# Help Buying dslr and lens



## samsmith (Oct 31, 2009)

Can someone help me which camara and lens should i pick up for wildlife/landscape photography.

Let me also tel you that i prefer Canon(canon500d/1000d) or Nikon(d3000/d5000), but not sure which one camara and lens to pickup need some advice...


----------



## kfcrosby (Dec 17, 2006)

either of the Cannon or Nikon bodies will be fine. For wildlife the bigger super telephoto lenses are what you're going to want. Since I didn't want to shell out $4-5,000 for one of these beasts, I have been renting these for a fraction of the cost.

I have a Nikon D-80 so I have used this
http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/nikon-300mm-f2.8g-af-s-vr-ed-if-ii/for-nikon
with excellent results


----------



## samsmith (Oct 31, 2009)

i am looking for a zoom and telephoto lens for sure but not sure which one to pickup for a better clarity, i would be shooting birds mostly and wildlife landscapes mostlty...


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

we don't know your budget yet


----------



## samsmith (Oct 31, 2009)

it can be anywhere upto $2000-$2500


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

I would start off with one of the entry level Canon DSLR cameras. Then add something like the EF-S 18-55 IS and EF-S 55-250 IS or EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS. 

Great starter setup that covers a wide range of focal lengths with quality glass. See what you like, and then you can expand in the future if needed.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

and what distance of shooting ? is 400mm telephoto would be enough ?
i'm Canon proponent ... EOS-7D perhaps with 400mm f/5.6 ? Mark IV would be overkill ...


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

P Smith said:


> and what distance of shooting ? is 400mm telephoto would be enough ?
> i'm Canon proponent ... EOS-7D perhaps with 400mm f/5.6 ? Mark IV would be overkill ...


That would be excellent if you want to go more high end, but that is pushing close to/above the budget.

You also could look at doing one of the 70-200 L lenses with a teleconverter, they take the TCs very well (especially the f2.8 70-200 lenses).


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

interesting ... any particular TC ? have URL to reviews ?


----------



## samsmith (Oct 31, 2009)

P Smith said:


> and what distance of shooting ? is 400mm telephoto would be enough ?
> i'm Canon proponent ... EOS-7D perhaps with 400mm f/5.6 ? Mark IV would be overkill ...


what distance can i really shoot with 400mm f/5.6 lens???? and any idea as to how much will it cost???


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

P Smith said:


> interesting ... any particular TC ? have URL to reviews ?


Canons are the best (there is the case of reporting info back to the body and not working with some lenses thus some use third party TCs for some lenses, but overall with the 70-200 lenses the Canon official ones are the best). Unlike macro tubes, TCs actually have glass in them and thus need to be of good quality.

The 2x is too much really, it is hard to use and has a big impact on the PQ. The 1.4x II though works very well with the 70-200 f2.8 variants.

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tcs.html


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

kfcrosby said:


> either of the Cannon or Nikon bodies will be fine. For wildlife the bigger super telephoto lenses are what you're going to want. Since I didn't want to shell out $4-5,000 for one of these beasts, I have been renting these for a fraction of the cost.
> 
> I have a Nikon D-80 so I have used this
> http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/nikon-300mm-f2.8g-af-s-vr-ed-if-ii/for-nikon
> with excellent results


Love me some lens rentals. Since you're local, I assume you pick-up to save on shipping?


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

samsmith said:


> what distance can i really shoot with 400mm f/5.6 lens???? and any idea as to how much will it cost???


This is a cool tool to give you an idea. There is no actual distance, it depends on the framing, etc.

http://www.tamron.com/lenses/learning_center/tools/focal-length-comparison.php
(make sure to click Digital, only pick 35mm if you are looking at FF cameras like the 5D/5D MkII)

The 400 f5.6 is around $1k-$1.4k.


----------



## dragon342 (Oct 31, 2009)

Grentz said:


> Canons are the best (there is the case of reporting info back to the body and not working with some lenses thus some use third party TCs for some lenses, but overall with the 70-200 lenses the Canon official ones are the best). Unlike macro tubes, TCs actually have glass in them and thus need to be of good quality.
> 
> The 2x is too much really, it is hard to use and has a big impact on the PQ. The 1.4x II though works very well with the 70-200 f2.8 variants.
> 
> http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tcs.html


Nice topic fellows, i have a feew questions of my own, like i want to take a picture that is moving at a high speed , by setting the correct focal point, which lens and body wud u recommend,


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

dragon342 said:


> Nice topic fellows, i have a feew questions of my own, like i want to take a picture that is moving at a high speed , by setting the correct focal point, which lens and body wud u recommend,


One of the XXD bodies like the 40D or 50D or the 7D if you have a bit more budget would be best (besides going full professional with a 1D which adds a ton of money).

As far as a lens, the 70-200 f4 IS or 70-200 f.2.8 IS would both be very good for panning moving subjects (like motor racing, running, biking, etc.). The IS helps to keep the vertical motion minimal and the 70-200 lenses have very good quick AF.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

For Canon peeps, may I recommend Photography on the Net. There is a huge wealth of information... and something I really like, there is a thread for each and every lens where users post example pics.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

dragon342 said:


> Nice topic fellows, i have a feew questions of my own, like i want to take a picture that is moving at a high speed , by setting the correct focal point, which lens and body wud u recommend,





Grentz said:


> One of the XXD bodies like the 40D or 50D or the 7D if you have a bit more budget would be best (besides going full professional with a 1D which adds a ton of money).
> 
> As far as a lens, the 70-200 f4 IS or 70-200 f.2.8 IS would both be very good for panning moving subjects (like motor racing, running, biking, etc.). The IS helps to keep the vertical motion minimal and the 70-200 lenses have very good quick AF.


And a tip for slowing down a moving object... back up and zoom in.


----------



## dragon342 (Oct 31, 2009)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> And a tip for slowing down a moving object... back up and zoom in.


Good one! :lol::lol:


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> For Canon peeps, may I recommend Photography on the Net. There is a huge wealth of information... and something I really like, there is a thread for each and every lens where users post example pics.


Yup, excellent site. They are nice over there as well.

I used to be one of the regulars until DBSTalk started taking up all my forum time :lol:


----------



## dragon342 (Oct 31, 2009)

Grentz said:


> One of the XXD bodies like the 40D or 50D or the 7D if you have a bit more budget would be best (besides going full professional with a 1D which adds a ton of money).
> 
> As far as a lens, the 70-200 f4 IS or 70-200 f.2.8 IS would both be very good for panning moving subjects (like motor racing, running, biking, etc.). The IS helps to keep the vertical motion minimal and the 70-200 lenses have very good quick AF.


That explains a lot!


----------



## samsmith (Oct 31, 2009)

do you think canon 500d would be a good one for wildlife photography?? along with 400mm f/5.6 lens for wildlife and 70-200 f4 IS or 70-200 f.2.8 IS for moving objects??


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

sure, if it fit in your budget 

I'd like more better lenses with f/2.8 or f/1.4 but prices ...


----------



## kfcrosby (Dec 17, 2006)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> Love me some lens rentals. Since you're local, I assume you pick-up to save on shipping?


You know it !


----------



## samsmith (Oct 31, 2009)

do you think i should be able to shoot something close with 400mm f/5.6? or do you think i have get a macro's???


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

I have the Rebel T1i(500D) and I love it. I've always had Canons so I'm a little biased. 

The reviews out there for T1i are excellent so I would read them as well as those for the Nikon and compare the features and results.

You might also consider your own experience. They’re both great cameras so if you’re more familiar with one’s operation you might want to stick to what you know...reduces the learning curve. 

Mike


----------



## dragon342 (Oct 31, 2009)

MicroBeta said:


> I have the Rebel T1i(500D) and I love it. I've always had Canons so I'm a little biased.
> 
> The reviews out there for T1i are excellent so I would read them as well as those for the Nikon and compare the features and results.
> 
> ...


