| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/11/2005 05:35:15 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
autumncat...
a few more thoughts....
a) get the 70-200mm before the 24-70...it's AMAZING...and you'll want the extra reach. On the flip side, if you are not planning on the IS, also consider some of the Sigma lenses, I believe they have 50-300mm (something to that affect) and it will cover from the kit lens onward.
b) you do realize that the 24-70 L on the 20D becomes a 38-112mm do to the 1.6x factor, so you will find yourself not have much option for a wide view. That's why the kit lens is an 18mm-55mm (28-88mm). |
theSaj - thank you again. I was considering the 24-70 in a few months to make it my walk around lens. I understand the 1.6 factor but didn't think that 38 was a horrible minimum based on what I shoot. The lens I used most on my old 80001 was a minimum of 35-105 - so pretty close to the 24-70 equivalent. I will work with the kit lens first to see how I feel about the size and such and will try to base future purchases on what I feel I am missing.
Thinking of the cheaper kit lens as trial - my husband calls it a throw away lens. I don't think of it that badly...but waiting to see photo quality and such.
|
|
|
|
05/11/2005 05:46:12 PM · #27 |
Zed Pobre has some very good advice.
I moved up to a Rebel back in January...here is my advice:
Get memory cards. utlra 2 1Gig (6Mb write speed is sufficient) would be best, but 512's might fit your style better. The slower cards are cheaper (circuit city has the regular sandisk 512 for $25 after rebate this week) but on the 20D you will notice it, especially in burst mode.
you will eventually want a second battery. SterlingTek is an excellent choice. However, fully charged you can shoot all day and still have juice left.
external flash...you'll want one. Sigma EF500DG Super ($170 ish) or Metz 54 MZ4 (400 ish) are the best choices, followed by Canon's EX550 or 580.
Filters - Cokin is a great option - yo ucan buy 1 of each filter and then use them on all your lenses, regardless of filter size. The P size is the best to get.
Lens protective filters...most poeple get these. I had a UV on my last camera all the time. I have none on my lenses now. Several reasons..the reason to do it is to protect the lens (and on a $1600 L glass lens I'd bet i'd do it). But my budget is limited, and to add $40 or more for a god UV filter to each lens means giving up something...so i got with a hood and am careful. I am a lens cap fanatic now. And with my last camera, i had to clean the lens and both sides of the filter, and me and window cleaning do not coexist well.
Lens choices are amazing in their variety, prices and quality. if you got a big budget then canon's L glass is certainly a good choice. I don't have that kind of money...so i check out this site a lot for comparisons of what i can afford.
I didn't have a long zoom lens and didn't miss it...until i finally got one. (monday..). You should at least get a variety of coverages to be well equipped for whatever you might run across.
Go to the Canon site, look up the software for th 1D line and download DPP - Digital Photo Pro. it will work with your 20D and is great for RAW conversion and just browsing the files from your camera.
|
|
|
|
05/11/2005 05:50:59 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by autumncat:
Thinking of the cheaper kit lens as trial - my husband calls it a throw away lens. I don't think of it that badly...but waiting to see photo quality and such. |
Unless it is the USM version, the 18-55 is about $100 in the kit with the camera, and can be had on ebay for $70 later on if you want it. I skipped it and got the Tamron 28-80 3.5-5.6 for $70 ($50 on ebay new at times) and am quite satisifed.
You should also get the Canon 50mm 1.8 for $75.
The zoom i got was the Sigma 70-300 4-5.6 APO II Super Macro. Under $200 new on ebay. WOW. Sample Shots
Now i can shoot and have fun...and save up for better glass as time goes on.
|
|
|
|
05/11/2005 05:59:26 PM · #29 |
autumncat....
wise idea..., I know the kit lens gets trashed. Here are my thoughts on it...
a) overall gets fairly decent shots in decent lighting
b) been fairly impressed with it's macro capabilities (not as good as I'd like but hey...it's kit)
c) light...(not heavy)
d) good viewing range (zoom)
e) I was worried about low light conditions, however, the 20D is so good in low-light that I haven't found this too drastic an issue
The following are two shots I took the first night that I got the camera. These shots were taken without a flash, handheld, with the only light from citronella candles...
failings
a) definitely noticed a big difference in taking night shots with my kit lens from 28,000ft @ 450mph. They blurred. With the 70-200mm @ f/2.8 I was able to take a much 'faster' shot. And I am sure the Image Stabilization helped.
b) I am not impressed with the bokeh, i found it much harder to get a nice bokeh (now mind you, i am rather new to the whole bokeh effect).
