SERIOUSLY impressed with new camera (lots of pics, watch out 56k) [Archive]

View Full Version : SERIOUSLY impressed with new camera (lots of pics, watch out 56k)

edesignuk

Apr 16, 2005, 08:48 AM

iGary

Apr 16, 2005, 08:53 AM

Haven't toyed around with one of the new Rebels yet, but got good use out of my old one before trading up tp the 20D. You'll love it.

Be sure to get yourself an EF 50 f1.8 II, best $60.00 you'll spend.

Blue Velvet

Apr 16, 2005, 08:53 AM

Saw your post earlier in the camera thread. Looks very nice... spring has come to Essex!

I'm very pleased for you.

*between gritted teeth while seething with jealousy*

:D

edesignuk

Apr 16, 2005, 09:01 AM

Be sure to get yourself an EF 50 f1.8 II, best $60.00 you'll spend.Right now, that means completely nothing to me...I'm such a n00b! :eek: But I'll look in to it, thanks :)
Saw your post earlier in the camera thread. Looks very nice... spring has come to Essex!

I'm very pleased for you.hehe, thanks :)
*between gritted teeth while seething with jealousy*

:DI wouldn't worry, sun stayed out for 5 minutes, gone again now *sob* :(

Blue Velvet

Apr 16, 2005, 09:03 AM

One more vital piece of equipment for the Keira-stalking... get yourself an ultra-long lens and you'll be ready to go. :)

iGary

Apr 16, 2005, 09:05 AM

EF 50 f/1.8 II (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=12142&is=USA)

Seriously, though, congrats on the camera.

A couple of sites which will help your learning curve:

www.fredmiranda.com
www.dpreview.com
www.luminouslandscape.com

Enjoy! :D

Moxiemike

Apr 16, 2005, 09:16 AM

Now, I am a complete newbie to photography, so maybe I'm just easily impressed :o

I just got a Canon 350D (aka, Digital Rebel XT) yesterday, and today is the first chance I've had to play with it. Well, the sun came out, so I ran down the field at the end of my road to have a play :D

Click for large (3456x2304) :eek: :cool:

http://upload.yo-momma.net/uploads/forums/field1.jpg (http://upload.yo-momma.net/uploads/forums/field1_l.jpg)
http://upload.yo-momma.net/uploads/forums/field2.jpg (http://upload.yo-momma.net/uploads/forums/field2_l.jpg)
http://upload.yo-momma.net/uploads/forums/field3.jpg (http://upload.yo-momma.net/uploads/forums/field3_l.jpg)

This is on fully-auto, in Landscape mode...I'm very pleased :)

That second shot is stellar. I can see in about mmmm 1 month you'll be buying polarizers, 50mm lenses (i agree--nikon or canon, the 50 1.8 is the one thing both users seem to agree on-- great lenses!) wide angles, telephotos, timers, graduated neutral density filters.... haha

no seriously. you have a good eye there, and you'll only get better. g'luck with that cam.

m

iGary

Apr 16, 2005, 09:23 AM

That second shot is stellar. I can see in about mmmm 1 month you'll be buying polarizers, 50mm lenses (i agree--nikon or canon, the 50 1.8 is the one thing both users seem to agree on-- great lenses!) wide angles, telephotos, timers, graduated neutral density filters.... haha

no seriously. you have a good eye there, and you'll only get better. g'luck with that cam.

m

Yeah, isn't it funny how that works?

I outgrew three bags this year. :rolleyes:

edesignuk

Apr 16, 2005, 09:26 AM

One more vital piece of equipment for the Keira-stalking... get yourself an ultra-long lens and you'll be ready to go. :);)

:eek: :D
EF 50 f/1.8 II (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=12142&is=USA)

Seriously, though, congrats on the camera.

A couple of sites which will help your learning curve:

www.fredmiranda.com
www.dpreview.com
www.luminouslandscape.com

Enjoy! :DThanks, I'll be sure to check the lens and those sites out :)
That second shot is stellar. I can see in about mmmm 1 month you'll be buying polarizers, 50mm lenses (i agree--nikon or canon, the 50 1.8 is the one thing both users seem to agree on-- great lenses!) wide angles, telephotos, timers, graduated neutral density filters.... haha

no seriously. you have a good eye there, and you'll only get better. g'luck with that cam.

mhehe, well, I hope so...or do I, oh dear, another money pit! :eek:

Car needs a clean, but wow, I'm serioulsy blown away by this, even the dirt is clear :D

http://upload.yo-momma.net/uploads/forums/minicooperlogo.jpg (http://upload.yo-momma.net/uploads/forums/minicooperlogo_l.jpg)

Moxiemike

Apr 16, 2005, 09:29 AM

;)

:eek: :D
Thanks, I'll be sure to check the lens and those sites out :)
hehe, well, I hope so...or do I, oh dear, another money pit! :eek:

Car needs a clean, but wow, I'm serioulsy blown away by this, even the dirt is clear :D

http://upload.yo-momma.net/uploads/forums/minicooperlogo.jpg (http://upload.yo-momma.net/uploads/forums/minicooperlogo_l.jpg)

hah! Nice. Well, with the 350, a Mini, Keira and some Macs... you definitely need to just buy the December Quarter bag from crumpler. It'll hold your XT, a bunch of lenses AND keira. ;)

Don't be like gary and keep "upgrading' your bag. ;)

iGary

Apr 16, 2005, 09:32 AM

;)

:eek: :D
Thanks, I'll be sure to check the lens and those sites out :)
hehe, well, I hope so...or do I, oh dear, another money pit! :eek:

Car needs a clean, but wow, I'm serioulsy blown away by this, even the dirt is clear :D

http://upload.yo-momma.net/uploads/forums/minicooperlogo.jpg (http://upload.yo-momma.net/uploads/forums/minicooperlogo_l.jpg)

When you get the 50 1.8 stop it all the way down, everything after "E" in COOPER will be out of focus. :eek:

edesignuk

Apr 16, 2005, 10:02 AM

Modeling shoot...

...with my cat! :eek: :p

http://upload.yo-momma.net/uploads/forums/rosie1.jpg (http://upload.yo-momma.net/uploads/forums/rosie1_l.jpg)
http://upload.yo-momma.net/uploads/forums/rosie2.jpg (http://upload.yo-momma.net/uploads/forums/rosie2_l.jpg)

I just can't get over the clarity of the image even at full size. On other cameras (Fuji S602 + the little Canon iXUS i) you have to zoom out quite a bit from actual size to get anything like the clarity of these images when at actual size. I'm stunned.

Blue Velvet

Apr 16, 2005, 10:12 AM

Modeling shoot...
...with my cat! :eek: :p

Cute cat!

Doing that smoochy 'I'll just rub my head on this handy branch thing that just makes me look even more adorable'...

What's his/her name? Please don't say it's Keira... :eek: :p

edesignuk

Apr 16, 2005, 10:18 AM

What's his/her name? Please don't say it's Keira... :eek: :plol, I might have to put a stop to this whole Keira thing, I think it's getting out of hand :eek: heh heh...

Her name, well, the clue is in the file name ;)

JDar

Apr 16, 2005, 10:32 AM

You seem to be a natural photographer and you selected a nice camera--no wonder you are impressed. But then, you are a man of many talents.

How did Rosie get the notch in one ear? And what is the electronic-looking-device on the post behind the tree?

edesignuk

Apr 16, 2005, 10:40 AM

How did Rosie get the notch in one ear?hmmm...never actually noticed that before :eek:And what is the electronic-looking-device on the post behind the tree?Energy saving light bulb. It should have a cover over it, but where we have been cutting down that tree it got kocked off :o

edesignuk

Apr 16, 2005, 11:36 AM

Sorry to bore anyone :o I know, I keep saying it, but I really am just amazed at the HUGE difference between this and other cameras I have used.

Amazing colour:
http://upload.yo-momma.net/uploads/forums/flowers1.jpg (http://upload.yo-momma.net/uploads/forums/flowers1_l.jpg)

He's not impressed:
http://upload.yo-momma.net/uploads/forums/max1.jpg (http://upload.yo-momma.net/uploads/forums/max1_l.jpg)

I got lucky with my timing, grrrrrrrr:
http://upload.yo-momma.net/uploads/forums/max2.jpg (http://upload.yo-momma.net/uploads/forums/max2_l.jpg)

revenuee

Apr 16, 2005, 12:04 PM

ya that rebel is got some nice tech in there ..we were playing with them at the Canon show -- that rebel is very comparable to the 20D ... then again much like the original rebel was comparable to the 100D --- especially after you hacked the firmware ... not a fan of the body design ... feels a little to small even for my hands, then was also a case with the original rebel ...

i sometimes wish my D70 had a vertical grip to give the camera a little more size, plus a vertical grip would come in handy.

But over all that rebel is a winner in my book

even though nikon, and moxiemike will probably agree with me, won my heart over years ago <-- gotta stay loyal

vieoray

Apr 16, 2005, 12:15 PM

hmmm...never actually noticed that before

(about the notch in the ear)...

how did you get your cat? as in, did you find her or did you actually get her from somewhere, like a shelter or something. usually a notch in the ear means the cat was once a feral cat. vets put the notch in.

EGT

Apr 16, 2005, 12:33 PM

That is one sweet camera and those are some awesome pics!

You should start uploading them to spymac or somewhere for backgrounds etc ... Love nice backgrounds me :p

AppleMatt

Apr 16, 2005, 01:16 PM

Holy image clarity and depth batman, that's seriously impressive. Much better than I'd expect, and loads better than scanning in normal photos or asking Kodak for a photo CD.

Now I want a digital camera too. I've no use whatsoever for one, but I'm sure I can find one.

AppleMatt

edesignuk

Apr 16, 2005, 01:49 PM

Holy image clarity and depth batman, that's seriously impressive. Much better than I'd expect
I know! :eek: :D And bare in mind, I have absolutely no idea what I'm even doing :eek: :p

Blue Velvet

Apr 16, 2005, 02:09 PM

I know! :eek: :D And bare in mind, I have absolutely no idea what I'm even doing :eek: :p

Speaking of baring... reveal to us how much you got it for and where from then. :)

Am keen to get a new camera for the office this year.

edesignuk

Apr 16, 2005, 02:27 PM

Speaking of baring... reveal to us how much you got it for and where from then. :)
From www.unbeatable.co.uk, price *deep breath* £669 :eek:

But, it would seem to be worth it, picture quality is amazing, even with the kit lens.

Blue Velvet

Apr 16, 2005, 02:29 PM

From www.unbeatable.co.uk, price *deep breath* £669 :eek:

But, it would seem to be worth it, picture quality is amazing, even with the kit lens.

£669 -- that's OK. Is there a slight time-lag between pressing the shutter and it taking the picture?

edesignuk

Apr 16, 2005, 02:35 PM

£669 -- that's OK. Is there a slight time-lag between pressing the shutter and it taking the picture?Doesn't seem to be, that's a another thing that is great. It is SERIOUSLY fast, in everyway. Startup time is virtually nothing, auto focus the same, and there is no lag to speak of. Everything is pretty much instant.

Moxiemike

Apr 16, 2005, 03:53 PM

djbahdow01

Apr 16, 2005, 05:32 PM

i sometimes wish my D70 had a vertical grip to give the camera a little more size, plus a vertical grip would come in handy.

But over all that rebel is a winner in my book

even though nikon, and moxiemike will probably agree with me, won my heart over years ago <-- gotta stay loyal

Congrats on the 350D purchase edesignuk...

I think the same about a vertical grip for the D70. I love my D70 although I had a Film rebel before that. The F100 my sister-in-law had did it for me. Also the size and feel of the Digi Rebels pushed me away from it and towards the D70. Ill be faithful to Nikon from now on I love their equipment. Looking forward the the D70s as well as an upgrade to the D100 (if its coming). Every new camera that comes out looks amazing but it is a preference on glass and also feel. I also agree on the 50 1.8, I don't use it because i do outdoor sports but I have heard rave reviews on it.

tonyeck

Apr 16, 2005, 05:50 PM

congrats on the camera mate!

I am using a 300D at the moment and its gorgeous... The 350 D (or Rebel XT in the states) is on my list of first things to buy when I arrive in the states next week!

Check out these tutorials and make sure you start using the manual modes not the cheat settings ;)

http://photo-class.deviantart.com/

Great explanations into alot of cool settings etc

Check out my photography too

http://tonyeck.deviantart.com/

Nice cooper too.. Was just racing at rockingham speedway in a cooper S last weekend :)!

dotdotdot

Apr 16, 2005, 11:55 PM

Wow, these are seriously awesome!!!

I especially love the last one of the different color flowers... I know what to put on the inside of my mom's mothers day card!

Platform

Apr 17, 2005, 02:44 AM

Very nice pics you have take their......... :cool:

Nice cat as well

octoberdeath

Apr 20, 2005, 12:59 AM

now those are some amazingly clear photos! how would the Rebel XT compare to the 20D? i was going to buy the older model Rebel before i saw reviews for the 20D and then they came out with the new XT and now i am confused. doesn't the new model XT have the same megapixals as the 20D? so what would make the 20D any better? or is it?

also what kind of printer would you use to print those out? my dad has a 5MP olympus camera he got a few years back and an epson photo printer for it but the prints never came out that great (always grainy or the colors were off compared to the computer screen)... now he has an HP photo printer but its only a little better. so what kind of printer should one get if they wanted to print wedding photos out; like if you were to sell your stuff what would be the best printer for that? if you guys could give me a few choices and maybe some differing price ranges that would be really helpful. i was looking at some of fuji's larger printers but could never find a price or a place to buy them; the ones that use the thermal heating. like the one at this link fujifilm (http://www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/proPhotoProductPictrography.jsp)

quackattack

Apr 20, 2005, 01:16 AM

also what kind of printer would you use to print those out? my dad has a 5MP olympus camera he got a few years back and an epson photo printer for it but the prints never came out that great (always grainy or the colors were off compared to the computer screen)... now he has an HP photo printer but its only a little better. so what kind of printer should one get if they wanted to print wedding photos out; like if you were to sell your stuff what would be the best printer for that? if you guys could give me a few choices and maybe some differing price ranges that would be really helpful. i was looking at some of fuji's larger printers but could never find a price or a place to buy them; the ones that use the thermal heating. like the one at this link fujifilm (http://www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/proPhotoProductPictrography.jsp)

If I get really good shots I like to have them printed at my local camera shop on photo chemical paper. I'm sure you can have this done about anywhere that makes film prints (although I tend to avoid the WalMart's). Amazing results. With a camera like edesign's you would be hard pressed to see the difference from film. Of course it all depends on size, resolution, etc. My 5mp yields amazing results!

Alot of times it is even cheaper than printing at home. :D

Chip NoVaMac

Apr 20, 2005, 01:31 AM

Congrats there E! This is a really great camera! We can't seem to keep them in stock.

I just got a new toy, a Olympus C-8080. It was our store demo and got a great deal on from my boss. I tested it out in the store only so far.

And with what I having going on in my life at this point, taking pictures is on a very low priority (as some may know, I am separating after 13 years. It is the best for both of us. As an update for some that know what is going on, he is fine with it. I am getting emotional as the clock ticks down, it was my choice. But can't get too down, I have a new place to setup, and an old one to sell). My postings here on MR are my release at this point. A great family here.

Let me know if I can answer anything for you.

PlaceofDis

Apr 20, 2005, 01:41 AM

Chip NoVaMac

Apr 20, 2005, 01:52 AM

hey Chip, i didnt know that was happening, but remember that you have a family here in us so dont be afraid to post some threads to talk about whatever, good luck and i wish you the best

On Topic: i am still waiting to get myself a digital camera....need to save money....