I completly agreee with you, the REBEL is a pretty handy machine!


----------



## samsmith (Oct 31, 2009)

i have seen some sigma lens but they says they require HDS motor in the camara to work properly can someone explain more about that?


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

samsmith said:


> do you think canon 500d would be a good one for wildlife photography?? along with 400mm f/5.6 lens for wildlife and 70-200 f4 IS or 70-200 f.2.8 IS for moving objects??


Yes, it would be very good.



samsmith said:


> do you think i should be able to shoot something close with 400mm f/5.6? or do you think i have get a macro's???


How close? Macro is for VERY close things, and a dedicated macro is not needed unless you really want to shoot close (like insects, leaves, etc.)



samsmith said:


> i have seen some sigma lens but they says they require HDS motor in the camara to work properly can someone explain more about that?


Basically, that is only for Nikon users to worry about. All EF mount lenses (Canon) have the motors in the lens. None of the Canon EF bodies have AF motors.


----------



## samsmith (Oct 31, 2009)

Grentz said:


> Yes, it would be very good.
> 
> How close? Macro is for VERY close things, and a dedicated macro is not needed unless you really want to shoot close (like insects, leaves, etc.)
> 
> Basically, that is only for Nikon users to worry about. All EF mount lenses (Canon) have the motors in the lens. None of the Canon EF bodies have AF motors.


That was very helpful...


----------



## samsmith (Oct 31, 2009)

can someone post sample pics taken by 70-200 f4 IS or 70-200 f.2.8 IS or 400mm f/5.6 lens?


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

samsmith said:


> can someone post sample pics taken by 70-200 f4 IS or 70-200 f.2.8 IS or 400mm f/5.6 lens?


Knock yourself out... http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=107

I'll warn you though, prepare to spend a couple hours in there... :lol:


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> Knock yourself out... http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=107
> 
> I'll warn you though, prepare to spend a couple hours in there... :lol:


and hide your wallet, that whole gear section on POTN is one big money black hole :lol:


----------



## ncxcstud (Apr 22, 2007)

my wife and I purchased the Nikon D3000 for Christmas and we absolutely love it. Of course, it is an 'entry level' DSLR, but we're just moving up from a point and shoot...we're having fun with it...

We're using the AF-S Nikkor 55-20mm 1:4-5:6G ED and the AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6G VR lens


----------



## funhouse69 (Mar 26, 2007)

I also highly recommend the Photography on the Net Website, I am a pretty active member and have been on there for a few years now. Keep in mind that the site is pretty much geared towards Canon Gear. While I am a huge Canon fan I will not trash Nikon as they are arguably comparable.

I've posted many, many examples of my pictures within the various camera body and lens threads under the same user name which you can search for if you'd like.

That said the "Hide The Wallet" comment is also something that might be taken to heart. When you get in the world of DSLRs you are now talking about a potentially significant investment but if done properly can really provide many years of enjoyment. 

With that in mind when I dove in to the DSLR waters I made a decision to invest in the best possible stuff when I would add anything to my setup. The reason I mention this is Canon for all practical purposes has 2 different body types know as "Crop" and "Full Frame" this is important if you ever want to upgrade. The Crop bodies are the cheaper consumer and "Prosumer" end of things like the Rebel Series as well as the 30D, 40D, 50D and now the new 7D (not sure why they went with a single number on that one) and the Full Frame version which are their 5D Series and most but not all of the 1D models and are quite costly. 

The reason this is important is that a lens that works on a Full Frame Body known as Canon EF Lenses will work on any of the bodies including the Crop Bodies (backwards compatible). The lenses that work on a crop body known as EF-S Lenses will NOT work on a full frame body but they tend to be cheaper. 

I am amateur photographer and take pictures only for personal uses nothing professional whatsoever but made all of my purchasing decisions based on upgrading in the future and bought only EF Lenses and no EF-S.

Most people will tell you that Camera Bodies come and go but a good lens can last a lifetime and I honestly believe that. Sure I started out with lower end lenses with my first DSLR which was an original Digital Rebel but have slowly over the year ended up with a very nice collection of Canon Glass that I know will work on any body I have now and most likely in the future as well. Also worth noting is that unlike Camera Bodies lenses hold their value very well which also makes them a good investment.

I'm not saying to go out and buy a Canon 5D Mark II and a 70-200 f/2.8L IS right away but keep in mind where you might end up over time. As mentioned there are always places you can rent lenses from that are very reasonable and reputable. 

Sounds like I'm not the only shutter-bug on here, hope this helps and if you have any specific questions let me know, I'm happy to help.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

Excellent advice funhouse. I concur on all accounts.

And as a side note... I just rented the aforementioned 70-200 f/2.8L IS a couple weeks ago from lensrentals.com. Extraordinary lens. If I had an extra $1700 laying around, I'd pick one up in a heartbeat.


----------



## funhouse69 (Mar 26, 2007)

I bought the 70-200 f/4L IS about 2 years ago and it was razor sharp but returned it and bought the 70-200 f/2.8L IS which is a pretty heavy piece of glass but absolutely amazing. I was also lucky that I got it for several hundred cheaper then they are selling for now. Unfortunately all of the Canon and Nikon equipment has gone up over the years which is great for me since they do hold their value so well. I could sell almost any lens I own now for more then I paid for it. Not many things that you use every day that you can say that about is there


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

samsmith said:


> can someone post sample pics taken by 70-200 f4 IS or 70-200 f.2.8 IS or 400mm f/5.6 lens?


I would post pictures but they are actually pretty big files and I would have to reduce them in size in order to upload them. That would not give you an indication of the real quality of the pictures. I suspect it would be that way for anyone else too.

Additionally, while if found the HD Video aspect of the T1i to be very cool and used it over the holiday, it is limited when you compare it to an actual HD Camcorder. I shot a couple of good videos while visiting family and really like the feature but if I wanted to do a lot of video I wouldn't use the T1i as the primary device.

Mike


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

samsmith said:


> what distance can i really shoot with 400mm f/5.6 lens???? and any idea as to how much will it cost???


I LOVE that lens.... I purchased it in about 2005 or so.
Several of the pix in this gallery http://www.pbase.com/rking401/montanaminneapolis_trip were shot with the Canon 400mm lens. Also, if you go up in the galleries and search out some of my shuttle launch galleries, the more recent ones were all shot with the Canon 400mm lens. I bought the lens a couple of years ago.

This is a couple of buildings in downtown Minneapolis shot from about 4 miles away. The house was about 1/2 mile away, the buildings about 4 miles away. I had the camera resting on a bridge railing for the shot. A tripod a remote shutter release would have been better.








here's where it was shot from:








A Montana Ospry:








Skydivers.... They were about 10,000 feet above me. I was sitting in a chair leaning back, handheld.








We Have Touchdown:








About 12 miles away:








12 miles from the pad, many miles downrange: 








Did I say that I love that lens??? 

It would be interesting to go back and do the shot of the house in the winter with the leaves off the trees.  I don't think I will though.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

Here are a few (down-rezzed of course) that I shot with the 70-200 f.2.8 IS.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

Here's a gallery of the first day that I owned that lens: 
http://www.pbase.com/rking401/400mm_first_day&page=all
The equipment shots were taken from about 25' away, which is about as close as the lens will focus.

July 4, 2006 shuttle launch from about 40 miles away from the pad> http://www.pbase.com/rking401/shuttle_july_4th_2006&page=all


----------



## barryb (Aug 27, 2007)

samsmith said:


> do you think i should be able to shoot something close with 400mm f/5.6? or


http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=7344

Any telephoto worth a damn is not going to be good for macro photography. The lens in the link above will get down to 1.8 meters.



> do you think i have get a macro's???


I would. Sounds like you are going "all in" here Sam.

