***DSLR/Photography MegaThread***

[Clich? Guevara]

My new Canon 30D just arrived late last week.

I was just testing out some of the features and took an alright snapshot of one of my boys.

My woman, taken in Santa Monica over the weekend.

 

[rinkrat]

I'm curious why you would buy the 30D which has 8 megapixels for $1100 when you can get the RebelXTi which has 10 MP for only $800?

I have an old 6MP model and I am really tempted to upgrade.

 

[Clich? Guevara]

Easy.

More control. It felt better, the white balance comp. controls, low noise, and the photos I've taken with a friend's 30D look outstanding when using low-light lenses.
Plus, the XTI is tiny. Impressive that they can fit a good camera in that size but I felt like I was holding a junior's camera. It wasn't comfortable.

 

[FBJ]

Easy.

More control. It felt better, the white balance comp. controls, low noise, and the photos I've taken with a friend's 30D look outstanding when using low-light lenses.
Plus, the XTI is tiny. Impressive that they can fit a good camera in that size but I felt like I was holding a junior's camera. It wasn't comfortable.

Mike,

You're going to want the best white-balance control you can get, what with all the indoor-ice shooting you do.

 

[VF]

I'm curious why you would buy the 30D which has 8 megapixels for $1100 when you can get the RebelXTi which has 10 MP for only $800?

I have an old 6MP model and I am really tempted to upgrade.

They are both great cameras, as for the extra cost on the 30D, here some of the differences between the two:
The 30D does 5fps where the 400D does 3pfs, it has the rear dial and the multi-controller (very handy for quickly selecting AF points), the top ISO rating is 3200 as opposed to 1600 for the XTi, the 30D has a larger penta prism (which means a brighter viewfinder), the max shutter is 1/8000 sec as opposed to 1/4000 sec for the XTi, and (this one might be a biggie for hockey pics) the 30D has spot metering. Also, with the smaller pixel pitch of the XTi will give you more noise compared to the 30D (5.7 ?m on the XTi vs 6.4 ?m on the 30D).

As for the ergonomics (which are highly subjective), the XTi is smaller and lighter, the 30D larger and heavier and has a more robust feel to it.

 

[Clich? Guevara]

Mike,

You're going to want the best white-balance control you can get, what with all the indoor-ice shooting you do.

Definitely. I'll post some photos I took with my friend's 30D for the last Kings home game. Good snapshots.

ValleyFan, thanks for reminding me. Spot Metering is also a big + for the 30D.

 

[FBJ]

Definitely. I'll post some photos I took with my friend's 30D for the last Kings home game. Good snapshots.

ValleyFan, thanks for reminding me. Spot Metering is also a big + for the 30D.

How'd you get an SLR into Staples? The one time I tried, they wouldn't let me in even though my lens was only 3" (when locked in 28mm).

 

[FBJ]

A couple pics I shot today while cooking dinner.

This is a picture of some olive oil floating on top of some water as I heat it in a stainless-steel collander pot. I stirred the crap out of it then focused as close as possible with the 18-200 lens at the longest FL.

Here's what happened when I started playing around with the white balance and hue/saturation controls in Lightroom.

Psychadelic.

Those pics are all hand-held, too. I could get MUCH sharper images with the camera on a tripod and a hotter off-camera strobe.

 

[VF]

Ooo, very cool, me likey 3 and 4 quite a bit. A lot of "The Fountain" visual effect shots where done the same way (but microscopic oil and water)

OT PS - What up with the name change?

 

[FBJ]

OT PS - What up with the name change?

Change is good...

 

[FBJ]

Some pics I shot up in Spokane, WA last week.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

Some images from the zoo in Hyderabad, India from a recent business trip. Granted the images don't really show off what my Canon Rebel XTi with a 18-55 lens can do, but I thought they showcased something you might not see everyday

Here's a shot with my macro lens from a recent trip to Maui:

 

[rinkrat]

I've decided I need a Canon 5D.

 

[VF]

I've decided I need a Canon 5D.

Yeah you do! I love love LOVE it! Be forewarned though, that camera really likes having really good glass in front of it. Because it is a full frame, soft edges really start showing up. I'm shooting with the 27-70 f/2.8 L like 90% of the time, and the rest with the 135 f/2.0 L, you simply can not take a bad picture with that lens

Edit: Now that I have said that, there are also a lot of non L lenses are like butter with the 5D, but mostly primes. The 50mm f/1.8 + f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8 (I actually like the f/1.8 a bit better than the f/1.2, but I'm definitely in the minority in that decision) and the 100mm f/2.8 macro all immediately spring to mind.

 

[rinkrat]

OK, well reality set in and there is no way I can spend $3,500 for a camera and lens for the D5, so I had the choice of the the 30D, the xTi or the wait for the 40d. After reading all of the positives and negatives of each and going to the store to hold each one and fire off a few shots, I decided on the 30D.

I read at Fatwallet that they were dumping the 30D Kit with the 18-55 lens at Circuit City to make room for the new configuration. I went to the local store and sure anough the kit was $849 (Usually over $1200) but they were already gone in every So Cal store. Damn!

