Hey Carsleuth!!!

Hey smoney,
I currently use a Rebel XTi. It's a great camera for the money, but I've really been saving up for the true Ferrari of the Canon line, the 5d. I'm close, so hopefully in the next few months it'll be mine!

I use 3 lenses. The "daily driver" is a 24-105 f/4L. It's a great lens, focusing is SUPER quick. A very good Image Stabilizer. Here's a link to a pretty accurate review: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

My second lens is the weekend toy. (Digging all these car references? ) It's a 70-200 F/2.8. The best two words to describe it are "bad ass." I use it for track shooting and photo shoots.

Some sample pictures with the 70-200:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dancphotography/2770195752/in/set-72157606776312757/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dancphotography/2770190188/in/set-72157606776312757/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dancphotography/3626696852/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dancphotography/3064542649/in/set-72157610266692415/

Sometimes the focus isn't great though. It's slow, not great with moving objects, but for cars standing still it's fantastic. Here's a review I agree with for the most part: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

And my third is a 24-85. It used to be my main lens before I got the 24-105, and it's a pretty good one too. It's just nowhere near the 24-105. I only use it when I need a shot with a certain filter. (I purchased 5 or 6 filters that don't fit my 24-105 or 70-200.)

Speaking of filters, I use a circular polarizing filter and occasionally a UV filter. The polarizing filter is great, you can really get some cool lighting effects like these:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dancphotography/2807883912/in/set-72157607005750021/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dancphotography/2764264848/in/set-72157606734458007/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dancphotography/2807035133/in/set-72157607005750021/

See how it has that rainbow-ish effect? I think it's cool, but that's certainly only one of the uses for a polarizer. It really just gives you the freedom to bend the lighting how you want it. I have 2, a cheap $45 polarizer for my 24-85 and a nice $350 one for my 70-200. To be honest, you don't need the more expensive one. Sure, it gives you more freedom and your pictures turn out better (lighting) but nothing you can't fix in photoshop. Here are a few more polarizer shots:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dancphotography/2887822527/in/set-72157607493782544/
^see how on the side of Carla's car it's more glossy looking than the top surface of the front? Without the polarizer, the whole car would have looked like the top surface of the front.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dancphotography/2783590198/in/set-72157606863419570/
^Notice how different parts of the side of Glen's car have different lighting.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dancphotography/2782739335/in/set-72157606863419570/
^See how the headlights on the front have more depth to them? Also, the front of the car has a darker to lighter fade of light.

The polarizing filter is really an important thing to have.

Sorry for the ridiculously long post, but I love talking about this kind of stuff.

-Dan

 

Dan...can you please be more specific

 

...no...

 

Dan is an amazing fotographer because he shoots great pictures without a Nikon!

 

Wrong. Now I know what t-shirt I'll get you for your birthday...


Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Which I'd proudly wear next time the Nikon gets the green light of death...

(the equivalent of the red ring of death on the XBox)

 

Ooooohh, let's see. You got BBC America, you're turning on Nikons, what next??? You're a changed man Andreas, I think we both know the next step...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

As long as you're getting a decent digital SLR (like Nikon or Canon), you can't really go wrong. Either models have their fans.

I used to have Yashica, Minolta, Pentax and Canon SLRs before I switched to Nikon. Nikon is where I'll stay. If you ask Carsleuth, he's convinced of the Canon. At some point it becomes a bit like religion.

Lens selection however is crucial: Remember that most lenses have to multiplied by 1.3 to make up for the chip, which is smaller than regular film. So a 18mm becomes a 24mm. So in general my rule is: The lower the range starts at, the better. Using your example, a 18-105 is much more useful than a 28-135.

Hope that helps.

 

Dan, Nikons are where its at. BTW, how are things going in Chicago?

 

Dan,

As near as I can tell, the Canon Rebel XTi is the same thing as the Canon 400D.

Before you commit to the Canon EOS 5D, realize that it's a 4-year old camera (launch date 2005-08-22). It's full frame YES, and it's a noticeable step up in image quality, but it might not be as BIG a step up in basic image quality as you hope. I would say the best part would probably be the ability to have WIDE ANGLE the way it was meant to be. The Canon EOS 5D Mark II is a big step up - in quality and price.

See: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/184|0/(appareil2)/176|0/(appareil3)/305|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Canon/(brand2)/Canon/(brand3)/Canon

I have upgraded DSLRs several times. I was often disappointed in the small steps in image improvement between models. I started with a Fuji S2 which had wonderful color and good sharpness, despite being a 6MP camera. I made many a full page magazine ad with that camera. The Fuji S2 was slow, so I bought a 6MP Nikon D70, which handled much better, but I didn't like the images at all, and I sold it as soon as I could. I got a 10MP Nikon D200 which is a fantastic camera, but surprisingly, not substantially sharper than the Fuji S2. I then upgraded to a Fuji S5 Pro, which is identical to the D200 except for Fuji sensor and software. The color was better on the Fuji S5, and the image a tiny bit better than the D200, but it was a bit slower. The Fujis are great studio cameras, and the Nikons are better action cameras. I also have a Nikon D700, which is full frame and 12MP. It is MUCH sharper than any of my previous cameras. It's high ISO quality is stunning. It knocked my socks off. The Fuji S5 has slightly better dynamic range, but tweaking in Photoshop or Lightroom kind of negates that advantage. The D700 is the best camera I've ever used. I prefer it over the D3.