Many thanks there. To go off a bit, I felt that this was something that I wanted to share with just a few close friends here directly. Though I haven't been too shy at mentioning some of the changes as side notes to other threads. As zero hour nears I might take your suggestion. :)

Back on topic: Don't let others sway you in going higher than you want. The C-8080 that I just got is an awesome camera. Some quirks, but for most they are not an issue - unless you are the type to want to argue that one car that goes 6.0 in 0 is better than one that goes 7.0 in 60. Add to that many camera shops are now selling used digital cameras.

spacepower7

Apr 20, 2005, 02:11 AM

Hey edesignuk

Sorry, I feel real sorry for you ;)
You have just entered the real world of digital photography.
DSLR = end of your social life ;)

I have had 2 Sony point and shoot digital cameras. When I got my Canon 10D, I started spending more time in Photoshop than in the pubs with my friends.

Next on your list to check out:
nik filters
fred miranda actions and plug-ins
dreamlist of Canon lenses

Enjoy your photography

mad jew

Apr 20, 2005, 02:12 AM

i am still waiting to get myself a digital camera....need to save money....

I never used to take photos because it was just far too hard to get the fil developed and lets face it, I'm a pretty impatient jew so I grabbed myself a really cheap digital Kodak. It's made photography just that little bit extra and now I'm always taking happy snappies of whatever. Take the plunge, Macs were made to store your iLife and that includes photos. ;)

Sorry, back to edesign, they're some really cool photos. I've never seen a blue sky in the UK and I just assumed you'd shipped it over here along with the convicts. ;)

If i liked cats I'm sure I'd appreciate the photos that little bit more but...

quackattack

Apr 20, 2005, 03:06 AM

Next on your list to check out:
nik filters
fred miranda actions and plug-ins
dreamlist of Canon lenses

Enjoy your photography

Couldn't agree more. By the way, that dreamlist of canon lenses is what is really going to burn the wallet ;) .

For the time being try a circular polarizer..... it is amazing what that piece of glass can do :D

virividox

Apr 20, 2005, 03:28 AM

yeah once u go dlsr its hard to go back

oldpismo

Apr 20, 2005, 05:25 AM

One of the new Canon inkjet printers will do a good job of the printing. I have just got the ip5000 and that is doing really nice photo jobs.

Deefuzz

Apr 20, 2005, 12:23 PM

Nice pics man.

And thanks for sharing resources everyone, it comes in handy for someone like myself who is also basically a newbie.

Also had a question about the EF 50 f1.8 II lens that was recommended. What does this lens offer that you cannot achieve with the stock lens that comes with the camera? I'm pretty lens illiterate and just wanting some more information on what else is available for my camera ;)

Mr. Anderson

Apr 20, 2005, 01:16 PM

congrats on the camera :D

Nice shots...

D

xcalibur

Apr 20, 2005, 01:28 PM

Wow, I seriously had no idea there were so many photography enthusiasts on this forum! :) Anyways, I recently got a 300D as I couldn't justify the difference in price in the 350D. I paid around £450 for mine so the 350 would have been £200 more. The two main additional features on the 350 to me would probably me the extra 2 MP and the much faster boot up time.

I'm on the lookout for a decently priced macro lens. Any recommendations? Also, like the first poster, I'm also kind of a newb and am very confused with how to rate a macro lens. Lenses have a focus length so my initial impression was that the lens with the lowest focus length should be the best? I know this is the wrong interpration but could someone shed some light on why? Would really appreciate it. I've been reading around and apparently a good macro lens has a 1:1 ratio something of that sorts?

Moxiemike

Apr 20, 2005, 01:35 PM

mkrishnan

Apr 20, 2005, 01:50 PM

Hmmm, edesign, I don't know whether I should be more jealous of your camera or your shooting skills... :) Nice. I think DSLR is moving to my summer list, and I've decided that it's definitely a better monetary investment than upgrading my iBook. Can't wait to see more about the D50.

SpaceMagic

Apr 20, 2005, 02:17 PM

Completely jealous guys. Especially of you eDesign! It's sunny in essex.. its thunderstorms in wales! Ok.. i lie.. it's sunny here at the moment... for now.

Anyway, starting to think my 3 year old Kodak DX3900 is passé now. The picture quality from these Pro cameras is amazing. My friends always "oohhh" and "ahhhhs" at iPhoto slideshowing our digital photos, but with one of your babies I dunno what noises they'll be making ;)

Toodle pip for now

Off clubbin in the land of sheep.

MacManDan

Apr 20, 2005, 02:18 PM

Buy the Sigma 50mm f2.8 1:1 macro. you'll love it, it's useful as a light, all around lens (though slightly slow to focus) and it's INCREDIBLY sharp.

I have the Sigma 50mm 2.8 and agree that its really sharp. Moxiemike wasn't kidding when he said it's "slightly" slow to focus - it's a real dog. I use manual focus because the autofocus is far too slow. It's a good lens for the price though - 1:1 is really close, and for really small macro work, you probably need to be using manual focus anyway so you can get exactly what you want in focus (at large apertures such as 2.8, you're looking at only millimeters of depth in focus)
I agree with others on the Canon 50mm f/1.8 though :) it's a great low-light lens.
Congrats on the 350D!

Deefuzz - with the 1.8 you can take photos without a flash in lower light (indoors, for example). With my 20d I can push the ISO up and get some really sharp low-light shots (out in the city only illuminated with street lights, or indoors) without a tripod.

Deefuzz

Apr 21, 2005, 05:46 PM

Deefuzz - with the 1.8 you can take photos without a flash in lower light (indoors, for example). With my 20d I can push the ISO up and get some really sharp low-light shots (out in the city only illuminated with street lights, or indoors) without a tripod.

Awesome...thank you much!! So it is a good low-light lens. Will it do good macro shots too? Or should I splurge for a second lens specifically for macro shots?

MacManDan

Apr 21, 2005, 06:10 PM

Awesome...thank you much!! So it is a good low-light lens. Will it do good macro shots too? Or should I splurge for a second lens specifically for macro shots?

Not too great for macro shots. Its closest focusing distance is 1.5ft (.45m) its the difference between getting a close picture and getting an insanely close picture.
I recommend the 1.8 first, because it definitely has more uses and the focusing isn't glacially slow. It's also cheaper, and macro lenses are a bit specialized. Most people like macro for bugs, or flowers ... me? I like circuits (see attached file). I must admit my macro has been sitting in my bag largely neglected since my last contracted product shots. Sigh.

nospleen

Apr 21, 2005, 07:23 PM

I am using the Tamron f/2.8 28-75mm as my walk around on my XT. I love it and highly recommend it, super sharp images.

Deefuzz

Apr 21, 2005, 08:21 PM

Not too great for macro shots. Its closest focusing distance is 1.5ft (.45m) its the difference between getting a close picture and getting an insanely close picture.
I recommend the 1.8 first, because it definitely has more uses and the focusing isn't glacially slow. It's also cheaper, and macro lenses are a bit specialized. Most people like macro for bugs, or flowers ... me? I like circuits (see attached file). I must admit my macro has been sitting in my bag largely neglected since my last contracted product shots. Sigh.

awesome man...Thank you very much for your advice.

Cool circuit pic too! :)

iBlue

Apr 22, 2005, 04:27 AM

those are absolutely stunning! I lust for your camera, just so you know.

Artful Dodger

Apr 23, 2005, 03:15 PM

Hello edesignuk, one Q, how is the battery life with your new Canon? Also did you invest in extra batteries for those really nice long sunny days ahead? Congrats. and enjoy :)

mkrishnan

Apr 23, 2005, 03:28 PM

Edesign, I'm coming after ya! :) Mmm...I found a combination of deals that met all the things I was looking for, and I'm taking the plunge too...hopefully my Rebel should be here as an early bday present this next week, and a 50mm f/1.4 to go with it in early May. :D

I know that indoors, low-light candids are going to be among my most common shots, so I figured the 1.4 was worth the money, esp. since I found a gently used one at an excellent price.

I spent some time going through photos that were similar to the kinds of things I want to take, and I found that besides the 50 prime, several photographers who worked professionally on outdoor candids, esp. of children all used either a 70-200 f/4 or a 70-200 f/2.8. Mike or anyone else, any simple explanation of why these two particular tele lenses are so popular for that kind of application? I'm not buying any such thing this year...that'll be next years' tax return, as I just spent this years! :)

edesignuk

Apr 23, 2005, 03:38 PM

Hello edesignuk, one Q, how is the battery life with your new Canon? Also did you invest in extra batteries for those really nice long sunny days ahead? Congrats. and enjoy :)I haven't charged the battery since I got it last Friday :eek: :cool: And I've been using it a fair bit.

BakedBeans

Apr 23, 2005, 06:34 PM

BakedBeans

Apr 23, 2005, 06:39 PM

in regards to the battery life, ive also found it pretty awesome on my 20D, i think its due to them having low power consumption CMOS sensors in comparison to the CCD

mkrishnan

Apr 23, 2005, 06:43 PM

basically the 70-200 are used because 1, they are so sharp (L series lenses are awesome!) 2, because they have a pretty good reach and 3, because they (especially the f4) are a good price

the f4 is a tiny tiny bit sharper than the 2.8 but it is a stop slower, i got the f4 because it is light enough for a walkabout lens and is really sharp and i got it for a great price

Thanks! :) I'm really looking forward to getting mine. Maybe I'll use the kit and/or the prime and try to do some non-people photography for once, too. :rolleyes:

The f4 also seems to have the advantage of being just within the grip of sanity for non-professionals (from a price perspective). ;) Is it pretty correct, too, that most users can adapt to taking hand-held pictures at ~200mm or less without really needing IS? I thought I read a number like that thrown out as a guide, somewhere, but I wasn't sure if it was referring to 200mm of lens FL or 200mm of EFL. I guess that's part of what you mean when you say it's light enough to be a walkabout.

I know Gary said once that he uses a 100-400 heavily for scenery portraits, but I'm not so into scenery or macros. Maybe having a camera like this will change my mind!

BakedBeans

Apr 23, 2005, 06:50 PM

as long as you get your breathing right and its not super dark (requiring a slow shutter speed) then you should be fine hand held at 200mm, well you will be fine - no probs!

the f4 is quite a bit lighter than the 2.8s yea - i would only get the 2.8 if i was doing lots of indoor sports personally, although if i was doing portraits a lot i might think about the 17-40L which is a nice lens apparently (dont have one) but that is probably next on my list after a grip and a 1.4x extender

mkrishnan

Apr 23, 2005, 06:54 PM

BTW, to the other newbs like me in the thread, somebody at FM recommended a great trick for us to learn what a different lens is good for, in addition to getting peoples' advice, that I wanted to share and also geekify suitably. :D

There's a website called pbase.com, which is like flickr or photobucket, except, being designed for amateur (?) photographers, it keeps exif data on pictures and displays the exif together with the picture. Well, maybe hand-entered, as I don't have an account there, because people have lens brands listed frequently.

Anyway, if someone gives you a lens recommendation, one easy way to find a lot of pictures that use that lens is to google:

sigma 50mm 2.8 ef site:pbase.com (See this (http://www.pbase.com/cedric_g/test_sigma_5028_ex_macro) in particular!)
70-200mm ef 2.4 site:pbase.com
50mm ef f/1.4 site:pbase.com

Just wanted to share. :) The "ef" will mostly limit it to Canon hits. Its interesting to see what other photographers use gear for. I'm not ready to buy anything else, and I might even sell my kit lens to make my purchase less scary, but it seems to be a good way to know what kinds of shots can come out well given what you have too. :D

EDIT: You can also go here (Canon) (http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon) or here (Nikon) (http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon), scroll through, and find a lens you're interested in or have, and get random pictures sampled from all submitted pictures that use that setup, although I think if you pick a lens, the camera is no longer fixed (so you could get that 50mm Sigma on a 300D, a 350D, a 10D, etc).

MacManDan

Apr 23, 2005, 10:26 PM

in regards to the battery life, ive also found it pretty awesome on my 20D, i think its due to them having low power consumption CMOS sensors in comparison to the CCD

From what I understand, its a lot more than that. One of the advantages of an SLR is that the use of the viewfinder replaces the need for using the LCD screen all the time, which is one of the biggest juice-suckers on the entire thing. I've gotten 1100 shots off before needing a recharge, and I don't think the 350D would be much less.

I spent some time going through photos that were similar to the kinds of things I want to take, and I found that besides the 50 prime, several photographers who worked professionally on outdoor candids, esp. of children all used either a 70-200 f/4 or a 70-200 f/2.8. Mike or anyone else, any simple explanation of why these two particular tele lenses are so popular for that kind of application?

The 70-200s are very excellent examples of great optics. They're very sharp (some argue the 70-200 2.8 is the sharpest zoom lens Canon offers) and extremely fast focusing, which is a must for sports or little kids. The range on a 1.6x camera (such as the 20d or the 350d) is ideal for the same applications.
I rented a 70-200 f/2.8 (non-IS) one weekend and tried my hand at sports photography, and I instantly fell in love with the lens - probably a combination of its amazing color, split-hair sharpness, and .. well, I could go on. This is a great set of lenses. Some people claim the f/4 have front-focusing problems, but I haven't seen this - it just feels like the 2.8 went on some serious Jenny Craig dieting.
http://mexbox.mit.edu/pieces/show.php?type=photos&place=novsports&num=21

Anyway, if someone gives you a lens recommendation, one easy way to find a lot of pictures that use that lens is to google:

sigma 50mm 2.8 ef site:pbase.com (See this in particular!)
70-200mm ef 2.4 site:pbase.com
50mm ef f/1.4 site:pbase.com

PBase will just give you images taken with the particular lenses, and may not tell you much about the lens itself. Another place to check is Fred Miranda's site: www.fredmiranda.com. People leave reviews about lenses that I find very helpful. One of the problems with these reviews, however, is that most people are much much more picky than many of us amateur photographers. It seems everyone wants L quality in non-L prices...good optics are expensive to produce.

mkrishnan

Apr 23, 2005, 10:31 PM

PBase will just give you images taken with the particular lenses, and may not tell you much about the lens itself. Another place to check is Fred Miranda's site: www.fredmiranda.com. People leave reviews about lenses that I find very helpful. One of the problems with these reviews, however, is that most people are much much more picky than many of us amateur photographers. It seems everyone wants L quality in non-L prices...good optics are expensive to produce.

Yes, Fred Miranda's site is actually what pushed me to go for a 1.4 instead of a 1.8, and where there seemed to be many positive things said about the 70-200s...I guess the whole weight thing is a really big deal too. I hadn't really thought about how the faster lens will be bigger around and weigh more. In regards to what you say about pickiness, I guess it's a good sign for those few lenses, like the prime 50s, where all the pros say they're amazing lenses, even though they're at very amateur prices and in non-pro lines. :)

Anyway, I can't wait to get my bad boy! :) I think I will try to do some photo shooting of places I like in Jacksonville, one of the next couple of times I go to visit my parents. I haven't seen that many good photos of the places I like there, on the web, and I could use the practice.

crazydreaming

Apr 24, 2005, 08:42 AM

mkrishnan

Apr 24, 2005, 09:14 AM

One more thing, I'm curious about the 50mm 1.4. If there's no zoom, I'm having a hard time picturing how you are going to use it.

I haven't used the 1.4 prime yet, but I've taken tons of photos with a 50mm f/1.8 on a film camera. Hmmm...how to explain. It isn't good for certain things. If you're standing outside, taking candids of people, and you don't want to be up in their grill, it isn't going to work. If you're taking photos of landscapes, when mobility is at a premium -- for instance, iGary's threads of pictures in mountainous places -- then you need a zoom too, simply because you cannot count on positioning yourself where you will need to be to capture just what you want, and you may have to crop out so much of the picture to compensate for the zoom, that you are not left with enough resolution (think about, if you crop 50% in both directions on a 6 MP picture, you're only left with 1.5 MP! :eek:).

