 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / August 2006Upgarding to Digital
I am currently happily using an EOS 3 with 28mm f2.8 50mm f1.8 100mm f2 I shoot mostly Provia 100 but as most of my photography is travel related it can be a real pain trying to keep it cool (the Rajestani desert is not an ideal film environment!). Plus not being able to view my photos until several months after Ive taken them does not aid the learning process. Another fact that is pushing me towards digital is the ability to instantly change ISO. I will be spending another five months backpacking in Asia, come October, and am so considering the upgrade. My current choice of bodies is between 350D and the new 30D. There are several things that are pushing me towards the 350D but any input would be much appreciated. -Im not sure the leap in price would justify me spending money I need for travel on the 30D as opposed to its cheaper and lighter brother 350D Pros: - lighter (an advantage as I'll have to lug it every where) - Cheaper - Inbuilt flash (not that I'll ever use it) Cons - Less robust - No spot metering 30D Pros: - Spot metering (a big one for me) - Build quality - greater fps - ISO 3200 Cons - Cost - Weight Am I missing anything major that justifies the 30Ds big step up in price? The other factor that is making me doubt the whole idea (why oh why isnt the 30Ds sensor full size!?) is the fact that I will need to by an ultra wide prime to replace the 28mm that has now become a 45mm. Can anyone suggest a lens comparable quality wise to the ones I already have? Does such a lens exist or would I have to buy a zoom? Also: -What size print (and file size) can I reasonably expect from an 8 megapixel camera? -I have seen both the 350D and the 30D a couple of hundred dollars cheaper, than here in Australia, if imported from Hong Kong through Ebay. The traders all have very good ratings but I must be missing out on something right? The warrenty I guess but anything else? A lot of questions I know but your help would be much appreciated. Matt > I am currently happily using an EOS 3 with > 28mm f2.8 [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > several things that are pushing me towards the 350D but any input would > be much appreciated. > Am I missing anything major that justifies the 30Ds big step up in > price? Nope. If bang for the buck is what ya want, digirebel it. :-) The 3200 iso in the 30D is just software anyway... take yer 1600 350D shot and brighten it a stop and you'll have the same result. Can't recall if there's hacked camera firmware that adds that for ya or not out there. I chose the 300D over the 20D for the reasons you cite, and haven't missed any of the functionality and have cheerfully spent the money saved on glass. > The other factor that is making me doubt the whole idea (why oh why > isnt the 30Ds sensor full size!?) is the fact that I will need to by an > ultra wide prime to replace the 28mm that has now become a 45mm. Can > anyone suggest a lens comparable quality wise to the ones I already > have? Does such a lens exist or would I have to buy a zoom? This is where APS-C sized sensors suck a bit unfortunately. In canon's line anyway, you'd be relegated to an EF-S mount zoom. 10-22mm IIRC. Dunno if third parties have a digital mount prime wide that'll get you th eangle of coverage you are used to. > Also: > -What size print (and file size) can I reasonably expect from an 8 > megapixel camera? Got billboard? I think you'll sh.t at how far you can go with digital at 8mp vs film and how sharp it is.  Signature-- Todd H. http://www.toddh.net/ >I am currently happily using an EOS 3 with >28mm f2.8 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Am I missing anything major that justifies the 30Ds big step up in >price? First you'll need to get your hands on both bodies to handle them and see if they feel right. Some people don't like the small 350D body and menu settings instead of direct controls. You're coming from the EOS3 so there's quite a difference in size there. The 30D is about the same weight as your 3, so it shouldn't feel any worse than what you're lugging around now. >The other factor that is making me doubt the whole idea (why oh why >isnt the 30Ds sensor full size!?) is the fact that I will need to by an >ultra wide prime to replace the 28mm that has now become a 45mm. Can >anyone suggest a lens comparable quality wise to the ones I already >have? The 20mm may not be wide enough, and the 14mm is expensive. The 15mm is a fisheye, which you may or may not like. > Does such a lens exist or would I have to buy a zoom? For cost/performance reasons, I opted for a 17-40 f/4 L which is quite good, and it covers the range of two of your lenses. Or if you'd like to stick with f/2.8, the 16-35 is good, but expensive. I prefer zooms to primes because of their convenience. With just two zooms, I can cover almost everything from 17 to 200mm, and quality is very close with good zoom lenses. >Also: >-What size print (and file size) can I reasonably expect from an 8 >megapixel camera? How big do you want, and at what level of quality? You can make very large prints up to 13x19", or much larger if you're willing to tweak and have someone print it for you. Image size will be 3504x2336 pixels (raw/large). File sizes will depend on image content, but should be about 3-4mb using large/fine jpg. Raw files will be about 8mb. >-I have seen both the 350D and the 30D a couple of hundred dollars >cheaper, than here in Australia, if imported from Hong Kong through >Ebay. The traders all have very good ratings but I must be missing out >on something right? The warrenty I guess but anything else? Factor shipping charges into it, and the risk of getting a bad unit. This is just my preference, but I usually buy big ticket items locally so that I can verify quality and functionality before I plunk down my money. I used to buy online, but the costs involved to send an item back and get it replaced, plus the hassles, made the price difference worth the convenience of buying locally. > I am currently happily using an EOS 3 with > 28mm f2.8 [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > - Cheaper > - Inbuilt flash (not that I'll ever use it) The 30D also has a built in flash. > Cons > - Less