My advice: Go to a camera store and play with some stuff first. See what you like, and find out exactly what camera and lenses work for *you.* You don't have to spend any money there, just look... and play a bit. From there you can decide what camera/lenses work for what you want to do.

I am a Canon guy myself and have a plethora of lenses that I use depending on what I want to get a picture of.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

I found it interesting a couple of years back when my car was broken into. The thieves made off with about $1,800 worth of "goodies" including a couple MP3 players (Archos), my camera in a bag with a 75-300mm zoom lens and a few other odds and ends. Sitting next to the camera was my 400mm lens in its case. It wasn't touched. I suspect they had no idea what it was since it was worth more than the camera that they took. The thief was eventually caught and made restitution of $1800 to me and tons more to others. He used a cell phone that he stole to call his buddies and the cops tracked down his buddies.


----------



## barryb (Aug 27, 2007)

I do love me some macro:


























(all shot with a Canon 100mm macro)


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

I'm pretty much a casual photographer. I have two 35 mm. film cameras - a Pentax ME (50 mm f:1.7 lens and Albinar 75-150 zoom and Makinon 200 mm. auto lens) and a Samsung Maxima Zoom 105. They sit on a shelf in my bedroom closet. It's a shame, because in their own right, they're both very nice cameras.
I've owned 5 different digital cameras over the years -- three Kodaks, a Canon and a Nikon. My current point and shoot camera is a Kodak Z712S, which replaced a Kodak C850 (stolen in Las Vegas). My current DSLR is a Nikon D40X with ED18-55 mm and ED 55-200 mm AF-S lenses. Both cameras are quite competent for the casual user and deliver good results. They're light in weight and relatively small in size.

There are several web sites devoted to digital camera reviews. I consulted several before buying the Z712S and the D40x, but the ones I like best are www.steves-digicams.com and www.dpreview.com.
Must have accessories if you're at all serious about photography: uv (skylight) lens filters to protect your lenses, extra memory cards (if SD, at least 4 gig SDHC), extra batteries, external flash and a sturdy tripod.


----------



## dmurphy (Sep 28, 2006)

Richard King said:


> I LOVE that lens.... I purchased it in about 2005 or so.


Nice shots!!

I managed to take this one with a Digital Rebel XT using a Sigma 50-500 "Bigma" lens from ~7 miles away (out on the NASA Causeway) ... (Rented that Bigma from lensrentals.com by the way!)

This was STS-125 in May of '09 - the final Hubble mission.

Amazing what you can do, even with an 'entry-level' DSLR.


----------



## samsmith (Oct 31, 2009)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> Here are a few (down-rezzed of course) that I shot with the 70-200 f.2.8 IS.


excellent PQ
which body have you used along with the lens???


----------



## samsmith (Oct 31, 2009)

dmurphy said:


> Nice shots!!
> 
> I managed to take this one with a Digital Rebel XT using a Sigma 50-500 "Bigma" lens from ~7 miles away (out on the NASA Causeway) ... (Rented that Bigma from lensrentals.com by the way!)
> 
> ...


Absolutely amazing!!!

how much did they charge you to rent it????


----------



## dmurphy (Sep 28, 2006)

samsmith said:


> Absolutely amazing!!!
> 
> how much did they charge you to rent it????


It was $57 for the week... worth even penny!


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

Jeff Coats of Pitboss Waterfowl takes some of the best waterfowl pictures you'll ever see.
He's a heck of a nice guy and I'm sure he'd be glad to give you some tips on what a good beginner package would be.

It is hunting season, and he's busy now, so give him some time to get back to you.
Between guiding, photography, carving decoys, and his TV show I don't know when the man sleeps.

http://www.pitbosswaterfowl.com/gallery.htm

He's also a member of several outdoors forums.
Good information here.
http://forum.averyoutdoors.com/forumdisplay.php?f=74


----------



## dragon342 (Oct 31, 2009)

dmurphy said:


> Nice shots!!
> 
> I managed to take this one with a Digital Rebel XT using a Sigma 50-500 "Bigma" lens from ~7 miles away (out on the NASA Causeway) ... (Rented that Bigma from lensrentals.com by the way!)
> 
> ...


:jumpingja:jumpingja:jumpingja:jumpingja:jumpingja:jumpingja:jumpingja:jumpingja:icon_hroc:icon_hroc:icon_hroc


----------



## photostudent (Nov 8, 2007)

I will go against the grain here and recommmend a Sony Alpha SLR. At the consumer level they are rated as well as the Canons and Nikons. Out of the dozen or so digital cameras I have owned the Sony's have been the best. Sony has one huge advantage for the telephoto user; the image stabilization is built into the body and the body mounts any Minolta AF lens made. There are plenty of those lenses around at bargain prices. Picked up a Tamron AF 200-400mm f/5.6 LD off Craigslist for $100! The newer Nikons are doing away with the AF motor drive that is needed to use older Nikon AF lenses, (cost cutting I guess).


----------



## dragon342 (Oct 31, 2009)

photostudent said:


> I will go against the grain here and recommmend a Sony Alpha SLR. At the consumer level they are rated as well as the Canons and Nikons. Out of the dozen or so digital cameras I have owned the Sony's have been the best. Sony has one huge advantage for the telephoto user; the image stabilization is built into the body and the body mounts any Minolta AF lens made. There are plenty of those lenses around at bargain prices. Picked up a Tamron AF 200-400mm f/5.6 LD off Craigslist for $100! The newer Nikons are doing away with the AF motor drive that is needed to use older Nikon AF lenses, (cost cutting I guess).


What wud be the sony equivalent for nikon d3000/d5000 ?


----------



## samsmith (Oct 31, 2009)

dragon342 said:


> What wud be the sony equivalent for nikon d3000/d5000 ?


sony alpha 350 seems to equivalent to d3000.


----------



## samsmith (Oct 31, 2009)

Richard King said:


> I LOVE that lens.... I purchased it in about 2005 or so.
> Several of the pix in this gallery http://www.pbase.com/rking401/montanaminneapolis_trip were shot with the Canon 400mm lens. Also, if you go up in the galleries and search out some of my shuttle launch galleries, the more recent ones were all shot with the Canon 400mm lens. I bought the lens a couple of years ago.
> 
> This is a couple of buildings in downtown Minneapolis shot from about 4 miles away. The house was about 1/2 mile away, the buildings about 4 miles away. I had the camera resting on a bridge railing for the shot. A tripod a remote shutter release would have been better.
> ...


can you upload those pics again, the pics that you have uploaded are not working.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

dmurphy said:


> Nice shots!!
> 
> I managed to take this one with a Digital Rebel XT using a Sigma 50-500 "Bigma" lens from ~7 miles away (out on the NASA Causeway) ... (Rented that Bigma from lensrentals.com by the way!)
> 
> ...


Excellent. I thought I found the closest spot for the "general public". Did you have a pass of some kind? Many years ago I FOUND a VIP pass and drove in to witness the second shuttle launch from the press area and the big count down clock. It was amazing!!


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

samsmith said:


> can you upload those pics again, the pics that you have uploaded are not working.


I'm seeing them. Anyone else not seeing them???


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

samsmith said:


> excellent PQ
> which body have you used along with the lens???


Thanks. I shoot with a Canon XSi.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

Here are a few more of Downtown Memphis that are on my Facebook page.. (keep in mind Facebook really kills the quality). Most of these were shot with my 18-55 IS... And a couple with a Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 that I rented.

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=139359&id=502782074&l=997938f133


----------



## dragon342 (Oct 31, 2009)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> Here are a few more of Downtown Memphis that are on my Facebook page.. (keep in mind Facebook really kills the quality). Most of these were shot with my 18-55 IS... And a couple with a Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 that I rented.
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=139359&id=502782074&l=997938f133


Xcellent!! u have quite an EYE! :goodjob:


----------



## dragon342 (Oct 31, 2009)

Richard King said:


> I'm seeing them. Anyone else not seeing them???


iam not able to c them too!


