Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: Andres Bonilla on December 26, 2005, 01:04:53 am
-
I am finally going to go digital but my budget is kid of limited. I found this deal and it sounded good, I know there are much better lenses costing twice as much than the intire kit I have in mind but I am actually going a little over my budget now. My photography is usually done when I go on location with the tv station I work for, I set down the video camera and grab a few shots with my still camera or I take photos when traveling on vacation. My only photography trip was to Yosemite and I was a little disappointed with the quality of my film Rebel and the Tamrom zoom; most people tell me that going digital would be a pleasant surprise. Here is hte kit that I have in mind for $1494 USD.
PACKAGE INCLUDES: 1.CANON DIGITAL REBEL XT CAMERA BODY 2.CANON 17-85 USM IS LENS 3.CANON 70-300 USM IS LENS 4.1GIG MEMORY CARD 5.CASE 6.LCD SCREEN COVER 7.LENS CLEANING KIT 8.FULL SIZE TRIPOD 9.WRIST STRAP 10.CARD READER 11.CAP KEEPER12.MEMORY CARD CASE
I would problably get another 2 gigs of memory card, I also need to ask what type of memory card they use, I heard that scandisk is very good?
Thanks for your input,
Andres
-
where are you getting this kit from?
jim
-
Here is hte kit that I have in mind for $1494 USD.
PACKAGE INCLUDES: 1.CANON DIGITAL REBEL XT CAMERA BODY 2.CANON 17-85 USM IS LENS 3.CANON 70-300 USM IS LENS 4.1GIG MEMORY CARD 5.CASE 6.LCD SCREEN COVER 7.LENS CLEANING KIT 8.FULL SIZE TRIPOD 9.WRIST STRAP 10.CARD READER 11.CAP KEEPER12.MEMORY CARD CASE
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54299\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I took a quick look on www.pricegrabber.com and found the following prices from merchants with good ratings.
Canon 350D Body ~ $760
Canon 17-85 USB IS ~ $495
Canon 70-300 USB IS ~ $565
Those three items total about $1820. That makes the package price of $1494 quite good. I'd check the reputation of the dealer very carefully.
And make sure that they have a good return policy. Just in case....
-
Another thing you may consider too is getting one really good L lens, like the Canon
28-70 L series lens. On your XT Rebel, that would be about 44 to 105 I think. I use my 28-70 more than anything else and I have both the 17-35 L and 70-200 IS L lens. The equivalent 1.6 crop factor makes the 28-70 L lens at 44-105 a work horse, and then you have an L lens too. I think you can buy an extender that will give you another 1.4 factor also, for about 120.00 dollars, and then you have a 156mm zoom. If you can use teh 2x extender with the 28-70, you can have a total of 224mm zoom for the cost of one L lens and one 2x extender. As the 28-70 is a fast 2.8 lens, your 2x extender would make it I think a 4.0 at 224mm? So, for the cost of one L lens at 28-70 and one 120.00 dollar 2x extender, you get the quality of an L lens, and a 44 - 224mm lens equvalent.
-
I suggest you make sure the equipment you buy is warranteed in the market area where you are living, that you will be able to register the products for warrantee service where you live and the instruction manuals are in a language you understand; in other words, make sure it is not "grey market" stuff relative to your service area, and also that it is not reconditioned. Those prices sound too good to be without some catch.
-
My guess, with the accesories you've listed, this is a online retailer out of Brooklyn, NY. Nothing against Brooklyn (I've bought from B&H many times) but please do check the ratings of the retailer.
Here's one place I've used for checking ratings. Reseller Ratings (http://www.resellerratings.com/)
-
Thank you very much for your replies but at another forum I posted the name of the seller Infinityphoto that goes by many names and of course they are the biggest thieves and scammers in the world; the seller rating website has many people complaining to New York's district attorney. So I may go to Costco or another reputable online store, B&H OR Adorama perhaps? The problem with Costco is that they only have the kit lens that is only 100 bucks but I heard is not very good. What is a good brand of CF card, scan disk, lexar? The problem wi8th these crooks is thst they sold their camera without the battery or the charger and then wanted $300 dollars for them. If I get a camera from Costco or Sammys camera in L.A what comes with it? The body, the case and what about cables and card reader etc?
