Digital SLR's

flyingcheesehead · Aug 16, 2009

I'm thinking of moving up... I've done some reading and perused the previous camera threads on PoA:

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1243
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16201
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23799

What precipitated this was one of the many neat things that happened to me at OSH this year. When I was about to go up in the tower, I thought "Gee, I should probably take a still camera as well as the video camera." Unfortunately, my "PHD" Nikon crapped out on the last day of my big adventure last summer, so I haven't had a still cam other than my iPhone since then. Well, near the base of the tower at OSH is a Canon booth where they let anyone walk up and borrow a camera for the day (while supplies last, of course) - Bring it back by 5, stop by tomorrow for a DVD of your pictures. (GREAT marketing, BTW!) Well, I asked if there was any way I could keep a camera 'til 6, because "I'm sorry, I'm not coming out of the tower just to bring your camera back." :no:

They hemmed and hawed, said "No, not really..." and then spotted the media badge. "Oh. You go to the side door."

Well, to shorten the rest of the story - I walked back out of there with a Canon EOS-1 Ds Mark III and a pair of very nice lenses. (For the unfamiliar: That's a 21-megapixel full-frame digital SLR, and one of these

plus another lens.)

I knew it was way more camera than I really had any business even touching, and I'm glad I didn't find out until I got back that I was lugging around ELEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS worth of camera gear. :hairraise:

While I really didn't know what I was doing with such a high-end camera, I was able to get WAY better pictures than I've ever dreamed of before. So, now I'm looking to move up to a camera I can grow into.

So far, I'm mostly deciding whether to start with the 50D, or to splurge for the 5D Mark II. (I liked Canon's stuff, and I really like what they do at OSH and the fact that they've supported Airventure for a long time.) I also want to know what lenses I should be looking at. I like the flexibility of the EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM but it's a bit on the large and pricey side. Would it be better to get an EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM and an EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM instead?

Are there any resources online for learning about the pros and cons, ins and outs of various types/lines of cameras and lenses, what features to look for, etc?

I'm also interested in suggestions on other stuff - Tripods, whether the EyeFi cards are any good, thoughts on geotagging...

Rob Schaffer · Aug 16, 2009

Kent:

I have been shooting Canon for 5+ years. Started with the 10D, and up to the 40D now. Personally, as a home camera and general use, I have the Canon XTi, which I guess they now have a newer version of XTs or something like that. Unless you are shooting for hire, I wouldn't go as high as the 50D or especially the Mark series. If you to BHPhoto.com, you can find great prices as well.

Try out the XT series, and the D series. The F-stop adjustment is easier on the D series, and you can probably get a 30D or 40D for an affordable price.

You don't have to go with the L-series lenses (white lens bodies). Those are the professional lenses and the standard canon lenses suit quite fine. For the price of the lens you posted above, I could come up with a great body and arrangement of lenses.

For example, I shoot with the following

Canon XTi (10MP) with battery grip
10-22 EF-S lens
28-105 lens
70-300 lens

TMetzinger · Aug 16, 2009

+1.

For additional reading I recommend dpreview.com.

mantakos · Aug 16, 2009

You could spend the rest of your life investigating the ins and outs of what stuff to buy, and never have time left over to actually photograph anything.

Ultimately, all this stuff is an exercise in compromise. Lower end lenses are slower and softer, but they save money and are smaller and lighter to carry. Higher-end lenses are faster, which is better in low light, both for shutter speed and auto-focus, but cost more and weigh more. Zooms are more flexible than primes, but at the expense of image quality and speed. Zooms with extreme ranges of focal length are very tempting for "you'll never need to change lenses", but that flexibility comes with a sacrifice in image quality.

The answer might seem to be "infinite cash", but it's easy to find yourself trading in your winning lottery ticket for a closet full of gear, and one day you'll find yourself out and about lugging a big backpack full of heavy stuff. The next day you look ruefully at that bag, and you think "too heavy, I'll leave it home today", and that's the day the alien space ship lands next to you on that deserted road, and you're the only witness. Your camera-phone photos are blurry, and nobody believes you.

Before you can decide where to lean all these compromises, you have to consider what your priorities are, and the kind of shooting you like to do. Somebody who wants to shoot photos of their daughter at a gymnastics meet is going to be very interested in fast lenses. Somebody who wants to shoot planes at air shows is going to be all about long telephoto. Somebody who just wants to carry a camera around at all times is going to lean towards minimalism. Somebody who wants to adorn his walls with poster-sized prints is going to lean towards high megapixel and sharp lenses and tripods, while somebody who's uploading to his facebook page can get away with cheaper, lighter, gear, and hand-holding.
-harry

Cap'n Jack · Aug 16, 2009

I got a Canon XSi a few weeks back (12.2 MP). It came with an 18-55 and a 55-250 mm lens. The local camera store was selling this kit for ~$650, also had a carry case. I'm very pleased with it.