----------



## samsmith (Oct 31, 2009)

Richard King said:


> I LOVE that lens.... I purchased it in about 2005 or so.
> Several of the pix in this gallery http://www.pbase.com/rking401/montanaminneapolis_trip were shot with the Canon 400mm lens. Also, if you go up in the galleries and search out some of my shuttle launch galleries, the more recent ones were all shot with the Canon 400mm lens. I bought the lens a couple of years ago.
> 
> This is a couple of buildings in downtown Minneapolis shot from about 4 miles away. The house was about 1/2 mile away, the buildings about 4 miles away. I had the camera resting on a bridge railing for the shot. A tripod a remote shutter release would have been better.
> ...


its amazing!!! which lens did you use to shoot Montana Ospry?
was that canon 400mm f/5.6 or f/4 with IS?


----------



## dmurphy (Sep 28, 2006)

Richard King said:


> Excellent. I thought I found the closest spot for the "general public". Did you have a pass of some kind? Many years ago I FOUND a VIP pass and drove in to witness the second shuttle launch from the press area and the big count down clock. It was amazing!!


I did buy 'launch viewing' tickets directly from KSC here:
http://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/buy-tickets.aspx

Those tickets get you out on the NASA Causeway (about 7 miles from the pad) and are available to the general public .... to get to the VIP section 3 1/2 miles away, well, those are truly special


----------



## funhouse69 (Mar 26, 2007)

Here's a few I've taken with my 70-200 f/2.8L IS. I don't have the 400mm you are talking about but I do have the Canon 100-400mm if you want to see some pics of mine from that let me know, I've got some great ones.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

dmurphy said:


> I did buy 'launch viewing' tickets directly from KSC here:
> http://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/buy-tickets.aspx
> 
> Those tickets get you out on the NASA Causeway (about 7 miles from the pad) and are available to the general public .... to get to the VIP section 3 1/2 miles away, well, those are truly special


The 3 to 3 1/2 mile point is where I was for #2. Amazing sound.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

samsmith said:


> its amazing!!! which lens did you use to shoot Montana Ospry?
> was that canon 400mm f/5.6 or f/4 with IS?


Yep. That was the 400mm lens handheld. But then, most of my shots were hand held. Glad to see that you can see the images. Don't know why some can't.


----------



## uncouth (Nov 7, 2007)

My advice would be to invest in your lens collection. The body is important, sure, but it's the glass that makes all the difference. I'm currently using the 7D coupled with a 100-400 for wildlife shots. In your shoes, I'd rent a zoom and see what length I was comfortable with before investing in a prime.


----------



## samsmith (Oct 31, 2009)

funhouse69 said:


> I also highly recommend the Photography on the Net Website, I am a pretty active member and have been on there for a few years now. Keep in mind that the site is pretty much geared towards Canon Gear. While I am a huge Canon fan I will not trash Nikon as they are arguably comparable.
> 
> I've posted many, many examples of my pictures within the various camera body and lens threads under the same user name which you can search for if you'd like.
> 
> ...


i just have few questions...

1. What is the major difference between corp bodies and full frame bodies???
2. How does it matter in the PQ and the image that is captured from image that is seen from the view finder?


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

samsmith said:


> i just have few questions...
> 
> 1. What is the major difference between corp bodies and full frame bodies???
> 2. How does it matter in the PQ and the image that is captured from image that is seen from the view finder?


I this is what you're looking for...I think. :grin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-frame_digital_SLR

Mike


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

samsmith said:


> i just have few questions...
> 
> 1. What is the major difference between corp bodies and full frame bodies???
> 2. How does it matter in the PQ and the image that is captured from image that is seen from the view finder?


Crop Bodies have a smaller sensor. They are called crop bodies as there is a magnification factor that is applied to the lenses FOV (field of view) in comparison to 35mm. For example, a 400mm lens on a 1.6x crop camera will have the FOV of a 640mm lens on a 35mm camera (400 x 1.6). This lets you get more zoom out of lenses and is one reason many wildlife and sports photographers use crop cameras. Full Frame cameras on the other hand have a sensor that is larger and equivalent to 35mm. Thus a 400mm lens on a FF camera looks the same as it does on a true 35mm film camera. If you want to see examples of how this works look at these comparison photos of some Focal Lengths:

__
https://flic.kr/p/2219210330

Advantages of FF are that because the sensor is larger thus allowing larger pixels, usually noise is handled a bit better. They also are usually very good cameras all around in image quality. Another cool thing with FF cameras is that you can usually go wider with lenses because you are not fighting the crop multiplication factor (though some of the crop camera only wide lenses like the 10-22 are closing the gap a bit). FF also usually has shallower DOF for the same framing and aperture, though that subject gets complex quick and I don't want to go too much into it 

Most are best off with a crop body, and crop cameras are all the cheaper ones you see on the market. Full Frame cameras also tend to really stress lenses as they use much more of the field of view in the lens and most lenses weakest points are in the corners (extreme edges). Full frame cameras are also usually slower FPS for continuous shooting (mainly used in sports/action) than comparable current crop bodies.

Strong areas for each type (though both can really do anything):
Crop Bodies
-General Use
-Sports/Action
-Wildlife

Full Frame
-Studio/Portrait
-Landscapes
-Static Scenes

Keep in mind one is not "better" than the other. Canon for example makes 1Ds and 1D professional cameras (their top of the line). The 1Ds is a Full Frame while the 1D is a 1.3x crop camera (note that Canon's other crop cameras are all 1.6x).


----------



## funhouse69 (Mar 26, 2007)

samsmith said:


> i just have few questions...
> 
> 1. What is the major difference between corp bodies and full frame bodies???
> 2. How does it matter in the PQ and the image that is captured from image that is seen from the view finder?


The difference is that a "Crop" Body has a smaller sensor then a full frame sensor, this was done to save money and reduce the cost of the bodies. So if you took the same pictures with eveything being the same between the two bodies the crop will be "Zoomed" in compared to the Full Frame, thus the "Cropping" designation.

Another way to think about it is imagine the same image is being projected through the lens and into the camera the only difference is that the senor "Seeing it" is smaller so you aren't seeing as much of the image when you click the shutter.

For a lot of people this is a huge added bonus is that you get more "Zoom" out of a lens. Most Crop bodies are 1.6X so if you have a 100mm lens the effective range is 160mm this is pretty significant especially when you get up to the longer 400mm + ranges (400mm would effectively be 640mm).

On the flip side of this it is more difficult to get a true wide angle with a crop body then a full frame for the exact same reason. I have a lens that goes down to 17mm (which is always referenced as if it is on a full frame body) then it would be equal to a 27.2mm on a crop body that is a HUGE difference on the wide end. In this case you would have to get a special crop body only lens in the 10mm range (they make them and they are somewhat expensive).

As for Image Quality Some would debate that the Crop Bodies don't allow you to crop as much from the images since they are already magnified. This also hard to compare since say a 40D has 10MP while a 5D Mark II has 25MP which will allow you to crop a heck of a lot more with great results.

I don't think you are going to really notice a lot of picture quality difference until you crop the images or look at really fine details (I mean like pixel peeping). You can get awesome results with both and a lot of people will ultimately have one of each body and choose to use the one that best suits their shooting needs.

Also Full Frame sensors tend to do better in lower light mostly because of the larger surface but the newer Crop Bodies are really good now.

Finally almost any digital SLR camera you buy is NOT going to show you 100% of the picture through the view finder. This is also due to cost, the highest end ones do have 100% so that is also something to keep in mind when you are framing things in the view finder. This # is listed in the specs of each camera, examples are Canon 50D Aprox 95%, the 5D Mark II is 98% and the Canon 1Ds Mark III is 100% but is also $4000


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

funhouse69 said:


> As for Image Quality Some would debate that the Crop Bodies don't allow you to crop as much from the images since they are already magnified. This also hard to compare since say a 40D has 10MP while a 5D Mark II has 25MP which will allow you to crop a heck of a lot more with great results.