robust [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Am I missing anything major that justifies the 30Ds big step up in > price? The 30D is a two-dial camera, which means that in manual mode you can control both aperture and shutter speed simultaneously and in programmed mode you can shift the program with one dial and change the exposure compensation with the other. The 350D's manual control requires that you hold a button to go from shutter speed to aperture or from program shift to EV--some people prefer this, others prefer the 2-control system. On the 30D ISO is an eye-level adjustment--button on top and turn the back dial and you can see the setting in the finder. Doesn't take a whole lot of practice to be able to hit the right button. On the 350D ISO is in the menus and you have to press the "set" button on the back for the change to take--it's relatively cumbersome. > The other factor that is making me doubt the whole idea (why oh why > isnt the 30Ds sensor full size!?) is the fact that I will need to by an > ultra wide prime to replace the 28mm that has now become a 45mm. Can > anyone suggest a lens comparable quality wise to the ones I already > have? Does such a lens exist or would I have to buy a zoom? You don't say what lenses you already have so it's difficult to say what would be "comparable quality wise". There are several good zooms that span the range you're looking for--there are test results on all of them at <http://www.photozone.de>. There aren't many primes and the ones that are available don't seem to be quite as good as the best zooms. Note that the kit lens for the 30D goes to 17mm, but has a good deal of distortion at that focal length and isn't the sharpest lens Canon has ever made. The 10-22 Canon is a good bet, its main weakness is chromatic aberration but that seems to be the case for all lenses in that focal length range. > Also: > -What size print (and file size) can I reasonably expect from an 8 > megapixel camera? How big do you want and how closely will it be viewed? Poking my nose in an 8x10 I can't see anything related to the sensor resolution as being a limitation, in fact the lens seems to be more limiting than the sensor. > -I have seen both the 350D and the 30D a couple of hundred dollars > cheaper, than here in Australia, if imported from Hong Kong through [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Matt Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > > I am currently happily using an EOS 3 with > > 28mm f2.8 > > 50mm f1.8 > > 100mm f2 [snip] > You don't say what lenses you already have so it's difficult to say what > would be "comparable quality wise". Heh. ;-) -- Todd H. http://www.toddh.net/ >> > I am currently happily using an EOS 3 with >> > 28mm f2.8 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Heh. ;-) Read the post three times and didn't see that. I think I need new glasses. The 10-22 should come pretty close to matching the performance of the 28 in everything but aperture. Downside on the 10-22 is that it's a "Digtal-only" lens. In f/2.8 lens the 16-35L is one possibility but it will have more distortion at 17mm, which would give a field of view equivalent to a 28mm on a 35mm film camera. > -- > Todd H. > http://www.toddh.net/ Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > Am I missing anything major that justifies the 30Ds big step up in > price? 30D's shutter is rated at approx twice the number of activations of the 350D. 30D has a bigger screen - better for reviewing histograms with image previews etc. > The other factor that is making me doubt the whole idea (why oh why > isnt the 30Ds sensor full size!?) is the fact that I will need to by an > ultra wide prime to replace the 28mm that has now become a 45mm. Can > anyone suggest a lens comparable quality wise to the ones I already > have? Does such a lens exist or would I have to buy a zoom? Depending on how often you need to use such a wide prime, consider firing off a couple of overlapping shots, and stitch them together with something like Panorama Factory - I routinely stitch 8 or more together - the software (once you get familiar with it) can produce flawless results. > -What size print (and file size) can I reasonably expect from an 8 > megapixel camera? From Photoshopped RAW we routinely print up to 20 x 30 inches. If you're looking at the whole photo at once it's absolutely fine - if you're examining portions of it with a magnifying glass you'll see that the resolution is a bit less than optimal. Personally I think people get a but carried away in this department. > -I have seen both the 350D and the 30D a couple of hundred dollars > cheaper, than here in Australia, if imported from Hong Kong through > Ebay. The traders all have very good ratings but I must be missing out > on something right? The warrenty I guess but anything else? If it helps I can put you on to a chap here in NZ who's got an account with Canon - he sells the 30D on www.trademe.co.nz for $2000 NZ (give or take a bit) - the good news is although he's in NZ, the actual cameras are shipped from Canon Australia - so probably wouldn't be hard to have one sent directly to you, complete with full warranty. (Have a look for listings by "Glam"). Can't speak for him, but good chance if it helps. > I am currently happily using an EOS 3 with > 28mm f2.8 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > anyone suggest a lens comparable quality wise to the ones I already > have? Does such a lens exist Canon 20/2.8 > or would I have to buy a zoom? Canon 20-35/3.5-4.5 Canon 16-35/2.8 Canon 10-22/3.5-4.5 Canon 17-55/2.8 IS http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr > > I am currently happily using an EOS 3 with > > 28mm f2.8 A $150 lens > > 50mm f1.8 A $75 lens > > 100mm f2 A $375 lens. For a total glass investment: $500. > > The other factor that is making me doubt the whole idea (why oh why > > isnt the 30Ds sensor full size!?) is the fact that I will need to by an > > ultra wide prime to replace the 28mm that has now become a 45mm. Or you look at dropping $3K for the full-frame 5D body. > > Can anyone suggest a lens comparable quality wise to the ones > > I already have? Does such a lens exist > > Canon 20/2.8 A $400 lens > > or would I have to buy a zoom? > > Canon 