I used it for the first time at the Pharmacognosy meeting last month- some pictures are here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jacksilver

woodstock · Aug 16, 2009

flyingcheesehead said:
snip

I knew it was way more camera than I really had any business even touching, and I'm glad I didn't find out until I got back that I was lugging around ELEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS worth of camera gear.

So far, I'm mostly deciding whether to start with the 50D, or to splurge for the 5D Mark II.

snip

(I liked Canon's stuff, and I really like what they do at OSH and the fact that they've supported Airventure for a long time.) I also want to know what lenses I should be looking at. I like the flexibility of the EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM but it's a bit on the large and pricey side. Would it be better to get an EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM and an EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM instead?

Are there any resources online for learning about the pros and cons, ins and outs of various types/lines of cameras and lenses, what features to look for, etc?

I'm also interested in suggestions on other stuff - Tripods, whether the EyeFi cards are any good, thoughts on geotagging...

Yeah, I'd say that is 11 grand worth of gear! yeehaw.

I believe that is a 70-200 you have pictured there (?) and I was looking at that very lens yesterday - it will be my next one, mua hahaha. I've done some reading on it, and apparently the 4L IS has superior IQ over the 2.8 of the same lens, and it's a lot lighter and the IS is allegedly "true 4 stops of IS". The choices for that lens are F2.8 non IS or with IS, and, the F4L non IS or with IS. The F4L non-IS is the cheapest of those four, but I'd get the IS for sure. Whether you go F2.8 or F4 depends on your usage, it would seem if you are shooting sports the faster the better but it seems to me that the F4 would be more than adequate for most everything else.

re: which body.. can't help you there as I've only had the 30D. I think one of the bigger differences is the crop factor - full frame versus not - and from my amateur POV I actually kind of like that I get more reach out of my lenses with the crop factor - I find I tend to come closer to my subjects rather than stand back, and it's nice to already have some of the work done for me. Anything I've heard is that Canon doesn't skimp on their crop-sensor bodies, it's not like you will be getting a sub-par camera if you buy a 50D. I can't give you a lot more perspective than that, I'd say if you were going pro you'd want to go all the way.

This link may be helpful:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=736183&highlight=full+frame+sensor

I have three lenses currently:

Canon 35mm F1.4L (and what a sweet, sweet lens this is)...
Canon 24-105 F4L IS (I bought this a little over a year ago and it rarely comes off my camera - fabulous lens - the 35mm above does have a bigger aperture and to the Canon geeks has better IQ but that's probably parsing hairs because the IQ on this one is very good too. I do miss the larger aperture sometimes, but, for an overall carry all day, leave on your camera, versatile lens, this is hard to beat.)
Canon 100mm F2.8 macro This is a really good lens, but I don't find myself taking it out as much as I should because I'm lazy - the 24-105 already covers the focal length and I feel I need to learn more about taking true macro photos before I use this more seriously.

Photo with 35mm lens, and this was actually cropped down somewhat - not the full photo. Both of the below were taken the night I bought the 24-105 - just farting around in my living room, nothing special...

Photo with 24-105 lens:

And, to your next point, this website is all you need for All things Canon and you will thank me profusely for it (or curse my name, take your pick):

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/index.php

tripod: for traveling, I bought a very light tripod - Gitzo 1550T plus Gitzo 1780qr ball head:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/475899-REG/Gitzo_GT1550T_GT_1550T_Traveler_6X_Carbon.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/562406-REG/Gitzo_GH1780QR_GH1780QR_Center_Ballhead_with.html

Photography can be as expensive as flying, I'd wager...

ps. I also have a P&S camera, for when I don't feel like lugging stuff around.

ps again... whatever you do, if you buy the crop-sensor body, don't buy lenses that only fit the crop-sensor body (EFS I believe they are...). Make sure to only buy lenses made for the FF body, in the event you decide to upgrade one day... I'd say that high-quality glass is a better investment than a "great body", if you are planning to compromise anywhere.

TangoWhiskey · Aug 16, 2009

I have a cousin who uses her Canon Digital SLR quite effectively, and she's been asked more and more to take pictures of kids sports teams, both in action and for group/individual photos.

She's wondering if anybody here has contacts that are experienced in this area of photography that she can network with and ask some questions.

wsuffa · Aug 16, 2009

I've got a Canon DSLR and an older Canon EOS-3 film camera. I buy lenses that fit both (the DSLRs will accept either lens, whle the film camera will NOT accept the newer Digital Only lens).

Very happy with both. I use the film camera for B&W mostly now (since they took my Kodachrome away - sniff)....

flyingcheesehead · Aug 16, 2009

Rob Schaffer said:
I have been shooting Canon for 5+ years. Started with the 10D, and up to the 40D now. Personally, as a home camera and general use, I have the Canon XTi, which I guess they now have a newer version of XTs or something like that. Unless you are shooting for hire, I wouldn't go as high as the 50D or especially the Mark series.

Okay Rob - Do you shoot for hire?

I doubt I'd ever do much more than put things on istockphoto, but as crappy of a cameraman as I am, I was amazed at the pics I was getting out of the high-end camera. WOW.

