|
adatesman
May 27, 2008, 6:24 PM
Post #1 of 34
(21793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
May 27, 2008, 6:51 PM
Post #2 of 34
(21773 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
adatesman wrote: Second, I seem to recall there being a difference in frame size for DSLRs and it effecting compatibility of the lenses, but wasn't paying much attention and don't recall what the issue was. Maybe something about less than full frame sensors? Figment of my imagination? Something to do with the "Lens Focal Length Conversion Factor", whatever that is? The sensor itself is physically smaller than a 35mm film plane. The Rebel XT, for instance, has a 22.2 mm × 14.8mm sensor. Some people refer to it as a magnification factor, but really, it's more of a crop factor.
|
|
|
|
|
Myxomatosis
May 27, 2008, 9:24 PM
Post #3 of 34
(21741 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 12, 2007
Posts: 1063
|
If you want to use SD cards and have EF mount len's... just get the 450D (XTi)... which IMO is slightly better than the older 30D. If you have the cash and want to spend money on CF cards, then go for the 40D... but personally if I wanted something thats going to last a lifetime, I'd save up a little more cash and get the next model 5D (which shouldn't that far away)
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
May 27, 2008, 10:00 PM
Post #4 of 34
(21736 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
kriso9tails wrote: adatesman wrote: Second, I seem to recall there being a difference in frame size for DSLRs and it effecting compatibility of the lenses, but wasn't paying much attention and don't recall what the issue was. Maybe something about less than full frame sensors? Figment of my imagination? Something to do with the "Lens Focal Length Conversion Factor", whatever that is? The sensor itself is physically smaller than a 35mm film plane. The Rebel XT, for instance, has a 22.2 mm × 14.8mm sensor. Some people refer to it as a magnification factor, but really, it's more of a crop factor. It's kinda a mag-factor as well... on my 20D my 24-105mm lens is effectively a 38-168mm lens, due to the 1.6 crop factor. IOW, for the area of the image which is captured on the sensor, you'd need to blow it up 1.6X to get the same "negative" size as a standard 35mm negative. You probably would never notice a difference in image quality between an image shot digitally at 100ISO and a 35mm negative shot at 100ISO, though you'd need to purchase a high-dollar scanner to get that negative into photoshop. Photoshop, IME, is where the real work is done. Too bad I haven't spent the time to develop those skills yet, but a good PS tech can do more with your image than the best darkroom tech ever could... PROVIDED HE HAS THE PIXELS TO WORK WITH! aside from all that, I've been very happy with my 20D. Here's a pretty thorough synopsis of the 20D, and if you poke around on ken's site, you'll find some pretty good information about other digital cameras as well.
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
May 27, 2008, 10:24 PM
Post #5 of 34
(21731 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
Myxomatosis wrote: If you have the cash and want to spend money on CF cards, then go for the 40D... It's not like memory costs much these days. I remember in second year of college (2003?) I bought a San Disk Extreme 256MB CF card for something like $125. Just a few months ago I bought an Extreme III 8GB for something like $140. In terms of what is superior between CF and SD... it's generally going to be CF, but for most users the difference is going to be negligible. With the speeds and storage capacity available with current high end SD cards it's already more than enough for the average shooter and the price is comparable to equivalent CF cards.
|
|
|
|
|
Myxomatosis
May 27, 2008, 11:15 PM
Post #6 of 34
(21720 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 12, 2007
Posts: 1063
|
kriso9tails wrote: Myxomatosis wrote: If you have the cash and want to spend money on CF cards, then go for the 40D... It's not like memory costs much these days. I remember in second year of college (2003?) I bought a San Disk Extreme 256MB CF card for something like $125. Just a few months ago I bought an Extreme III 8GB for something like $140. In terms of what is superior between CF and SD... it's generally going to be CF, but for most users the difference is going to be negligible. With the speeds and storage capacity available with current high end SD cards it's already more than enough for the average shooter and the price is comparable to equivalent CF cards. Yeah so true.. I got my sister a 2g SD card yesterday for $10us I think the new 450D/XTi has SDHC ability as well, so you will probably end up updating all your cards anyway... There is always something you need to spend money on in Photography tho... Anyone want to shout me some pocket wizards and a flash?