Honestly, there is not a difference at all here that comes directly from FF vs. Crop. It is just different pixel amounts and parameters of the shot. You can crop a 16mp Crop Camera picture more than a 12mp FF picture as long as both are good solid pictures with proper settings. In general though FF cameras will have higher numbers of pixels, thus able to be cropped more.

Then there is the fact that you can get the same "crop camera advantage" out of your lenses by cropping the full frame image to the FOV of the crop camera. Which can sometimes equal just as good of an image if the FF camera has enough extra pixels over the crop camera.

As you can see the subject gets advanced quick with lots of math and all that fun junk that I don't want to get into :lol:

As far as the viewfinders, I forgot to touch on that earlier. The Full Frame cameras will have larger and brighter viewfinders, often with higher coverage percents (though still not 100% necessarily) in comparison to crop bodies.


----------



## samsmith (Oct 31, 2009)

As i said my intention was to get a slr with good lens for wildlife landscapes and sports at times, with all the replies that i got i understood that even the basic camara like Rebel XS should do good with a good lens. So instead of spending a lot on the body do you think i should be good to shoot all that i wanted with Rebel XS and spend the amount that i saved on the body in getting a telephoto lens?

Is it better to get used to more photography with Dslr like Rebel XS and good lens initially and then invest on a better body later?


----------



## funhouse69 (Mar 26, 2007)

samsmith said:


> As you all say even the basic camara like Rebel XS should do good with a good lens, instead of spending a lot on the body do you think i should be good to get a Rebel XS along with the kit lens 18-55mm and spend the amount that i saved on the body and get a best telephoto lens?


Yes!


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

samsmith said:


> As you all say even the basic camara like Rebel XS should do good with a good lens, instead of spending a lot on the body do you think i should be good to get a Rebel XS along with the kit lens 18-55mm and spend the amount that i saved on the body and get a best telephoto lens?





funhouse69 said:


> Yes!


Yes here as well. You saw the pics I took with my XSi and a good lens.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

samsmith said:


> As you all say even the basic camara like Rebel XS should do good with a good lens, instead of spending a lot on the body do you think i should be good to get a Rebel XS along with the kit lens 18-55mm and spend the amount that i saved on the body and get a best telephoto lens?


Absolutely.

Glass > Body

I had a 300D for the longest time (original consumer DSLR) and could take fantastic photos with it with good glass


----------



## dmurphy (Sep 28, 2006)

samsmith said:


> As i said my intention was to get a slr with good lens for wildlife landscapes and sports at times, with all the replies that i got i understood that even the basic camara like Rebel XS should do good with a good lens. So instead of spending a lot on the body do you think i should be good to shoot all that i wanted with Rebel XS and spend the amount that i saved on the body in getting a telephoto lens?
> 
> Is it better to get used to more photography with Dslr like Rebel XS and good lens initially and then invest on a better body later?


Yessir! You saw my shuttle shot with a Rebel XT .... It's all about the glass ;-)


----------



## Phil T (Mar 25, 2002)

Any thoughts about Pentax?

http://www.pentaximaging.com/slr/K-x_Black/


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Phil T said:


> Any thoughts about Pentax?
> 
> http://www.pentaximaging.com/slr/K-x_Black/


Some good cameras, just a smaller lineup of accessories and lenses.

Canon and Nikon really are the kings in this world and I don't see much reason to go with anything else, especially if you want to get very serious into it.


----------



## samsmith (Oct 31, 2009)

Grentz said:


> Some good cameras, just a smaller lineup of accessories and lenses.
> 
> Canon and Nikon really are the kings in this world and I don't see much reason to go with anything else, especially if you want to get very serious into it.


Just wanted something in Canon only... and i was looking at Canon XS or if you guys say so something more than Canon XS i might be interested in XSi

and i just have another question, do you think Image Stabilization is very important or can i really get a non IS lens as well?


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Depends what you shoot. Nothing wrong with non-IS at all and there are situations when IS is not all that useful.

Static scenes though it is a big help. Also can be a help for panning shots on lenses with mode 1 and 2 IS (like the 70-200s and 100-400).

IMO there is no MAJOR reason to go to the XSi. It is not a huge difference over the XS:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/com...cameras=canon_eos1000d,canon_eos450d&show=all
http://www.digicamhelp.com/camera-logs/random-thoughts/canon-xs-or-xsi/


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Grentz said:


> Some good cameras, just a smaller lineup of accessories and lenses.
> 
> Canon and Nikon really are the kings in this world and I don't see much reason to go with anything else, especially if you want to get very serious into it.


There is Hasseblad for serious mind. 








[Unfortunately for me, my last time I touched such [ 60mm film] SLR was 30 years ago...]


----------



## funhouse69 (Mar 26, 2007)

I'm a huge fan of IS Lenses but I am also not the steadiest person in the world either. I feel I get more "Keepers" with my IS Lenses and yes I've tried them with the IS off just to see the difference. 

I think that it is essential when you get in to the longer lenses I have 3 myself and love each one even my 24-104.

That said IS isn't better then a tripod or any other solid support so if you are going to be shooting in situations where a tripod is possible then by all means use it as you will get the best possible shot.


----------



## funhouse69 (Mar 26, 2007)

One of the unsung heroes of IS Lenses is the Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Lens (Regular not the newer DO model). 

I bought one of these used off of Craig's List about 4 years ago for an amazing price and I've taken some of my favorite pictures with it. The image quality / sharpness of this lens is hard to beat especially for the cost. Of course it isn't the fastest lens but something like $1000 cheaper than equal "L" Lenses certainly makes it useful 

I bought the Canon 100-400mm IS L Lens year least year to replace it and just haven't been able to get myself to part with it yet, it is so much smaller / lighter (relatively). I think that this would be a great investment that will be very useful if it falls within the focal length that you plan on using.

So make that 4 IS Lenses, I almost forgot this awesome workhorse.


----------



## samsmith (Oct 31, 2009)

Thanks to everyone who has givens all the valuable information that you have given

The only question that i have now is choosing the body 
i have decided to get either 1000D or 450D or 500D which one do you think should i get?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Canon


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

samsmith said:


> Thanks to everyone who has givens all the valuable information that you have given
> 
> The only question that i have now is choosing the body
> i have decided to get either 1000D or 450D or 500D which one do you think should i get?


I would go with the 500D/T1i. I have that one and I love it.

Mike


----------



## samsmith (Oct 31, 2009)

MicroBeta said:


> I would go with the 500D/T1i. I have that one and I love it.
> 
> Mike


Do you think its better to get 500D itself or go with 450D as there are not many differences between 450D and 500D, so that i can invest on lenses with the amount that i save on getting 450D


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

samsmith said:


> Do you think its better to get 500D itself or go with 450D as there are not many differences between 450D and 500D, so that i can invest on lenses with the amount that i save on getting 450D


The biggest difference is the Digic processor.










IMO, while the Digic 4 is a much faster processor, the biggest difference is face detection in live mode and worth the extra money. Although I would like an IS lens. 

I'm currently using the lens that was on my Elan 7e. I've taken some really good pictures with it. I'll probably upgrade at sometime but I'll get the added features in the T1i and not really sacrifice much in the way of picture quality. I'll wait until I can afford a really fast lens and then I'll upgrade. This way I can have the camera I want and later get the lens I want. If I tried to do both at the same time, something would have had to give.

Besides, I don't think the price difference between the two is big enough to make that much of a difference.

My 2¢ FWIW. 