20-35/3.5-4.5 > Canon 16-35/2.8 $350 and $1400, although the 17-40/4 would be between, at $700. > Canon 10-22/3.5-4.5 > Canon 17-55/2.8 IS $700 and $1100, despite the EF-S mount not being EOS-3 compatible. My general thoughts are that his 28-100mm lenses don't appear to me to be all that critically demanding, so he might be able to go into one of the higher-end non-SLR's (such as the Canon Powershot S3 IS) and save a lot of backpacking weight. A sacrilegious statement, I know, in the dSLR group. But considering that its focal lengths are 35mm equivalent of 36mm - 432mm (f/2.7-f.3.5), which at $500 for the whole camera, isn't really that much more than the $400 20mm lens that he would have to buy in addition to the dSLR to improve his 28mm WA halfway back down to where he's currently at. I've been giving some thoughts to picking up one of these higher-end P&S to compliment my dSLR, for the convenience of 'pocket carry' during casual urban sight-seeing...it certainly beats a camera phone. -hh > > > I am currently happily using an EOS 3 with > > > 28mm f2.8 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > For a total glass investment: $500. $600, adding up your figures. > > > The other factor that is making me doubt the whole idea (why oh why > > > isnt the 30Ds sensor full size!?) is the fact that I will need to by an [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > $700 and $1100, despite the EF-S mount not being EOS-3 compatible. So I listed these separately. > My general thoughts are that his 28-100mm lenses don't appear to me to > be all that critically demanding ? Those are among the best quality available. Not worse than $1K+ f/2.8 zooms. He probably would like 20/2.8 the best, since he prefers primes over zooms. The price is similar to his 100/2. And he will have an ultrawide on his full frame cameras. If he wants more than a couple wide primes, e.g., 20/2.8, 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2, then the total price is close to the 16-35/2.8, which is of very good quality. http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr > > My general thoughts are that his 28-100mm lenses don't appear to me to > > be all that critically demanding [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Those are among the best quality available. Not worse than $1K+ f/2.8 > zooms. "Critically demanding" isn't the same thing as 'best quality'. My point is that the good quality zooms generally compete reasonably well with the lenses he currently has, and he's not really looking at buying just $800 for a dSLR body, but another $400 or so to functionally "restore" his WA lens. As such, he's really looking at the prospects of spending $2 for every $1 worth of lenses that he's trying to salvage backwards-compatibility with. If its part of a longer-term plan that's fine, but if he doesn't have such a plan, then it is worth questioning his assumed constraint(s). > He probably would like 20/2.8 the best, since he prefers primes over > zooms. The price is similar to his 100/2. And he will have an ultrawide > on his full frame cameras. The shortcoming with this suggestion is that when he puts the 20mm on his EOS-3, he'll discover the world of Ultra-WA that he hasn't experienced with only a 28mm. This will then leave him wanting for buying another, even wider lens then for use on his dSLR too. FWIW, this "mixed blessing" of an EF mount 20mm is exactly why I'm contemplating between a 10-22mm EF-S and ponying up for the 14mm EF which will fit both. > If he wants more than a couple wide primes, e.g., 20/2.8, 24/2.8, > 28/2.8, 35/2, then the total price is close to the 16-35/2.8, which is > of very good quality. He could also buy a 70-200 f/2.8 IS too, since it too is of very high quality, but he would be wasting his money on a great lens if his interests don't allign with that focal length. Even considering a non-dSLR in a dSLR group is, as I had said, "A sacrilegious statement". But as an dSLR (and non-dSLR) owner, I know that any piece of hardware has to stand upon its own merits, and there's trade-offs everywhere, which for the OP's backpacking (and finances), should be considered: the P&S I mentioned offers both a weight and a cost savings. Its up to the OP to decide upon precisely what he wants, and to take under consideration all of the opinions offered here ... including his starting assumptions ... when he makes his own trade-off decision. -hh > > > My general thoughts are that his 28-100mm lenses don't appear to me to > > > be all that critically demanding [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > point is that the good quality zooms generally compete reasonably well > with the lenses he currently has I am not sure what you mean. But even $1K+ f/2.8 zooms are 1 stop dimmer than his f/2, and 1.3 stop dimmer than his f/1.8. This difference can be very important in some situations. > and he's not really looking at buying > just $800 for a dSLR body, but another $400 or so to functionally > "restore" his WA lens. If he likes wide angle as much as he likes his 100/2, then 20/2.8 fits well, at about the same price. If he does not like wide angle, then maybe he wants the sub $100 kit 18-55/3.5-5.6, or maybe no wide angle at all. > As such, he's really looking at the prospects of spending $2 for every > $1 worth of lenses that he's trying to salvage backwards-compatibility > with. To me, digital is worth the cost over film camera. And SLR is worth the cost over P&S. To him, maybe he likes those prime lenses better than any other lenses, at whatever price. > > If he wants more than a couple wide primes, e.g., 20/2.8, 24/2.8, > > 28/2.8, 35/2, then the total price is close to the 16-35/2.8, which is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > quality, but he would be wasting his money on a great lens if his > interests don't allign with that focal length. He seems to like primes. I mean if he wants to buy all 4 wide angle primes mentioned above, maybe he should also consider the 16-35/2.8 zoom, at about the same total cost, especially when 3 out of the 4 wide angle primes are f/2.8, not brighter than the zoom. http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr > > "Critically demanding" isn't the same thing as 'best quality'. My > > point is that the