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
May 27, 2008, 11:25 PM
Post #7 of 34
(21715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
FYI I work for memory Co building CF and SD cards. Cheap memory card off china are not the same as name brand like Samsung, Sandisk, Micron, Lexar.... We sell our rejected low performance memory cheap to Asians. If you take digital photos, you want good memories to read and write fast. The writting speed on the cheap Asian memories are too slow or you could end up with missing bytes. Also be aware of fake memories with larger capacities like 32 Gig or 64 Gig. The control unit inside these chips can be reprogrammed to show you 32 Gig while they are actually 8 GB. The only way you could know for sure is to load 32 GB of data in to the memory to test its true capacity.
(This post was edited by majid_sabet on May 27, 2008, 11:26 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
May 28, 2008, 1:24 AM
Post #8 of 34
(21682 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
May 28, 2008, 1:36 AM
Post #9 of 34
(21678 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
Well, I've got a buddy who shoots both slide film and 12MP Nikon. He regularly makes scans of the slide film, the final results at poster size it's impossible to determine which camera it may have come from. Check out some of his work: Wanderlust Images one of them you might recognize from a HUGE (24x36) patagonia poster a few years back: Edit to add: Digital is available in full frame formats for "Professionals" the problem is, they're VERY expensive for the body alone, start factoring in glass and you're lookin at 10+K to get the full deal setup if you're starting from scratch.
usa.canon.com wrote: The Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III is an engineering tour de force which, true to the EOS-1 legacy, redefines the state of the art in no uncertain terms. An entirely new 21.1-megapixel full-frame Canon CMOS sensor delivers astounding image quality and creates new photographic possibilities. Dual "DIGIC III" Image Processors work in tandem to speed up data handling and camera operation, while further refining imaging performance. Tough, high-durability body and shutter designs, combined with the unique EOS Integrated Cleaning System, set new standards for professional dependability. Cutting-edge features-such as a large 3.0-inch LCD monitor with Live View Function, and a fast, precise 45-point AF system-make the EOS-1Ds Mark III powerful and versatile. And, of course, the EOS-1Ds Mark III is part of the unparalleled EOS System, which, with more than 50 EF lenses, 15 interchangeable focusing screens, and extensive wireless remote control and lighting accessories, is the most advanced and powerful digital photography system in the world. Wait a minute... $7999 for the body alone? Better up that estimate to 15+K
(This post was edited by stymingersfink on May 28, 2008, 1:43 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
May 28, 2008, 2:08 AM
Post #10 of 34
(21672 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
stymingersfink wrote: It's kinda a mag-factor as well... on my 20D my 24-105mm lens is effectively a 38-168mm lens, due to the 1.6 crop factor. IOW, for the area of the image which is captured on the sensor, you'd need to blow it up 1.6X to get the same "negative" size as a standard 35mm negative. It's not a magnification factor because it doesn't magnify anything. With the increased crop you are reducing the resolving power of the lens in relation to final output. I know it seems like a matter of semantics, but eventually it does become important to make the distinctions. For most people it's never going to make a dramatically important difference. For me it has on occasion, especially in cases where I needed to capture fine detail and needed a reasonable amount of bleed, but more importantly I just prefer to call a thing what it is.
In reply to: You probably would never notice a difference in image quality between an image shot digitally at 100ISO and a 35mm negative shot at 100ISO, though you'd need to purchase a high-dollar scanner to get that negative into photoshop. Photoshop, IME, is where the real work is done. Too bad I haven't spent the time to develop those skills yet, but a good PS tech can do more with your image than the best darkroom tech ever could... PROVIDED HE HAS THE PIXELS TO WORK WITH! You will notice the difference in fine detail areas. You will likely end up with a granier image on film, but better definition. Of course, these days you aren't comparing film to digital anymore so much as you are comparing one digital sensor size to another, and when you start doing cost analysis versus actual benefit you have to start deciding what takes the highest priority amongst a great number of factors. Don't forget that once you start placing images in a commercial context, what the designer places emphasis on is often not just a 'pretty image' but one that meets a set of criteria specific to the final application.