However, if you can position yourself, then its a different matter, and you can reap all kinds of benefits from such a lens that you cannot get as easily from zooms. For instance, the depth of field benefit. Not only will the small f values get you excellent background defocusing for portraits, but indoors, they will let you collect a lot of light. Assuming you can get the focal plane right, then this means that you will be able to use shorter shutter times for a given situation, and so blurring will be less of an issue. Or you can use lower ISO (if you can get yourself down to ISO 100ish, you will very rarely have noise problems), so that noise will be less of an issue.

But I'm stupid...when I last was playing with my film cam and 50mm f/1.8, I always wished I had a zoom. Now that I have a zoom (albeit a point and shoot), I realize how much better my pictures were without it. :rolleyes:

Ambrose Chapel

Apr 24, 2005, 09:55 AM

i see you went for the rebel eduk, nice shots! mine arrived on friday, and of course we've had torrential rain all weekend so i haven't been able to do much shooting... all the tips in this thread have been helpful for me too - i know i have a long learning curve ahead of me :eek:

Artful Dodger

Apr 24, 2005, 12:27 PM

Thanks for the info. on the battery life as this camera will be on my would like to have list :) Again nice pics...

revenuee

Apr 24, 2005, 12:45 PM

I'm also fairly new to Photography. This forum has been very helpful...

Great shots for the first time out! I'm amazed with the detail, I'm using film Rebel T2 and that's my biggest problem right now. Image Qualiity.

I've had some pretty good shots, but have been having a lot of noisey pictures, especially in lower light, or when I use higher aperatures. I've had some descent prints so far, but most, I'm not real happy with the quality.

I've been using mainly 400 film, but last few rolls have been 200. Haven't got those developed yet, hope it's better.

I'm just a high school student, and am going to be taking photography in College next year, that's why I'm going film.

Question about lenses... I currently have the kit lens: 28-90 Canon II. I'd like to get a wide angle for doing scenery's, portraits, etc. Any recommendations? I should also add a telephoto, advice there? What's the difference between a more expensive lens and a cheaper lens with the same general focal length (such as 28-90).

This is all a learning experience. With each new roll I try something different and learn good and bad.

One more thing, I'm curious about the 50mm 1.4. If there's no zoom, I'm having a hard time picturing how you are going to use it.

Thanks for any more help in showing me the way.

400 can be pretty grainy (noisy)--- also film stock is important

i've found 400 fuji is far less grainy then kodak 400 -- fuji film holds it's own well into the 800 (haven't tried higher)

try to shoot at 100 or 150 if you can, mind you that means shooting in great lighting conditions or a super wide (at least f2.8) lens

you can even get 50 slide film and this will significantly reduce your noise and then have it scanned to a CD -- my lab offers 7.5 megapixel scanning and it looks great <-- or pick up a slide scanner

as far as lenses are concerned ... i recommend you don't get anything that doesn't have at least an f2.8 --- you are going to be paying a lot more for these lenses but it is well worth if you are shooting in low light without flash. you can get away with sigma EX series lenses if you don't have the money for NIKON PRO or CANON L ... don't go for the consumer level sigma's, nikon's or canon's , they are not bad for 4 x 6 and 5 x 7 but they start to fall apart when you blow up 8 x 10 and beyond --- or in situations where you are cropping a lot.

prime lenses are considered to be better then zoom lenses --- this is not AS true anymore since lens manufacturing as drastically improved over the years.

a good kit if you are on budget but still looking for quality is i recommend

14mm sigma EX f2.8
35mm sigma EX f2.8
50mm Any brand f1.4 or 1.8
105mm sigma EX 2.8
70 - 200 mm sigma EX 2.8
2x telecoverter -- this will make you loose 2 f stops making your f2.8 become f5.6 -- but you really wouldn't need to use it unless you were outiside, and there is usually enough light to use f5.6 and ISO 400 film even on cloudy days

if you have the money substitute with the nikon pro or canon L equivalent, although i can speak for the 105mm sigma versus nikon and they are almost indistinguishable --- only computer tests have shown differences

as far as using a prime over a zoom? like the 50 mm f1.4? -- just walk up closer or move further away ... ;)

one more thing ... you don't want to use a wide angle lens for portraits ... a medium telephoto is recommended because a wide angle used up close causes unflattering distortions -- it can make it a cool effect, and is great if you are doing journalist work since you can also get the background most of the time in those shots ... but you don't want to do that with portraiture work.

mkrishnan

Apr 24, 2005, 01:42 PM

it can make it a cool effect, and is great if you are doing journalist work since you can also get the background most of the time in those shots ... but you don't want to do that with portraiture work.

Do you mean those fisheye portraits, like the one below (borrowed with apologies from somewhere Google Images found!), which look like the reflection from a curved mirror?

http://www.dustinross.com/projects/conventions/rnc/fisheye_images/portraits/images/drossRNC_fisheye07.jpg

crazydreaming

Apr 24, 2005, 04:16 PM

try to shoot at 100 or 150 if you can, mind you that means shooting in great lighting conditions or a super wide (at least f2.8) lens

you can even get 50 slide film and this will significantly reduce your noise and then have it scanned to a CD -- my lab offers 7.5 megapixel scanning and it looks great <-- or pick up a slide scanner

You mean use 100 or 150 ISO film right? Or are you saying to bump the ISO down, even with say 200 film? I don't think that's what you meant, I've done that, not good results, but just checking. I haven't seen 100 or 150 around a whole lot.

I was thinking Slide Film. I understand this is what most magazines require for work. Slide film is more expensive, but it must be worth it. Where do you get you slides scanned to CD? I've been trying to find a solution for making my photos digital (Other than shooting digital, someday..), only thing I came up with was buying my own scanner... That will come later. (No $).

Anyways, thanks for all your help, I'll add those lenses to my shopping list. Only question about the lenses is there's no zoom lens from the 28-90 range, or did you make that list already including my kit lens?

Is my kit lens a decent lens? Or pretty crappy... Not sure on the exact specs.

Thanks! I'm going back to my shooting. I'm in Ft. Myers Florida. I've been getting some awesome shots. :D

MacManDan

Apr 24, 2005, 04:39 PM

Anyways, thanks for all your help, I'll add those lenses to my shopping list. Only question about the lenses is there's no zoom lens from the 28-90 range, or did you make that list already including my kit lens?

Is my kit lens a decent lens? Or pretty crappy... Not sure on the exact specs.

revenuee may have a different opinion, but my 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM II has been a great lens for the money in the range you are looking for. It's a little slow on the long end (f/4.5) but it's a real steal at ~$200. Stopped down to f/8 it's surprisingly sharp and has great color. Sure it's no L ... but for students on a budget like us, bang for the buck is pretty important.
I haven't been a fan of Canon's kit lenses personally - every one I've seen has been a real downer in terms of image and build quality.

Chip NoVaMac

Apr 24, 2005, 05:01 PM

I've had some pretty good shots, but have been having a lot of noisey pictures, especially in lower light, or when I use higher aperatures. I've had some descent prints so far, but most, I'm not real happy with the quality.

To address this it would be helpful to see samples. And to know more about your workflow with film.

I've been using mainly 400 film, but last few rolls have been 200. Haven't got those developed yet, hope it's better.

The 400 ISO maybe be part of the issue with the above.

I'm just a high school student, and am going to be taking photography in College next year, that's why I'm going film.

Don't count out digital. Depending on the school, digital may be the primary focus (no pun intended). Our community college has eliminated the wet color darkroom from what I understand. Color is now digital.

Question about lenses... I currently have the kit lens: 28-90 Canon II. I'd like to get a wide angle for doing scenery's, portraits, etc. Any recommendations? I should also add a telephoto, advice there? What's the difference between a more expensive lens and a cheaper lens with the same general focal length (such as 28-90).

I would caution here on buying lenses. A better wide angle lenses that works on film, will for the most part give you a 28mm starting point in digital. For the types of shooting you are doing the that range is great.

In any case you should buy the best lenses available. Here again a budget from you would help in comments as to what to look at.

One more thing, I'm curious about the 50mm 1.4. If there's no zoom, I'm having a hard time picturing how you are going to use it.

You will have an awakening with college photography then. Most classes in photography should be taught in such a way that you are using just one focal length. Instead of zooming by a twist of the lenses, you move your feet.

revenuee

Apr 24, 2005, 06:32 PM

You mean use 100 or 150 ISO film right? Or are you saying to bump the ISO down, even with say 200 film? I don't think that's what you meant, I've done that, not good results, but just checking. I haven't seen 100 or 150 around a whole lot.

I was thinking Slide Film. I understand this is what most magazines require for work. Slide film is more expensive, but it must be worth it. Where do you get you slides scanned to CD? I've been trying to find a solution for making my photos digital (Other than shooting digital, someday..), only thing I came up with was buying my own scanner... That will come later. (No $).

Anyways, thanks for all your help, I'll add those lenses to my shopping list. Only question about the lenses is there's no zoom lens from the 28-90 range, or did you make that list already including my kit lens?

Is my kit lens a decent lens? Or pretty crappy... Not sure on the exact specs.

Thanks! I'm going back to my shooting. I'm in Ft. Myers Florida. I've been getting some awesome shots. :D

kit lenses are never the best ... thats why they are part of the kit ... it's not a bad lens but it is a little dark f4 - 5.6 if i'm not mistaken -- i would trade the kit lens toward better glass

i know you are tempted to get a zoom because it is convenient ... and lighter ... but prime lenses are usually better ... if you really want a zoom

pick up a 24 - 70mm or 28 - 70 mm f2.8 from any of those three manufacturers ... but zooms are not necessary --

yes i meant shooting with 100 or 150 ISO film ... you are right you can't pull it down, some pro labs will push process 100 iso at 400 if you want though ... but it has to be a pro lab

i scan my slide film at work in the lab (i work at a photo lab/retailer). and yes slide is better then film because film only captures two levels of contrast while slides capture 5 (your eye does 12) - it is more expensive ... and can be more difficult to work with

if you don't want to use slide ... use kodak portra or fuji velvia (i prefer fuji) they cost more then regular film, and have much shorter shelf lives so you can't let it sit around in your camera.

macmandan-- believe me i can understand budget

i'm 20 years old, trying to get through school -- but you are better off taking the time to build up a good lens set --

the other thing is stepping up to f8 is fine if you are shooting landscape on a tripod -- but remember -- you need a shutter speed of 1/60 to handhold without having to worry about shakey hands causing vibraration ... if you don't have enough light to shoot f8 -- you might need to use a tripod at 1/15 of second and such -- unless you buy VR or IS lenses which stabalize for that .... but you are still not going to be able to freeze the action

revenuee

Apr 24, 2005, 06:47 PM

Do you mean those fisheye portraits, like the one below (borrowed with apologies from somewhere Google Images found!), which look like the reflection from a curved mirror?

fisheye lenses are a breed of their own ... it won't be as exaturated as a fisheye but essentially ya it will look somewhat like that ...

Chip NoVaMac

Apr 24, 2005, 07:08 PM

kit lenses are never the best ... thats why they are part of the kit ... it's not a bad lens but it is a little dark f4 - 5.6 if i'm not mistaken -- i would trade the kit lens toward better glass

i know you are tempted to get a zoom because it is convenient ... and lighter ... but prime lenses are usually better ... if you really want a zoom

pick up a 24 - 70mm or 28 - 70 mm f2.8 from any of those three manufacturers ... but zooms are not necessary --

Kit lenses can be very good, as long as you have no need for speed of less DOF. Don't sell some of them short (the Nikon 18-70AFS and Canon 17-85IS EF-S lenses are very good according to many pro and non-pro users).

The problem with 2.8 zooms is their cost, size, and weight. It is a matter of trade offs. Unfortunately one size does not fit all sues at this point.

I agree that primes are great option. It also forces the photographer to look at their subject in different ways.

revenuee

Apr 24, 2005, 07:20 PM

Kit lenses can be very good, as long as you have no need for speed of less DOF. Don't sell some of them short (the Nikon 18-70AFS and Canon 17-85IS EF-S lenses are very good according to many pro and non-pro users).

The problem with 2.8 zooms is their cost, size, and weight. It is a matter of trade offs. Unfortunately one size does not fit all sues at this point.

I agree that primes are great option. It also forces the photographer to look at their subject in different ways.

i've used the nikon 18-70 it's the lens the comes with D70 -- i had it for a few days, it's not BAD, but when it came down to it i opted to just get the D70 without that lens and get a f2.8 instead --

feakbeak

Apr 24, 2005, 07:43 PM

Many thanks there. To go off a bit, I felt that this was something that I wanted to share with just a few close friends here directly. Though I haven't been too shy at mentioning some of the changes as side notes to other threads. As zero hour nears I might take your suggestion. :)

Back on topic: Don't let others sway you in going higher than you want. The C-8080 that I just got is an awesome camera. Some quirks, but for most they are not an issue - unless you are the type to want to argue that one car that goes 6.0 in 0 is better than one that goes 7.0 in 60. Add to that many camera shops are now selling used digital cameras.I would have to second this statement. I was looking for a digital camera a few months back and was very tempted to go for the Powershot G6 but settled on the Powershot A95 as I'm a complete noob to photography I figure it'll suit my needs for now and allow to me learn what I'm doing with the manual controls. Once I am more comfortable with photography I'll probably upgrade, but the A95 should take care of my needs for a while. With my new Mac mini it makes it a lot easier organizing and touching up my photos.

Unfortunately, I'm in a similar boat with Chip - recently broke up with my girlfriend of four years and had to have her move out. My decision, but that never makes it any easier. She stayed with me for about a month after we broke up, that time was the hardest... zero hour sucks! So, I feel for you, Chip, hang in there. Plus now one of my favorite photo subjects is now gone. I did get some good photos from around my town when the weather was nice last week (80 F, sunny), but now today is it snowing. What an awful day. :(

Chip NoVaMac

Apr 24, 2005, 08:16 PM

Unfortunately, I'm in a similar boat with Chip - recently broke up with my girlfriend of four years and had to have her move out. My decision, but that never makes it any easier. She stayed with me for about a month after we broke up, that time was the hardest... zero hour sucks! So, I feel for you, Chip, hang in there. Plus now one of my favorite photo subjects is now gone. I did get some good photos from around my town when the weather was nice last week (80 F, sunny), but now today is it snowing. What an awful day. :(

My sympathies to you. We had been together 13 years. Let it pass to say the path they went down in the past year could only hurt me in so many ways, if we were to have stayed together.

Like any divorce, the hardest part is the children. In our case Chewy will be the looser in all this. Chewey has a different relationship is with "mommy" and "daddy". And in many ways he favors his "daddy", at least IMO. :) It is true what they say, that the innocent ones are the ones that suffer. :(

My other half never was one for the camera. But Chewey on the other hand, always enjoyed mugging for. And it is a shame that it was only in the last few months that I found the time to try and capture his youthful 3 year old stage. I am also concerned that Chewey never took to warmer weather. And now he is headed to Las Vegas and all that heat. I worry about him, even though he has not left yet. Maybe just a few days if my other half is to believed. I know that they love Chewey as much as I do. But so much is going on in their life, I have to wonder for Chewey's future.

Chewey has so many friends at daycare, and at the park. When he is absent for for time, everybody asks about him. They will miss him, as I am sure will too.

I haven't gone off the deep end yet. For I am the only one trying to get the house ready sell. The other half has only been interested in packing their things, when it suited them. Plus I have to arrange for the sale of the house, and set up my new place. Too much going on in the next month and half to two months to really feel sorry for myself. The only luxury I have allowed myself in that regard to worry about Chewey. And to think how much I will miss him the most.....