You don't have to go with the L-series lenses (white lens bodies). Those are the professional lenses and the standard canon lenses suit quite fine. For the price of the lens you posted above, I could come up with a great body and arrangement of lenses.

Everything I've ever heard about buying a good camera is "don't skimp on the glass." I was thinking I'd just shoot for the pro lenses right off the bat, and never have to buy lenses again (or at least not for a long long long time) as I keep upgrading bodies as I grow into them.

mantakos said:
You could spend the rest of your life investigating the ins and outs of what stuff to buy, and never have time left over to actually photograph anything.

That's why I'm here - You guys can help me with the homework.

Lower end lenses are slower and softer, but they save money

Only if you never decide you need a better one.

Zooms are more flexible than primes, but at the expense of image quality and speed.

How much sacrifice in IQ? I only had zooms, and I was really impressed with the photos - But I wouldn't know where to look for "defects." I do tend to favor zooms so that I can get the right shot without moving around too much.

Zooms with extreme ranges of focal length are very tempting for "you'll never need to change lenses", but that flexibility comes with a sacrifice in image quality.

That's kind of what I was wondering, especially with the 28-300. Is it going to be noticeable to anyone other than a pro? :dunno:

The answer might seem to be "infinite cash", but it's easy to find yourself trading in your winning lottery ticket for a closet full of gear, and one day you'll find yourself out and about lugging a big backpack full of heavy stuff. The next day you look ruefully at that bag, and you think "too heavy, I'll leave it home today", and that's the day the alien space ship lands next to you on that deserted road, and you're the only witness. Your camera-phone photos are blurry, and nobody believes you.

Yeah, there is that. And there's definitely something to be said for also having a cheap P&S that lives in the flight bag, too. Actually, I guess if anything I'd like a not-so-cheap P&S for the flight bag - Is there such a thing as a "Pro P&S"?

Somebody who wants to shoot planes at air shows is going to be all about long telephoto.

Well, that's why I really liked that 70-200 lens I was using. I could zoom way in as planes were approaching, and zoom out as they got closer and get shots from quite a few angles.

Most of the pictures I take, at least right now, are either of airplanes or from airplanes. That big lens wouldn't work so well in the cockpit, and I generally am not taking pictures of one thing on the ground but the full scene.

Cap'n Jack said:
I got a Canon XSi a few weeks back (12.2 MP). It came with an 18-55 and a 55-250 mm lens. The local camera store was selling this kit for ~$650, also had a carry case. I'm very pleased with it.

And who knows, maybe I should go this route for now. :dunno:

It certainly would be a (smaller) step up. I'm going to hold out a little while anyway, because I want to see if the "60D" rumors turn out to be true - I'd really like the built-in GPS for geotagging, and the use of SD instead of CF.

woodstock said:
Yeah, I'd say that is 11 grand worth of gear! yeehaw.

That's exactly how I felt while using it. Yeehaw!

I believe that is a 70-200 you have pictured there (?)

Bingo. Nice lens. :yes:

I think one of the bigger differences is the crop factor - full frame versus not - and from my amateur POV I actually kind of like that I get more reach out of my lenses with the crop factor - I find I tend to come closer to my subjects rather than stand back, and it's nice to already have some of the work done for me.

That's one thing I was kind of wondering about. What's the advantage of a full-frame sensor? I tend to do more zooming in than zooming out anyway... If I get some extra "boost" that's probably a good thing.

And, to your next point, this website is all you need for All things Canon and you will thank me profusely for it (or curse my name, take your pick):

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/index.php

I think I'd better wait a bit before I go there.

ps. I also have a P&S camera, for when I don't feel like lugging stuff around.

What do you use? What's a good high-end P&S, and how do the images compare with a mid-range DSLR?

ps again... whatever you do, if you buy the crop-sensor body, don't buy lenses that only fit the crop-sensor body (EFS I believe they are...). Make sure to only buy lenses made for the FF body, in the event you decide to upgrade one day... I'd say that high-quality glass is a better investment than a "great body", if you are planning to compromise anywhere.

Yep, I found out about that already. I'll avoid the EF-S!

mantakos · Aug 16, 2009

...Is it going to be noticeable to anyone other than a pro? ...

The image quality differences between lenses are certainly detectable by a novice, but it does depend a lot on how you use them. If you tend to shoot "wide open", i.e. at a lens' largest aperture, and you tend to print your images, you'll certainly notice the difference between "soft" and "sharp", particularly around the edges of the frame. On the other hand, if you tend to use more narrow apertures, and "publish" to the web, you're far less likely to tell the difference. And, to complicate matters further, a cheap-ass zoom with a wide range of focal lengths is going to give you better results than higher quality primes or zooms, if those "good" lenses don't give you the focal length you really need, at the moment you need it.

Is there such a thing as a "Pro P&S"?

There's certainly a spectrum of products to choose from. You'll sometimes hear the phrase "prosumer":
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q408enthusiastgroup/

That's one thing I was kind of wondering about. What's the advantage of a full-frame sensor?