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
May 28, 2008, 2:19 AM
Post #11 of 34
(21665 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
kriso9tails wrote: Don't forget that once you start placing images in a commercial context, what the designer places emphasis on is often not just a 'pretty image' but one that meets a set of criteria specific to the final application. too true.
|
|
|
|
|
Myxomatosis
May 28, 2008, 2:36 AM
Post #12 of 34
(21658 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 12, 2007
Posts: 1063
|
adatesman wrote: Myxomatosis wrote: Yeah so true.. I got my sister a 2g SD card yesterday for $10us $10???? 8GB?????? Guess its been a while since I bought SD cards.... -a. 2gig... not 8gig...
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
May 28, 2008, 2:55 AM
Post #13 of 34
(21654 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
May 28, 2008, 3:12 AM
Post #14 of 34
(21647 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
adatesman wrote: Myxomatosis wrote: 2gig... not 8gig... Sorry, was skipping around between posts... I didn't realize they were making 8gig cards and thought my 2gig ones were fairly new. -a. I know what you mean. I had a similar moment a few weeks ago buying a new mobile phone, when I came across the 4GB micro-SD card:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wes_allen
May 28, 2008, 3:28 AM
Post #16 of 34
(21636 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2002
Posts: 549
|
stymingersfink, You can get a full frame canon 5d for around 1600 or so now (new with rebates), or a little bit less used. That is full frame. You can also get a used 1ds Mark II for around $3500, and the original 1DS for the 1500 range. And, as for the crop factors, as was mentioned, it isn't a magnifying effect, so much as a limiting what you can see effect. Can be nice for telephoto, but sucks for wide angles. For the OP, if you are just looking to get into dslr mostly for fun, then I think an xti, xsi, or used 30d would be a great place to start. Or, a 5d as well, if you don't mind spending a little bit extra. One thing to note about mp, is that the file sizes go up, big time! So, from 8 to 12 might make a big deal on hard drive space, card space, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
May 29, 2008, 7:21 AM
Post #17 of 34
(21563 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
wes_allen wrote: stymingersfink, You can get a full frame canon 5d for around 1600 or so now (new with rebates), or a little bit less used. That is full frame. You can also get a used 1ds Mark II for around $3500, and the original 1DS for the 1500 range. And, as for the crop factors, as was mentioned, it isn't a magnifying effect, so much as a limiting what you can see effect. Can be nice for telephoto, but sucks for wide angles. For the OP, if you are just looking to get into dslr mostly for fun, then I think an xti, xsi, or used 30d would be a great place to start. Or, a 5d as well, if you don't mind spending a little bit extra. One thing to note about mp, is that the file sizes go up, big time! So, from 8 to 12 might make a big deal on hard drive space, card space, etc. I agree with Wes on this one Anyways, hadn't seen your wedding site in awhile, I like it. You've made changes since my last visit.Radical angles looks like it needs some updating, or it's not loading for me. Check out some prices here:
(This post was edited by guangzhou on May 29, 2008, 7:25 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
boondock_saint
May 29, 2008, 5:29 PM
Post #18 of 34
(21526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 6, 2005
Posts: 2157
|
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS450D/ check that link out, it's an extremely through review of the newest 12MP Canon Rebel. look around on the rest of the website - it's probably the most comprehensive review site for digital cameras out there. I myself have a 350D (Rebel XT, 8MP) that I use with a 18-200mm f/3.5 Sigma lens and I love it. Obviously two generations later they have added nice little bells & whistles. For work I just purchased a Canon 40D and a Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 lens which is about $1200 alone. Anway a 350D, 400D or 450D will all serve you quite well - what lens you will be using, though, is probably even more important than the choosing between those three cameras. I went for range (18-200) at the expense of speed (only f/3.5) and that works great for me when I do climbing shots outside and don't have to f*** with changing lenses. The kit lens that comes with most DSLRs is complete crap. Buy the body only and then get a decent lens that you think will suit your purpose. -bds
