Canon Camera Decisions

Get a quality used dslr instead of a "bridge camera (POS)" you can get canon rebels for as low as 250 bucks used now.

"Nick" wrote in message
Hello guys……..Canon Camera Decisions

Fortunately I have no money free at the moment to pursue a camera, but I am on the hunt so that when I do have the cash flow, I

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 16:39:42 GMT, Dirty Harry wrote:

Get a quality used dslr instead of a "bridge camera (POS)" you can get canon rebels for as low as 250 bucks used now.

What snobbery. A DSLR, particularly a cheap one, is not a gateway to higher quality photographs.

There are many advantages to the non-SLR cameras, including larger zoom range, absence of sensor dust, lighter weight, as well as excellent quality.

—
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:25:58 -0700, Mike Russell
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 16:39:42 GMT, Dirty Harry wrote:

Get a quality used dslr instead of a "bridge camera (POS)" you can get canon rebels for as low as 250 bucks used now.

What snobbery. A DSLR, particularly a cheap one, is not a gateway to higher quality photographs.

There are many advantages to the non-SLR cameras, including larger zoom range, absence of sensor dust, lighter weight, as well as excellent quality.

about 18 months ago I decided it was time to buy a new camera. My budget had me deciding between the ‘Canon Rebel’ and ‘Fuji FinePix s9600’. I spend days on reviews (which is what any potential buyer should do). The Fuji is what I decided on and what a clever decision:-)

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:20:33 +0200, Dave wrote:

about 18 months ago I decided it was time to buy a new camera. My budget had me deciding between the ‘Canon Rebel’ and ‘Fuji FinePix s9600’. I spend days on reviews (which is what any potential buyer should do). The Fuji is what I decided on and what a clever decision:-)

There you go. I find that particularly the image comparisons are useful. For me sharpness is very important, and I always want to compare what I have now with what I’m thinking about getting.
—
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:20:33 +0200, Dave wrote:

about 18 months ago I decided it was time to buy a new camera. My budget had me deciding between the ‘Canon Rebel’ and
‘Fuji FinePix s9600’. I spend days on reviews (which is what any potential buyer should do). The Fuji is what I decided on and what a clever decision:-)

There you go. I find that particularly the image comparisons are useful. For me sharpness is very important, and I always want to compare what I have now with what I’m thinking about getting.
—
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

the canon rebel is excellent for an inexpensive entry, a pro could use it (10 Megapixels)
fits all the excellent optics lenses by canon

camera choice such an individual decision according to your goals and needs

we already had a large assortment of Canon lenses from oldie manual Slr so that made the decision to enter pro digital with canon 10d the rebel now has more megapixels plus very decent repeat rate for fast shooters like sports or fashion people etc

but I did buy a bridge camera before making the switch to canon digital mostly for me to use as snapshot camera and hubby for intro to digital as a pro the Minolta dimage 7 frustrated him hugely, he felt very limited with it, but gained enthusiasm for the digital (my goal to let him discover it’s wonders)
for me the Dimage was great
got macro and decent zoom without using the optical zoom for it’s time it was a high mega pixel (now it isn’t ..it’s old) I AM NOT A PRO shooter, I love the macro feature and other semi pro choices it had (under over exposure, text setting for copy negs) the lens was versatile enough for close and scenics the two things I shoot most

if you do lot of telephoto do not buy the fixed lens camera – optical zoom is vastly inferior to real zoom

If you are on a tight budget though a lens collection may be out of reach after using the old canon AF lens we realized they would not work in many situations
we are working on replacing them now with stabilized lens the best purchase we made from Canon 70-210 IS 2.8
make sure if you do love tele or long lens to get IMAGE STABILIZER lens digital seems more sensitive to camera shake with them

there is one or two camera brands that do put image stabilization camera I think the concept is superior
Sony is one
they are not know for still camera but digital is so more similar to video in many ways
maybe research it

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:11:44 -0400, "KatWoman" wrote:

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:20:33 +0200, Dave wrote:

about 18 months ago I decided it was time to buy a new camera. My budget had me deciding between the ‘Canon Rebel’ and
‘Fuji FinePix s9600’. I spend days on reviews (which is what any potential buyer should do). The Fuji is what I decided on and what a clever decision:-)

There you go. I find that particularly the image comparisons are useful. For me sharpness is very important, and I always want to compare what I have now with what I’m thinking about getting.
—
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

KatWoman pointed out a few things which made
very important contributions to my decision to buy the s9600

we already had a large assortment of Canon lenses from oldie manual Slr so that made the decision to enter pro digital with canon 10d

If you are on a tight budget though a lens collection may be out of reach after using the old canon AF lens we realized they would not work in many situations
we are working on replacing them now with stabilized lens the best purchase we made from Canon 70-210 IS 2.8
make sure if you do love tele or long lens to get IMAGE STABILIZER lens digital seems more sensitive to camera shake with them

Many amateurs only stare at the word DSLR and its price but may be mislead if they don’t also compare facilities and find out what the real price would be if including al the lenses to the DSLR which is default part of the non-DSLR.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06082412fujis9600.asp

Many amateurs only stare at the word DSLR and its price but may be mislead if they don’t also compare facilities and find out what the real price would be if including al the lenses to the DSLR which is default part of the non-DSLR.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06082412fujis9600.asp

Quoted from the link shown here:

……..The FinePix S9600’s optional Wide Conversion Lens, WL-FXS6 , expands the camera’s wide-angle capability without compromising image quality. It allows the extreme angles of view normally only available with changeable lenses on an SLR camera…….

