film, where shooting modes on the dial other than "Full Auto" pretty much atrophied....).

Dan Martin

LOL! You'll be waiting a while.
FF sensors are insanely expensive, which is why a used 1Ds is still about the cost of a new 1DM2. I really don't have any desire to go full frame anyhow. 1.3 crop is enough for me... It's less demanding on glass quality and gives a slight focal length boost for telephoto work.

Looks good!

MikeMa

Thanks!

Yeah, I'll probably be waiting for a while, but sensor prices must be coming down fast, given how many reasonably priced point-and-shoot cameras are coming out in the 7+ MP range. I figure I'll have the itch to replace my Rebel with something better in the next 4-5 years.

While I do like the fact that the 1.6 crop gives me basically a 480mm lens with my 75-300, I *don't* like the fact that I have to settle for a cheapie kit lens if I want to go wide angle (that or move into L series lenses). I haven't seen the new EFS lens from Canon in person (the one that is 18-70 something?), but from pictures, it looks like it's also all plastic elements?

Although, I am now starting to think about the possibilities of a Sigma or Tamron lens. I was reading some reviews on that fredmiranda.com site (never came across that site before), and was surprised that both those lens mfg. were actually getting pretty high praise. Up until now, I considered those companies kinda like the Hyundai or Kia of the photography world.

Dan Martin

They currently make 4 EF-S mount lenses: 10-22, 17-85 IS, 18-55 (kit lens), and 60mm macro. The 10-22 would be an L lens if they made it with an EF mount. The 17-85 is quite expensive but the IS is nice. I would like to try the 60mm macro someday as I could use a macro in my bag. However, unless they allow the future 1 series bodies to use the EF-S mount, I won't be interested.

Yes they do make some good glass. I have recommended them to several of my friends as a good replacement for the kit lens. The "Bigma" 50-500 is also a really nice piece and I often see them at racing events or at the zoo.
Just a piece of advice, don't get too wrapped up in reading reviews of camera gear online. I find it funny how the pros that shoot day in and day out never get a piece of bad glass but the weekend warriors are the ones complaining about softness and back-focus. All you can do is get to know some of the guys at the local camera shop and try the equipment out for yourself.

waTSX

That's because some folks will never get it through their heads that cameras don't take pictures, photographers do. DPR's forums, in particular, are rife with the "I got a bad copy of (fill in the blank)..." posters.

BTW, the EF-S 17-85 and 10-22 are both excellent, at least with my 20D. The 17-85 offers an excellent walk-around range, and the 10-22 one of the few true WA options for 1.6 crop cams. I'm of the opinion that we'll never see FF prosumer level cams. 1.6 is here to stay.

Dan Martin

Can't stand that place. Good camera reviews but the forums drive me nuts.

I'm fine with that.



By the way, if anyone hasn't seen it yet, we're having a photo contest in the Ramblings section: https://acurazine.com/forums/ramblings-12/first-official-acurazine-photo-contest-%2A%2A%2A-we-have-winner-%2A%2A%2A-310879/

LI_NY_1

I ended up going with an XT body myself just a few days ago. I was also pretty much decided on getting the 17-85 Canon zoom, but switched at the last minute.

I picked up a used 17-40 F4L lens (now magically I will see "L" level pictures, right???) and went with the 28-135 Canon IS lens.

So with the 1.6 factor I'll have 2 lenses that cover 27 - 215, not quite 10x zoom in 2 lenses, but pretty well covered for my shooting (family, kids, some groups and whatever else I might have time for nowadays.)

Thanks for the thread and also for the continued hijacking...

Dan Martin

That's a great setup and should serve you well for many years. The best part about buying used L glass is it really doesn't depreciate. You could sell it a year from now and get back everything you paid for it.

The only problem with L glass is once you buy one piece, that's all you'll want to buy. After playing with your 17-40 for a while, you'll probably get the bug to upgrade that 28-135 to a 70-200 f4L.

Be sure to post some pics!

JLavino

Hell, if you gonna spend around 700 for the f4, save for the f2.8. I used that lens my buddy owns on june 18 at the rhode island airshow. We also rented a 100-400 F4.5 L IS Push Pull lens. Amazing. I dont have my own camera but getting to shoot about 100 pictures feels great.

Dan Martin

The 70-200 f4 is $570 but the f2.8 is $1100. At that rate, you might as well keep saving and go for the f2.8IS @ $1700.

I borrowed Astroboy's 100-400 f4.5-5.6 for a month and I wasn't overly impressed. ( Robb! )
That push-pull zoom was kind of annoying and the fact that it sucked in dust like a vacuum didn't leave me with a warm-fuzzy feeling. All things considered, the IS system works like a charm and the the sharpness and color quality was excellent. It was more of a user interface issue for me.

JLavino

Exact thoughts. I felt it was hard chasing down the F-16s and Canadian Snow birds at the air show. Due to the fact The Push out was abrupt and shook the whole setup. Leaving me going, Wheres the plane in the eyepeice. Probably the best all around lens is the f 2.8 non is L 70-200. IMO

MikeMa

The XT also comes with a lower capacity battery (which is physically smaller). Canon says DigicII uses less power, but I'm not sure. Not sure if I'm correct, but the XT basically uses the same kind of battery that they use in the higher end point-and-shooters. The regular Rebel/300D uses a kind of battery they use on DV cams.

I don't personally like the grip on the XT....it feels a bit toy-ish....and I don't even really have big hands.... and as for the weight, I don't truly think that's an issue, since all the weight is in the lens and external flash anyway. To me, the body of both cameras is extremely light.

Like I said, I was a bit pissed that Canon released an upgrade so soon after I got my camera....but after much thought, the extra ~1.7MP isn't a really good upgrade for me. I'm waiting for probably the next Gen 20D that will, after a while (I say, at the current pace of Digicam sensors, probably 3-4 years), will get a Full Frame sensor at over 10MP.