One disadvantage of a really sharp camera is that it shows the flaws in your less than really sharp lenses. No sense putting lousy lenses on a good camera.

 

Smoney,

I've had good luck buying all sorts of camera gear via Amazon.com. For example, that Nikon D90 kit sells for $1145.89 with no sales tax and free shipping.

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-D90-Digital-18-105mm-3-5-5-6G/dp/B001ENOZY4/ref=pd_ecc_rvi_cart_1

Ritz Camera went into bankruptcy in February 2009. They are closing hundreds of stores. They have competitive prices (if $1,399 is competitive - NOT), but the only advantage to buying locally evaporates if the store closes next month.

http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/541532941.htm

According to DXO Labs, the Nikon D90 produces images a little bit better than Dan's desired camera, the Canon EOS 5D - and the Nikon is costs much less. Nikon just released the Nikon D5000, which has almost exactly the same image quality as last year's D90, for MUCH less money. Check out the D5000!

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/176|0/(appareil2)/294|0/(appareil3)/320|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Canon/(brand2)/Nikon/(brand3)/Nikon

The undisputed champion of professional photography retail integrity, expertise and variety is B&H Photo in New York. I buy from them frequently.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/620581-REG/Nikon__D5000_Digital_SLR_Camera.html

There's not much I would buy from Best Buy until I've checked Amazon and B&H first.

 

All Nikon DSLRs are either FX or DX format.

The FX format Nikon DSLRs use the traditional 35mm film area of 24mm x 36mm for the sensor. Lenses mounted on film SLRs and FX format DSLRs have the same effective field of view.

The DX format Nikon DSLRs use is smaller than the traditional 35mm film frame. The sensor sits in the middle, so it effectively only "sees" the center of the image projected by the lens. A 50mm focal length lens projects the same image regardless of the camera it's mounted on, but the smaller sensor only "sees" the central 66% of it, resulting in a recorded image that when printed, looks the same as a photo taken on a film SLR with a 75mm lens. This factor of 1.5 makes all lenses seem longer: a 50mm lens results in images that appear to be taken with a 75mm lens (on film or in FX format); a 200mm lens seems like 300mm; which sounds and works great. Unfortunately, at the wide end of the spectrum (short focal lengths), wide angle lenses don't seem so wide angle. A really wide 20mm lens seems like a ho-hum 30mm lens. To get an image that looks like it was taken on film with a 20mm lens, a DX DSLR user needs to use a 13.3mm lens. Lens makers routinely make 10, 12, and 14mm lenses now specifically for small sensor cameras.

Nikon makes DX lenses that don't even project an image that can adequately cover the FX format. If you buy all DX lenses and put them on an FX camera, the images projected will not cover the entire sensor - the camera can automatically set itself to record only the DX area.

For example, on my Nikon D200, which is a DX format, I can mount my Nikkor 12-24mm DX lens. It is a really wide lens. It makes images that are equivalent to shooting a film SLR with a 18-36mm lens. 18mm on film is extremely wide angle. I can put that same lens on my Nikon D700, which is FX format. If I zoom to 12mm, I will see almost the entire image circle in the middle of the viewfinder because the lens does not project a large enough image to cover the entire frame. The camera has a setting to automatically only record the area that a DX sensor would see. It would record the center of the image, equivalent to what an 18mm lens would project on the entire FX sensor. Now if I mount my 14-24mm FX lens on the D700... Ok. I give up, because I don't think this is helping any more. If you get it, you get it. If not... think about it.

Canons have full frame camera models, and other Canon models use smaller sensors -some use a 1.6 factor, and others a 1.3 factor (If I recall correctly).

Fuji FinePix Pro DSLRs (S1, S2, S3, S5) are the equivalent of DX format. Kodak made some DSLRs (all obsolete now) that used Nikon or Canon lenses, and the later models were full frame.

 

Sorry for the confusion.

 

Dan is an amazing photographer because he gets out there and shoots with his talent and good eye. He can take good pictures with a Canon, Nikon or pinhole camera. Cameras are tools.

I know some photographers that had all Nikons, then sold their equipment (think $30,000 worth of lenses) to switch to Canon. I know photographers that had Canon and switched to Nikon. I know two pro photographers that had Nikon, switched to Canon, then back to Nikon. I met a National Geographic photographer that had a Pentax shutters installed in his Nikon cameras. Some people never sell anything and just keep accumulating systems.

I have Canon, Nikon and Fuji cameras, and I've used dozens of other brands. Whatever works.

You are best off finding a camera you are comfortable with, getting good lenses, and learning how to take good pictures with what you have, and learning how to use Photoshop or Lightroom (etc.) to really make the images sing.