|
|
|
|
|
Myxomatosis
May 29, 2008, 10:29 PM
Post #19 of 34
(21508 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 12, 2007
Posts: 1063
|
boondock_saint wrote: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS450D/ check that link out, it's an extremely through review of the newest 12MP Canon Rebel. look around on the rest of the website - it's probably the most comprehensive review site for digital cameras out there. I myself have a 350D (Rebel XT, 8MP) that I use with a 18-200mm f/3.5 Sigma lens and I love it. Obviously two generations later they have added nice little bells & whistles. For work I just purchased a Canon 40D and a Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 lens which is about $1200 alone. Anway a 350D, 400D or 450D will all serve you quite well - what lens you will be using, though, is probably even more important than the choosing between those three cameras. I went for range (18-200) at the expense of speed (only f/3.5) and that works great for me when I do climbing shots outside and don't have to f*** with changing lenses. The kit lens that comes with most DSLRs is complete crap. Buy the body only and then get a decent lens that you think will suit your purpose. -bds I have a 400D with both kit lens (18-55 and 70-300, both the older non IS ones) and never had any problems with them. Images come up fine and I doubt you would find any difference in quality between them and the sigma.... but like he said, hes already got some EF len's :) Its not what your using both how your using it
|
|
|
|
|
boondock_saint
May 30, 2008, 10:02 PM
Post #20 of 34
(21429 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 6, 2005
Posts: 2157
|
Well first of all, I like my Sigma but it's not an amazing lens by any means. This may offend you, at the least it's going to sound very snooty and elitist, but if you can't tell the difference between a kit lens and, for example, a Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM you are likely vision impaired. That, or you just haven't taken enough pictures to see how each lens performs in various duties. I've never talked to a photographer who didn't say to throw the kit lens in the trash.
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
May 31, 2008, 11:28 PM
Post #21 of 34
(21343 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
boondock_saint wrote: Well first of all, I like my Sigma but it's not an amazing lens by any means. This may offend you, at the least it's going to sound very snooty and elitist, but if you can't tell the difference between a kit lens and, for example, a Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM you are likely vision impaired. That, or you just haven't taken enough pictures to see how each lens performs in various duties. I've never talked to a photographer who didn't say to throw the kit lens in the trash. Well, to be fair the 18-55 can be used to take quite nice scenic shots, at f8 or above, and you'd have to pixel-peep to tell the difference between it and any other lens. Below that, the softness is pretty horrible.
|
|
|
|
|
boondock_saint
Jun 2, 2008, 3:43 AM
Post #22 of 34
(21256 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 6, 2005
Posts: 2157
|
and then there are also things like chromatic aberration, which good lenses correct for and cheap kit lenses don't. there are many differences between good and cheap lenses that go beyond speed and as you mentioned sharpness. and IS (image stabilization) is soooo worth it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Canc3r
Jun 2, 2008, 5:21 AM
Post #24 of 34
(21239 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2007
Posts: 3
|
hi , I'm not a pro but I've bought a 40D about 4 months ago and I gotta say that , it's a great camera , high quality build of body , and the high speed shooting is great ( 6.5 Frames/s ) , On the other hand it's too heavy for carrying and climbing. My friends bought 400D rebel XTi and the photo quality is pretty good , but the high speed shooting is 3frames/s , also the 450D rebel XSi is good too , well check out http://www.dpreview.com for more info ! Don't forget to buy a UV filter to protect the sensor !
(This post was edited by Canc3r on Jun 3, 2008, 3:37 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
grayhghost
Jun 2, 2008, 4:23 PM
Post #25 of 34
(21211 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 444
|
Canc3r wrote: Don't forget to buy a UV filter to protect the sensor ! What?
|
|
|
|
|
|