In theory, a larger sensor allows for the possibility of higher resolution (more megapixels) without making each pixel on the sensor too small. With a sensor gets denser, and the pixels smaller, they become more susceptible to noise, which is the limiting factor in cranking up the ISO on the body. If you compare a full-frame DSLR to a point-and-shoot (which generally have tiny sensors), you'll find that the digicam has way more noise, particularly as you crank up the ISO.

The smaller the sensor, the larger the lens aperture needed to give the same depth of field. Since lens apertures only get so large, you end up losing some abliity to create shallow depth of field with a small sensor. Your typical digicam point and shoot produces images with broad depth of field, even at the broadest aperture. If you want depth of field, that's fine, but sometimes shallow depth of field is a desirable effect, and it's harder to achieve with a small sensor.

Oddly enough, though, one of the most useful advantages of a full-frame sensor is that it gives you a large viewfinder to look through. Little digicams have miserable viewfinders, so people tend to use them by looking at the screen on the back, which is painful for doing any kind of challenging shooting. If you get used to looking through the viewfinder of a typical "crop" camera, e.g. 1.6x, and then pick up the old 35mm film camera you used to use, the viewfinder from the old camera will bring a tear to your eye, as you forgot how good you used to have it.

Yep, I found out about that already. I'll avoid the EF-S!

Actually, I don't buy that at all. If you end up with an 1.6x body, and there are plenty of good reasons to do that (mainly because the 5D costs more), then the EF-S zooms provide more "traditional" zoom ranges. If you move from a crop body to a full-frame body in the future, you sell your EF-S lenses on ebay. There's a very healthy market there for used gear, and the margin between the price you get on ebay and what you paid for it new is likely to be small enough that it will have been well worth the use you got out of the lens.
-harry

woodstock · Aug 16, 2009

flyingcheesehead said:
snip snip

That's one thing I was kind of wondering about. What's the advantage of a full-frame sensor? I tend to do more zooming in than zooming out anyway... If I get some extra "boost" that's probably a good thing.

I think I'd better wait a bit before I go there.

What do you use? What's a good high-end P&S, and how do the images compare with a mid-range DSLR?

1. That link I put up earlier has some good discussions about the FF versus crop... I think a FF is going to be heavier and definitely more $$. I'd probably suggest walking before running, that's what I'm doing anyway. I doubt I'll get rid of the 30D body, if the day comes to upgrade I'll just have a spare because if I decide to spectate, say, the TDF again... it would be nice to have two lenses ready to go. (for instance).

2. I'd poke around there now anyway? It's got some REALLY good convos re: Canon lenses.. I'm heading out but later I'll link up the convos. There are stickies re: "what to look for in a lens, etc".

3. I've had the Canon S400 (from 2003, after my little Leica digital P&S, which I believe was a rebranded Fuji... bit the surf in Peru... literally... ) and then in 2005 replaced it with a Canon SD500... in 2007 replaced that with a Canon SD800IS and gave my Mom the SD500 (the S400 was a great little camera for its time, it "bought it" in a carryon in New Zealand that I let someone else load for me... luckily it was my spare as I had the SD500 with me) and now I'm looking to replace that and cannot make up my mind just yet. Nothing wrong with the SD800IS, and in fact I may give it to Mom and she will give Dad the SD500... I'm thinking this time though going up a step with the P&S and getting either the Canon G10 or the Leica DLux4 (which is a rebranded Panasonic, EXCEPT I am not sure the Panasonic uses the same lens Leica puts in theirs, haven't figured that one out yet...)

For the time I bought each, the S-SDs above were great and I didn't see their IQ limitations.. until I went DSLR and then realized it. I think the S400 may have had better IQ than the SD500..

Here are two photos I took with the little P&S SD800IS which I trot out when I want to show that it's a decent camera:

The only PP I did on the top one was to crop it a little and the one below, none at all. One second exposure, on a tripod. The camera will let you adjust the time (in weird increments, 1 second being the shortest) but not the aperture.

I'd like a small P&S that will let you do everything manually.

kyleb · Aug 16, 2009

Here's what I tell everyone who goes DSLR...

The photog matters most. The dedication, knowledge, and skill to get in the right position at the right time with the right level of anticipation is what separates the top photogs.

After that, everyone can buy the same equipment.

That said, spend your bucks on glass. Unlike camera bodies, glass has a long shelf life. Today's top lens won't be an afterthought tomorrow. I bought the Canon 100-400L zoom a couple of years ago as my airshow lens. It is far more capable than I am and makes outstanding images.

My camera body? The 8MP Digital Rebel, which is about 4 (?) years old and is still a better camera than I am a photographer. Today's DRebel has 12MP, I believe, and is what I would buy if I was starting today. My opinion is that you shouldn't spend too many incremental bucks on another MP or two, so I have not upgraded as Canon has introduced slightly more capable DRebels. When they get to 16MP (that's probably a year or two away), I may reconsider.

fgcason · Aug 16, 2009

kyleb said:
Here's what I tell everyone who goes DSLR...