……Adrian Clarke, Fujifilm’s Director of Photo Products, said: “Digital SLRs are steadily dropping in price, which has increasingly made them an option for non-professional photographers. However, this affordability does not necessarily mean they are the best choice of camera, especially if the photographer is used to the flexibility and convenience that compact digital cameras can offer. The FinePix S9600 fills the gap between two worlds by combining the usability of a compact with performance that can challenge an entry-level digital SLR.”….

"Dave" wrote in message

Many amateurs only stare at the word DSLR and its price but may be mislead if they don’t also compare facilities and find out what the real price would be if including al the lenses to the DSLR which is default part of the non-DSLR.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06082412fujis9600.asp

Quoted from the link shown here:

…….The FinePix S9600’s optional Wide Conversion Lens, WL-FXS6 , expands the camera’s wide-angle capability without compromising image quality. It allows the extreme angles of view normally only available with changeable lenses on an SLR camera…….

…..Adrian Clarke, Fujifilm’s Director of Photo Products, said: "Digital SLRs are steadily dropping in price, which has increasingly made them an option for non-professional photographers. However, this affordability does not necessarily mean they are the best choice of camera, especially if the photographer is used to the flexibility and convenience that compact digital cameras can offer. The FinePix S9600 fills the gap between two worlds by combining the usability of a compact with performance that can challenge an entry-level digital SLR."….

not to mention there are pocket cameras now with high megapixels, very decent zoom, and will focus on faces only or where your eyeball is looking for some people the idea of carrying the camera in pocket and having it available all the time is more practical than missing a shot b/c you left at home the "too bulky" one!!!

Mike Russell wrote:

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:20:33 +0200, Dave wrote:

about 18 months ago I decided it was time to buy a new camera. My budget had me deciding between the ‘Canon Rebel’ and ‘Fuji FinePix s9600’. I spend days on reviews (which is what any potential buyer should do). The Fuji is what I decided on and what a clever decision:-)

There you go. I find that particularly the image comparisons are useful. For me sharpness is very important, and I always want to compare what I have now with what I’m thinking about getting.

Since you already have Photoshop retouching skill so you are about 1/2 to the goal of enjoying the beauty of DSLR. And I would suggest to go for DSLR instead of P&S (for one with less retouching and post processing skill then P&S may suite them better) to enjoy a much higher level of photography.

– Most DSLRs are fine, but Canon is very good with high ISO and it has a good lens system with reasonable price. If you wanna go for Nikon then don’t settle for anything less than the newer D300 (Nikon has a newer model but I haven’t read to know much about it) which is about equal to Canon 40D

– And my only suggestion is DO NOT waste money on cheapie lens. And you should be able to capture very sharp image with top_of_the_line_lens.

I don’t worship and brandname or I have Canon, Sigma, Tamron after few months reading as much feedbacks as I can.

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:13:11 -0500, Joe wrote:

Mike Russell wrote:

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:20:33 +0200, Dave wrote:

about 18 months ago I decided it was time to buy a new camera. My budget had me deciding between the ‘Canon Rebel’ and ‘Fuji FinePix s9600’. I spend days on reviews (which is what any potential buyer should do). The Fuji is what I decided on and what a clever decision:-)

There you go. I find that particularly the image comparisons are useful. For me sharpness is very important, and I always want to compare what I have now with what I’m thinking about getting.

Since you already have Photoshop retouching skill so you are about 1/2 to the goal of enjoying the beauty of DSLR. And I would suggest to go for DSLR instead of P&S (for one with less retouching and post processing skill then P&S may suite them better) to enjoy a much higher level of photography.
– Most DSLRs are fine, but Canon is very good with high ISO and it has a good lens system with reasonable price. If you wanna go for Nikon then don’t settle for anything less than the newer D300 (Nikon has a newer model but I haven’t read to know much about it) which is about equal to Canon 40D
– And my only suggestion is DO NOT waste money on cheapie lens. And you should be able to capture very sharp image with top_of_the_line_lens.
I don’t worship and brandname or I have Canon, Sigma, Tamron after few months reading as much feedbacks as I can.

Important to remember KatWoman’s words when she wisely said:

not to mention there are pocket cameras now with high megapixels, very decent zoom, and will focus on faces only or where your eyeball is looking for some people the idea of carrying the camera in pocket and having it available all the time is more practical than missing a shot b/c you left at home the "too bulky" one!!!

Go read the specs on the camera I am carrying on my hip and sometimes forget about it because it is no burden. I should also mention I am not a professional photographer but it is a serious hobby. I spend more money on photographing then what I make out of it. My bread and butter is in property and my hobby is photographing.

I have seen journalists with smaller cameras and certainly many free lance photographers does not sport bulky DSLR’s.

This is samples of my kind of work – the work I love (and certainly I do not need any DSLR therefore):

http://dave.photos.gb.net/p42079897.html

http://dave.photos.gb.net/p40034295.html

http://dave.photos.gb.net/p40012704.html

http://dave.photos.gb.net/p40012706.html

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 16:39:42 GMT, Dirty Harry wrote:

Get a quality used dslr instead of a "bridge camera (POS)" you can get canon rebels for as low as 250 bucks used now.

What snobbery. A DSLR, particularly a cheap one, is not a gateway to higher quality photographs.

There are many advantages to the non-SLR cameras, including larger zoom range, absence of sensor dust, lighter weight, as well as excellent quality.