Mike

Table pictured above is from http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos500d/


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

samsmith said:


> Do you think its better to get 500D itself or go with 450D as there are not many differences between 450D and 500D, so that i can invest on lenses with the amount that i save on getting 450D


There is one HUGE difference. The 500D can do HD video while the 450D cannot do any video.

Besides that, the 450D and 1000D are VERY similar, and the 500D is fairly similar on the camera side besides a few small features.

Here is the full comparison of all 3:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/com...eos450d,canon_eos500d,canon_eos1000d&show=all


----------



## samsmith (Oct 31, 2009)

Grentz said:


> There is one HUGE difference. The 500D can do HD video while the 450D cannot do any video.
> 
> Besides that, the 450D and 1000D are VERY similar, and the 500D is fairly similar on the camera side besides a few small features.
> 
> ...


Which one would you suggest if i wanted to ignore HD video


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

I would ask myself - am I willing to pay additional $xxx for those new features - new processor, face recogn, 25 lens' profiles, 15 MP, hi-speed shots, etc ?

EDIT: That's right fh - that HD video part could cost a couple hundred bucks itself. But how often you would use it ?


----------



## funhouse69 (Mar 26, 2007)

This is hard to say, I don't think you will be disappointed with any of the ones you mentioned. Have you considered picking up a used or refurbished one?

I know this might be a little nerve racking but consider buying from a place like Photography on the Net, I've bought and sold a lot of things there, they will supply you with photos both of the camera itself as well as photos taken with it. 

If you would consider this route you could save money and end up with more to put towards lenses. I would also suggest buying used, most of my lenses came from there and they've all been in perfect condition. 

If you do consider this route then check out the "Feedback" thread this is where people leave feedback on transactions both buying and selling to make sure your seller is reputable. 

I'm not going to try and sway you in any way but you could possibly pick up a used 30 or 40D for a decent price. I personally love my 40D and couldn't get rid of it when I got my 5D Mark II. 

I know it is debatable and don't want to start anything here but I think the addition of video to SLR's is ridiculous and driven by marketing and not photographers. You can pick up an HD Video camera for very little cost, I'd rather see the cost of the video capable bodies reduced. That said the video quality is very impressive without a doubt.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

samsmith said:


> Which one would you suggest if i wanted to ignore HD video


450D definitely. It has some nice upgrades like spot metering over the 1000D.

Features wise the 450D, price wise the 1000D.

Frankly I am less about all the gadgety stuff like LCD size, face recognition, live view, etc., I just don't use it (thus I still have a 30D). But there are some features I do use such as Spot Metering and more AF points that the 450D gives and thus I would believe it to be a good upgrade over the 1000D.

Everyone is different though.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

funhouse69 said:


> I know it is debatable and don't want to start anything here but I think the addition of video to SLR's is ridiculous and driven by marketing and not photographers. You can pick up an HD Video camera for very little cost, I'd rather see the cost of the video capable bodies reduced. That said the video quality is very impressive without a doubt.


The advantage is that artists can use their cameras and lenses for video as well. Many of the HD video "cameras" on the market just suck and are far from HD quality besides the resolution. Some of the results fromt he 5DMkII and 7D on the other hand are absolutely stunning and are up there with very expensive cameras.

Definitely not for everyone, and I get your point (myself for example has very little interest in video). But it is more than "just" marketing.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Grentz said:


> The advantage is that artists can use their cameras and lenses for video as well. Many of the HD video "cameras" on the market just suck and are far from HD quality besides the resolution. Some of the results fromt he 5DMkII and 7D on the other hand are absolutely stunning and are up there with very expensive cameras.
> 
> Definitely not for everyone, and I get your point (myself for example has very little interest in video). But it is more than "just" marketing.


I've shot some video over the holidays with my 500D/T1i and while the quality is very good the camera is very limited in capability.

First and most important is autofocus. You set the focus by pressing the shutter button half way like you would for any other picture. As long as your subject stays within that focused range you're ok. However, if you need to refocus you have to press the shutter button again and you can't keep it auto focusing on the fly.

It is good for "blowing out the candles" or your kids violin solo it's not going to take any real action footage. I've tried to use it while moving around the room and found that autofocus just couldn't hack it. I had to put in manual focus mode and make the adjustments myself. It was real PITA and not something I'm willing to do on a regular basis.

IMHO, the real advantage of the Digic 4 is the fast response time, noise reduction at higher ISO (a biggie), and face detection in live mode (another biggie :grin. These are the features that I find much more useful then HD video and part the reason I bought this camera.

Face detection is very useful because it allows using Live View (LCD screen like most point and shoots) and will focus on the face rather then another part of the scene. It reduces a lot of those out of focus errors.

Here is a good write up on ISO Noise Reduction; another big consideration in my book. This is especially useful in low light or action situations where you want a higher ISO.

With all that said, HD video is definitely is something you could get artistic with. I just wouldn't use it in many situations where a camcorder is called for.

I find that the price difference between the 450D and 500D/T1i is not large enough to get any significant upgrade in the lens. I would recommend getting the T1i over the 450D to get the better photo capabilities and upgrade to a faster lens later on.

My 2¢ FWIW. 

Mike


----------



## Getteau (Dec 20, 2007)

I’m a complete camera noobie, so I can just add a couple of things. 

Cholly mentioned it earlier; don’t forget UV filters for your lenses. I got my wife a 55-200mm lens this XMAS and she dropped her camera this weekend (not 10 minutes after I told her she shouldn’t take it on her bike-ride  ). From looking at the lens cap, the thing must have hit the ground lens first. Completely shattered the UV filter, but did nothing to the glass on the lens. So instead of spending $200 on another lens, I just spent $20 for another UV filter.

Along with the UV filter, also get one of the little straps that connects to your lens cap. The are a couple of bucks and a lot cheaper than having to go out and buy another lens cap. The wife thought they were ugly and didn’t want one when I first suggested it. That was until she took her camera out the first time and promptly lost the cap.


----------



## Getteau (Dec 20, 2007)

Since it seems like we have some great camera experts in this thread, let me ask a question about UV filters.

Is it better to spend the extra 10 bucks and get a multi-coated filter? Or is the whole multi-coated vs. regular a bunch of hype? I've been buying the multi-coated UV filters because the reviews said they cut down on glare.

Any thoughts?


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Getteau said:


> Since it seems like we have some great camera experts in this thread, let me ask a question about UV filters.
> 
> Is it better to spend the extra 10 bucks and get a multi-coated filter? Or is the whole multi-coated vs. regular a bunch of hype? I've been buying the multi-coated UV filters because the reviews said they cut down on glare.
> 
> Any thoughts?


IIRC, CCDs and not very sensitive to UV light(unless the camera is built specifically for the UV) so filtering UV has no real meaning on the typical digital camera.

Further, digital cameras respond differently to color then film does so you have to be careful about what kind of filters you use. Filters usually altar the color spectra to acheive a desired effect but you can usually get the same effects using the controls on you camera.

However, I'm putting a circular polarizing filter on my DSLR. Polarization is the one thing DSLR's they can't do digitally. It will provide both a benefit to the to pictures quality and provide a small measure of saftey for the front element of your lens.

IMO, I would recommend a circular polarizing filter vice a UV filter for a DSLR.

Mike


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

I agree in general with Mike regarding polarizing filters. However, they do cut down the effective speed of the camera by an f: stop or so if I remember correctly. My primary reason for using a UV filter is lens protection.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

MicroBeta said:


> I've shot some video over the holidays with my 500D/T1i and while the quality is very good the camera is very limited in capability.
> 
> First and most important is autofocus. You set the focus by pressing the shutter button half way like you would for any other picture. As long as your subject stays within that focused range you're ok. However, if you need to refocus you have to press the shutter button again and you can't keep it auto focusing on the fly.


That doesn't sound like very good design. I was going to upgrade to that camera but if it doesn't continuously autofocus in video mode it's worthless. I wonder if the higher end Canons with video are the same.


