Total results: 28 Pages: 1 | 2 [ 2] |
|---|
 ID: 183878 Posts: 1184 | Date: 2007-10-12 18:34 I got my 40D today and thought I'd show one shot taken as a test. Below is my
wife's eye. It is a crop of a full face within the original frame--about ten
percent of the original. It was taken with a 50mm f1.4 Canon lens shutter at
400th of a second at f4. The ISO was set at 3200. Other than cropping to fit
within the size requirements here, there was no enhancement or sharpening. The
camera picture modes were set at all zeros or natural picture mode.
Is this a great time to be a photographer or what?If I haven't been there, I'm still planning on going!
If I haven't done it, I've still got time to try! |
|---|
|
|---|
 ID: 194271 Posts: 156 | Date: 2007-10-13 01:42 That is really not bad for ISO3200. Bit of noise in the shaded parts but a very
usable image never the less. Must say I have seen some fine examples from the
30D also if they got the exposure spot on. Think the 40D is a lot more forgiving
if your exposure is slightly off. My 1DsII likes the exposure also spot on.
Slightly off and the noise creeps in. My 10D is a lot more sensitive and I tend
not to shoot over ISO800 but it gives me great colors. |
|---|
|
|---|
| Date: 2007-10-13 04:00 Not wanting to spark an argument about Canon vs Nikon, but I'm delighted to see
that both of them have worked hard on the noise question - initial results from
the D3 suggest a similar improvement in the Nikon range, which will give me much
more scope for working outdoors at night.
My old D100 was awful at anything over 400 ISO equivalent, and even the D200 is
only passable at 1000+ if you knock the image size down, so this has to be a
good step forwards. |
|---|
|
|---|
ID: 183878 Posts: 1184 | Date: 2007-10-13 07:58 I'll be shooting for some color today. My desk computer just lost its cable card
for some reason, so I have to replace that first--i'm working off the laptop
now.
I was pleased with the apparent sharpness of the image in available light--the
best in the house--the kitchen. The ISO responded well, especially remembering
the days of striving for usable images from Tri-X and any of three or four
developers promising 3200 ASA results--contrasty and very grainy.
Highlights will tell the tale. Later.If I haven't been there, I'm still planning on going!
If I haven't done it, I've still got time to try! |
|---|
|
|---|
ID: 183878 Posts: 1184 | Date: 2007-10-13 11:04 Here we go. Local bird seeks fish. Enhanced, sharpened and resized.If I haven't been there, I'm still planning on going!
If I haven't done it, I've still got time to try! |
|---|
|
|---|
ID: 183878 Posts: 1184 | Date: 2007-10-13 11:06 Or a hibiscus, also enhanced, usually much more highlight burnout.If I haven't been there, I'm still planning on going!
If I haven't done it, I've still got time to try! |
|---|
|
|---|
 ID: 199345 Posts: 391 | Date: 2007-10-13 11:14 Charles,
I just ordered mine today. I am switching from Minolta to Canon. Hopefully it
arrives before I head off to the USVI for my Rolando Gomez photography workshop.
I haven't ordered any lenses yet, my buddy has Canon gear, so if push comes to
shove I'll borrow his lenses. He has the 30D.
Can you offer any advise on a suitable collection of lenses that will fulfill my
general requirements listed below:
1. portrait lens
2. telephoto zoom that needs to be fast focusing for sport and wildlife
(birds)
3. macro
4. wide angle
I am thinking that the 70-200 IS f2.8 is probably the lens that will cover
requirements 1 and 2. The low end should be good for portrait and although the
reach is only 200mm I am thinking if I add the 2x extender then I'm getting
400mm. The extender still supports AF with the F2.8 but unfortunately not with
the cheaper and lighter F4. The weight of the F2.8 does concern me though. It is
it is twice the weight of the F4 at almost 1500g.
I was thinking that the 50mm F1.4 would be a nice prime and it is not too
expensive at around $300.
I really have no idea what is the of a good wide angle or macro. Any suggestions
would be appreciated.
Regards Mike |
|---|
|
|---|
ID: 183878 Posts: 1184 | Date: 2007-10-13 12:30 Mike Jones:
Charles,
I just ordered mine today. I am switching from Minolta to Canon. Hopefully it
arrives before I head off to the USVI for my Rolando Gomez photography workshop.
I haven't ordered any lenses yet, my buddy has Canon gear, so if push comes to
shove I'll borrow his lenses. He has the 30D.
Can you offer any advise on a suitable collection of lenses that will fulfill my
general requirements listed below:
1. portrait lens
2. telephoto zoom that needs to be fast focusing for sport and wildlife
(birds)
3. macro
4. wide angle
I am thinking that the 70-200 IS f2.8 is probably the lens that will cover
requirements 1 and 2. The low end should be good for portrait and although the
reach is only 200mm I am thinking if I add the 2x extender then I'm getting
400mm. The extender still supports AF with the F2.8 but unfortunately not with
the cheaper and lighter F4. The weight of the F2.8 does concern me though. It is
it is twice the weight of the F4 at almost 1500g.