—
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

It’s not snobery, if the guy wants to learn real photography and have actual control over his shots instead of just pointing and clicking it seems to me like a waste of money to get something you’ll just want to get rid of in a while. The little point and shoots are nice and yea they have plenty of megapixels but they are brutally slow when it comes to shutter lag, also the smaller sensors can’t compare in terms of noise at higher isos. I’d take an 8 megapixel 20d over any point and shoot with more megapixels if I was doing something serious like a wedding.

There are many advantages to the non-SLR cameras, including larger zoom range, absence of sensor dust, lighter weight, as well as excellent quality.

As to the larger zoom range claim, any lens with a large zoom range is a compromize. Either it’ll be soft at the long end, short end or just all around soft, but don’t worry, the p&s camera will add plenty of sharpening for you, along with jpeg artifacts…

On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 20:57:18 GMT, Dirty Harry wrote:

I’d take an
8 megapixel 20d

Of course, everyone knows Dirty Harry packs a cannon, LOL. —
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

"Dirty Harry" wrote in message

There are many advantages to the non-SLR cameras, including larger zoom range, absence of sensor dust, lighter weight, as well as excellent quality.

As to the larger zoom range claim, any lens with a large zoom range is a compromize. Either it’ll be soft at the long end, short end or just all around soft, but don’t worry, the p&s camera will add plenty of sharpening for you, along with jpeg artifacts…

repeat

camera choice such an individual decision according to your goals and needs

"KatWoman" wrote in message

"Dirty Harry" wrote in message

There are many advantages to the non-SLR cameras, including larger zoom range, absence of sensor dust, lighter weight, as well as excellent quality.

As to the larger zoom range claim, any lens with a large zoom range is a compromize. Either it’ll be soft at the long end, short end or just all around soft, but don’t worry, the p&s camera will add plenty of sharpening for you, along with jpeg artifacts…

repeat

camera choice such an individual decision according to your goals and needs

Exactly! There are those who wish to learn the craft and those who whish to point and click.

On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 00:08:49 GMT, Dirty Harry wrote:

Exactly! There are those who wish to learn the craft and those who whish to point and click.

I know what you’re thinking. "Did he fire 21 megapixels or only eight?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III SLR Digital Camera, the most powerful DSLR in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?

The point is, Callahan, that the mayor’s office wants you to start playing by the book. Judge a photographer by his or her pictures, not the equipment, or we’re going to have to throw your whole case out again.

Equipment is not the be all, nor are all non-SLR’s automated toys. If you believe that, then you’re playing the role of a photo snob. DLSR’s are, IMHO, an odious legacy from a now ancient 20th century analog world of gears and moving mirrors, only the film has been yanked out and a digital sensor put in.

All that said, I’ll put up with a lot of poor attitude and behavior, even the type you’ve shown, if your images are excellent. So you’ve got to ask yourself one question: do you have any pictures on line that might impress? Well, do ya … ?
—
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

On Sep 4, 11:52 pm, Mike Russell
wrote:

IMHO, an odious legacy from a now ancient 20th century analog world of gears and moving mirrors, only the film has been yanked out and a digital sensor put in.

Mike Russell -http://www.curvemeister.com

Hi Mike,

Odious? Really? Would you agree that a camera needs at least a fully manual option to reliably take good photos? What camera do you use?

Ron

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 01:34:08 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

[re SLR’s]

Odious? Really?

Yes, SLR’s are holding us back from what digital could really do. There are any number of things we would be able to do by now, if the high end cameras were not tied to the SLR platform.

Yes, DSLR’s are the best cameras right now, and many people have legacy lenses that it would tear their heart out to part with. The same, I’m sure, was true of view camera lenses when 35mm made the scene. Our digital cameras will be much cheaper, lighter, and better when we move beyond that.

Check this out, and substitute the word "DLSR" for "fax machine" to get another perspective on how lame, intermediate technology can hold us back. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.04/negroponte.html

Would you agree that a camera needs at least a fully
manual option to reliably take good photos?

I would agree for the most part, but consider that the manual operations that we have available today are all derived from what mechanical film-based cameras could do. Other camera adjustments, some automated, some manual, will be possible. Once we really crack open the potential of digital photography, the limited manual adjustments of an SLR will seem like a straight-jacket.

What camera do you use?

A CoolPix 8700.
—
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

On Sep 5, 3:51 am, Mike Russell wrote:

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 01:34:08 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

[re SLR’s]

Odious? Really?

Yes, SLR’s are holding us back from what digital could really do. There are any number of things we would be able to do by now, if the high end cameras were not tied to the SLR platform.

Yes, DSLR’s are the best cameras right now, and many people have legacy lenses that it would tear their heart out to part with. The same, I’m sure, was true of view camera lenses when 35mm made the scene. Our digital cameras will be much cheaper, lighter, and better when we move beyond that.
Check this out, and substitute the word "DLSR" for "fax machine" to get another perspective on how lame, intermediate technology can hold us back..http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.04/negroponte.htm l

Would you agree that a camera needs at least a fully
manual option to reliably take good photos?

I would agree for the most part, but consider that the manual operations that we have available today are all derived from what mechanical film-based cameras could do. Other camera adjustments, some automated, some manual, will be possible. Once we really crack open the potential of digital photography, the limited manual adjustments of an SLR will seem like a straight-jacket.

What camera do you use?

A CoolPix 8700.
—
Mike Russell -http://www.curvemeister.com

Ok, I take your point that the SLR format does tend to stifle innovation. But I want lenses I can change and manual control – even more controls, like you mentioned. I would also like a remote viewfinder I can wear over one eye. The 8700 looks very nice.