(thanks for letting me share....)

mkrishnan

Apr 24, 2005, 11:19 PM

My other half never was one for the camera. But Chewey on the other hand, always enjoyed mugging for. And it is a shame that it was only in the last few months that I found the time to try and capture his youthful 3 year old stage. I am also concerned that Chewey never took to warmer weather. And now he is headed to Las Vegas and all that heat. I worry about him, even though he has not left yet. Maybe just a few days if my other half is to believed. I know that they love Chewey as much as I do. But so much is going on in their life, I have to wonder for Chewey's future.

Chip, I'm so sorry for your heartache. :( And thank you so much for sharing. I'm glad you got some chances at least, to capture those moments with your son. I hope that he is immediately and forever aware that distance cannot destroy your love for him.

emw

Apr 24, 2005, 11:39 PM

Congrats, e. I'm especially happy with this thread since we just ordered the XT the other day, at what I think is a great price, and we'll have it on Wednesday. I'd heard great things about the quality of the pics, and this just confirms it. Awesome.

I'm a noob with cameras as well, so I'm really looking forward to playing with it. And to hear the battery life (which has been horrible on my current digital) is decent is a big plus.

I look forward to more good shots.

emw

Apr 25, 2005, 10:24 AM

It came today! I'll be playing with it tonight, and will be taking the day off tomorrow (unrelated) so will hopefully have a chance to play with it some more. I'll post some pictures.

Can't wait!!!

mkrishnan

Apr 25, 2005, 11:36 AM

It came today! I'll be playing with it tonight, and will be taking the day off tomorrow (unrelated) so will hopefully have a chance to play with it some more. I'll post some pictures.

Can't wait!!!

Lucky dog! I just hope mine will beat Tiger here! :p :D

emw

Apr 26, 2005, 10:25 AM

I have to agree with everyone else who has one of these things - it's fantastic. Now I know just a little more than nothing about actually taking pictures, so I've got a lot to learn. I went out last night without even reading the manual and took a few shots (okay, about 100) and was impressed by several things.

1. Speed. Man, this thing can take pictures. If I'd taken 100 pictures with my Dimage s404, it would've taken half an hour. This took about 10 minutes. I need a bigger flash card.

2. Quality. Wow. I did nothing but point and shoot, and I'm impressed by the color and detail. Despite the fact that the swing shot is taken close to sunset and there's not a lot of natural light, I think it still turned out well.

3. Ease of use. Even for someone who doesn't like to read manuals, this is a pretty simple camera. I dropped the size down to Small Fine due to the limitation of my flash card, and could figure that out with no problem.

4. Features. I can tell there's a lot I can do with it once I take the time to figure it out. I need to get perhaps some new lenses, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, to get better zoom capabilities, and perhaps a specialty lens for fun shots, but that will come later. Right now I need to learn more about exposure, shutter speed, etc.

(Click on images for full-res)

Here's a shot of my son enjoying our swingset:

http://www.mremw.com/MR_Images/Thumbnails/EvanSwinging_tn.jpg (http://www.mremw.com/MR_Images/EOS%20Rebel%20XT/EvanSwinging.JPG)

Here's one of the true sign of spring - a bee visiting our flowering bush:

http://www.mremw.com/MR_Images/Thumbnails/SpringIsHere_tn.jpg (http://www.mremw.com/MR_Images/EOS%20Rebel%20XT/SpringIsHere.JPG)

mkrishnan

Apr 26, 2005, 10:32 AM

emw

Apr 26, 2005, 10:46 AM

Gorgeous shots, emw! Is that your son? He's adorable! :) The macro of the bee turned out very nicely, too!

To put a thumbnail in your post and make it a link to a full-size, you do this:

<URL=http://thumbnail><IMG>http://large_picture_link</IMG></URL>

Replace all the <> with [] natch. Cuz *I* forgot how to get those to show up in the post without being interpreted! :( And thumbnail is the link to your thumbnail, and large_picture_link is the fullsize.Thanks for the help (I figured to switch the thumbnail and large picture URLs to show the small pic and link to the big one).

Yes, that is my son. I'll have to post pics later of my daughter and our dogs as well. Still playing with the camera while the kids are at school.

mkrishnan

Apr 26, 2005, 10:57 AM

Thanks for the help (I figured to switch the thumbnail and large picture URLs to show the small pic and link to the big one).

Oops, right! :D It's easy with photobucket because, as it happens, the URL is exactly the same, except the thumbnail has th_ at the beginning of the filename. But I think you use your own site for hosting? Do post more pics soon! :)

mkrishnan

Apr 29, 2005, 09:04 PM

I got my DRebel!!! :D

I didn't catch much of the evening light today, because, ahem, there was a competing priority for my attention this evening. ;)

Here's one picture I got though...lemme know what you think. If you think I'm bokeh now, wait until I get my f/1.4! :D

Just as emw and edesignuk have observed, the vividness of the color is amazing when you go from a point-and-shoot to this! Just like the good old days with my K1000! :)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/mkrishnan/GNV20050501/IMG_0209.jpg

emw

Apr 29, 2005, 09:48 PM

I got my DRebel!!! :D

I didn't catch much of the evening light today, because, ahem, there was a competing priority for my attention this evening. ;)

Here's one picture I got though...lemme know what you think. If you think I'm bokeh now, wait until I get my f/1.4! :D

Just as emw and edesignuk have observed, the vividness of the color is amazing when you go from a point-and-shoot to this! Just like the good old days with my K1000! :)Nice shot - I see flowers are the subject of choice for us n00bs. I'm looking forward to getting a proper zoom lens.

I've been playing with mine for a few days now - but this weekend I'll really have a better chance at it. Too many features for my feeble mind to grasp right now.

mkrishnan

Apr 30, 2005, 07:59 AM

Nice shot - I see flowers are the subject of choice for us n00bs. I'm looking forward to getting a proper zoom lens.

Hehehe, and I'm trying to get my hands on a lense that doesn't have a zoom! :eek: :D

But yes, these things are amazing! Using a point and click was like spending a couple of years not wearing glasses! :( But then again, I will continue to use it -- this is too big to lug around to everything.

evil

Apr 30, 2005, 09:03 AM

my new rebel xt will be here on tuesday. i cant wait. the pictures look excellent

BakedBeans

Apr 30, 2005, 09:19 AM

i opted for the 20D and The 70-200L, these are the sort of results in getting

no sharpening etc
http://img163.echo.cx/img163/142/mg02117lg.jpg

and

http://img243.echo.cx/img243/4999/duckling29an.jpg

emw

Apr 30, 2005, 09:24 AM

i opted for the 20D and The 70-200L, these are the sort of results in getting...
Sure, make all of us n00bs look bad! :p

Those are some great pictures!

BakedBeans

Apr 30, 2005, 09:39 AM

Sure, make all of us n00bs look bad! :p

Those are some great pictures!

im just a newb myself :)

but thanks for the compliment

mkrishnan

Apr 30, 2005, 09:44 AM

im just a newb myself :)

Yeah, okay, whatever! :rolleyes: ;) :D The owl is very nice. Do you find the 70-200L easy to shoot with hand-held?

emw

Apr 30, 2005, 10:19 AM

What camera bag do you guys use? We need to pick up a new one to house the XT and potentially some lenses, and maybe the Belkin media reader for iPod.

Any recommendations?

BakedBeans

Apr 30, 2005, 10:21 AM

Yeah, okay, whatever! :rolleyes: ;) :D The owl is very nice. Do you find the 70-200L easy to shoot with hand-held?

yeah, really easy - i chose the F4 version partly because of the weight or lack of it compared to the f2.8 and IS versions, its actually a little sharper than them too and outside i dont miss the extra stop

mkrishnan

Apr 30, 2005, 10:23 AM

What camera bag do you guys use? We need to pick up a new one to house the XT and potentially some lenses, and maybe the Belkin media reader for iPod.

Any recommendations?

I need to resource fork some recommendations on this too. :D

BakedBeans

Apr 30, 2005, 10:23 AM

What camera bag do you guys use? We need to pick up a new one to house the XT and potentially some lenses, and maybe the Belkin media reader for iPod.

Any recommendations?

http://img132.exs.cx/img132/5986/dscf15760mu.jpg

all wrapped in a lowepro mini trekker aw, which i recommend highly

emw

Apr 30, 2005, 10:34 AM

all wrapped in a lowepro mini trekker aw, which i recommend highlyNice. I'll keep an eye out for that one.

revenuee

Apr 30, 2005, 11:25 AM

Nice shot - I see flowers are the subject of choice for us n00bs. I'm looking forward to getting a proper zoom lens.

flora and fauna never stopped being my subjects

PRIME lenses is where it's at

edesignuk

Apr 30, 2005, 11:25 AM

http://upload.yo-momma.net/uploads/forums/teady.jpg (http://upload.yo-momma.net/uploads/forums/teady_l.jpg)

:D

Blue Velvet

Apr 30, 2005, 11:31 AM

http://upload.yo-momma.net/uploads/forums/teady.jpg (http://upload.yo-momma.net/uploads/forums/teady_l.jpg)

:D

He/she looks SERIOUSLY unimpressed with your new camera. :)

mkrishnan

Apr 30, 2005, 12:23 PM

He/she looks SERIOUSLY unimpressed with your new camera. :)

At least with that subject, you don't have to worry about motion blur! :D

puckhead193

Apr 30, 2005, 12:27 PM

mkrishnan

Apr 30, 2005, 12:46 PM

The other day i went to a camera store to play with the D70 and the rebel. I found that the focusing times are better on the d70 and lens to be built good. The rebel felt alot less heavy but the lens felt like it was plastic. I like the nikon but its so freakin heavy. I like the size better of the rebel but that lens seems a bit cheep. But they both take outstanding pictures. I have to look into lens for the canon.....

The kit lens on the Canon does seem to be widely regarded as not very good...there are others that are very good, though. Depends on what you want. There are some excellent 50 and 85mm primes that are not very pricey. And I think used Canon lenses seem to be slightly easier to find.

But the D70 has definite advantages -- fast startup times, etc. My primary reason for the Rebel was the fact that I bought it (barely) used for $570 with the kit lens and a couple of 256MB CF cards...the price difference to the Nikon is substantial to me, considering it paid for the lens I really wanted (50mm f/1.4) and wouldn't have gotten with the camera either way.

revenuee

Apr 30, 2005, 01:20 PM

emw

Apr 30, 2005, 02:42 PM

My primary reason for the Rebel was the fact that I bought it (barely) used for $570 with the kit lens and a couple of 256MB CF cards...Nice. I got mine new for $700 (with the lens), so I can't complain either. But no CF cards (already had a bunch, though, so no biggie). What I would like to know is what my next lens purchase should be. I'm thinking a zoom of some sort, but I'm not sure which one.

Here's the deal - we take mainly pictures of kids, or scenery while on vacation. I may get more into "hobby photos" but I just don't have the time, what with two youngsters and all. So I'm thinking a better zoom lens would be nice to capture things like shows or animals at the zoo, etc.

Any suggestions?

BTW - I ended up getting a Canon 200DG bag at Best Buy. My wife had won a gift card there, so it ended up costing us only a few bucks, so it made sense. It holds the XT, our Minolta S404 (maybe for the kids to use now :p), and has plenty of room for a couple of additional lenses, etc. So I'm happy with it. It also has tripod straps, and I would like to invest in a portable tripod of some sort in the future.

Always more to buy...

mkrishnan

Apr 30, 2005, 02:43 PM

personally i like the heavier weight of the D70 --- i feel the rebel is to light, and the XT even more so -- and it feels akward in my hand

Works to my favor, cuz I'm a wuss and can't handle the weight! :p ;) :D I'm glad that the Rebel worked well for my hands...a lot of people have said that it is awkward for them. I have very long fingers, but they are quite slender. I find that the body is slightly smaller than fitting-like-a-glove for my hands, but not by that much.

I just can't wait till my prime gets here in the mail! :D Because Adorama was closed for Passover and their online system is limited, it let me successfully order a used 50mm f/1.4, but when they got back to the store over the weekend, apparently someone else had also ordered it before me, and I didn't get it. So I had to find another one...which was slightly more expensive, but which I probably could already have by now... Ahhh, well. :) Gives me a chance to play with wide angles on the kit lens. :)

mkrishnan

Apr 30, 2005, 02:53 PM

Here's the deal - we take mainly pictures of kids, or scenery while on vacation. I may get more into "hobby photos" but I just don't have the time, what with two youngsters and all. So I'm thinking a better zoom lens would be nice to capture things like shows or animals at the zoo, etc.

Any suggestions?

Kids at camp dominate my iPhoto library too. :) I think these reviews (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/index.php) are very helpful. Also they're structured so many people give brief reviews, so you get a balanced opinion. Depending on your budget, if you're going to use a zoom outdoors, that 70-200mm f/4 that Al-Famous has seems to be a good choice. It's about $600, and there're reviews here (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=14&sort=7&cat=27&page=1) (from that same site). When I browsed through people's galleries for outdoor children pictures, especially candids, this one came up a lot (and it is not as crazy expensive as its big brother, although it's still pricey :().

I want to take a lot of indoor / poor lighting shots, though, which is one reason why I'm interested in the primes. There is no way I'm going to be able to justify spending enough to get a fast enough zoom lens to be happy indoors.... :( My next one after the 50 might be the 135mm f/2L, but not for a year at least.

Another reason people often give for recommending prime lenses (no zoom), btw (and as you know, I'm not an expert! But if I say something wrong and someone here who knows what they're talking about corrects me, then I learn! :D) seems to be that if you have a zoom lens, it pushes you in the direction of using zoom to get your composition right. But the problem is that zoom can have negative consequences on figure. For instance, if you take a picture of yourself or one of your kids at the wide-angle (small focal length) end of your kit lens, and then back up enough to get the same shot at a longer focal length, you will notice that the three dimensionality of the face and body posture will really be exaggerated at the short focal length, but will appear much more smoothly on the long focal length. The result is that the person's picture (aside from when you are going for a certain effect) will be easier on the eyes and more pleasing from a long focal length.

Then again, if you get a 70-200mm, you will always be in the telephoto world, so this won't be as big a deal.

Aoide

Apr 30, 2005, 03:06 PM

Congratulations edesignuk on your new camera. I just got the same camera at the end of March and I love it! Especially the start time and the absence of shutter lag. Much different than my Canon S45. I'm a beginner too, but I'm going to learn so much with this camera. Photography has really become an addiction lately.

Sorry, I feel real sorry for you ;)
You have just entered the real world of digital photography.
DSLR = end of your social life ;)

I have never read a truer statement. Between recently getting the XT and the launch of Tiger (which spurred me to get some software I had been putting off including Elements 3 and iLife) my pocketbook is quite empty! :D

cslewis

Apr 30, 2005, 03:13 PM

Congrats on the camera!

My older digital can't compete...

DeSnousa

Apr 30, 2005, 05:18 PM

All of these pics are making me want to bye the camera. There so crisp and clear. Enjoy your camera edesignuk and post more pics please.

edesignuk

Apr 30, 2005, 05:29 PM

All of these pics are making me want to bye the camera. There so crisp and clear. Enjoy your camera edesignuk and post more pics please.
That's what still impresses me every time I look at these at full size, they're SO clear.

http://upload.yo-momma.net/uploads/forums/car.jpg (http://upload.yo-momma.net/uploads/forums/car_l.jpg)

paleck

Apr 30, 2005, 07:57 PM

I've had a Canon G2 for about the last 3 or so years. The battery life was excellent. The longest charge it held lasted me for 6 months. I've got about 5gigs of pictures I have taken with it. Unfortunately it fell <pun intended> victim to a tripod accident and hasn't been the same since. Right now the battery is no longer charging.