good quality zooms generally compete reasonably well [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > dimmer than his f/2, and 1.3 stop dimmer than his f/1.8. This > difference can be very important in some situations. Keywords being "can" be and "some" situations, which really applied more often with the lack of shot-to-shot ISO adjustability with film: with digital and the low noise levels at ISO 400, the general need for fast glass is reduced. Since the OP mentioned ISO flexibility, it would be reasonable to conclude that he has recognized this too. > > and he's not really looking at buying > > just $800 for a dSLR body, but another $400 or so to functionally [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > maybe he wants the sub $100 kit 18-55/3.5-5.6, or maybe no wide angle > at all. "If, if, maybe"? Suggest you go back and re-read the OP for these answers. > > As such, he's really looking at the prospects of spending $2 for every > > $1 worth of lenses that he's trying to salvage backwards-compatibility > > with. > > To me, digital is worth the cost over film camera. And SLR is worth the > cost over P&S. But only because you have a different trade-off than the OP, and you're not listening to what the OP is saying. Do recall that this thread only exists because the OP said the 30D cost more - that's commonly called a "financial constraint". > To him, maybe he likes those prime lenses better than any other lenses, > at whatever price. The OP has mentioned backpacking, and his 28mm f/2.8 is roughly half the weight of the f/1.8. Each one of the lenses he selected is lighter than its contemporary alternatives: he typically gives up a stop or macro, plus they're less expensive. IMO, the OP has made some good trade-offs based on his needs. YMMV, but I've carried an SLR on many (day & multi-night) hikes and stuff gets left at home to lighten the load: I never take everything. With the advent of good quality digital P&S's, I'm not even exclusively carrying only an SLR. You don't always need a sledgehammer to drive a nail. > He seems to like primes. Me too, when I'm shooting low ISO film with certain types of subjects. However, with technology, the constraints change: digital is one example, and while not mentioned here, Image Stabilization (IS) is another. -hh > > > "Critically demanding" isn't the same thing as 'best quality'. My > > > point is that the good quality zooms generally compete reasonably well [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > fast glass is reduced. Since the OP mentioned ISO flexibility, it > would be reasonable to conclude that he has recognized this too. Depends on what you shoot. Most of my photo are at f/1.8 and ISO 1600, for indoor low light kids action. So $1K+ f/2.8 zooms would be difficult to use. And f/4 or f/5.6 zooms are out of the question. > > > and he's not really looking at buying > > > just $800 for a dSLR body, but another $400 or so to functionally [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > "If, if, maybe"? Suggest you go back and re-read the OP for these > answers. I don't know. Maybe he chooses the lowest cost 28/2.8 (instead of 24/2.8) because he does not like wide angle much. Maybe he likes wide angle that the cheap 18-55/3.5-5.6 would not satisfy him. > > > As such, he's really looking at the prospects of spending $2 for every > > > $1 worth of lenses that he's trying to salvage backwards-compatibility [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Do recall that this thread only exists because the OP said the 30D cost > more - that's commonly called a "financial constraint". 350D then. > > To him, maybe he likes those prime lenses better than any other lenses, > > at whatever price. > > The OP has mentioned backpacking, and his 28mm f/2.8 is roughly half > the weight of the f/1.8. Maybe because the 28/2.8 is sharper than 28/1.8. > Each one of the lenses he selected is > lighter than its contemporary alternatives: What alternative? As I said, f/2.8 zooms may not be alternative, even if they are free. > he typically gives up a > stop or macro, plus they're less expensive. Macro is 1 stop dimmer, which may be a problem. And f/1.4 primes are not without problems, either. I replaced my 50/1.4 with 50/1.8, not for cost reason. As I said, I shoot at f/1.8 and ISO 1600. I'd love to shoot at f/1.4 and ISO 800. But with 50/1.4, much more photo are out of focus (AF error, not shallow DoF) than 50/1.8. So f/2 lenses are best suited for my shooting, better than f/2.8 zooms, and better than f/1.4 primes, and better than macros. http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr > > > > Keywords being "can" be and "some" situations... > > Depends on what you shoot. Exactly, which is why we shouldn't assume our exceptional needs to be precisely what the OP needs. As I said, the OP's demands were not that particularly critical IMO. > Most of my photo are at f/1.8 and ISO 1600, for indoor low light kids action. The OP specifically mentioned ISO 100 film. Gee, we're all different insofar as the things that we like to use our cameras for. > So $1K+ f/2.8 zooms would be difficult to use. > And f/4 or f/5.6 zooms are out of the question. <http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2006/tanzania/banda-elephant(4141).jpg> Taken with: Shutter/Aperture: 1/30 @ f4 ISO: 1600 Focal Length: 98mm IS: on FYI, the EXIF data also says it was aken at 18:42:05 local time, which is roughly a half hour after sunset. No tripod was used: this was a supported handheld shot with IS enabled (worth 2-3 stops). IS is merely yet another technology alternative to consider, but it costs money and some weight. BTW, EV=5 is roughly about as dark as it gets indoors before going down to candle-light, as per Fred Parker's EV chart: <http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm> And as can be seen from the above settings, the Exposure Value here was EV = +5, > > "If, if, maybe"? Suggest you go back and re-read the OP for these > > answers. > > I don't know. ... Exactly. > > Do recall that this thread only exists because the OP said the 30D cost > > more - that's commonly called a "financial constraint". > > 350D then. Which costs 50% more than the $500 alternative I suggested, even before the additional expense of a 20mm WA lens is considered. Its up to the OP to decide what's that's the right choice for him, unless we're going to buy the equipment for him. I'm not volunteering to do that - are you? :-) > > > To him, maybe he likes those prime lenses better than any other lenses, > > > at whatever price. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Maybe because the 28/2.8 is sharper than 28/1.8. The 2.8 is definitely lighter and definitely cheaper than the 1.8, and both of these characteristics are germane to constraints that the OP mentioned. There's no insight as of yet as to what degree the OP is critically concerned about optical 'sharpness'. Until he does, it is more appropriate to concentrate on the things he has said, instead of making unfounded assumptions...don't let the tail wag the dog. -hh > > > Keywords being "can" be and "some" situations... > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > precisely what the OP needs. As I said, the OP's demands were not that > particularly critical IMO. Why do you think he chose a good SLR over a film P&S? Why do you think he chose to carry 3 good prime lenses over a consumer zoom? > > Most of my photo are at f/1.8 and ISO 1600, for indoor low light kids action. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Focal Length: 98mm > IS: on With the subject moving, many shots will be motion blurred at 1/30. Of course you can get a few that are not motion blurred, but I want a higher percentage of sharp shots, thus higher speed than 1/30s. If I want 1/60s, I need f/2.8. If I want 1/125s, I need f/2. 1/125s is hardly considered fast enough speed for action shots. > > > "If, if, maybe"? Suggest you go back and re-read the OP for these > > > answers. > > > > I don't know. ... > > Exactly. Do you claim you know exactly what he wants? I don't, thus I give out more than one options, not only for him, but also other people. > > > > To him, maybe he likes those prime lenses better than any other lenses, > > > > at whatever price. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > mentioned. There's no insight as of yet as to what degree the OP is > critically concerned about optical 'sharpness'. He said he want a lens of the same quality as his existing lenses. > Why do you think he chose a good SLR over a film P&S? Why do you think > he chose to carry 3 good prime lenses over a consumer zoom? You don't know either. Nevertheless, the EOS-3 has been around for around a decade, and some good strides have been made in that time in both cameras and optics. Sure, he could have bought his EOS-3 last week, but IMO that's pretty unlikely...take the potential cue from the film that he mentioned, since it was discontinued (superceded) a few years ago. > > > Most of my photo are at f/1.8 and ISO 1600, for indoor low light kids action. > ... > I want a higher percentage of sharp shots, thus higher speed than 1/30s. If I > want 1/60s, I need f/2.8. If I want 1/125s, I need f/2. 1/125s is > hardly considered fast enough speed for action shots. Again, its not about you. Its about the OP. YMMV, but it is my impression that you're projecting your personal needs onto the decisions of others. At best, he mentioned desert which suggests WA landscapes...my suggestion would be to consider going a lot wider than the equivalent of 28mm. And even if he needs to shoot in EV < 5 lighting conditions, perhaps he's willing to do what you're apparently not willing to do: use a strobe. > > > > "If, if, maybe"? Suggest you go back and re-read the OP for these > > > > answers. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I don't, thus I give out more than one options, not only for him, but > also other people. I also offered an option, one that cost half as much, to someone talking about being on a budget. But according to you, I must be "wrong", just because it was further outside the box (ie, not an SLR body). Despite the fact that I happen to have roughly a half dozen bodies and probably a dozen lenses, I'm hardly an SLR bigot: P&S's have their place too. So I have some of them too. -hh > > Why do you think he chose a good SLR over a film P&S? Why do you think > > he chose to carry 3 good prime lenses over a consumer zoom? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > landscapes...my suggestion would be to consider going a lot wider than > the equivalent of 28mm. And I mentioned 10-22/3.5-4.5 and 16-35/2.8. He said he wants a prime to replace his 28/2.8, and I mentioned 20/2.8. And for budget lenses, I mentioned 20-35/3.5-4.5 and even 18-55/3.5-5.6. > And even if he needs to shoot in EV < 5 lighting conditions, perhaps > he's willing to do what you're apparently not willing to do: use a [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > hardly an SLR bigot: P&S's have their place too. So I have some of > them too. I do not have anything against your recommendation of P&S. But I don't agree with your opinion of the quality of his prime lenses. You think because those are cheap and old, they are not good, to the extent that a P&S can replace those lenses. I think the prime lenses are as good as the best out there. And I gave an example where they are even better than the best $1K+ f/2.8 zooms. In those situations even the expensive zooms can't replace those primes, let alone a P&S. And my example is not a rare example either. More poeple want photo of their family than anything else. If possible, more people want candid action shots than posed cheese shots. If possible, more people want natural environmental lighting than head on frontal flash. And more people spend more time indoor than outdoor. If possible, they want to take a few shots, e.g., before or after dinner everyday, rather than limiting their photo to once a week or once a month in a park during the middle of a day. http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr > > ...my suggestion would be to consider going a lot wider than > > the equivalent of 28mm. > > And I mentioned 10-22/3.5-4.5 and 16-35/2.8. Correct. > He said he wants a prime to replace his 28/2.8, and I mentioned 20/2.8. The OP said: "Can anyone suggest a lens comparable quality wise to the ones I already have? Does such a lens exist or would I have to buy a zoom?" While this indicates a preference for a prime, it is not exclusive. > And