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 00:08:49 GMT, Dirty Harry wrote:

Exactly! There are those who wish to learn the craft and those who whish to
point and click.

I know what you’re thinking. "Did he fire 21 megapixels or only eight?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III SLR Digital Camera, the most powerful DSLR in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?

The point is, Callahan, that the mayor’s office wants you to start playing by the book. Judge a photographer by his or her pictures, not the equipment, or we’re going to have to throw your whole case out again.
Equipment is not the be all, nor are all non-SLR’s automated toys. If you believe that, then you’re playing the role of a photo snob. DLSR’s are, IMHO, an odious legacy from a now ancient 20th century analog world of gears and moving mirrors, only the film has been yanked out and a digital sensor put in.

All that said, I’ll put up with a lot of poor attitude and behavior, even the type you’ve shown, if your images are excellent. So you’ve got to ask yourself one question: do you have any pictures on line that might impress?
Well, do ya … ?
—
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

I’m glad you asked as I’m a huge fan of night time photography. Darn, you cant do that on a point and shoot because most of them have a max open shutter time of 15 seconds and even at 15 seconds the sensor noise is BRUTAL! Why? It’s a physical limitation because of the sensor size, they’re trying to pack all those mega pixels on to an area the size of my thumb nail. The small sensor also leads to a very small lens on the front. Guess what that means? It means you’re not going to be taking any photos with a nice background blur (unless you’re in the macro range, not so good for portraits). The depth of field on a p&s is about equivalent to f 16 on an slr (look it up if you don’t believe me). You might not want background blur for everything but its nice to have the option, I don’t know how many people have asked me "can you do those pictures with the blurry background?" http://www.dustingodwinphoto.com/bird.jpg see the nice cage cause it was shot in a zoo? Nope but on a p&s you sure would!
Some night shots that would be IMPOSSIBLE to take on a p&s: http://dustingodwinphoto.com/landscapes/images/img_1425.jpg – judging by the star trails that was at least a 5 min exposure.
http://dustingodwinphoto.com/landscapes/images/img_0689_5x7. jpg this was probably only 10-15 seconds but it’s completely noise free. http://dustingodwinphoto.com/landscapes/images/fireworks_img _2715_4x6.jpg http://dustingodwinphoto.com/landscapes/images/framed_img_74 61.jpg http://dustingodwinphoto.com/edmonton/images/pyramids100007_ rt8.jpg http://dustingodwinphoto.com/reddeer/images/IMG_8026.jpg – 30 seconds… I could dig up another 100 images taken at night that wouldn’t be possible on a p&s but I haven’t updated the site in forever…

Now don’t get me wrong, even I say to myself it would be nice to have a little camera I could throw in my pocket but for anything serious I’d be chocked at myself if I saw something awesome and I was stuck without my slr. ARGH how do I get a shallow DOF on this thing? What? I can’t take my night pictures unless I want more grain then the local wheat pool? Why am I pressing the button and nothing is happening (waits for 2 seconds for the camera to finally take the picture)? I love it when I let someone try my camera and they take about 10 pictures the first time they press the button because they’re not expecting the camera to work so fast, followed by a "holy shit!"

I also forgot about the wide angle thing, p&s doesn’t have a wide angle, sure you can set a silly adapter to screw on the front but the image quaity is going to go right out the window. If you only want 4×6 picutres it’s ok but if you took some really nice pictures wouldn’t you like to print them at a decent size?
www.dustingodwinphoto.com/drhdr.jpg
www.dustingodwinphoto.com/whiteswan2.jpg
www.dustingodwinphoto.com/drhdr2.jpg
all shot at 10mm
Heres a few more long exposure pictures that wouldn’t be happening on a p&s www.dustingodwinphoto.com/doubletri.jpg
www.dustingodwinphoto.com/woot3.jpg
www.dustingodwinphoto.com/powercamera.jpg witness the power of the 20 year old slr lol. I did that by waving around an LED flashlight, you guessed it, for at least 30 seconds.

On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 16:03:20 GMT, Dirty Harry wrote:

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 00:08:49 GMT, Dirty Harry wrote:

Exactly! There are those who wish to learn the craft and those who whish to
point and click.

I know what you’re thinking. "Did he fire 21 megapixels or only eight?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III SLR Digital Camera, the most powerful DSLR in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?

The point is, Callahan, that the mayor’s office wants you to start playing by the book. Judge a photographer by his or her pictures, not the equipment, or we’re going to have to throw your whole case out again.
Equipment is not the be all, nor are all non-SLR’s automated toys. If you believe that, then you’re playing the role of a photo snob. DLSR’s are, IMHO, an odious legacy from a now ancient 20th century analog world of gears and moving mirrors, only the film has been yanked out and a digital sensor put in.