If anyone is interested I'll post some pictures, haven't gotten my gallery site up quite yet.

sethypoo

May 1, 2005, 04:37 AM

Hey! What a surprise, I just recently got a Canon Digital Rebel XT too. I am also amazed at what this camera allows me, a relative novice to photography, to do. I love the start up time, and the lack of shutter lag is great.

I tried to post some of my pictures here, I have them uploaded onto my Angelfire account, but when I posted them here, they didn't show up (all I got were "Image Hosted by Angelfire" gifs). I used the [ img ] tags. Help! How do I post pics? IMG SRC? :confused:

el greenerino

May 1, 2005, 05:20 AM

That's what still impresses me every time I look at these at full size, they're SO clear.

http://upload.yo-momma.net/uploads/forums/car.jpg (http://upload.yo-momma.net/uploads/forums/car_l.jpg)

Get a circular polarizer! Trust me, pictures of your car (or anything reflective) will be much better.

el greenerino

May 1, 2005, 05:25 AM

Balin64

May 1, 2005, 06:54 AM

These pictures are clear enough to make me ditch my Holga! (any Holga users here?)

The Canon 10-22mm EF-S looks cool, too bad it isn't weather-sealed and I wouldn't be able to use it on my film body. But I'd still get it if I had a Canon digi.

I have a Holga, a Belfoca, a Pen F, an OM 10, an OM 1, an Olympus C-3020... etc.

E Designer in the UK: Nice photos. You do realize, however that you and I will never be pals: you've chosen the dark side... tsk tsk. Nikon is to Macs as Canon is to Dells. Enjoy the nice plastciky feel of your "Andre Agassi" DSLR! Har Har ha ha... well...

I am deploying the Knights as I type... :p

kiskadee

May 1, 2005, 08:12 AM

I've been reading this thread and i've noticed that many (professional?) photographers are giving advice on lenses,... So maybe you can give me some advice...

Most of the pictures i have to take in de nearby future are pictures of indoor soccer games, concerts (in a school where i am a teacher),... So my biggest problem is the light- conditions. My Olympus E20P just can't handle those situations. I' can't change the lights so i need a camera that is capable of getting good shots (from a distance) in bad light conditions.

Any recommendations on a DSLR, lenses?

BakedBeans

May 1, 2005, 08:16 AM

I have a Holga, a Belfoca, a Pen F, an OM 10, an OM 1, an Olympus C-3020... etc.

E Designer in the UK: Nice photos. You do realize, however that you and I will never be pals: you've chosen the dark side... tsk tsk. Nikon is to Macs as Canon is to Dells. Enjoy the nice plastciky feel of your "Andre Agassi" DSLR! Har Har ha ha... well...

I am deploying the Knights as I type... :p

hahah, what a crock of ****

have you felt the d70, thats a toy! if anything canon is more like dell because they have the best equipment and technology, the best glass - its just there not as expensive

noise, no thanks - obviously canon users worry less about the feel of there camera (although my 20D feels fantastic and the 1 series are the best feeling cameras bar non) and more about the quality of there photography

BakedBeans

May 1, 2005, 08:21 AM

mkrishnan

May 1, 2005, 11:24 AM

have you felt the d70, thats a toy! if anything canon is more like dell because they have the best equipment and technology, the best glass - its just there not as expensive

Al-Famous, I think Balin is just trolling you. ;) For God's sakes, though, I'm not sure that "if anything xxx is more like dell" is the best argument to use on a Mac forum! :eek: :p :D

Even if anyone disputes that your 20D and 70-200L are good HW (if you should somehow become convinced of this, I will PM you my address, and you can just send them to me! :D Well, maybe I'll take the 20D and split the 70-200 with EMW, since he seems to need it more than me! ;)), I don't think anyone can dispute that you take a nice photograph! :D

And in the end, even Apple users shouldn't be gear weenies....they can be smug in the fact that they have the best, but focused on doing the best *work* with it.

emw

May 1, 2005, 11:27 AM

...split the 70-200 with EMW, since he seems to need it more than me! ;)...I'll take it! :p :D

I figure I'd like to get a new lens in the next month, so thanks everyone for posting comments. I'll let you know what I decide on!

maya

May 1, 2005, 11:29 AM

Oh I wish I could take my vacation, however due to some stupid clause I cannot until christmas season. Too bad for me I would have snagged a mid-range dSLR if I could go on vacation during late summer or early fall. :o

This sucks indeed. :(

mkrishnan

May 1, 2005, 11:40 AM

Oh I wish I could take my vacation, however due to some stupid claus I cannot until christmas season. Too bad for me I would have snagged a mid-range dSLR if I could go on vacation during late summer or early fall. :o

Awwww, I'm sorry, Maya! :( Where were you going to go? You should still buy the camera (and possibly lots and lots of chocolate), to make yourself feel better about losing your vacation. A camera, lots and lots of chocolate, and Tiger is how I made myself feel better that 80% of my friends went out of town on the weekend of my b-day. ;) Well, a camera, lots and lots of chocolate, Tiger, and the other 20% of my friends. ;)

Oh, and by the way, was the bolded part above intentional, or was that the slip of the week? :D

maya

May 1, 2005, 11:47 AM

Oh, and by the way, was the bolded part above intentional, or was that the slip of the week? :D

"Clause", that "Claus" was a typo. Feeling really down about the entire situation indeed. Chocolate helps and I already have Tiger. No point buying the camera yet, though I will buy it a month before going on vacation (during christmas)... buying it now will only make matters worse as I will have all this anticipation built-up for a long long time. :)

mkrishnan

May 1, 2005, 11:50 AM

Awwww, okay, I'm sorry. Vacation-cancelling is the holy of holies of sucking. :(

maya

May 1, 2005, 11:54 AM

Awwww, okay, I'm sorry. Vacation-cancelling is the holy of holies of sucking. :(

Tell me about it, worst part is I have more then 7 weeks built up in vacation time for this year and I see only 2 weeks of that and that also during christmas. :(

emw

May 1, 2005, 01:09 PM

Tell me about it, worst part is I have more then 7 weeks built up in vacation time for this year and I see only 2 weeks of that and that also during christmas. :(
Do you get paid for what you can't use, or at least get to carry it over? If you're paid for it (or if it's an option) that would buy your camera, I'd imagine. One potential upside, I suppose. Sorry to hear about the delay though, I can feel the pain. :(

Moxiemike

May 1, 2005, 01:43 PM

hahah, what a crock of ****

have you felt the d70, thats a toy! if anything canon is more like dell because they have the best equipment and technology, the best glass - its just there not as expensive

noise, no thanks - obviously canon users worry less about the feel of there camera (although my 20D feels fantastic and the 1 series are the best feeling cameras bar non) and more about the quality of there photography

Eh. I'd have to disagree that "canon has the best equipment and technology, the best glass, etc." I give that nod to Olympus. Canon and Nikon both could learn alot from the OlyFolks.

IMHO, Olympus is the company to watch. They're actually trying to RETHINK the SLR for digital. They're the apple-like company. Nuff said.

That said, Nikon's wide angles and normals spank canon's around the block with image quality. I know a lot of canon pros who buy sigma wide lenses cause the big red C can't keep up-- Canon wide angles have ALWAYS lagged behind the big yellow N's. Nikon's 12-24 has been out forever, giving DSLR folks a true wide. Canon just finally caught up on that.

Nikon had 802.11b & g a year before canon did. Canon is just catching up there.

Telephotos? Canon wins with more long IS glass and some decent price/performance in that range.

Noise? Sure. Canon might exhibit less noise (all bets are off if you don't know how to expose with ANY camera.. but I digress) Canon has less noise but....

Focusing? Canon might be a sliver faster, but every canon i've used (save for the one's I rented, if only because someone else did it for me) requires the body and lenses to be sent in for calibration. WTF is that? In the end, the speed is a toss-up, but Nikon wins hands down for accuracy. I've had more luck with Nikon being 100% accurate, and it's failures are more user influenced whereas Canon does have a BIG back focusing problem on the whole.

Sharpness. Nikon's files are infinitely sharper out of the camera than Canons. Canon chooses to do much more image processing in the camera, Nikon like to leave the processing to the end user. As a result:

Nikon = sharper + slightly noisier files with better highlight detail
Canon = slightly softer + less noisy with better shadow detail

Ergonomics? I know many a folk, even canon users, who agree that canon's UI is kludgier than nikons. The gap narrows as you get to the pro level stuff, and canon has better weatherproofing, and on the pro level, it's 6 in one hand, half dozen in the other, but to whit, there's no doubt the D70 crushes the rebels in build quality. Face it. It's a better built camera more on par with the 20d. Nikon also has most every advanced and non-advanced camera control accessible via a button.

Some PHOTOGRAPHERS might like that better. TECH GUYS seem to like canon's menu-driven style better. Me? I personally like not move my eye away from the viewfinder to change settings. In my experience with canon (having owned a 10d, tested and spent much time with a digital rebel, and having recently borrowed a 1d followed by a 1d2) I can honestly say that, for me, and for many other pro photogs, Nikon's UI and controls are better.

Couple that with the i-TTL features which I use extensively, and i'll say Nikon wins in ergonomics and integration, except for the lack of a PC sync for use with studio strobes.

Now recently, with the nikon white balance issue, I had the opportunity to test a Canon 1d2 vs D2h vs 1d. My conclusion is that, with propoer knowledge of photographic theory, one can achieve IDENTICAL photos, image quality wise. If you zoom in 200% you can see disparity in both--softness in canon, noise in nikon. Luckily both can be eradicated easily with software.

Canon wins on the mpix on the lower end, and for value with the 1d mkII. Nikon's D2x has shown it beats the 1ds/1ds2 and is a more well rounded, affordable digicam. I wouldn't touch the 1ds2 on the high end. At $8000 and with lens performance a huge issue, i'd avoid that one, as well as the FF kodaks.

For me, I prefer the ability to change settings on camera while I compose in the viewfinder. I'm a multi-tasking photographer, and Canon's UI is not for me.

I like Canon's noiseless images, but I wonder at what cost to image quality. I hate the fact that Nikon's images are noisier, but I love the sharpness and fidelity that I get from my nikons--i don't like a camera doing much of any work for me except exposing!

Canon's flash system is infinitely inferior to Nikons. Inconsistent, underexposed images from the flash led some of my canon images to have as much noise as nikons... with softer detail to boot! I use a flash often. E-ttl doesn't do it for me.

I'm less telephoto, more normal and wide. I like the intimacy it gives. Canon has the tele range locked down, though Nikon has some nice choices (200mm f2.0 VR AF-S!) but for the most part, canon gets the tele nod, Nikon gets the wide/normal nod. Nikkor 12-24 f/4 + Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 on a D2h with an SB-800 using i-TTL—that's a wicked combo that you really can't find a compliment for on the Canon end.

So in the end, it's a determination of what the shooter is shooting. If you want real innovation, look to Olympus, who's actually miniaturizing components and maximizing color/performance from their 4/3rds. It'll pass and obsolete 24x36mm full size sensors, IMHO, if only because it'll be easier to make faster lenses, which results in less need for hi-ISO, which alleviates the noise problem on the 4/3rds. Give olympus some time... but I think they'll really eat away from N & C.

If you want good wide, sharp images, and great normal/wide lens choice with great ergos, pick Nikon. if you want noise-free images that need less post-processing to go with your big gun teles, go Canon. The image quality at the end for either is more than we could get from 35mm film!

Although it seems like knowledegable Canon folks get too caught up in tests and ratings and mp and and and....and that's what REALLY bugs me about canon. ;) People like edesign but a camera and shoot. I like those cats. ;)

The canon-zealots get too caught up in it to realize that, GASP, just as nikon has issues, SO DO THEY. Both canon and nikon service suck, canon seems to have endless upgrades to firmware, nikon tends to have problems shipping, and i could go on. I hate Nikon's white balance decisions. And i got my hands on Canon equipment to see how it stacks up. It does, and it's great--every bit as good as Nikon, better in some areas, worse in others.

But the people who just praise Canon.... Man. I checked some canon forums, and there's no helpful advice at all (www.dg28.com is an exception, but it's less canon and more general). In canon forums, all i see are shots of brick walls to test for back-focusing and people laughing at nikon because they don't have a an 8mp mid range prosumer SLR. Weird. Weird. Weird. Nikon forums, especially www.nikonians.org, made me decide to stay with Nikon, even with this WB thing on the fore...

mkrishnan

May 1, 2005, 02:59 PM

Eh. I'd have to disagree[...]

This, folks, is what we in the industry refer to as a "smack down." :eek: ;) :D

I spent much of the afternoon out taking pictures here in Gainesville. I am still importing them *dreams of USB2*, but I think there are some good ones, with which I will be back shortly. :)

I figured, while I still have this kit lens that rocks 18mm, and no immediate plans to buy a better wide-angle, I could take advantage of it and try to take some architectural photos of campus. :D

mkrishnan

May 1, 2005, 03:02 PM

edesignuk

May 1, 2005, 03:33 PM

kiskadee

May 1, 2005, 03:45 PM

well, what DSLR have you got?

Now i've got a "slow" Olympus E-20P (fixed lense... :( ). I'm looking for a new DSLR. What camera/lense would be best for photographing indoor sports...

thanks...

mkrishnan

May 1, 2005, 03:47 PM

I'm sure if I actually knew what I was doing, I could have done a much better job...meh, good enough for now :)

I like the panoramic crop! And I want to live next door to that field of flowers that you posted way back on page 1 of this thread! :D Although, erm, in my dream world they would be violets or orchids.

Moxiemike

May 1, 2005, 04:00 PM

BTW, oh MoxieMike, I have a question...when you're using your camera, do you mostly shoot in ... a mode that corresponds to Canon's "M" (manual ISO, aperture and shutter), or "Av" (aperture select), or something else? I've been playing around and mostly shooting in Av, but I'm very open to suggestions. :)

Let me give you one of the best hints out there-- Canon, Nikon, whoever, all have these modes. They correspond to:

S/Tv = Shutter Priority mode. Excellent when you want to stop (or try to stop) motion. Pick a high shutter spped (ie...1/500th of a second) and your cam picks the aperture. When I shoot daylight sports, I shoot at 1/500th, and the camera pics an aperture for me.

A/Av = Aperture priority. Good for landscapes, as you can pick an aperture that yields the best sharpness and DOF for your shot, i.e. architectural shots.

M/M = You control Aperture AND shutter. I use this, say, if it's dusk and I want to try and freeze motion on flags on a building but want decent depth of field. It's the most flexible, and also most difficult, as you have to mind two dials.

ISO= I only go above ISO 320 in low light situations where I can't use a tripod, cranking ISO allows a faster shutter spped with a usable aperture.

So basically, look at your scene, determine the light--outside sunny tripod for architecture? ISO 50-320. Inside concert no flash allowed? Go ISO 800-3200 and use shutter priority set to 1/125th. You can use this stuff as a baseline for experimentation and adjustment to changing conditions. There's no right or wrong exposure mode-- but there's things each one excels at. So try out different settings. it'll really help you better your photography.

[edit: krish-- noticed your bday was yesterday. happy day. hope it was good! -mm]

Moxiemike

May 1, 2005, 04:03 PM

Now i've got a "slow" Olympus E-20P (fixed lense... :( ). I'm looking for a new DSLR. What camera/lense would be best for photographing indoor sports...

thanks...

Indoor sports under a grand? Get the d70. The buffer is incredible, the build is great, and the image quality is stunning. Buy the body only and get a 70-200 f2.8 sigma lens and you have a pretty close to professional sports shooting kit for a pretty fair price. :)

My assistant uses that set up when we do sports and the D70 is fast and accurate with focusing, and the image quality is great. If you're not going over 18x24 in print size, you'll see a better benefit from the D70's buffer at 6 mp then you will with the rebel, which is a great cam, though not as fully featured, at 8 mp.