I went on Ebay and sure enough the people who bought the kits at CC were dumping them for a profit. I found one with 45 minutes left and it was at $850, so I bid $904.06 and walked the dog. When I came home I was the proud owner of a brand new Canon D3!! W00t! Can't wait for it to arrive tomorrow.

I am trying to resist buying the 22-70 L 2.8 IM lens as a walkaround lens for this camera. I already have the 70-200 f4 L so this should take some great hockey pics. The 5 fps should be fun to play with. This should be quite a shock after owning the original Digital Rebel all this time and now upgrading over a few models to get something more current, rugged and professional.

 

[VF]

Congrats on the new 30D! They are great cameras.

I am trying to resist buying the 22-70 L 2.8 IM lens as a walkaround lens for this camera. I already have the 70-200 f4 L so this should take some great hockey pics.

The EF 24-70 f/2.8L might be a little long on the 30D for a walk-about, a very comparable lens that might be in a more comfortable zoom range for the 1.6 croppers is the EF-s17-55 f/2.8 IS. Unfortunately, it is the same price as the 24-70, and not an "L", but you get image stabilization, and being a EF-s, it is going to be considerable smaller and lighter than the 24-70, which is a beast in size and weight for that zoom range. I have heard that it's build is extraordinary, and really the only reason it didn't get an "L" is because it is an EF-s type lens (it is also not weather sealed). The only bad thing I have heard about it is that it is more prone to flaring than most in its zoom range, but, 30D + 17-55 = one of the standard wedding photog setups.

 

[FBJ]

I dunno. I think that f/2.8 would be great for hockey pics with that big aperture. Depth-of-field control might be rough when things are moving that fast, but still...lots of light to be let in would allow a lower ISO to be used.

 

[VF]

I dunno. I think that f/2.8 would be great for hockey pics with that big aperture. Depth-of-field control might be rough when things are moving that fast, but still...lots of light to be let in would allow a lower ISO to be used.

f/2.8 lenses are great for sports with Canon bodies (Nikons might do this too, I just am not familiar with them), even if you aren't shooting it at 2.8 because with a f/2.8 or faster lens, it allows the body to use the faster cross type auto focus sensors, so AF becomes super snappy (on most lenses, the 85 f/1.2 is the notable exception just because there is so much glass to move when you focus) and impressively accurate for a non 1D body. You are going to want to change your auto focus to the * button and use AI Servo focus mode for sports, then you start tracking a player way off, hold down the * button, AF will track the subject, and exposure is set right before the shutter fires (exposure will be set with a half press of the shutter button, so with AF and AE both on shutter button, your AF might be right, but exposure will be set for the player being all the way across the ice.) The nice thing about AF on the *, is that you will be able to keep your camera in AI Servo all the time, because a quick press of the * and then off again, and it acts like AF single shot mode. Super handy in my opinion. Another trick is to only use either the center focus point, or one of the lower ones (you can set them using the little joystick) for sports. That way, if you slip off the player, the AF doesn't have far to hunt if it is tracking their torso or feet because it will slip to the the ice (or dirt, what ever you are shooting) right below or behind the player. If you are using all points and you slip off the player, if might decide that the top point, which has the netting or glass support 100' behind the player is pretty easy to focus on, then you have to wait for the lens to rack all the way back when you get it back on the player.

All that being said, I got to see a fiends 70-200 f/4 last week, and it is an impressively fast focuser for being a f/4.

 

[rinkrat]

I won't be using the walkabout for sports so I'm not sure if I even need the 2.8. I am afraid to get an S lens since they are going to be outmoded as soon as the full frame models take over and if I am spending that much on a lens I want it to outlast this camera. The weight difference sounds good so I am tempted. I'll do a little more homework.

The 17-55 would leave me with a gap between 55mm-70mm range.

I am looking at this lens as an alternative, EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 Image Stabilized USM.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0002Y5WXO/?tag=robitaille-20

 

[trdi]

I already have the 70-200 f4 L so this should take some great hockey pics.

You need 2.8 lens. If Canon 2.8 70-200 is too much, you should take a look at Sigma 70-200. Apart from 300-800mm I think 70-200 is the best lens Sigma has made. A good Sigma 70-200 is practically equal to Canon 70-200 - for considerably less money. The only difference might be SLIGHTLY slower focus. Aside from that, you can't say a difference between both lenses.

So why is Sigma cheaper? Because of control quality. 5% of Sigma 70-200 and 80% of Canon 70-200 are A quality. So you need to test lot of Sigma lenses to find a top quality lens. You need to test every lens, even the Canon L lenses, but you will find top quality Sigma lens less frequently. It's all about control quality.

I am looking at this lens as an alternative, EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 Image Stabilized USM.

I know you won't be having this for sport, but still 5.6 on the tele end is just too bad. Isn't F5.6 the lowest value where Canon can do the autofocus? So if it would be half F worse, this lens wouldn't be able to autofocus at 85mm. I know it's not important, it's just a visualization of how bad 5.6 is. I would really like to see some test photos at 5.6 @ 85mm anyway, because I think that they might not be the best. We all know that usually best photos are at apertures a couple of stops slower than fastest. F5.6 might be too limiting even for everyday use.
What's your price range for this kind of lens?