The photog matters most. The dedication, knowledge, and skill to get in the right position at the right time with the right level of anticipation is what separates the top photogs.

After that, everyone can buy the same equipment.

+5643135798054

I know a few professional photogs making good money with a 8MP Rebel like yours with decent glass on the front. The one I talked to a few months ago doing a college graduation is using the cheapo lens that came with the camera and making an absolute killing.
OTOH, I know someone who spent >$2K on a DSLR because more $$ = better pictures thus a far better photographer..or so the argument goes. The stuff I've seen that comes out of that camera is likely going to cause the camera to commit suicide as soon as the warranty is up. It has my 8 year old 2.1MP P/S beat in the technology department however the quality of the P/S work is far superior.

I'm in the process of starting a photography business over the next year using a Canon Rebel XTi. For now it just has the lens that came with it and that'll get me started until I can afford better glass.
Just a few samples of the not good enough for sale stuff though I got paid for 2 of them anyway:

georgewdean · Aug 16, 2009

Let me throw in my two bits here.

I am a full time professional photographer (http://www.GeorgeDean.com).

A few things...

1. It IS VERY more important to understand photography literally means to "record light". Lighting is EVERYTHING.

2. With a proper exposure & proper lighting, nearly ANY camera can produce an excellent image. If you are shooting in dark spaces, the quality of the camera is HUGE to avoid the ugly noise in the shadows.

3. Photoshop will NOT save a poor image. Get it right in the camera. You can't polish a turd. I literally spend only about 45 seconds in photoshop on my images. PS is a black hole of death for photographers.

4. Spend the money in glass is great advice. I would rather have a Rebel camera with a "L" lens on it and my 1Ds Mark III with a stock lens that comes with Rebel from Walmart.

5. If you buy cheap, you WILL buy twice!

6. I have spent multiple times more on my education that equipment.

7. Equipment DOES matter. There are cheap computers and there are faster ones. I prefer faster machines. The camera is just a small computer. It does what you tell it. Invest in a good one. Garbage In/Garbage Out.

8. Don't make the mistake and buy a Rebel. Its money down the drain B/C you will end up buying a better one.

FYI, I shoot with a 1Ds Mark III and have many lens including the 70-200 IS 2.8 and 24-70L. I certainly don't recommend the 1Ds for most photographers (except wedding photographers).

My RECOMMENDATION.

1. Get a USED 5D. Not the mark II. BUT, if you NEED video, get the Mark II. Once you go full frame, you don't go back. I would recommend getting a little HD flip video camera for your video. Its an amazing little thing.

2. Also, get used lenses too. I have bought a lot of stuff from FredMiranda.com. NEVER ebay!

3. EVERYONE is "starting a photography business" and MOST fail so there are plenty of great deals on used stuff. (NOTE: WHY do they fail, they don't know how to calculate their true cost of doing business and thus price themselves WAY too low and soon realize they are spending 20 hours to make a couple hundred buck IF that. And, most NEVER are able to comprehend LIGHT much less posing, composition, and sales skills.)

Buy used. Go Full Frame.

Keh.com carries used stuff too as well as bhphotovideo.com

George

TangoWhiskey · Aug 16, 2009

Here's a good bundle for you Kent:

http://astore.amazon.com/salesfredmira-20/detail/B001T2MLGE

TMetzinger · Aug 16, 2009

One caveat - MythBusters recently proved you CAN polish a turd, using a Japanese technique invented for dirt balls.

That said - just like in flying, it's better to do it right than do it over (or correct it).

If you're not in it for a living, then the Consumer class DSLRs like the Rebel will make you very happy and you can get great 8x10 types out of those units - IF you compose a good photo before you trigger the shutter.

gismo · Aug 16, 2009

georgewdean said:
Once you go full frame, you don't go back.

George, can you elaborate on the advantages of "full frame". I've done a fair amount of digital camera design (machine vision stuff, not photog gear) and in my world "full frame" is a particular type of CCD imager which doesn't have a usable "electronic shutter" and therefore the exposure must be controlled by the light source or a mechanical shutter. Is this what's used in a "full frame" DSLR or does that label mean something else?

jesse · Aug 16, 2009

gismo said:
George, can you elaborate on the advantages of "full frame". I've done a fair amount of digital camera design (machine vision stuff, not photog gear) and in my world "full frame" is a particular type of CCD imager which doesn't have a usable "electronic shutter" and therefore the exposure must be controlled by the light source or a mechanical shutter. Is this what's used in a "full frame" DSLR or does that label mean something else?

In this case it means that the sensor is the same size as 35 mm film.

wsuffa · Aug 16, 2009

TMetzinger said:
If you're not in it for a living, then the Consumer class DSLRs like the Rebel will make you very happy and you can get great 8x10 types out of those units - IF you compose a good photo before you trigger the shutter.

The original Digital Rebel was exactly the same electonically as the commercial version, except that a couple of features were turned off in the software/firmware (the Rebel had a bit cheaper case, but electronically it was the same). Some enterprising folks figured out how to turn the features on and a download is available.