Thanks,
Andres
-
Andres,
For the camera you are interested in buying, first go to the manufafturer's website (in this case Canon), look up the product and they will tell you what comes in the box as standard equipment. The battery and charger are almost always standard equipment for dslrs, but cases may or may not be included - often they are not. There are some cheap digicams that come only with replaceable batteries, in which case the purchaser is responsible for buying rechargeables and charger - but not in the league you are looking at. Anyhow, learn first what comes standard and the best place for this information is the manufacturer.
Second, from what you found out it is now clear - deal only with reputable retailers that have good prices and good service. B&H, for example, is excellent in both respects, and there are no constraints on choice with those guys - they usually have just about everything. They distinguish between products that have USA warrantees and those which do not, so you know right from the start what you are buying - no games.
Sandisk and Lexar both make well-proven CF cards. I know Sandisk because that is what I use, but many also swear by Lexar. I bought Sandisk Extremes (1 GB) and they have been totally reliable. Now they come as Extreme III in the better quality series. The Extreme series are costlier than the basic series, but provide higher speed and they say greater reliability.
Card readers usually do not come supplied with the camera unless the retailer has put together some kind of special. But a card reader is cheap. Sandisk makes a reliable one for about USD 20.
-
Thank you Mark, I got my gear from Samy's camera in L.A, the price with the 17-85 IS USM was $ 1174.95 with the rebate,I got a Dane I gig and I bought from Costco 2 I gigs scandisk for $89.99 each, I also got an HP card reader from Samy's for $29.99. I did not get the 70-300 mm is for about $ 560 because I was already overbudget. Now that I have reinstalled the new drivers for everything on my computer I need to reinstall CS2
Thanks again,
Andres
-
Thank you Mark, I got my gear from Samy's camera in L.A, the price with the 17-85 IS USM was $ 1174.95 with the rebate,I got a Dane I gig and I bought from Costco 2 I gigs scandisk for $89.99 each, I also got an HP card reader from Samy's for $29.99. I did not get the 70-300 mm is for about $ 560 because I was already overbudget. Now that I have reinstalled the new drivers for everything on my computer I need to reinstall CS2
Thanks again,
Andres
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54348\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think that 17-85 is an f 4.0 lens man. It also will only fit two Canon cameras, yours (300D series) and the 20D. If you ever update to a fullframe you can't use it. Also, the 24-70 is an L lens and cost about the same as the one you bought, albeit it is NOT IS--which I have no idea why anyone would need IS on that focal length.
Canon USA
Price : $ 1,149.95
Mail-In Rebate: $ 45.00
Price After Rebate: $ 1,104.95
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
Here is a deal B&H is floating right now:
Canon EOS 20D, 8.2 Megapixel, SLR, Digital Camera with Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Autofocus Lens
Mfr# 9442A036 • B&H# CAE20D1785
Our Price: $ 1,759.95
B&H Exclusive Rebate
$ 100.00
Price After Rebate:
$ 1,659.95
Just my opinion, but I think you are wasting your money IS-ing a 17-85 lens. I didn't even know Canon had the 17-85 IS. You could save lots of money buying the standard 17-35 at 524.00:
EOS Digital Rebel XT (a.k.a. 350D) 8.0 Megapixel, SLR, Digital Camera (Black) with Canon 17-85mm EF-S IS USM Lens EOS Digital Rebel XT Digital Camera (Black) with Canon 17-85mm Lens
Price : $ 1,249.95
Mail-In Rebate: $ 75.00
Price After Rebate: $ 1,174.95
Shipping Cost
-
One more thing. I mentioned the Canon 28-70 L lens, and I meant the 24-70 L. There is no 28-70 Canon. The 24-70 will give you an equivalent 38.4-112. My freind makes part of his living doing landscapes, and 95% of them are shot with teh 24-70 on a 20D. So you get plenty of wide angle at 38.4 mm. So don't worry about that.