Moxiemike

May 1, 2005, 04:12 PM

Nice sunset tonight :cool:

http://upload.yo-momma.net/uploads/forums/sunset.jpg (http://upload.yo-momma.net/uploads/forums/sunset_l.jpg)

http://upload.yo-momma.net/uploads/forums/sunset2.jpg (http://upload.yo-momma.net/uploads/forums/sunset2.jpg)

I'm sure if I actually knew what I was doing, I could have done a much better job...meh, good enough for now :)

Good shots. nice dynamic range. Good exposure. You get an A-! ;)

Here's a quick suggestion: you're a design-y guy, so you might know about the rule of thirds.

If you bisect the frame of a photo by thirds horizontally and vertically, try to place your subject at one of the intersections. That;ll immediately help your composition-- exposure wise, you nailed the shot about as well as you could with digital (dynamic range equivalent to slide film, which is narrowed than, say, print film, or what you might be used to with a normal P&S digital/film cam). You squeezed out about as much DR from your Rebel as it can give. Kudos.

but I think your horizon is a bit low.

For example:

Balin64

May 1, 2005, 04:30 PM

MoxieMike: You absolutely rule. I agree and bow respectfully to your vast knowledge.

I was going for the new Olympus dSLR... it was a tough choice!

I finally settled on the D70 partly for cost reasons: it is more economical to create a complete system with the Nikon.

As far as the earlier "Nikon=Macs, Canon=Dells" I was just funnin' about; the image is everything: no matter what you use. When I see a great image, I could care less what produced it.

I actually have a nostalgic fidelity to Olympus gear in honor of the thousands of images and wonderful experience I had with my two OM-4 bodies and the awesome Zuiko glass I used to own and use.

But times, they do change... and now it's time to get back into SLR shooting with a great system like the D70 being so affordable.

My experience with photography gear, (not capturing images) was at a family-owned Photography store called Goodwin Photo in San Diego. It was my college job, and I learned SO much from the owners: they were in their 70's and had always owned camera shops. My boss had been a WW II Photographer/Correspondent and was a wealth of information.

Now, with that: the Nikon-Canon rivalry began shortly after WWII ended. Japanese industry, reviving from the ashes of the War, had little time to get back on its feet, and needed products fast. The easiest way to accomplish this was by copying-cloning actually- German cameras. Canon cloned the Leica III, Nikon cloned the Contax equivalent. The thing was that these cameras almost rivaled the German ones in quality, and Photographers around the world took notice and helped nurture these two "pirating" companies into worl-wide success. The Nikon F, followed by the Nikkormat, brought SLR's to the masses and essentially made a lot of the great 50's & 60's Photojournalism possible. Those Nikons were able to survive the Hell of teh jungles in Vietnam and still keep shooting. I remember we once had a Vietnam photojournalist's daughter bring in two Nikkormat bodies. They had not beed used in a decade. I cleaned them up a tad, and they were still in great shooting shape: only the slow shutter speeds needed adjusting.

In this way, it is my opinion, Nikon has always led the way in development and production of durable, innovative, and enduring camera systems (can you put a 20 year old Canon USM lens on your Canon dSLR?) I can put a 20 year old AI Nikkor on my D70.

Gear-wise, I have always loved the Nikon feel; you just cannot compare the feel of an F3T to the era's competitor: the Canon AE1: boy what a dog of a camera; yet, many pros preferred it. Now, the EOS 1n: THAT was an SLR. It was also quite expensive and was throughly trounced by the Nikon F5, in my opinion.

From working for the Goodwins I developed quite a feel and experience with Photography gear: it did NOT make me a better photographer. We had so many guys come in, some wearing their photo vests, the stupid dorks, and they were such SNOBS. Always looking for a certain SN range in a lens because they read somewhere that they were the sharpest, or refusing to buy a Leica screwmount lens because it had a tiny air bubble on the back element, or always hauling around some huge SLR with a huge fast lens (The Contax Carl Zeiss dorks were the worst) , gear that was so pristine you knew all they did was haul it around on the weekends and take pictures of birds. Incidentally, none of those dorks ever brought us a photo they had taken... the gear does not a photographer make. My favorite customers were the local Union Tribune stalwarts. There were two guys who came in once in a while: Nikon F3, just beat to hell, dented, scratched, knobs worn, etc: but they were the quiet guys: they were also the guys responsible for some great photography in our local newspaper: now they were shooters.

So, to wrap up... I ah, yeah.

Sorry for the Nikon=Macs, Canon=Dells comment. As you can see, I am not that shallow, I was just having a little fun. Besides, I NEVER liked the feel of the Rebel, and still don't. The original Rebel's competitor, the Nikon N50, was a much more solid SLR but what killed it was that god-awful menu on top with the fan display. Anyone remember that? Yuck! I never sold that camera to anyone: I tried to sell them an N6006 instead: older, slower, but a much better camera to USE. If people balked at it, I reluctantly sold them a Rebel: I would never suggest Minolta: I had a feeling they were going down the tubes; sure enough, where are THEY now?

So anyhowl, good images E Designer in the UK. I would not choose your dSLR over mine, but at the end of the day, when you have tweaked, poured over, and finally printed your image, it is the joy, artistry and creativity that ultimately matters.

So there.

Canons still suck.

edesignuk

May 1, 2005, 04:38 PM

You lot and your Nikon vs Canon blurb crack me up :D :p

Balin64

May 1, 2005, 04:40 PM

E Designer in the UK:

The rule of thirds is an old stand-by. Try not to use the centor focus/exposure indicator as a bull's eye. Imagine the grid like Moxie suggested, and move your finder around... you'll be surprised at what can happen!

Also, get creative with your slow-sync flash: try different ambient exposure combinations and switch between front and rear sycn. It works great indoors, at close range with wide angle shots... Move your camera as you shoot, and "drag" the ambient light as your flash exposes your subject. It takes a little practice. I'll try to find an example...

Moxiemike

May 1, 2005, 04:43 PM

MoxieMike: You absolutely rule. I agree and bow respectfully to your vast knowledge.

Canons still suck.

Thanks ballin. I appreciate it. It's funny because recently, i was asked to quote a wedding. I asked the people what size they thought they'd want printing to go up to. They said they wouldn't print above 11x14.

Ok. So I quote it, and they asked what's my main camera. Nikon D2h I say. Well, apparantly, some jackarse (who i know, and who's work SUCKS. He's not even trained in the arts--and NEVER shot film) quoted the job as well. He has an 11mp Canon 1ds. Well, the couple asked me to move my price down since I had less MP.

I also shat myself right there, but I maintained my composure. I'll just let them cry about it when they have a bunch of HUGE 11mp files that are out of focus. :)

They should have asked if I had a D2x... ;)

Balin64

May 1, 2005, 04:50 PM

Here's an example. I have better ones, but I am too comfy on the 'PBook and that's what I have on hand. What do you think? :)

mkrishnan

May 1, 2005, 04:54 PM

They should have asked if I had a D2x... ;)

Yes, then you could've linked 'em! :D Thanks for the input on mode selection, and also for the kind b-day wishes. This camera and the 50mm f/1.4 which is on order were my presents to myself. ;)

mkrishnan

May 1, 2005, 04:57 PM

BTW, Mike, Balin or anyone else, one more question...this seems to be an issue I have more if I use extreme wide-angle settings and try for a distorted perspective, like looking up along the corner vertex of a building...I found that many of my shots like that were surprisingly crooked. What I had been doing is trying to line up the main vertical and/or horizontal elements with the metering/focusing indicator boxes, since they have points and form a crosshair in the picture frame. Is there a better method? I guess I can take a photo in a mirror with my camera, and make sure it doesn't have an intrinsically skewed sensor, but I'm assuming that this is something much simpler than that. :rolleyes:

Balin64

May 1, 2005, 04:58 PM

Ok. So I quote it, and they asked what's my main camera. Nikon D2h I say. Well, apparantly, some jackarse (who i know, and who's work SUCKS. He's not even trained in the arts--and NEVER shot film) quoted the job as well. He has an 11mp Canon 1ds. Well, the couple asked me to move my price down since I had less MP.

I also shat myself right there, but I maintained my composure. I'll just let them cry about it when they have a bunch of HUGE 11mp files that are out of focus. :)

They should have asked if I had a D2x... ;)

Man. I remember stuff like that from my shooting days. It also did not help I was so green! Especially in a competitive market like San Diego. Jeez. Some old phat geezer in a studio upstairs was always usurping jobs I was better suited for only becasue he had been around longer... and because he was a big fat ass-kisser.

Off topic: the photo I uploaded is a disgrace. I didn't notice it was from an "originals" folder and it has all these card artifacts on it. I shot that on an Olympus E-20 I no longer own. It made me want a "real" SLR so damn bad! Now I have one. :)

Balin64

May 1, 2005, 05:07 PM

About the perspective:

I have not gone back on this thread, but my first thought is: do you use a rangefinder? I seem to recall you have an SLR, correct?

Although SLR's are true TTL (through the lens) rangefinders are not. However, I assume you knew that, sorry.

When I take similar shots, I often line up the base of the corner of the building with the bottom left/right corner in my viewfinder. This seems to work fine. At least with the playing around with the D70 I have done the last two weeks, it seems to work fine...

Does that make sense?

mkrishnan

May 1, 2005, 05:12 PM

When I take similar shots, I often line up the base of the corner of the building with the bottom left/right corner in my viewfinder. This seems to work fine. At least with the playing around with the D70 I have done the last two weeks, it seems to work fine...

Thanks! :) I am using the standard viewfinder on the DRebel (so don't hold that against me! :D). I did also take several shots using the bottom of the viewfinder to align with a horizontal element, and that did work a lot better. But when I tried to use the markings on the screen as alignments vertically, it didn't work as well. I think maybe the problem was that I was aligned in a roll and pitch sense as I wanted to be, but not in the yaw sense. I don't know the camera-ese way to say that. I mean that I was not standing with my body square to the building.

To be honest, I am very new at wide-angle photos -- I have never really owned anything that did them before, and I just wanted to learn a little bit about them. Since the perspective is so distorted, it seems to be very important to be oriented and positioned in three dimensions exactly right, and I am still picking up the art of it.

BakedBeans

May 1, 2005, 05:13 PM

Moxie, thanks for replying - i would love to reply right now but your post is just to long to reply to for someone that hasnt slept in nearly 3 days :O

i will reply to it because i have issues with some things you say (infinitely better flash system, better just about - infinitely is by far over exaggerated, and the 1ds MKII v the d2x - well)

thanks for takin the time out to put your points of view across but ZZZzzzzzzzzz

night night

BakedBeans

May 1, 2005, 05:24 PM

Now i've got a "slow" Olympus E-20P (fixed lense... :( ). I'm looking for a new DSLR. What camera/lense would be best for photographing indoor sports...

thanks...

can believe moxie recommended the d70 for this, i would say a 20D would suit you really well, mainly because you get low noise images at iso1600 (totally usable) giving you a ton of flexibility in low light situations, i would be worried about going over 400 on the D70 (not being biased, just i wouldn't feel i could get reasonable images) the 20d also shoots 5frames per second, the d70 (no matter how much a nikonian will tell you) doesn't stand up to the 20D

moxie made a good call on the sigma though - i almost got it myself but i managed to get a great price on a brand new L series lens which is fantastic sharpness and optical quality (its not just about sharpness, it about colour and contrast also) but the sigma at 2.8 is a good lens

the 20D+70-200 2.8+1.4x extender will do you a treat

Moxiemike

May 1, 2005, 05:40 PM

can believe moxie recommended the d70 for this, i would say a 20D would suit you really well, mainly because you get low noise images at iso1600 (totally usable) giving you a ton of flexibility in low light situations, i would be worried about going over 400 on the D70 (not being biased, just i wouldn't feel i could get reasonable images) the 20d also shoots 5frames per second, the d70 (no matter how much a nikonian will tell you) doesn't stand up to the 20D

moxie made a good call on the sigma though - i almost got it myself but i managed to get a great price on a brand new L series lens which is fantastic sharpness and optical quality (its not just about sharpness, it about colour and contrast also) but the sigma at 2.8 is a good lens

the 20D+70-200 2.8+1.4x extender will do you a treat

$999 for D70 kit + $699 for Sigma is considerable less than the 20d + kit lens, which isn't as nice as the D70 kit lens. Then they'll have 28-300 equiv covered versus 28-80 on the Canon side.

The canon 20d also doesn't shoot 5fps, but is rather ADVERTISED as 5fps. Alot of people's independant tests show it's 4.5fps for the first burst, and slows down until buffer is filled. D70 shoots much more consistently at 3fps. :)

In my mind, fps is one thing, having to stop and take out the film is another. Waiting for the buffer to clear is the digital equivalent.

The d70, at its price, is a much better starter sports cam for someone. And let's be honest here. The d70 isn't bad at ISO 200-800. It's useable at 1600. You're obviously programmed by canon to believe that noise is such a huge factor. That said, a D70 is gonna be less noisey that it's film equivalents, and even much more so than any other p&s digicam.

Maybe at 1600 & 3200 the canon wins. But at the price point, they don't have enough for the sigma lens. So they're stuck without a good telephoto. They have to crop, and there goes any resolution benefit from the 20d.

If you're serious about recommending the sigma, don't bust their budget on a body! :)

And let's lastly make this clear: a D70 with nikon's kit lens should run circles around a 20d with it's kits lens. Apples to Apples (or as close as possible) and we can see that EVEN at $999 the D70's image is gonna be rendered much better because the glass is better.

The measurebators (low noise ISO and high mp people) like to keep bringing up noise issues and whatnot. Getting good glass can cut 20-30% of the noise from a shot. I used a crappy lens on my d2h for an ISO 1600 shot. It sucked. I swapped out that lens and put on my 35mm prime, which is a BRILLIANT lens, and took a similar shot and the results were HUGE. Glass is almost everything in photography. And much more crucial to mp and ISO. Good glass begets good images.

Put a 24-70L on your 20d, and we'll talk. But I could then just go and put a 17-55 on a D70. And even then.... the D70 comes out cheaper.

You'll replace your digicam in a year or two. You'll keep that 70-200 Sigma much much longer. Get the d70, save some cash on your body purchase for a good tele lens, and you'll be much happier and get much more bang for the buck.

And don't worry about ISO noise on the D70. If you take some time and learn how things work on it, you'll get similar results to the Canon. And remember this: noise in prints doesn't really start to show until you're at big enlargements. If you're going for 24x36... maybe a 20d. If you're gonna be printing at 8x10 or smaller, do yourself a favor and invest more $$ in good lenses.

BakedBeans

May 1, 2005, 06:28 PM

$999 for D70 kit + $699 for Sigma is considerable less than the 20d + kit lens, which isn't as nice as the D70 kit lens. Then they'll have 28-300 equiv covered versus 28-80 on the Canon side.

who in there right mind buys a camera like 20D with a kit lens, kit lenses are crap - simple, no photographer worth there salt goes and buys a body with a kit lens. trying to gain brownie points buy comparing kit lenses is ridiculous

the 20D is 1,259.95usd from B&H, so the 1700 usd you quote is hardly "considerable less" is it? infact its more

he didnt say he has to have a cheap camera body did he?

The canon 20d also doesn't shoot 5fps, but is rather ADVERTISED as 5fps. Alot of people's independant tests show it's 4.5fps for the first burst, and slows down until buffer is filled. D70 shoots much more consistently at 3fps. the canon shoots a 5fps, simple. unscientific independent test one individual camera dont count - the 20D is 2fps faster then the D70

In my mind, fps is one thing, having to stop and take out the film is another. Waiting for the buffer to clear is the digital equivalent.[quote]

lol, are you serious? this is obviously a bad point for the nikon then, seeing as its buffer is TWICE as big. what is your point here?