I have one of the first version Digital Rebels.... it takes exactly the same quality picures as the "pro" version that cost 50% more money.

flyingcheesehead · Aug 20, 2009

TangoWhiskey said:
Here's a good bundle for you Kent:

http://astore.amazon.com/salesfredmira-20/detail/B001T2MLGE

That is a good bundle, and is pretty much everything I'm looking for with the exception of a nice tripod... But wow, seeing that price tag as one piece makes me go :hairraise:

just a bit!

I may just try to make it through the year without a still camera, and try a bunch of different Canon gear at OSH next year. In fact, starting at the high end and working my way down is probably a great way to find the right camera for me!

flyingcheesehead · Aug 20, 2009

Okay, here's some of the pictures I got with the spiffy camera:

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=481041&postcount=29

woodstock · Aug 20, 2009

Darn cool, Kent! I like the "stopped props". I've seen the A380 on the tarmac at Dulles (PR flights around the US, I guess - this was a few years ago already) and on the tarmac at Charles de Gaulle a few times - actually in service.

Why not consider a really good prosumer P&S for now? I've got my eye on either the new G11 (just released y'day) for around 500 bucks and the Leica is running 700. Manual controls and I've heard good things about them. You won't swap out lenses, but it's good for practicing/when you don't want to be weighed down.

t0r0nad0 · Aug 20, 2009

Hey Kent,

I know next to nothing about photography or camera equipment, but I have several friends who do, and they all have some really nice rigs. Here are some pictures that they've taken:

http://www.andrewbroadfootphotography.com/gallery/?category=Aviation - he does the photography for our raffle plane publicity, he also does a lot of work for Million Air FBO chain

http://www.flickr.com/photos/27281352@N07/ - This is a 17-yr-old kid who's got a lot of talent with photography

http://www.flickr.com/photos/blairmc99 - This is a complete amateur photographer who shoots for fun, but still takes some great shots.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/av8pix/ - This guy does a lot of air show photography and is a life member of the CAF

You can meet all of these guys and several others over at http://www.houstonspotters.net. They can give you lots of good advice on cameras and on shooting aircraft in particular.

Tom Gresham · Aug 20, 2009

gismo said:
George, can you elaborate on the advantages of "full frame". I've done a fair amount of digital camera design (machine vision stuff, not photog gear) and in my world "full frame" is a particular type of CCD imager which doesn't have a usable "electronic shutter" and therefore the exposure must be controlled by the light source or a mechanical shutter. Is this what's used in a "full frame" DSLR or does that label mean something else?

Not George, but I've been shooting photos seriously for . . . ugh . . . 44 years.

"Full frame" in this context means the sensor is (approximately) the same size as a 35mm frame, or 24x36mm. The DX sensors are smaller. I have DSLRs in both sizes. I HATE, HATE, HATE the smaller sensor.

Yes, you get the "feature" of more telephoto reach with the small sensor, but unless you are shooting a very few types of sports or are shooting wildlife, this is going the wrong way.

I find that many/most pros, at least photojournalists, love the super-wide angle lenses, and with the full frame sensor, a 20mm lens performs like a real 20mm lens. On a camera with the smaller sensor, it's about a 28mm lens. Yawn.

Stick on a super wide, and walk right up to people to get their images? Why? Because they will react differently to you, and you will get more intimate images.

Another very nice feature is that the viewfinder (that's the hole you look through, not the LCD on the back) is larger, easer to use when wearing glasses, and just more comfortable on a full-frame camera.

I shoot Nikons, but I've owned full systems in Leica SLR, Leica RF, Pentax, Pentax 4.5x6, Pentas 6x7, Nikon (film and digital), and Olympus.

The Canons are great cameras and lenses. George had it exactly right. Buy used. Get the best stuff you can. Never scrimp on lenses -- never.

Oh, and buy and learn to use multiple electronic flashes which link wirelessly. Amazing stuff.

It's ALL about managing light.

mantakos · Aug 20, 2009

Just to be clear, a "crop" sensor doesn't provide you with any extra telephoto "reach", it just removes the outer edges of your image frame. That certainly gives the impression that you had a longer focal length lens, but the same effect could be achieved on a full-frame camera by cropping the image in post-processing (a full-frame sensor has a "crop" sensor in the middle of it, after all).

Higher pixel density might provide extra "reach", if your lenses have enough resolution to make use of it, but simply reducing the dimensions of the sensor while holding density constant doesn't do anything for you. Crop sensors exist because they're cheaper to manufacture.
-harry

woodstock · Aug 21, 2009

Tom Gresham said:
Not George, but I've been shooting photos seriously for . . . ugh . . . 44 years.

"Full frame" in this context means the sensor is (approximately) the same size as a 35mm frame, or 24x36mm. The DX sensors are smaller. I have DSLRs in both sizes. I HATE, HATE, HATE the smaller sensor.

Yes, you get the "feature" of more telephoto reach with the small sensor, but unless you are shooting a very few types of sports or are shooting wildlife, this is going the wrong way.