-
Well, I see your point DW Dallan, I just went with the suggestion and review of this site and others that this kit was a very good starting point into the digital world; as I mentioned my budget was kind of tight and the reason I went with the IS is because it is a good all purpose lens but only 4.0-5.6 and I thought that being able to handheld shot a coulple of stops more was a good idea.
-
Well, I see your point DW Dallan, I just went with the suggestion and review of this site and others that this kit was a very good starting point into the digital world; as I mentioned my budget was kind of tight and the reason I went with the IS is because it is a good all purpose lens but only 4.0-5.6 and I thought that being able to handheld shot a coulple of stops more was a good idea.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54385\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
OK I see why you did that. Still, I think it would have been money better spent on the 24-70 L 2.8 non IS. But you have a nice set up in any event. Have fun with it.
-
Andres, use it well and good luck with it. I don't own that kit and haven't used it, but I know someone who does, and his results are VERY good. When the time comes that you feel the need to up-grade, you will most likely sell both the camera and the lens together, hence all your future options are open, including equipment choices to be developed that we don't even know about yet.
-
One more thing. I mentioned the Canon 28-70 L lens, and I meant the 24-70 L. There is no 28-70 Canon.
Yes there is, on the used market. It's the predecessor of the 24-70L.
As for your earlier comment:
If you can use teh 2x extender with the 28-70, you can have a total of 224mm zoom for the cost of one L lens and one 2x extender.
You can't. This information is easily available at Canon's web site.
I think that 17-85 is an f 4.0 lens man.
Why "think" when you can check? Here's Canon's web page for the 17-85. (http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=10511)
It also will only fit two Canon cameras, yours (300D series) and the 20D. If you ever update to a fullframe you can't use it. Also, the 24-70 is an L lens and cost about the same as the one you bought, albeit it is NOT IS--which I have no idea why anyone would need IS on that focal length.
Well, on a 1:1.6 sensor like these cameras have, 70mm shows a FOV similar to that of a 112mm lens on a 1:1 sensor, while 85mm shows a FOV similar to 136mm.
If you always use a tripod to take pictures of well-lit scenes and never do hand-held photography at dusk or dawn, at concerts or other social events, or otherwise avoid e.g. street photography, I can see how you don't see the need to eliminate camera shake.
But the ability to hand-hold at 85mm (136mm) at shutter speeds up to 1/20th second is really, really nice. Without IS, you'd most likely be limited at no longer than 1/130th second. I consider both these numbers somewhat optimistic, except for web size images (e.g. 640x480).
-
Yes there is, on the used market. It's the predecessor of the 24-70L.
As for your earlier comment:
You can't. This information is easily available at Canon's web site.
Why "think" when you can check? Here's Canon's web page for the 17-85. (http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=10511)
Well, on a 1:1.6 sensor like these cameras have, 70mm shows a FOV similar to that of a 112mm lens on a 1:1 sensor, while 85mm shows a FOV similar to 136mm.
If you always use a tripod to take pictures of well-lit scenes and never do hand-held photography at dusk or dawn, at concerts or other social events, or otherwise avoid e.g. street photography, I can see how you don't see the need to eliminate camera shake.
But the ability to hand-hold at 85mm (136mm) at shutter speeds up to 1/20th second is really, really nice. Without IS, you'd most likely be limited at no longer than 1/130th second. I consider both these numbers somewhat optimistic, except for web size images (e.g. 640x480).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54455\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, for practical purposes, the Canon 28-70 doesn't even come up on B&H's website. I'd say it's old news.
F4 is what the lens was rated at on B&H's website. I'd say that pretty much means it would not be anything less on the Canon site, or the B&H site would have listed it.
If you are doing hand held photography, then you probably aren't after tripod quality anyway. So you can simply open the aperture and raise the ISO a bit for a relatively fast shutter speed in lower light situations. However, since the lens is F4, the IS is probably necessary is some situations. But my point is that if you want a walk around all around lens, you probably don't want an F4 lens. If you want to shoot lanscapes primarily, and you want a lens that only comes in teh flavor of F4, tehn you'll probably be fine, since you will be wanting to shoot at F5-11 anyway on a tripod. Why not trade the F4 for the 2.8, get rid of the IS and have a better lens for the same price that can transfer to other full frame cameras?