[quote]The d70, at its price, is a much better starter sports cam for someone.

netter than what, the 20D? why? because its slower, more noisy, lower iso range et al

And let's be honest here. The d70 isn't bad at ISO 200-800. It's useable at 1600. You're obviously programmed by canon to believe that noise is such a huge factor. That said, a D70 is gonna be less noisey that it's film equivalents, and even much more so than any other p&s digicam.

resorting to comparing the d70 to a point and shoot camera and saying its much better really isnt doing much good for the nikon fight, we are not comparing the d70 against point and shoot or film cameras, we are comparing digital SLR's

Maybe at 1600 & 3200 the canon wins.

this really shows how much of a fanboy of nikon you are, maybe whats mabe about it, canon are far far ahead in the noise reduction/iso stakes. its a fact throughout the range

But at the price point, they don't have enough for the sigma lens. So they're stuck without a good telephoto. They have to crop, and there goes any resolution benefit from the 20d.

what? so your assuming that the original poster is going to be totally buggered because (the far better) 20d is 200 bucks more? there will be no cropping, the resolution is better, the cmos sensor is better, the iso range is better, the noise reduction is better. so you basing the nikon d70 to be a better camera because this fictional "they" only have exactly enough to buy the nikon and sigma, hmmm good point mike :rolleyes:

If you're serious about recommending the sigma, don't bust their budget on a body! again, whats all this budget stuff? it 200 bucks in a $2k purchase

And let's lastly make this clear: a D70 with nikon's kit lens should run circles around a 20d with it's kits lens

"ive got this really **** lens that nobody wants and its better than your really crap lens that nobody wants", every photographer (including yourself) knows that you should never base your purchase on a damn kit lens, why would you try to make someone believe a camera is better because of a kit lens? the kit lens makes the camera worse, the only way you can judge is by having the same lens on the different cameras (something the guys at sigma do nicely for us)

Apples to Apples (or as close as possible) and we can see that EVEN at $999 the D70's image is gonna be rendered much better because the glass is better. agaqin your basing this on shooting with a kit lens (which he doesnt want he wants a tele zoom for indoor sport) its like saying, the nikon+dirty lens thats full of water are so rubbish compared to the canon with its L glass

The measurebators (low noise ISO and high mp people) like to keep bringing up noise issues and whatnot. Getting good glass can cut 20-30% of the noise from a shot. I used a crappy lens on my d2h for an ISO 1600 shot. It sucked. I swapped out that lens and put on my 35mm prime, which is a BRILLIANT lens, and took a similar shot and the results were HUGE. Glass is almost everything in photography. And much more crucial to mp and ISO. Good glass begets good images.

yep, glass is everything, another reason to go with canon and the L series

jared_kipe

May 1, 2005, 06:32 PM

On a side note, NoiseNinja works wonders on removing noise. Then everyone can play nice at 1600. Though I try to keep mine on my 300D at 400 or lower on things I want to actually use. (non scientific things)

BakedBeans

May 1, 2005, 06:39 PM

noise programs can only take it so far, and takes the images an equal distance

noise is a pain in the arse, as it out of focus and dirty sensors, all fall into the same degrading of images to me

for the record i like nikons :) i do, its just that canon is winning the race at the moment, i will use a nikon when they win the race, just the same as ill use windows when thats becomes better (yeah right!)

MacManDan

May 1, 2005, 06:43 PM

The canon 20d also doesn't shoot 5fps, but is rather ADVERTISED as 5fps. Alot of people's independant tests show it's 4.5fps for the first burst, and slows down until buffer is filled. D70 shoots much more consistently at 3fps. :)
...(snip)
The d70, at its price, is a much better starter sports cam for someone. And let's be honest here. The d70 isn't bad at ISO 200-800. It's useable at 1600. You're obviously programmed by canon to believe that noise is such a huge factor. That said, a D70 is gonna be less noisey that it's film equivalents, and even much more so than any other p&s digicam.
(snip)

Moxie, I can't help but comment - as a Canon user I disagree with many of your points, but I find no real point in trying to refute them and subsequently "bash" Nikon from my own perspective. I dread that this thread, originally based on e's experience with his new cam is quickly turning into a Canon/Nikon debate that will never end.
I respect your opinions and agree with some of your anti-Canon points (auto flash metering is nearly useless), but I have a hard time getting through all of your posts. For example, in this quoted post, you reference the 20D's measured value of 4.5fps instead of a true 5 (compared to the D70's "true" 3fps), then later go on to bash 'measurebators' for comparing the high ISOs of one camera vs another.
My first dSLR was an old 35mm film Konica with no automatic features whatsoever. It was made of solid steel and the ergonomics (with its massive 28-100 f/2.8 lens) literally made taking photographs painful. When I first started modernizing about a year ago by taking a look at new dSLRs I was stuck between the 300d and the d70. I heard there was a rumored 10d successor (now known as the 20d) so I waited for months for it to materialize. In the end, after trying both systems briefly, I realized I could learn either equally well and I should get the right tool for the job. This ended up being the 20d because I knew I would need a good camera for very low light (I dislike flash, personally, and don't have the time or inclination to set up a studio-like flash arrangement) and responsive for being able to capture the moments of my fast-moving 7 and 9 year old siblings. While I easily could have chosen the d70, the 20d seemed like a better choice for its better ISO performance. Granted, the amount of gain may be marginal, but it is still an improvement. Also, Canon's relatively better (cheaper?) offerings in the telephoto range was important to me. The solution was simple: buy the 20d.
Anyway, the Konica film camera was returned to my mom (who inherited it from my grandparents) after I purchased the 20d, and I'll tell you, it was quite a difference. I think you'll find that 'growing up' on a Canon makes the Nikon system's ergnomics prohibitively confusing. I picked up a d70 and gave it an honest shot, but it felt so foreign and confusing that I was glad to return to my 20D. I can change settings on my Canon without removing my eye from the viewfinder, so its certainly not impossible.

Anyway, my point is that all of the cameras mentioned on this thread are excellent choices. IMHO, the d70 is an excellent choice for entry-level photographers who want to get into a dSLR system but don't want to spend a fortune on good glass. Its excellent kit glass is a testament to this. The xt 350d is Canon's answer, and while I find it flimsier than the d70 and includes less-stellar glass, it may be better for those who want a smaller SLR with very similar performance. The 20d is often compared to the d70, which is fine - but it is at a different price point and with different set of features, I'm not quite sure it compares to a modern Nikon camera, but I could be wrong. The 20d might be a good choice for a person who wants to spend some extra cash on good long lenses for excellent entry-level sporting (indoor and out) photographs. Moving up, the gap closes between the d2x and 1dii & 1dsii - all three are excellent cameras with their own uses and advantages. You can, of course, do photojournalistic stuff with Canons, or sports stuff with Nikons, even if they're not designed for it - but it may be more difficult or more expensive to do so.
In the end, an excellent photographer can be given any of these cameras and, given enough time, set up shots of caliber well beyond many of us on this thread can produce. I'm nowhere near this quality but I try.. A camera is simply a tool - find the one that works for you.

jared_kipe

May 1, 2005, 07:05 PM

I'll add in some macro shots I took recently with my first generation dreb. They were all shot with my canon ef 28-105mm 3.5-4.5 in reverse mount position (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=120781&highlight=reverse+mount+canon)

http://homepage.mac.com/jared_kipe/crw1.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/jared_kipe/crw2.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/jared_kipe/crw4.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/jared_kipe/crw5.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/jared_kipe/crw6.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/jared_kipe/crw7.jpg

Also, I wouldn't argue too much about anything (like canon vs. nikon) as you will get aggravated, and the only thing the mods will do is shut down the thread when other people don't stop their insults.

EDIT: Oh and Bees are hella hard to catch flitting from flower to flower in manual focus mode. :'(

mkrishnan

May 1, 2005, 07:10 PM

I'll add in some macro shots I took recently with my first generation dreb.

That last one is really gorgeous! What kind of flower is that?

jared_kipe

May 1, 2005, 07:21 PM

That last one is really gorgeous! What kind of flower is that?
I have noooo idea. Reminds me of this purple desert stickler plant I had back in colorado. But this is just some weird flower.

As a note, these were just iphoto versions of my RAW images, optimized a little. But my reverse mount introduces a pretty severe red/yellow chromatic aberration which is pretty easily cleared using Adobe RAW import with a profile I have made. These are not "the best they could get", but then again, I told you about bees.

You gotta remember, those top two flowers are probably not more than .5-1cm in diameter.

jared_kipe

May 1, 2005, 07:27 PM

That last one is really gorgeous! What kind of flower is that?

Speaking of odd flowers, how do you like this hanging one? Little guys were blowing around which doesn't help me hand holding in relatively low light any.

http://homepage.mac.com/jared_kipe/crw8.jpg

mkrishnan

May 1, 2005, 07:39 PM

Speaking of odd flowers, how do you like this hanging one? Little guys were blowing around which doesn't help me hand holding in relatively low light any.

These I've seen before. They are very pretty though. I'm a big fan of any flowers in the violet/purple/lavendar continuum. ;) The wind thing is quite an issue, though! :eek:

BTW, I moved all of mine to another thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=123629) so as not to get in the way of the canon/nikon fight (or, ahem, the reverse-mount of that!? :D)...I did not buy this camera intending to do macros or flower pictures, but it is actually rather fun, which makes me think that perhaps I should think more seriously about a macro lens... I think I am technically up to re-enacting your bit of making a macro out of a zoom lens, but I think I would prefer not to go that route.

edesignuk

May 2, 2005, 05:49 AM

So nice to see the Nikon vs Canon battles have flared up again :rolleyes:

BakedBeans

May 2, 2005, 06:46 AM

So nice to see the Nikon vs Canon battles have flared up again :rolleyes:

delete them them

.Andy

May 2, 2005, 06:55 AM

Speaking of odd flowers, how do you like this hanging one?

Hey Jared,
That there would be a Fucshia. A fantastic flowering shrub for a semi-shaded position in a rich, moist, soil. They can be a little sensitive to frost though :(. They come from a huge family with some wonderful flower shapes. If you do a search you'll probably find that there is an annual Fucshia show in your area :cool:.
Nice photo :)! Can't wait to get my 300D - saving up now!

.Andy :)

LifeIsCheap

May 2, 2005, 07:55 AM

I have noooo idea. Reminds me of this purple desert stickler plant I had back in colorado. But this is just some weird flower.

Hey that's a dandelion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dandelion). More accurately a dandelion 'clock'. Spreads the seed man...

Moxiemike

May 2, 2005, 08:03 AM

So nice to see the Nikon vs Canon battles have flared up again :rolleyes:

Hey, as long as people feel the need to make rash generalizations I feel the need to assert my knowledge of both platforms. If people aren't thick skinned enough to realize that their platform isn't perfect, and they wanna cry when I make healthy recommendations, then so be it.

I don't mind. I've got my gear (d100, d2h, 10d) and I enjoy all of it equally. I just hate the rash "canons suck or nikons suck" bull-crap.

you're happy with your cam, and i'm willing to give you any advice or info you want. Dudes that can't take criticism of their system...well, no one wants to know when their expensive gear has drawbacks. They think of this stuff as an investment. I do too. The difference is I want the next generation to have improvments, so I research the faults of all.

Rash generalizations such as "x brand sucks" or "beat the pants off x brand" are completely ridiculous. And that mostly comes from a very few members here. So i'll gladly spank 'em. ;)

BakedBeans

May 2, 2005, 08:21 AM

And that mostly comes from a very few members here. So i'll gladly spank 'em. ;)

by saying things about buffers when the camera your recomending is half the size?

ohhh spanked ;)

i like nikons (as i have said) but i get annoyed when you became a fanboy and started saying how much better a d70 was than a 20D, which is simply untrue and bad advice for less knowledgeable people/purchasers on this board. if your comparing the 300d vs the d70, get the d70 - its a much better camera, however if you want the best camera (in a non profession 1 series camera) then the 20D is the best option (which i proved in the previous answer to your post, that you conveniently didnt reply to as it makes your point invalid) im more interested in which camera is the best than which brand is your best,

Moxiemike

May 2, 2005, 12:38 PM

by saying things about buffers when the camera your recomending is half the size?

ohhh spanked ;)

i like nikons (as i have said) but i get annoyed when you became a fanboy and started saying how much better a d70 was than a 20D, which is simply untrue and bad advice for less knowledgeable people/purchasers on this board. if your comparing the 300d vs the d70, get the d70 - its a much better camera, however if you want the best camera (in a non profession 1 series camera) then the 20D is the best option (which i proved in the previous answer to your post, that you conveniently didnt reply to as it makes your point invalid) im more interested in which camera is the best than which brand is your best,

Nah. You've only proven that you think the d70 feels like a toy. See you need to prove this, prove that, prove canon, i don't care what you have to prove.

Most people out here these days are budget concious. in my reply to the guy's post, I was saying that for the price of a D70 + Sigma, you get a more flexible and usable entry level system. ISO noise isn't a big concern, and fps isn't that big of a difference, neither is buffer, and with the 20d's firmware and focusing issues, the D70 will be a better functioning camera giving good value for the money, overall similar performance AND they'll have an infinitely better lens system, which will give the d70 even more of an edge.

You can talk **** all you want about kit lenses, but the lens that comes with the d70 is hardly a piece of junk like those kits lenses that come with the rebels and 20d's. the image quality i've seen from that lens is stunning, and really adds and compliments to the D70. The images I see coming from Canon's kit lenses is vastly inferior. The rebel/20d doesn't impress me until you put some L series glass on it.

So let's do it this way:

20d, no lens = $1499
Sigma 70-200 = $699
Cano 24-85 = $350
Total = $2548

D70 with kit = $999
Sigma 70-200 = $699
Total = $1799

To get a 20d with a comparable lens to the Nikkor 18-70, (which you really can't get with the Canon, if only because their kit lenses aren't very good.) you'll need to go the route of the 24-85, get the 20d with no lens and spend $2600 total.

Most people who want pics of their kids playing sports aren't gonna spend that kind of money. So as far as bang for the buck? The d70 wins hands down. You could get a rebel/rebel xt, but you're dealing with a flimsier body with less control than the D70, which means consumer is more likely to replace it sooner, or break it faster. I know MANY stories of 70-200 lenses at f2.8 (size=big) pulling the lens mount off the original rebel.

So what we've learned here is Nikon's D70 is HARDLY a toy. It's a lean, mean middle of the road machine, offering performance that is very close to Canon's mid-level flagship (20d) offering only a marginally smaller amount of pixels if that matters to you, and allowing you to get a better wide-normal zoom and a great tele zoom to cover a range from ~28mm - ~300mm. Go with the rebel, you can do something similar lens wise, but you lose a lot of functionality and don't really gain much in pixels. Plus your 17-55 kit lens is vastly slower and inferior to the nikkor. The d70 can compete with either and come out as a better value if only because the lens, for 99.9% of consumer purposes, is a quantum leap in performance over what Canon offers in the same range. If you get the equivalent 20d system, you're out an extra $750 which could be used to purchase a flash, extra CF or even an iPod photo and camera connector to download your shots to.

And if we take my original post in this thread into account, we can see that we're not sacrificing so much in image quality in comparison to the dollars saved.

