dSLR thread

That is very cool. I'd assume it is far more effective than typical IS lenses? From the website:

"For photographic work in low light levels, exposures to 1 second can be used (hand held)."

For $2k, it'd better be.
 
ddrueding said:
That is very cool. I'd assume it is far more effective than typical IS lenses? From the website:

"For photographic work in low light levels, exposures to 1 second can be used (hand held)."

For $2k, it'd better be.
Click to expand...

It would be for small boat and small plane or helicopter use with lenses like the 24-105. I really should buy the KS-6, but it is so large/heavy.
 
LunarMist said:
I have a multitude of CF and other readers. For USB 2.0, the OmniFlash Uno! UDMA is my favorite small one. Reads/writes are capped by the USB 2.0. Writes are about 30MB/sec. and reads are a few MB/sec. faster. The Lexar Dual Slot readers perform well too, though the mechanics are hit and miss. (The USB 2.0 model I had was a mess due to misalignment of the slots.)
There is now a USB 3.0 model. I remove the main part from the ridiculous hinged shell.
Click to expand...

So I have another reader enroute, but it is stuck at the Fredex. :(
 
Here are the read speeds for a 16GB Extreme Pro CF (rated 90 MB/sec.) and a 32GB Extreme Pro SDHC U1 (rated 45 MB/sec.) on the Lexar USB 3.0.
 
Here are the read speeds for a 16GB Extreme Pro CF (rated 90 MB/sec.) and a 32GB Extreme Pro SDHC U1 (rated 45 MB/sec.) on the Lexar USB 3.0.
 
Yes, the Lexar that I break out of the lower casing. Oddly that photo shows it with the lower part removed.
 
Great. Now i just gotta upgrade my computer to USB 3.0 ;( Any suggestions RE: PCIe I/O cards? I don't think i want to upgrade my mobo for another couple years.
 
Mostly they use NEC controllers, but some ETON, whatever. I have an SIIG that was on sale back when there were not as many choices as today.
 
I'm no photography expert, but except for the Madonna (which you took with the sun in your face), I could see these photos in a National Geographic and not be shocked. They are sharp and colors look great, to my eyes at least. You can even see the flower is made of plastic in the girl's hair.
 
I might have framed "painted" a little wider, but that is really nitpicking ;)

Really, other than some minor cropping issues I do really like them. Doubt I could do as well.
 
That price tag isn't that bad considering it is "it" in Canon's line...Those specs seem pretty awesome, and I'm a bit relieved that they decided to hold the line at 18MP.
 
The 1D-X is very controversial. Although the PJ, sports, and wedding/event users are enthusiastic about it, many of the general purpose photographers will not stand for the price tag and have no use for 12FPS. More importantly Canon abandoned serious and pro wildlife photographers with the move to the relatively low resolution FF sensor and not allowing AF on long teles with TCs. Historically all the digital non-1D series bodies are limited in many ways, especially for rugged outdoor usage. Landscape and nature photographers are likewise disgusted at the low resolution. However, there is an assumption that a lesser camera such as theoretical 5D III might have a high-resolution sensor and would suffice even with crippled autofocus, but they are less durable in the field.
 
ddrueding said:
That I find interesting. What was their reasoning? Got a link to a discussion?
Click to expand...

It is a design limitation of the AF sensor, presumably related to the priority of the market: sports, PJ, and event photographers who are close to the subject or the subject is relatively large. The previous 1 series cameras since the late 1990s autofocused at f/8 in the center point as did the EOS 3, but no longer on the 1D-X. The consumer cameras never did AF at f/8 either. The wildlife and bird shooters to name a few are screaming bloody murder on the interwebs since their $13,000 800/5.6 lenses can't be used with the 1.4x III, and a TC is needed more than ever with the relatively low-res sensor. :( The same goes for the 500 or 600/4 IS II are not even out yet and cannot be used with the 2x III. The 2x III is only useful on a couple of lenses now (300 or 400/2.8), and the need for the Canon-overhyped new 1.5-1.75x priced long tele lenses, including superior resolution, reduced CA, etc., is dramatically reduced.
 
Quick question: any reason an intermediate-level photographer would prefer a newer Canon Digital Rebel over a Rebel XT? My wife has nicely progressed from her point-and-shoot days and is still using her old Digital Rebel XT, and Christmas is coming. The extra megapixels would only rarely be appreciated (every now and then we really crop and then blow up a picture and make it all pixelated).
 
There are many Digital Rebels, including the rather ancient Digital Rebel XT. Which model is that?

I would look for a D7000, but don't wait too long. I'm not sure if they are made in the Thailand factor that is flooded.
 
The D7000s are made in the flooded factory, but I think Adcadet is suggesting that he might buy his wife a new SLR for Christmas and wants to know if it would be a worthwhile upgrade. Presumably she already has a couple of Canon lenses so a new Nikon would probably be out.

To answer that question it'd help to know what you'd be looking at to replace it and what sort of pictures you wife likes to take (or that she would like to take but can't).

I'd say the most obvious pluses would be better low light performance (Based on the specs maybe an order of magnitude better). A better screen for previewing (Assuming something like a Rebel T2i WAY better). The option of video. SD cards instead if CF (Maybe a pro, maybe a con, they're cheaper but if you already have CFs that's no help).
If you looked at something like the 60D then you could add faster controls to the list. Not having to navigate through menus to change things like ISO, exposure compensation and bracketing can speed things up a lot and is definitely worth a little extra cash in my opinion. (It has been one of the biggest differences I've found between my old D40x and my D90)

Depending on what she wants to do and what other gear she has she might get more millage out of another lens or a good tripod or something.
 
Sol - thanks for the considered thoughts, given the limited information I've provided.

Indeed, I'm wondering if she'd notice the advantages of a newer camera. She mostly does framed shots (lots of people posing) and some "action" shots (PJ-style). She's recently been looking into bracketing options and other things to try to grab a few quick shots in a row for those times when people don't sit still. A larger screen would be a huge plus given the way I've seen her work (take a few shots, review them and see if she's got what she thinks she wants). She's progressed beyond just point-and-shoot but is still learning intermediate-level things. Low-light options would be nice, as she does a lot of shooting indoors and at dusk, and January in Minnesota is rather dark on many days anyway. She has a single lens, so perhaps a second lens would be an obvious thing to look into. I just got her a larger CF card, but that was all of $30.

She has a nice, study tripod (my dad's from back in the day when a tripod had to hold a 20 pound VCR camcorder), but perhaps a smaller, portable one would be nice. I forget what those really bendy ones are called, but I have a friend with one who likes it.
 
Maybe the money would be better spent on a lighting kit (multiple flash, stands, bounces, etc) and different/better lenses? The lenses will be around in her bag forever, the camera body IMHO is expendable and depreciates rapidly.

I think the bendy tripod you're referring to is a gorillapod?
 
Bingo! Gorillapod. Thanks!

Yeah, I'm wondering if it's time for a second lens. Her current lens is from the kit - EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 (whatever that means).
 
I found the 35mm F2 to be a great "social" lens.

1. It is much faster, which makes it twice as good in low-light conditions.
2. It's a small lens, so it isn't too intimidating on your subjects.
3. It is relatively wide angle, so you don't need to be on the other side of the room to photograph a group of people.
4. It is inexpensive as far as lenses go.
5. It is light weight.

The downside is that it is a "prime" lens. It does one focal length only, so if you want to "zoom", you need to do it by walking closer or further from your subject.
 
What is a social lens? :bleh: The 35/2 is a long normal or a short tele on the 1.6x body.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top