Don't forget too that the Rebel has a hot shoe and built in flash for low light shoot from the hip situations.
It's a nice setup. But I think my argument is valid.
-
Well, for practical purposes, the Canon 28-70 doesn't even come up on B&H's website. I'd say it's old news.
Yes, it is.
F4 is what the lens was rated at on B&H's website. I'd say that pretty much means it would not be anything less on the Canon site, or the B&H site would have listed it.
It's f/4 at 17mm and f/5.6 at 85mm.
If you are doing hand held photography, then you probably aren't after tripod quality anyway.
I don't see the relevance of that statement. If you're doing photography, you're most likely after the best possible quality you can afford and which is practical.
So you can simply open the aperture and raise the ISO a bit for a relatively fast shutter speed in lower light situations. However, since the lens is F4, the IS is probably necessary is some situations. But my point is that if you want a walk around all around lens, you probably don't want an F4 lens. If you want to shoot lanscapes primarily, and you want a lens that only comes in teh flavor of F4, tehn you'll probably be fine, since you will be wanting to shoot at F5-11 anyway on a tripod.
I don't think you understand the full benefits of this lens as a walk-around lens.
- 17mm vs 24mm; that's about a third wider FOV
- IS yields hand-holding options equivalent to approximately f/1.4 at 17mm and f/2 at 85mm
- Light weight means less strain on the neck/wrists
- Smaller lens means that you're less obtrusive
However, the latter three of these benefits are also true for the 24-105mm f/4L IS.
But "raising the ISO a bit" is not an option when you're already shooting at ISO 1600.
Why not trade the F4 for the 2.8, get rid of the IS and have a better lens for the same price that can transfer to other full frame cameras?
The same price? Where can I get the 24-70 for the same price as the 17-85, without paying twice the normal price for the 17-85? Tell me, and I'll sell my 24-70 on the used market and buy a brand new one instead! At B&H, the 17-85 is USD 525 for the USA version, while the 24-70 is 1150 ...
Also, your question should be:
"Why not trade the EF-S 17-85 for the EF 24-105 f/4L and have a better lens for a little more than twice the price?"
Don't forget too that the Rebel has a hot shoe and built in flash for low light shoot from the hip situations.
Don't forget that using a flash is impractical in many, many situations.
Example:
(http://jani.vikingmud.org/gallery/d/1711-4/6921_warm_welcome.jpg) (http://jani.vikingmud.org/gallery/v/Cityscapes/Hamar/2005_Dec/6921_warm_welcome.jpg.html)
A flash in the above image would simply ruin the play of colours and shadows from the candlelights.
This image was shot at f/2.8 @70mm, 1/30 exposure time, ISO 800 with IS enabled.
I was fortunate in that I had planned the shot and could use a tripod, but on several occasions, you just have to grab the shot.
Technically speaking, the shot could have been taken on a tripod with the 24-70mm f/2.8L at f/2.8. The lack of IS would mean that I'd have to push the ISO setting to 3200 to have a chance at a handheld shot like that; 1/120 exposure time may be sufficient for 70mm, ISO 1600 and 1/60 is not, but could be possible on a tripod.
Here's another example:
(http://jani.vikingmud.org/gallery/d/1673-4/_MG_6900_the_girl_with_the_cellphone.jpg) (http://jani.vikingmud.org/gallery/v/Cityscapes/Oslo/2005_Dec/_MG_6900_the_girl_with_the_cellphone.jpg.html)
f/4.5 @70mm, 1/80 exposure time, ISO 3200 with IS enabled, -1/3 EV (underexposed).
If we were to ignore my desire for the DOF that f/4.5 gave me, f/2.8 would make the same exposure possible on a tripod at ISO 3200.
Since ISO 3200 is unavailable on the Rebel and Rebel XT, you can draw your own conclusions regarding the likelyhood of having success with images like that.
(http://jani.vikingmud.org/gallery/d/1376-4/EPV0093_night_party.jpg) (http://jani.vikingmud.org/gallery/v/Jan_in_Asia/Nepal/Kathmandu_Patan/EPV0093_night_party.jpg.html)
f/3.5 @32mm, 1/30 exposure time, ISO 1600, -2/3 EV.