I was thinking that the 50mm F1.4 would be a nice prime and it is not too
expensive at around $300.
I really have no idea what is the of a good wide angle or macro. Any suggestions
would be appreciated.
Regards Mike
It all depends on what you are doing. If you plan to shoot action then the
70-200 is great. I can attest that it makes a fine portrait lens as well. But
you must remember the 40D already has a 1.6 X factor due to the sensor size, so
the lens becomes an effective 112-320.
The two lenses I used most in Europe with my XTi were the 10-22 EF-S and the
17-85 IS EF-S which gave me the same angle of view as a 16-35 and a 28-135. The
IS made it use very easy even with the smaller aperture. I'm going to try out
the 17-85 this afternoon on the 40D and see how its resolution works outs.
If you are going to be using Canon on a long term basis, you can get by with a
16-35L, 100mm Macro, 70-200 IS, but I would also think the two f4 17-40 and
70-200 would do very well for non sports shooting. The 2x Canon extender might
lose the auto focus but it will retain the IS function with manual focus.
However I haven't checked that out because I cheat and use a tamron extender
when I want autofocus.If I haven't been there, I'm still planning on going!
If I haven't done it, I've still got time to try! |
|---|
|
|---|
ID: 199345 Posts: 391 | Date: 2007-10-13 13:18 thanks Charles, I will look into your recommendations
Mike |
|---|
|
|---|
ID: 194271 Posts: 156 | Date: 2007-10-13 13:48 You might find the 70-200 a bit to long on a 1.6x body for indoor portraits
except for facial close-ups.
I use a 24-70 mainly for most of my portrait work, indoors or outdoors.
Outdoors I sometimes also use a 100 and now and then the 70-200.
I use a FF body(1DsII) so the 24mm on the bottom end is good enough for me.
I would advice a 1.4x converter. The 2x converter degrades the image to much.
Also note that the zoom lenses is not as sharp as the primes and does not take
very well to converters. I never use the converter(1.4x) on my zooms but only on
my primes. I do have a 2x converter but uses it as a paperweight after I saw how
much it degraded my images.
The 50 that you mentioned is very popular for portrait work and good value for
money. A very nice and light walk-around lens also. |
|---|
|
|---|
ID: 199345 Posts: 391 | Date: 2007-10-13 21:07 Deon Naude:
I use a 24-70 mainly for most of my portrait work, indoors or outdoors.
Is the 24-70 that you refer to the f2.8 L model ? This is one I have been
reading up on this afternoon. I found this site;
www[dot]the-digital-picture[dot]com/Reviews/ very informative.
My big decision to make now is do I go for the 70-200 f2.8 or f4. I can't decide
whether the extra $650 and 750grams is worth it for an extra stop. Kind of hard
to justify as its only a hobby. Plus that extra $650 would go a long way towards
paying for the $1000 24-70. |
|---|
|
|---|
ID: 183878 Posts: 1184 | Date: 2007-10-13 22:10 I was referring to the use of the 70-200 with the larger formats, Deon. I
figured if Mike gets a 40D now, he may go for a full-frame later or the 1D M3,
if he is into sports. The 85 1.8 is a good portrait lens for the full-frame and,
at 135 with the 1.6 x factor is still not too long.
The 70-400 f4 is now available with IS, by the way. It's all in what you can
afford.
I'll agree that the zooms suffer less with the 1.4 extender, but sometimes you
need to reach out and touch something with your lens despite the quality loss
(800 mm fd lens with 1.26x eos adapter on a 20D body and tripod, no mlu or cable
release):If I haven't been there, I'm still planning on going!
If I haven't done it, I've still got time to try! |
|---|
|
|---|
ID: 194271 Posts: 156 | Date: 2007-10-14 01:34 Mike Jones:
[Deon Naude: ...]
Is the 24-70 that you refer to the f2.8 L model ? This is one I have been
reading up on this afternoon. I found this site;
www[dot]the-digital-picture[dot]com/Reviews/ very informative.
My big decision to make now is do I go for the 70-200 f2.8 or f4. I can't decide
whether the extra $650 and 750grams is worth it for an extra stop. Kind of hard
to justify as its only a hobby. Plus that extra $650 would go a long way towards
paying for the $1000 24-70.
Yes it is the 24-70 f/2.8L.
Interestingly most people find the 70-200 f/4 sharper than the f/2.8 version. |
|---|
|
|---|
ID: 194271 Posts: 156 | Date: 2007-10-14 01:42 Charles Griffin:
I was referring to the use of the 70-200 with the larger formats, Deon. I
figured if Mike gets a 40D now, he may go for a full-frame later or the 1D M3,
if he is into sports. The 85 1.8 is a good portrait lens for the full-frame and,
at 135 with the 1.6 x factor is still not too long.
The 70-400 f4 is now available with IS, by the way. It's all in what you can
afford.
I'll agree that the zooms suffer less with the 1.4 extender, but sometimes you
need to reach out and touch something with your lens despite the quality loss
(800 mm fd lens with 1.26x eos adapter on a 20D body and tripod, no mlu or cable
release):
Charles that looks like a painting, it is a lovely shot.