----------



## dmurphy (Sep 28, 2006)

Cholly said:


> I agree in general with Mike regarding polarizing filters. However, they do cut down the effective speed of the camera by an f: stop or so if I remember correctly. My primary reason for using a UV filter is lens protection.


It's about two f/stops.

I'd recommend a polarizing filter in bright daylight shooting, but anything else, stick with a UV filter. Definitely don't use the polarizer indoors - why slow the camera down when you don't have to?


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> That doesn't sound like very good design. I was going to upgrade to that camera but if it doesn't continuously autofocus in video mode it's worthless. I wonder if the higher end Canons with video are the same.


AFAIK, all the Canon's use the optical viewfinder for the autofocus sensors.

Since the mirror is up for shooting video, none of the new Digic 4 based cameras will do on the fly autofocus...even the $1600 7D. You have to autofocus prior to going into video or live mode or manually focus.

They would have to completely redesign the autofocus system to get around this limitation. I don't see that happening because by the time they're done it will be more HD camcorder then DSLR.

I bought the T1i for its photo capabilities and the video it a little bonus. IMHO, if I wanted an HD camcorder I would have bought one.

Mike


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Cholly said:


> I agree in general with Mike regarding polarizing filters. However, they do cut down the effective speed of the camera by an f: stop or so if I remember correctly. My primary reason for using a UV filter is lens protection.


That's true. They can reduce the light by 1-3 stops.

It is impossible to remove reflections and glare in post processing so if you're going to do a lot of outdoor shooting it's a must.

While I understand wanting to protect the front element, I personally have never had a filter on my lenses (except to achieve a desired effect) for over thirty years without a problem. If someone wants one for lens protection the by all means use one. I would still recommend a circular polarizing filter. IMHO, it is a must for all outdoor shooting, brightly lit shooting. 

So, if the goal it lens protection then a clear or UV filter for general use and a polarizing filter for daylight/outdoor shots. 

Mike


----------



## funhouse69 (Mar 26, 2007)

When I buy a new lens I automatically buy a filter to put it on for protection, that said I've tried all kinds of filters and honestly don't see any real difference. I know that this is like anything else debatable and personal opinion. 

With that said I've settled on Tiffen UV Filters which are typically the cheapest you can find. The only time I take off my filter is on my 100mm Macro to put my ring flash on since you can put it on the lens with the filter installed. 

Like others have mentioned I would rather replace a cheap filter then the front element of the lens itself which would be insanely costly for sure.


----------



## dmurphy (Sep 28, 2006)

funhouse69 said:


> When I buy a new lens I automatically buy a filter to put it on for protection, that said I've tried all kinds of filters and honestly don't see any real difference. I know that this is like anything else debatable and personal opinion.
> 
> With that said I've settled on Tiffen UV Filters which are typically the cheapest you can find. The only time I take off my filter is on my 100mm Macro to put my ring flash on since you can put it on the lens with the filter installed.
> 
> Like others have mentioned I would rather replace a cheap filter then the front element of the lens itself which would be insanely costly for sure.


I almost smashed the lens on my last trip to Disney World... thank goodness I had a UV filter on there! It smushed to bits, but the lens was fine. That would've been a $400+ mistake (Canon 28-135 IS)


----------



## samsmith (Oct 31, 2009)

I have finally decided to go with Canon 500D along with the kit lens(18-55mm) and as a beginner would you also recommend EF-S 55-250mm lens as well? If yes can someone post any sample pics which were taken with the same lens.


----------



## dmurphy (Sep 28, 2006)

samsmith said:


> I have finally decided to go with Canon 500D along with the kit lens(18-55mm) and as a beginner would you also recommend EF-S 55-250mm lens as well? If yes can someone post any sample pics which were taken with the same lens.


The EF-S 55-200 is a good beginning lens, especially depending on the price ...

I took these with the 55-200. (BTW, I now have a Rebel XSi - the 450D. When I took those space shuttle pictures, it was a Rebel XT - 350D)

The first one is at Walt Disney World; the next two are from the Yankees World Series Parade .....

Gotta love Ed Koch!


----------



## samsmith (Oct 31, 2009)

dmurphy said:


> The EF-S 55-200 is a good beginning lens, especially depending on the price ...
> 
> I took these with the 55-200. (BTW, I now have a Rebel XSi - the 450D. When I took those space shuttle pictures, it was a Rebel XT - 350D)
> 
> ...


Are all the pics taken with these lens have same low PQ???

these pics dont seem to be sharp or too clear right?


----------



## dmurphy (Sep 28, 2006)

samsmith said:


> Are all the pics taken with these lens have same low PQ???
> 
> these pics dont seem to be sharp or too clear right?


They're resized, downrezzed because I can't upload the originals.

The first one (WDW) was tough to get really clear because it was at night and I was trying to illuminate the castle.

Some of the problem is operator error - I'm not terribly skilled (yet).

Some of it is that, well, it's a $300 lens... not a $2000 lens.


----------



## samsmith (Oct 31, 2009)

dmurphy said:


> They're resized, downrezzed because I can't upload the originals.
> 
> The first one (WDW) was tough to get really clear because it was at night and I was trying to illuminate the castle.
> 
> ...


I can definately understand that it cannot give the same clarity as the L series lens which are quite expensive but i was just checking if the pics can be captured any better than what you have posted.


----------



## dmurphy (Sep 28, 2006)

samsmith said:


> I can definately understand that it cannot give the same clarity as the L series lens which are quite expensive but i was just checking if the pics can be captured any better than what you have posted.


Sure -- I'm just a knucklehead who shot those on auto


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

The filter debate is a huge one amongst all the camera communities. It is about a 50/50 split whether you should use a protective filter or not.

IMO, you should not. It always will effect image quality (especially with some lenses) at certain times and the protection is minimal if not none existent. I have seen lenses damaged more by the fragments from a broken "protection" filter than if there was no filter at all. The front element on lenses is also very tough, and even with scratches will not effect IQ much if at all. The tiny piece of "protection" glass is tiny compared to the strong front element of most lenses.

But some still think that they are good for protection, it is all up to you really 

IMO, the main uses for filters. 1) On beaches or places with blowing debris a protection filter is not a bad idea. 2) To complete the weather seal on some lenses (as described in the manual, usually only "L" glass for canon). 3) Using a Circular Polarizing filter (CPL) which is one of the few effects that cannot be recreated in post processing. 4) Neutral Density filters (ND) for landscapes and other shots as required.



MicroBeta said:


> AFAIK, all the Canon's use the optical viewfinder for the autofocus sensors.
> 
> Since the mirror is up for shooting video, none of the new Digic 4 based cameras will do on the fly autofocus...even the $1600 7D. You have to autofocus prior to going into video or live mode or manually focus.
> 
> ...


Correct, but if you look at some of the artists results you can get very good with manual focus for doing films with it. For general consumers though it is not a good camcorder replacement. It really is a sort of different type of camera though, as you cannot get the same results with a normal consumer camcorder.


----------



## uscboy (Sep 5, 2006)

The depth of focus on the video with a good, fast lens is excellent on these dSLR cameras, even on the 1.6x crop sensors. Honestly, the focus system sucks, the lack of manual controls over aperture and ISO also sucks, but in the end the video you get from it can be very good - much better than the average HD camcorder most people have.

Love my T1i - yes there are benefits of the XXD or XD series cameras from Canon, but bang for the buck cannot be beat with the XXXD series. You'll have the ability to use all of the same great lenses (and a few extra that XD series can't like the wonderful 17-55mm f/2.8 EF-S lens). Lenses are really where your money should go if you're on a budget, the glass is far more important.

I think you'll be happy with it and if you ever get good enough that you need the more advanced features of the higher series that's a really good thing, congrats. 