 

Ahem, I don't think this thread is titled "Hey Tifosi12 and Mobius Entwine!" Lol

Thanks for the insight, definitely makes me think twice. While the 5D is 4 years old, it's a fantastic camera. I spent an hour shooting with one when I was at B&H in NY. I feel that the Mark II is double the price (about) and for what, HD video? I own an HD video camera already. I may be completely wrong, but the impression I got was that the only big difference between the 5D and the 5D Mark II was the HD video. (and a few minor bells and whistles) I want my next camera to be a big jump. What is your opinion on the 40D? Is that a big enough jump?

From your last few sentences, it sounds like you're implying that my lenses are lousy. I'm not saying that like I'm insulted or anything, I just want your input.

Thanks for the info,
Dan

 

Dan,

I don't know much about the Canon lenses other than "L" is supposed to be good.

It also depends on what you need out of a lens. Sometimes a "pretty good" lens is good enough to get the job done, other times you need a "really great" lens to get the job done. And, as cameras get sharper, what used to be "really great" may be revealed as merely "pretty good" or worse. I have lenses that were highly regarded and I really liked using, that with the introduction of good DSLRs and my clients' evolving requirements (bigger pictures in magazine ads), the lenses didn't seem so great anymore. I had to replace them.

 

Cool, and what do you think of my view of the 5D versus the Mark II?

Also, what is your opinion on the 40D?

 

The 5D is your next logical step up, but It seems to me that Canon should be due to replace the 5D with something for that market segment. According to the DXO Labs' sensor ratings, the ONLY Canons with better sensors than your XTi / 400 are the EOS 1D m3, 1Ds m3, 1Ds m2, 1D m2N, 5D and 5D m2. All of them are expensive, the 5D being the most affordable. All the other lesser Canons have about the same basic image quality as your current camera. The newer cameras are sure to have other upgrades to handling, menus, the LCD, and other bells and whistles, and a few have better high-ISO capabilities. Maybe those other features might be worth it to you, maybe not.

The 5D is $2000. The 5D is $2700. (prices from Amazon).

You know the 5D. To me, the important features on the 5DII is better sensor (twice the step up from your XTi), even better high-ISO ability, slightly faster shooting 3.9 fps vs 3 fps, wider ISO range, the menus and LCD have to be better than the 5D's. More megapixels don't always mean better images, but here, the 5D2's 21MP seems to be beating the 5D's 13MP.

The difference is $700. That would be the best $700 you could spend. If you have it. It's a cruel world.

The 21MP images are going to take up a lot more disk space. Drats! Your 70-200 wouldn't seem like a 300mm as it does on your XTi - it's going to seem like a 70-200 on a full frame camera. Drats! Your 24mm lens will finally feel like the wide angle lens it was meant to be.

I couldn't care less about video capability.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Canon

I would be cruising the Canon Rumors websites to see if there are rumblings for a 5D replacement.

http://www.canonrumors.com/

[Disclaimer: The last time I shot a Canon SLR was probably 30 years ago. My current Canons are a digital P&S and a waterproof P&S (film) - I'm waiting for the Canon PowerShot D10 waterproof IS to come out. I shoot with Nikons because they work for me, and I don't feel like switching.]

If I were to switch, I would have to get something better than the 5D mk2, and I would have to get a whole bunch of lenses. Nevermind. (I did switch from Minolta to Nikon, which was superficially traumatic, but I never regretted it.)

You might consider switching to the Nikon D5000. It's DXOMark Sensor score is higher than the 5D and it's 1/3 the cost. could take the $1250 you save and put it toward some lenses. It's 1/5th the prices of the 5D mk2. If you're aiming at the 5D mk2, consider the Nikon D700 which has a good step up in image quality over the 5D mk2, and costs the same.

[ramble_mode/OFF]

 

If your XTi is indeed the exact same thing as the EOS 400D (DP Review seems to think so)
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/

400D launch date: 2006-08-24
40D launch date: 2007-08-20

The 40D is one year newer, and has only a very slightly better basic image quality. You probably couldn't tell the difference. It looks like it uses the exact same sensor, but probably has a bit better brains doing the processing. Other features like LCD size and ergonomics would probably have more of an impact on how you would like it than the sensor would.

I was surprised that the even the 400D is newer than the 5D. Come on Canon! Get something sharper and better out - with the same price or better!

 

I don't get it.

Can you please try again in maybe one or two sentences?

Is it true or not, that there is a 1.3 factor multiplication for the focal length when shooting with my digital SLR?

Are you saying, that Nikon's DX lenses correct for that?

Remember I have the D200, not the full frame sensor of the D700 you have.

PS: I'm finally giving away my old Nikon lenses, which belonged to my N70.

 

Nikon DX format, as found in the D200, D40, D300, etc., uses a lens factor of 1.5.
Nikon's FX format, as found on the D3, D3x, and D700, has a lens factor of 1 (which is the same as not needing a factor).

Canon's small sensor DSLRs use a lens factor of 1.3 or 1.6, depending on the models' sensor size.
Canon's full frame sensor DSLRs use a lens factor of 1.

Also, almost none of this conversion factor is relevant to circular fisheye lenses.

 

So the dirty little secret of digital fotography still is mostly true.

Funny how the consumers are obsessed with Megapixels when there is a much bigger issue at hand.

LOL, thanks!