Same with the D2x versus the 1ds mk II and the soon to be D50 with the original rebel and new rebel. It's an even more pronounced price-performance issue with the D2x versuses the 1ds mk II, but I won't go into that here. There you'll REALLY see nikon innovating over canon. In spades. The D2x as a high-resolution flagship makes me shudder at those spending $8k on the 1ds MK II, whereas the D2x functions more like a D2x AND a D2h all in one. And even after spending $5k on the D2x, you have enough to get a D2h/hs as a compliment and STILL Spend about the same as if you bought ONE 1ds MK II.

There's tons of reasons to choose nikon or canon. And when it all boils down to it, I see a lot more advantages to buying into the Nikon system as it delivers the features many of us want at more affordable price point. (only more because regardless of brand, $5000/$8000 is TOO MUCH for ANY SLR)

Factor in image quality being a toss up between the two, and I'm hedging my bets on nikon. And remember, i'm more vested in Nikon, and I have reasons for saying this, but Al does too, as he's vested in Canon. Seems to be a lot more Canon/Nikon stuff since the D2x hit the shelves and people started seeing how killer of a camera it is...but I'll stop short of saying what I want to say here. ;)

Remember...canon has REALLY only been the "leader" for about a year and a half here. The 1ds was the one that really began to distance them from the pack, but it seems the D2x is a more than worthy competitor and in many cases beats the 1ds/1ds mk II... and i'm sure you remember when Canon had the IMPRESSIVE d30 competing against the D1 which walked all over it, don't ya?

In the end, pick either and you'll be happy. If you want to know, I'll gladly point out differences between the systems, recommend a nikon (as their value in the consumer line is much better, IMHO), and let you go on your way.

I'll be even more happy to talk about exposure, lighting, low-light, time lapse, portraiture, product shooting, et. al. and gladly showcase my work for anyone who wishes to gain some inspiration or for anyone to use a springboard for ideas, questions, etc., or whatever.

jared_kipe

May 2, 2005, 12:51 PM

Hey that's a dandelion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dandelion). More accurately a dandelion 'clock'. Spreads the seed man...

HAHAHA, no no, not the dandelion, the purple thing. Could still be a weed, the white odd flower is up here.

BakedBeans

May 2, 2005, 01:54 PM

once again moxie i could take your post apart (in the same way i did, and you still havent responded to the points i made, in my previous post)

the 20d is gettable 1250 btw, not 100 like you claim.

anyway, i have had enough of your blatantly wrong posts. saying things like "its better bang for the buck" doesnt make it a better camera, its still a worse but cheaper camera

you go on about d1x and the 1dsII like its some huge nikon v canon debate, this wasnt it was a d70 vv 20D debate

ive no problem with showcasing works to show the improvements of the 20D with L Glass over the 20d With the BEST nikon lens in that range if thats what you want

the real test would be for you to take a D70 and i take a 20D and we stand side by side at the same sporting event with the same lens and see how gets more consistent results, cant happen though, i dont live in yankeeland and my lens isnt long enough to reach (without the extender anyway :) )

Chip NoVaMac

May 2, 2005, 10:52 PM

To get a 20d with a comparable lens to the Nikkor 18-70, (which you really can't get with the Canon, if only because their kit lenses aren't very good.) you'll need to go the route of the 24-85, get the 20d with no lens and spend $2600 total.

Moxie, first there are two kit lenses for the 20D. The 18-55 and the 17-85IS. The 18-55 may not be the best built lens, but many would be hard pressed to see a quality difference.

The 17-85IS is maybe an even better kit lens then the Nikon, according to some. And you get VR (image stabilization) to boot.

That being said, price should not be the only deciding factor. For some a key factor, but should not be the only one.

For anyone buying a DSLR, I recommend going to your local shop. Yes, I work for one of the local shops. But we do a good job of showing the different models and explaining the differences and letting the customer decide for themselves. Some will chose Nikon (in particular the D70 is a great value), some will go Canon, and even some will go Olympus (as to value of the E-300 two lens kit makes Nikon and Canon look like jokes).

cr2sh

May 4, 2005, 09:53 PM

I avoided replying to this thread until I had the time to actually get out and pick up the cameras being debated.

I went out to CL!CK tonight and told the guy I was interested in seeing a Nikon D70, a Canon Digital Rebel and a 20D.

He promptly pulled out a Nikon D70, (2) Canon Digital Rebels and a Olympus Camera.

First sentence out of his mouth... "I can't understand why anyone would want to buy a 20D, the rebel matches in quality of images, it has the same megapixels... the 20D just costs more."

I explained that I'd heard really good things about the 20D and wanted to see one, he said they didn't have any in stock so I started playing with the cameras in front of me.

Wrapping my hand around the rebel, it was small.. it was lite... it didn't quite fit. The more I played with it the more I realized, it was just to small for my big hands... I didn't really care for the idea of the Rebel anyways.

The Nikon I dug. Good size and feel.

The Olympus felt lite also, didn't play with it much. I'm kinda set on either a Nikon or a Canon... he said it was a great value.. I dunno.

Anyways, he pressed me on the Nikon kit sale they have going.. I pressed on with body only and lens recommendations. He spouted on about what lenses he'd recommend and not knowing one from the other I asked him to write it down:

Canon 20-35 F_F $449.99
Pro 28-105 $179.95

The D70 kit comes with the 18-70, a $100 print card and a free Epson R200 for $1099. Impressions?

How long until the D70s comes out and is that going to effect the price of the D70 in a "hold off" kinda way? Sorry to turn this into a cr2sh buys a camera thread... but it falls in line with what you guys are discussing. I will be holding off until I get to see this 20D.

iGary

May 4, 2005, 10:04 PM

First sentence out of his mouth... "I can't understand why anyone would want to buy a 20D, the rebel matches in quality of images, it has the same megapixels... the 20D just costs more."

Wrong, wrong.

I've had both the new Rebel (as a spare body) and I own a 20D. The Rebel always required copious amounts of noise Ninja and Intellisharpen. I never, ever have to touch a 20D image with Noise Ninja, even at 1600.

The two CMOS sensors in the 20D and the 350D are not the same.

Your salesman is a misinformed Nikon nut.

I'm sure he didn't mention the 20D blows the 350D out of the water in speed, or the fact that it is built around a magnesium alloy (not plastic) frame or that the controls are far more pro-user friendly for quick action, either.

Mind you, the 350D is a nice camera, but isn't a 20D.

Nikon versus Canon is like Mac versus PC's...we could talk about this forever. :rolleyes:

iGary

May 4, 2005, 10:06 PM

Oh, and just go load up a D70 and a 20D with CF cards and hold down the shutter and see which one stops first, and which one is faster. :rolleyes:

cr2sh

May 4, 2005, 10:10 PM

Nikon versus Canon is like Mac versus PC's...we could talk about this forever. :rolleyes:

I'm not insisting that we talk about it forever... just long enough that I feel confident in this $1500 purchase. So humor me please and in the future I'll handle questions regarding this decision. :)

mkrishnan

May 4, 2005, 10:17 PM

How long until the D70s comes out and is that going to effect the price of the D70 in a "hold off" kinda way? Sorry to turn this into a cr2sh buys a camera thread... but it falls in line with what you guys are discussing. I will be holding off until I get to see this D20.

One small piece of input is that, since the Rebel XT came out, the volume of used Rebels (which already had a big market because of upgrades to the 10D/20D series) really exploded. It was very easy to find one. So I suspect that the D70s might have the same impact on the D70?

iGary

May 4, 2005, 10:17 PM

I'm not insisting that we talk about it forever... just long enough that I feel confident in this $1500 purchase. So humor me please and in the future I'll handle questions regarding this decision. :)

Wasn't really directing that at you personally. Just saying like Mac vs. PC, some people won't budge, even when logic dictates it. Basically I agree with you. You need to make up your own mind in the end. :D

Want a recommendation? I own a 20D, I love it, it takes professional-grade images that I get paid for. The 350D didn't cut it even as a spare body, and I also owned a 300D that I HATED.

I don't know much about the D70, but lots of people like it.

Canon's L glass and telephoto lenses spank Nikon's all over the place. Canon's wide angle choices suck. That's what the Sigma 12-24 is for. ;)

Go visit the wildlife and nature forums over at Fred Miranda and see what most of the best of the best nature and sports photography is being shot with: Canons with long L glass.

Chip NoVaMac

May 4, 2005, 10:39 PM

The D70 kit comes with the 18-70, a $100 print card and a free Epson R200 for $1099. Impressions?

How long until the D70s comes out and is that going to effect the price of the D70 in a "hold off" kinda way? Sorry to turn this into a cr2sh buys a camera thread... but it falls in line with what you guys are discussing. I will be holding off until I get to see this 20D.

The D70 deals are out there. There is the Nikon $100 rebate, the Epson $100 printer bundle rebate, and like my shop a mail-in $100 Gift Card offer.

The D70s is due later this month. More than likely you won't see the D70 drop much more. The changes to the D70s are not that great. And the $200 savings that most dealers are giving off the $1199 price, it will still sell.

jared_kipe

May 4, 2005, 11:30 PM

I don't think there is anything wrong with the original digital rebel, with it you can do something special, like ...

http://homepage.mac.com/jared_kipe/spi1.jpg

Chip NoVaMac

May 4, 2005, 11:56 PM

I don't think there is anything wrong with the original digital rebel, with it you can do something special, like ...

To be honest iGary's issues with the 300D may have had more to do with the size and "non-conforming" layout of the controls. For us 10D owners, the 300D gave use camera envy. Especially after the hack was made available to bring many of the 10D features to the 300D.

mkrishnan

May 5, 2005, 12:03 AM

To be honest iGary's issues with the 300D may have had more to do with the size and "non-conforming" layout of the controls. For us 10D owners, the 300D gave use camera envy. Especially after the hack was made available to bring many of the 10D features to the 300D.

Yeah, investigating this hack is def on my to do list, although I'm not sure if I'll use it. The size and feel issues are very important. I personally actually like the size / dimensions of the canon. I have large hands, but my fingers are very slender...they've gotten a lot more slender over time somehow...lol, I have a pinky ring from my senior year of college, that I can almost fit on my ring finger now! :eek: But I find the 300D comfortable. I could totally see how someone else wouldn't. A camera that encourages you to shoot pictures is a good thing.

jared_kipe

May 5, 2005, 12:17 AM

Yeah, investigating this hack is def on my to do list, although I'm not sure if I'll use it. The size and feel issues are very important. I personally actually like the size / dimensions of the canon. I have large hands, but my fingers are very slender...they've gotten a lot more slender over time somehow...lol, I have a pinky ring from my senior year of college, that I can almost fit on my ring finger now! :eek: But I find the 300D comfortable. I could totally see how someone else wouldn't. A camera that encourages you to shoot pictures is a good thing.

Ahh you have the old rebel, I use the hack. It rules, FEC, image quality at push of button, mirror lock up, and so much more.

mkrishnan

May 5, 2005, 12:20 AM

Ahh you have the old rebel, I use the hack. It rules, FEC, image quality at push of button, mirror lock up, and so much more.

Yeah, I got a good enough deal on a very slightly and gently used one that I couldn't pass up. I will check it out, although right now I have plenty to munch on as it is. :)

jared_kipe

May 5, 2005, 12:31 AM

Yeah, I got a good enough deal on a very slightly and gently used one that I couldn't pass up. I will check it out, although right now I have plenty to munch on as it is. :)

Aww just install it, doesn't change a thing, only adds to it. FEC is really useful, so is changing image size without going into the menu. h**p://satinfo.narod.ru/en/download.html

Chip NoVaMac

May 5, 2005, 12:39 AM

The size and feel issues are very important. I personally actually like the size / dimensions of the canon. I have large hands, but my fingers are very slender...they've gotten a lot more slender over time somehow...lol, I have a pinky ring from my senior year of college, that I can almost fit on my ring finger now! :eek: But I find the 300D comfortable. I could totally see how someone else wouldn't. A camera that encourages you to shoot pictures is a good thing.

Size and "comfort" and "style" issues are something that I mention to all of my customers. You have to feel comfortable with a camera, if you are going to truly use it. It sounds trite, but it is something that I have seen in some customers.

For me, I am a bit ham fisted. The DRebel series just does not feel good to me. As much as I would be willing to pay the price for a 1DmkII, it just does not fit my style of shooting. Much too large and heavy.

Going back to the Canon/Nikon bashing. As of now I do feel that the the D70 is a very worthy camera. A decent value (as I have said I think the E-300 EVolt is a better value). But the D70 does fall short in two areas that the 300D/350D/20D answer - a vertical grip and a wired release. We can only hope that Nikon added the proper connections for a vertical grip - TBA. The other they did address with the upcoming D70s.

mkrishnan

May 5, 2005, 12:45 AM

For me, I am a bit ham fisted. The DRebel series just does not feel good to me.

I think this is exactly what it is, and what makes a lot of caucasian men, esp, not like the Rebel. I guess too though, that the whole button thing can be seen from many different angles. I am not a huge fan of Canon's layout, but coming from an S50, the 300D did not exactly have a steep learning curve! :rolleyes:

Chip NoVaMac

May 5, 2005, 12:47 AM

For those with old Canon D30, D60, EOS1D, Digital Rebel (300D) and D100 digital SLRs; you can get them converted to infrared use at this site:

http://www.irdigital.net/

Chip NoVaMac

May 5, 2005, 12:53 AM

I guess too though, that the whole button thing can be seen from many different angles. I am not a huge fan of Canon's layout, but coming from an S50, the 300D did not exactly have a steep learning curve! :rolleyes:

And that was the point that Canon had in doing the DRebel's the way they did. They wanted to attract the Powershot user to a new level of photography experience. All without learning the command wheel structure of the 20D and above.

This is where I give Nikon kudos. At this point their cameras have a unified user interface, both in film and digital - for the most part. They achieve some of that in the higher-end Coolpix series. But there are enough differences to cause the user a good amount of learning curve.

mkrishnan

May 5, 2005, 12:55 AM

For those with old Canon D30, D60, EOS1D, Digital Rebel (300D) and D100 digital SLRs; you can get them converted to infrared use at this site:

http://www.irdigital.net/

I like it! Not about to send them a cam body, but I like it. :)

sethypoo

May 13, 2005, 03:54 PM

I recently purchased a Canon Digital Rebel XT too. Here are a few of my photos. I love my camera!

http://www.angelfire.com/jazz/seth/Bee.JPG

http://www.angelfire.com/jazz/seth/IMG_4650.JPG

http://www.angelfire.com/jazz/seth/IMG_1172.JPG

EDIT: still can't get it to work. Why won't my photos show up?!? :confused: :mad:

edesignuk

May 13, 2005, 03:57 PM

EDIT: still can't get it to work. Why won't my photos show up?!? :confused: :mad:Looks like angelfire don't allow hotlinking, host your images with imageshack.us ;)

mkrishnan

May 13, 2005, 03:57 PM

I recently purchased a Canon Digital Rebel XT too. Here are a few of my photos. I love my camera!

Sorry, Seth, Angelfire doesn't let you direct link. :( If you want, you can either use flickr or photobucket, attach them, or just paste in the URLs and we can click on them (without the IMG part).

emw

May 13, 2005, 04:14 PM

Here are the links:

http://www.angelfire.com/jazz/seth/Bee.JPG

http://www.angelfire.com/jazz/seth/IMG_4650.JPG

http://www.angelfire.com/jazz/seth/IMG_1172.JPG

(hope you don't mind my doing this for you...)

Nice!

BakedBeans

May 13, 2005, 07:30 PM

www.imageshack.us

that will sort you out emw :)

meanwhile - here is a meerkat i saw today totally my favorite animal

http://img95.echo.cx/img95/9025/mg00733gq.jpg

http://img205.echo.cx/img205/6287/mg00810ib.jpg

http://img258.echo.cx/img258/6292/mg00903tr.jpg

http://img237.echo.cx/img237/3688/mg00628si.jpg