I would add the battery grip - not only does the battery life increase but the vertical shutter is nice and the ergo of the camera for size/weight is perfect with that grip. I never take mine off. There are knockoffs on Amazon instead of the Canon brand, mine is great.


----------



## samsmith (Oct 31, 2009)

can someone let me know the performance of Sigma APO 70-300mm macro lens??

magnification in the macro mode and in the normal zoom mode

Can someone upload sample pics as well?


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

It's ok, it is a very cheap lens. But good for the price. It is not much of a macro TBH.



Sigma said:


> It also has a switch that converts the lens to macro photography at focal lengths between 200mm and 300mm with a minimum focusing distance of 95cm (37.4 inches). In normal mode the minimum focusing distance is 150cm (59.1 inches) at all zoom settings. Maximum magnification between 200mm and 300mm is 1:2.9 to 1:2.


Remember the lens archive at POTN:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=141406

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=266596


----------



## samsmith (Oct 31, 2009)

I have decided to get a Canon 70-200mm L lens, would you choose f/2.8 is lens or f/4.0 IS lens to get a good IQ even during zoom and good bokeh.

Can someone explain major difference between the two lens apart from the f-stop(like IQ, bokeh, zoom, sharpness)


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

samsmith said:


> I have decided to get a Canon 70-200mm L lens, would you choose f/2.8 is lens or f/4.0 IS lens to get a good IQ even during zoom and good bokeh.
> 
> Can someone explain major difference between the two lens apart from the f-stop(like IQ, bokeh, zoom, sharpness)


f/2.8. The bigger the apature-> the more light-> the eaiser to get focused, non-blurry pictures.

The faster the lens the better. My 2¢ FWIW.

Mike


----------



## funhouse69 (Mar 26, 2007)

samsmith said:


> I have decided to get a Canon 70-200mm L lens, would you choose f/2.8 is lens or f/4.0 IS lens to get a good IQ even during zoom and good bokeh.
> 
> Can someone explain major difference between the two lens apart from the f-stop(like IQ, bokeh, zoom, sharpness)


I'd refer you to the POTN Lens Thread again if you are looking for examples.

For me personally I believe I mentioned in a previous post that I originally bought the 70-200 f/4L IS and returned it for the f/2.8L IS one a few weeks later. The f/4 version is considered to be one of the sharpest lenses Canon has ever made (I know opinions vary) and the f/2.8L is isn't any slouch either.

Both of these lenses are awesome and will serve you well, you just need to decide what you are going to use it for. Will f/4 be fast enough for you? Do you plan on shooting lower light situations were the extra stop will come into play? You will get a little better bokeh with the f/2.8.

The last thing to remember is that there is a big difference between the two in size and weight according to canon's website they are 26.8 Oz (1.6 pounds) compared to 51.8 Oz (3.24 Pounds)!!! Having owned / handled both of them there is a huge difference between the two of them. Lets not forget that Canon just announced a new version of the f/2.8 one that is even a little heavier!!!

Here's the link for the version II of the lens.
Click here

For me the weight made me a little reluctant to take mine out when I first got it but you eventually will get used to the weight and now I don't think twice of taking it out.


----------



## samsmith (Oct 31, 2009)

funhouse69 said:


> I'd refer you to the POTN Lens Thread again if you are looking for examples.
> 
> For me personally I believe I mentioned in a previous post that I originally bought the 70-200 f/4L IS and returned it for the f/2.8L IS one a few weeks later. The f/4 version is considered to be one of the sharpest lenses Canon has ever made (I know opinions vary) and the f/2.8L is isn't any slouch either.
> 
> ...


I would like to use this lens mostly for wildlife and landscapes and sports at times

And remember i am a beginner!!!


----------



## funhouse69 (Mar 26, 2007)

samsmith said:


> I would like to use this lens mostly for wildlife and landscapes and sports at times
> 
> And remember i am a beginner!!!


I understand you are a beginner and this is a difficult decision to make, I've been there and done that. Remember what I did, bought the f/4 and returned it to get the f/2.8 version. For me the extra stop made sense as I do band photography and some portraits occasionally.

Actually that is another plus I don't believe has been mentioned for the f/2.8 is it makes an excellent portrait lens!

Your requirements put me right on the fence, for wildlife photography you usually want to have the fastest lens you can get for various reasons. In certain cases you want to get as high of a shutter speed as possible (like birds in flight) or to shoot something in brush or trees would be lower light so the extra stop might come in to play but on the other hand the landscape end of things typically you are going to be taking pictures of static things and want a smaller aperture for greater depth of field so the extra stop wouldn't really matter at all. Also don't forget to get a good solid Tripod for your new rig. That is a whole other subject that we would go on about forever 

My suggestion would be to go to a camera shop and handle both of them before you make up your mind. The f/4 is smaller / lighter as mentioned. The f/2.8 is a bit of a beast. Try them on your camera body and see what you think. There is also a pretty big price difference between the two of them.

Either way you are getting a top of the line lens and remember the good news is that you can always get the f/4 and sell to upgrade in the future if that is what you want to do. These lenses hold their value very well which makes them a fairly good investment.

I forgot to mention one other website that I've used a lot in the past, check out this one. They show comparisons of lenses side by side so you can see them compared to each other.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Finally here's a few pics I took with my 70-200 f/2.8L IS while driving around one day and the last one I just LOVE


----------



## samsmith (Oct 31, 2009)

funhouse69 said:


> I understand you are a beginner and this is a difficult decision to make, I've been there and done that. Remember what I did, bought the f/4 and returned it to get the f/2.8 version. For me the extra stop made sense as I do band photography and some portraits occasionally.
> 
> Actually that is another plus I don't believe has been mentioned for the f/2.8 is it makes an excellent portrait lens!
> 
> ...


Hey the 3rd one was really amazing, i tried reading the EXIF data but unfortunately that is not available.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

I suggest you go and search on POTN for some of the threads on the 70-200s. There is lots of commentary. All are extremely good lenses, but there are some different uses for each.

f4 w/IS is sometimes better than f2.8 w/o IS. You don't always need or want to shoot wide open.


----------



## funhouse69 (Mar 26, 2007)

samsmith said:


> Hey the 3rd one was really amazing, i tried reading the EXIF data but unfortunately that is not available.


Sorry I use Smug Mug and it blocks EXIF Info for some reason... Anyway it was pretty simple.

ISO 100
Shutter 1/800
f/5.6
No Flash
No Exposure Compensation
AI Servo Focus
195mm Focal Length (with my 70-200 f/2.8L IS)


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

For those dissapointed in the HD video of the Canon T1i...here's the T2i

http://philipbloom.co.uk/2010/02/08/the-new-canon-550d-t2i-very-powerful-entry-level-hd-dslr/

Mike


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

MicroBeta said:


> For those dissapointed in the HD video of the Canon T1i...here's the T2i
> 
> http://philipbloom.co.uk/2010/02/08/the-new-canon-550d-t2i-very-powerful-entry-level-hd-dslr/
> 
> Mike


Oh lord. Just as I was about to pull the trigger on the T1i, too. :sure:

WHEN???

Edit: I see Adorama and B&H have it on their websites... with Adorama saying it's expected in March. I suppose I can wait.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

Hmmmmm.... :scratchin

:lol:


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> Oh lord. Just as I was about to pull the trigger on the T1i, too. :sure:
> 
> WHEN???
> 
> Edit: I see Adorama and B&H have it on their websites... with Adorama saying it's expected in March. I suppose I can wait.


Just when you thought it was safe... :grin:

Mike


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

MicroBeta said:


> Just when you thought it was safe... :grin:
> 
> Mike


You owe me the $100 difference between the T1 and T2. This is your fault. :lol:


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> You owe me the $100 difference between the T1 and T2. This is your fault. :lol:


Yeah, you just go wait by your mailbox. 

!rolling

Mike


----------