for budget lenses, I mentioned 20-35/3.5-4.5 and even > 18-55/3.5-5.6. Unfortunately, there's no budget ~15mm primes, EF-S or otherwise. Shifting paradigms could include going to a high-end P&S or to the similarly aforementioned full-frame 5D (which the OP's budget clearly doesn't support). Plus it could reexamine our historical paradigms for "bad" zooms, P&S's and the like; the OP did take one step in this direction. > I do not have anything against your recommendation of P&S. > > But I don't agree with your opinion of the quality of his prime lenses. If that's really your objection, it took you long enough to getting around to finally saying just that. > You think because those are cheap and old, they are not good, to the > extent that a P&S can replace those lenses. That's merely what you think I'm saying. Unfortunately, its an incorrect assumption: primes have generally had the potential to be excellent performers for the past 30+ years, but my point is that technological advances have significantly closed the performance gap of "non-primes". > I think the prime lenses are as good as the best out there. They're within 95%, whereas there are zooms that are pushing 90%. However, if one's needs aren't particularly critical (there's those words again), the 80% to 90% solutions may very well be acceptable alternatives to classical primes. What you seem to be missing is that it is possible for someone to own a certain level of performance that's not particularly important to them...like owning an SUV for cargo-carrying, but then never putting more than 3 bags of groceries in it. > And I gave an example where they are even better than the best > $1K+ f/2.8 zooms. In those situations even the expensive zooms > can't replace those primes, let alone a P&S. That example required a moving subject at EV <5 with no strobe or tripod. Regardless of how common it might be for you, you'll have to prove your assertion that its not rare for everyeone else. > More poeple want photo of their family than anything else. > [And] If ... If ... And ... If ... When it comes to "impossible" lighting situations, one alternative to salvage the situation is to shoot a dP&S in movie mode and extract the best frame of the clip in post-processing...this can be quite helpful in capturing cameo's. There's also a post-processing technique to stack multiple frames, but this generally requires minimal frame-to-frame change/motion; I've seen good results with UW Macro imaging. -hh > My current choice of bodies is between 350D and the new 30D. There are > several things that are pushing me towards the 350D but any input would [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Am I missing anything major that justifies the 30Ds big step up in > price? The 30D has a larger buffer, it is good for 30 jpg or 11 raw at 5fps while the 350D is good for 14 jpg and 4 raw at 3fps. Ergonomically, the 30D might be easier to operate with the control dial on the back. The shutter mechanism is more durable on the 30D according to Canon. The LCD is slightly larger, though it may not be that big a deal - it's still difficult to see in direct sunlight. > The other factor that is making me doubt the whole idea (why oh why > isnt the 30Ds sensor full size!?) is the fact that I will need to by an [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Ebay. The traders all have very good ratings but I must be missing out > on something right? The warrenty I guess but anything else? Be careful on ebay. Feeback ratings can be faked; I would be careful unless you know the seller to be a reputable dealer. Mark > I shoot mostly Provia 100 but as most of my photography is travel > related it can be a real pain trying to keep it cool (the Rajestani > desert is not an ideal film environment!). Check the allowable use temperatures for the digital cameras (and memory cards and image tanks), too. Some (most!) cameras may not like 40+°C. Remember as well that digital simply needs batteries to work. Do make your own tests if your new digital camera will do well for landscapes. Do find out about digital noise and if/how it gives you problems (ISO 100 should be no problem) and what to do against it. -Wolfgang Thank you everyone for the help so far. Having wandered into a shop and handled both the 30D and 350D I am still leaning towards the 350D, most likely as a short term solution, probably upgrading to a 30D once I get home. I simply cannot justify the extra cash for the 30D right now as I need the money to travel. The hard part is still lenses. While in principle I prefer primes, thinking back to the last eight months of travel before I arrived Australia and started working, what I have realised is that I missed a few potentially good shots scrambling to change lenses. I think I am going to have to sacrifice some quality and purchase a 17-85 4.5 - 5.6. With the IS, increased ISO and my existing lenses I should be able to cover most situations. I can get the 350D and the 17 - 85 bundled for AU$2000. The other alternative is the 17-40 f4 but again the step up in price is not very attractive. What are your thoughts on these two lenses? Any alternative around the same price range. What about the Sigma 15-30 f3.5-4.5? Good quality results are important to me but finacial constraints mean that I may have to be satisfied with lower quality than usual. The range on either of the above would make a good "walk around" lens. The photos I take when travelling are very broadly ranged. From the insides of darkened temples requiring wide angles (tripods are not always allowed), portraits (for which I'll continue to use the 100mm f2 as well as landscapes and even some low light work at night time festivals and weddings. Also, If shooting RAW and JPEG how many shots could i expect to fit on say a 1GB card? Since I hope to be covering 4 countries over 5 months (Indonesia, Thailand, Tibet and Nepal) it really is a simple choice of either equipment of time spent travelling. Thanks again for all the help. Matt > Thank you everyone for the help so far. Hope we haven't been too far off on what we thought you were looking for. > The hard part is still lenses. While in principle I prefer primes, > thinking back to the last eight months of travel before I arrived > Australia and