All that said, I’ll put up with a lot of poor attitude and behavior, even the type you’ve shown, if your images are excellent. So you’ve got to ask yourself one question: do you have any pictures on line that might impress?
Well, do ya … ?
—
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

I’m glad you asked as I’m a huge fan of night time photography. Darn, you cant do that on a point and shoot because most of them have a max open shutter time of 15 seconds and even at 15 seconds the sensor noise is BRUTAL! Why? It’s a physical limitation because of the sensor size, they’re trying to pack all those mega pixels on to an area the size of my thumb nail. The small sensor also leads to a very small lens on the front. Guess what that means? It means you’re not going to be taking any photos with a nice background blur (unless you’re in the macro range, not so good for portraits). The depth of field on a p&s is about equivalent to f 16 on an slr (look it up if you don’t believe me). You might not want background blur for everything but its nice to have the option, I don’t know how many people have asked me "can you do those pictures with the blurry background?" http://www.dustingodwinphoto.com/bird.jpg see the nice cage cause it was shot in a zoo? Nope but on a p&s you sure would!
Some night shots that would be IMPOSSIBLE to take on a p&s: http://dustingodwinphoto.com/landscapes/images/img_1425.jpg – judging by the star trails that was at least a 5 min exposure.
http://dustingodwinphoto.com/landscapes/images/img_0689_5x7. jpg this was probably only 10-15 seconds but it’s completely noise free. http://dustingodwinphoto.com/landscapes/images/fireworks_img _2715_4x6.jpg http://dustingodwinphoto.com/landscapes/images/framed_img_74 61.jpg http://dustingodwinphoto.com/edmonton/images/pyramids100007_ rt8.jpg http://dustingodwinphoto.com/reddeer/images/IMG_8026.jpg – 30 seconds… I could dig up another 100 images taken at night that wouldn’t be possible on a p&s but I haven’t updated the site in forever…
Now don’t get me wrong, even I say to myself it would be nice to have a little camera I could throw in my pocket but for anything serious I’d be chocked at myself if I saw something awesome and I was stuck without my slr. ARGH how do I get a shallow DOF on this thing? What? I can’t take my night pictures unless I want more grain then the local wheat pool? Why am I pressing the button and nothing is happening (waits for 2 seconds for the camera to finally take the picture)? I love it when I let someone try my camera and they take about 10 pictures the first time they press the button because they’re not expecting the camera to work so fast, followed by a "holy shit!"

Well, I gotta say these are some fine images, Dirty Harry. I’ll give you some slack. I’m a fan of night photography too.
—
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 16:03:20 GMT, Dirty Harry wrote:

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 00:08:49 GMT, Dirty Harry wrote:

Exactly! There are those who wish to learn the craft and those who whish
to
point and click.

I know what you’re thinking. "Did he fire 21 megapixels or only eight?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III SLR Digital Camera,
the most powerful DSLR in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?

The point is, Callahan, that the mayor’s office wants you to start playing
by the book. Judge a photographer by his or her pictures, not the equipment, or we’re going to have to throw your whole case out again.
Equipment is not the be all, nor are all non-SLR’s automated toys. If you
believe that, then you’re playing the role of a photo snob. DLSR’s are, IMHO, an odious legacy from a now ancient 20th century analog world of gears and moving mirrors, only the film has been yanked out and a digital
sensor put in.

All that said, I’ll put up with a lot of poor attitude and behavior, even
the type you’ve shown, if your images are excellent. So you’ve got to ask
yourself one question: do you have any pictures on line that might impress?
Well, do ya … ?
—
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

I’m glad you asked as I’m a huge fan of night time photography. Darn, you
cant do that on a point and shoot because most of them have a max open shutter time of 15 seconds and even at 15 seconds the sensor noise is BRUTAL! Why? It’s a physical limitation because of the sensor size, they’re trying to pack all those mega pixels on to an area the size of my thumb nail. The small sensor also leads to a very small lens on the front.
Guess what that means? It means you’re not going to be taking any photos with a nice background blur (unless you’re in the macro range, not so good
for portraits). The depth of field on a p&s is about equivalent to f 16 on
an slr (look it up if you don’t believe me). You might not want background
blur for everything but its nice to have the option, I don’t know how many
people have asked me "can you do those pictures with the blurry background?"
http://www.dustingodwinphoto.com/bird.jpg see the nice cage cause it was shot in a zoo? Nope but on a p&s you sure would!
Some night shots that would be IMPOSSIBLE to take on a p&s: http://dustingodwinphoto.com/landscapes/images/img_1425.jpg – judging by the
star trails that was at least a 5 min exposure.
http://dustingodwinphoto.com/landscapes/images/img_0689_5x7. jpg this was probably only 10-15 seconds but it’s completely noise free. http://dustingodwinphoto.com/landscapes/images/fireworks_img _2715_4x6.jpg http://dustingodwinphoto.com/landscapes/images/framed_img_74 61.jpg http://dustingodwinphoto.com/edmonton/images/pyramids100007_ rt8.jpg http://dustingodwinphoto.com/reddeer/images/IMG_8026.jpg – 30 seconds… I could dig up another 100 images taken at night that wouldn’t be possible
on a p&s but I haven’t updated the site in forever…
Now don’t get me wrong, even I say to myself it would be nice to have a little camera I could throw in my pocket but for anything serious I’d be chocked at myself if I saw something awesome and I was stuck without my slr.
ARGH how do I get a shallow DOF on this thing? What? I can’t take my night
pictures unless I want more grain then the local wheat pool? Why am I pressing the button and nothing is happening (waits for 2 seconds for the camera to finally take the picture)? I love it when I let someone try my camera and they take about 10 pictures the first time they press the button
because they’re not expecting the camera to work so fast, followed by a "holy shit!"

Well, I gotta say these are some fine images, Dirty Harry. I’ll give you some slack. I’m a fan of night photography too.
—
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

Well thanks 🙂

Mike Russell wrote:

What camera do you use?

A CoolPix 8700.

I also have a CoolPix 8700, and I like it a lot, but it does have some serious limitations. The worst is the long inactive period after you press the trigger. This is a particular disadvantage when you are trying to photograph grandchildren.