Here is an example...  (I am sure a more skilled photographer could manage a better bokeh...I am just learning what all affects it)
Hope these help.... |
|
|
|
05/12/2005 01:30:56 AM · #30 |
Thanks all.
Have been doing a crash course in researching all this. Lots of great suggestions here.
I think at this point my decisions have been:
~Canon 20D
~Kit lens - 18-55 (no USM) - have seen wonderful shots on this site with this kit lens. Should suffice for a couple of months.
~Sandisk Extreme III 4 GB (have gone over and over this one with the hubby - trying to get the right amount of memory to fit our needs. Trying to estimate the number of photos I take on a heavy day, as well as RAW & JPG file sizes).
Lens Hood
Holding off on filters - as it's only the kit lens. Filters/protection are a must have for L glass.
Debating on best location to buy and whether to get an extended warranty.
Hoping I and my skills are worthy of this fabulous piece of equipment.
|
|
|
|
05/12/2005 03:30:08 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by autumncat:
~Sandisk Extreme III 4 GB (have gone over and over this one with the hubby - trying to get the right amount of memory to fit our needs. Trying to estimate the number of photos I take on a heavy day, as well as RAW & JPG file sizes).
|
You also may want to consider getting several smaller sized CF cards instead of one big one, since CF cards can die on you. I got a 20D a few months ago and a 1GB card, and the card died a couple weeks later. It was under warranty, and I had no problem getting it replaced by SanDisk, but I still lost about 100 pictures. I use two cards now so that I have a backup in case one fails.
Nordlys
|
|
|
|
05/12/2005 03:33:26 AM · #32 |
If you have been happy with the Minolta film and have Minolta lenses then the Minolta 7D would be the way to go IMO.Originally posted by autumncat:
I have an Epson 3100Z digital now. Previously worked with a Minolta 8000i film SLR.
The Epson is the basic digital with on board flash & no lenses.
Anyway - I am getting closer to getting the DSLR I am craving (selling whatever I can find around my house for my camera fund).
1. What things do I need to be aware of when switching to a DSLR?
2. Do I need to take photos differently?
3. Is a DSLR close to film in regard to settings?
4. Will I be able to take photos directly off the camera and load to a website with reasonable quality without photo shopping? Just the JPG and not RAW? I know a little about RAW but not much.
Any other tips or hints to get good photos with this higher end camera? |
|
|
|
|
05/12/2005 03:34:13 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by Nordlys:
Originally posted by autumncat:
~Sandisk Extreme III 4 GB (have gone over and over this one with the hubby - trying to get the right amount of memory to fit our needs. Trying to estimate the number of photos I take on a heavy day, as well as RAW & JPG file sizes).
|
You also may want to consider getting several smaller sized CF cards instead of one big one, since CF cards can die on you. I got a 20D a few months ago and a 1GB card, and the card died a couple weeks later. It was under warranty, and I had no problem getting it replaced by SanDisk, but I still lost about 100 pictures. I use two cards now so that I have a backup in case one fails.
Nordlys |
Total agreement on this point. |
|
|
|
05/12/2005 04:53:00 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
autumncat...
a few more thoughts....
a) get the 70-200mm before the 24-70...it's AMAZING...and you'll want the extra reach. On the flip side, if you are not planning on the IS, also consider some of the Sigma lenses, I believe they have 50-300mm (something to that affect) and it will cover from the kit lens onward.
b) you do realize that the 24-70 L on the 20D becomes a 38-112mm do to the 1.6x factor, so you will find yourself not have much option for a wide view. That's why the kit lens is an 18mm-55mm (28-88mm). |
Autumncat... I have both the 24-70 and the 70-200 for my camera. While they are both outstanding high quality lenses, the 24-70 is my walk around set up.