started working, what I have realised is that I missed a > few potentially good shots scrambling to change lenses. This was a problem I had for years when I was really enjoying shooting landscapes with Ektar 25 (I still have a little left). What I settled on for a travel kit system was two lens: one zoom very wide and one zoom telephoto (plus a compact P&S). > I think I am going to have to sacrifice some quality and purchase a > 17-85 4.5 - 5.6. With the IS, increased ISO and my existing lenses I > should be able to cover most situations. I can get the 350D and the 17 > - 85 bundled for AU$2000. Sounds fairly reasonable to me. Despite the f/4.5, with the IS and higher ISO, you should be able to get as far as down into the EV 4-5 range. > The other alternative is the 17-40 f4 but again the step up in price is > not very attractive. What are your thoughts on these two lenses? Sounds like you're struggling with the "cost to keep EF mount" issue for compatibility to the EOS-3. > Any alternative around the same price range. At the same general price point as the 17-40 is the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, which would let you explore the WA realm well below 28mm with the dSLR. > What about the Sigma 15-30 f3.5-4.5? Sorry, haven't researched it. > Good quality results are important to me but finacial constraints mean > that I may have to be satisfied with lower quality than usual. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > as well as landscapes and even some low light work at night time > festivals and weddings. This provides some better insight; thanks. > Also, If shooting RAW and JPEG how many shots could i expect to fit on > say a 1GB card? IIRC, just over 70. Start to also think about how you're going to save your data, be it a digital wallet (the Epson and the Hyperdrive HD-80 are both pretty good. Skip the Wolverine) or some other plan. -hh >> Also, If shooting RAW and JPEG how many shots could i expect to fit on >> say a 1GB card? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > digital wallet (the Epson and the Hyperdrive HD-80 are both pretty > good. Skip the Wolverine) or some other plan. I'd recommend shooting just RAW, as conversion to jpeg is trivially easy. Also, given space on the card is a premium, for some shots you may well twist the dial to an "auto" mode thus very quickly laying down a jpeg for those shots that don't need the tweaking you will do with the RAW shots you take. And, bon voyage! SignatureJohn McWilliams > Having wandered into a shop and handled both the 30D and 350D I am > still leaning towards the 350D, most likely as a short term solution, > probably upgrading to a 30D once I get home. I simply cannot justify > the extra cash for the 30D right now as I need the money to travel. You might upgrade to something better than 30D later. Digital advances fast. > The hard part is still lenses. While in principle I prefer primes, > thinking back to the last eight months of travel before I arrived [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > not very attractive. What are your thoughts on these two lenses? Any > alternative around the same price range. I prefer the combination of the following 2 lenses: Canon 18-55/3.5-5.6 Canon 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS And I'd add a tele lens: Canon 70-300/4-5.6 IS Later, you can upgrade to: Canon 17-55/2.8 IS Canon 16-35/2.8 Canon 70-200/2.8 IS > Also, If shooting RAW and JPEG how many shots could i expect to fit on > say a 1GB card? A little more than 100 if RAW only. http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr > > Having wandered into a shop and handled both the 30D and 350D I am > > still leaning towards the 350D, most likely as a short term solution, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You might upgrade to something better than 30D later. Digital advances > fast. Agreed, although I'd be very hesitant to predict when a full frame dSLR is going to break the $1000 mark; my guess would be around a decade. > I prefer the combination of the following 2 lenses: > Canon 18-55/3.5-5.6 > Canon 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS > And I'd add a tele lens: > Canon 70-300/4-5.6 IS IMO, the 28-135 IS is a good "all-around" for when you're carrying only one lens, although it does suffer from becoming long with a crop body digital. When you start to look at a two lens setup, you'll probably want to go both longer and wider, which can tend to leave this lens at home. I've been tempted to sell mine...the last time I took it on a 'big' trip was in 2004, and even then, it barely came out of the bag. For longer, I initially added the 75-300 IS (the above's predecessor), which was soft beyond 200mm, even at f/8. Reportedly the 70-300 IS is improved, but I've gone to an L telephoto configuration; (should probably sell off my 75-300 IS too). Overall, its a nicely compact and light lens to get this much reach. There's also the 70-300 DO IS, which seems to be a slight notch up optically, but with doubling the price, its generally considered to be overpriced. For wider, I'd go wider. As wide as I can justify spending. I really miss this loss. Since I can already open up to 20mm on film, I'm not going to be too concerned about matching lens mount; I'm debating between the EF-S 10-22mm and the Sigma DG 12-24mm. Overall, I'm not too concerned about not having IS in a WA because the 1/(focal length) rule of thumb is more forgiving wide than long. -hh > > I prefer the combination of the following 2 lenses: > > Canon 18-55/3.5-5.6 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > one lens, although it does suffer from becoming long with a crop body > digital. I like it because 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS is optically better than 17-85/4-5.6 IS. And it is cheaper, maybe even with 18-55/3.5-5.6 added. And it is full frame compatible. It is also longer, but not as wide. > When you start to look at a two lens setup, you'll probably > want to go both longer and wider But if so, then you must change lens when needed, e.g., if you have 18-55/3.5-5.6 and 70-300/4-5.6 IS. When you add a third lens in between with overlap, e.g., 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS, you can take a few shots before you