With a Rebel or Rebel XT, I couldn't push this much further. I'd get 1/50 exposure time at f/2.8, which would be barely enough. The 20D etc. can push it to 1/100 exposure at f/2.8.
I dearly wish I had IS at the time I was taking that image; I missed so many opportunities simply because:
- a tripod was impractical (people would bump into it)
- it was mostly even darker than in the semi-successful image posted above
It's a nice setup. But I think my argument is valid.
I don't.
-
Jan, I'm not engaging the equipment argument - I think you are correct.
The purpose of this post is simply to acknowledge the superb quality of those three photographs- the subject matter is engaging, and at the technical level, your treatment of luminosity and colour is very, very good. I also appreciated how free of noise they are at such high ISO settings. I assume you used some kind of noise reduction software - could you explain?
Happy holidays,
Mark
-
Jan, I'm not engaging the equipment argument - I think you are correct.
The purpose of this post is simply to acknowledge the superb quality of those three photographs- the subject matter is engaging, and at the technical level, your treatment of luminosity and colour is very, very good.
Thanks, that's probably the warmest welcome I've had for any of my photographs except from friends and relatives (who tend to be positive no matter what ...)!
I also appreciated how free of noise they are at such high ISO settings. I assume you used some kind of noise reduction software - could you explain?
Sure! (Although I suspect it's the web-size of the images that give the appearance of low noise; I haven't cropped these by much.)
I've used ACR 3.x (the most recent version available at the time of conversion). If the image looks somewhat noisy, as it can at ISO 800, I usually use a luminance smoothing at 25-30, with colour NR at about the same. Sometimes, I wonder why I bother with colour NR at all.
The first picture is 25/25.
The second has zero luminance smoothing and 25 in colour NR (not really necessary, I guess I forgot to change the setting). In pixel-by-pixel view on screen, the noise is quite apparent, but I find that ACR's and Photoshop's noise reduction remove too much detail. I haven't tried with any other tools, I think the noise also works to the image's advantage here. (100% crop of the girl's head (http://www.vikingmud.org/~jani/pics/6900_crop.jpg), unsharpened)
The third picture is 30/25.
The first two are decent at 100% review on the monitor, but the third is -- unsurprisingly -- suffering from camera movement blur.
I have on several occasions considered purchasing Noise Ninja or Neat Image, but I've felt that I have to concentrate more on the artistic side (and getting a decent, calibrated monitor) first.
And happy holidays to you too, Mark, as well as the rest of y'all.
-
Jan, OK, you have it easy. My wife is no photography expert, but a designer with an artistic eye, so when she finds a photo of mine blah-blah, pointless, or otherwise uninspiring she says so and she's usually correct.
On noise reduction - I'm using Noise Ninja. It is so good at reducing noise - and followed bv PK Capture Sharpener Pro for restoring any lost acutance, that I have not bothered testing ACR noise reduction capabilities. By using Noise Ninja on a separate layer, and with PK on its own layers by design, one can play back and forth with layer opacities to get just the right combination of noise reduction and capture sharpening.
But you are right - a decent profiled and calibrated monitor is a higher priority for good Photoshop work - you must be using something decent there, otherwise you would be expending alot of paper and ink to get the results you are showing.
Cheers.
-
Don't listen to certain people here, the IS will be helpful at all lenghts.
-
I think that 17-85 is an f 4.0 lens man. It also will only fit two Canon cameras, yours (300D series) and the 20D. If you ever update to a fullframe you can't use it.
It has been an astoundingly good lens for me, for the price I paid for it.
-
It has been an astoundingly good lens for me, for the price I paid for it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54554\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No doubt it is an excellent lens, but that wasn't my objection.
EDIT--->I thought you paid 1100.00 for that lens! Sorry for the confusion. Sure I can see buying that lens for that price now.
1) L lenses are better, and the 24-70 L lens cost no more than the one you bought--no IS though. <--this is wrong and I appologize.
2) Canon doesn't offer the 24-70 in IS, and I suspect this is because of the lens being so fast as to not need it.