Next is the counter- intuitive menu system, and the buttons which are scattered randomly over the camera body in places where you are quite likely to press some button performing some obscure function without noticing, so that — as has happened to me — you find all your photos are taken at low res, or the like, when you get home.

It is also a pity that it is impossible to set the focal length and extension to specific values, and the actual values of these parameters are not recorded on the photo.

Its greatest virtue is that it is lightweight and compact, takes excellent macro photos without too much effort and is very flexible, so that I can get excellent photos in nearly every case. It is also relatively compact and inconspicuous, so that I can toss it over my shoulder when we are travelling without feeling that anybody is going to bother trying to steal it. (Which is probably also why it is currently in the repair shop with an erratic on- off switch.)

I am interested in extreme close-up work, and recently bought a Canon EOS400d with EFS 17-85mm, EFS 60mm macro, and super macro lenses. This feels a much nicer camera to use, but I was very disappointed to find that using the camera handheld to photograph flowers I can generally get better results with the Nikon, and even for scenery it does not appear to be as sharp. I suspect I must be doing something stupid, but I haven’t managed to work out what.

With its greater weight and decreased flexibility the Canon is much less suitable for fieldwork, and I don’t think I would even consider it for travelling. (Over 40 years ago I had a Hasselblad 500c, and accessories, and eventually gave up photography for a number of years, when I found I could no longer lug the kit around.)

I find the LCD screens on digital cameras essentially useless for outdoor work, and don’t really know if my photos are any good until I can display them on my computer’s hi-res LCD screen. Age is probably a contributing factor, but I suspect that any photographer wanting to critically assess their work would have the same problem.

You can see some examples of my work at http://www.corybas.com/New_page.php

James McNangle

"James McNangle" wrote in message

Mike Russell wrote:

What camera do you use?

A CoolPix 8700.

I also have a CoolPix 8700, and I like it a lot, but it does have some serious
limitations. The worst is the long inactive period after you press the trigger.
This is a particular disadvantage when you are trying to photograph grandchildren.

Next is the counter- intuitive menu system, and the buttons which are scattered
randomly over the camera body in places where you are quite likely to press some
button performing some obscure function without noticing, so that — as has
happened to me — you find all your photos are taken at low res, or the like,
when you get home.

It is also a pity that it is impossible to set the focal length and extension to
specific values, and the actual values of these parameters are not recorded on
the photo.

Its greatest virtue is that it is lightweight and compact, takes excellent macro photos without too much effort and is very flexible, so that I can get
excellent photos in nearly every case. It is also relatively compact and inconspicuous, so that I can toss it over my shoulder when we are travelling
without feeling that anybody is going to bother trying to steal it. (Which is
probably also why it is currently in the repair shop with an erratic on- off
switch.)

I am interested in extreme close-up work, and recently bought a Canon EOS400d
with EFS 17-85mm, EFS 60mm macro, and super macro lenses. This feels a much
nicer camera to use, but I was very disappointed to find that using the camera
handheld to photograph flowers I can generally get better results with the Nikon, and even for scenery it does not appear to be as sharp. I suspect I must
be doing something stupid, but I haven’t managed to work out what.

Is that with the 17-85? I hate to say it but some copies can be really bad, I had a copy and I also borrowed a copy once and I’ll probably never use it again. The 28-135 IS isn’t as bad. With your flower shots are you stopping it down at all? I’d love to get my hands on some of those macro lenses, the wishlist is so long though lol.

With its greater weight and decreased flexibility the Canon is much less suitable for fieldwork, and I don’t think I would even consider it for travelling. (Over 40 years ago I had a Hasselblad 500c, and accessories, and
eventually gave up photography for a number of years, when I found I could no
longer lug the kit around.)

I find the LCD screens on digital cameras essentially useless for outdoor work,
and don’t really know if my photos are any good until I can display them on my
computer’s hi-res LCD screen. Age is probably a contributing factor, but I
suspect that any photographer wanting to critically assess their work would have
the same problem.

I good trick is to turn the brightness to max when outdoors but don’t forget to turn it back down when you get inside or it could throw you off…the best way to judge is to have the picture display along with the histogram. If you can read what the histogram is telling you then you’ll know if anything is drastically wrong.

You can see some examples of my work at
http://www.corybas.com/New_page.php

James McNangle

Nice pictures and happy shooting.

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 00:08:49 GMT, Dirty Harry wrote:

Exactly! There are those who wish to learn the craft and those who whish to
point and click.

I know what you’re thinking. "Did he fire 21 megapixels or only eight?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III SLR Digital Camera, the most powerful DSLR in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?

And thanks for that, I was seriously laughing my ass off!

"James McNangle" wrote in message

Mike Russell wrote:

What camera do you use?

A CoolPix 8700.

I also have a CoolPix 8700, and I like it a lot, but it does have some serious
limitations. The worst is the long inactive period after you press the trigger.
This is a particular disadvantage when you are trying to photograph grandchildren.

Next is the counter- intuitive menu system, and the buttons which are scattered
randomly over the camera body in places where you are quite likely to press some
button performing some obscure function without noticing, so that — as has
happened to me — you find all your photos are taken at low res, or the like,
when you get home.

It is also a pity that it is impossible to set the focal length and extension to
specific values, and the actual values of these parameters are not recorded on
the photo.

Its greatest virtue is that it is lightweight and compact, takes excellent macro photos without too much effort and is very flexible, so that I can get
excellent photos in nearly every case. It is also relatively compact and inconspicuous, so that I can toss it over my shoulder when we are travelling
without feeling that anybody is going to bother trying to steal it. (Which is
probably also why it is currently in the repair shop with an erratic on- off
switch.)