change lens. Between 28 and 55, you can use any of the 2 shorter lenses. Between 70 and 135, any of the 2 longer lenses mounted at the time, without the need to change. So to me, this middle lens is quite useful when I am not sure that I need long tele or true wide. The long tele is useful for distant candid shots so that people don't notice you shooting. If he does not want to get all three now, if he does not want overlap, then 18-55/3.5-5.6 and 70-300/4-5.6 IS. If he does not like tele, then 18-55/3.5-5.6 and 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS. 135mm might be long enough on 1.6x for some distant candid. > For longer, I initially added the 75-300 IS (the above's predecessor), > which was soft beyond 200mm, even at f/8. Reportedly the 70-300 IS is > improved The new one is much better. > but I've gone to an L telephoto configuration But with IS, it gets expensive and heavy, 70-200/2.8 IS + 2x. > For wider, I'd go wider. As wide as I can justify spending. I really > miss this loss. Since I can already open up to 20mm on film, I'm not > going to be too concerned about matching lens mount; I'm debating > between the EF-S 10-22mm and the Sigma DG 12-24mm. Overall, I'm not > too concerned about not having IS in a WA because the 1/(focal length) > rule of thumb is more forgiving wide than long. 17-55/2.8 IS of course is not ultrawide. But it is optically very good, and f/2.8, and IS, and relatively low cost. Of course it is not full frame compatible. I think it is a much better value than 17-85/4-5.6 IS. http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr > > When you start to look at a two lens setup, you'll probably > > want to go both longer and wider > > But if so, then you must change lens when needed, Changing lenses pretty much defines half of what an SLR is :-) The alternative is to carry multiple bodies. While this carries weight and cost penalties, it does tend to reduce dust contamination potential on your sensor, plus it can be useful for equipment redundency in remote areas. > ...e.g., if you have 18-55/3.5-5.6 and 70-300/4-5.6 IS. When you > add a third lens in between with overlap, e.g., 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS, > you can take a few shots before you change lens. Assuming that your subjects fall within the overlaps. For midling focal lengths (35-70mm), I often find that it is faster/easier to "zoom with your feet" (either direction) than to stop to swap a lens. It also prompts more forethought into the composition before the shot. Since the OP's coming from primes, I'm inclined to believe that he's already comfortable and proficient with self-positioning to compose. > So to me, this middle lens is quite > useful when I am not sure that I need long tele or true wide. There's different ways to approach any situation. For example, in situations where I've known that I've wanted to carry both a WA and a Tele, I know that I can usually fill in the gap between the two with self-positioning. Leaving the middle range lens out of the bag saves weight and space. While the 28-135mm is only 1.1 pounds, having to carry it all day can add up. > > but I've gone to an L telephoto configuration > > But with IS, it gets expensive and heavy, 70-200/2.8 IS + 2x. Yes, it is a 3.5lb (+body) anchor. For some applications, its worth it. BTW, optically, the 100-400 IS outperforms the 70-200 IS with the 2x. Also, with a 20D body, the 70-200/2.8 IS + 1.4x will fit in the Kenesis long case (barely), but the 70-200/2.8 IS + 2x combination will not. > > For wider, I'd go wider. As wide as I can justify spending. I really > > miss this loss... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > frame compatible. I think it is a much better value than 17-85/4-5.6 > IS. The "biggest bang for the buck" in WA could very well be the Tokina AF 193 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5, particularly when you consider that its an EF mount. Only $150. Another possibility could be the Tokina AT-X Pro 124 12-24mm f/4 ($450), which also remains on an EF mount (although a full frame body will vignette when wider than ~16mm). Of course, neither of these are OEM glass, which is a concern to some people, but its worth searching out a few reviews before deciding. -hh > > > When you start to look at a two lens setup, you'll probably > > > want to go both longer and wider [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Since the OP's coming from primes, I'm inclined to believe that he's > already comfortable and proficient with self-positioning to compose. I use primes, too. So the biggest reason for me to use zoom is to minimize lens change, that and IS. So I like overlaps in zooms. E.g., with 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8, I'd very much want a middle lens 45-135/2.8, otherwise I'd be frequently switching between 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8, not too different from switching between 50/1.8 and 100/2. > > > but I've gone to an L telephoto configuration > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > it. BTW, optically, the 100-400 IS outperforms the 70-200 IS with the > 2x. Yes, but 70-200/2.8 IS + 2x is more flexible. If you never use 70-200/2.8, then 100-400/4.5-5.6 IS. > Of course, neither of these are OEM glass, which is a concern to some > people, but its worth searching out a few reviews before deciding. I don't really care about brand. But I just haven't found any third party lens that is cheaper but better, nor any that is more expensive but significantly better. http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr > Having wandered into a shop and handled both the 30D and 350D I am > still leaning towards the 350D, most likely as a short term solution, > probably upgrading to a 30D once I get home. I simply cannot justify > the extra cash for the 30D right now as I need the money to travel. Is there something you need in the 30D that the 20D does not offer? If not, you could probably get a (used) 20D for a good price ... > Good quality results are important to me but finacial constraints mean > that I may have to be satisfied with lower quality than usual. Or you could sacrifice some focal lengths instead of quality. -Wolfgang |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.