3) The 17 is not compatible on anything other than the 300 and 20D series cameras. That's a lot of money to spend on a lens of that type.
4) The 24-70 L F2.8 lists at 1105.00 at B&H after rebate at this time.
5) I'm not saying it's a bad choice, only one I would not make for teh reasons now explicitely outlined above.
My mian problem was that I thought you paid the same for the lens as the 24 cost.
-
Yes, it is.
It's f/4 at 17mm and f/5.6 at 85mm.
I don't see the relevance of that statement. If you're doing photography, you're most likely after the best possible quality you can afford and which is practical.
I don't think you understand the full benefits of this lens as a walk-around lens.
- 17mm vs 24mm; that's about a third wider FOV
- IS yields hand-holding options equivalent to approximately f/1.4 at 17mm and f/2 at 85mm
- Light weight means less strain on the neck/wrists
- Smaller lens means that you're less obtrusive
However, the latter three of these benefits are also true for the 24-105mm f/4L IS.
But "raising the ISO a bit" is not an option when you're already shooting at ISO 1600.
The same price? Where can I get the 24-70 for the same price as the 17-85, without paying twice the normal price for the 17-85? Tell me, and I'll sell my 24-70 on the used market and buy a brand new one instead! At B&H, the 17-85 is USD 525 for the USA version, while the 24-70 is 1150 ...
Also, your question should be:
"Why not trade the EF-S 17-85 for the EF 24-105 f/4L and have a better lens for a little more than twice the price?"
Don't forget that using a flash is impractical in many, many situations.
Example:
(http://jani.vikingmud.org/gallery/d/1711-4/6921_warm_welcome.jpg) (http://jani.vikingmud.org/gallery/v/Cityscapes/Hamar/2005_Dec/6921_warm_welcome.jpg.html)
A flash in the above image would simply ruin the play of colours and shadows from the candlelights.
This image was shot at f/2.8 @70mm, 1/30 exposure time, ISO 800 with IS enabled.
I was fortunate in that I had planned the shot and could use a tripod, but on several occasions, you just have to grab the shot.
Technically speaking, the shot could have been taken on a tripod with the 24-70mm f/2.8L at f/2.8. The lack of IS would mean that I'd have to push the ISO setting to 3200 to have a chance at a handheld shot like that; 1/120 exposure time may be sufficient for 70mm, ISO 1600 and 1/60 is not, but could be possible on a tripod.
Here's another example:
(http://jani.vikingmud.org/gallery/d/1673-4/_MG_6900_the_girl_with_the_cellphone.jpg) (http://jani.vikingmud.org/gallery/v/Cityscapes/Oslo/2005_Dec/_MG_6900_the_girl_with_the_cellphone.jpg.html)
f/4.5 @70mm, 1/80 exposure time, ISO 3200 with IS enabled, -1/3 EV (underexposed).
If we were to ignore my desire for the DOF that f/4.5 gave me, f/2.8 would make the same exposure possible on a tripod at ISO 3200.
Since ISO 3200 is unavailable on the Rebel and Rebel XT, you can draw your own conclusions regarding the likelyhood of having success with images like that.
(http://jani.vikingmud.org/gallery/d/1376-4/EPV0093_night_party.jpg) (http://jani.vikingmud.org/gallery/v/Jan_in_Asia/Nepal/Kathmandu_Patan/EPV0093_night_party.jpg.html)
f/3.5 @32mm, 1/30 exposure time, ISO 1600, -2/3 EV.
With a Rebel or Rebel XT, I couldn't push this much further. I'd get 1/50 exposure time at f/2.8, which would be barely enough. The 20D etc. can push it to 1/100 exposure at f/2.8.
I dearly wish I had IS at the time I was taking that image; I missed so many opportunities simply because:
- a tripod was impractical (people would bump into it)
- it was mostly even darker than in the semi-successful image posted above
I don't.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54495\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Crap! I thought he paid 1100 for the lens? I see it lists for 524. OK for that much of a difference, I can see your point clearly!