I find that many/most pros, at least photojournalists, love the super-wide angle lenses, and with the full frame sensor, a 20mm lens performs like a real 20mm lens. On a camera with the smaller sensor, it's about a 28mm lens. Yawn.

Stick on a super wide, and walk right up to people to get their images? Why? Because they will react differently to you, and you will get more intimate images.

Another very nice feature is that the viewfinder (that's the hole you look through, not the LCD on the back) is larger, easer to use when wearing glasses, and just more comfortable on a full-frame camera.

I shoot Nikons, but I've owned full systems in Leica SLR, Leica RF, Pentax, Pentax 4.5x6, Pentas 6x7, Nikon (film and digital), and Olympus.

The Canons are great cameras and lenses. George had it exactly right. Buy used. Get the best stuff you can. Never scrimp on lenses -- never.

Oh, and buy and learn to use multiple electronic flashes which link wirelessly. Amazing stuff.

It's ALL about managing light.

You and George may have talked me into a FF camera... and I have a huge gaping hole when it comes to flash usage. I hate the on-camera flash and don't have anything else.

Wouldn't super wide distort features?

Larger viewfinder would be great.

flyingcheesehead · Aug 21, 2009

mantakos said:
Just to be clear, a "crop" sensor doesn't provide you with any extra telephoto "reach", it just removes the outer edges of your image frame. That certainly gives the impression that you had a longer focal length lens, but the same effect could be achieved on a full-frame camera by cropping the image in post-processing (a full-frame sensor has a "crop" sensor in the middle of it, after all).

Higher pixel density might provide extra "reach", if your lenses have enough resolution to make use of it, but simply reducing the dimensions of the sensor while holding density constant doesn't do anything for you. Crop sensors exist because they're cheaper to manufacture.
-harry

Hmmm... Well, let's compare density.

The two I'm looking at are the full-frame 5D and the crop 50D.

The 5D's sensor is 36.0mmx24.0mm (864 sq. mm) and has a resolution of 5616x3744, or 21,026,304 pixels, for a sensor pixel density of 24,336 pixels per square millimeter.

The 50D's sensor is 22.3mmx14.9mm (332.27 sq. mm) and has a resolution of 4752x3168 or 15,054,336 pixels for a pixel density of 45,308 pixels per square millimeter.

So, while the focal area results in a 1.6 zoom factor, the pixel density is actually 1.86 times higher on the crop sensor, so in this case the "zoom bonus" is real.

flyingcheesehead · Aug 21, 2009

Tom Gresham said:
Not George, but I've been shooting photos seriously for . . . ugh . . . 44 years.

Hey Tom,

Haven't seen you post in a while... Welcome back! (Or welcome out of the lurkers' corner.

)

Yes, you get the "feature" of more telephoto reach with the small sensor, but unless you are shooting a very few types of sports or are shooting wildlife, this is going the wrong way.

I find that many/most pros, at least photojournalists, love the super-wide angle lenses, and with the full frame sensor, a 20mm lens performs like a real 20mm lens. On a camera with the smaller sensor, it's about a 28mm lens. Yawn.

Stick on a super wide, and walk right up to people to get their images? Why? Because they will react differently to you, and you will get more intimate images.

So, I consider myself a rank amateur when it comes to photography. I got to play with a really nice full-frame camera that I loved - At an airshow. Probably one reason why I keep thinking about the crop-sensor "zoom bonus" as a good thing in a way.

Can you tell me what else I might shoot where I would want the opposite? I'm not a photojournalist and I'm not going to be walking right up and taking pictures of people - I actually kind of prefer taking pictures of people "in their natural habitat" from afar, so they don't pose for the camera but just act normally.

What I've mostly taken pictures of in the past is things I've seen while traveling, be it nature or otherwise, and airplanes.

TangoWhiskey · Aug 21, 2009

flyingcheesehead said:
So, I consider myself a rank amateur when it comes to photography.

Me too. And talk of f/stops really confuses me. This little primer page used some analogies that helped:

http://www.photoimagenews.com/plumbing.htm

But are the analogies accurate, or will I just be more confused later?

flyingcheesehead · Aug 21, 2009

TangoWhiskey said:
Me too. And talk of f/stops really confuses me. This little primer page used some analogies that helped:

http://www.photoimagenews.com/plumbing.htm

But are the analogies accurate, or will I just be more confused later?

Interesting, and easy - But I need kind of the next level of knowledge: Why/how does the F-stop change the depth of field? etc.

TangoWhiskey · Aug 21, 2009

flyingcheesehead said:
Interesting, and easy - But I need kind of the next level of knowledge: Why/how does the F-stop change the depth of field? etc.

Page 2 of a 4 page article:

http://photography.about.com/od/takingpictures/ss/DOF_2.htm

Page 4's "hand" experiment is cool, too, and makes the point quite well.

Cap'n Jack · Aug 21, 2009

flyingcheesehead said:
Interesting, and easy - But I need kind of the next level of knowledge: Why/how does the F-stop change the depth of field? etc.