The reason is that it will do probably 80% od what I want to get done. There are times when to 70-200 is not as much reach as I want, but there are also times when the 24 isn't as wide as what I want as well. My next lens will be wider rather than longer.
The other thing to think of is that with the 70-200, battery grip and 20D, you are looking at a fairly heavy package, not to mention large. The 24-70 is no lightwieght either, and it becomes noticeable when trekking about with it for a long afternoon.
On the other hand, it "feels" like quality, so I'll live with it. :0) |
|
|
|
05/12/2005 10:12:36 AM · #35 |
I fully recommend Manfrotto's collapsible monopod (ones with the wide base) if you get the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS. The effect of the monopod (which eliminates the x-axis, and provides fulcrum balance points for the y & z axis) combined with image stabilization allows you to get close to tripod quality.
However, please note wind can still be a factor. I was shooting a shot of my g/f on a gusty day and right when I clicked I got hit by a gust so strong it pushed me about 6 inches to the left - camera and all. But I imagine such a gust would have shaken a tripod enough to kill the shot as well.
*lol* |
|
|
|
05/12/2005 10:14:12 AM · #36 |
Oh autumn,....
as for filters, at least consider an affordable polarizer....the last thing you want is a perfect scene, wide angle of view to capture the whole shot, and come home and view the photo and see a washed out sky. It may be just a kit lens but if you do outdoor scenes with skies you'll probably find yourself wishing for one! |
|
|
|
05/12/2005 10:39:06 AM · #37 |
Thats what I did .. and I LOVE the 7D as do a lot of people who look and hold it...
I had the lens alredy from my stsi
Originally posted by kiwinick:
If you have been happy with the Minolta film and have Minolta lenses then the Minolta 7D would be the way to go IMO.Originally posted by autumncat:
I have an Epson 3100Z digital now. Previously worked with a Minolta 8000i film SLR.
The Epson is the basic digital with on board flash & no lenses.
Anyway - I am getting closer to getting the DSLR I am craving (selling whatever I can find around my house for my camera fund).
1. What things do I need to be aware of when switching to a DSLR?
2. Do I need to take photos differently?
3. Is a DSLR close to film in regard to settings?
4. Will I be able to take photos directly off the camera and load to a website with reasonable quality without photo shopping? Just the JPG and not RAW? I know a little about RAW but not much.
Any other tips or hints to get good photos with this higher end camera? |
|
|
|
|
|
05/12/2005 10:47:54 AM · #38 |
I actually went for the Minolta system from scratch with no lenses. I wouldn't use any other camera... love it to pieces.
Fantastic for low-light situations with no tripod.
I also like the menu system and buttons which was a big selling point to me... I don't want to go poking about in a menu to change ISO. It feels fantastic. |
|
|
|
05/12/2005 10:57:10 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by dpdave:
Originally posted by theSaj:
autumncat...
a few more thoughts....
a) get the 70-200mm before the 24-70...it's AMAZING...and you'll want the extra reach. On the flip side, if you are not planning on the IS, also consider some of the Sigma lenses, I believe they have 50-300mm (something to that affect) and it will cover from the kit lens onward.
b) you do realize that the 24-70 L on the 20D becomes a 38-112mm do to the 1.6x factor, so you will find yourself not have much option for a wide view. That's why the kit lens is an 18mm-55mm (28-88mm). |
Autumncat... I have both the 24-70 and the 70-200 for my camera. While they are both outstanding high quality lenses, the 24-70 is my walk around set up.
The reason is that it will do probably 80% od what I want to get done. There are times when to 70-200 is not as much reach as I want, but there are also times when the 24 isn't as wide as what I want as well. My next lens will be wider rather than longer.
The other thing to think of is that with the 70-200, battery grip and 20D, you are looking at a fairly heavy package, not to mention large. The 24-70 is no lightwieght either, and it becomes noticeable when trekking about with it for a long afternoon.