-
Thank you Mark, I got my gear from Samy's camera in L.A, the price with the 17-85 IS USM was $ 1174.95 with the rebate,I got a Dane I gig and I bought from Costco 2 I gigs scandisk for $89.99 each, I also got an HP card reader from Samy's for $29.99. I did not get the 70-300 mm is for about $ 560 because I was already overbudget. Now that I have reinstalled the new drivers for everything on my computer I need to reinstall CS2
Thanks again,
Andres
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54348\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I misread how much you paid for the entire kit Andres. Yes, that is a great price for good equipment. So just ignore everything I said becsaue I based most of it on my misreading that you paid 1100 for the lens alone.
-
2) Canon doesn't offer the 24-70 in IS, and I suspect this is because of the lens being so fast as to not need it.
Canon offers the 24-105 f/4L IS instead, and that's because Canon does see the customers' need for IS even on lenses in this range.
Think about that one for a bit; the modern IS gives you up to three stops worth of headroom, so unless you need the shallowness in DOF that f/2.8 gives you or the actual shorter shutter time, you have the equivalent of f/1.4 for usability. And that goes for tripod use as well.
My gripe is that they didn't make an f/2.8 with IS. The 24-70 f/2.8L is already heavy (950 g), and making an IS version doesn't seem to increase the weight a lot (EF 70-200 f/2.8: 1310 g, IS: 1470 g).
Speaking of weight, the 24-105 f/4L IS only weighs 670 g, and the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS weighs 475 g (half the weight of the 24-70!). I'm fairly certain that these two would be more comfortable as walk-around lenses than my 24-70.
-
Jan, OK, you have it easy. My wife is no photography expert, but a designer with an artistic eye, so when she finds a photo of mine blah-blah, pointless, or otherwise uninspiring she says so and she's usually correct.
I'm pretty certain that "having it easy" is worse (for the images) than not having it easy.
On noise reduction - I'm using Noise Ninja. It is so good at reducing noise - and followed bv PK Capture Sharpener Pro for restoring any lost acutance, that I have not bothered testing ACR noise reduction capabilities. By using Noise Ninja on a separate layer, and with PK on its own layers by design, one can play back and forth with layer opacities to get just the right combination of noise reduction and capture sharpening.
Good points. I think I saw something about that in the most recent edition of the LLVJ (#13).
That certainly is more convenient than the ACR noise reduction.
I think RAW file handling would be much more convenient if RAW files were made first class citizens in Photoshop, although I think I can understand why this hasn't happened yet.
But you are right - a decent profiled and calibrated monitor is a higher priority for good Photoshop work - you must be using something decent there, otherwise you would be expending alot of paper and ink to get the results you are showing.
Well, I haven't even tried to print these images yet, simply because I think my current setup doesn't allow me to predict the results of a print easily enough. So that particular credit isn't really due, even though the images do look good on-screen.
There is a better solution on the way for me in terms of hardware, though; a hunking big PowerMac with a 23" Cinema HD (we got a decent Christmas bonus at work this year).
I'm also browsing for daylight lamps to review prints with. Today, I have to take my prints for a walk to check them properly.
BTW, I just realized that the link I posted to the 100% crop from the ISO 3200 image (http://www.vikingmud.org/~jani/pics/6900_crop.jpg) had a typo in it. Edited and fixed.
-
Jan,
On the subject of the 24~105L, having now made several thousand photographs with it, I reconfirm what I wrote for this website when I tested it (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24vs28.shtml). It is tack sharp, great contrast, excellent portability, very good IS, and very suitable zoom range. I walked around with it alot, believe me, and it is my basic lens.
When you get your Apple Cinema monitor, also check out ColorEyes Display (the X-Rite colorimeter and software) from Integrated Color Corporation for calibrating and profiling it. It is another few hundred dollars of expenditure but worth every penny. Michael reviewed this product on L-L (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/software/coloreyes-display.shtml). I have been using it for some time now and am very satisfied.