My main weapon for birds is the 500 f/4 sometimes with the 1.4xconverter
added.
I presume that you meant the 70-200 f/4 now has IS.
The 85 f/1.8 is a superb lens for portraits and very good value for money. Of
course the king of portraits is it's bigger brother the 85 f/1.2L but that is a
very expensive piece of glass. |
|---|
|
|---|
ID: 194271 Posts: 156 | Date: 2007-10-14 01:51 Charles Griffin:
I was referring to the use of the 70-200 with the larger formats, Deon. I
figured if Mike gets a 40D now, he may go for a full-frame later or the 1D M3,
if he is into sports. The 85 1.8 is a good portrait lens for the full-frame and,
at 135 with the 1.6 x factor is still not too long.
The 70-400 f4 is now available with IS, by the way. It's all in what you can
afford.
I'll agree that the zooms suffer less with the 1.4 extender, but sometimes you
need to reach out and touch something with your lens despite the quality loss
(800 mm fd lens with 1.26x eos adapter on a 20D body and tripod, no mlu or cable
release):
I actually only saw now that you used a fd on your 20D, amazing.
I still have some fd stuff and actually gave it all a good clean just the other
day.
I am thinking of putting a roll through just to clean the cobwebs out. |
|---|
|
|---|
ID: 183878 Posts: 1184 | Date: 2007-10-14 07:07 I have a sentimental attachment to my Canon F1, I bought it used in a pawnshop
in Gulfport Mississippi in the first year of my marriage and it still fires up
without a problem, still has an accurate meter reading, but I also have an
adapter for manually using the FD lenses on EOS bodies, but I rarely use it. The
800, however, was bought on E-Bay with the Canon EOS adapter specifically made
to allow use of their longer and expensive flourite and ssc FD lenses on the
newer cameras when they were introduced. Cost me $1400, if I recall correctly.
It makes the 800 an f7.
The great thing about the EOS system is that you can mount just about any manual
glass from any company with adapters. I hear many use Contax Zeiss-T glass with
better results than L lenses. Trouble is finding the Ziess glass.
I had an opportunity to get the previous (non-USM) 85 1.2 but I could never get
the pawnshop to bring the price down to reason. Before I could come up with the
money someone else bought it. It was at a economically challenging time for me.
My wife considers my lust for camera stuff worse than having a mistress.
The heron with the green legs was shot with the newer 70-300 IS that was part of
my travel kit this summer. If I go on a walk, I take it with me. The heron was
usually calm and let me get to within 12 feet, so I have some tighter shots of
the head and the legs but I liked the full composition best.If I haven't been there, I'm still planning on going!
If I haven't done it, I've still got time to try! |
|---|
|
|---|
ID: 194271 Posts: 156 | Date: 2007-10-14 09:37 That is a great head profile shot, nice and close with no distraction in the
background. Would be a cool field guide book shot. |
|---|
|
|---|
 ID: 209819 Posts: 81 | Date: 2007-10-15 16:46 As a consideration, you will find that your camera has an easier time focusing
in marginal lighting with a faster lens. I have also heard the same comments
about slower lenses being sharper. I've always been inclined to believe that
that is a mistaken perception based on the greater depth of field of the slower
lenses. I have the Nikon ED VR 70-200 f2.8 and I sure can't fault it. Incredibly
crisp. Also incredibly expensive, but I love it. |
|---|
|
|---|
 ID: 182744 Posts: 1748 | Date: 2007-10-15 17:19 Thank goodness!
I still use the Canon 10D. It became my favorite camera when the digital age
came around. I switched over to Canon from Minolta because of it. When digital
image size capacities increased for mainstream cameras I looked at the Canon 30D
but was disgusted by some of the limitations built into it. Obviously enough
photographers were also upset because all of the functionality that I love on
the 10D has been returned with the 40D.
And now, Charles, I have seen your real life, field experience shots from the
40D. (I don't ever trust manufacturer shots. They tend to do those in picture
perfect conditions set-up for the exact capabilities of their camera.) Based
upon your pictures and write-ups, I am running downtown tomorrow and buying me
two of those bad boys!
Thanks, Chalres!   Have faith that the universe will unfold as it should  |
|---|
|
|---|
ID: 183878 Posts: 1184 | Date: 2007-10-16 09:31 and now:
A fish tank
40D
1/50 sec
f5.6
1600 ISO
85mm
USM and croppingIf I haven't been there, I'm still planning on going!
If I haven't done it, I've still got time to try! |
|---|
Announcement |
|---|
| From now on 50 activity points will turn into 1 credit, so you may earn credits as easy as never before !!!
All models and photographers are able to moderate photos! We will save a lot of time for moderators this way. Please read the short instruction on how to moderate and earn points very quickly.
Also, models and photographers can moderate part of the profiles as well! This is a fast way to earn some action points and credits! |
|---|
Total results: 28 Pages: 1 | 2 [ 2] |
Jurgita forum 