The very simple answer- only the center part of the lens can focus things well at a wide variety of distances. At a given distance from the focal plane (CCD or CMOS), the edge of the lens can focus well only when the object is only a certain distance away. Items outside of that distance are out of focus.

At a small f-stop, we use only the center part of the lens- things with a fairly wide set of distances from the lens focus well on the focus plane. At wide apartures, we use the center and more of the edge of the lens- that means a smaller set of distances from the front of the lens are "in focus".

I'm pretty sure you don't want the math- you can look that up yourself since it is described well on-line.

wsuffa · Aug 21, 2009

One other thing to pay attention to on the sensor is the noise figure....

Tom Gresham · Aug 21, 2009

flyingcheesehead said:
Interesting, and easy - But I need kind of the next level of knowledge: Why/how does the F-stop change the depth of field? etc.

You can actually create the "stopped down" depth of field effect with your hand.

Make an OK sign with your hand, and keep tightening up the circle until it is a pinpoint.

Especially if you wear eyeglasses (take them off), in dim light look at a scene that has depth. Then, look at it through the pinhole you have created. More things will be sharp through the pinhole.

BREAK

Saving a post --- why would you want wide angle? To get in everything, if nothing else. When you can't back up (often when inside), you can get it all in with the super-wide.

But, you also can create visual impact with wides. Move around until something interesting is in the foreground (very, very close to the lens) and something else interesting is farther away.

You could actually flop down in the sand and put sea shells which are about the size of a quarter close to the lens. If you wanted to.

Tom Gresham · Aug 21, 2009

woodstock said:
You and George may have talked me into a FF camera... and I have a huge gaping hole when it comes to flash usage. I hate the on-camera flash and don't have anything else.

Wouldn't super wide distort features?

Larger viewfinder would be great.

For some of the best instruction in the world on using small flashes (strobes), try Strobist.

http://strobist.blogspot.com/

Or get Joe McNally's new book, "The Hot Shoe Diaries." But treat yourself to a copy of "The Moment It Clicks" too!

http://portfolio.joemcnally.com/#mi=1&pt=0&pi=5&p=-1&a=0&at=0

Super wides don't distort in and of themselves if they are not fisheyes. Non-fisheye wides are called rectilinear, and they produce straight lines IF the camera back is perfectly vertical. Tilt the lens up or down and things can look strange.

That just means you have to be careful, but it means you have a powerful optic with which to make *interesting* photos.

If you just want the same old snapshots, get a medium zoom and call it good, or just get a point and shoot and save money. But, if you get a top-quality DSLR, buy good lenses, get one or two (three would be best) strobes, and get to shooting.

Get on the ground, on the roof, on a ladder, very close to the subject, far away from the subject . . . notice anything here? You set up the photo with YOUR FEET, not the zoom. Only moving your feet changes the angle and the perspective. Then use the appropriate lens to make the shot.

Fly-ins are much more fun to shoot than airshows. Walk around the planes and see what you can do. With a wide, put a spinner on one side of the frame (with the camera six inches from the spinner), and the flight line running down the other side of the frame.

Have fun.

Tom Gresham · Aug 21, 2009

flyingcheesehead said:
Hey Tom,

Haven't seen you post in a while... Welcome back! (Or welcome out of the lurkers' corner. )

Thanks. I've been up to my ears in projects, including a new TV series we created/shot/produced, etc. It started running on Versus last week. Lots of fun and lots of work.

I just put the Bonanza up for sale. Going back to a twin. Don't know which one, yet.

And, I'm flying to Maine next month to attend a Digital Landscape Photography Workshop at Bar Harbor. Really looking forward to that.

Bill · Aug 22, 2009

woodstock · Aug 24, 2009

Kent,

I forgot to link this for you:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=86975

All you need to know to spend all of your money, er, I mean, find the right Canon lens.

TangoWhiskey · Oct 12, 2009

So Kent, what did you end up with?

flyingcheesehead · Oct 13, 2009

TangoWhiskey said:
So Kent, what did you end up with?

So far, only a job where I've been making 45% less than I was making at the last one.

Digital SLR's

Touchdown! Greaser!

Cleared for Takeoff

Final Approach

Final Approach

Final Approach

Final Approach

Touchdown! Greaser!

Touchdown! Greaser!

Touchdown! Greaser!

Final Approach

Final Approach

Final Approach

En-Route

Attachments

Filing Flight Plan

Touchdown! Greaser!

Final Approach

Touchdown! Greaser!

Touchdown! Greaser!

Touchdown! Greaser!

Touchdown! Greaser!

Touchdown! Greaser!

Final Approach

Pattern Altitude

Pre-Flight

Final Approach

Final Approach

Touchdown! Greaser!

Touchdown! Greaser!

Touchdown! Greaser!

Touchdown! Greaser!

Touchdown! Greaser!

Final Approach

Touchdown! Greaser!

Pre-Flight

Attachments

Pre-Flight

Pre-Flight

Touchdown! Greaser!

Final Approach

Touchdown! Greaser!

Touchdown! Greaser!