For daylight indoor lighting, I am using Solux lighting (www.solux.net). Their website is an education. They recommend, correctly, their 4700K bulbs for photography, providing the closest matching by the human eye of a print viewed under this lighting with a monitor calibrated to 6500K. Now why a print viewed in reflected light from a 4700K bulb should provide the closest match to a 6500K monitor image is one of those mysteries of human vision, but it works. These are halogen lights used with step-down transformers so I assume they can work as well in Norway as they do here in North America, provided you have the right fixture/transformer. I strung six of them on a ceiling track and bought one of their Solux desk lamps. It's a very reliable set-up (as my walls and ceiling are neutral) - the next best thing, (but considerably cheaper) to buying one of those fancy light boxes with variable luminosity. Having the variable luminosity would be nice, but it is more money and more desk space.
-
On the subject of the 24~105L, having now made several thousand photographs with it, I reconfirm what I wrote for this website when I tested it (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24vs28.shtml). It is tack sharp, great contrast, excellent portability, very good IS, and very suitable zoom range. I walked around with it alot, believe me, and it is my basic lens.
Thanks, I think that just helped me decide on setting aside even more money for future equipment.
When you get your Apple Cinema monitor, also check out ColorEyes Display (the X-Rite colorimeter and software) from Integrated Color Corporation for calibrating and profiling it. It is another few hundred dollars of expenditure but worth every penny. Michael reviewed this product on L-L (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/software/coloreyes-display.shtml). I have been using it for some time now and am very satisfied.
Thanks for the advice. I'll first try with that EyeOne Pro I borrowed the last time, to see if that gives satisfactory results, but eventually I'll want something that's my personal colorimeter.
For daylight indoor lighting, I am using Solux lighting (www.solux.net). Their website is an education. They recommend, correctly, their 4700K bulbs for photography, providing the closest matching by the human eye of a print viewed under this lighting with a monitor calibrated to 6500K. Now why a print viewed in reflected light from a 4700K bulb should provide the closest match to a 6500K monitor image is one of those mysteries of human vision, but it works. These are halogen lights used with step-down transformers so I assume they can work as well in Norway as they do here in North America, provided you have the right fixture/transformer. I strung six of them on a ceiling track and bought one of their Solux desk lamps. It's a very reliable set-up (as my walls and ceiling are neutral) - the next best thing, (but considerably cheaper) to buying one of those fancy light boxes with variable luminosity. Having the variable luminosity would be nice, but it is more money and more desk space.
Thanks again, I'll make a note of this particular equipment. While my workroom is hardly neutral in colour (book cases on both side walls), proper lighting will work wonders compared to the dim tube lights I have now.
-
Canon offers the 24-105 f/4L IS instead, and that's because Canon does see the customers' need for IS even on lenses in this range.
Think about that one for a bit; the modern IS gives you up to three stops worth of headroom, so unless you need the shallowness in DOF that f/2.8 gives you or the actual shorter shutter time, you have the equivalent of f/1.4 for usability. And that goes for tripod use as well.
My gripe is that they didn't make an f/2.8 with IS. The 24-70 f/2.8L is already heavy (950 g), and making an IS version doesn't seem to increase the weight a lot (EF 70-200 f/2.8: 1310 g, IS: 1470 g).
Speaking of weight, the 24-105 f/4L IS only weighs 670 g, and the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS weighs 475 g (half the weight of the 24-70!). I'm fairly certain that these two would be more comfortable as walk-around lenses than my 24-70.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54582\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There must be a reason why they don't offer it on a F2.8 lens of that focal length. With F4 and slower shutter speeds, I can see the need for it. I my mind and albeit limited experience, the IS comes in handy when you are at longer focal lengths--70-200--and slower apertures, which equal longer shutters. And from what I've seen reviewed, if you want or need more stops in low light situations, your probably not going to get fine art quality sharpness hand holding anyway with an F4 at slow shutters, even with IS enabled. The way I understand the usefulness of IS is when you have "relatively" fast shutter speeds, a heavy lens, and long focal lengths, and you need that extra stabilization, such as sport shots where light really isn't a problem, but panning a camera with a long and heavy lens, for instance, is a necessity. So you may have a situation where you are hand holding a 70-200 at 195 mm at F4. But to each his or her own. On the other hand, I could probably be persuaded by arguments that all lenses should have it no matter what you are doing with them. I mean, it could be argued that anything to get a sharper image is a good thing.