On the other hand, it "feels" like quality, so I'll live with it. :0) |
I have the same setup and totally agree with dave
Message edited by author 2005-05-12 10:57:35. |
|
|
|
05/12/2005 11:42:40 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Oh autumn,....
as for filters, at least consider an affordable polarizer....the last thing you want is a perfect scene, wide angle of view to capture the whole shot, and come home and view the photo and see a washed out sky. It may be just a kit lens but if you do outdoor scenes with skies you'll probably find yourself wishing for one! |
That is very true - I was thinking more for protection and forgetting that the filters actually help the photo. Bit of tunnel vision on my part. I do think a polarizer will be added to my initial short shopping list. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
05/12/2005 11:47:02 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by kiwinick:
If you have been happy with the Minolta film and have Minolta lenses then the Minolta 7D would be the way to go IMO |
Well, I had seriously considered the 7D. I don't have much equipment for my 80001. Only two lenses (not sure how good they are - I bought them 13 years ago without knowing much about glass) - and two flashes.
But, I have been reading and researching for a while now. And I think I really like the 20D due to the faster fps and higher pixels (8 to the Minolta 6 ish).
I like the fact that Canon is popular - a bit more so than the Minolta camera. More info from users. More potential for used equipment. That ilk.
|
|
|
|
05/12/2005 11:52:40 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by Nordlys:
You also may want to consider getting several smaller sized CF cards instead of one big one, since CF cards can die on you. I got a 20D a few months ago and a 1GB card, and the card died a couple weeks later. It was under warranty, and I had no problem getting it replaced by SanDisk, but I still lost about 100 pictures. I use two cards now so that I have a backup in case one fails.
Nordlys |
That is what we were considering, also - and for the same reason. Still may talk this one over with hubby before we buy. He just didn't want me to complain when I ran out of room on a heavy shooting day. He estimated the 2GB card would hold something like 160 RAW files. I can easily take that and more in one day at Ren Faire. We are planning a trip to Scotland - and a great camera is going to prompt me to take even more photos.
|
|
|
|
05/12/2005 11:55:41 AM · #43 |
Fair enough if you need fast continuous fps and desperately need the extra 2MP (but I don't think most people could tell the difference between them).
Not sure about used equipment though, there might be more available, but there are also millions of people ready to pounce on them.
I'm hoping that Minolta film users who are defecting to Nikon and Canon are going to keep selling their equipment very cheaply without too many other people snapping it up. I got an absolute bargain with my 50mm f1.7 which I bought for £20.
|
|
|
|
05/12/2005 12:06:46 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Fair enough if you need fast continuous fps and desperately need the extra 2MP (but I don't think most people could tell the difference between them).
Not sure about used equipment though, there might be more available, but there are also millions of people ready to pounce on them.
I'm hoping that Minolta film users who are defecting to Nikon and Canon are going to keep selling their equipment very cheaply without too many other people snapping it up. I got an absolute bargain with my 50mm f1.7 which I bought for £20. |
Good points, Bob.
And, no - I guess I don't desperately NEED the extra 2MP. But, am just trying to go as high up the technology line (in MP) that I can. Can't afford the Mark II.
Yeah, still waffling over the 7D, damnit!
|
|
|
|
05/12/2005 12:07:20 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by autumncat:
That is very true - I was thinking more for protection and forgetting that the filters actually help the photo. Bit of tunnel vision on my part. I do think a polarizer will be added to my initial short shopping list. Thanks! |
[[[It's easy to do as I've seen more comments about filters for protection than their actual use. *lol* And by your comment I thought that might be happening. And even a cheap polarizer $30 - will make a profound difference.]]]
As for the speed and quality of the 20D. These are two shots taken in the same minute. One with 580 EX flash @ ISO 100 - the other at ISO 3200 with no flash.
  |
|
|
|
05/12/2005 12:18:17 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Zed Pobre:
The "H" ISO3200 setting is useful pretty much only if you're shooting to jpg, because it's not a real setting. Metering is set to ISO3200, but gain is *exactly the same* as ISO1600, with the raw values multiplied by two. You get exactly zero additional range by doing this. This isn't documented anywhere, and was discovered (to the best of my knowledge) by John P. Sheehy by analyzing the RAW files with a hex editor. |
That is v interesting. However, even if not a "real" setting, it does make a real difference to the shutter speed that can be obtained while retaining the use of semi-automatic features, which would be lost in full manual mode. The fact that useable results are achievable enough for the H mode to be incorporated as a feature is an indicator that the sensor manages noise very well.