I am interested in extreme close-up work, and recently bought a Canon EOS400d
with EFS 17-85mm, EFS 60mm macro, and super macro lenses. This feels a much
nicer camera to use, but I was very disappointed to find that using the camera
handheld to photograph flowers I can generally get better results with the Nikon, and even for scenery it does not appear to be as sharp. I suspect I must
be doing something stupid, but I haven’t managed to work out what.
With its greater weight and decreased flexibility the Canon is much less suitable for fieldwork, and I don’t think I would even consider it for travelling. (Over 40 years ago I had a Hasselblad 500c, and accessories, and
eventually gave up photography for a number of years, when I found I could no
longer lug the kit around.)

I find the LCD screens on digital cameras essentially useless for outdoor work,
and don’t really know if my photos are any good until I can display them on my
computer’s hi-res LCD screen. Age is probably a contributing factor, but I
suspect that any photographer wanting to critically assess their work would have
the same problem.

You can see some examples of my work at
http://www.corybas.com/New_page.php

James McNangle

have you tried this LCD hood??

"Dirty Harry" wrote in message

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 00:08:49 GMT, Dirty Harry wrote:

Exactly! There are those who wish to learn the craft and those who whish to
point and click.

I know what you’re thinking. "Did he fire 21 megapixels or only eight?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III SLR Digital Camera,
the most powerful DSLR in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?

The point is, Callahan, that the mayor’s office wants you to start playing
by the book. Judge a photographer by his or her pictures, not the equipment, or we’re going to have to throw your whole case out again.
Equipment is not the be all, nor are all non-SLR’s automated toys. If you
believe that, then you’re playing the role of a photo snob. DLSR’s are, IMHO, an odious legacy from a now ancient 20th century analog world of gears and moving mirrors, only the film has been yanked out and a digital sensor put in.

All that said, I’ll put up with a lot of poor attitude and behavior, even the type you’ve shown, if your images are excellent. So you’ve got to ask
yourself one question: do you have any pictures on line that might impress?
Well, do ya … ?
—
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

I’m glad you asked as I’m a huge fan of night time photography. Darn, you cant do that on a point and shoot because most of them have a max open shutter time of 15 seconds and even at 15 seconds the sensor noise is BRUTAL! Why? It’s a physical limitation because of the sensor size, they’re trying to pack all those mega pixels on to an area the size of my thumb nail. The small sensor also leads to a very small lens on the front. Guess what that means? It means you’re not going to be taking any photos with a nice background blur (unless you’re in the macro range, not so good for portraits). The depth of field on a p&s is about equivalent to f 16 on an slr (look it up if you don’t believe me). You might not want background blur for everything but its nice to have the option, I don’t know how many people have asked me "can you do those pictures with the blurry background?" http://www.dustingodwinphoto.com/bird.jpg see the nice cage cause it was shot in a zoo? Nope but on a p&s you sure would! Some night shots that would be IMPOSSIBLE to take on a p&s: http://dustingodwinphoto.com/landscapes/images/img_1425.jpg – judging by the star trails that was at least a 5 min exposure.
http://dustingodwinphoto.com/landscapes/images/img_0689_5x7. jpg this was probably only 10-15 seconds but it’s completely noise free. http://dustingodwinphoto.com/landscapes/images/fireworks_img _2715_4x6.jpg http://dustingodwinphoto.com/landscapes/images/framed_img_74 61.jpg http://dustingodwinphoto.com/edmonton/images/pyramids100007_ rt8.jpg http://dustingodwinphoto.com/reddeer/images/IMG_8026.jpg – 30 seconds… I could dig up another 100 images taken at night that wouldn’t be possible on a p&s but I haven’t updated the site in forever…
Now don’t get me wrong, even I say to myself it would be nice to have a little camera I could throw in my pocket but for anything serious I’d be chocked at myself if I saw something awesome and I was stuck without my slr. ARGH how do I get a shallow DOF on this thing? What? I can’t take my night pictures unless I want more grain then the local wheat pool? Why am I pressing the button and nothing is happening (waits for 2 seconds for the camera to finally take the picture)? I love it when I let someone try my camera and they take about 10 pictures the first time they press the button because they’re not expecting the camera to work so fast, followed by a "holy shit!"

you do excellent work Harry
enjoyed looking at your photos

"KatWoman" wrote:

have you tried this LCD hood??

Which LCD hood?

I haven’t tried an LCD hood, but it sounds like one more thing to get in the way. Like ‘take off glasses, put them away, take a photo, get out glasses & put them on again, try to find some shade to inspect the LCD screen, then zoom in and hope to see something’.

James McNangle

"Dirty Harry" wrote:

Is that with the 17-85? I hate to say it but some copies can be really bad, I had a copy and I also borrowed a copy once and I’ll probably never use it again.

That IS a nasty thought. I just automatically assumed it was my stupidity, but your suggestion is entirely compatible with the observations. I will have to rig up a test, and investigate the matter seriously. Thanks 🙁

With your flower shots are you stopping
it down at all?

I seldom try to use the camera unless I have bright sunlight, so they’re mostly at f/11 or f/16.

I get the feeling that there is something about the dynamics of the camera in my hands, and the speed of response, which enables me to get better results with the Nikon than the Canon. Unfortunately it is hard enough to get myself to many of the places I go, without trying to take a tripod, and photographing wildflowers in the bush with a tripod is a very slow process. (As every photographer will know, cameras are cloud and wind magnets, and tripods even more so, so if you really want good close-up photos you virtually have to pick the flowers and bring them home. And this, naturally, is usually illegal.)