This thread is useful for me, even after 2 months of playing with my 20D - thanks!
|
|
|
|
05/12/2005 01:20:47 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by autumncat:
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Fair enough if you need fast continuous fps and desperately need the extra 2MP (but I don't think most people could tell the difference between them).
Not sure about used equipment though, there might be more available, but there are also millions of people ready to pounce on them.
I'm hoping that Minolta film users who are defecting to Nikon and Canon are going to keep selling their equipment very cheaply without too many other people snapping it up. I got an absolute bargain with my 50mm f1.7 which I bought for £20. |
Good points, Bob.
And, no - I guess I don't desperately NEED the extra 2MP. But, am just trying to go as high up the technology line (in MP) that I can. Can't afford the Mark II.
Yeah, still waffling over the 7D, damnit! |
I think the savings on lenses might make the 7D a worthwhile purchase. I love my inexpensive Sigma 18-125 more than my expensive Canon lenses (and now there's a Sigma 18-200). But unfortunately, it needs IS for indoor low light and general telephoto. Once you use IS you can never go back ;)
Also, to me compactness is important, and the Canon IS lenses are generally bigger, except for the 70-300 IS DO, which is what I ended up buying to replace my 70-200/F4L. But it costs over $1000.
I am not a Minolta user, but I think it's worth considering the beauty of having on-camera IS. There's a good review of the Minolta on Luminous Landscape I read a while back, which points out one negative aspect of sensor based IS versus lens based IS (it's the lack of stabilization in the viewfinder).
|
|
|
|
05/12/2005 01:55:49 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
...
Also, to me compactness is important, and the Canon IS lenses are generally bigger, except for the 70-300 IS DO, which is what I ended up buying to replace my 70-200/F4L. But it costs over $1000.
... |
however the weight of the body of the 7D makes up for the bigger IS enables lens...add a Vert Grip and a Bigma and holy moses...
Also, I have noticed that my fellow IT whom has the 7D here with him right now, has turned in all his budget lens that he thought built in IS was going to somehow make work better for sharper (more expensive) Minolta and Sigma EX glass.
|
|
|
|
05/12/2005 03:30:13 PM · #49 |
| You still need good quality glass, but at least I can now have stabilised 50mm f1.7, or 12-24mm, or 24-200mm... which I couldn't do with Canon/Nikon. |
|
|
|
05/12/2005 03:33:13 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by Zed Pobre:
The "H" ISO3200 setting is useful pretty much only if you're shooting to jpg, because it's not a real setting. Metering is set to ISO3200, but gain is *exactly the same* as ISO1600, with the raw values multiplied by two. You get exactly zero additional range by doing this. This isn't documented anywhere, and was discovered (to the best of my knowledge) by John P. Sheehy by analyzing the RAW files with a hex editor. |
That is v interesting. However, even if not a "real" setting, it does make a real difference to the shutter speed that can be obtained while retaining the use of semi-automatic features, which would be lost in full manual mode. The fact that useable results are achievable enough for the H mode to be incorporated as a feature is an indicator that the sensor manages noise very well. |
Somewhat true, if you're falling off of the two-stop limit on the meter.
Here's an interesting thought for you that took me a long time to absorb because it's so counterintuitive: you'll get better results shooting at ISO1600 one stop underexposed than you will shooting at ISO3200 normally. Yes, that's two stops darker, if you're shooting to .jpg, but in RAW...
It's the same shutter speed for a given aperture.
It's the same effective dynamic range, except that...
You have an additional stop worth of highlight information at ISO1600 that would be chopped off at "H".
The first time I heard this, it took me a week of thinking about it to overcome my instinctive response of, "that can't be right". Think about what the actual RAW values are in each setting, and you find out that unless you were going to shoot at ISO3200 more than one stop underexposed, you're better off going to ISO1600 and shooting up to two stops underexposed, then using the RAW import exposure correction to bring it back up yourself with more control.
This technique doesn't hold true for the modes below 1600 because there is real additional gain being applied, so there's more real signal. You will get killed far faster by posterization by shooting at too low an ISO setting up to 1600 than you will by noise by going up a bit. Since there's no additional gain at "H", however, you only ever need to go that high for RAW shots if you've capped out your light meter and don't trust yourself counting the stops in manual. |
|