I’d love to get my hands on some of those macro lenses, the wishlist is so long though lol.

Unfortunately I try to do too many things at once (like designing fancy web pages!), and getting good quality lifesize photos is difficult, while getting any worthwhile photos with the x5 macro is extremely difficult, so I have not got very far with the macro lenses.

At life size the pixels are separated by 5.5 microns, and the performance is diffraction limited at f/11. At f/11 the depth of focus is about 0.05 millimetres.

At five times magnification the pixels are nominally 1.1 microns apart, the nominal depth of focus is about 10 microns (0.01 millimetre) and the performance is always diffraction limited. If you want to get a photo which is (moderately) sharply focused all over you virtually have to prepare a microscope slide.

Nice pictures and happy shooting.

Thanks.
James McNangle

James McNangle wrote:

<snip>

I am interested in extreme close-up work, and recently bought a Canon EOS400d with EFS 17-85mm, EFS 60mm macro, and super macro lenses. This feels a much nicer camera to use, but I was very disappointed to find that using the camera handheld to photograph flowers I can generally get better results with the Nikon, and even for scenery it does not appear to be as sharp. I suspect I must be doing something stupid, but I haven’t managed to work out what.

Neah! there is no such thing that one gives more disappointment than other, but operator problem. For MACRO you better learn to use tripod, and I am talking about the real Macro Lens not the macro mode or the add-on.

There is a huge difference between P&S and DSLR, and DSLR not only require GOOD GLASS to capture good quality image, and DSLR usually require more post processing skill. If you meet those requirement then you will have a much better image than any current P&S can offer.

I don’t know about the 17-85mm, but I expect the 60mm macro should be top_of_the_line_lens which should give you very sharp image. Macro is often hard to get IF so tripod is often a good idea, yes, it’s possible to capture sharp image without tripod but it depends on how small the subject may be, or how close between the lens and object. And if you have $$$ to spend then Sigma 150mm macro is a winner (and not much more expensive than the 60mm macro, except you cap capture from a greater distance).

"KatWoman" wrote: (clip) optical zoom is vastly inferior to real zoom (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is not intended as a nit-pick–I just want to avoid confusion. I believe you meant to say, "digital zoom is vastly inferior to real zoom." And, of course, real zoom *IS* optical zoom.

This is interesting.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18710

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:33:46 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

This is interesting.
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18710

Yep – and notice the tug of "legacy glass", trying to keep the future from happening. "Fear not. Sleep tight. RED is awake." I love it – these guys got the mojo!!

BTW – I just ordered my camera for the next several years from B&H. The Panasonic DMC-FZ28. It does live histogram, 720p HD, and 18x zoom with image stabilization and no chance of dust on the sensor. This just a sample of the kind of stuff DSLR’s are keeping us from.
—
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

On Sep 19, 10:48 pm, Mike Russell
wrote:

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:33:46 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

This is interesting.
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18710

Yep – and notice the tug of "legacy glass", trying to keep the future from happening. "Fear not. Sleep tight. RED is awake." I love it – these guys got the mojo!!

BTW – I just ordered my camera for the next several years from B&H. The Panasonic DMC-FZ28. It does live histogram, 720p HD, and 18x zoom with image stabilization and no chance of dust on the sensor. This just a sample of the kind of stuff DSLR’s are keeping us from.
—
Mike Russell -http://www.curvemeister.com

Just taking a look at it on dpreview. It also does 1080p. It looks very nice. Too bad it only has the 1/3stop brackets. You can still do hdri but it will not be as easy. I wonder, does Fuji make the sensors for Panasonic?

I was just looking at this one.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091705canon_5dmarkII.asp A dSLR that does video at 1080p.

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 22:32:37 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I was just looking at this one.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091705canon_5dmarkII.asp

Very sweet looking camera.

A dSLR that does video at 1080p.

Boy, that mirror must really buzz, LOL.
—
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

On Sep 19, 10:48 pm, Mike Russell
wrote:

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:33:46 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Panasonic DMC-FZ28. It does live histogram, 720p HD
—
Mike Russell -http://www.curvemeister.com

Do you see Curvemeister playing a role in making color correction/ enhancements or otherwise color grading the video output of the new cameras? Is there a gap between Curvemeister as it exists now and something like Synthetic Aperture’s Color Finesse (coming in at around a thousand bucks for the standalone) that will need to be filled? Would it even be possible inside Photoshop or would something like AfterEffects or a Curvemeister standalone be necessary? It seems like by adding a simple batch mode to Curvemeister it might be possible to make very important adjustments. And without the complications of anamorphic distortion, you may be able to pull off simple motion tracking for selections without breaking the bank.

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 09:12:04 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

[re correcting videos]

Do you see Curvemeister playing a role in making color correction/ enhancements or otherwise color grading the video output of the new cameras? Is there a gap between Curvemeister as it exists now and something like Synthetic Aperture’s Color Finesse (coming in at around a thousand bucks for the standalone) that will need to be filled? Would it even be possible inside Photoshop or would something like AfterEffects or a Curvemeister standalone be necessary? It seems like by adding a simple batch mode to Curvemeister it might be possible to make very important adjustments. And without the complications of anamorphic distortion, you may be able to pull off simple motion tracking for selections without breaking the bank.

This is an interesting idea – or have the customer manually move pins to follow neutrals, skin tones, etc.
—
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com